1. Extra (5.4 stars, 581 notes)
2. ezek's Hard (3.08 stars, 418 notes)
3. Insane (4.39 stars, 521 notes)
4. Nightmare (6.31 stars, 682 notes)
5. Normal (2.17 stars, 255 notes)
6. Space's Easy (1.42 stars, 157 notes)

AnatOWJIya wrote:

Hi there 0/
Is there anyway i can do mania GD for you?

Winek wrote:

AnatOWJIya wrote:

Hi there 0/
Is there anyway i can do mania GD for you?

OMG MUFFFFFFFET /me suicide

Ok I bet he will say yes.
If he say yes then I'll shoot a kudosu at his map.
(This way, your GD request will be accepted : D)

Winek wrote:

AnatOWJIya wrote:

Hi there 0/
Is there anyway i can do mania GD for you?

OMG MUFFFFFFFET /me suicide

Ok I bet he will say yes.
If he say yes then I'll shoot a kudosu at his map.
(This way, your GD request will be accepted : D)

Shiro-neechan wrote:

i'll give 1 star

Shiro-neechan wrote:

GD Request for 7k Mania (NM and HD)
if you accept my GD request, i'll give 1 star and I handle for mod request in 7k mania

I hope for your REPLY.

-Faded- wrote:

Shiro-neechan wrote:

GD Request for 7k Mania (NM and HD)
if you accept my GD request, i'll give 1 star and I handle for mod request in 7k mania

I hope for your REPLY.

Sorry but you don't seem all that experienced at mapping due to your lack of beatmaps and kudosu, so I'm going to decline. A general word of advice is to focus on ranking your own projects first, rather than doing guest difficulties for people.

I appreciate your offer though

Winek wrote:

That is mean
Faded you mean bitch
Im gonna call you Fluttershy03 since you're very mean

-Faded- wrote:

Shiro-neechan wrote:

Sorry but you don't seem all that experienced at mapping due to your lack of beatmaps and kudosu, so I'm going to decline. A general word of advice is to focus on ranking your own projects first, rather than doing guest difficulties for people.

I appreciate your offer though

It's your decision and i'll accept it, but before i wrote this,

Shiro-neechan wrote:

GD Request for 7k Mania (NM and HD)
if you accept my GD request, i'll give 1 star and I handle for mod request in 7k mania

I hope for your REPLY.

I create a 7k NM and it's finished. If you want to check just pm me!

L-a-m-e-y [ B ] wrote:

Osu! needs more The Living Tombstone.

-Faded- wrote:

Shiro-neechan wrote:

Sorry but you don't seem all that experienced at mapping due to your lack of beatmaps and kudosu, so I'm going to decline. A general word of advice is to focus on ranking your own projects first, rather than doing guest difficulties for people.

I create a 7k NM and it's finished. If you want to check just pm me!

Nitrousdragon wrote:

Hooray, passed with HDHR
Nice Insane, I will mod this map after the set is complete.


Click on the picture for the replay

-Faded- wrote:

Really not too sure about this... I'll definitely be pushing it for rank, but I'm just worried...

-Faded- wrote:

Sorry to say this, but I feel that this mapset would be better off without the mania difficulties. I've been worried about this mapset for a while now, and I wouldn't want to see this beatmap have trouble due to having too many guest difficulties, I think 2 is enough. Also, mania has been having quite a bit of trouble regarding the ranking system recently, where there isn't enough BNs to bubble/qualify beatmaps, so I wouldn't want this mapset to succumb to that.

Maybe the two of you could submit your own mania mapset? I wouldn't mind if you took my video/mp3, and I could link it in the beatmap description.

Strykerto wrote:

Sorry if i'm doing this early, but i assume the Insane, Extra and Nightmare diffs are done.

The diffs look pretty solid already and i can't mod for sh*t so i'm just gonna look at the NC's and give my opinion. Feel free to disregard

[Insane]
00:15:689 (1) - Delete NC?
00:16:023 (3) - NC? Done both of these.
00:19:189 (1) - Delete NC? No, this NC is here for readability purposes.
00:28:856 (1,2,3) - This NC pattern isn't consistent with 00:34:189 (1,2,3) - change one? 00:34:189 (1,2,3) has a jump, so I used an NC to signify that.
00:52:023 (1,2,3,4) - Same as above, but with 01:02:689 (1,2,1,2) - Sure.
01:05:356 (5) - NC here instead of 01:05:689 (1) - ? For readability, I chose to NC here to seperate the 1/1. This makes the pattern look nicer and a bit more readable
01:20:023 (5) - NC?
01:20:523 (1) - Delete NC?
01:21:356 (5) - NC?
01:22:023 (1) - Delete NC?
01:22:689 (3) - NC?
01:49:356 (4) - NC? Done all^
01:55:356 (1) - Delete NC? The NC pattern is anywhere else in this section (on the sliders) I've done this for readability though, to separate the two sets of sliders.
02:02:356 (1) - Delete NC? This is also for readability of the pattern.
02:02:689 (3) - NC? ok
02:16:689 (1) - Delete NC? Same reasoning as 01:55:356 (1) - Nope, like I said this is for readability.
02:23:689 (1) - Delete NC? Nah, this is also for readability.
02:24:022 (3) - NC? Done.

[Extra]
00:08:523 (1) - Delete NC? Why after 3 notes? 00:18:689 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - In this section, the NC's are at 4 notes which makes more sense. The NC is to break the pattern up, when playing it'll look nice because you can see a pair of triangles forming.
00:46:689 (8) - NC? Purely for emphasis I added emphasis by adding a jump, but I don't think an NC is necessary here just for one note.
00:54:356 (1) - Delete NC?
00:54:689 (3) - NC? Done both.
01:23:356 (1,2,3,1) - do the same as you did 01:12:023 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - ? I think the pattern is fine, it adds variety to the map.
01:24:023 (2) - NC? Nah, there would be two NCs right next to each other then, and that doesn't make too much sense.
01:29:356 (4) - NC? Alright, done.
01:50:689 (5) - NC? Purely for emphasis Nah, not necessary imo
02:06:356 (1) - Delete NC? I want to keep the NC here because it's quite a complex pattern compared to the rest of the map, and I feel that it'll help players read it.
02:06:689 (3) - NC? Ok
02:27:689 (1) - Delete NC? Again, it's a complex pattern so I'll keep it as it is.
02:28:022 (3) - NC? Done

[Nightmare]
00:00:689 (1) - Delete NC? Nope, for readability and to break the pattern up.
00:02:023 (1) - Delete NC? The NC here is to signify the spacing change, so I'll keep this as it is.
00:02:689 (4) - NC? I can see the rhythm you're following and either way works. 00:02:689 (4) - This still needs an NC either way tho Not really, in this small intro part I'm NCing based on spacing changes and the like, not off of downbeats.
00:08:022 (8) - NC? That would be bad, as two NCs would be next to each other without a valid reason.
00:09:355 (8) - NC? Alright, done.
00:46:689 (3) - Emphasis NC? Not needed imo
01:04:689 (1) - Delete NC? The NC is it signify the change in the song, as it is quite repetitive everywhere else.
01:08:023 (9) - Emphasis NC? Again, it's not really needed.
01:13:356 (9) - NC? ok
01:14:689 (3) - NC?
01:14:856 (1) - Delete NC? No, the pattern here is supposed to resemble a pair of triangles, and the NCing helps the player notice that. No change for either of the,
01:50:689 (3) - Emphasis NC? Again, not really needed.
01:58:689 (7) - NC?
01:59:023 (1) - Delete NC? Done both.
02:12:023 (9) - Emphasis NC? Again, I wouldn't want to do this as it isn't necessary imo.
02:20:022 (7) - NC?
02:20:356 (1) - Delete NC? Again, done both.
I would also like to know the reasoning for inconsistent NC patterns. 00:22:689 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - here, you have put them every two notes, but other areas of the section (like right before it and right after it) they are every eight notes. Because they are to break the pattern up. Not everything has to NC on a downbeat, you should add NC based on the pattern as well.

I can't mod spacing at all, but it looks solid. The OD might be a bit high for the diffs modded, but i would get more opinions before even considering it.
GL with ranking