In one year lol
C00L wrote:yales when u back ;w;
In one year lol
C00L wrote:yales when u back ;w;
I think that you should remove nc here 00:03:135 (1) - = nc here 00:03:750 (3) - fixed
You can also remove nc here 00:04:981 (1) - Nope, new stenza
00:11:750 (3,4,5,6) - this pattern mapped like all notes has the same sounds, but it's not like that.Ds plz It's not because it's not jumping everywhere it's meaningless
00:43:442 (2,3,4,5,6) - ^ and all moments which you mapped like this same
00:14:519 (4,1) - I'm sure that you did it on purpose, but it looks a little ugly. Fix plz Were you talking about the overlap? not sure why you think it's "ugly" but well, I didnt like the part so changed for now
00:16:058 (1,2) - sounds like this 00:17:904 (3,4) - but you mapped them differently fixed
00:48:058 (1,2,3,4) - mmm... Why "4" so far from "3"? mh, why not? lol it's probably for the same reason you wanted me to include different spacing there 00:11:750 (3,4,5,6) -
01:36:827 (1,1,1) - remove nc or nc here 02:06:365 (2,3,4) - nope, sounds are different.
01:52:827 (4,5,6,1) - "6" and "1" can disappointing player because you placed 4 like two last notes (1/2 and 1/4)(just opinion) well, this is just reading factor ^^
02:00:827 (2,3) - (and others) different sounds(can you? understand me?) It fits. who said that "when 2 circles are stacked it has to be the same sound" x.x
00:02:058 (1,2,3) - play with ds nope
00:43:442 (2,3,4,5,6) - and other patterns like this ^ nah, random spacing isn't my thing ^^
00:32:673 (1) - remove nc no, it's fine
00:32:981 (1) - ^ ^
00:33:596 (1) - maybe remove nc? This one is debatable indeed, but I think it makes the pattern more light so it's good
01:45:519 (6) - nc from here will be better It won't, it would actually be missleading and I don't get why you should put a NC on a blue tick in the first place :p
02:16:212 (1,1,1) - remove nc Why? It fits great for a final
I will write a mod to other diffs a bit later
Next Omoi map rank when
See you later and good luck!
Underforest wrote:mod v1 in 2018
00:28:365 (1,3) - this may look cool but I don't think overlap is a good idea I'll seek for more opinions then.
00:37:289 (2,1) - avoid doing this in normals, beginner players are not able to look the slider 1 head and can confuse them fixed
00:45:596 (2,2) - ^ not sure those are actually bad, but I fixed in case.
01:07:750 (5,1) - ^ fixed
01:13:904 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - please avoid overusing spinners, it's unrankable and rather not needed because music is still going and there's no accurate point to place a circle in these beats. just map these parts It's not unrankable. Also I don't dislike the way it fits the music whether than just "filling" as you usually see in other maps. I got rid off 4 of them though to make the end a bit more "light"
01:18:212 (5,6) - this is too fast as rhythm just goes, just use circles changed with a 1/1 slider instead for star rating issue.
00:12:981 (3,4,1,2,3) - again, avoid overlaps here, this also looks very bad I really like how it looks.
00:17:289 (1,3,1) - these overlaps can be confusing I think it's ok for a hard diff.
diff is good too, but you can replace spinners with some of mapping I'll see with other opinions, and if hard diff needs to get boosted for the spread rofl
00:24:058 (3,4) - why didn't you applied jumping to the circles? it looks inconsistent with the music, you can do this thing to similar patterns too I feel it fits the piano great.
01:18:519 (4) - ctrl+g? I like the flow herem and it would mess up a bit the next 1/4 too.
won't mod extra to be fair with our maps modding time
also your map is clean, just need some polishment and rearrange but looks ok for now owo
Thank you very much!
Lafayla wrote:Hellogoodluck, thank
00:03:750 (1) - maybe this is too simplified? ik you're expressing 00:04:365 (2) - as calm but perhaps making 00:03:750 (1) - as 2 1/2 sliders or just adding circle at 00:04:212 - would be better I like the way it is simplified right now. There's nothing in the music that calls for a speed up, it's just the intro, and gives more impact to 00:04:981 (1,2,3,4) - imo
00:09:442 (1,4) - not a pretty overlap imo, maybe a ctrl h and flipping to other side of 2 and 3 like this is another option Not that I dislike my overmap but since next sliders are also overlapping I took your idea to make it more light.
it looks like you are emphasizing melody in this section, maybe 00:29:135 (5) - being stacked isn't a good idea to show melody emphasis, something you could do though is just move 00:28:981 (4) - into the stack of 00:28:673 (2,3) - so that both melody pitches at 00:29:135 (5,6) - get spacing fixed as suggested, nice catch
00:35:135 (3,4) - maybe doing something unique with this pattern with this pattern looking flipping the slider heads is a good idea because melody, unless you aren't following melody anymore, which i think you still are I get your point, but I like the global flow of this pattern. I feel it represents the overall music (if not precisely) well here
00:46:520 (6,7) - im not a fan of this normal whistle but it does kind of match the melody here so :/ maybe swapping it for a custom thats something less harsh/more smooth would be better, also applies for the other ones in this section I don't think I dislike it...idk. I'll try to seek for more opinions about it!
00:58:827 (6) - recieves no emphasis compared to 00:53:904 (6) - I feel that from 00:57:904 (1) - this point the whole music gets more "global" such as a build up so I don't think I need to give special emphasize here
01:04:981 (1) - because of the bent downward angle, it forces players to do weird motion when snapping to 01:05:289 (1) - Slightly fixed?
I don't think players follow sliders this accurately though, while I play it I just go in a straight line. But I hope the minor modification will help.
01:12:519 (5) - because you gave this circle similar spacing to 01:12:673 (1) - < that slider doesn't feel very emphasized for that melody crash in, reducing the spacing of 01:12:519 (5) - slightly while maintaining the spacing of 01:12:519 (5,1) - the same would be better I kinda get your point,
but I kinda disagree here. The 1/1 slider slows the movement of the previous jump which consequently gives emphasis to it.
01:17:442 (6) - the stack notes force stopped movement which indirectly emphasizes 01:17:442 (6) - which isn't very significant, it would be a good idea to either cut down its spacing or to make those stacks flow instead of holding down movement I didn't totally agree with your point here but fixed to fix the next point xd
01:17:596 (1) - doesn't feel very emphasized currently fixed
01:49:289 (7) - this imo should be slightly more spaced than the spacing 01:49:135 (6) - gets even if I get the concept, it doesn't bother me more than that tbh
01:55:442 (8,9,10,1) - this is a bit of an awkward angle if i was being honest, also it would look at lot better if the distance bettween 01:55:135 (6,8) - were the same as the distance of 01:55:289 (7,9) - I really like this kind of angles though! I did, regardless, an improvement on the pattern's balance.
Only modding Hard+ since I didnt find anything on the others.
00:17:904 (3,1,2) - Overlap equally for aesthetics fixed
00:42:365 (3) - NC If I put one here I feel i'd need to put another one on the next slider which wouldn't make more sense, so I prefer let it as it is.
01:13:904 (1) - Make it clickable imo, strong sound, u can add the spinner after that. Not that I don't get your point, but I really prefer that spins on a beat like that, because it somehow gives a concrete reason to spin in my point of view.
01:46:981 (5,1) - Why stack these 2? 01:47:135 (1) - is a strong sound mh, I don't think it means I hide it, but fixed just in case.
00:56:519 (7) - Ctrl+G for better flow? This 1/4 slider is always more spaced even on the hard diff, it's really the part I want to emphasize the most.
01:26:519 (1,2,3) - Why not do the same thing with the sliders as u did with the Hard dif? It fits very well Okay!~
02:15:443 (1,2,1,2,1) - Kinda undermapped, it's the last notes and the song is very intense here and it's just 1/2 sliders. You can easily maps some jumps or something here. changed
00:04:981 (1,2,3) - Kinda big spacing for this slow part It is indeed but it's another interpretation to the music. Let's say the whole song was this "calm" it doesnt mean you wouldn't add some jumps so yea :p
00:56:212 (7,8) - Reduce spacing its not that strong sound I feel it's actually pretty strong, also flow is good here. Which doesn't really feel like a jump section as hitting those 2 notes isn't that hard.
01:04:519 (1,2,1,2) - This jump is very hard to do imo, i'd nerf the spacing a bit nerfed a tiny bit
Couldnt really find anything more, take a star! GL
Thanks for the check
00:44:058 (6,7,1) - this is awkward playing, so here you have 1/2 no gap between note and kickslider, then you have this jump after 1/4 slider and next note -
which does not emphasize anything in my opinion. I would recommend to do the revert thing. Keep spacin in between 6,7 - and remove gap with 7,1 http://prntscr.com/hzfn3v I'm not sure to get your point. And can't see the difference from what it is right now with the screenshot. Although I do think it emphasize 00:44:365 (1) - pretty well as it is
00:44:981 (5,6,7,8) - again i don't understand the idea here - changing pattern so roughly in the middle, i played it like 1/4 stack of notes - that's how it looks like at least. And it's not even dictaded by the music i can't hear it. So i recommend to keep the track with pattern - keep spacing, or, at least, stack those in top of each other, so it recognizable like stacked 1/2 double That's a reading problem. It's not 1/4 because the music keeps on 1/2. Also,
the music isn't flat, it's not a metronome you know, so I'm representing it by increasing/decreasing spacing.
00:45:904 (2,3) - again this type of pattern is screaming about 1/4 followed by beat note. Please keep spacing, or stack on top of each other. I don't want to pinpoint every single similar note placement on map, there are quite a lot there. But also note that this is just my personal opinion, you may same way think that it's completely fine and it reads well enough this way Yep, this is just reading factor. Rhythm is obvious enough in my point of view to let it as it is.
00:47:289 (1,2,3) - see here - proves what i've been saying before. your triplet, has same spacing, as your 1/2 doubles - confusing Nah it doesn't prove much. It's not because the spacing is the same that it has to play the same. It's in the music.
01:04:519 (1) - There is nothing playing under this 1/2 ? There is a pretty huge beat.
01:04:750 (2) - same ^ same
http://prntscr.com/hzfuq7 - this matches music perfectly ^ No I can hear the beats missing and letting a red tick empty out of noehwere plays really bad.
01:23:135 (4) - id on't like the placement of this note, it doesn't "fit" with pattern and music, move it down and left a bit , you can stack it with 01:24:058 (3) - I think it fits. And why would it not fit here but fit in another place? o.o
01:53:904 (4,5,6,7) - this flows and plays were much bettr. You of course can adjust placements, but you got the idea of sharp angles http://prntscr.com/hzfxao In your screenshot 2, 3 and 4 flows poorly + spacing from 6 to 7 is random as 7 is actually really quiet com,pared to other, but it has the highest spacing in your pattern. + my pattern looks better in my opinion, taste though.~
Could be perfect spinner in the end - if you mind Nope, lots of map use a spinner like that, but to me, it "fills" but doesnt "fits"
00:46:673 (7) - 01:01:596 (1) - too much clockwise movement, maybe you could come up with some idea to fit something counter-clockwise here well.. .that makes it a good flow.
02:00:827 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - those doubles, they kinda don't fit the music. They would fit perfectly, if you would have doubles starting with 02:00:673 (1) - strong note. I would make back fourth jumps like http://prntscr.com/hzg1ug - not exactly like this, but you got the idea I don't think it calls for a jump nope
For comparison, 02:10:519 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - these doubles, are perfect- only because they start with strong beat But this is leading to the last kiai, intensity has to be different.
00:26:827 (4,5) - i know it's a jump, but i would keep spacing consistent here personally, so i would move revers slider to the end of 3, maybe not stack it
Especially taking in count you keep it consistent throughout whole map, almost This is the part I want to emphasize the most and I used same technique in all other diffs you checked.
00:46:519 (4,5) - and 00:26:827 (4,5) - are same idea, but different spacing
01:11:442 (1,2) - don't stack these please, it's not wrong, it just will play much better if it won't be stacked I disagree, flow is good here.
01:21:289 (1,2) - again, i highly recommend not stacking 1 / 1 notes. To not make it so i'm just saying stuff just to say something, you have already 1/2 stacks throughout whole map. Stacking also 1/1s is feeling sloppy to play, and doesn't look that good. That's my personal opinion Nope,
a movement here wouldnt fit in my opinion and it emphasize 01:21:596 (2) -
01:51:981 - unused inheritance point, but who cares I do care about it, but it's not unused as I stopped the kiai there to make another fountain here 01:52:058 -
Sorry I don't know how to mod easy/normals so that's gona be it from me
J a c k wrote:Hey M4MNormal
- 00:26:827 (7,1) - I would stack them because it looks better, is easier to play and because you stacked 00:06:519 (2,3) - as well so I would keep this consistent, same goes for other 1/2 gaps Well.. If I were to change it'd actualle be 00:06:519 (2) - to avoid the stack.
But I don't want this part to have to much movement
- 00:50:519 (3,4,1) - It would look better if it was a perfect triangle with equal distances between all circles, this is just an example but it goes for the entire map I don't dislike isosceles triangle neither though
- 00:51:442 (1,2) - Blanket is noticeably off (also in some other places) Is it? o.o I tried to fix a bit but ye.. o.o
- 01:11:135 (4,5) - Don't do this, it's confusing because it looks like a 1/2 gap Well, I don't know, except at the beginning i always stacked 1/1 rather than 1/2. I think what's confusing in normal is just stacks by itself but here since it's 1/1 you have the time to notice I think.
- 01:44:058 (2,3) - You could blanket these Nahh, blanket doesn't look that cute
- 02:12:981 (1,2,3,4) - This pattern is not very appealing visually, I recommend you to make the short sliders straight and also make sure that it's symmetrical I don't dislike my pattern though lol. I fixed the non-symmetrical slider though.
- 02:14:827 (5,6) - Don't stack them, looks like 1/2 I don't know, i'll try to get other opinions on it, I think it's fine.Veridian's Advanced
- 00:03:750 (1,2,3) - Bad flow here, the transition should be linear, same here: 00:06:981 (3,4,1) - and in other places as well
- 00:46:673 (2,3) - Stack them perfectly, same here: 00:51:596 (2,3) -
- 01:21:289 (1,2) - They should be parallel, also at 01:22:673 (2,3) -Hard
- 01:22:673 (2,3) - This looks very messy imo, I would change it Why? o.o What is messy?
- 00:17:289 (1,3) - Stack them perfectly, not only here (decrease stack leniency) custom stack looks better
- 00:26:519 (3,4,5) - Awkward flow why?
- 00:28:365 (1,3) - There is no reason to have a overlap here Not sure to get your point? there's no reason to have a reason for an overlap I think. It's just a pattern.
- 00:48:981 (4,5,1) - Don't stack, looks like a triple, 00:50:212 (4,5,1) - too Nah, it's just fine
- 01:11:442 (1,2) - I don't think you need to stack these, the gap feels weird (this is not only the case here) and I also think that the transition to 01:12:365 (3) - is very weird because the slider is pointed towards the opposite direction I think the stack represents the music pretty well here though,
also flow is fine here.
- 02:14:212 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Kinda overmapped imo, the music is not noticeably more intense here Overmapped? o.o It isn't, also the music IS more intense here. And it's the final, it fits great.Lunatic
- 00:09:904 (2) - It should be closer to the next note and further apart from the previous one because 00:09:904 (2,3,4) - are the same Not that I don't get your point but it plays just fine. a higher spacing would make 00:10:135 (3) - on blue tick harder to deal with.
- 00:14:673 - There's a sound here that should be emphasized somehow imo. I suggest replacing 00:14:519 (4) - by 2 circles or something like that Added.
- 00:16:519 (2,3) - This is not very linear, it creates uncomfortable flow and doesn't look very good Changed a tiny bit the angle, but ye...
nothing i can really do here if I don't want to mess up the overlaps.
- You should decide whether to use 00:24:519 (6,7,1) - or 00:25:135 (3,4,5) - for triples in the entire diff because then you have things like 00:28:673 (2,3,4) - and it's confusing and inconsistent Nah it's ok like this. 00:24:519 (6,7) - actually slow down more than 00:25:135 (3,4) - nothing really confusing about it, and keeping only the spaced one would feel weird.
- 00:42:135 - You missed a sound here Added
- 02:00:827 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - You shouldn't stack them because you never did it anywhere else and right before this you have 02:00:596 (5,1) - which is 1/4 rhythm same than 02:10:519 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and after the 1/4 doesnt bother me more than thatUnfading Nightmares
- 00:33:135 (1) - This shouldn't overlap with 00:32:673 (1) - because the whole pattern is already very confusing Changing the combo color won't change the pattern though, especially because it's confusing the combo color also fits.
- I'm really impressed by this diff, good job!
Hello, thanks for your check.
JeZag wrote:hello, i had a quick look at your highest difficulty, and i dont like your choice of using flow breaks starting at 00:43:135 (1) -
(so for example, 00:44:058 (6,7) - 00:44:981 (5,6) - etc)
my problem with it is that its a reading gimmick thats only used in this one section of the map and does not occur anywhere else in the diff.
furthermore, i cannot hear anything exceptional (i.e. notes whose tones are repeating and/or exact same sounds/samples that are repeated) that justifies this gimmick.
i believe it is a reading gimmick because it AR 9 makes these stacks seem like 1/8 patterns, especially since the spacing is exactly the same as other 1/8 rhythms in the diff like 00:47:289 (1,2,3) -
if you choose to keep the diff this way, can you explain your reasoning and justification? (i mean it could just be that im bad at reading)
Not sure to get your point ._.
JeZag wrote:on another note, i personally dont like the flow at 00:44:212 (7,1,2) - because 00:44:212 (7,1) - makes me snap to 1.
then, after this is a continuously flowing pattern 00:44:365 (1,2,3,4) - in the same direction, which feels bad to me. i can explain more about why it feels bad to me, but its pretty subjective i guesssss
J a c k wrote:Veridian's Advanced
- 00:03:750 (1,2,3) - Bad flow here, the transition should be linear, same here: 00:06:981 (3,4,1) - and in other places as well Why
- 00:46:673 (2,3) - Stack them perfectly, same here: 00:51:596 (2,3) - ok
- 01:21:289 (1,2) - They should be parallel, also at 01:22:673 (2,3) - ok
osu file format v14
AudioFilename: nmk - sola.mp3
Tags:BMS PolkaMocha Aia
//Background and Video events
//Storyboard Layer 0 (Background)
//Storyboard Layer 1 (Fail)
//Storyboard Layer 2 (Pass)
//Storyboard Layer 3 (Foreground)
//Storyboard Sound Samples
Combo1 : 130,165,191
Combo2 : 255,70,70
Combo3 : 128,128,192
Combo4 : 199,113,208
Thanks for this useful mod !!
Noffy wrote:200+ sp o: Yales vs. Mirash, who'll be the winner?
Sorry for the delay \qvq/
- I know SV changes are generally discouraged in lower diffs like easy/normal/advanced, but the intro is so quiet that the sv not being lowered like in the higher difficulties feels.. off. I suggest having an inherited point at the start for like, .75sv, and have it change to 1.0 at 00:11:135 - . In normal, this would definitely not be deterimental to the player since there would be a spinner inbetween too. I get your point, but I'd really like to stay safe as much as possible for normal (the spread being kinda borderline). Even if a lower DS would make sense, I don't dislike the fast pace at the beginning, and I don't think it doesn't fit most likely because this is the first section introduced, so the player doesn't really know the overall speed of the map... I don't know if that's clear xd
- while the 10% volume in the intro works well for hitsounded objects, the ones without additions (primarily present in higher diffs) are really lacking in feedback, i.e. 00:04:981 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - here on top where every other object is difficult to hear. up to 15% I really don't want to make this too strong.
- If you're gonna put the diffname as "Polka's" you should really add "PolkaMocha" to tags (also you have Veridian in tags twice) Added,
and removed 1 Veridian, nice catch.
- 00:04:981 (1) - http://puu.sh/z91Pg/5e2e3195b5.jpg maybe set the points like this instead for smoothnesses \ovo/? kinda fixed I think.
- 00:31:750 (1,2) - Maybe make the same as 00:26:827 (7,1,2) - ? I feel that prior rhythm you used suits the song better o: I actually prefer the second one, because all diffs have a slider reverse at these melody parts. I feel it would kinda be boring to put only those in normal though.
- 00:33:289 (1,2,3,4,5) - cute! thanks
- 00:45:596 (2) - shorten by 1/1 to move 00:46:827 (1) - up to 00:46:519 - , that's where the more noteable sound is, and similar 1/2 reverses start at the same times (00:51:442 (1) - , 00:56:365 (1) - )
> suggested visual: part 1 , part 2 . makes sense, fixed as suggested.
- 00:04:673 - feels empty without a circle here when there's the audible piano, and it concludes the melody 00:03:750 (1,2,3) - follows. Suggestion: add circle.
- 00:22:212 (1) - the bump is so harsh it messes with the feeling of sv a bit, revise like http://puu.sh/z94Rx/29033e1078.jpg mayhap?
- 00:46:519 (1,2) - sssstack is offff I personally think it looks better like this though xd
- 01:38:519 (1) - should be extended to reverse at 01:38:750 - instead of 01:38:673 - , it's audibly different from 01:39:135 (2) - in speed of the piano, yet they're the same length, so the resulting rhythm vs. song sounds a bit off currently. Since it's a reverse, the 3/4 rhythm wouldn't be hard to play either. (also you did the 3/4 at 01:48:365 (1) - so...)
- 01:39:750 (1,2) - cute!!
- 00:12:827 (2,3,4,1,2,3) - really cool!!! gosh, finally someone who doesn't dislike overlapping pattern on purpose cool xddd thanks!!!
- 00:28:365 (1) - current wave is rather flat and sad, maybe make it an ittybitmore curvy? like: http://puu.sh/z95qi/7231b1a31e.jpg fixed
- 01:26:519 (1,1,1) - ultra cool!! (same for lunatic) thanks
- 01:40:981 (1) - 01:50:827 (1) - mmm.. weird/dissappointing this is the only diff that has these bits as a spinner, and the recovery. I think a rhythm like this http://puu.sh/z95xH/b404f99b71.jpg could fit as well, as the 1/4 gaps would reflect the non-stop nature of the instrument here, without having to have it as a spinner. fixed
\ovo/ no suggestions here
- 00:22:673 (2) - I didnt feel like this got as much emphasis as 00:22:212 (1) - did despite their mapping similar sounds. Mayhaps delete 00:22:827 (3) - and make 00:22:673 (2) - a reverse slider instead, so that you get cute repeat rhythm additional: this could help 00:22:981 (4) - stand out more rhythmically too. drums aside, there's kind of build up in the music from this part. That's what I'm trying to represent here.
- 00:32:212 (1,2,1,1,1,1,1) - while this part of the song is pretty intense, this pattern felt.. really weirdly hard relative to other parts of the map. it has 1/4 sliders like you use a lot, and high spacing between, yes, but the largely linear fashion just.. makes it really hard to hit, even in comparison to like 01:31:750 (1,2,3,4) - . I'd heavily suggest figuring out a way to revise this pattern :s I know it might be hard to hit, but I think it fits, and looks really cool, 4 diffs were made before to prevent this kind of pattern imo, I think it's fine for an extra.
- 00:43:135 - for this first part of the section, I dont see why you're mixing the regular spacing and the closer spacing for the paired 1/2 notes, like 00:43:750 (4,5,6,7) - vs. 00:44:981 (5,6,7,8) - , when starting at 00:48:058 - nearly all sets of 2 notes are paired with more spacing inbetween them. I think maybe it'd be cool if, for 00:43:135 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - you used the paired spacing more often, with the smaller 1.0 spacing between each set of two notes, so that when 00:48:058 - starts it feels more like a buildup since then it'd be mixing the more variable spacing in too? I feel the the first part is actually preparing the second. I tried your suggestion, but then I feel that the second part would lose its impact :c I did put as a double 00:43:750 (4,5) - to stay constant and it'd feel less surprising at the kick slider.
- 00:56:212 (7,8,1) - emhpasis felt off here, since 00:56:365 (8,1) - are loudest, but 00:56:212 (7,8) - get biggest spacing... >.< spacing isn't everything. 00:56:365 (8,1) - it's the most sharp angle flow-wise. the whole pattern your hand kinda do a circle, but suddenly has to go back up to catch that note.
Concluding notes: Fantastic set!! best of luck!!