Arusamour wrote:

General

• 
  mmmmmmyes rori mercury is my type of girl　:^)

Mercury (6.58 stars, 430 notes)

1. 00:33:399 (3,4,5,6,7) - think this triangle could be a little bigger. possibly the smaller triangle of this map. is this link right? doesnt point to objects logically
2. 01:14:499 (5) - prefer using 1.13x ds to stay equal spacing to (3,4) . although it doesn't read bad, it kinda makes no sense. maybe to emphasise 01:14:799 (1) better? same with 01:16:599 (3,4,5). i moved things slightly but did not do what you suggested
3. 01:15:549 (3,4,5) - think this is too huge, more of (5) being way too out of a jump to 01:15:999 (1). is this link right? doesnt point to objects logically

Arusamour wrote:

Bearizm's Expert (6.02 stars, 506 notes)

1. 00:04:899 (6,7,8,9,1) - difficult to read. after the kick-slider the stream feels clumped in a way. rather than going up (which feels clumped) go down or stack on 00:04:599 (4). like this:
   
2. 00:07:974 (2,3) - confusing read. i believe these doubles are too far off from the slider end. either move the slider higher up so you can stil maintain that stack on 00:07:299 (6) - or forget about the stack and move the doubles closer to slider end. i just moved the 1/1 slider upwards.
3. 00:36:999 (4,5,6) - random. lemeow :33 nyaa kyaa. where else do you repeat this type of pattern? that's right, you don't. do I need to repeat it anywhere else? I'd like to keep it just because of the drastic change in the vocal's tone.
   
   [/color]

[/notice]

Arusamour wrote:

Fury's Insane (5.25 stars, 352 notes)

1. 00:13:149 (3,4,5) - a tad bit big. also, for arc linear patterns like this, it's better to have consistent ds throughout
   adjusted and overall decreased the ds between 3,4,5, also made sure that 3 and 4 have the same distance to the starting point of 2 for optical purposes
2. mmm delicious! fun to play and prettiest looking map in the set I am flattered, hope you enjoy playing it if it ever gets ranked :3

Alveryn wrote:

stop mapping

Bubblun wrote:

From #modreqs modding Extra like preferred.

Extra
00:06:399 (5,1) - I'd recommend replacing these 2 notes with a slider as their is a held sound here in the song. I recommend this shape as it is parallel to 2 and flows into 6 greatly. nah i dont really like that one,
00:09:699 (1,2) - Although quite a small change, I suggest spacing these out a little more to emphasize the rise in volume in the song. Simple scale tool should do. fixed
00:54:399 (1,2) - This slider might be too long to take advantage of slider leniency and reverse direction. Shortening it to 1/2 and adding a reverse will work, or you can change the shape to something similar to the first mod so it directs the player to the next note. fixed
00:55:299 (4,5) - You establish counter-clockwise flow back in 00:53:799 (3,4,5) - But I didn't hear a really strong beat, so why change direction? I recommend you ctrl + g 4 and 5 since they will still share the same distance, but make more sense. i also think this one is okay, the flow here fits other patterns so its appropriate to me
01:15:249 (2) - This note is suggesting to me the flow is going counter-clockwise. But then this gets contradicted here: 01:15:549 (3,4,5) - I recommend pressing ctrl + g on 4 and 5 to improve the flow. fixed

All I have to say. Very well down so there wasn't much I could say about it.

CanadianBaka wrote:

I'm modding this because I just finished drawing and now i'm bored


[Mercury, the hardest diff that literally looks like my hero copy]

00:08:799 (1,2) - people are going to mistaken this as 00:06:399 (1,2) - this not rly
00:11:049 (3) - NC 00:11:199 (1) - remove NC 00:11:349 (3) - and NC here 00:11:499 (1) - remove NC 00:11:649 (1) - NC here, that just for consistency in the song, it makes more sense if you NC it like that fixed
00:14:799 (1,1,1) - all of these should be the same shape for consistency i think this is fine
00:33:774 (5) - remove this please, overmapping may seem like a good idea but I just don't like it disagree, fits with guitar
00:41:199 (1) - raise volume here, I don't think it needs to be this quiet and sounds awkward going from loud drums sounds fine with custom hitsounds
00:50:499 (1) - why is this a triangle??? Illuminat- ?
00:52:899 (5,6) - horizontal jumps aren't cool, homeboy. ?
00:56:799 (2) - this is just a straight slider although the sliders before it weren't straight wowowowo i think this is fine
00:57:999 (2,1) - all of a sudden out of nowhere CURVED SLIDERS!! EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T USED ANYWHERE ELSE BEFORE THE MAP, IT'S BEEN NEARLY A WHOLE MINUTE AND WE FINALLY SEE THEM! Inconsistent eww fixed
01:02:649 (7,1,2) - large spacing, it doesn't need to be this large, reminds me of an old map I know... *cough* my hero! Up to you! *cough* fits with the spacing of the section
01:22:599 (4,5,6) - um, stack maybe? i think this is fine, but could be changed.

1. 00:01:149 (1,2,3) - isn't given a lot of spacing, yet is more pronounced than 00:02:349 (1,2,3) - or 00:03:549 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - . I think you should buff 00:01:149 (1,2,3) - and then nerf the other two.
2. Tacking on to the previous point, 00:03:549 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - I get what you're trying to do here with the 1 not following the curve of the stream, but I feel if you want to actually represent the drop in guitar and the intensity of the drum, make it a small stream jump. It shouldn't be hard for a player if you reworked the slider shape slightly to compensate.
   > Another thing worth mentioning here is that if you disagree with my reasoning/suggestion, please normalize the stream to fit your other patterns, like here 00:04:899 (6,7,8,9,1) - .
3. 00:05:199 (1,3) - Having the 3 stacked here doesn't properly represent the music. The slider tail of 1 is the same drum as 4, but 2,3,5 are different drums. To signify this, avoid stacking the 3 on the slider tail of 1 as that conveys that the sounds are similar (which is not the case). (I do like your spacing choices for that pattern overall, though.)
   > In contrast, this pattern 00:06:849 (3,5) - is okay, because the drums are basically the same, though I do wonder if you lose some intensity by doing this W type pattern.
4. 00:07:899 (2) - This note doesn't even exist, its supposed to be on 00:07:974 - fam.
5. 00:08:799 (1,1,2) - This is kind of weird overall, I really dislike how you stack 2 on the sliderend of 1 as they are completely different sounds and it really lessens the impact of this buildup. I think the best option overall is just reworking 00:09:249 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - this pattern to be more distinct than the previous jumps by not stacking parts of it on the slider end.
6. 00:10:299 (1) - This is not really the same not at all, and it feels weird being an exact stack. I assume the reason you did it is because theres no music inbetween 00:09:999 (2,1) - and so you don't want to have much movement. I think what I'd do is a partial stack here, not a complete stack. That way you continue to have the player barely move, but you signify that the notes are different.
7. 00:10:299 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - I don't get your spacing here, at all. Mapping to the pitch would make more sense IMO.
8. 00:12:399 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I hate this pattern. Firstly, the pattern itself plays poorly if you break it down and look at it. Secondly, 00:12:999 (3,4) - this is given ridiculous spacing for no reason at all, especially when you look through the rest of the map (00:14:199 (3,4) - 00:15:399 (3,4) - ). Finally, for whatever reason 1 is stacked on 5, which makes no sense musically and its something you don't continue. Theres really no consistency here, at all. This pattern begins the guitar part thats essentially the intro to the song, and it should be setting a precedent of some sort. But ultimately, nothing about this pattern stays consistent. Spacing changes, stacking changes, flow changes. Is it unreasonable to make sure the exact same musical pattern plays similar each time it occurs? A minor variation on it wouldn't hurt either, but these variations aren't minor. Normalize everything from 00:12:399 - to 00:15:999 - to begin with.
9. 00:15:999 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I like the concept, dislike the execution. First of all, give less spacing to 00:16:599 (4,5,6) - this pattern overall to signify the decrease in pitch. Then, I'd move that part of the pattern to not be directly opposite of 00:16:299 (2,3) - as that gives this pattern a lot of added intensity that isn't quite justified by the music. I think the spacing between 3 and 4 in and of itself is fine, but I'd change the angle to be acute rather than linear.
10. 00:17:199 - to 00:20:799 - I can't really even figure out whats going on here. You added a variation via the slider, which I like, but its not consistent. Normalize this as well.
11. 00:21:099 (1) - The stack here doesn't really fit 00:20:649 (5) - 's sound so I'd just move it somewhere else, easy fix.
12. 00:21:999 (1,2) - Nerf spacing, this isn't the kiai or the intro, its pretty calm in comparison.
13. 00:23:649 (2,3) - ^
14. 00:24:849 (2,3,1) - ^
15. 00:26:349 (3,4,5) - This is a distinct sound separate from 00:26:049 (2) - so separate them damnit. Stacking notes is a great way to make a pp map but not to actually represent the music.
16. 00:33:999 (1,2,3) - Nerf this.
17. 00:35:649 (2,3,4,5) - Hi Blue Dragon. I like this pattern actually, just make the spacing between 3>4>5 smaller which will also help solve the huge jump between 00:36:249 (5,1) - that is irrationally large at the moment.
18. 00:37:299 (6,1) - This is basically underspaced looking at the rest of the map, I don't really get the spacing concepts at all.
19. 00:39:699 (4,5,1) - 00:40:599 (3,4) - These really don't need to be stacked.
20. 00:48:249 (6,1) - This is one of the largest jumps in the entire map, please nerf.
21. 00:49:149 (4,5,6) - I'd like this pattern a lot if you gave the 4 more spacing, nerfed the spacing between 5>6, and unstacked 5 from the slider head and moved it somewhere else.
22. The kiai is essentially just weaker sounds being given more spacing than stronger sounds, but I feel like everything up until the kiai covers whats in it, so I'll stop here.

Cryptic wrote:

Hi here for the top diff since I wanted to establish what I dislike about it.

[Venus]

1. 00:01:149 (1,2,3) - isn't given a lot of spacing, yet is more pronounced than 00:02:349 (1,2,3) - or 00:03:549 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - . I think you should buff 00:01:149 (1,2,3) - and then nerf the other two. ???? how is that more pronounced
2. Tacking on to the previous point, 00:03:549 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - I get what you're trying to do here with the 1 not following the curve of the stream, but I feel if you want to actually represent the drop in guitar and the intensity of the drum, make it a small stream jump. It shouldn't be hard for a player if you reworked the slider shape slightly to compensate. fixed
   > Another thing worth mentioning here is that if you disagree with my reasoning/suggestion, please normalize the stream to fit your other patterns, like here 00:04:899 (6,7,8,9,1) - .
3. 00:05:199 (1,3) - Having the 3 stacked here doesn't properly represent the music. The slider tail of 1 is the same drum as 4, but 2,3,5 are different drums. To signify this, avoid stacking the 3 on the slider tail of 1 as that conveys that the sounds are similar (which is not the case). (I do like your spacing choices for that pattern overall, though.)
   > In contrast, this pattern 00:06:849 (3,5) - is okay, because the drums are basically the same, though I do wonder if you lose some intensity by doing this W type pattern. ya i dont agree
4. 00:07:899 (2) - This note doesn't even exist, its supposed to be on 00:07:974 - fam. fixed
5. 00:08:799 (1,1,2) - This is kind of weird overall, I really dislike how you stack 2 on the sliderend of 1 as they are completely different sounds and it really lessens the impact of this buildup. I think the best option overall is just reworking 00:09:249 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - this pattern to be more distinct than the previous jumps by not stacking parts of it on the slider end. ya likewise i dont agree, i dont think sounds have to be the same to warrant same placement.
6. 00:10:299 (1) - This is not really the same not at all, and it feels weird being an exact stack. I assume the reason you did it is because theres no music inbetween 00:09:999 (2,1) - and so you don't want to have much movement. I think what I'd do is a partial stack here, not a complete stack. That way you continue to have the player barely move, but you signify that the notes are different. ya same disagree again
7. 00:10:299 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - I don't get your spacing here, at all. Mapping to the pitch would make more sense IMO. isnt that basically what i have done
8. 00:12:399 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I hate this pattern. Firstly, the pattern itself plays poorly if you break it down and look at it. Secondly, 00:12:999 (3,4) - this is given ridiculous spacing for no reason at all, especially when you look through the rest of the map (00:14:199 (3,4) - 00:15:399 (3,4) - ). Finally, for whatever reason 1 is stacked on 5, which makes no sense musically and its something you don't continue. Theres really no consistency here, at all. This pattern begins the guitar part thats essentially the intro to the song, and it should be setting a precedent of some sort. But ultimately, nothing about this pattern stays consistent. Spacing changes, stacking changes, flow changes. Is it unreasonable to make sure the exact same musical pattern plays similar each time it occurs? A minor variation on it wouldn't hurt either, but these variations aren't minor. Normalize everything from 00:12:399 - to 00:15:999 - to begin with. im sorry but with all the respects can you even play this pattern?
9. 00:15:999 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I like the concept, dislike the execution. First of all, give less spacing to 00:16:599 (4,5,6) - this pattern overall to signify the decrease in pitch. Then, I'd move that part of the pattern to not be directly opposite of 00:16:299 (2,3) - as that gives this pattern a lot of added intensity that isn't quite justified by the music. I think the spacing between 3 and 4 in and of itself is fine, but I'd change the angle to be acute rather than linear. not really sure what you're complaining about, but i think its fine as is
10. 00:17:199 - to 00:20:799 - I can't really even figure out whats going on here. You added a variation via the slider, which I like, but its not consistent. Normalize this as well. i agree, ill see what i can do about that
11. 00:21:099 (1) - The stack here doesn't really fit 00:20:649 (5) - 's sound so I'd just move it somewhere else, easy fix. i dont value stacks the same way you do
12. 00:21:999 (1,2) - Nerf spacing, this isn't the kiai or the intro, its pretty calm in comparison.
13. 00:23:649 (2,3) - ^
14. 00:24:849 (2,3,1) - ^
15. 00:26:349 (3,4,5) - This is a distinct sound separate from 00:26:049 (2) - so separate them damnit. Stacking notes is a great way to make a pp map but not to actually represent the music.
16. 00:33:999 (1,2,3) - Nerf this.
17. 00:35:649 (2,3,4,5) - Hi Blue Dragon. I like this pattern actually, just make the spacing between 3>4>5 smaller which will also help solve the huge jump between 00:36:249 (5,1) - that is irrationally large at the moment.
18. 00:37:299 (6,1) - This is basically underspaced looking at the rest of the map, I don't really get the spacing concepts at all.
19. 00:39:699 (4,5,1) - 00:40:599 (3,4) - These really don't need to be stacked.
20. 00:48:249 (6,1) - This is one of the largest jumps in the entire map, please nerf.
21. 00:49:149 (4,5,6) - I'd like this pattern a lot if you gave the 4 more spacing, nerfed the spacing between 5>6, and unstacked 5 from the slider head and moved it somewhere else.
22. The kiai is essentially just weaker sounds being given more spacing than stronger sounds, but I feel like everything up until the kiai covers whats in it, so I'll stop here.

Good luck.