Sandwich-dono wrote:

This is my first mod and this map is way too hard for me but i´ll try my best

03:28:448 (2) - This circle is kind of confusing and not visible enough imo perfectly readable still
02:03:103 (2) - I think instead of the circles with this sound, a maybe slow slider would fit better I like it this way more
05:03:965 (3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - The start of the stream looks a bit weird and covers the rest of the stream ye Raikozen adjusted this part
05:23:103 (2) - I would place this circle more in the middle between the previos slider and the next stream nah, I want to keep beat emphasis consistant
05:26:810 (10) - I feel like there should be another circle putting more pressure on downbeat here

That´s it, i know it´s very short , but I really like your Beatmap

EDIT: I don´t know why but i´m able to play it know

Milan- wrote:

-00:21:206 (1,2,3,4,7,8) - could be less spacing just like 00:20:689 (1,2,3,4,5) - so the drums from 00:22:068 (1) - feel stronger cuz the spacing change they all had increasingly more spacing, but in a kinda bad ratio. yes fixed
-00:28:448 (4,5,6,1,2) - not a fan of this designing..feels kinda weird cuz how lineal u go when drums arent lineal. stuff like http://puu.sh/oagU8/bdd1ba8b91.jpg may work dunno yes but 6 and 1 had even strenght = even spacing, changed anyway cuz you weren't alone to complain of this
-01:05:172 (3) - dunno why but felt more comfortable to play around 0/208 xd maybe cuz there's too much circular flow that breaking it would be cool well I want to keep consistency spacing wise here 01:05:172 (3,4,8,9,4,5) - and 01:05:689 (7,8) - already breaks the flow enough imo
-01:51:206 (3,4,5) - there's too much going on here but you decide to ignore them and map some weird almost inaudible sounds here 01:51:724 (1,2) - ;; dunno, I mapped what seemed strongest and most noticable to me
-03:53:793 (1,2) - for such slowpace section you'd expect to not click at all xd using reverse would be ok here yes
-04:01:206 (1,2) - and for similar reason you would expect these to be closer, way closer.. it's kinda strong, moved bit closer
-04:05:517 (4) - trying to slow down a slider using that kind of red nodes isnt a good thing at all. if you want to slow it down just use slower sv lul well that wasn't really my intention, I wanted to map the chops in the voice, guess it doesn't work xd
-05:11:379 (6,7) - 05:12:413 (1,2) - less spacing would be more real with the map itself. u use this spacing for the 1/2 snare spam part but here isnt needed at all ok I'll ask him to fix done
-04:16:206 - this part is just too overspaced ;; there's nothing happening but you use the same spacing u use in kiais. weird MY ART

hard u no u

1. 03:33:793 (1,2) - spacing like this sometimes feels so short and a bit uncomfortable to play, adding more spacing can improve the playability, IMO (there are other similars).
2. 03:39:482 (2) - I think adding NC will work really nice and maybe will improve the readability, you did something similar at 05:18:793 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -
3. 03:39:827 (4) - same as above
4. 03:40:172 (6) - ^
5. 04:09:654 - why you didn't continue mapping the melody? is fine to ignore it, but super inconsistent, since you mapped 04:08:965 (1,1) - after the player click them and found the empty place with a similar sound all they get is a weird feeling
6. 05:12:413 (1,2,3) - jumps is really overdone, 2 isn't a super strong beat or a big change in the music to have such jump, it feels overdone and really random compared to the rest of the spacing in this section
7. 02:57:672 - 02:57:758 - 02:57:844 - why ignoring these beats? kinda don't make sense for me and the pause that you create by ignoring them feels really awkward
8. I like this map alot, it have alot or really cool patterns and ideas, the only reason I have to not bubble this are super overdone jumps at alot of places, such as 02:20:862 (1,2) - 02:17:758 (3,1) - 02:18:966 (3,4) - 02:29:827 (2,1) - etc, is true that slider are lenient, but I think you are going too far with the jumps, anyway best of luck with this, I'm sure you can find a BN who agree with them

Natsu wrote:

yo, mini mod

Cloud

1. 03:33:793 (1,2) - spacing like this sometimes feels so short and a bit uncomfortable to play, adding more spacing can improve the playability, IMO (there are other similars). I think those are fine tbh, it's only bothersome if you follow slider too fast xd
2. 03:39:482 (2) - I think adding NC will work really nice and maybe will improve the readability, you did something similar at 05:18:793 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -
3. 03:39:827 (4) - same as above
4. 03:40:172 (6) - ^ fixed these
5. 04:09:654 - why you didn't continue mapping the melody? is fine to ignore it, but super inconsistent, since you mapped 04:08:965 (1,1) - after the player click them and found the empty place with a similar sound all they get is a weird feeling because it's echo, I didn't really feel like they are important, it emphasises the sounds I have mapped better
6. 05:12:413 (1,2,3) - jumps is really overdone, 2 isn't a super strong beat or a big change in the music to have such jump, it feels overdone and really random compared to the rest of the spacing in this section
7. 02:57:672 - 02:57:758 - 02:57:844 - why ignoring these beats? kinda don't make sense for me and the pause that you create by ignoring them feels really awkward
8. I like this map alot, it have alot or really cool patterns and ideas, the only reason I have to not bubble this are super overdone jumps at alot of places, such as 02:20:862 (1,2) - 02:17:758 (3,1) - 02:18:966 (3,4) - 02:29:827 (2,1) - etc, is true that slider are lenient, but I think you are going too far with the jumps, anyway best of luck with this, I'm sure you can find a BN who agree with them

1. 00:23:448 (1) - 10% more volume would work better for this line
2. 00:44:999 (3,1,1) - why the jump 00:44:999 (3,1) - is bigger than 00:45:172 (1,1) - , being 00:45:517 (1) - stronger than 00:45:172 (1) - ?
3. 01:01:551 (7,9) - not stacked on purpose, I suppose
4. 01:02:931 (6,7,8) - the jump 6 to 7 make sense, since 7 is strong, but 7 to 8 not much, 8 is weaker than 7 so should have less spacing.
5. 01:04:310 (5,6) - I feel the flow really uncomfortable here, so I asked some good players for feedback, they play it properly, but most of them told me that the cursor movement was forced, maybe you can do something else here?
6. 01:18:275 (6,7) - ctrl g to keep your pattern >: adjust 7 after, but I really think is better for visual and for the flow that you already developed with 01:16:379 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) -
7. 01:27:931 (6,1) - yeah this one feels really overdone and the mayorite of players that I asked to play this break combo here, or got alot of 100s in the next stream.
8. 02:16:551 (1) - less volume at the slider tail pls
9. 02:17:758 (3,1) - this jump could also be reduced a bit
10. 02:31:896 (2,3) - This one too, is really overdone
11. 02:30:517 (2) - sound isn't special or loud, just use less spacing here.
12. 02:31:379 (1,2) - this one is cool, 02:31:896 (2,3) - this one not much, could you recuce the spacing at the second one?
13. 02:36:551 (1,2) - yeah I believe less spacing will be more comfortable to play, the slider to slider ones are fine
14. 02:38:793 (1) - no hitsound?
15. 02:39:310 (1,1) - super weird flow, can you do something more natural to play? idk previous and next ones have better flow, so I'm sure you can do this better.
16. 02:40:000 (1,1) - if this is supposed to be a blanket still can be improved
17. 02:47:241 (1,1) - ^
18. 02:49:137 (1) - 02:49:913 (1) - unnecesary NC
19. 02:56:551 (1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) - Why the NC spam? there are no sv changes or anything special o.o.
20. 03:16:896 (9,10) - there are more similar as this one that i believe are too much, i asked a few opinions as well and they mostly agree with this, anyways is up to you, since is your map after all.
21. 04:10:344 (1) - shouldn't this end in the white tick instead? if not then is super weird, even if you following vocals, is this is on purpose then add more spacing between 04:10:344 (1,2) -
22. 04:16:206 (1,2,3,4,5) - a bit more volume could be nice
23. 04:21:724 (1,2,3,4,5) - ^
24. 04:46:724 (1,2,3) - this spacing is so weird 1 and 2 is a kind of antijump and 2 and 3 a jump, using equal spacing will be better or atleast increasing 1 and 2
25. from 04:59:310 (1) - to 05:15:776 (8) - could you up the volume, some hitsounds are hard to hear
26. 05:18:793 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - yeah this is way too overdone, atleast in my opinion
27. from 05:21:379 (1) - to 05:32:327 - hitsounds are super hard to hear again
28. 05:40:172 (3) - you should NC this, the spacing is too similar to 05:39:310 (1,2) - which have different gap

Natsu wrote:

Diff:

1. 00:23:448 (1) - 10% more volume would work better for this line oki
2. 00:44:999 (3,1,1) - why the jump 00:44:999 (3,1) - is bigger than 00:45:172 (1,1) - , being 00:45:517 (1) - stronger than 00:45:172 (1) - ? because 00:45:000 (3,1) - plays much easier, the slider lienency thing doesn't really exist here because short sliders are just one click without holding while 00:45:172 (1,1) - might be too difficult and weird to play if I have more distance here
3. 01:01:551 (7,9) - not stacked on purpose, I suppose yes, just like everywhere else on these paterns
4. 01:02:931 (6,7,8) - the jump 6 to 7 make sense, since 7 is strong, but 7 to 8 not much, 8 is weaker than 7 so should have less spacing. moved 01:03:103 (7) - to make more sense now
5. 01:04:310 (5,6) - I feel the flow really uncomfortable here, so I asked some good players for feedback, they play it properly, but most of them told me that the cursor movement was forced, maybe you can do something else here? music really intense tho, but ctrl+g 01:04:482 (6) - should be better
6. 01:18:275 (6,7) - ctrl g to keep your pattern >: adjust 7 after, but I really think is better for visual and for the flow that you already developed with 01:16:379 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - yea well the patern was like that because I didn't really like the flow if I made it otherwise, but oh well, I tried something
7. 01:27:931 (6,1) - yeah this one feels really overdone and the mayorite of players that I asked to play this break combo here, or got alot of 100s in the next stream. nerfed a bit
8. 02:16:551 (1) - less volume at the slider tail pls chang
9. 02:17:758 (3,1) - this jump could also be reduced a bit
10. 02:31:896 (2,3) - This one too, is really overdone
11. 02:30:517 (2) - sound isn't special or loud, just use less spacing here.
12. 02:31:379 (1,2) - this one is cool, 02:31:896 (2,3) - this one not much, could you recuce the spacing at the second one?
13. 02:36:551 (1,2) - yeah I believe less spacing will be more comfortable to play, the slider to slider ones are fine
14. 02:38:793 (1) - no hitsound?
15. 02:39:310 (1,1) - super weird flow, can you do something more natural to play? idk previous and next ones have better flow, so I'm sure you can do this better.
16. 02:40:000 (1,1) - if this is supposed to be a blanket still can be improved
17. 02:47:241 (1,1) - ^
18. 02:49:137 (1) - 02:49:913 (1) - unnecesary NC
19. 02:56:551 (1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1) - Why the NC spam? there are no sv changes or anything special o.o.
20. 03:16:896 (9,10) - there are more similar as this one that i believe are too much, i asked a few opinions as well and they mostly agree with this, anyways is up to you, since is your map after all. fits for me, the music reaches very high pitch
21. 04:10:344 (1) - shouldn't this end in the white tick instead? if not then is super weird, even if you following vocals, is this is on purpose then add more spacing between 04:10:344 (1,2) - added note on white tick I think it fixes problems here
22. 04:16:206 (1,2,3,4,5) - a bit more volume could be nice
23. 04:21:724 (1,2,3,4,5) - ^ 5% more
24. 04:46:724 (1,2,3) - this spacing is so weird 1 and 2 is a kind of antijump and 2 and 3 a jump, using equal spacing will be better or atleast increasing 1 and 2
25. from 04:59:310 (1) - to 05:15:776 (8) - could you up the volume, some hitsounds are hard to hear
26. 05:18:793 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - yeah this is way too overdone, atleast in my opinion
27. from 05:21:379 (1) - to 05:32:327 - hitsounds are super hard to hear again upped
28. 05:40:172 (3) - you should NC this, the spacing is too similar to 05:39:310 (1,2) - which have different gap yes also changed NCs on 05:37:931 (1,1) -

no KD

Maakkeli wrote:

nicenicenicenicenicenicenicenicenicenicenice

1. 02:03:793 (4) - to 02:04:137 (1,2) - angle are not comfortable, i recommend this placement (02:04:827 (3,4) - same)
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 02:12:413 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - imo these stream if change to reverse slider will have better gameplay, and then 02:13:102 (5,1) - make it to kickslider
3. 02:27:931 (1) - nazi but it not perfectly straight
   
   SPOILER

   
4. 02:46:724 (1) - also make a bending slider like 02:46:551 (2) - ?

[Cloud]

1. 02:03:793 (4) - to 02:04:137 (1,2) - angle are not comfortable, i recommend this placement (02:04:827 (3,4) - same)
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 02:12:413 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - imo these stream if change to reverse slider will have better gameplay, and then 02:13:102 (5,1) - make it to kickslider
3. 02:27:931 (1) - nazi but it not perfectly straight
   
   SPOILER

   
4. 02:46:724 (1) - also make a bending slider like 02:46:551 (2) - ?

nice
that's all i can found
~

VINXIS wrote:

buffer 1/8 sliders plz thx

1. 03:57:930 (5,6) - Maybe add a seventh combo like:
   
   preferably this

   
   
   
   or this

   

Strategas wrote:

well, I didn't really follow that sound that you want me to put the circle on, it wouldn't make sense to leave it unmapped everywhere else if I put it here

so Imma keep

01:40:000 (1,1,1,1) - 03:52:413 (1,1,1,1) - 0.5 to 2.00? Maybe such express was appropriate, but the scale of the change felt rather too massive compared to the song. it's ok, doesn't change playability, it's mostly aesthetic thing,
02:37:241 (1,3) - Overlap could be avoided in this cool pattern.
02:57:241 (6,7,8) - The spacing of (6,7) feels awkwardly large compared to the music. I would expect an adjustment for a proper emphasis. Well if you had an intention to emphasize (7,8) for whatever reasoning, consider NC at (7).
03:37:241 (5) - 04:35:172 (9) - Consider NC for consistency. 03:38:620 (5) - removed nc here instead, nc for the other one
05:20:689 (5,6,7) - The shape of this stream feels a little sharp. Mind adjusting the placement?