[General]

1. Intro has some doubtful snapping at 00:03:751 (2) - . With a quick MP3 fix this could be solved, as red lines wouldn't make this part much better for playing.
2. Overall, the timing and snapping of objects sounds doubtful at times. Perhaps you could keep the current timing for simplicity as the song is pretty stable most of the times, but I strongly recommend you to look for more opinions whether this extra step is needed. // 04:44:584 (1,2) - 00:55:348 (2) - 00:03:751 (2) - 04:57:084 (3) -
3. Can see where UndeadCapulet's concern comes from. The "Thank you for playing!" message does look a little bit squished in. Bumping up the character spacing would look better imo.

[Epilogue]
K i A i

1. 00:07:084 (2) - I can't hear anything here, pretty sure this is overmapped. Just like 00:08:751 (4) - , there's only a vocal note on the 1/4 tick.
2. 00:14:584 (1,2) - (HS) Inaudible.
3. 03:33:542 (2,3) - It's pretty hard to read or predict whether (3) starts on (2)'s or (3)'s end. Would use some form of custom stack to make this more obvious, because this is pretty deceiving.

Enon

1. 00:47:605 (2,3) - Doubt players can catch this snapping change at all... slider may seem more player-friendly.
2. 00:55:348 (2) - Sounds pretty early still. Actually, 1/16 would fit better here, but that still doesn't sound the closest. Get someone (preferably a QAT) to consult you on whether to have strange snapping like these, or have an edited MP3 instead.

Cellina

1. 02:02:084 (2) - Even though everyone is following vocal and all, there's none here. Would take advantage of this moment and perhaps give more attention to the instruments (like the doubleclap on the 1/2 ticks).
2. 02:05:001 (2,3,1) - 02:07:917 (1,2,3) - Spacing tho...

Reol

1. 03:45:417 (3) - 1/8?
2. 03:46:251 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Seems so hard for a calm part + how the song is so strictly DS mapped orz... love what you did with the spacing decrease though later on this.

Leaf

1. 04:57:084 (3) - Not sure if I can let this pass, because the repeat is perfectly on time, but there's nothing on the end now.

Lovely map, SB and great hitsounding!

Not sure how I feel about, well, practically 60% of all main instrument tracks being skipped for the vocals - but I'm willing to give this a chance if you get some more opinions on this (iirc Yohanes' Let It Snow did the same concept and was perceived well by the community).

Will put a star here for now and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, would be nice if you got some opinions on the timing in the sections I mentioned in the beginning of the mod.

GL!

Thank you for coming. We'll have a discussion and try getting opinions regarding that we mapped the vocals mainly even though we ignored lots of instrument. Regarding snapping that you mentioned in the beginning of the mod, I set the red line as pishifat recommended. but, It still has some doubtful snapping issue. so, We'll try to fix it too.

Here is my answer: (since K i A i and Reol gonna army, I fixed their parts instead of them.)

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Epilogue

The spacing between the "Thank you for playing!" letters in the sb is really poorly done, I think you should remake that image. fixed

K i A i:

1. 00:06:251 (1,2,3) - I think this rhythm isn't too hard for playing and fits how you map the vocals for the rest of this part better. i'm not k i a i, but current one is fine for me.
2. 03:30:209 (2) - Maybe stack under the previous slidertail for a nice stop motion, I think it breaks up 03:29:584 (1,2) - and 03:30:417 (3,4,1) - better. i'm not k i a i, but current way is fits to the song more for me.

Enon:

1. 00:55:348 (2) - This is closer to 1/16 than 1/12, but since it's mostly just a string of grace notes you can probably just put it on the white tick for easier playing. i changed it to 1/16
2. 00:55:834 (3,4) - Maybe turn these into 1/4 slider since even the stronger 00:42:501 (3) - vocals were like that. done
3. 01:34:584 (1,2) - Lowering SV back to .5x here would fit really well with both the song and your sb. current way is enough fits to the song. and there is no lowering SV at all of part before every kiai

appleeaterx wrote:

[General]

1. Intro has some doubtful snapping at 00:03:751 (2) - . With a quick MP3 fix this could be solved, as red lines wouldn't make this part much better for playing. KuroKami suggested me moving it 00:03:803 - here would works. so, I did.
2. Overall, the timing and snapping of objects sounds doubtful at times. Perhaps you could keep the current timing for simplicity as the song is pretty stable most of the times, but I strongly recommend you to look for more opinions whether this extra step is needed. // 04:44:584 (1,2) - 00:55:348 (2) - 00:03:751 (2) - 04:57:084 (3) - I have some talk with KuroKami and we decided how i will do. Of course, I will call someone for getting more opinions.
3. Can see where UndeadCapulet's concern comes from. The "Thank you for playing!" message does look a little bit squished in. Bumping up the character spacing would look better imo. Done

[Epilogue]
K i A i

1. 00:07:084 (2) - I can't hear anything here, pretty sure this is overmapped. Just like 00:08:751 (4) - , there's only a vocal note on the 1/4 tick. there is vocal o..........."........." <- like this. it's really small though.
2. 00:14:584 (1,2) - (HS) Inaudible. increase volum a bit. but, I'm not sure whether it's fine
3. 03:33:542 (2,3) - It's pretty hard to read or predict whether (3) starts on (2)'s or (3)'s end. Would use some form of custom stack to make this more obvious, because this is pretty deceiving. I have asked someone to play it and they're played it very well. It's fine to me.

Enon

1. 00:47:605 (2,3) - Doubt players can catch this snapping change at all... slider may seem more player-friendly. changed to slider.
2. 00:55:348 (2) - Sounds pretty early still. Actually, 1/16 would fit better here, but that still doesn't sound the closest. Get someone (preferably a QAT) to consult you on whether to have strange snapping like these, or have an edited MP3 instead. As have talked with KuroKami, I chagned it 1/16. but, Will getting more opinions.

Reol

1. 03:45:417 (3) - 1/8? Changed
2. 03:46:251 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Seems so hard for a calm part + how the song is so strictly DS mapped orz... love what you did with the spacing decrease though later on this. I really think it's nice way to express the section. the song is lowering the tension, and still can hear strong sounds at where every 1/2. It's also fine to me.

Thank you.

Fixed some snapping. The song is tricky so I hope its better now.

Ahoy, Enon asked me for my opinion on apple's concern of the instrumentals being skipped so much, so here it goes: Why does it matter? Everybody is free to map the rhythms they want, and no layer or combination of rhythm is inherently better or worse than any other. What matters is whether the rhythm-choices make sense and work well together, but that has nothing to do with which layer is mapped or not.
I have zero issues with the rhythm-layers in general, but there are quite a lot of short parts where the rhythm doesn't seem ideal to me mostly because it mixes up layers in a way that doesn't emphasize any of them really and makes it feel confusing. I'm just listing a few examples here as I haven't looked through the entire map / don't plan on checking it:

1. 01:12:084 (3,4,5,1,2,3) - The rhythm here is extremely dense all of a sudden and it doesn't make any sense to me, mainly because of the simple fact that the tail of (3) and (5) are overmapped, which makes the map feel much more dense and hectic than the song, and together with mapping 01:13:334 these three combos seem pretty monotonous because you're mapping the same clicking-rhythm three times, even though there is different stuff going on each of them
2. 01:05:209 (2,3) - When the map is built around following vocals so strongly all the time, leaving out strong holding vocals like the one between these two objects feels very to me. Musically, the whole previous line builds up to the note at 01:06:042 or 01:06:251 - (to me it sounds like the vocalist actually changes pitch there), but the start of the note is not emphasized at all by landing on the tail of a reverse-slider, and the holding note itself isn't mapped at all either
3. 01:29:167 - Why is this note skipped? It would make sense to me if it were to transition to a rhythm that focuses less on vocals and more on instrumentals, like at 01:27:501 (3,1) -, but all following objects are 100% following the vocals why leaving out instrumentals along the way, so that doesn't make much sense to me
4. 01:39:167 (6,7) - This is killing differentiation: (7) is mapped to a vocal note that starts the next combo, while (6) is just mapped to a regular filler-beat that isn't even particularly strong, but it takes away all the emphasis from (7) - If you just want to keep up the flow I'd recommend making 01:38:751 (5,6) a slider, this would also emphasize the held vocal note there. Emphasizing regular percussion-beats more than vocals doesn't make sense to me when you prioritize vocals everywhere else, like at 01:40:209 (3) -.
5. 01:40:834 (4,5) - Why is this mapped with an offbeat-slider? Both vocals and instrumentals have distinctively stronger notes on the downbeat - ctrl-g'ing would also represent the fact that 01:41:042 is not a new syllable but just a change of pitch in the vocals.
   On the other hand, I'd suggest an offbeat-slider for 01:42:709 (2,3) because currently, this is neither emphasizing vocals (bc clicking on the downbeat feels much stronger by default, and there isn't really any movement onto this stack either as it's just flowing into it from a slidertail) nor emphasizing instrumentals (bc it's just a stack and not spaced out or anything), which makes it unclear to me what you're actually trying to follow here.

About snappings in the intro, it is very obvious that from a musical point of view 00:01:303 (1,2,2) are supposed to be on the white/red ticks, so please time it accordingly, I'm sure the composer of this song didn't think "ah and here the vocalist sings a 1/16-note!" ^^
But you should also take some time and think about how much sense not snapping notes like 00:03:751 (2) or 00:55:365 (2) on the white tick makes - There is only one diff in this set, and those notes are mapped as a circle, meaning that what the player hears depends entirely on when they click it, not what it's snapped to (we don't care about converts bc converts are ew). With the exception of the first two notes, a constant tempo of 72 BPM has been established, hence the player will intuitively click in that rhythm too since a difference of 1/16 isn't visually noticable/readable at all. Snapping it on 1/16 has no influence on gameplay at all but makes it more likely to get a 100 there.
tl;dr: When a single circle is off the metronome but it's clear that it's supposed to land on a regular snap in the song, snap it accordingly.

gl with this!

Bonsai wrote:

There is only one diff in this set, and those notes are mapped as a circle, meaning that what the player hears depends entirely on when they click it, not what it's snapped to (we don't care about converts bc converts are ew).

I don't get the bolded sentence at all. It is out of context and irrelevant. Timing matters no matter which mode you play. Just quessing which tick was intented is not a wise choice because everyone hear those sounds differently. One might go for white-red ticks while someone else might want to play them as grey. One of them will end up with some frustrating 100. Well, its up to you guys.

Kurokami wrote:

One might go for white-red ticks while someone else might want to play them as grey.

I wrote:

a difference of 1/16 isn't visually noticable/readable at all

The reason why I mentioned converts is that in Standard, as I wrote, the auditive feedback you get from a clickable note ( -> circles and sliderheads) depends entirely on the player's input, and I do not believe that any player is able to visually recognize and read that a note is snapped 1/16 later than usual in a song with constant BPM, and even after having heard the song you wouldn't notice on full speed that it's 1/16 off as long as there is no auditive feedback of how the note is snapped, which you would only get from either slidertails or CtB-converts.

My point is: It will make zero difference to anyone's visual and auditive perception whether that note is snapped to 1/1 or 1/16, but it will make a difference in what accuracy they might get, hence I highly recommend going for the option that is easier to acc, which is snapping it to 1/1.

man, I should finally start writing my timing-guide xd

I really don't know about how i have to snap.
For now, I moved notes that i fixed through mod with kurokami to white/red ticks.

and I'll see some parts that bonsai mentioned on his mod post and have discussion with collab member.

Sorry for delaying.

Response by Moa:

Beomsan

• 
  04:42:917 (1) - 음... 그냥 제대로 쓰자는 말이 하고싶네요 - 블랭킷 수정했습니다

Gloria Guard

• 
  04:02:709 (4) 간격 에러. - 강조를 위해 일부러 간격을 두었습니다.

Mir

• 
  04:02:917 (1,3) ? aaaaaa overlap isn’t good ;w; Could try https://puu.sh/sgQzu/4e706aa967.png but that 04:03:542 (2) ? is close as hell. Idk about this part tbh - i don't want fix it because i love overlaped like that sry
  04:05:417 (3,4,5,6) ? um pls why circles? 04:05:417 (3,5) ? sliders on these would fit waaaay better. - i fixed it circles 3,4 changed slider
  04:40:417 (2,3) ? nazi blanket, head is too far ;w; - in my eyes that blanket is right
  04:42:501 (4,5,1) ? HOYL BLANKETS OMG ASDSADSd - fixed it thx!

Some translation of Bonsai's mod requested by Enon.

1. 01:12:084 (3,4,5,1,2,3) - 여기 리듬이 갑자기 밀도가 너무 높아졌는데 이해되지 않습니다. (3)과 (5)가 오버매핑되었다는 단순한 사실 때문에 노래에 비해 맵이 훨씬 밀도가 높고 빽빽해보여서 그렇습니다. 거기에 01:13:334 - 쪽이 상당히 단조롭게 느껴지는데, 노래가 각각에서 달라지는데도 불구하고 똑같은 클릭 리듬을 세번 연속으로 썼기 때문입니다.
2. 01:05:209 (2,3) - 맵이 강하게 보컬을 따라가고 있는 상황에서, 이 두 노트 사이의 길게 늘어지는 보컬을 이렇게 놔두는 것은 아주 (??하게) 느껴집니다. 음악적으로, 직전의 가사 전부는 01:06:042 - 또는 01:06:251 - (저에게는 가수가 음정을 여기서 바꾼 것으로 보입니다)의 소리를 향해 쌓아왔는데, 이 소리를 리버스 슬라이더의 끝에 넣음으로써 전혀 강조가 안 되고, 길게 끌고 가는 소리도 표현이 되지 않았습니다.
3. 01:29:167 - 왜 이 소리를 건너뛰었습니까? 01:27:501 (3,1) - 처럼 보컬에서 악기 소리로의 전이를 위한 것이라면 말이 되겠지만, 오브젝트가 100% 보컬을 따라가고 악기들을 무시하고 있던 상황에서 이건 이해가 되지 않네요.
4. 01:39:167 (6,7) - 이건 구분이 부족합니다. (7)은 다음 콤보를 시작하는 보컬에 맞춰진 노트이고, (6)은 그다지 강하지도 않은 평범한 '채우기' 소리에 맞춰진 노트인데, 이건 (7)에 대한 강조를 전부 없애버립니다. 흐름을 유지하고 싶다면 01:38:751 (5,6) - 를 슬라이더로 묶는 것을 추천합니다. 이건 5의 끌고 가는 소리를 강조할 수도 있습니다. 01:40:209 (3) - 와 같이 다른 모든 곳에서 보컬을 우선시하는 상황에서, 보컬보다 평범한 타악기 소리를 더 강조하는 것은 이해가 되지 않습니다.
5. 01:40:834 (4,5) - 왜 이것이 엇박 슬라이더로 표현이 되었습니까? 보컬과 악기 모두 다운비트에서 확실하게 더 강한데 말입니다. 컨트롤 g 하는 것이 01:41:042 - 가 또다른 음절이 아닌 단순 보컬 음높이의 변화라는 것도 나타낼 것입니다.
   반면에 01:42:709 (2,3) - 에 대해서는 엇박 슬라이더를 추천하겠습니다. 현재는 보컬도 강조가 안 되고 (왜냐하면 다운비트에 클릭하는 것은 기본적으로 강하게 느껴지며, 슬라이더 끝으로부터 흘러들어왔기 때문에 움직임도 거의 없기 때문입니다) 악기도 강조가 되지 않습니다 (왜냐하면 이건 간격도 없는 그냥 스택일 뿐이기 때문이니다). 그래서 무엇을 따라가려는 것인지 확실히 보이지가 않습니다.

Also here's my quick opinion to the snaps: No vocalists can sing perfectly to the time. There always will be some errors, but that doesn't mean we have to adjust every single notes by several milliseconds when we're following the vocal. Many other songs out there has some sounds that actually sound better when they're snapped to 1/16, 1/12, or even 1/8s, but as we know on which snap they're intended to be, we should just use these. It also gives players better rhythmic experience, because we all want (and expect) consistent speed to keep track with the rhythm, not a varying-by-few-milliseconds-every-time rhythm.

@Bonsai: ok, let me explain about 01:12:084 (3,4,5,1,2,3) - this part, 01:10:417 - from the beginning, i used 3 1/1 sliders since there were not that much sounds from vocal, however, 01:12:084 - from here, vocal started using few 1/2 beats, which is also expressed as the atmosphere of the music/vocal is getting higher. This also shown at 01:20:417 - here, you will able to clearly here 1/2 beats from vocal at 01:20:626 - , 01:20:834 - and 01:21:042 - . I disagree that 01:12:084 (3,4,5,1,2,3) - those notes are overmapped, since I clearly followed the vocal, and those 1/2 notes are expressing them.

Bonsai wrote:

1. 01:05:209 (2,3) - When the map is built around following vocals so strongly all the time, leaving out strong holding vocals like the one between these two objects feels very to me. Musically, the whole previous line builds up to the note at 01:06:042 or 01:06:251 - (to me it sounds like the vocalist actually changes pitch there), but the start of the note is not emphasized at all by landing on the tail of a reverse-slider, and the holding note itself isn't mapped at all either 04:22:501 - It's also applied on my part. I fixed that is same to startrick's part.
2. 01:29:167 - Why is this note skipped? It would make sense to me if it were to transition to a rhythm that focuses less on vocals and more on instrumentals, like at 01:27:501 (3,1) -, but all following objects are 100% following the vocals why leaving out instrumentals along the way, so that doesn't make much sense to me ok, i changed the first slider to 1/2 so, 01:29:167 - here isn't ignored more.

I'm sure the composer of this song didn't think "ah and here the vocalist sings a 1/16-note!" ^^ LOL, it was really impressive.

thanks

i think the easier fix is just to get somebody to edit your mp3. as long as u can pinpoint the problems, it should be easy for whoever can do it (meyrink, pishifat, monstrata)

Kibbleru wrote:

i think the easier fix is just to get somebody to edit your mp3. as long as u can pinpoint the problems, it should be easy for whoever can do it (meyrink, pishifat, monstrata)

i don't think that's necessary to do.

according to bonsai and doyak, it should be fine?

hold if bonsai doesn't bubble

Yuii- wrote:

hold if bonsai doesn't bubble

Bonsai wrote:

I'm just listing a few examples here as I haven't looked through the entire map / don't plan on checking it

I guess he won't do?

hello! i've been clearing other reqs :d sorry sorry sorry

hi enon!

00:01:251 - 00:15:834 - hitsounds are completely inaudible here, you'll have to bump the volume a little bit to make it rankable
00:19:376 (3,1) - 00:22:709 (4,1) - any reason for them to be so inconsistent? they are litearlly the same
00:28:334 (2) - would be nice if you would move this further in order to achieve a special effect with the sliderpoints. current pattern has only 1 point from 00:27:084 (1) - to (2), so moving it to x100 y296 would be nice: http://i.imgur.com/VfXrkQr.jpg
i would also probably add hitsounds to 00:27:084 (1,2,3,4) - because the violin is p audible right there, and there's no kind of feedback right now
00:47:605 (2) - p sure this should be snapped to 1/6 instead of the current placement. also extending it until 00:47:917 - would make more sense because vocals are there still aaaand there is a very audible hit
01:12:501 (4,5) - shouldn't these be stacked instead? vocals are completely dead here so stacking them would also add more emphasis on 01:12:917 (1) - .
01:14:376 - since we are at it, i would seriously consider removing that note. you're mainly following the vocals there and this note just seems to buff the overall density when this section is rather calm
01:41:667 (6,1) - HI STARTRICK!!!! this is a very large jump for what the music is supporting... not to mention the fact that new combos don't work with sliderpoints, so players will most likely have to wait till (1) pops up in the screen before moving their cursors towards them
01:52:292 (5) - i'm failing to understand what exactly is this slider following. can you explain it to me please :d
02:34:584 (1) - how come there's no hitosund at all here?
02:26:251 (1) - wouldn't a soft-whistle be more appropriate for the piano hit instead of the clap?
02:44:584 (4) - soft-whistle here too? or a hitsound, something to add there please!!
03:16:251 (1) - perfect case to make a jump and you placed it on 03:16:459 (2) - that's sad
03:20:209 (2) - correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the only note stacked under a slider? if yes, then consider unstack
03:22:501 (4,5,1) - vs 03:24:167 (2,3,1) -
03:33:542 (2,3) - i'm not entirely sure if it's unrankable, but it does look pretty bad if you ask me, could you ctlr+g the placement of (2)?
03:50:417 (1,2,1,2) - there's no feedback here, unfortunately, you'll have to add some more volume
03:53:751 (3,4,5,6) - too many clickable notes when this is super calm, would consider something different, pace of the song is ruined by all these notes
04:38:334 (2,3,4,5) - rhythm seems weird during these section. personally i wouldn't omit something so important like 04:38:751 - nor mapping 04:38:542 (3,4) - as simiar objects (same slider shapes) when they are completely different (or should be) according to the music, what about http://i.imgur.com/HJz1auV.jpg instead?
04:57:084 (3) - sohuld be 1/6 and 04:57:501 (4) - 1/32... although 1/32 isn't a thing in the editor, so you'll probably have to finish it on the 1/6 as well for consistency with the previous slider

that's it for me!!

I posted it for comfortable to see the list.

K i A i
00:01:251 - 00:15:834 - hitsounds are completely inaudible here, you'll have to bump the volume a little bit to make it rankable
03:33:542 (2,3) - i'm not entirely sure if it's unrankable, but it does look pretty bad if you ask me, could you ctlr+g the placement of (2)?

Reol
00:19:376 (3,1) - 00:22:709 (4,1) - any reason for them to be so inconsistent? they are litearlly the same
00:28:334 (2) - would be nice if you would move this further in order to achieve a special effect with the sliderpoints. current pattern has only 1 point from 00:27:084 (1) - to (2), so moving it to x100 y296 would be nice: http://i.imgur.com/VfXrkQr.jpg
i would also probably add hitsounds to 00:27:084 (1,2,3,4) - because the violin is p audible right there, and there's no kind of feedback right now
03:16:251 (1) - perfect case to make a jump and you placed it on 03:16:459 (2) - that's sad
03:20:209 (2) - correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the only note stacked under a slider? if yes, then consider unstack
03:22:501 (4,5,1) - vs 03:24:167 (2,3,1) -
03:50:417 (1,2,1,2) - there's no feedback here, unfortunately, you'll have to add some more volume

Enon
00:47:605 (2) - p sure this should be snapped to 1/6 instead of the current placement. also extending it until 00:47:917 - would make more sense because vocals are there still aaaand there is a very audible hit
02:44:584 (4) - soft-whistle here too? or a hitsound, something to add there please!!

Cellina
01:12:501 (4,5) - shouldn't these be stacked instead? vocals are completely dead here so stacking them would also add more emphasis on 01:12:917 (1) - .
01:14:376 - since we are at it, i would seriously consider removing that note. you're mainly following the vocals there and this note just seems to buff the overall density when this section is rather calm
01:52:292 (5) - i'm failing to understand what exactly is this slider following. can you explain it to me please :d

Startrick
01:41:667 (6,1) - HI STARTRICK!!!! this is a very large jump for what the music is supporting... not to mention the fact that new combos don't work with sliderpoints, so players will most likely have to wait till (1) pops up in the screen before moving their cursors towards them

C u r i
02:26:251 (1) - wouldn't a soft-whistle be more appropriate for the piano hit instead of the clap?
02:34:584 (1) - how come there's no hitosund at all here?

Moa
03:53:751 (3,4,5,6) - too many clickable notes when this is super calm, would consider something different, pace of the song is ruined by all these notes
04:38:334 (2,3,4,5) - rhythm seems weird during these section. personally i wouldn't omit something so important like 04:38:751 - nor mapping 04:38:542 (3,4) - as simiar objects (same slider shapes) when they are completely different (or should be) according to the music, what about http://i.imgur.com/HJz1auV.jpg instead?

Leaf
04:57:084 (3) - sohuld be 1/6 and 04:57:501 (4) - 1/32... although 1/32 isn't a thing in the editor, so you'll probably have to finish it on the 1/6 as well for consistency with the previous slider

==================

Here is response from Moa:

03:53:751 (3,4,5,6) - too many clickable notes when this is super calm, would consider something different, pace of the song is ruined by all these notes
- I think that pattern is have not problem cause i want emphasis vocal sound and i used many circles only in there and 03:56:251 (1,2,3) - there
if i use slider in there it become to boring rhythm

04:38:334 (2,3,4,5) - rhythm seems weird during these section. personally i wouldn't omit something so important like 04:38:751 - nor
mapping 04:38:542 (3,4) - as simiar objects (same slider shapes) when they are completely different (or should be) according to the music,
what about http://i.imgur.com/HJz1auV.jpg instead?
- i changed that rhythm thx!

@Yuii-: I fixed everything except 01:14:376 - part, since imo it's not a huge problem because: yes, the overall density is quite buffed, however all notes are used to have same DS to minimize increase of difficulty. Thanks!

Yuii- wrote:

hello! i've been clearing other reqs :d sorry sorry sorry

hi enon!

K i A i
00:01:251 - 00:15:834 - hitsounds are completely inaudible here, you'll have to bump the volume a little bit to make it rankable i increased volume overall
03:33:542 (2,3) - i'm not entirely sure if it's unrankable, but it does look pretty bad if you ask me, could you ctlr+g the placement of (2)? i also not sure if it's unrankable. but i would keep it if it isn't since the flow is really nice to follow the song.

Reol
00:19:376 (3,1) - 00:22:709 (4,1) - any reason for them to be so inconsistent? they are litearlly the same that seem different thing for me though.. because 00:22:709 (4,1) - here is like starting a new part? but, 00:19:376 (3,1) - here is just like contiune the current part... i don't know how to explain this.
00:28:334 (2) - would be nice if you would move this further in order to achieve a special effect with the sliderpoints. current pattern has only 1 point from 00:27:084 (1) - to (2), so moving it to x100 y296 would be nice: http://i.imgur.com/VfXrkQr.jpg
i would also probably add hitsounds to 00:27:084 (1,2,3,4) - because the violin is p audible right there, and there's no kind of feedback right now ok i added some whistle and clap there.
03:16:251 (1) - perfect case to make a jump and you placed it on 03:16:459 (2) - that's sad well there are many way to emphasize song, not making jump there is also make sense imo.. 01:49:584 (1) - also didn't try to make jump
03:20:209 (2) - correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the only note stacked under a slider? if yes, then consider unstack could i hear the reason? because it's absolutely fine for me.
03:22:501 (4,5,1) - vs 03:24:167 (2,3,1) - w, what are you talking about...?
03:50:417 (1,2,1,2) - there's no feedback here, unfortunately, you'll have to add some more volume as i answered at above, overall voulum was increased.

Enon
00:47:605 (2) - p sure this should be snapped to 1/6 instead of the current placement. also extending it until 00:47:917 - would make more sense because vocals are there still aaaand there is a very audible hit fixed
02:44:584 (4) - soft-whistle here too? or a hitsound, something to add there please!! added!

C u r i
02:26:251 (1) - wouldn't a soft-whistle be more appropriate for the piano hit instead of the clap? yeah, i think so.
02:34:584 (1) - how come there's no hitosund at all here? ooops

Leaf
04:57:084 (3) - sohuld be 1/6 and 04:57:501 (4) - 1/32... although 1/32 isn't a thing in the editor, so you'll probably have to finish it on the 1/6 as well for consistency with the previous slider fixed

thank you

.

Enon asked me for a opinion about 03:33:542 (2,3) - , so uh, my thought is that it's mostly same as a perfect stack. If this was supposed to be one of the easier diffs then it might cause readability issues but as this is for approval we can let this a bit free from it. I'd prefer it to be not stacked too, but I guess the mapper really wants to keep this for aesthetics.

오늘 집오다 500원주워서 기분좋으니 별 하나 더 쏨

: ok_hand :

Get a Tier 1 BN, Enon. I will qualify it after you get them!

You are here finally!

ㄷㄷ해

hihi~

KiAi
00:11:667 (5,6,1,2,3) - This arrangement looks a bit inconsistent with stacking enabled. Are you sure you want this spacing?
03:34:167 (4) - NC, and NC more often, like 03:37:917 (4) - etc... Your section is the only section where you NC very infrequently and it's causing it to be inconsistent with other members of the collab.

Cellina
01:12:709 (5,1,2,3,4,1) - Blankets can be improved here.

Enon
02:39:167 (4,1) - 02:41:042 (4,1) - Having a jump or something here would be nice. Right now you don't map any emphasis at all which makes it a bit weird transitioning to Leaf's part afterwards since they map jumps and sutff.

Leaf/Curi
03:02:500 (4,1) - Beginning the kiai on a stack instead of a jump feels kinda weak. Do a jump instead for more momentum?

Reol
03:16:667 (3,4) - Clicking on 4 is really weird since it's not supported in the music. Feels like an overmap. Use a slider instead?

Moa
03:56:251 (1,2,3) - Sounds overmapped imo. Use sliders instead cuz imo clicking here isn't well supported by vocals unlike the previous section.
04:42:501 (4,5) - How about making a triangle here? Creates a nicer flow going into the slider

Leaf
04:57:084 (3,4) - Imo, don't use jumps here when you're also switching to 1/3 rhythm. The added slider-end makes it harder to snap to the head of slider 4 without accidentally breaking too.

@Monstrata: I asked Enon to fix it since it was a small issue, thanks for modding!

Monstrata wrote:

hihi~

KiAi
00:11:667 (5,6,1,2,3) - This arrangement looks a bit inconsistent with stacking enabled. Are you sure you want this spacing? I guess he wants to make there a shape.

~

03:34:167 (4) - NC, and NC more often, like 03:37:917 (4) - etc... Your section is the only section where you NC very infrequently and it's causing it to be inconsistent with other members of the collab.

Cellina
01:12:709 (5,1,2,3,4,1) - Blankets can be improved here.

Enon
02:39:167 (4,1) - 02:41:042 (4,1) - Having a jump or something here would be nice. Right now you don't map any emphasis at all which makes it a bit weird transitioning to Leaf's part afterwards since they map jumps and sutff.

Leaf/Curi
03:02:500 (4,1) - Beginning the kiai on a stack instead of a jump feels kinda weak. Do a jump instead for more momentum?

Reol
03:16:667 (3,4) - Clicking on 4 is really weird since it's not supported in the music. Feels like an overmap. Use a slider instead? It's really low though I can hear* something at there. I think it's fine :O

Moa
03:56:251 (1,2,3) - Sounds overmapped imo. Use sliders instead cuz imo clicking here isn't well supported by vocals unlike the previous section.
04:42:501 (4,5) - How about making a triangle here? Creates a nicer flow going into the slider

~

Leaf
04:57:084 (3,4) - Imo, don't use jumps here when you're also switching to 1/3 rhythm. The added slider-end makes it harder to snap to the head of slider 4 without accidentally breaking too.

All fixed except I replied!

Thanks

You guys gotta remind me to recheck lol~

Oh, I just have been waited until you come, since I thought pushing for rechecking would make you annoying.

anyways thank you very much for coming!

ㅊㅊ!!

와아아아. 랭각이야

socks

Yuii- wrote:

Get a Tier 1 BN, Enon. I will qualify it after you get them!

I got a BN though, I think it needs one more BN.... it...is....for...approved....

Enon wrote:

Yuii- wrote:

Get a Tier 1 BN, Enon. I will qualify it after you get them!

I got a BN though, I think it needs one more BN.... it...is....for...approved....

Yes, you need one more!

diff

1. 00:42:501 (3,1) - The sliders are too close, 1,77 spacing like you did with 00:42:917 (1,2) - would be better for the visuals
2. 00:54:584 (1) - move this to x:52 y:160, so the pattern looks better
3. 00:57:709 (4) - a 1/4 slider would sounds better with the hold vocal sound, also is a bit weird that you ignored the beat at 00:57:917 - (if you do then pls add a hitsound o 00:57:917 -)
4. 01:12:501 (4,5) - a slider would fit the music better, since you guys are following mostly vocals, that's why 5 sounds outplace atm
5. 02:18:542 (4,1) - the overlap looks so ugly and let's be honest guys this map is so clean stuff like this doesn't fit the map IMO
6. 02:47:501 (3,1) - same, the overlap looks ugly
7. 03:32:501 (7,1) - this is touching the HP bar, just move the pattern a bit down, overlapping the game elments in a super clean map like this one is a no for me.
8. 03:40:209 (2,4) - stack them? for a better design
9. 03:42:084 (6) - it's posible to avoid overlapping the accuracy meter? you just need to move it a bit up
10. 04:38:751 (4,1) - man this overlap looks really bad and doesn't fit the overall style of the map, can you do something else there?
11. 04:56:251 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - the spacing between the 1/6s and 1/4s looks the same, can you make them different, either by reducing the spacing a 1/6s (which I prefer( or adding more spacing to the 1/4s-
12. 05:02:084 (3,6) - stack them so the pattern looks cleaner? also almost the full mapset use stacking..
13. 05:03:751 (3,1) - 05:10:626 (4,1) - same as above

let me know