community forum

STYLE FIVE - FUTURE FISH

posted
Total Posts
21
Topic Starter
Lumael
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
dsco
Easy
00:09:850 (3,1) - not perfectly horizontal from eachother, the right one is 3 units higher. not a major deal, obviously, but visually noticeable. (if you dont know how to fix, drag it with alt+ctrl and it will snap on each 45 degree increment)
00:15:371 (2) - goes well offscreen in 5:4 resolutions. probably unrankable.
00:18:316 (3,1) - this overlap is avoidable
00:46:292 (1,2,3) - awkward rhythm for an easy, maybe change?
01:23:470 (3,1) - like earlier

Normal
00:28:623 (1) - blanket is a little off
00:59:543 (1,2,3,1) - this part gets a little dense with objects / overlaps, maybe consider reshaping things a small bit
not really anything else i have to say, good diff :)

Hard
00:00:648 (1,2,3) - rhythm doesnt really fit and plays awkwardly, i'd recommend just using what you used on Free Style
00:06:905 (2,3,4) - the third slider makes this shape/flow slightly awkward. it also points to the end of 00:07:641 (4) which may confuse the player
00:10:034 (3) - rotate this -10 keeping placement; flows better into 00:10:402 (4) and is 2.0x snap.
00:20:893 (4,5,1) - flows poorly. lots of horizontal movement with big changes in jump size
00:30:832 (4,5) - could be shaped better
00:40:402 (1) - 00:44:267 (3,1) - 00:46:108 (5,1) - why not 1.8x? 1.6x seems small, and 1.8x is more consistent with the map
00:43:347 (1,2) - very misleading overlap, following the many 1/2 overlaps in the map. consider using the same rhythm as 00:37:457 (1,2)
00:48:868 (5,1) - ^
00:52:181 (1) - i think 2.9x is too large here. there are none or very few jumps that are even 2.5x in the map, this is maybe a bit too big.
00:56:230 (5,1) - jump feels weird. maybe too big for the direction that 00:56:230 (5) is pointing
00:59:543 (1) - move down into playfield a bit and snap to 2.0x? flows better, too.

Free Style
00:07:089 (3) - n
00:13:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - way too much stream overlap for a 4.2 star map, especially if the user doesn't have transparent 300s
00:16:660 (2,1,2) - all one direction but different sized jumps. plays poorly.
00:23:838 (3) - blanket slightly off
00:24:206 (1,2,3) - overlap with 2 different timings? consider changing. its a gamble in reading.
00:24:942 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,1) - if this wasnt perfectly 180 degrees i think it would be okay. maybe rotate 00:25:310 (1,2,3,4,1) only 120 degrees and make a triangle or something? difficult pattern
00:37:641 (2) - curve slightly left so it leads a little more into 00:37:825 (1) ?
00:39:206 (2) - starting this on a blue tick is massively confusing and disorienting. it works in monster cause its a 6 star map :lol:
00:45:095 (2) - ^
00:45:555 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - again, 180 degrees might be a little overkill
00:46:844 (1,2,3) - not sure if these are supposed to be on a single line but i think it might be prettier if they were
01:14:267 (1) - dangerously off playfield. its hard to even select without using timeline or select box. as well, i would put a larger jump here since the chorus just ended and its high energy

quality mapset! good luck in ranking :)
(I don't know if its against the rules but I would discourage copying the beginning section and flipping for the ending section.)
MkGuh
22:34 *MkGuh is editing [https://osu.ppy.sh/b/882590 STYLE FIVE - FUTURE FISH [FREE STYLE]]
22:34 MkGuh: 00:03:224 (3) - add clap risos
22:34 MkGuh: 00:05:065 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - flow it's very weird here, change for something like, jump of two notes
22:34 MkGuh: idk
22:34 MkGuh: D:
22:34 Lumael: socorro
22:34 Lumael: kkkkkkkk
22:34 MkGuh: something like that
22:34 MkGuh: http://puu.sh/mAUvd/0ede659713.jpg
22:35 MkGuh: 00:13:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - this stream sucks a lot
22:35 Lumael: oki
22:35 MkGuh: http://puu.sh/mAUwW/51ad0be646.jpg
22:35 Lumael: aaah i like it :3
22:35 MkGuh: try somethign like that
22:35 Lumael: scrr
22:35 Lumael: ok
22:37 MkGuh: ADORO
22:37 MkGuh: 00:39:666 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - overmaped o3o
22:37 Lumael: como asim
22:37 Lumael: miga
22:38 MkGuh: KKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
22:38 Lumael: oki
22:38 Lumael: lololol
22:38 MkGuh: VC DISSE PRA FAZER
22:38 MkGuh: MOD
22:38 MkGuh: EU TO FAZENDO
22:38 Lumael: TUDO BEM
22:38 MkGuh: 00:57:519 (3) - a reverse tá escondida uiuiuiuiuiuiuiui
22:39 Lumael: ui tá protegendo o rego
22:39 Lumael: nao pode?
22:39 Lumael: tem que deixar o cu pra fora?
22:39 Lumael: q
22:39 Lumael: oki
22:39 MkGuh: adorei o mapa
22:39 MkGuh: arrasou
Spiraler
From my queue

00:07:089 (3) - I don't like that it overlaps with the track of the previous slider
00:13:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - the way this stream overlaps itself doesn't look very good with the accelerate in the middle
00:23:838 (3) - would probably blanket better if you exaggerate the curve less
00:26:230 (1) - I would advise against putting a note where there was just a stream
00:39:666 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - move this whole stream down, it plays weird to move like that
00:45:555 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - same issue, though move it to the right
01:04:144 (2) - this might play better if you even the spacing before and after this circle
01:08:378 (1,2,3,4) - 1 and 3 are next to each other, but 2 and 4 go to the same location, I would make 4 go as far to the right of 2 as 3 does of 1
01:20:709 (3) - same as 00:07:089 (3)
00:07:641 (4) - I would move this over to the right to see the next slider better
00:24:206 (1,2,3,4) - given that this is hard and therefore has a low AR it may be confusing to read
00:31:568 (1,2) - you had a space here rather than stacking last time this with this same pattern at 00:25:678 (1,2)
00:40:218 (5) - I would probably even the spacing before and after this
00:51:997 (2,1) - very long jump for a hard
01:21:261 (4) - I would move this over to the left to see the next slider better
01:24:022 (4) - this might be hard to read
00:19:421 (2) - I would probably curve more towards the next note in Easy/Normal
00:21:261 (1) - ^
00:35:801 (1) - ^
01:09:850 (1) - ^
01:11:322 (1) - ^
00:15:371 (2) - Maybe move this a tiny bit farther away and exaggerate the curve less to blanket better
00:44:635 (3) - this overlap looks weird
01:08:378 (3) - ^

Very good maps!
Janpai
From our modding queue

Hi senpai :D
General

  1. Why diff names are in uppercase letters?
  2. Lumael is great
  3. Lumael is great
EASY

  1. 00:12:427 (3,1) - The (1) is kinda bit overlapping on the previous slider maybe move down the (1)
  2. Overall, it looks nice
NORMAL

  1. 00:21:813 (2) - Maybe make this a straight slider?
  2. It looks great *O*
HARD

  1. 00:22:549 (4) - maybe try to place this circle on the middle of the two sliders for equal spacing here
  2. Amazing map T^T
FREE STYLE

  1. 00:05:433 (1,2) - Why NC here?
  2. 00:12:059 (1,2) - ^
  3. 00:15:924 (1,2,1,2) - Here also i can't get what your emphasizing here
Sorry if my mod is too poor/short, your too great imo ^^ Goodluck :D
FCL
m4m from your queue
  • [Insane]
  1. 00:05:433 (1) - thb i can't find reason for nc here. Yea, spacing is fine, but why u use nc?
  2. 00:20:893 (3) - same things, idk vocal is really strong on beats like this, but i'm not sure that nc needs
  3. 00:40:586 (2,2) - meh, this blanket. Fix it
  4. 00:10:034 (3,1,2,1) - don't like things as this since it's looks a bit confusing in maps with ar<9. although here it is not so bad)
  5. 00:19:236 (4) - okay, if i right understand your style then you should put NC here because music have 3 strong claps here
  6. 00:23:470 (1,3) - yay blanket pls
  7. 00:37:641 (2) - hmm, it's fine for playing but i think 3pl will look better for rhythm
  8. 00:43:531 (2) - same
  9. 00:48:868 (1) - not sure that decrease of SV needs here since vocal wasn't have any changes. good reception, but not here :)
  10. 01:25:862 (1) - maybe make polarity with 01:24:942 (3) - to avoid overlap?
  11. Also your diff have too much sliders on red ticks, but i don't see any problems here, it's fine and fun for play
  • [Hard]
  1. 00:16:844 (1) - this spacing is bad. Seriously, i think you know that it's not okay. More distance pls (453 372 for example)
  2. 00:25:678 (1) - same
  3. 00:43:347 (1,2) - it's too close with 00:42:979 (4) - and 00:42:427 (3) - imo. If you want to keep overlap with (4) i can suggest you move it to 204 168
  4. 01:24:022 (4) - fix stack
  5. Yea, check 1/1 spacing, probably i missed things like this
  • [Normal]
  1. 00:20:341 - you should to map this tick, vocal here is really strong
  2. 00:26:967 (4,1) - touched accuracy of the scale. Unrankabled i guess. Also i don't like your rhythm here. At 00:27:151 (1) - song wasn't have strong beats, though at 00:27:335 there is vocal. Why not add circle at 00:27:335, probably you could be stack it with 00:27:519 (2) -
  3. 00:33:040 (1) - same
  4. 00:53:286 (3) - no pls, 1/1 slider at 00:53:101 looks great for rhythm, try pls
  • [Easy]
  1. 00:19:789 (1) - 2/1 reverse slider looks bad for rhythm imo, This will be better http://puu.sh/mBoiI/0e21c272ec.jpg
  2. 00:35:801 (3) - probably this slider will confusing for beginners. On downbeat will looks okay
  3. 01:23:102 (2) - This position means that you will do blanket with (1), but it's not right. Move it to 505 116,
  4. 01:26:782 (1) - Spinner is too short for Easy diff, probably it's unraked too

Good luck man
Avishay
Hi.

[MAKE DREAMS COME TRUE]
  1. 00:15:371 (1,2) - This spacing doesn't really make sense when the clap is on 00:15:555 (2) -'s end
  2. 00:24:206 (1,2) - Isn't that super misleading with the spacing? 00:23:838 (3,1) - which is 1/2 compared to the current 1/1 is egh.. pretty drastic.
  3. 00:41:874 (1,2,3) - I don't raelly like this linear movement, especially when 00:41:874 (1,2) - 00:42:243 (3,4) - are like pairs of vocals.
  4. 00:46:292 (1,2,1,2) - This feels kinda forced, 00:40:402 (1,2,1,2) - this is much nicer.
  5. 00:48:868 (1,1) - This is nice, however - this is really unexpected, especially because of the big spacing between 00:48:684 (2,1) -, there's no build up for that, and I think the SV change is a bit too big, 0.65~0.75 should do justice. Oh, and you might want to mute the slider end.
  6. 01:10:402 (4,5,6,7) - This is a bit too forced, it doensn't go along with the vocals, nor the beats and hitsounds, I wouldn't force the pattern on the music here.
  7. 01:15:740 (1) - Is this super short kiai really necessary? I don't really understand why :\


[Hard]
  1. 00:18:316 (1,2,3,4,5) - The rhythm here is the same as 00:15:371 (1,2,3,4) - yet the patterns are so different? I thought you adore consistency but this is not really consistent :P
  2. 00:20:157 (2,3) - I am not really sure why did you stack those, those vocals are not similar, regular spacing would be cool.
  3. 00:21:077 (5,1) - Feels unnecessary and looks kinda weird (spacing).
  4. 00:25:678 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Egh.. What's up with the incosistencies of the vocals? Not stacked -> Stacked -> Not Stacked
  5. 00:31:568 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - And then this?.. Stacked x 2 -> Not Stacked
  6. 00:36:721 (3,4) - There are no 1/4s here.. and if you still want to keep those, at least be consistent and use them at 00:42:611 too
  7. 00:53:654 (1,2) - Stack dosen't go along with the vocals
  8. 00:54:758 (5,6) - Compared to ^, this is great.
  9. 00:59:175 (5,6) - That's kinda unnecessary as well.
  10. 01:10:218 (2,3) - That's great.


[Normal]
  1. 00:26:414 (3,4,1) - I'll appreciate a slightly different rhythm to follow the vocals slightly better, http://puu.sh/mBtO7/2de5f9e7dd.jpg
  2. 00:30:095 (1,2) - Why did you shift the pattern when the rhythm is the same as 00:28:623 (1,2) - ?
  3. 00:32:304 (3,4,1) - Like before, I suggest changing the pattern.



Struct is clear and well, good luck!
pies
I went here for M4M, but your queue is closed. I do random mod instead.

00:06:169 (3,1) - The flow is strange for me. You can curve (1), or move (3) further to the top left corne. You can also try to put (3) on the (1)'s start.
00:24:758 (3) - I dont like this stream tbh. I would love to change this slider to circles (and move it ofcourse).
In this section 00:25:678 (1,2) - its better to put sliders first. Example: http://prntscr.com/9s2fae
00:37:641 (2,1) - Change (2) to circles, and stack it with (1)'s start
00:39:206 (2) - I think it's better choice to change this slider to simple 1/2 slider. Like this: http://prntscr.com/9s2i9b
00:43:531 (2,1) - Do something like I said 2 lines above. Two circles and a slider.
00:45:095 (2) - Same as 2 lines above.
01:19:973 (1) - Same as in first line.
00:26:967 (4,1) - I dont like these circles. I feel like another slider will be better.
00:32:856 (4,1) - Same.
00:34:513 (1) - Same.
00:35:801 (3) - Maybe something like this: http://prntscr.com/9s2nx1
00:46:292 (1) - Make 1/1 slider and then something like this maybe: http://prntscr.com/9s2osy

Good luck :)
Topic Starter
Lumael
Thank you guys for mods, I did fix some stuff.

@FCL - you use the word "unrankeable" too easily xD none of that is unrankeable lol.

@Avishay - rhythm consistency is useless, I just map what I feel is good, there are towsands of ways to map certain beat, and if both are good, why sticking myself with only one rhythm?
Avishay

Lumael wrote:

Thank you guys for mods, I did fix some stuff.

@FCL - you use the word "unrankeable" too easily xD none of that is unrankeable lol.

@Avishay - rhythm consistency is useless, I just map what I feel is good, there are towsands of ways to map certain beat, and if both are good, why sticking myself with only one rhythm?
I agree, but sometimes it just feels weird and wrong, and by the QAT standards consistency is a must lol.
Topic Starter
Lumael

Avishay wrote:

Lumael wrote:

Thank you guys for mods, I did fix some stuff.

@FCL - you use the word "unrankeable" too easily xD none of that is unrankeable lol.

@Avishay - rhythm consistency is useless, I just map what I feel is good, there are towsands of ways to map certain beat, and if both are good, why sticking myself with only one rhythm?
I agree, but sometimes it just feels weird and wrong, and by the QAT standards consistency is a must lol.
I hope they don't do that this time, because my last 3 ranked maps I couldn't have cared less for consistency lol
Frost
NM from my queue~

General


00:02:120 - 00:13:899 - Do you need a kiai here? It's the same as the part after the kiai and that doesn't have a kiai...
01:15:740 - Same with this part, does that really need to be kiai?

HARD


00:00:648 (1,2,3) - This seems awkward to me, repeating sliders don't really fit the vocals imo. I prefer what you did with the insane diff.
00:04:144 (3,4,5) - Blanket this?
01:17:764 (3,4,5) - ^ Same since it's copy pasted...
00:09:666 (2,4) - This is a bit too confusing imo, would be easy to get lost on in a hard diff.
01:23:286 (2,4) - ^ Same as the one at the start.
00:50:709 (1,2,3) - Maybe space these more?
00:51:445 (1,2) - Same complaint as the start, repeating sliders feel weird here. 2 notes + 1 slider or 2 sliders feels better imo.
00:24:206 (1,2,3,4) - Space more?

FREE STYLE


Fun! :D
00:08:378 (2) - Move the start of this slightly to blanket 00:08:930 (2,2) .
01:21:998 (2) - ^.
00:15:187 (4) - Move this to the left slightly to form a perfect triangle around 00:14:083 (2,2,1) ?
00:18:132 (2,2) - ^ Same but move up slightly?
00:23:470 (1,3) - Slider is curved too much to blanket.
00:46:476 (2,1,2,3) - Blankets are slightly off, but it isn't too noticeable...
00:51:445 (1,2,1,2) - This pattern is really awkward to play imo. A square or star with 00:52:181 (1) or anything really would be nice here.
01:00:463 (2) - Move up slightly to form a better triangle.

Good luck getting this ranked, I really like it!~
Topic Starter
Lumael
Thank you for mod ;)
KASUM1
not sure about the gap between normal and hard
nvm >w<
Silky
quick mod, my english is bad as usual lolz

unrakable
can be DQ reason imo (semi-unrankable)
highly recommended
just my opinion

General
  1. audio read-in +500~1000, atleast+300 pls


Easy
  1. 00:46:292 (1,2) - I think you should prioritize drum than vocal at there... this rhythm weird for me, could you try this?
  2. 01:25:862 (2) - umm... I think 1/1+circle is better


Normal
  1. 00:21:813 (2,3) - circle then slider? there vocal is a bit strong, and you used 1/1 rhythm in 00:19:789 (1,2) - , I think you should use 1/1 rhythm at there if you used 1/1 rhythm in 00:19:789 (1,2) -
  2. why didn't use 1/1 rhythm just like 00:52:549 (2,3) - 00:55:126 (1,2) - 01:03:960 (1,2) - ? i don't think these have different in sound
  3. 01:17:396 - add finish?


Hard
  1. 00:00:748 - snap to 00:00:648 -
  2. 00:19:052 (4,5) - following vocal is better, so try use slider then circle
  3. 00:29:175 (2) - that slider is really weird for me... try use slider then circle(same reason as above)
  4. 00:56:046 - this strong vocal sound should make clickable imo, you could use rhythm just like 00:52:549 (2,3,4,5) -
  5. 01:07:825 - ^
  6. 01:17:396 - same as Normal, add finish?
  7. 01:26:599 (3) - add NC? for consistency with Normal


Insane
  1. I think this much NCs might called 'NC spam' by some BNs(or QATs), keep that in mind pls. I don't think so though lol
  2. 00:22:365 - this strong vocal sound should make clickable imo
  3. 00:24:942 (4) - add NC? for consistency with 00:45:555 (1) -
  4. 01:17:396 - same as normal


GL

edit: I need your reply if you can it
for my future modding xd
Topic Starter
Lumael

fuyuyu- wrote:

quick mod, my english is bad as usual lolz

unrakable
can be DQ reason imo (semi-unrankable)
highly recommended
just my opinion

General
  1. audio read-in +500~1000, atleast+300 pls Audio LeadIn is no longer necessary since we shouldn't edit anything outside the editor


Easy
  1. 00:46:292 (1,2) - I think you should prioritize drum than vocal at there... this rhythm weird for me, could you try this? I've been focusing on vocals pretty much all over the map, that's why I wanted to keep doing that even here. And besides, this rhythm is not confusing at all, since the gap between the notes are all 1/1.
  2. 01:25:862 (2) - umm... I think 1/1+circle is better Yeah, it sounds better.


Normal
  1. 00:21:813 (2,3) - circle then slider? there vocal is a bit strong, and you used 1/1 rhythm in 00:19:789 (1,2) - , I think you should use 1/1 rhythm at there if you used 1/1 rhythm in 00:19:789 (1,2) - I get your point but 00:21:261 (1,2,3) - this pattern and simillars are focusing on the drums rather than vocals.
  2. why didn't use 1/1 rhythm just like 00:52:549 (2,3) - 00:55:126 (1,2) - 01:03:960 (1,2) - ? i don't think these have different in sound Not really sure what I should compare this rhythm with... but if you mean with the last suggestion, yet they are different, really xD
  3. 01:17:396 - add finish? But there's already finish here xD


Hard
  1. 00:00:748 - snap to 00:00:648 - Did it
  2. 00:19:052 (4,5) - following vocal is better, so try use slider then circle Vocals are clearly ending here 00:19:052 (4) - and there's no pointing in extending the slider to cover the fade out if there's actually drums which I can cover next to it.
  3. 00:29:175 (2) - that slider is really weird for me... try use slider then circle(same reason as above) But in what sense? Rhythm or asthetics? Because for me both are really nice, I'm following lyrics if you're wondering.
  4. 00:56:046 - this strong vocal sound should make clickable imo, you could use rhythm just like 00:52:549 (2,3,4,5) - You're right, did it
  5. 01:07:825 - ^ Did so as well
  6. 01:17:396 - same as Normal, add finish? Actually I don't think this is the same note you mentioned on normal, plus I can't hear any cymbals to add finish here, this pattern is a copypaste from the first part of the song, which doesn't has any finishes as well.
  7. 01:26:599 (3) - add NC? for consistency with Normal Okay


Insane
  1. I think this much NCs might called 'NC spam' by some BNs(or QATs), keep that in mind pls. I don't think so though lol I will wait on a proper reply from a BN or QAT maybe, I still think they're necessary
  2. 00:22:365 - this strong vocal sound should make clickable imo I kinda get your point, but I can't do much without ruining the full geometry here :/
  3. 00:24:942 (4) - add NC? for consistency with 00:45:555 (1) - Yep
  4. 01:17:396 - same as normal Same explained :3


GL

edit: I need your reply if you can it
for my future modding xd
Thank you for mod!
Yoges
[General]
  1. Looks good
[Easy]
  1. 00:04:328 (4,1) - These don't look good because they're really really really close to touching. An easy fix would be just to rotate 00:04:328 (4) - 7 degrees anticlockwise and move it to (328,82). Like wise after that just duplicate it to replace the 00:05:065 (1) - ctrl+g and ctrl+h then move to (223,5)
  2. 00:12:427 (3,1) - Again, notes touching don't look good. Just space it some more and adjust the notes around it.
  3. 00:41:874 (3) - Rotate or bend the top of this a little so that it lines up more with the 2 after it?
  4. 00:49:236 (1) - Ctrl+G that. It'd play much smoother.
  5. 01:09:850 (1,3) - This is an easy mate. It wouldn't even attempt something like this on normals.
  6. 01:15:740 - Stop copy-pasting sections >:( it's not a good habit
[Normal]
  1. 00:30:095 (1,2,3) - The 1 makes the player focus on the 1/1 vocals and anticipate them but then the 2 comes up on a half. I'd just delete the 3 and move the 2 to 00:30:832 - It'd play much smoother and would be less likely to throw the player off.


other then that this diff seems good.
[Hard]
Nothing I can find here.
[Free style]
  1. Freestyle* is one word. So get rid of the space in the diff name.
Topic Starter
Lumael

Yoges wrote:

[General]
  1. Looks good
[Easy]
  1. 00:04:328 (4,1) - These don't look good because they're really really really close to touching. An easy fix would be just to rotate 00:04:328 (4) - 7 degrees anticlockwise and move it to (328,82). Like wise after that just duplicate it to replace the 00:05:065 (1) - ctrl+g and ctrl+h then move to (223,5) I did something else, but I fixed this.
  2. 00:12:427 (3,1) - Again, notes touching don't look good. Just space it some more and adjust the notes around it. Fixed
  3. 00:41:874 (3) - Rotate or bend the top of this a little so that it lines up more with the 2 after it? Moved instead so I could make it a proper line.
  4. 00:49:236 (1) - Ctrl+G that. It'd play much smoother. Did it although it's not much of my style.
  5. 01:09:850 (1,3) - This is an easy mate. It wouldn't even attempt something like this on normals. Well, I do see worse things in easies actually, so I will keep for now
  6. 01:15:740 - Stop copy-pasting sections >:( it's not a good habit ;w;
[Normal]
  1. 00:30:095 (1,2,3) - The 1 makes the player focus on the 1/1 vocals and anticipate them but then the 2 comes up on a half. I'd just delete the 3 and move the 2 to 00:30:832 - It'd play much smoother and would be less likely to throw the player off. 00:30:647 (2,3) - Control Ged instead, I still want to get that sound on the red tick.


other then that this diff seems good.
[Hard]
Nothing I can find here.
[Free style]
  1. Freestyle* is one word. So get rid of the space in the diff name. Fixed
Thank you!
Kagetsu
hi... m4m thing (my mapset)

[General]
  1. looks cool
  2. is there a reason to have all diff names in capital letters?


[FREESTYLE]
  1. 00:06:905 (2) - uhm... i don't really like this overlap, but is personal opinion though... maybe something like this would look better?

  2. this may confuse the player because because you're suddenly changing the pattern... i know this was done un purpose to emphazising voice but i would recommend to use another pattern to do that. consider ctrl+g 00:10:586 (2) - or make another pattern for that
  3. 00:12:059 (1) - why nc here? i don't really see a reason to do this... maybe delete this NC?
  4. 00:13:531 (1) - same ^
  5. 00:32:120 (1,1) - same ^ song is literally saying "let me" in that part, so would be nice to have all "let me" in the same combo lol
  6. 00:39:206 (2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - i feel like this doesn't really fit the music... it's a little overmapped imo
  7. 00:41:874 (1,2,3) - this is too lineal... you could even try some jumps here, because vocals are calling for it... maybe try something like this?
  8. 00:48:132 (1,1) - are those NC really necessary? consider removing it
  9. 00:51:813 (1) - ^
  10. 00:52:917 (1,1) - ^
  11. 01:04:697 (1,1) - ^
  12. 01:18:685 (1,1) - ^
  13. 01:26:230 - missing stream here?


[HARD]
  1. 00:00:648 - would be cool to have the same rhythm that you used in insane here... current rhythm doesn't really fits the music
  2. 00:33:592 (3) - consider extending this to 00:33:960 - because you were following the voice... this would fit better imo
  3. 00:37:825 (2) - use same shape that 00:38:746 (1) - has maybe? will make it more arranged
  4. 01:26:047 (1,2,1) - thys rhythm is weird... look what you did in insane... it was way more easy, also, some 1/4 notes would fit nice from 01:26:230 - to here 01:26:599 (1) -


[NORMAL]
  1. 00:12:243 (3) - maybe delete this... i feel like the rhythm in that part doesn't fit well
  2. 00:55:494 - would be nice if this were clickable... consider it, because it's an important beat
  3. overall... nice diff. couldn't find much more (also i'm a noob modder lol)


[EASY]
  1. 01:09:850 (1,3) - this may confuse a new player... consider to remove stacking on 01:09:850 (1) - head


that's pretty much all... overall it's a pretty good mapset, just check those NC in insane diff because i think it has too many spam of it
Good luck!
Topic Starter
Lumael

Kagetsu wrote:

hi... m4m thing (my mapset)

[General]
  1. looks cool
  2. is there a reason to have all diff names in capital letters? Because of meatadata


[FREESTYLE]
  1. 00:06:905 (2) - uhm... i don't really like this overlap, but is personal opinion though... maybe something like this would look better? For me this overlap looks really beautiful, sorry

  2. this may confuse the player because because you're suddenly changing the pattern... i know this was done un purpose to emphazising voice but i would recommend to use another pattern to do that. consider ctrl+g 00:10:586 (2) - or make another pattern for that 00:10:402 (1,2) - This is not confusing at all, the song has pretty low bpm which makes it easy to read, moreover i want to emphasize the vocals, so the change is really necessary in order to give the emphasis I Wanted here.
  3. 00:12:059 (1) - why nc here? i don't really see a reason to do this... maybe delete this NC?
  4. 00:13:531 (1) - same ^
  5. 00:32:120 (1,1) - same ^ song is literally saying "let me" in that part, so would be nice to have all "let me" in the same combo lol

    Basically 1,2 jumping pattern, better for reading imo, looks less messy
  6. 00:39:206 (2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - i feel like this doesn't really fit the music... it's a little overmapped imo The song clearly provides a snare in each snap to justify the stream
  7. 00:41:874 (1,2,3) - this is too lineal... you could even try some jumps here, because vocals are calling for it... maybe try something like this? It was meant to be linear like this, it's kind of my style if you've noticed :p
  8. 00:48:132 (1,1) - are those NC really necessary? consider removing it
  9. 00:51:813 (1) - ^
  10. 00:52:917 (1,1) - ^
  11. 01:04:697 (1,1) - ^
  12. 01:18:685 (1,1) - ^

    Same explanation of above
  13. 01:26:230 - missing stream here? Yeah lol, added.


[HARD]
  1. 00:00:648 - would be cool to have the same rhythm that you used in insane here... current rhythm doesn't really fits the music imo the current rhythm fits just as well as the insane's
  2. 00:33:592 (3) - consider extending this to 00:33:960 - because you were following the voice... this would fit better imo There's a sound at 00:33:776 - and I really don't feel like skipping it
  3. 00:37:825 (2) - use same shape that 00:38:746 (1) - has maybe? will make it more arranged Current looks like to me
  4. 01:26:047 (1,2,1) - thys rhythm is weird... look what you did in insane... it was way more easy, also, some 1/4 notes would fit nice from 01:26:230 - to here 01:26:599 (1) - Did the same that the insane used to be


[NORMAL]
  1. 00:12:243 (3) - maybe delete this... i feel like the rhythm in that part doesn't fit well I do want to cover the drums there
  2. 00:55:494 - would be nice if this were clickable... consider it, because it's an important beat I see what you mean and I understand your reasons, but there's no way I could do that without messing up with the whole pattern :/
  3. overall... nice diff. couldn't find much more (also i'm a noob modder lol)


[EASY]
  1. 01:09:850 (1,3) - this may confuse a new player... consider to remove stacking on 01:09:850 (1) - head I might change that... you're teh second to complain, I still think it's pretty ok though. The bpm is quite low and it's just overlapped for some ms when you play


that's pretty much all... overall it's a pretty good mapset, just check those NC in insane diff because i think it has too many spam of it
Good luck!
Thank you for mod!
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply