[Shana Lesus] wrote:

Tidek wrote:

I hope you considered to make HP 9-9,5 in all extra diffs.

HP10

[Shana Lesus] wrote:

-Kamikaze- wrote:

I would appreciate it if you would not disturb the thread with your sarcastic posts, thank you

I do not see the sarcasm here, all serious.

Can you guys believe it this song is 200% my taste?

Tidek wrote:

You already praised that map and called retina a nonsense map when both maps are jumptrill oriented, so you can go back to Spy with that ridiculus logic : /

[Shana Lesus] wrote:

Tidek wrote:

You already praised that map and called retina a nonsense map when both maps are jumptrill oriented, so you can go back to Spy with that ridiculus logic : /

Please do not be an idiot , if you have personal issues with Spy , it's just yours problems , it did not interest me.

Tidek wrote:

I will take a look on that map soon too, big kudos for fresh chicken attitude, not like some people in that community (hopefully their "leader* is finally banned)

Man, you are the one who is acting like a idiot here, without any single argument, shame that you only answered about second part of my post.

Tidek wrote:

I hope you considered to make HP 9-9,5 in all extra diffs.

Overrated map in terms of starrating should be harder to pass in my opinion.

[Shana Lesus] wrote:

Tidek wrote:

You already praised that map and called retina a nonsense map when both maps are jumptrill oriented, so you can go back to Spy with that ridiculus logic : /

Please do not be an idiot , if you have personal issues with Spy , it's just yours problems , it did not interest me.

[ A v a l o n ] wrote:

Tidek wrote:

I will take a look on that map soon too, big kudos for fresh chicken attitude, not like some people in that community (hopefully their "leader* is finally banned)

Man, you are the one who is acting like a idiot here, without any single argument, shame that you only answered about second part of my post.

sssstttt, can we just stop this unnecessary talk ?
and man, she is a girl

Rido wrote:

Kartini coy

1. 00:09:724 (9724|0,9753|1,9783|2,9812|3,9841|0,9871|1,9900|2,9929|3) - Rolls,
2. 00:13:503 (13503|2,13533|0,13562|1,13591|3,13621|2,13650|0,13679|1,13709|2,13709|3,13767|1,13767|0,13826|3,13826|2,13884|0,13884|1) - Transition from vibro to jumptrill,
3. 00:14:353 (14353|0,14353|1,14412|3,14441|2,14470|1,14500|0,14529|3,14558|2,14587|1,14587|0,14646|2,14646|3) - Transition from jumptrill to rolls,
4. 00:25:076 (25076|3,25076|2,25134|1,25193|3,25193|2,25310|0,25310|1,25369|2,25427|1,25427|0) - bursts
5. 00:29:177 (29177|3,29177|2,29236|1,29294|3,29294|0,29353|2,29353|1,29412|0,29412|3,29470|2,29529|0,29529|1,29587|3,29587|2,29646|0,29646|1,29705|3,29763|2,29822|1,29880|3,29880|0) - jumpstreams
6. 00:42:888 (42888|0,42888|3,42947|2,42947|1,43005|0,43005|3,43123|2,43123|1,43240|0,43240|3,43298|2,43298|1,43357|0,43357|3,43474|2,43474|1,43591|3,43591|0,43650|2,43650|1,43709|3,43709|0) - more jump bursts

1. 02:03:396 (123396|3,123396|2,123455|1,123455|0,123513|2,123513|3,123572|1,123572|0,123630|2,123630|3,123689|0,123689|1,123748|2,123748|3,123806|0,123806|1,123865|3,123865|2,123923|1,123923|0,123982|2,123982|3,124041|0,124041|1) - this and one more section after this

Shoegazer wrote:

Right, let's begin.

I use 1|2|3|4, to clear up any potential confusion.

GRAVITY mod

[GRAVITY]
So let's talk about the older GRAVITY chart (the one that was ranked before) first, just to understand where I'm coming from. The main complaint that I had is the fact that it's just not very ambitious as a chart. Sure, it's a jumptrilling test - but it's a very clean and straight-forward jumptrilling test, to the point where the chart is a bit of a disservice to how chaotic and noisy the track is. Most of the patterns in the old GRAVITY chart were made to be as easy as possible - when it could have been a lot more interesting.

Your newer chart for GRAVITY is better, there are some interesting patterning that I'm fond of but there are some patterning that could be a tiny bit more polished.

Side note, HP9/OD9 is quite applicable here. It's the hardest difficulty, having a relatively low OD (or at least OD that's comparable to a lower difficulty) is quite odd.

00:08:787 - I've always liked the 1/8 triplet rolls which you've put in beforehand - it gives the harsher buzz sounds a strong differentiation compared to the rest of the sounds in this section, without making the patterning too difficult. I do want to see those patterns back, something like this would be nice to see (I Ctrl-H'd the part after the burst). As it is, the harsher buzz sounds are just not captured strongly enough in my opinion. If you want to keep the double at 00:08:962 - , you can do something like this instead.

Basically, I think you should change the 12341234 (or 43214321) rolls to 12312312 or 43243243 instead - it makes the harsher buzz sounds very noticeable, it's more than justifiable and sets up the mood for the chart quite nicely. If you want to keep the double (that replaces 34 or 21 at the end), you can do something similar with this.

00:09:724 - ^ - though you can probably keep it as 43214321 because the buzz sounds are a bit lighter compared to the burst above.
00:10:662 - Refer to 00:08:787 - .
00:11:248 - This should be 1/8s up to 00:11:365 - I think? The buzzes stop at 00:11:365 - . ummm I'm not sure about this snapping, I may ask to someone
00:11:365 - You can afford to have a [124] here if you want to be a bit mean, there's a kick that justifies a triple. - Used 1.4 instead
00:12:537 - , 00:13:474 - , 00:14:412 - Refer to 00:08:787 - .
00:14:646 - You can place a LN (on 1) up to 00:15:115 - , if you like. - hmm maybe my mind says not, I want to finish it clean
00:18:279 - Maybe shift this to [13]? It creates a minijack yes, but you also create a lot of minijacks later on which I think is a nice touch to the chart overall.
00:19:334 - Seems weird to break away from the jack patterning here. If you don't want to make the patterning too repetitive, you can follow the synth (which is rising in pitch), so I'd do [13][23][34] instead of [13][24][13]. It helps to keep the jack patterning consistent, while also not making it seem too repetitive.
00:21:912 - haha, this is mean. I think this pattern might be a bit too overkill (in terms of difficulty) given how light the buzz sounds are, I think a 43214321 would suffice for the first half of the burst, and then a 431431431 for the second half. It would look something like [url=http://i.imgur.com/R4uOEbW.png]. The reason for this is because the second half's buzz sounds are harsher (or at least, louder) than the first half. You can use a split roll like 4231 instead, but I personally think a triplet roll is the way to go. Up to you for that one. - Changed first buzz but second one is may I need to consider
00:26:013 - Really like the patterning here. It's a nice way to step away from the conventional/easy jumptrill, while not making it too difficult (something too difficult would be something like [12][23][34] (which has two hidden minijacks) or [13][23][34] (one long jack) - the ideal pattern for this would be one minijack per set I feel). I think it would be a good idea to use this pattern more often if viable. You can use it in 00:25:076 - for example - something like this would be a nice touch. - Thanks for praise! Also applied!
00:28:240 - You can do the minijack patterning you did earlier here if you want. I used [23][12][34].
00:28:709 - ^ - only for the first three doubles however. The last two doubles should be singles, the sounds in 00:28:884 (and the note after) is far too soft to justify doubles. I did something like this, but it's up to you as how you want to approach it.
00:31:287 - I don't think this is loud enough to be a triple. There's definitely sounds going on that justify a triple, but considering your use of triples as it is I think this is better suited as a [34]. The kick just isn't strong enough. - hmm Sorry but I'd like to keep here, seems not loud sounds but the louder of sound is kinda big also it has some difference with other sections so I want to keep here
00:33:396 - Preferably a single here? The main sound is a vocal sample (which isn't too loud), which is arguably too soft for a double. I used a 3 here.
00:35:037 (35037|0,35095|1,35154|2) - You can probably be a little bit mean and have a 121 instead of a 123. There's a synth rhythm going on that sounds like a minitrill, so you can capture that here.
00:37:146 - Refer to 00:33:396 - but I used 4 here instead.
00:39:021 - Another section which you can use minijacks. You can do something like this for this section (I missed out a [12][24][13] at 00:40:076 - , but you get the idea), and something similar like [23][13][24] and [23][24][13] for 00:41:013 - as well.
00:42:888 - ^
00:44:099 - Maybe you can shift this to [24] to differentiate the pattern from 00:44:255 (44255|3,44255|0,44334|2,44334|1,44412|3,44412|0) - .
00:44:568 - You can be a little mean and place this at 3 instead of 1, it's not a bad transition by any means but it certainly will startle the player a little bit.
00:46:052 - Rhythm here is a bit more distorted than 00:45:701 - , so I think a more rigid (or at least less smooth) pattern here would be justified. Something like 4231[234] would be nice? It's a slight differentiation but the player would definitely feel the difference in patterning.
00:58:650 - Should be the same chord as 00:58:474 - , as it is the same sound. hmm? They're same already owo
01:31:990 - You can do something like a minijack in the second/third chord here and a minijack in the first/second chord in
01:32:341 - instead of what you have. An example would be something like this (notice the hidden minijacks). It would create good difficulty consistency.
01:33:865 - You can do something similar to the above. Something like this would be nice. (This is taken at 1:33.865).
01:35:740 - Pattern is fine as it is (more minijacks because it's a harsher set of sounds), but [12][24][34] is generally the easier pattern and I'd prefer you use that instead. Your current pattern is a bit mindblockable. You can still do the minijack thing in 01:36:091 - , similar to what you would do in the previous two points. An example would be something like this.
01:39:490 - ^
01:41:013 - Minijack, you get the idea.
01:43:240 - ^ - hmm Sorry but I want to keep here (Only here)
01:57:771 - Have to change this triple, since it creates a 1/2 minijack, and it's not consistent with the layering scheme in the intro. You have to either redo the layering scheme in the intro or change this triple (and a few others), up to you.
02:01:521 - ^
02:02:634 - Move this to 1 to differentiate this pattern from 02:02:459 (122459|2,122459|1,122517|3,122517|0,122576|2) - .
02:04:128 - Now this point will only be relevant if you want to change the ending [14][23] jumptrill or not. I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the jumptrill and use [43][21] instead, but it's up to you. You can turn this to a triplet roll burst, just like what you would do in the intro. If you do this however, you have to change the jumptrill afterwards to [43][21]. It would look something like this, basically. I think this would be good, but again it's up to you as to whether or not you want to keep the split jumptrill.

That's basically about it. What you'd end up with is a minijack-heavy + jumptrilling hybrid chart, which probably does the track more justice than just jumptrilling. The star rating would basically be the same (7.01), but the chart would be a lot more unique. Do understand that you'll probably still get backlash for this chart however, as people will pretty much complain about anything that gives too much PP. Those are really complaints about you can ignore though, because most of the complaints will be to no fault of your own. The star rating system is mainly to blame here.

You might want to look at the layering as a whole as well by someone like Daikyi too, because I'm not 100% sure if the layering is correct. I can see how certain layering is done, so I closed one eye towards it, but I'm also really open-minded when it comes to layering in general. Might also want to see if the pitch relevancy of the section in 01:00:701 - is done properly too. Didn't really look at that section in too much depth.

I'm not sure if Halogen- is going to look at Shirou's INFINITE - I personally don't see too much issue with it but I know he has a couple of reservations about the chart. I think you can ask Halogen- as to what made the old version of Shirou's INFINITE so much better, but I'm not sure if you can catch him online in the first place.

Also if you don't understand any of the things I've said in the post, please ask either iJinjin or me instead of blindly applying or rejecting something. I want you to understand thought processes behind certain patterning at the end of the day, so you can apply it to later charts.

Anyway, hope this helps. Good luck with getting your mapset ranked.

Shoegazer wrote:

Went through the chart one more time, no kudosu for this please.
00:09:724 (9724|0,9753|1,9783|2,9812|3,9841|0,9871|1,9900|2,9929|3,9959|0,9959|1,10017|3) - Probably need to Ctrl-H (mirror) this, this is a really difficult transition.

Missing minijacks: 01:34:216 - , 01:34:451 - , 01:36:091 - , 01:36:560 - , 01:39:841 - , 01:40:310 - .
You can follow the same layering scheme as 01:31:990 - .

One last thing, it's regarding the very ending of the chart - I didn't look through it at first but it felt really off. Evening gave me timestamps for where the last four doubles should be: 02:05:584 - , 02:05:818 - , 02:06:033 - and 02:06:209 - . - aaaaa I don't know actually about it @w@

Anyway, the chart seems fine otherwise now. Thanks for your cooperation, really appreciate it.

jakads wrote:

wow
i hate this map now
i hate it
i just
hate it

Fresh Chicken wrote:

no more PP map

Fresh Chicken wrote:

Now, let see you can get PP easily.

jakads wrote:

wow
i hate this map now
i hate it
i just
hate it

NlHIL wrote:

jakads wrote:

wow
i hate this map now
i hate it
i just
hate it

クソ譜面すぎて泣くわ~wwww

stryver12 wrote:

I dunno what the drama is all about... but nevermind. Good luck with the re-qualification!

I don't know what most mappers are mapping at 02:06:267. The start of syllabus imo is 02:06:150 (or maybe following official chart or something?)