Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked Beatmaps (Archived)
  4. Beatmap Graveyard

(K)NoW_NAME - Knew day (TV Size)

posted
Total Posts
157
show more
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu

Avishay wrote:

you can't just judge it without playing it properly
First wrong point, with experience you can judge mostly any kind of map.

Avishay wrote:

you can just PM me and I'll gladly explain, but don't be disrespectful towards the work done by me, the modders and the other BNs.
Disrespectful? for posting their concerns about your map during Qualified period? qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community, the one being disrespectful is you, by discouraging people from checking qualify maps, is true that Hula was a bit rude, but take a more deep look to Gero mod, I think you can still improve your map with it.

anyways GL with this
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay

Natsu wrote:

Avishay wrote:

you can't just judge it without playing it properly
First wrong point, with experience you can judge mostly any kind of map.

Avishay wrote:

you can just PM me and I'll gladly explain, but don't be disrespectful towards the work done by me, the modders and the other BNs.
Disrespectful? for posting their concerns about your map during Qualified period? qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community, the one being disrespectful is you, by discouraging people from checking qualify maps, is true that Hula was a bit rude, but take a more deep look to Gero mod, I thn you could still improve your map with it.

anyways GL with this
My opinion differs from yours, as long as this is not a traditional map, you still may interpret it in a bad way, even if you are experienced.

It is disrespectful because when you say "obviously plays bad" while you most likely didn't even play it properly. I am open for criticism but when it's done in such manner it's infuriating.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu
Is a really normal map, it doesn't have nothing special apart of the comboing in 00:49:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - and a lot of inconsistencies (even i have a similar map in graveyard and did icon a few), double bpm mapping isn't new, then again you suppose he didn't play the map, even tho I saw him testing it alot, that's why supposing stuff is bad, specially in a normal map which isn't hard to play at all. Anyways maybe I'll take a look as well after sleep a bit.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
Even if he did, (and again, sorry for being rude) I can't expect him to play it well on his skill level. Yeah it's double bpm but it's a really small minority, the NCs are irrelevant.

Please note that I am not mad, I did not decline most of Gero's mod because of saltiness, those are my honest thoughts.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn

Natsu wrote:

qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community

I really didn't want to post in this map thread because I feel like the highest diff's basic concept is sound but could do with large swaths of remapping entirely to pin down the concept (right now with everyone pointing out minor flaws and errors you end up with a patchwerk mess, better to remap with so many bandaids being forced onto it)

but


what the f*** is that supposed to mean?

I thought qualification was supposed to be about QAT checking to make sure maps are error free in the sense that anything clearly looked over (missing hitsounds, wrong snaps, unrankability, etc)

not about having "the community" (which almost always consists of the same handful of people) point out personal judgements on a person's mapping style.


This is just an example, but if you, a modder, were to say "These kind of patterns look good and are awesome if they fit, but this is not the case here. In this song the music and the voice at the beginning sound consistent and there technically is no change in the music. I would like to recommend you to do something different instead." and the mapper were to respond "the volume itself is increasing and thus the spacing and slider speeds are" then that's all that's necessary.


I'm tired of people throwing pointless walls of text to make their posts look big and scary during qualification. It's underhanded and disgusting. Stick to any actual, valid concerns about the rankability of certain patterns. If you think the flow is shit, if you don't like how it plays, go somewhere else. There are hundreds of other maps in pending that could do with that sort of modding. Keep it out of qualification. If it's good enough for a handful of other BNs, then it's good enough for ranking - whether you personally like it or not.
HappyRocket88
4,321 posts
Joined May 2014
HappyRocket88
Posting your opinion here about the post-qualification mods won't change anything. The system allows people who test the map to judge from their experience what flows bad or what patterns create misleading rhythms. Remember ranking maps now isn't a group of people who know how to make maps and discuss what should be good or bad; nowadays everyone can participate and improve the quality of any map. Even after it was checked by x numbers of modders and BNs.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

Shiirn wrote:

Natsu wrote:

qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community

I really didn't want to post in this map thread because I feel like the highest diff's basic concept is sound but could do with large swaths of remapping entirely to pin down the concept (right now with everyone pointing out minor flaws and errors you end up with a patchwerk mess, better to remap with so many bandaids being forced onto it)

but


what the f*** is that supposed to mean?

I thought qualification was supposed to be about QAT checking to make sure maps are error free in the sense that anything clearly looked over (missing hitsounds, wrong snaps, unrankability, etc)

not about having "the community" (which almost always consists of the same handful of people) point out personal judgements on a person's mapping style.


This is just an example, but if you, a modder, were to say "These kind of patterns look good and are awesome if they fit, but this is not the case here. In this song the music and the voice at the beginning sound consistent and there technically is no change in the music. I would like to recommend you to do something different instead." and the mapper were to respond "the volume itself is increasing and thus the spacing and slider speeds are" then that's all that's necessary.


I'm tired of people throwing pointless walls of text to make their posts look big and scary during qualification. It's underhanded and disgusting. Stick to any actual, valid concerns about the rankability of certain patterns. If you think the flow is shit, if you don't like how it plays, go somewhere else. There are hundreds of other maps in pending that could do with that sort of modding. Keep it out of qualification. If it's good enough for a handful of other BNs, then it's good enough for ranking - whether you personally like it or not.


Unfortunately, this is how the ranking/disqualifying system works now :P. Previously, QAT's received a lot of heat from the mapping/modding community because of subjective disqualifications. I guess you weren't around during the time of the QAT Bot and stuff, but yea. We used to get disqualifications because certain sections in a map didn't receive adequate hitsounding. There were also dq's for combo colors blending with the background/storyboard/video too much, OD 6 being too low on an Insane, HP 3 being too high on Easy, and just general dq's for very very subjective stuff. It's just how the process is nowadays, since if you notice, QAT's dq almost exclusively for objective'y unrankable issues (concurrent red/green lines, offscreen sliders, incorrect metadata etc...). The process now relies on the community to point out stuff they believe require further modding.

If you want to maintain a quality standard above "rankable" then this is the process nowadays. The only QAT who currently dq's for anything outside of metadata/automod/aibat is Irre (and sometimes Millhi on really difficult maps). So yea, if you want to help maintain quality standards, this is currently the only way to help out since there's a clear lack of QAT presence.
Shiirn
2,896 posts
Joined August 2010
Shiirn
The clear lack of QAT presence is obvious. The problem is the fact that you end up with BNs disagreeing and relatively random community members being given the same level of input capabilities as QAT. Quality standards are subjective past a certain point. Where do we drawn the line? An entire section has no hitsounds because default don't work that well? Quality-wise better get some customs. But what if I don't like a pattern because it plays poorly? Is having a pattern that plays poorly but fits the music unrankable? Is having a pattern that plays well but ignores the music rankable? Where is the line drawn as to who can say what is or isn't rankable? This is what BNs (and any living QATs) should be thinking about.

Clearly the map is fine for Kibbleru and Nozhomi, and yes they're new BNs, but clearly Gero and Natsu disagree. I understand the sentiment that both Gero and Natsu are more experienced, but they're also both very narrow-minded as to what they require in a map to consider it rankable.

I guess it boils down to the fact that modding sucks right now and the few people trying are stressed from having too much to do and too little motivation to do it because there's just more work after work is done with no end in sight.

But maybe there'd be less work if ya'll actually worked together instead of working against each other over disagreements over the map. Reach common ground. Why are you (general you, the reader, not Monstrata) modding? What are the standards you want to follow when modding or ranking a map? What kind of knowledge or experience are you trying to impart when you make suggestions or comments? The hardest thing in modding is realizing when you're pushing your own values onto a mapper, and whether those values are wanted.

That said, DQ for discussion is bullshit and I know anyone with an ounce of sense agrees there.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
We do need someone to set down the line, hopefully my reasonings were clear enough for Kwan or anyone that reads this thread for that matter.
Natsu
8,074 posts
Joined September 2012
Natsu
edited to discuss in proper place
Last edited by Natsu , edited 7 times in total.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
An update - I will remap some parts of the highest difficulties, while trying to keep myself and everyone else satisfied.
ztrot
osu! Alumni
4,378 posts
Joined February 2008
ztrot
Overall quality is a rankablity issue, it will continue to be a rankablity issue and this will not change!
There is no NEED for QAT for make some final call if the initial fixes are made and the stuff that kept the map from going though is fixed. Remember this thing was already qualified once! There is no need to comb over it for every single detail. I personally think the last diff is a mess and I would suggest a remap. That being said, the only thing I DQ'ed for what the massive amount of inconsistent spacing.
These issues were addressed and adjusted. If the BN feel that it wasn't adjusted to fit the standards then so be it. But do not attack others or there views. Just kindly tell them yes or no and explain it. You are a BN you should ESPECIALLY know this as you are a BN, this behaviour is not acceptable. This can be considered a final warning. This stuff doesn't fly and if this keeps being an issue, I will get more involved in not in a great way.
JUST CHILL AND TALK IT OVER.
Last edited by p3n , edited 3 times in total.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
I'm pretty sure I did comment on everything as calmly as possible?

Regardless, I'll try to do something else on the Extra diff, stay tuned.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
Just saying, this might take a while, making this a 150bpm singletapping diff would just make it incredibly difficult, if the spacing is big, it's really fast to aim and press, if the spacing is close then it's just incredibly hard to read, I started the Extra as a new difficulty and am just starting over, I'm gonna update it as a regular diff so please take a look if you wish, and complaints / suggestsions / whatever you can either post here or pm me in game or at the forums thanks.

Oh, obviously it's experimental and nothing is set in stone, I might just ignore the drums at point and map to other instuments as their presence is much different.

AAND, I might just remap sections of the current diff if I am simply lost.
[ Joey ]
390 posts
Joined May 2013
[ Joey ]

ztrot wrote:

Overall quality is a rankablity issue, it will continue to be a rankablity issue
THIS
Kibbleru
osu! Alumni
5,844 posts
Joined August 2013
Kibbleru
i think at this point it'd be better calling gero to icon this map since they're the ones who seems to have problems with it.

if nozhomi or i bubbled it, we already think its fine so it might just lead to another dq lol
Last edited by Kibbleru , edited 1 time in total.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
I am doubtful they'll oblige.
Arusamour
424 posts
Joined April 2014
Arusamour
h o t sexY map
wonders
610 posts
Joined December 2011
wonders
in my opinion, it's a nice map and the highest diff is wonderful, there is no need to remap.
Doj
232 posts
Joined March 2014
Doj
Yea tbh, although I do fail at the end of the highest diff it's hella fun. You shouldn't be ashamed at this map in any way.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
Thanks guys.

I still need to do some thinking, as I did love the diff when I pushed it forward, but as you can see, you can't make everyone happy with the same .osu file, this affected me and made me feel a bit more unhappy towards the difficulty. One option would be just remapping of some sections I think should be done differently, after I'm done, I'll get some mods and push it forward again.

I'm still busy with finals and such so I barely have to time play or do anything at all, but I might have some time until this weekend.
Xayler
628 posts
Joined November 2013
Xayler
What I would suggest is to not use blues in kiai time, as in my opinion they doesn't sync in with music. At start and in the middle the blue part is what makes it awesome. It goes for the highest difficulty then.

At start 00:12:186 (1) - from here the blue is really good part, but lots of notes are all over the place, I would higher the CS in this difficulty tbh, to 4.2 or something, then the spacing would be a little bit easier to see.
I would even make the spacing higher in that part, and I would let the current spacing start at 00:24:986 (1) .
But yea from here 00:52:186 (1) - I would remove the blues as there kinda isn't any beat at all, except for parts like those 01:02:686 (1,2,3,4,5) .

I'm not a experienced mapper though, but I usually avoid using blues when they're not needed, as it can bring lots of confusion when there isn't a beat or something.

Been following this mapset for a while now, hopefully you will find the motivation (with the time :D ) to finish it soon.
Good luck. ;)
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
Thanks for the feedback Xayler, but I finished remapping.

So, it's pretty much different, MORE CONSISTENT, LESS OVERMAPS (if at all), different rhythms because if I can't overmap it is just awful, hopefully it'll be more enjoyable this way.
FCL
1,478 posts
Joined July 2014
FCL
  • [diff_name]
  1. 00:01:586- volume of this slider sounds a bit loud imo, reducing to 30% looks better
  2. 00:02:586 (1,2) - hmmm, this high spacing between sliders with low sv at the beginning of the map plays kinda uncomfortable (at least for me exactly). At least 7x between sliders could works better
  3. 00:04:186 (1,2) - something similar, but 8x here could works good. Anyway you should get more opinions about it
  4. 00:10:586 (1,1,1) - since you had mapped these sliders to vocal, would be good you will make muting of the tails of these sliders, cuz they haven't some sounds
  5. 00:14:686 (7) - this combo feels a bit long, so I recommend you add nc here since spacing was changed
  6. 00:19:586 (6) - nc would be good too for better readability of stack
  7. 00:22:986 (7,1) - just you could improve this blanket
  8. 00:23:386 (1,3) - seems you made these 1/2 sliders intentionally, but anyway I think that mapping of 1/4 would work good cuz fit with song better. just replace these sliders to 1/4 repeats looks like great idea, just try. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5235431
  9. 00:25:986 (5) - I'd add nc's for all these sliders cuz sections with 3 kicksliders looks different from previous patterns
  10. 00:49:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - nc spam looks fine for me, but you could make the placement of notes more structured, now they looks kinda randomly and doesn't so understandable imo
  11. 00:51:186 (1,2,3,1,2) - seems whistles fit good with these circles, cuz we have only vocal without music, just try again
  12. 01:15:986 (2,3,4) - ^same for heads of sliders
  13. pretty good stuff, and remapped diff seems better for me than before lul
Strategas
1,378 posts
Joined July 2013
Strategas
[name diff]

00:02:586 (1,2,4,1,2) - this spacing is really overdone here, this is so calm, it doesn't matter if there is a buildup sound, it just doesn't call for this spacing, you should try emphasizing differently here

00:05:586 (4) - then it's weird you put no pressure here when you focused so much on spacing the vocals uhhh

00:07:386 (4) - dunno if you just don't nc here cause it looks better, but it breaks consistency

00:08:786 (2) - might sounds dumb but, I'm assuming you nced 00:08:586 (1) - because of sv change but didn't nc 00:08:786 (2) - tbh I find no need to nc 00:08:586 (1) - in the first place if you don't follow your ncing logic,

00:09:586 - aaa this green line does nothing, I guess it won't hurt to remove it

00:19:586 (6) - nc for consistency

00:28:486 (2) - you can possibly polish this slider, I just find it ew atm, 00:29:786 (1) - is much better

00:35:386 (1) - ctrl g plays much better since you made it linear it's kick slider and has even amount of space between 00:34:986 (3,4,1) - on the clickable object, it will not feel comfy when dealing with same movement on different distance

00:39:786 (6) - I disagree with changing the shape here, if you keep it like 00:38:186 (3) - 00:38:986 (3) - it will be much cooler imo

00:39:386 (4) - also nc

00:40:498 - slider end unsnapped

00:58:986 (2,3) - looks sloppy, I'm sure you can polish

01:03:186 (7) - nc?

01:11:186 (7) - nc instead of 01:11:586 (1) - ? seems more reasonable to me if you compare note intensity, also I dunno if it's good here to keep that slider on downbeat even if you follow that vocal, the instrument is also strong here

01:13:186 (8) - missing clap on sliderhead

01:12:786 (7) - I'd suggest nc here, remove nc at 01:13:986 (1) - and add nc 01:14:586 (3) - or 01:14:186 (2) - ,the slider end would be ideal place for nc but you have it on slider end which I don't agree either xd, then nc 01:14:986 (5) - because of sv change at 01:15:386 (9) - and just fits the music, then removing nc on 01:15:786 (1) - and adding on 01:15:986 (2) - would make more sense to the music atleast

01:16:988 - slider end unsnapped

ai mod pointing the stack leniency thing, dunno up to you to change it or not

oh and 00:16:786 (5,1) - 00:24:086 (1,2,3) - 00:17:486 (3,4,5,6) - not sure if you intended to keep the antiflow movements here, but they are only for challenge if anything since they don't really play that well, unless you're beyong this level


didn't expect to write much here, overall the aesthetics were the main thing for me, but that's subjective I guess. I liked the kiai tho xd

hope it helps somehow, good luck requalifying
Lasse
Beatmap Nominator
3,596 posts
Joined June 2011
Lasse
:eyes:
map: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/455756 just pick one of the two extras or something, it doesnt have enough mods to go for ranking yet anyways :v

general stuff was already checked well enough here in the past so I'll skip that

[ex ex]
00:05:586 (4) - having this spaced like 00:03:986 (4) - (or even more) would fit the vocal+pitch wy better than a stack
00:09:786 (3,1) - not stacking this would make 00:12:986 (5,1) - easier to get since right now it'S easy to expect the second one to also be a stacked 1/1 (at least is messed me up on my sightread and I'd consider my ar9.3 reading fine enough)
00:17:286 (2) - would work wel las a kickslider to cover the weaker sound on the white tick, probably sth like http://i.imgur.com/uKrdTOy.jpg
00:24:286 (3) - slider starting on blue tick doesnt work that well here cause
00:29:786 (1,2) - i hate pointing out minor visual things, but http://i.imgur.com/02NX78U.jpgwould look so much nicer than the sligh overlap on the slidertail
00:40:386 (2) - is unsnapped, you probably wanted 0.9x sv here?
00:46:586 (2,3) - if you go with the "muted 1/4 sliders to emphasize vocals" thing then shoudnt those also be such sliders?
or maybe at least 00:45:786 (5,2) - cause they even have weak sounds on the blue ticks
01:03:186 (7) - missed nc? fits your 4/1 pattern in the chorus
01:16:786 (4) - unsnapped again, should use 2x sv or change the length slightly, but the first option fits the pattern better
01:17:786 (1) - could be spaced more to emphasize the finish, with how high the spacing before is it's unlikely to be misread as 1/2, sth like http://i.imgur.com/xOLAn9S.jpg
01:18:386 (4,6) - would work well with a bit higher sv cause they are pretty strong and high pitched
Last edited by Lasse , edited 1 time in total.
Gloria Guard
2,273 posts
Joined May 2011
Gloria Guard
Hello from your m4m queue :D/


[General]

■ Please uncheck this map widescreen support

■ 00:02:586 ~ 00:09:786 this parts is whistle sound a little awkward, I recommend hitsound here. http://puu.sh/p4Sgp/9668dbde90.zip



[Easy]

■ 00:23:786 (3) This is slider head point add finish please.
■ 00:26:186 (1) The slider end remove clap here, I dont heard this point clap sound.
■ 00:29:386 (1) The same suggestion this slider end point remove clap.and 00:32:586 (1) same.
■ 00:29:786 (2) I think the sliders end point add whistle sound is better imo. and 00:32:986 the same.
■ 00:36:586 (2) You missing this slider end finish sound. please add here.
■ 00:37:786 (1) This is slider head add finish please.
■ 00:43:386 (4) The slider end point add clap is awkward imo. Please remove it
■ 00:44:186 (1) The slider head add finish please.
■01:04:186 ~ 01:04:586 Why you don't mapping this part?, I just suggestion, 01:04:186 and 01:04:586 add notes also add 1/2 slider is better imo.
■ 01:07:586 (4) If you don't intended this slider end point whistle, remove please.
■ 01:22:386 (1) I think the slider end point rhythm is wrong. because the guitar end point is 01:25:786 here.


[Normal]

■ 00:04:786 (2) Why you used this sldier head and end point normal whistle sound here.I think a little suddnely sound imo. I recommend the remove this slider whsitles
■ 00:26:386 (3) Remove this slider end point clap, I don't heard it :P
■ 00:26:886 (2) I think the slider repeat point remove clap is good sound it.
■ 00:29:386 (2) The same suggestion this slider end point clap sound remove here.
■ 00:30:986 (3) ^
■ 00:32:586 (3) ^
■ 00:35:786 (3) I don't understand this sldier end point add Normal and clap sound. You listen to volume 20% here I don't listen drum and normal sound.
■ 00:36:586 (1) The slider end add finish please.
■ 00:40:186 (3,4) I recommend the patterns is add 1/2 repeat slider here.
■ 00:44:186 (1) The slider head point add finish please.
■ 00:49:386 (1,2,3) This is part emphasized the drum sound but I don't well listen this sliders drum sound. I recommend to change sample normal sound is better.
■ 01:22:386 (1) The same suggestion this slider end rhythm by easy diff.
■ 01:25:884 Unsnapped slider end


[Advanced]

■ 00:23:786 (5) The slider repeat add finish sound.
■ 00:36:586 (1) You missing this note finish sound. please add here.
■ 00:37:786 (3) Please add this slider end point finish sound.
■ 00:44:186 (1) The slider head point add finish sound please.
■ 00:53:486 (5) I think the add this note add clap a little awkward imo. i recommend to remove clap.
■ 00:55:086 (5) The same suggestion ^
■ 01:09:386 (5) I don't agree to ignore the drum sound of this part 01:09:586 here. If you agree, you try this pattern rhythm.
SPOILER
■ 01:19:786 (1) Add finish please.
■ 01:22:386 (1) Easy Normal diff same suggestion this slider end point rhythm.


[Hard]

■ 00:23:786 (2) The slider head point add finish please.
■ 00:26:486 (4,5,1) I think the (5) note remove is good 1/2 rhythm imo.
■ 00:36:586 (2) This is slider head add finish please.
■ 00:44:186 (1) Add finish this note.


[Insane]

■ 00:05:586 (1) The slider shape quality a little low. You try this slider shape
SPOILER
■ 00:36:586 (1) The slider head point add finish please.
■ 00:37:786 (1) ^
■ 00:44:186 (1) ^



[Diff (K)name]

Hmm. I can't find this diff problem.. Sorry ;w;



I think a lot of missing to hitsounds problem :P but this map is good ~ I hope to reranking this map!! anyways Good luck !

Here is my map lnik :3 https://osu.ppy.sh/s/451384
wonders
610 posts
Joined December 2011
wonders
definitely, the original one is better, looks like a whole map, this one is weird,not a good map :x
wonders
610 posts
Joined December 2011
wonders
i strong recommend you keep the original one and find a new bat, THIS IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT, (40000+rank）even i can play it
wonders
610 posts
Joined December 2011
wonders
http://puu.sh/p5wT4/afa19feaf7.jpg
if the difficult span too large，i suggest add a new diff. you can ask someone make a standard jump style map as insane.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay
@wonders, I'm more fond with the previous diff too. Thing is, I can't satisfy everyone, I consider using both diffs, as some might enjoy that and some the other, we'll see.

FCL wrote:

  • [diff_name]
  1. 00:01:586- volume of this slider sounds a bit loud imo, reducing to 30% looks better
  2. 00:02:586 (1,2) - hmmm, this high spacing between sliders with low sv at the beginning of the map plays kinda uncomfortable (at least for me exactly). At least 7x between sliders could works better I admit it's a bit extreme but I'll keep it anyway, it's fun and not hard at all.
  3. 00:04:186 (1,2) - something similar, but 8x here could works good. Anyway you should get more opinions about it I will.
  4. 00:10:586 (1,1,1) - since you had mapped these sliders to vocal, would be good you will make muting of the tails of these sliders, cuz they haven't some sounds
  5. 00:14:686 (7) - this combo feels a bit long, so I recommend you add nc here since spacing was changed
  6. 00:19:586 (6) - nc would be good too for better readability of stack
  7. 00:22:986 (7,1) - just you could improve this blanket
  8. 00:23:386 (1,3) - seems you made these 1/2 sliders intentionally, but anyway I think that mapping of 1/4 would work good cuz fit with song better. just replace these sliders to 1/4 repeats looks like great idea, just try. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5235431 I don't really like those, not a fan of such patterns.
  9. 00:25:986 (5) - I'd add nc's for all these sliders cuz sections with 3 kicksliders looks different from previous patterns Yeah but it's consistent, NC would just be too spammy.
  10. 00:49:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - nc spam looks fine for me, but you could make the placement of notes more structured, now they looks kinda randomly and doesn't so understandable imo I tried make it something that supports back&forth movement, it seems good for me.
  11. 00:51:186 (1,2,3,1,2) - seems whistles fit good with these circles, cuz we have only vocal without music, just try again
  12. 01:15:986 (2,3,4) - ^same for heads of sliders
  13. pretty good stuff, and remapped diff seems better for me than before lul

Strategas wrote:

[name diff]

00:02:586 (1,2,4,1,2) - this spacing is really overdone here, this is so calm, it doesn't matter if there is a buildup sound, it just doesn't call for this spacing, you should try emphasizing differently here I'll keep that in mind.

00:05:586 (4) - then it's weird you put no pressure here when you focused so much on spacing the vocals uhhh

00:07:386 (4) - dunno if you just don't nc here cause it looks better, but it breaks consistency

00:08:786 (2) - might sounds dumb but, I'm assuming you nced 00:08:586 (1) - because of sv change but didn't nc 00:08:786 (2) - tbh I find no need to nc 00:08:586 (1) - in the first place if you don't follow your ncing logic,

00:09:586 - aaa this green line does nothing, I guess it won't hurt to remove it

00:19:586 (6) - nc for consistency

00:28:486 (2) - you can possibly polish this slider, I just find it ew atm, 00:29:786 (1) - is much better

00:35:386 (1) - ctrl g plays much better since you made it linear it's kick slider and has even amount of space between 00:34:986 (3,4,1) - on the clickable object, it will not feel comfy when dealing with same movement on different distance

00:39:786 (6) - I disagree with changing the shape here, if you keep it like 00:38:186 (3) - 00:38:986 (3) - it will be much cooler imo Feels forced for me :P

00:39:386 (4) - also nc

00:40:498 - slider end unsnapped

00:58:986 (2,3) - looks sloppy, I'm sure you can polish

01:03:186 (7) - nc?

01:11:186 (7) - nc instead of 01:11:586 (1) - ? seems more reasonable to me if you compare note intensity, also I dunno if it's good here to keep that slider on downbeat even if you follow that vocal, the instrument is also strong here

01:13:186 (8) - missing clap on sliderhead

01:12:786 (7) - I'd suggest nc here, remove nc at 01:13:986 (1) - and add nc 01:14:586 (3) - or 01:14:186 (2) - ,the slider end would be ideal place for nc but you have it on slider end which I don't agree either xd, then nc 01:14:986 (5) - because of sv change at 01:15:386 (9) - and just fits the music, then removing nc on 01:15:786 (1) - and adding on 01:15:986 (2) - would make more sense to the music atleast

01:16:988 - slider end unsnapped

ai mod pointing the stack leniency thing, dunno up to you to change it or not

oh and 00:16:786 (5,1) - 00:24:086 (1,2,3) - 00:17:486 (3,4,5,6) - not sure if you intended to keep the antiflow movements here, but they are only for challenge if anything since they don't really play that well, unless you're beyong this level


didn't expect to write much here, overall the aesthetics were the main thing for me, but that's subjective I guess. I liked the kiai tho xd

hope it helps somehow, good luck requalifying

Lasse wrote:

even though this was remapped I'd feel bad to get kd for modding the same thing twice lol
map: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/455756 just pick one of the two extras or something, it doesnt have enough mods to go for ranking yet anyways :v

general stuff was already checked well enough here in the past so I'll skip that

[ex ex]
00:05:586 (4) - having this spaced like 00:03:986 (4) - (or even more) would fit the vocal+pitch wy better than a stack
00:09:786 (3,1) - not stacking this would make 00:12:986 (5,1) - easier to get since right now it'S easy to expect the second one to also be a stacked 1/1 (at least is messed me up on my sightread and I'd consider my ar9.3 reading fine enough)
00:17:286 (2) - would work wel las a kickslider to cover the weaker sound on the white tick, probably sth like http://i.imgur.com/uKrdTOy.jpg
00:24:286 (3) - slider starting on blue tick doesnt work that well here cause cause what? .-, blame the song
00:29:786 (1,2) - i hate pointing out minor visual things, but http://i.imgur.com/02NX78U.jpgwould look so much nicer than the sligh overlap on the slidertail
00:40:386 (2) - is unsnapped, you probably wanted 0.9x sv here?
00:46:586 (2,3) - if you go with the "muted 1/4 sliders to emphasize vocals" thing then shoudnt those also be such sliders?
or maybe at least 00:45:786 (5,2) - cause they even have weak sounds on the blue ticks
01:03:186 (7) - missed nc? fits your 4/1 pattern in the chorus
01:16:786 (4) - unsnapped again, should use 2x sv or change the length slightly, but the first option fits the pattern better
01:17:786 (1) - could be spaced more to emphasize the finish, with how high the spacing before is it's unlikely to be misread as 1/2, sth like http://i.imgur.com/xOLAn9S.jpg
01:18:386 (4,6) - would work well with a bit higher sv cause they are pretty strong and high pitched
Unnoted = Fixed / changed / whatever.

@gloria I didn't ask for mods on the other diffs ._. I'll check it later.
Left
2,156 posts
Joined October 2014
Left
M4M place holder use!
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/452412

00:17:786 (6) - NC? for consistency?
00:21:086 (1) - ^
00:22:786 (5) - NC
00:26:886 (2,3) - better blanket
00:40:186 (1,1) - I think it's really uncomfortable to use this DS while 00:37:786 (1,2) - -> 00:38:586 (1,2) - -> 00:39:386 (1,2) - -> increasing DS
00:41:786 (4) - NC
00:43:986 (3,4,5) - how about using same pattern with 00:43:586 (1,2) - . now I think it's not suitable for downbeat.
00:56:386 (2,4) - blanket
00:52:186 (1) - How about using NC every 2 downbeat? it's kiai part.
01:06:786 (7) - NC
01:17:386 (1) - I think using more fast slider would be better..but it's your interpretation
00:58:986 (2,3,4) - DS between 2,3 is too low, considering other same patterns and song's difficulty. And one more, it's too linear pattern (2->3->4) I felt a bit hard to hit 4. How about at least use different flow like here 01:11:986 (4,5,6) - ?

Good luck! I like this map.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay

Left wrote:

M4M place holder use!
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/452412

00:17:786 (6) - NC? for consistency?
00:21:086 (1) - ^
00:22:786 (5) - NC
00:26:886 (2,3) - better blanket
00:40:186 (1,1) - I think it's really uncomfortable to use this DS while 00:37:786 (1,2) - -> 00:38:586 (1,2) - -> 00:39:386 (1,2) - -> increasing DS Yeah but those are 1/4 sliders that put more pressure in the current context.
00:41:786 (4) - NC
00:43:986 (3,4,5) - how about using same pattern with 00:43:586 (1,2) - . now I think it's not suitable for downbeat. It's fine because of the vocals.
00:56:386 (2,4) - blanket
00:52:186 (1) - How about using NC every 2 downbeat? it's kiai part.
01:06:786 (7) - NC
01:17:386 (1) - I think using more fast slider would be better..but it's your interpretation It is.
00:58:986 (2,3,4) - DS between 2,3 is too low, considering other same patterns and song's difficulty. And one more, it's too linear pattern (2->3->4) I felt a bit hard to hit 4. How about at least use different flow like here 01:11:986 (4,5,6) - ? It's not completely linear, I agree it's a bit tough to play, but it is planned in a way that allows you to quickly move to 3 without actually following 2, I think it's cool.

Good luck! I like this map.
Cellina
1,004 posts
Joined March 2013
Cellina

Diff... what was the diff's name xD

  1. 00:05:786 (1,2,3) - what about this?
  2. 00:32:386 (5,6,7) - why did you used 1/2 slider even you used 1/4 for other parts? i strongly recommend change into the 1/4.
  3. 00:44:186 (5) - NC?
  4. 00:52:486 - place a note here with stacking on 00:52:586 (2) - ?

nice beatmap, gl!
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay

Cellina wrote:

Diff... what was the diff's name xD

  1. 00:05:786 (1,2,3) - what about this?
  2. 00:32:386 (5,6,7) - why did you used 1/2 slider even you used 1/4 for other parts? i strongly recommend change into the 1/4. It doesn't work well at all, unfortunately.
  3. 00:44:186 (5) - NC?
  4. 00:52:486 - place a note here with stacking on 00:52:586 (2) - ? It's overmapped :< I'd love to do this but I decided to avoid overmapping as much as I can here.

nice beatmap, gl!
made some changes of my own too

@gloria guard, as most (if not all) of your suggestions were towards hitsounds weren't really relevant as I didn't really find them to my liking while I asked for mods on the highest diff only, I am not really going to respond on that, sorry. I'll return the favor anyway, but only for one diff.
Chocolat
140 posts
Joined March 2013
Chocolat

wonders wrote:

i strong recommend you keep the original one and find a new bat, THIS IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT, (40000+rank）even i can play it
The problem with the map wasn't because it was difficult, It was the mapping. It was too all over the place.
Xayler
628 posts
Joined November 2013
Xayler
Isn't the CS now too high compared to Insane? It goes from 3,5 to 4,8 , where is normal 4? I think that 4,8 is too high, maybe 4,2 or something would be better to aim.
Also the 0,3x slider velocity, it's remembering me pensamento beatmap now, lol.
I also think that the previous one was better, maybe mix the new and previous one together? Or just maybe this mapset doesn't need an Extra, that would also be an option, well making insane a bit harder then.
Looking forward to this map evolution!

I would do a proper mod, but my experience isn't that high so idk.
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay

Xayler wrote:

Isn't the CS now too high compared to Insane? It goes from 3,5 to 4,8 , where is normal 4? I think that 4,8 is too high, maybe 4,2 or something would be better to aim.
Also the 0,3x slider velocity, it's remembering me pensamento beatmap now, lol.
I also think that the previous one was better, maybe mix the new and previous one together? Or just maybe this mapset doesn't need an Extra, that would also be an option, well making insane a bit harder then.
Looking forward to this map evolution!

I would do a proper mod, but my experience isn't that high so idk.
That's the gimmick, otherwise it just feels 'weak' and boring :\
Bearizm
1,213 posts
Joined October 2013
Bearizm

pishifat wrote:

Avishay wrote:

Decent formatting in your mod post is viewed positively.
u did this to yourself

NORMAL
thE diFficUlty itSeLf is k but wAy tOo deNse foR tHe loWest diFf:(
lIke reAlly yOu nEed An eaSy, eVeN iF it woUlD mEan uNdeRmaPping a loT oF tHe reD tiCk snArEs aNd nOisE spAm StuFf
oH aNd soMe hItSouNds (wHiCh woUld bE on aLl diFfs i guESs):
01:18:620 (2) - miSsinG fiNish or soMEthing liKe 01:21:820 (2) -
01:04:220 (2) - sAMe soRta ThiNg lIkE 01:02:620 (2) -
00:49:020 (5) - fiNisH>clAp tbH muSiC

ADVANCED
00:22:020 (1,2,3) - sUpeR miNor buT dUnNo hoW intEntiOnal tHe swiTchiNg to 1.5x sPaCinG waS hEre sInCe evEryThiNg iS 1.4 in thE seCtiOn anD muSIc is SameEe

HARD
thE

INSANE
00:08:820 (5) - sHoulD pRobAblY gEt riD oF thAt LasT rEpeaT likE You diD wiTh tHe exTra. i tHinK yoU dId iT on tHe upPer diFf for lEnienCy whEn moViNg to tHe neXt NoTe, buT lenIenCy froM juSt ClicKinG is A tHinG toO (espEciaLly WhEn lOts of pEoPle tRy To siNglEtaP stuFf liKe tHis soMeHoW)
01:02:620 (4,1) - pLeAse yoUr cuRreNt plAceMent Is makIng iT seEm liKe strEam sTarTs At 01:02:920 (1) - wHich iT Um doESnt
seParAtiNg 4 And 1 spaCing wIsE adDs to The wHat Too
aNd bLue TicK nEw cOmBoinG wiThOut inDiCatIve sPacIng is LikE noT idEaL SinCe coMboINg asSisTS reAdiNg bY alWAys hAvIng tHem StaRt oN wHitE/redzZzzZZZz tHiS wAs oN tEe Bn tEst YOu alrEadY KnOw iT
ooOOo aND tHe SamE thIng hapPeNs on eXtrA pLs


EXTRA!!!!
00:01:820 (1,1) - sV indICaTinG tHe bUilD uP woUlD Be coOl
00:40:420 (3) - sOmeThiNg tO MaKe pEoplE knOw thIs iS aCtuAlLy haLviNg in sPEed wOulD bE o K
00:19:420 (5,1) - 00:21:020 (4,1) - aSsuMinG yOu ReaD tHe raNt oN inSanE u kNow wHaT i WanT to SAy. sWaPpinG nCs wOulD mAke TheSe Not GroSs
01:15:220 (1,2,3,4,1) - UM wouLd haVe moRe oF a bUilD up eFfeCt iF yOu aCtualLy sTartEd wIth NoT-huGe sPaCIng. bEginNing wItH yoUr pReViouS usUaL 1/4 sPacInG 01:14:420 (7,8,1) - thEn goiNg Up frOm thEre Is liKe "wOah It'S geTtiNg faSTeR"" RatHer thAn "woAh iT's FasT" yeS
01:18:620 (3) - sHouLd ReaLly hAve SomE sOrT oF emPhaSis To hEre:(

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/414289 i have to apply handsome's mod and do some timing thing but after that $$$$$$$
u did this to yourself
Avishay
1,250 posts
Joined April 2013
Topic Starter
Avishay

Bearizm wrote:

u did this to yourself
WAT R U DOIN
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
110 / 157