will reply as soon as i get back home
you can't be serious same
EDIT: it appears like it's never too late to give feedback... and boooy, i think it really does need some. lol i could have actually mapped a diff by now.Yes, I might just have about 1000pp, but that doesn't mean I can't play this diff. I've played it up to here with not many problems and found it surprisingly comfortable to play. I happen to have just about enough playing experience to be able to give my gameplay-based opinion about this map. And if I've seen correctly the past half year, ranking maps is based on how well they play, correct? Well, at least allow me to contribute to this.
02:26:878 (2,1) - This is painful to play. What I'd do is a triple on a slider instead. Something like this maybe. If necessary, increase spacing from (3) to (4) and accordingly to next (1). it's actually very fun to play ; _;
02:28:592 (5,1) - This is even more painful.. ow it hurts. I see your thought why it's not just a five-objects stream but instead ending with a slider, because you can hear that sound in the music as well. The problem is, you need to hold the cursor on the slider since it's facing left, but the next object is on the right side. It'll be a lot better to make a blanket out of it, like this. ends probably treating it like the previous beat but with some added emphasis or something like that
02:32:592 (1,2,3,1) - Liked this pattern! cool job! TANK
02:34:592 (2,1) - Questionable spacing... I'm not gonna say anything about it other than it's questionable since it's still sort of playable. tuned down a bit
02:35:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I dislike the spacing here and the direction the stream is leading. 02:34:735 (1,2) - These objects suggest cursor movement towards the lower center of the playfield. If that stream were to be Ctrl G'd and accordingly spaced, it'd go down in the twinkling of an eye. I'd make it less curved as well, in that case. It's quite playable nonetheless, but I'm on about the looks instead. it's ok THO
02:36:735 (2,1) - I would have preferred a triple leading into (1). ends seemingly map these kind of beat this way so i'd just leave it as it is
02:40:306 (1) - I do not see reason at all why this shouldn't be a circle. It's just making the pattern more complicated than it has to be. Explain please? i think it's like, there's this steep pitch change here and the slider kinda accompanies that w/e
02:40:735 (1,2,3) - This looks, feels and plays out of place. The distance from (2) to (3) is truly exaggerated in comparison to the combo before and in my opinion is not justified. pattern emphasis?
02:41:592 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I find this pattern extra-ordinarily bad since it's deliberately inversely arranged, facing in one direction and having a triple at the end where the pattern started, with the SAME time gap between the objects. I would have instead applied a triangle structure, leaving the player to less complicated jump, like this. loool idk this is like the default way winber maps
02:42:878 (1,1) - This is antijumping at its finest... not. This is completely counter-intuitive to the player's anticipation and looks bad. maybe he's trying to map a less jumpy pattern or something?!??! either way i'm not sure how to tweak this out without changing the flow entirely
02:42:306 (7,1,2,3,1) - Doesn't play well for me either. Don't know about others, I'm solely sure about myself. idk lmao
02:46:306 (1,2,3,4,1) - The triple is facing a different way than the general flow is (next pattern). back & forth flow style
02:46:735 (1,2,3,1) - The flow issue from before results here in troubling gameplay as the cursor is required to move precisely here. the slider is there to normalize movement i think!??!? hence slow sv
02:49:592 (3) - I would have loved to see this as a circle instead. And tbh I don't see reason why this shouldn't be a circle. I see more reason against making it a slider, since it's pausing cursor movement, however briefly. i would tweak it but sadly i see no way to recreate the whole pattern without destroying the current flow ;___;
02:50:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Neat idea here, though! same
02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
03:01:735 (1,1,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Wonderful pattern! =^-^= same
Also liked how uncomplicatedly Hanzer's part went down, nice job overall on the diff!
02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).And such is the dilemma of emphasis patterns.
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.I uh, you mean the first slider not being way somewhere else? Because the second one is a close dropoff.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.Oh huh that's really interesting, I see what you're getting at, although I'd just reverse the 2 and 3.