Panda Eyes & Teminite - Immortal Flame (feat. Anna Yvette)

posted
Total Posts
459
show more
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah

Bonsai wrote:

Wow, you misunderstood like half of my points, #languagebarrierisstrong if you're can speak my lang i'll tell you everything you want from this map, sorry for my noob english reading
Oh, thanks for calling me a shitbrick, and also thanks for brushing off my two hours invested in looking at this map as "sightread skill"

I know, that's why I wrote that you should try to amplify the current one. At least try to get some more opinions on this, bc just because you can slightly hear it in the editor doesn't mean it gives you any feedback while playing and smashing your keys i hear that both on editor and gameplay, no problem

because it creates imbalance in how the hp-drain works since you never put so few NCs except in the first half of the intro. If there isn't any other reason than "I wanted to make it interesting" then please don't do it as it doesn't follow the music.
[/list]

Insane
  1. Why is 00:52:364 not even clickable when 00:50:182 (1) is even a 1/1-slider? imo a 1/1-slider would fit there too SV transition on next patterning, wow Please try to explain this better as I don't understand what you mean - I don't see any SV-change on the next combo, nor do I see how that influences this at all 00:53:454 (1,2,1,2,1) - take a look for next combo and next combo and next combo before you saying this
  2. That effect is there because the player expects it to be the same SV but it is slower, so they have to slow down their initial movement. Have you tried doing what I suggested? yeah im already tried it but seems 1.5 too slow for that, and im following 2x cuz highesr diffs
  3. .. 1.: I didn't mean that you shouldn't use different spacing, I meant that the aesthetics would look a lot more structured if you used a certain spacing for certain types of emphasis, for example using x1,9 for regular beats and x2,5 for beats that you really want to emphasize - For example stuff like 00:56:727 (1,2,3) or 00:57:273 (3,4,5) looks visually irregular, spacing them evenly would have no effect on the gameplay but help the overall aesthetics a lot. 2.: I would love if you could actually explain your structure to me because I can't detect any structure at all , otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. I am not saying that it is not playable or that it has bad flow, I just simply don't understand why you make it switch around between combos being not spaced at all and combos having a lot of jumps in them when the music stays the exact same, I am looking for reasons. A few more specific examples so you can explain them indicidually:
    Why is 01:03:000 (8,1) spaced so low when the previous major downbeats had big jumps onto them, like 00:58:773 (8,1) and 01:00:954 (9,1) - ? i put that because i feel like that part has lower pitch than the others, but whatever add more distance
    Why is 00:58:227 (6,7) spaced so low compared to other kicks like 00:57:136 (2,3) - 00:59:182 (2,3) and 01:00:273 (6,7) - ? raise to 2.00x
    Why has this whole part 01:02:182 (6,7,8,1,2) so low spacing compared to the whole rest of this section so far? cuz i make some small rest by providing smaller spacing to make sure players can do this jumps 01:03:273 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -
    Why is 01:05:454 (1,2,3,4) spaced so low compared to 01:06:545 (4,5,6,1) - ? it's like put low distance then high distance structure on that part, same like 01:07:636 (1) - 01:09:818 (1) - 01:12:000 (1) -
    etc[/color]
  4. 01:21:000 - Missing hitsound? I'm not checking them bc after looking at the Hyper I feel like you should recheck all hitsounds in all diffs yourself again, but this one really sticks out i think im doing this really intentional because of higher diffs on there, on hyper it looks okay since we put continuous patterning there, so there is no problem with the hitsounding But what's the reasoning behind it? Why did you even map that beat when you didn't do it in your higher difficulties? Since it's mapped like all other beats it just seems like a mistake, how is the player supposed to know your intention? 1. on 3 higher diffs has no hitsound like that so players will hear that as a mistake a lot more? 2. the hitsound just on hyper diff basically not my mapping part, so why you forcing me to do your preference when i have my own preference and thinking that was not a mistake?
  5. Sorry for using a word that appearently triggers you to throw insults around, let me put it another way: I think you can agree with me that a sliderhead gives more emphasis than a slidertail, because the player has to click on the head, right? Now I know that you are not strictly ignoring the downbeats, but you are giving beats like 01:15:136 or 01:17:727 more emphasis than 01:15:273 or 01:18:000 even though the melody has the same beats on both notes, but the basic rhythm / drums give those beats on the tails additional intensity, so I simply don't understand why you emphasize weaker beats more than stronger beats. Emphasizing those downbeats would not impact your melodical patterning at all since the melody has beats there as well. I have nothing against offbeat-sliders in general, in fact I love them when they fit and use them a lot myself, but I only love and use them when there is a reason to emphasize an offbeat more than an onbeat, I don't see that reason here.
    About the argument "this is a transitional part so why not?": The music does not change there at all yet, and just because a few seconds later there will be different stuff happening does not change anything about the music at that particular part yet. 01:27:818 (2,3,4) is no different to 01:19:091 (2,3,4) except that the pitch is higher, imo that's no reason to completely change the rhythm all of a sudden.
    i follow melody and ignore downbeats and upbeats on specific parts like this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/186677, and yes as you said the music doesn't change at all, and i put different patterning, im just want to make a variety of patterning, just it, no problem with that since im already put a "audible" notes on every slider and circles, thanks
  6. ..No, I don't want you to make jumps here or make anything harder at all, all I want is that you make the spacing visually equal by either making (5,6) slightly bigger or (6,7,1) slightly smaller. As I said it would make not difference for gameplay at all but help the aesthetics. (also I don't see what's supposed to be so special or hard about your flow lol) okay
  7. Sorry, my fault for appearently not explaining it detailed enough: There is no melody at the tail of 01:24:545 (7) but there is one at the tail of (6) but they are mapped the same, and it should be different to 01:27:000 (8) because that one got melody on its tail. The suggestion would be to simply replace 01:24:545 (7) with a circle in order to differentiate between those. 01:22:909 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - consistency of patterning, remember you still can play higher diffs with more complex patterning when i put simple patterning there, just it i can say, so it's okay if i didnt change patterning to circle there
  8. ..No, my problem is that you are staying consistent even though the music is not consistent: 01:26:727 (7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) is just as intense as everything else in this section in the music, but 01:30:545 (6,7,8,9) is way calmer than that because one of the main instruments stopped playing. To put it in different words: My issue is that you map the same thing in the music extremely inconsistent in most of your map, but map inconsistencies of the music consistent in here. 01:29:318 (7,1) - this distance can emphasize every combo on that part, so yeah no need to put more distance on that combo. i map same thing with different pattern to prevent any repetitiveness, some inconsistancy can make this map more interesting to play i think (my opinion and my interpretation about this map)
  9. Can you explain it to me instead of instulting me then? I looked at the repetition of that pattern and I saw that you spaced it out twice at 01:40:091 (7,8) and 01:42:273 (7,8) and then stacked it twice at 01:44:454 (7,8) and 01:46:636 (7,8) which makes sense, but at the first time you spaced it out at 01:35:727 (7,8) even though following that concept it should already be stacked (since the first spaced one musically already happened at 01:31:364 (9) -) 01:37:909 (7,8) - single stack + 01:40:091 (7,8) - single spaced ending pattern, 01:44:454 (7,8) - & 01:46:636 (7,8) - stack twice + 01:48:545 (5,6,7,8) - double spacing pattern, get it? about 01:49:091 - part i swap stack and spaced every part, secret revealed
  10. You spaced these two objects with x2,0 or more at 01:33:273 (6,7) - 01:35:454 (6,7) - 01:37:636 (6,7) - 01:39:818 (6,7) - 01:42:000 (6,7) and 01:46:364 (6,7) -, the one I pointed out is the only one where you didn't space it that much.
    Also, to come back to one of the earlier points, those seven timestampt I just linked would be a good example where you could imporve the aesthetic sctructure by spacing them the exact same since they are the exact same in the music, right now you are mixing between using x2,0 and x2,25 and x2,33 and x2,4 even though the gameplay-effect is the same, so I think choosing one specific spacing for all of them would only help.
    i like that but okay then

Just by looking at this thread I see a lot of other people disliking this map too, and a lot of different mappers said the same too, so I doesn't seem like I'm the only one. I highly doubt that players will suddenly understand the map after a lot of tries when I just sat here looking and playing this one difficulty for two hours and still don't udnerstand it at all, seems like something about your concept isn't working. There are a lot of maps that aren't mapped for ranked that people love to play, but people loving it isn't any rational indication of a map's quality at all (or do you really believe that Highscore is the best map of 2015?). no, im trying to improve that map with this Everybody thinks that their map is good for the game, does that automatically make all maps of high enough quality to be ranked? I personally don't think so, if that were the case then we wouldn't have such a strict modding process and quality control that looks at much more than just the objective ranking criteria listed on the wiki.

Sorry if I came across as rude, I am not wanting you to map everything as I want, if that were the case then I would have written "map it like this" instead of trying to explain why your concept seems flawed to me. I hope I could clarify my points enough this time. I have no issues with the pure playability of anything, I just have issues with the missing connection of the map to the song because I can't see any focus on anything from the music, and I am missing the differentiation between different things in the music that are mapped the same in your map and vice versa. i think this map is really good, i don't have much technical problems here, so yeah i fix some points in here and it should be alright :>
i fix some points there, so i think my map is clear right now

OnosakiHito wrote:

Fort, at this point you should really calm down yourself. Not sure if it is really a language barrier, but Bonsai didn't attack you in anyway which would justify your reaction here. You should also go more into his points instead of his personal carrier as mapper which doesn't matter here at all.

Maybe take a day off or so and calm down a bit. I think all of us need that from time to time.
oh yeah im on it, looks my accent text is really not calm down while im trying to pick good english for this discussion lol, read my reply above to make sure im doing good conversation here
phaZ
on a short note, please remove "110bpm" from the tags. even though there is no online tag for bpm (i believe?) the proper way to filter beatmaps that way is by searching for "bpm=110" in-game

EDIT: Bonsai explained the reason behind it to me
Bonsai
rip formatting, not gonna quote that I guess
In a lot of answers you are saying that you are using different rhythms to create more variety because "some inconsistancy can make this map more interesting", but at the same time you are using the same rhythms at parts that are very different from each other for "consistency of patterning", and that sums up a lot of my problems very well:

You are ignoring the variety offered by the song at so many places, but then you try to force variety at other places where the song stays the same, and that seems to me like the wrong way to do it, because you are not following the song anymore with this. If you follow the song more closely, you will have much more variety at many places, while having your consistent patterning at the parts where the song is consistent too.

This doesn't only apply to the rhythms but also to your spacings - At my question "Why is 01:05:454 (1,2,3,4) spaced so low compared to 01:06:545 (4,5,6,1) - ?" you replied with "it's like put low distance then high distance structure on that part", I see that, but the question is still: Why do you do that? Nothing in the music indicates any increase or decrease of intensity, so why do you do that in your map?

Also, about your whole 'I map this with lower spacing to give the player a rest'-argument: Players don't need those rests when your map has somewhat consistent intensity following the consistent intensity of the music instead of having some big jumps followed by 'rest', no other maps do that and I have never heard a single player complain about needing rest or anything like that. Basically the extreme version of how you are mapping would hypothetically be the definition of a pp-map, mapping a few short, hard patterns to increase the difficulty and making the rest way too easy. If a song calls for continuous intensity, why not map it like that? A player that is comfortable at that level will not need a break, and a player who needs breaks is obviously not at that level yet,



About that part with the stacking and spacing: In your response rn you started counting somewhere in the middle of that section, so let's start anew: 01:31:636 - This is the start of the first section, the first downbeat. 01:33:818 is the second downbeat and you spaced the circles there. 01:36:000 is the third downbeat and you spaced them again. 01:38:182 is the fourth downbeat and you stacked them. Then the section repeats again with the 'new' first downbeat at 01:40:364 where you spaced the circles, same for the second one at 01:42:545 and then at the third and the fourth, so 01:44:727 and 01:46:909 you stacked them. All in all the sequence is

(I added the following two repeats of the section too bc you then started making it structured by always alternating between spaced and stacked, which is fine since it's some kind of structure, but I still can't see any at the first two sections)



And about this point: I obviously looked at the rest, and the earliest SV-change is at 00:54:545 -, what does that have to do with 00:52:364 being clickable or not? I don't see any relation here, that's why I asked you to explain it twice, but you just keep saying 'look at the SV-changes', that doesn't help me at all.
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah

Bonsai wrote:

rip formatting, not gonna quote that I guess
In a lot of answers you are saying that you are using different rhythms to create more variety because "some inconsistancy can make this map more interesting", but at the same time you are using the same rhythms at parts that are very different from each other for "consistency of patterning", and that sums up a lot of my problems very well:
im good at this
You are ignoring the variety offered by the song at so many places, but then you try to force variety at other places where the song stays the same, and that seems to me like the wrong way to do it, because you are not following the song anymore with this. If you follow the song more closely, you will have much more variety at many places, while having your consistent patterning at the parts where the song is consistent too. i don't feel like this "insane" should have a "subjective" placement like you said, atleast im following the song, make this map can be playable and the quality is good for rank and im trying to make sure you understand about my map but you always complain about my placement choices when i don't see any strong reason for that one or some pict that i can be more understanding editor more since im creating this diff to make sure you're "interested" to this "weird" map (in your opinion) i guess, but it's not weird at all, this is just like forcing me to do your style, mapping is happy thing so enjoy the map

This doesn't only apply to the rhythms but also to your spacings - At my question "Why is 01:05:454 (1,2,3,4) spaced so low compared to 01:06:545 (4,5,6,1) - ?" you replied with "it's like put low distance then high distance structure on that part", I see that, but the question is still: Why do you do that? Nothing in the music indicates any increase or decrease of intensity, so why do you do that in your map? okay then, thanks for destroying my preference settings

Also, about your whole 'I map this with lower spacing to give the player a rest'-argument: Players don't need those rests when your map has somewhat consistent intensity following the consistent intensity of the music instead of having some big jumps followed by 'rest', no other maps do that and I have never heard a single player complain about needing rest or anything like that. Basically the extreme version of how you are mapping would hypothetically be the definition of a pp-map, mapping a few short, hard patterns to increase the difficulty and making the rest way too easy. If a song calls for continuous intensity, why not map it like that? A player that is comfortable at that level will not need a break, and a player who needs breaks is obviously not at that level yet, you don't care about lower player but whatever, you think they're nuts so you want put anti rest pattern and put high spacing everywhere, i put lower spacing because im gonna balance the gap between Hyper too, so this map like Hyper+ and Another- map, fixed some spacing



About that part with the stacking and spacing: In your response rn you started counting somewhere in the middle of that section, so let's start anew: 01:31:636 - This is the start of the first section, the first downbeat. 01:33:818 is the second downbeat and you spaced the circles there. 01:36:000 is the third downbeat and you spaced them again. 01:38:182 is the fourth downbeat and you stacked them. Then the section repeats again with the 'new' first downbeat at 01:40:364 where you spaced the circles, same for the second one at 01:42:545 and then at the third and the fourth, so 01:44:727 and 01:46:909 you stacked them. All in all the sequence is
this fucking professor of spacedstacks ._., fix part 1 as spaced, now you can see the pattern 3 and 4 is half parts so i can put 2 stacks to make sure im creating this 4 notes, if you still complaint about that i won't listen because im already explain this before
(I added the following two repeats of the section too bc you then started making it structured by always alternating between spaced and stacked, which is fine since it's some kind of structure, but I still can't see any at the first two sections)



And about this point: I obviously looked at the rest, and the earliest SV-change is at 00:54:545 -, what does that have to do with 00:52:364 being clickable or not? I don't see any relation here, that's why I asked you to explain it twice, but you just keep saying 'look at the SV-changes', that doesn't help me at all. you don't want help yourself i guess, since im saying this again and again i want to put rest because this is last pattern, probably this is 00:53:454 - a transitional pattern with SV changes, so i thikn it's OKAY, and yes since the 00:51:818 (4) - is reverse, you can still feel the downbeat in slidertail, if you still don't feel it please turn on hitsound, so the small break is your problem at all and im sure i dont have problem with thatso i hope you being tolerant with that
thanks, now this discussion is clear since im answering it all, if you still complain about my insane diff put your GD here, i'll wait for 3 days more for that if you can and gimme the prove my map is BAD QUALITY at all, since my map didnt have any SERIOUS problem this map is good to go (and yes i guess you make this ranking procedure more complex and more harder while there is just a small problem in beatmapping and you make it more big and bigger until i can't say anymore about that one), and once again, if you still DON'T agree with this, try to map this song yourself with your mapping preference and try to ninja'd my life. mapping is easy job, what makes it harder is the people's opinion about that maps (yeah if they can't enjoy the game), i tell you once again to enjoy the game and play the map, if you still don't feel comfortable please try again, that's a game precedure, you start then you explore then you know everything.

phaZ wrote:

on a short note, please remove "110bpm" from the tags. even though there is no online tag for bpm (i believe?) the proper way to filter beatmaps that way is by searching for "bpm=110" in-game
i think that tags helping people searching in forum listing too, so i won't change this one i guess
Zallies
i love reading <3
O-Moei
Mother of replies ! :V

yak, numpang support aja, semangat fort ! You're able to do this !
I'm here supporting, praying, and waiting for this XD/

PS : Mereka ga tau seni ente ngemap xd
LigerZero
Jadi pengen remodding tapi kondisi lagi sakit maxam".....

Modding >> ranked > dq > pending > ranked >dq >pending
lit120
ohh boy...
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah
NEVER GIVE UP RANK THIS!
Underforest
it's neccesary 110 bpm style in tags? xd
LGV894
00:28:364 (1) - Why Ctrl+G this? Who the fuk modded this?
00:38:182 (5) - Rotate 15 degrees counter-clockwise.
00:57:000 (2,2,3) - Straight line plez, it hurts my eyes bad.
00:59:318 (3) - Place it a bit further left. Or maybe place (2) a bit further right.
01:00:273 (3) - Make its distance distance of the (1)( 00:59:591 (1,1) - ) circles equal.
01:00:682 (1) - Place this on 00:59:591 (1) - but don't overlap exactly.
01:00:818 (2) - Bring this up higher (around 252, 38 or somewhere there.)
01:00:954 (3) - Place this at (129, 207.)
01:02:864 (1) - Place this lower or around (270, 350.)
01:03:000 (2) - Place at (277, 157) or somewhere near that area. (between (2) and (3.))
01:03:136 (3) - Place at (450, 50) or somewhere there. Maybe form a straight line with the other circles.
01:04:500 (2,4) - Ughhh nooooooo! Ctrl+G then fix, or remap... Just noooo!
01:09:409 (4,5) - Make symmetrical; 01:09:545 (5,6) - Ctrl+G then; 01:09:818 (1) - Ctrl+G
01:12:545 (1,2,3,4) - Perfect square, please.
01:19:091 (1,2,3,4) - Move to (162, 183) or somewhere there for better overlap.
01:22:091 (6,8) - I don't really know, but I like this better Ctrl+G.
01:26:182 (5) - Ctrl+G; 01:26:454 (6) - Ctrl+G then place at 372, 115 or smth, then fix next patterns, obviously.
01:27:954 (2,3) - Ctrl+G feels better, then fix (4)
01:30:818 (1,2,1) - I always fail to execute this well. I feel like something's wrong.
01:33:682 (2) - I'd better place this above (3)
01:37:909 (1) - Place this a bit lower than 01:38:454 (2)
01:55:500 (2) - I'd better place this on the next (2) slider then place the (1) slider lower.
02:09:273 (1,2,3,4) - Uh, why does it need to be a rectangle? Try enlarging the distance between (1-2) and (3-4) or remap.
02:10:364 (1,4) - Ctrl+G; 02:10:500 (2,3) - Ctrl+G; 02:10:909 (1) - Ctrl+G; then fix (4) and adjust next patterns.
02:11:454 (1,2,3,4) - Again? Try to Ctrl+G (3-4)
02:17:864 (2,3) - DS too short?
02:20:045 (2,1) - ^
02:21:273 (6,7,1) - Lower (6), place (7) above (6), ctrl+G (1) then fix next patterns.
02:27:273 (1,1,1,1) - It's not like placing it anywhere but the middle makes it more difficult, does it?
03:00:000 (6) - Ctrl+G
03:00:273 (7,9) - Ewwwwww wtf is this overlap?
03:13:091 (7) - Try to Ctrl+J this; 03:13:364 (8) - Place this at (185, 273) then; 03:13:500 (9) - Place this at (405,76) and try to polish everything.
03:15:954 (6) - Place at (390, 240); 03:16:091 (7) - Place at (115, 203); 03:16:227 (8) - Place at (280, 83) or smth. Needn't the upward motion of (7-8) be emphasized.
03:17:454 (3,4,5,6,1) - Why not try to make these pentagons?
03:21:273 (2,4) - Too close to each other.
03:25:091 (1) - Ctrl+G looks better. But fix next patterns.
03:31:636 (1,3) - It doesn't look good. Maybe try to Ctrl+> (3) then place it above (1)?
03:40:909 (2,3) - Ctrl+G; 03:41:045 (3,4) - Ctrl+G then fix next patterns.
03:42:136 (3,1) - Why not blanket? And try to Ctrl+G (1) but fix next patterns.
03:59:591 (4,5,6) - I liked the previous version better... :(
That's it.
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah

LGV894 wrote:

00:28:364 (1) - Why Ctrl+G this? Who the fuk modded this? me irl
00:38:182 (5) - Rotate 15 degrees counter-clockwise.
00:57:000 (2,2,3) - Straight line plez, it hurts my eyes bad.
00:59:318 (3) - Place it a bit further left. Or maybe place (2) a bit further right.
01:00:273 (3) - Make its distance distance of the (1)( 00:59:591 (1,1) - ) circles equal.
01:00:682 (1) - Place this on 00:59:591 (1) - but don't overlap exactly.
01:00:818 (2) - Bring this up higher (around 252, 38 or somewhere there.)
01:00:954 (3) - Place this at (129, 207.) looks awkward for 01:01:091 (1) -, so i move this slider and circle a bit
01:02:864 (1) - Place this lower or around (270, 350.)
01:03:000 (2) - Place at (277, 157) or somewhere near that area. (between (2) and (3.))
01:03:136 (3) - Place at (450, 50) or somewhere there. Maybe form a straight line with the other circles.
01:04:500 (2,4) - Ughhh nooooooo! Ctrl+G then fix, or remap... Just noooo! you don't like vertical zigzag? :o
01:09:409 (4,5) - Make symmetrical; 01:09:545 (5,6) - Ctrl+G then; 01:09:818 (1) - Ctrl+G if i ctrl+g the flow on 01:09:682 (6,1) - will be harsh and th consistency of 01:10:909 (1,2,3) - will be ruined
01:12:545 (1,2,3,4) - Perfect square, please. it's rectangle btw
01:19:091 (1,2,3,4) - Move to (162, 183) or somewhere there for better overlap.
01:22:091 (6,8) - I don't really know, but I like this better Ctrl+G. looks it will be weird visual for 01:21:273 (1,2,3,4) - i think
01:26:182 (5) - Ctrl+G; 01:26:454 (6) - Ctrl+G then place at 372, 115 or smth, then fix next patterns, obviously. ctrl+g 01:26:182 (5) ?? wait what? i think im already doing this pattern so well
01:27:954 (2,3) - Ctrl+G feels better, then fix (4)
01:30:818 (1,2,1) - I always fail to execute this well. I feel like something's wrong. feel it
01:33:682 (2) - I'd better place this above (3) i put something there, so it's okay if im doing this
01:37:909 (1) - Place this a bit lower than 01:38:454 (2) same thing
01:55:500 (2) - I'd better place this on the next (2) slider then place the (1) slider lower.
02:09:273 (1,2,3,4) - Uh, why does it need to be a rectangle? Try enlarging the distance between (1-2) and (3-4) or remap. because i made the same for 02:11:454 (1,2,3,4) -
02:10:364 (1,4) - Ctrl+G; 02:10:500 (2,3) - Ctrl+G; 02:10:909 (1) - Ctrl+G; then fix (4) and adjust next patterns. i like triangle on 02:10:636 (3,4,1) - :<
02:11:454 (1,2,3,4) - Again? Try to Ctrl+G (3-4) because zigzag too boring i didn't fix
02:17:864 (2,3) - DS too short?
02:20:045 (2,1) - ^ since i map that really consistant and well structured i think it can be alright
02:21:273 (6,7,1) - Lower (6), place (7) above (6), ctrl+G (1) then fix next patterns. the upper flow kinda weird than horzizontal flow i've made here :/
02:27:273 (1,1,1,1) - It's not like placing it anywhere but the middle makes it more difficult, does it? nah, that's kinda retarded statement when you can't read AR9.6
03:00:000 (6) - Ctrl+G eww anti flow there feelsbadman
03:00:273 (7,9) - Ewwwwww wtf is this overlap? oh man what is this 02:59:864 (5,7,9) - :^)
03:13:091 (7) - Try to Ctrl+J this; 03:13:364 (8) - Place this at (185, 273) then; 03:13:500 (9) - Place this at (405,76) and try to polish everything. 03:12:954 (6,7) - this flow has really good flow, why you want ctrl+J it when it's already good?, 03:13:364 (8,9,10) - this is triangle, i like triangle, and this 03:13:909 (11,12,1) - yeah you know how to emphasize this 03:14:045 (12,1) - with high distance
03:15:954 (6) - Place at (390, 240); 03:16:091 (7) - Place at (115, 203); 03:16:227 (8) - Place at (280, 83) or smth. Needn't the upward motion of (7-8) be emphasized. i think this overlap already good enough for that 03:15:954 (6,7) -
03:17:454 (3,4,5,6,1) - Why not try to make these pentagons? nah, i really like this
03:21:273 (2,4) - Too close to each other.
03:25:091 (1) - Ctrl+G looks better. But fix next patterns. i'd better do other fix
03:31:636 (1,3) - It doesn't look good. Maybe try to Ctrl+> (3) then place it above (1)?
03:40:909 (2,3) - Ctrl+G; 03:41:045 (3,4) - Ctrl+G then fix next patterns. lol no need
03:42:136 (3,1) - Why not blanket? And try to Ctrl+G (1) but fix next patterns. look at this 03:42:000 (2,3,4,5) -
03:59:591 (4,5,6) - I liked the previous version better... :(im just only CTRL+G 03:59:727 (5,6) - and people got mad and i ctrl+g this again people complain, wtf with this, so i don't want to fix this because im already comfortable with both because i can do aim well at both patterns
That's it. that's it
thanks for mod LGV, no replies/blue = fix
Grim Rapper
How many times this map get "broken-hearted" ?
QuillGill

Grim Rapper wrote:

How many times this map get "broken-hearted" ?
rip map's love life
sistasamurajen
I like this map a lot, why is it not ranked yet ??? :o
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah
because not yet
Spagett
Fort, great map. 2 thumbs up. It'll be ranked, I promise. You're a great jump mapper, It'd be a shame if you didn't keep trying. <3
Grim Rapper
Fort, next time you reply something in English, please re-considerate your reaction to other people
and remember that Indonesian community will always fort you in a lewd way support you


plus ajarin style map extra ente dong :v
Enon
Fort cheer up
Topic Starter
Ciyus Miapah

Grim Rapper wrote:

Fort, next time you reply something in English, please re-considerate your reaction to other people
and remember that Indonesian community will always fort you in a lewd way support you


plus ajarin style map extra ente dong :v
okie :3

style ane susah didapet sepertinya haha

Enon wrote:

Fort cheer up
im okay enon, everything will be fine :)
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply