Yup yup, all ready (finally)! >w<
Take as much time as you need, I'm not in a hurry <3
Take as much time as you need, I'm not in a hurry <3
Doyak wrote:
[General]
* 01:08:774 - I don't see the reason why here would have such a low volume. It's same as 01:22:917 - , not as 00:07:489 - oops, changed in all diffs except GD. (I'll apply all hitsound changes to the diff after modding is done!)
[Easy]
* 00:03:632 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This intro is not any less dense than kiai parts, while the song is just quiet. So I'd recommend reducing the density a bit here. I changed the beginning a bit, but not much at the latter parts, because I don't feel like it's too much or too dense.
* 00:36:203 (2) - I recommend whistle only on the tail. There's really no sound that supports the clap there imo, rather it's consistent drum with other whistles. It's a bit different than 01:37:917 (2,3) - if you ask. Apples to all diffs. I prefer the clap here, it sounds much better to me than whistle-only. That just is too empty.
* 01:22:917 - add finish sure! added in all diffs.
* 02:07:060 (1) - There's a cymbal sound there, and I think it sounds good with soft finish. *
* 02:53:774 - There's a strong sound on the slider end so you might want to add a finish there. *
* 03:10:060 (6) - Well the only 1/2 slider in this diff? I'd recommend using 3/2 slider from 03:09:632 - instead. changed whole outro.
* 03:10:489 (1) - The last soft-hitnormal3 sound is like a hard beat, but the song isn't, so maybe change it to S:C1? Applies to all diffs. Sure, why not.
[Normal]
* I'd highly recommend to remove most of consecutive 1/2 clicks on non-kiai parts. Like, the difficulty should be reversed imo. 00:09:632 (6,7,8) - I know you want to make the claps clickable, but this whole part is one of the calmest part but this provides the most difficult action in the whole map. 01:14:774 (5,6,7) - There's no reason to make this more intense even than the kiai. Also your Easy diff doesn't use any 1/2s, so I think you need to not overuse 1/2s in this diff. You have Advanced diff anyway. Things like 00:30:632 (7,8) - 00:34:060 (6,7) - 01:32:346 (7,8) - 01:35:774 (6,7) - can be just a 1/2 slider as well. I think the kiai parts did the best simplification imo. The only place I really thought it is required is 02:46:489 (1,2,3) - , everything else can just be more simplified for better spread.
A simple indication of the note density spread is this. Easy: 195 notes, Normal: 356 notes, Advanced: 401 notes. I don't really want to reply to each thing pointed out, so - yes, I changed most, but not all, because sometimes two(+) consecutive beats should be clickable, imo. Also, I think it works in favour of the spread to have them in this diff, since Advanced uses mostly 1/2 patterns. And about density - sure, object count is an indicator for how close diffs are, but you still need to consider how density works with everything else in the diff, which, imo, works just fine in this set.
* 00:46:060 (3) - The strong point is on 00:46:274 - so I think you need to make this clickable. Imo you can just ignore 00:45:846 - and do similar to 00:38:774 (3,4,5) - Same for 01:47:774 (3) - I disagree here, the sound is too important and shouldn't be ignored. I could go for 1/2 + two circles to have both strong sounds clickable, but since I removed all other similar patterns like this it wouldn't make any sense now. (Also I really like the variety the rhythm provides, so another reason for keeping it. ><)
* 01:19:489 (2) - Uhh clap instead of whistle? Well same for harder diffs. yesss, fixed all.
* 01:22:060 (7) - I don't hear anything special here, just remove all additional hitsounds? I think they go pretty well with the music, since it changes.. 01:21:846 - has a similar sound, too, and (8) as well, but if I put them on each the hitsounds are overpowering the song too much, so I went with sounds on white ticks only instead.
* 01:34:274 (3) - Hmm, I don't get why this passes through the downbeat, since that beat has a syllable too? It passes the downbeat because the syllabels aren't emphasized in the song, but they come fluently.. it's more like "troughitall" than "trough it all", which is why I want to keep it as is.
* 01:36:846 (2) - Why finish? oops, changed in all except Insane, cause I'm prioritizing a different rhythm there.
* 02:28:703 (4) - I get what this means but intensity-wise this is too empty, like all those build-ups before just crashed down here. How about http://puu.sh/s7ou9/52a95c067e.jpg ? changed this, but without the reverse. The rhythm gets far too complicated if I add it, imo.
* 02:53:774 - As I said on Easy this beat is strong, so not only a hitsound, but consider making this clickable as well. Sure~~
* 02:54:620 (3) - Unsnapped. rip
[Advanced]
* 00:25:917 (1,2,3,4) - 01:27:632 (1,2,3,4) - This is pretty random 1/2 sliders for me. I mean, you made the whole part pretty not dense, but I don't see why you would fill all these 1/2s out while there's no significant sound than others at all? It also hurts the purpose of 00:25:060 (2,3) - these 1/2s since they're there to get the vocals. Tbh it's been so long so I don't remember what I wanted to achieve with this, so I changed this to emphasize 00:26:774 - 00:26:989 - 00:27:203 - better.
* 00:31:703 (2) - 01:33:417 (2) - Same, why not give a little break here? You can't emphasize actual strong sounds properly by using every single 1/2 beats. I prefer keeping these circles as there is no break or indicator for that in the melody. I know the beat is not as strong as some others, but in context (=considering melody) it works fine.
* 00:34:489 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - Not sure if this is good rhythm choice. There's a significant rhythm change on 00:36:203 - here but still you repeated the exact same pattern as before. 00:35:132 (2,4) - actually doesn't sound that strong so I'd rather go for 4 1/2 sliders instead. changed differently!
* 01:22:274 (1,2) - The music kinda stops and restarts 01:22:917 - here, so having NC on 01:22:917 (2) - instead makes more sense imo. oh, sure.
* 01:37:060 (1) - Why is this NC'd? Also consider using same rhythm as 00:34:489 - Nc was by accident, fixed that. And changed rhythm.
* 02:12:792 - Why is this break manually edited? oops.
* 02:43:060 (1,2,3,4) - 02:56:774 (1,2,3,4) - I know what this means but why only on the last kiai? On the previous kiais you were following just the main 1/1 drums. I guess variety, but I can't remember, so changed.
* 02:53:774 (2,3) - How about swapping the rhythm, since there's nothing important on 02:53:989 - while 02:54:417 - has a vocal? changed (2) to circle only but went with two circles for (3) because the vocals start on the red tick and it plays nice if both is clickable.
I don't mind waiting! >w<Aia wrote:
My guest difficulty is really old, I could do once again another remap and make it a lot better, only if you can wait Squichu. If not you can remove it completely.
I don't know what's wrong with the structure here but I can show you many ranked maps that you won't find structure in, and this map is appealing visually and fun to play, some inconsistencies but they are not an issue to the degree you shouldn't rank it tbh.Doyak wrote:
[General]
[Aia's Serenade]
Sadly, I find this diff really troublesome to fit my standard. As I already said, I don't like random/inconsistent stuff and this diff is almost full of them. May I pick some of them out?
* 00:03:632 (1,2,3,4,5) - 00:05:346 (1,2,3,4,5) - Why are they represented with so much inconsistency? Especially with the spacing. Listen to the tone in the song, obviously mapped to that, not everything is spaced according to drums, this is perfectly fine.
* 00:15:417 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - What is this shape other than random? I am sorry but why does it matter again?
* 00:19:060 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Again very random-like placement, and what is the logic of the spacing increase on 3-4, 4-5? You have mostly used big spacing for strong sounds but here the music doesn't have any. Only 6 is strong. I'll explain. Not random placment, it's just a pattern, nothing random about it. Spaing 3-4, the tones build 2 sections, that's what I hear, and a new one starts at the note nr 4 so the bigger spacing is there, 4-5 because the mapper wants to emphasize all 3 jumps as buildup before next section.
* 00:20:774 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - The only 'pattern' I can see here is the blanket. Anything else? What is this argument even? The only thing I would suggest is too even the spacing so the triple looks equal but that is not required, or needed. I have no clue what wrongs you see here.,
* 00:22:274 (7,1,4) - NC is messed up, they all should be swapped. Right, NC should be changed like you showed.
* 00:32:774 (1,2,3) - 3 is stronger than 2 so why the spacing is like this? I kinda agree, CTRL-G the slider 3 and it's fine. Even right now it's fine since people use this kind of spacing all the time and it is accepted so I don't see reason why it shouldn't now, still suggesting CTRL-G on 3,
* 00:42:846 (7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - Yes I like when you do stuffs like this, please do this for the entire map.
* 00:48:632 (3,4) - Why are these stacked but 00:49:489 (3,4) - is a jump? Also the triangle shape can be improved if you can adjust 'how-much-overlapped' of each position. Is there any reason why 00:48:846 (4,3) - is less overlapped than 00:49:060 (1,4) - ? Agree, should be even overlap and probably stick to same idea if it's stacked.
* 01:13:703 (4) - Why no NC?+1
* 01:16:917 (5,1) - 00:28:917 (6,1) - Not only this but sometimes they're jump and sometimes they're not. I can't think of any logical reason to use them differently. There are hundreds of ranked maps with this stuff, it's just rhythm/spacing inconsitencies that bring something different to the song imo, sometimes it's a jump sometimes it's a small jump.
* 01:21:632 (3,4,5,6) - These are very very special sounds but I don't see any difference in pattern/spacing or whatever, compared to other jumps that exist in the whole map. Yes this needs some bigger jump pattern, right now it's outright
* 01:33:203 (1) - Useless NC ye
* 01:43:060 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - I'm just pointing very few of them out but there are just no 'pattern' for any of the jumps. Just jumps at first, then the stack to accentuate the jump which leads into ending vocal of the section, it fits in my head?
So I'll stop here. I'm very sorry to say this after Squichu waiting for me like months, but the hardest diff lacks structure too much and I don't think random maps like this should be pushed forward.
You've forgotten something, that it is not me who have ranked all those not-structured maps you would show me. I don't think they're suitable to be ranked. "Visually fun" is only subjective, and more of preference. What makes a map structured is whether you can explain the map by yourself, and whether you can make others understand.WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
I don't know what's wrong with the structure here but I can show you many ranked maps that you won't find structure in, and this map is appealing visually and fun to play, some inconsistencies but they are not an issue to the degree you shouldn't rank it tbh.
I think there's nothing realy wrong here.
I mean, why do you ignore basic mapping elements, and only care about the spacing? Like it can be there for the sake of blanket, parallel, triangle, square, symmetry, stability, and further, repeating similar patterns, and many many more.WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
What you said makes no sense.
"You only understood why this spacing is bigger than others, and not why it is 'there'"
Uh, what? It's "there" for a reason and it's increased for a reason?
Why should the mapping nowadays be different than 2010? Only the "meta" is different, but you map with same game rules with same elements. I've never said you should use 'same' rhythm. It can be varied within that style. But what is style? Can you say being random is a style?WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
"You also didn't explain why they are inconsistent while it is important to keep a consistent logic throughout a map."
They are so called inconsistent consistencies, all of which occur more than few times throughout the song to give variety in rhythm instead of having the same one pop up, this is not 2010 anymore.
It has nothing to do with the year. Let me explain this through a similar situation.WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
"If you don't think they're issues then it can't be helped, but I do think they're issues."
Opinions I guess, you have yours and I just say what I think about this because the mod seemed a bit extraordinary to me as the song was modded like it was a few years back.