mithew wrote:

holy shit

Grieviious wrote:

great map dude

target audience is sub 1k, it is sight readable by people at that level. also bj

Kroytz wrote:

Best map of 2015 coming Soon™?? Or will I have to wait another 22 years?!

Mel wrote:

http://prntscr.com/92n925
lmao

Nerova Riuz GX wrote:

Yeah, it's fun
But only fun.

Mel wrote:

General

• add "foot fetish gif" in the tags

hs

00:53:278 (181) - move to x:288 y:160
01:13:163 (229) - NC

gl with ranking
kds pls

1. 00:06:649 (1,1,1,1,2,3) - This is cool. Flows well, uses some interesting slider-velocities, and is fun to play. 00:07:335 (3) - Could maybe be shaped to something closer to this because it's very close to a burai slider.
   
   
2. 00:07:849 (5,1,2,3) - This is cool too. The circular slider works really well with the in-ward flow that 2 gives.
   00:08:878 (2,3,1) - Easy to read due to the mostly visible slider-head, and also flows well because 00:09:220 (1) - is positioned behind slider 2 so you kinda get this counter-clockwise motion.
3. 00:24:478 (1,1,1,2) - Cool. Flows well, and slider-lengths while varied, are predictable. 00:24:478 (1) - I would tone down the SV here just a bit though.
4. 00:27:220 (1,1,1) - Yea stuff like this is nice. When you have the SV increasing it becomes much easier to predict. So even though 00:27:563 (1) - is the same length as the slider i mentioned earlier, I don't feel a need for SV to be lower.
5. 00:28:078 (1,2,1,2) - Good use of beat-pairing, overlaps are whatever. This is obviously readable.
6. 00:29:963 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - This actually plays really well.
7. 00:35:963 (1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2) - And the left-right motion here is nice. 00:36:649 (1,2) - These are a bit questionable since they do break flow a bit if you don't snap to them properly. I would just make them evenly spaced but this is kinda minor.
8. 00:40:249 (1,2,1,2) - This is really cool! As are 00:40:935 (1,1,1,1) - . Not much to say. Great flow, and a great way to use differing SV"s without impacting readability and/or confusing players as to whether a slider is 1/4 or 1/2 etc..
9. 00:47:792 (1,2,1,2) - This could be a really sick pattern if you swapped the order.
   
   ~

   
10. 00:49:849 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Tricky, but definitely doable and some 5.75+ star ranked maps showcase streams like this nowadays.
11. 01:10:420 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Your jump patterns in general are pretty fun.
12. 01:39:906 (1,1,1,1) - Really cool.
13. 01:44:020 (1,2,1,2) - Same. Flows really nicely and its a nice symmetrical pattern in general.

1. 00:02:192 (2) - Okay, here the slider-end is also mapping to a kick so you should make this two circles instead.
2. 00:02:535 (3,4) - Stuff like this has quite a large jump comparative to 00:02:192 (2,3) - But these circles don't map to any snares/kicks in the music or something that would require such emphasis. Because you map them with the same spacing as 00:02:706 (4,5) - The snare on 5 doesn't actually feel as impactful.
3. 00:03:735 (3,4) - You don't need to use such low spacing here. Also, it just creates some readability issues and generally doesn't look visually nice due to the overlaps.
   
   Just an idea of something you can try.

   
4. 00:04:249 (5) - The 0.75 SV here is just unfitting. Same with 00:02:878 (5) - . It really doesn't serve enough of a purpose to compromise on slider readability. 00:04:078 (4,5) - Look very similar visually, but one is 1/4 and the other is 1/2. That's not good . Maybe its your design choice but i'm here to say this is not a good one.
5. 00:04:592 (1,2) - Patterns like this don't play well because you're actually creating a lack of emphasis onto 2. If you want to draw emphasis on 00:04:935 - make a jump here, don't stick with your 0.75 DS after a 1/4 slider jump because you end up making players want to skip-out on playing through the entirely of slider 1. This makes the slider and the circle simple and not impactful.
6. 00:05:792 (1,2) - Music isn't calling for any special treatment on 00:06:135 - . Actually there's barely anything audible. You could try something like this, that is much easier to read. Also, a circle instead of a kickslider is a simpler pattern and the flow will be better because now you can use the slider-leniency of 1 to leat into 2 without having to make the pattern difficult to read.
   
   ~

   
7. 00:07:678 (4) - I don't see why you need to bend the slider. It just feels unnecessary to me. Actually even using a kickslider here isn't necessary but I guess you can do that here if you want.
8. 00:08:363 (2,3) - What i mentioned earlier about spacing and emphasis. Nothing strong lies on 00:08:535 - so putting a jump here is odd.
   
   You could however, try this pattern, which plays pretty well and creates a nice counterclockwise flow

   
9. 00:10:763 (1) - You're ignoring the red tick. Well, I think what you're doing is trying to map the bumps of the slider to the red tick or something, but I don't think it's succesful in that respect xP. Also, the greatly increased SV makes 00:11:106 (1) - look like it's a 1/2 slider when it's actually 1/4, which creates a serious reading problem because players, believing the slider to be 1/2, will assume theres a 1/2 gap before 00:11:278 (2,3) - when there's actually only a 1/4'th. I hope this kind of explains why these SV changes are creating reading problems. It's not just that they confuse players between 1/4's and 1/2's, but because they also make it harder to read patterns and rhythms that come after it.
10. 00:11:278 (2,3,1,2,3) - You have so many overlaps in a short timespan, it makes the map look really cluttered and clumped together.
11. 00:12:478 (1) - Similar to what i said earlier, except the red points at the start of the head are like borderline rankable imo.. I would just get rid of it entirely because of the red tick.
12. 00:13:335 - Kick on the slider-end you should map to. Meanwhile 00:13:420 (3) - is inaudible.
13. 00:14:192 (1) - Red tick etc... I think you get the idea so i'll stop.
14. 00:15:220 (5,1) - Overlaps like this don't look clean because you get stuff like
    
    this

    
15. 00:15:563 (1,2) - And this, the whole 0.75x DS after a 3/4 slider thing, Increase the SV, can apply elsewhere
    
    something like this maybe

    
16. 00:17:963 (3,1) - This is unnecessarily confusing to read because of the bump you put to slider 1. (Also poor overlap imo).
17. 00:19:335 (1,2) - This rhythm just feels really weird...
    
    Is more straightforward

    
18. 00:23:449 (1,1) - This jump doesn't really make sense. Why is there such a large jump onto 00:23:620 (1) - ? It's not supported in the music.
19. 00:25:506 (1) - Burai. Basically. Yea it doesn't technically cross paths, but it's performing the same function.
20. 00:26:278 (2) - I don't actually hear anything here...
21. 00:26:535 (1,2) - This pattern is actually good though. since 2 doesn't actually have that much emphasis on it. Good.
22. 00:28:935 (1,1,1) - The overlaps just don't look nice because of the sliderhead-slider-end interaction. Something like this would be nice though, while still achieving some overlappy feel. Actually, I would probably use a pattern like this and my maps are generally safe, so you can trust me on this xD. I would tone down the SV on 00:28:935 (1) - a bit though. It's a bit too much. Like, it's creating too much of a contrast between slider lengths. After playing that slider, I could not reasonable expect 00:29:278 (1) - to also be a 3/4 slider.
    
    ~

    
23. 00:30:649 (1,2) - You can keep the high SV here, but make the shapes symmetrical and more player friendly?
    
    Something like this idk.

    

Monstrata wrote:

okay, giving back a bit because I do feel a bit guilty about qualifying 8 maps at once lmao...

[Beyond Extreme]

So this is the dilemma. It's hard to make suggestions on your map without impacting the intended gameplay of some of your patterns. On the other hand, it's also hard to get this map into a rankable state without making some of these suggestions. As it is now, the map will attract a lot of controversy if it were to be qualified. I hope you kinda get the problem here.

Okay. So, with that out of the way, I thought the best way to solve this problem would be firstly to go through patterns in your map that are good, and patterns that you can, and should use more of. Then we'll go through patterns that aren't so good. I hope this way you can still keep some good aspects of your style because there are indeed some really interesting, creative and fun patterns.

1. 00:06:649 (1,1,1,1,2,3) - This is cool. Flows well, uses some interesting slider-velocities, and is fun to play. 00:07:335 (3) - Could maybe be shaped to something closer to this because it's very close to a burai slider.
   
   
2. 00:07:849 (5,1,2,3) - This is cool too. The circular slider works really well with the in-ward flow that 2 gives.
   00:08:878 (2,3,1) - Easy to read due to the mostly visible slider-head, and also flows well because 00:09:220 (1) - is positioned behind slider 2 so you kinda get this counter-clockwise motion.
3. 00:24:478 (1,1,1,2) - Cool. Flows well, and slider-lengths while varied, are predictable. 00:24:478 (1) - I would tone down the SV here just a bit though.
4. 00:27:220 (1,1,1) - Yea stuff like this is nice. When you have the SV increasing it becomes much easier to predict. So even though 00:27:563 (1) - is the same length as the slider i mentioned earlier, I don't feel a need for SV to be lower.
5. 00:28:078 (1,2,1,2) - Good use of beat-pairing, overlaps are whatever. This is obviously readable.
6. 00:29:963 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - This actually plays really well.
7. 00:35:963 (1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2) - And the left-right motion here is nice. 00:36:649 (1,2) - These are a bit questionable since they do break flow a bit if you don't snap to them properly. I would just make them evenly spaced but this is kinda minor.
8. 00:40:249 (1,2,1,2) - This is really cool! As are 00:40:935 (1,1,1,1) - . Not much to say. Great flow, and a great way to use differing SV"s without impacting readability and/or confusing players as to whether a slider is 1/4 or 1/2 etc..
9. 00:47:792 (1,2,1,2) - This could be a really sick pattern if you swapped the order. kinda unclear on what you wanted me to do on this one
   
   ~

   
10. 00:49:849 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Tricky, but definitely doable and some 5.75+ star ranked maps showcase streams like this nowadays.
11. 01:10:420 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Your jump patterns in general are pretty fun.
12. 01:39:906 (1,1,1,1) - Really cool.
13. 01:44:020 (1,2,1,2) - Same. Flows really nicely and its a nice symmetrical pattern in general.

Okay so keep these, (I only suggested some minor tweaks in there). Build on them, use variations of these more as replacements for what I mention next. Now to a less pleasant side of this mod.

1. 00:02:192 (2) - Okay, here the slider-end is also mapping to a kick so you should make this two circles instead. done
2. 00:02:535 (3,4) - Stuff like this has quite a large jump comparative to 00:02:192 (2,3) - But these circles don't map to any snares/kicks in the music or something that would require such emphasis. Because you map them with the same spacing as 00:02:706 (4,5) - The snare on 5 doesn't actually feel as impactful. tweaked a bit. 5 is meant to map the synth in the bg and not the snare, so i wasn't really thinking about that
3. 00:03:735 (3,4) - You don't need to use such low spacing here. Also, it just creates some readability issues and generally doesn't look visually nice due to the overlaps. mmmm spacing on this heavily elongates 5 from 1. the original intent was to continue the backwards flow, where the sliders point upwards, but next head is below it. however, the spacing and overlapping that occured in order to achieve that does seem excessive, so i changed the pattern to be much different
   
   Just an idea of something you can try.

   
4. 00:04:249 (5) - The 0.75 SV here is just unfitting. Same with 00:02:878 (5) - . It really doesn't serve enough of a purpose to compromise on slider readability. 00:04:078 (4,5) - Look very similar visually, but one is 1/4 and the other is 1/2. That's not good . Maybe its your design choice but i'm here to say this is not a good one. fixed
5. 00:04:592 (1,2) - Patterns like this don't play well because you're actually creating a lack of emphasis onto 2. If you want to draw emphasis on 00:04:935 - make a jump here, don't stick with your 0.75 DS after a 1/4 slider jump because you end up making players want to skip-out on playing through the entirely of slider 1. This makes the slider and the circle simple and not impactful. fixed differently. i see what you mean by the lack of emphasis, but i want the player to play the synth as well as the snare. putting a jump here i feel would only map the snare
6. 00:05:792 (1,2) - Music isn't calling for any special treatment on 00:06:135 - . Actually there's barely anything audible. You could try something like this, that is much easier to read. Also, a circle instead of a kickslider is a simpler pattern and the flow will be better because now you can use the slider-leniency of 1 to leat into 2 without having to make the pattern difficult to read. yea fixed
   
   ~

   
7. 00:07:678 (4) - I don't see why you need to bend the slider. It just feels unnecessary to me. Actually even using a kickslider here isn't necessary but I guess you can do that here if you want. idk, i like the way the kickslider here plays
8. 00:08:363 (2,3) - What i mentioned earlier about spacing and emphasis. Nothing strong lies on 00:08:535 - so putting a jump here is odd. honestly, it's just filler here. putting another slider like 1 would be fairly boring to play, which is why i saved it for the lower diffs. also moving 1 upwards does flow better, but i'm not a big fan of obtuse jumps like that. i guess i'm keeping as is until i find a better remedy
   
   You could however, try this pattern, which plays pretty well and creates a nice counterclockwise flow

   
9. 00:10:763 (1) - You're ignoring the red tick. Well, I think what you're doing is trying to map the bumps of the slider to the red tick or something, but I don't think it's succesful in that respect xP. Also, the greatly increased SV makes 00:11:106 (1) - look like it's a 1/2 slider when it's actually 1/4, which creates a serious reading problem because players, believing the slider to be 1/2, will assume theres a 1/2 gap before 00:11:278 (2,3) - when there's actually only a 1/4'th. I hope this kind of explains why these SV changes are creating reading problems. It's not just that they confuse players between 1/4's and 1/2's, but because they also make it harder to read patterns and rhythms that come after it. nah, i'm ignoring the red tick. i think the wub here is the dominant sound, so i don't want to cut it short to accommodate the bass kicks. fixed sv on the latter slider though
10. 00:11:278 (2,3,1,2,3) - You have so many overlaps in a short timespan, it makes the map look really cluttered and clumped together. i think my original intent was to blanket 1 under the bump of 3, but that somehow got lost in translation behind all the mods. regardless, fixed
11. 00:12:478 (1) - Similar to what i said earlier, except the red points at the start of the head are like borderline rankable imo.. I would just get rid of it entirely because of the red tick. same reason. i think the wub here is the dominant sound and the snare shouldn't be mapped
12. 00:13:335 - Kick on the slider-end you should map to. Meanwhile 00:13:420 (3) - is inaudible. triplet is there to enable the 2 being 1/2 without having 1 be an awkward antijump, but i see your point. attempted to fix, but the flow is questionable
13. 00:14:192 (1) - Red tick etc... I think you get the idea so i'll stop. fixed this one, though
14. 00:15:220 (5,1) - Overlaps like this don't look clean because you get stuff like i personally love shit like this, but i can see that the general public likes neat and tidy stuff :c.
    
    this

    
15. 00:15:563 (1,2) - And this, the whole 0.75x DS after a 3/4 slider thing, Increase the SV, can apply elsewhere fixed. i was always peeved at the way people put circles far away from slider ends on elongated sliders mainly because if i were playing it, it'd fuckin release it too early get a 100. but idk how i feel about that now
    
    something like this maybe

    
16. 00:17:963 (3,1) - This is unnecessarily confusing to read because of the bump you put to slider 1. (Also poor overlap imo). eh, i disagree on this. 1 is meant to be the start of a new bar which is emphasized by the sudden change of flow. also i reeeaaally like the overlap here
17. 00:19:335 (1,2) - This rhythm just feels really weird... yea i agree. fixed differently though
    
    Is more straightforward

    
18. 00:23:449 (1,1) - This jump doesn't really make sense. Why is there such a large jump onto 00:23:620 (1) - ? It's not supported in the music. initially intended for consistency's sake, but clearly it doesn't play well i guess.
19. 00:25:506 (1) - Burai. Basically. Yea it doesn't technically cross paths, but it's performing the same function. ekh. fixed. i liked it though :c
20. 00:26:278 (2) - I don't actually hear anything here... really? there's definitely something there
21. 00:26:535 (1,2) - This pattern is actually good though. since 2 doesn't actually have that much emphasis on it. Good.
22. 00:28:935 (1,1,1) - The overlaps just don't look nice because of the sliderhead-slider-end interaction. Something like this would be nice though, while still achieving some overlappy feel. Actually, I would probably use a pattern like this and my maps are generally safe, so you can trust me on this xD. I would tone down the SV on 00:28:935 (1) - a bit though. It's a bit too much. Like, it's creating too much of a contrast between slider lengths. After playing that slider, I could not reasonable expect 00:29:278 (1) - to also be a 3/4 slider. contrast is intentional, and there never seemed to be any readability issues regarding this part. overlaps seem fine here too, imo
    
    ~

    
23. 00:30:649 (1,2) - You can keep the high SV here, but make the shapes symmetrical and more player friendly? yea fixed
    
    Something like this idk.

    

Well... I took a detailed look, instead of just saying im busy and circlejerking my maps xd. I feel like i'm kinda butchering your map by saying some of this stuff so I'll stop. If you are keen to actually push through the rest of the diff you can find me in game. Whether you are willing to change some of these things is up to you, but as far as I can see, this map won't make it to the ranked section unless you're willing to "normalize" your map a bit.