Ascendance wrote:
Game over.
May Tom94 and his broken pp system rest in peace.
forum
Tatsh - IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> [CatchTheBeat]
posted
Total Posts
181
May Tom94 and his broken pp system rest in peace.
what
edit: what
edit: what
wat de fak dat pp?!?!
legit BPM, k life. I regret to leave the fruits
this make me more want to play fruits..
E P I C
legit BPM, k life. I regret to leave the fruits
this make me more want to play fruits..
E P I C
Oh my god you did it
Holy Fort
Holy Fort
H A R D E S T M A P B O Y Z
Wing my way is still the heardest :^)Battle wrote:
H A R D E S T M A P B O Y Z
Congrats clsw! \o/
Hr hd 1702pp hype
yasssss grats!!
JBHyperion wrote:
May Tom94 and his broken pp system rest in peace.
Sorry everyone but I had to do this
Lince Cosmico_old
ok game over time to rip thisAscendance wrote:
Game over.
lol jk
no rip because he don't care about thisRockageek wrote:
JBHyperion wrote:
May Tom94 and his broken pp system rest in peace.
Sorry everyone but I had to do this
from tom94 ask
Even I can't CTB but after I saw the exhibition I feel it really really Fantastic !
Congratulations !
Congratulations !
9.58 stars op gg bro for rank lol
GOD
IS
DEAD
IS
DEAD
hmm, i'm wondering about metadata
I need some confirmation
from: http://www.konamistyle.jp/sp/tatsh_material/index.html
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL-(新曲）
from: album
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL-(新曲）
yeah, I knew 新曲 mean new song
from: https://itunes.apple.com/jp/album/material/id471200721
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- -Version 0-
from: https://www.google.com.vn/webhp?sourcei ... rial+album
title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
from: https://remywiki.com/IMAGE_-MATERIAL-_( ... AT_Edition)
title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
In my opinion, title should be named as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
For the love of KONAMI and BEMANI, why they didn't write <Version 0> in his album insteal, and just (新曲) [this could be mistaken, <Version 0> should be the correct one]
And since this song being used from REFLEC BEAT limelight (even it's short version), so I think source should be REFLEC BEAT limelight too
Correct me if i'm wrong then
Thanks! And congrats
I need some confirmation
from: http://www.konamistyle.jp/sp/tatsh_material/index.html
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL-(新曲）
from: album
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL-(新曲）
yeah, I knew 新曲 mean new song
from: https://itunes.apple.com/jp/album/material/id471200721
Title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- -Version 0-
from: https://www.google.com.vn/webhp?sourcei ... rial+album
title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
from: https://remywiki.com/IMAGE_-MATERIAL-_( ... AT_Edition)
title: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
In my opinion, title should be named as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
For the love of KONAMI and BEMANI, why they didn't write <Version 0> in his album insteal, and just (新曲) [this could be mistaken, <Version 0> should be the correct one]
And since this song being used from REFLEC BEAT limelight (even it's short version), so I think source should be REFLEC BEAT limelight too
Correct me if i'm wrong then
Thanks! And congrats
According to your post, with this album cover: http://auctions.c.yimg.jp/images.auctio ... qf8160.jpg
It should be: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
Not only from konamistyle
It should be: IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>
Not only from konamistyle
Sure, but if you follow the link in my post you'll see there's an official confirmation of the artist just calling the song IMAGE -MATERIAL-. Either Version 0 or Shinkyoku are remarks that don't belong to the current title. KwaN got it confirmed too.
Alright! I understood!
In REFLEC BEAT, the song is titled "IMAGE-MATERIAL- <REFLEC BEAT Edition>".
The phrase inside the brackets might be refering to what version it is. the artist wouldn't have to state the version of the song in a sneak peek. (the blog post was a sneak peek, not an actual review of the album) or maybe they planned on using it in REFLEC BEAT after he posted the post and changed the title.
The important thing is that it was a sneak peek, and the song wasn't even officially released when the artist posted it.
You guys should have more consistency, if every evidence points out it should be titled as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>(or -Version 0-) and you just confirm it by the artists' words that was when the song wasn't even officially released, these is a problem.
According to your words this map should just be titled Dynasty as well : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/434695 and it is just one of the many ranked maps to list.
Also, the album was released first and then it came to REFLEC BEAT, so the source should be fine.
Just stating my thoughts, no need for drama or anything.
The phrase inside the brackets might be refering to what version it is. the artist wouldn't have to state the version of the song in a sneak peek. (the blog post was a sneak peek, not an actual review of the album) or maybe they planned on using it in REFLEC BEAT after he posted the post and changed the title.
The important thing is that it was a sneak peek, and the song wasn't even officially released when the artist posted it.
You guys should have more consistency, if every evidence points out it should be titled as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>(or -Version 0-) and you just confirm it by the artists' words that was when the song wasn't even officially released, these is a problem.
According to your words this map should just be titled Dynasty as well : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/434695 and it is just one of the many ranked maps to list.
Also, the album was released first and then it came to REFLEC BEAT, so the source should be fine.
Just stating my thoughts, no need for drama or anything.
SB is weird. Other than that its awesome for CtB
DQ because I didn't give my star~~ loool
Gratz CLSW, this map is soooooo epic!!
Gratz CLSW, this map is soooooo epic!!
i seeHibari wrote:
no rip because he don't care about this
from tom94 ask
Topic Starter
- Magic Bomb -, if you have some concern about this map please don't hesitate to write down them on here. If the major issues exist in this map then I'll fix.
But do not make such kinda filibuster mod like in HW's TSUBAKI please, it's not a good way for both of us. Since we all know that your and my directivity of mapping is completely different.
But do not make such kinda filibuster mod like in HW's TSUBAKI please, it's not a good way for both of us. Since we all know that your and my directivity of mapping is completely different.
Requested by CLSW.
Topic Starter
Thanks kwan!
Sorry everyone, so after the discussion with QATs I've decided to change the title as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>. In fact the composer of this song mentioned as 'IMAGE -MATERIAL-, but it was mentioned before the album release which is following 'IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>' so I'd like to follow this 'up-to-date' metadata with this newest information. And don't worry, this is going to be back soon!
Sorry everyone, so after the discussion with QATs I've decided to change the title as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>. In fact the composer of this song mentioned as 'IMAGE -MATERIAL-, but it was mentioned before the album release which is following 'IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>' so I'd like to follow this 'up-to-date' metadata with this newest information. And don't worry, this is going to be back soon!
I think I have to clarify a bit here.Serena- wrote:
In REFLEC BEAT, the song is titled "IMAGE-MATERIAL- <REFLEC BEAT Edition>".
The phrase inside the brackets might be refering to what version it is. the artist wouldn't have to state the version of the song in a sneak peek. (the blog post was a sneak peek, not an actual review of the album) or maybe they planned on using it in REFLEC BEAT after he posted the post and changed the title.
The important thing is that it was a sneak peek, and the song wasn't even officially released when the artist posted it.
You guys should have more consistency, if every evidence points out it should be titled as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>(or -Version 0-) and you just confirm it by the artists' words that was when the song wasn't even officially released, these is a problem.
According to your words this map should just be titled Dynasty as well : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/434695 and it is just one of the many ranked maps to list.
Also, the album was released first and then it came to REFLEC BEAT, so the source should be fine.
Just stating my thoughts, no need for drama or anything.
First of all, IMAGE -MATERIAL- <REFLEC BEAT Edition> is a rearranged game size version of IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> / IMAGE -MATERIAL- . That is, they are completely different songs with different duration.
Similar case to Dynasty, Dynasty -da capo- and Dynasty -al fine-.
For the song we have here, the official uses two titles for the same song in this case.
One is IMAGE -MATERIAL- (claimed by the composer, you can't really doubt it as the composer writes the song and they have the right to name a song; and the KONAMI website), the other is IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> (as shown on the CD back). Both of them are referring to the same song from the same album, so the song probably has alternative names.
So, both are acceptable equally as they are statements quoted by the official. Song names are weighed uniformly only when they are the same song. I hope thing is settled and doubts are cleared.
call me back when I'm needed again, though I won't icon until the community has had their thoughts raised on the map itself before pushing it forward.
IamKwaN wrote:
I think I have to clarify a bit here.Serena- wrote:
In REFLEC BEAT, the song is titled "IMAGE-MATERIAL- <REFLEC BEAT Edition>".
The phrase inside the brackets might be refering to what version it is. the artist wouldn't have to state the version of the song in a sneak peek. (the blog post was a sneak peek, not an actual review of the album) or maybe they planned on using it in REFLEC BEAT after he posted the post and changed the title.
The important thing is that it was a sneak peek, and the song wasn't even officially released when the artist posted it.
You guys should have more consistency, if every evidence points out it should be titled as IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0>(or -Version 0-) and you just confirm it by the artists' words that was when the song wasn't even officially released, these is a problem.
According to your words this map should just be titled Dynasty as well : https://osu.ppy.sh/s/434695 and it is just one of the many ranked maps to list.
Also, the album was released first and then it came to REFLEC BEAT, so the source should be fine.
Just stating my thoughts, no need for drama or anything.
First of all, IMAGE -MATERIAL- <REFLEC BEAT Edition> is a rearranged game size version of IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> / IMAGE -MATERIAL- . That is, they are completely different songs with different duration.
For the song we have here, the official uses two titles for the same song in this case.
One is IMAGE -MATERIAL- (claimed by the composer, you can't really doubt it as the composer writes the song and they have the right to name a song), the other is IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> (as shown on the CD back). Both of them are referring to the album, so the song probably has alternative names.
So, both are acceptable equally as they are statements quoted by the official. I hope thing is settled and doubts are cleared.
yeah im totally fine with that.
I thought you guys were stating IMAGE -MATERIAL- <Version 0> is the wrong title, and i see no reason in that, and still don't get why the other version that got ranked got disqualified.
MBomb
Yo, to avoid having to get this dqed again, I had a mod that I was gonna post when it's finished, but I think it's best to post it now before someone gets this requalified, to avoid drama. All stuff was written whilst this was still qualified, so if you did actually change anything since then, some of these points may be irrelevant. Also, the beginning part, like the rest, was written before the rest of the mod, so yeah.
Ok, before I start, I would like to say that my previous mod on this was completely ignored. This was on the other mapset, but considering this was the same difficulty, it is relevent to mention here. Link: p/4559661
Now let's start with the actual mod. A lot of people told me to check this, as they are too scared of posting themselves for fear of being insulted by the community. I may repeat some stuff from my old mod, I brought that up simply as a point beforehand, I'm not expecting a reply to that now.
[Envision]
00:13:051 (1) - No sound here on head or tail, please remove this.
00:13:513 (2) - Make this a circle instead, there's no sound on the tail and it just sounds off to have it like this.
00:30:590 (1) - Maybe increase distancing to this? It feels kinda strange right now because of the really strange distancing, and a dash would sound nicer here so try x:144.
00:36:590 (2) - I can't hear any sound at all here... Remove this slider, it's noticably not mapped to anything.
00:37:513 (3) - No sound on this either.
00:56:897 (3) - Sound on this isn't that strong comapred to other sounds around here, would recommend getting rid of the HDash to make it sound better with the song.
00:57:820 (3) - Flow to this feels kinda off right now, underdashing due to inconsistent distancing is a problem here, it'd be easily fixed by moving this slider to x:80.
00:58:974 (3) - Seems pretty inconsistent to not have a HDash to this considering the previous HDash pattern. Rearrange this to add a HDash to it.
00:59:666 (3) - Note isn't really strong enough for a HDash either, considering there are stronger notes around it which you didn't use a HDash for, so it ends up feeling really bad with the music.
01:00:820 (3) - Distance to this feels a tad bit too strong causing some awkward movements right now, would be best to move it to x:352.
01:01:051 (1) - HDash strength to this doesn't have to be so strong, in fact it makes it feel kinda strange that it is because it differs it from other notes which have the exact same sounds. Try x:192 with a less tilted slider, instead.
01:01:743 (4) - Distance to this feels too strong for a non-dash, resulting in awkward movement, try x:288 instead.
01:03:359 (3) - This note's tail is actually stronger than it's head... Really not sure why you used a HDash to this, in fact it'd be best to split this up instead, and have a HDash to the tail, for the stronger guitar sound and drum here.
01:03:820 (1) - Make this a curved stream instead of a repeat slider? It'd flow a lot nicer and sound nicer with the music too.
01:04:282 (1) - ^.
01:05:782 (2) - This note is pretty weak, please get rid of the HDash to it because it just doesn't fit and sounds really bad with the song. The guitar here is weak at best.
01:06:244 (2) - Same here.
01:06:936 (2) - This note definitely isn't strong enough for a HDash, it is really weak in general, and should be reduced preferably to normal movement, even a dash here feels strange.
01:07:859 (2) - Tilting this slider a slight bit more vertical feels better from a flow perspective, I understand you want the jump to be difficult, and it still will be, but this is just not fun.
01:08:666 (2) - Not that strong compared to other notes around it where you have HDashes, I don't understand why there's one here, make it a normal dash, especially considering you don't even have a HDash to 01:08:897 (3) - which is a lot stronger.
01:09:359 (1) - Reduce HDash strength by moving this to x:144, the current HDash strength leads to some unnecessary awkward movement afterwards in the form of a HDash followed by an edge dash.
01:10:051 (2,1) - Neither of these notes are very strong, just remove the HDashes and it sounds a lot better.
01:10:628 (4) - This is not any stronger than the other notes in the slider, there is no need to add a HDash to it. Reduce this to a normal movement like the rest of the slider, it is the same sound, mapping it different is very bad consistency.
01:11:551 (2) - This is nowhere near as strong as the sound on the end of the previous slider, having a HDash to this after having that as just a normal slider end just feels bad with the music.
01:11:897 (1) - And again, not having a HDash to this after having a HDash to the previous note sounds really off musically, because this note is a lot stronger.
01:12:243 (2) - The head of this isn't that strong, and you're missing a very important strong beat in the middle of this slider which leaves the player feel unsatisfied by the feedback of this note.
01:12:820 (2) - Maybe best to not have a HDash to this one either, sounds better for the leadup if this is just a normal dash.
01:13:051 (1,2) - Same as earlier.
01:13:743 (1,2) - Again here.
01:14:666 (2) - And again, note here isn't that strong, best to avoid a HDash (Especially considering how strong the HDash to the next slider is, the antiflow is just uncomfortable to play and should be nerfed through a reduction of HDash strength, which can be achieved by making the movement to this weaker anyway).
01:14:897 (1,2) - Again, sliderend on 1 is a lot stronger so this sounds strange.
01:15:936 (2) - To further strengthen my previous points, there is no HDash to this, so having a HDash to previous notes sounds even worse when compared to this spot which is the same musically.
01:16:512 (2) - Again, to better emphasise this leadup, get rid of the HDash to it.
01:16:743 (1,2) - Sliderend stronger again.
01:17:666 (1) - This note is not strong at all, there is no need for there to be a HDash to it.
I don't think I need to repeat myself about the slider ends, but this is a consistent problem throughout this section.
01:19:628 (2) - You emphasised the beat on the white tick here, showing that you know you should, again proving you should map that for consistency in previous parts.
01:20:205 (2) - Again, this isn't really strong enough for a HDash, would be nicer to leave it as a normal dash for a nicer feeling buildup.
01:21:474 (2) - Slidertick here for the really strong beat feels off.
01:22:051 (2) - No HDash here would make buildup feel better.
01:23:320 (3) - White tick would sound a lot better mapped, again, not enough emphasis on the strong beat.
01:23:897 (2) - Again, no HDash to this please, buildup sounds a lot better without it.
01:26:436 (2) - There is barely any sound here, why is there a HDash here? Getting rid of this HDash sounds a hell of a lot better with the song.
01:27:128 (2) - Reduce distance to this, current distance is way too strong and results in very uncomfortable movements considering the stop-start motion of this section. Try x:368 instead, feels a lot better to play.
01:27:589 (2) - Same as above, x:144 feels better on this one.
01:28:166 (7) - This note really isn't strong enough to suggest a HDash, it sounds really bad with the song because of how weak this note is. Try getting rid of the HDash here, it fits the song a lot better.
01:28:512 (3) - This note isn't really that strong either, something like x:240 would feel a lot better with the music, and fit the music a lot better.
01:28:743 (1) - HDash strength to this is far too strong, I understand this note is stronger than others in the song, but the 7.59x distance snap is overkill, and a lot weaker of a HDash would be better from a flow perspective.
01:29:205 (3) - This note isn't that strong, there's no need for a HDash here.
01:29:897 (2) - I find it strange that you have no HDash to this despite the fact you have HDashes to weaker notes...
01:30:359 (4) - This note is really weak, there's no reason to have a HDash to it, please remove it.
01:30:589 (1,2) - Another case of the slider end being stronger than the actual HDash which results in very strange gameplay.
01:31:282 (3) - Again, note isn't really that strong, you can get rid of the HDash to it.
01:32:378 - There is definitely a note here, and there's no reason to ignore it, add a circle here.
01:32:897 (3) - No strong sound at all here, get rid of the HDash.
01:33:589 (2) - No HDash to this when you've had HDashes to a lot weaker sounds throughout? It sounds ridiculously strange and needs to be changed.
01:34:050 (4) - ^
01:34:743 (3) - HDash strength to this needs to be weakened considering the antiflow movements afterwards, forcing flow to feel strange.
01:35:436 (2) - This sound is stronger than the previous one, why is there no HDash to this?
01:36:474 (2) - This sound is really weak, no reason to even have a dash to this, let alone a HDash.
01:37:512 (3) - Again, sound is pretty weak here, no reason for a HDash.
01:38:205 (2) - You've missed out HDashes to a lot stronger note, having a HDash to this sounds odd in comparison, best to remove for consistency.
01:38:897 (1) - Same with this.
01:40:282 (3) - No reason for such a strong HDash strength to this, it can be reduced slightly.
01:40:974 (2) - This note isn't that strong, you can get rid of the HDash to it.
01:42:012 (4) - There is barely any sound here at all, let alone enough for you to have mapped this as a HDash... I'd really recommend just removing this note entirely, it's unnecessary.
01:42:185 (2) - No sound on this at all, remove it.
01:42:301 (4,5,6) - 4 is the same sound as 5 and 6, so I really don't understand your HDash usage here. It'd be best to just remove HDashes to both 5 and 6.
01:42:762 (4,5,6) - ^
01:43:051 (1,2,3,4) - And again, there's no need here to have HDashes to any sound other than 4, the other heads aren't even very strong, I'd just have a normal stream with no dashes for that.
01:44:436 (1) - Firstly, reduce the strength of the HDash to this, it feels odd, especially considering how this note isn't very strong compared to a lot of your other HDash usages, and secondly, the repeats here would sound a lot better as actual mapped sounds, they're definitely strong enough to warrant that.
01:45:936 (4) - This sound is very weak, there is no need to have a HDash to this and it just feels like pure overmapping.
01:46:512 (2) - On the other side, this sounds like it should have a HDash to it, but you decided not to, despite the strongness of the sound. Add a HDash to this sound.
01:46:973 (4) - Maybe a normal dash would sound better for more of a buildup effect.
01:47:666 (3) - Vocal here really isn't strong enough to be indicitive of a dash, and there's not really any other strong instrument here either, so maybe best to remove.
01:48:128 (1) - Same as earlier, would be best to map the repeats of this seperately, sounds a lot better considering the strength of the notes on those.
01:49:974 (1) - This note isn't really that strong, would be fine to get rid of the HDash to it.
I can't finish this now, because it's my birthday, so I'm going out later, but I'll try to continue tomorrow.
Ok, before I start, I would like to say that my previous mod on this was completely ignored. This was on the other mapset, but considering this was the same difficulty, it is relevent to mention here. Link: p/4559661
Now let's start with the actual mod. A lot of people told me to check this, as they are too scared of posting themselves for fear of being insulted by the community. I may repeat some stuff from my old mod, I brought that up simply as a point beforehand, I'm not expecting a reply to that now.
[Envision]
00:13:051 (1) - No sound here on head or tail, please remove this.
00:13:513 (2) - Make this a circle instead, there's no sound on the tail and it just sounds off to have it like this.
00:30:590 (1) - Maybe increase distancing to this? It feels kinda strange right now because of the really strange distancing, and a dash would sound nicer here so try x:144.
00:36:590 (2) - I can't hear any sound at all here... Remove this slider, it's noticably not mapped to anything.
00:37:513 (3) - No sound on this either.
00:56:897 (3) - Sound on this isn't that strong comapred to other sounds around here, would recommend getting rid of the HDash to make it sound better with the song.
00:57:820 (3) - Flow to this feels kinda off right now, underdashing due to inconsistent distancing is a problem here, it'd be easily fixed by moving this slider to x:80.
00:58:974 (3) - Seems pretty inconsistent to not have a HDash to this considering the previous HDash pattern. Rearrange this to add a HDash to it.
00:59:666 (3) - Note isn't really strong enough for a HDash either, considering there are stronger notes around it which you didn't use a HDash for, so it ends up feeling really bad with the music.
01:00:820 (3) - Distance to this feels a tad bit too strong causing some awkward movements right now, would be best to move it to x:352.
01:01:051 (1) - HDash strength to this doesn't have to be so strong, in fact it makes it feel kinda strange that it is because it differs it from other notes which have the exact same sounds. Try x:192 with a less tilted slider, instead.
01:01:743 (4) - Distance to this feels too strong for a non-dash, resulting in awkward movement, try x:288 instead.
01:03:359 (3) - This note's tail is actually stronger than it's head... Really not sure why you used a HDash to this, in fact it'd be best to split this up instead, and have a HDash to the tail, for the stronger guitar sound and drum here.
01:03:820 (1) - Make this a curved stream instead of a repeat slider? It'd flow a lot nicer and sound nicer with the music too.
01:04:282 (1) - ^.
01:05:782 (2) - This note is pretty weak, please get rid of the HDash to it because it just doesn't fit and sounds really bad with the song. The guitar here is weak at best.
01:06:244 (2) - Same here.
01:06:936 (2) - This note definitely isn't strong enough for a HDash, it is really weak in general, and should be reduced preferably to normal movement, even a dash here feels strange.
01:07:859 (2) - Tilting this slider a slight bit more vertical feels better from a flow perspective, I understand you want the jump to be difficult, and it still will be, but this is just not fun.
01:08:666 (2) - Not that strong compared to other notes around it where you have HDashes, I don't understand why there's one here, make it a normal dash, especially considering you don't even have a HDash to 01:08:897 (3) - which is a lot stronger.
01:09:359 (1) - Reduce HDash strength by moving this to x:144, the current HDash strength leads to some unnecessary awkward movement afterwards in the form of a HDash followed by an edge dash.
01:10:051 (2,1) - Neither of these notes are very strong, just remove the HDashes and it sounds a lot better.
01:10:628 (4) - This is not any stronger than the other notes in the slider, there is no need to add a HDash to it. Reduce this to a normal movement like the rest of the slider, it is the same sound, mapping it different is very bad consistency.
01:11:551 (2) - This is nowhere near as strong as the sound on the end of the previous slider, having a HDash to this after having that as just a normal slider end just feels bad with the music.
01:11:897 (1) - And again, not having a HDash to this after having a HDash to the previous note sounds really off musically, because this note is a lot stronger.
01:12:243 (2) - The head of this isn't that strong, and you're missing a very important strong beat in the middle of this slider which leaves the player feel unsatisfied by the feedback of this note.
01:12:820 (2) - Maybe best to not have a HDash to this one either, sounds better for the leadup if this is just a normal dash.
01:13:051 (1,2) - Same as earlier.
01:13:743 (1,2) - Again here.
01:14:666 (2) - And again, note here isn't that strong, best to avoid a HDash (Especially considering how strong the HDash to the next slider is, the antiflow is just uncomfortable to play and should be nerfed through a reduction of HDash strength, which can be achieved by making the movement to this weaker anyway).
01:14:897 (1,2) - Again, sliderend on 1 is a lot stronger so this sounds strange.
01:15:936 (2) - To further strengthen my previous points, there is no HDash to this, so having a HDash to previous notes sounds even worse when compared to this spot which is the same musically.
01:16:512 (2) - Again, to better emphasise this leadup, get rid of the HDash to it.
01:16:743 (1,2) - Sliderend stronger again.
01:17:666 (1) - This note is not strong at all, there is no need for there to be a HDash to it.
I don't think I need to repeat myself about the slider ends, but this is a consistent problem throughout this section.
01:19:628 (2) - You emphasised the beat on the white tick here, showing that you know you should, again proving you should map that for consistency in previous parts.
01:20:205 (2) - Again, this isn't really strong enough for a HDash, would be nicer to leave it as a normal dash for a nicer feeling buildup.
01:21:474 (2) - Slidertick here for the really strong beat feels off.
01:22:051 (2) - No HDash here would make buildup feel better.
01:23:320 (3) - White tick would sound a lot better mapped, again, not enough emphasis on the strong beat.
01:23:897 (2) - Again, no HDash to this please, buildup sounds a lot better without it.
01:26:436 (2) - There is barely any sound here, why is there a HDash here? Getting rid of this HDash sounds a hell of a lot better with the song.
01:27:128 (2) - Reduce distance to this, current distance is way too strong and results in very uncomfortable movements considering the stop-start motion of this section. Try x:368 instead, feels a lot better to play.
01:27:589 (2) - Same as above, x:144 feels better on this one.
01:28:166 (7) - This note really isn't strong enough to suggest a HDash, it sounds really bad with the song because of how weak this note is. Try getting rid of the HDash here, it fits the song a lot better.
01:28:512 (3) - This note isn't really that strong either, something like x:240 would feel a lot better with the music, and fit the music a lot better.
01:28:743 (1) - HDash strength to this is far too strong, I understand this note is stronger than others in the song, but the 7.59x distance snap is overkill, and a lot weaker of a HDash would be better from a flow perspective.
01:29:205 (3) - This note isn't that strong, there's no need for a HDash here.
01:29:897 (2) - I find it strange that you have no HDash to this despite the fact you have HDashes to weaker notes...
01:30:359 (4) - This note is really weak, there's no reason to have a HDash to it, please remove it.
01:30:589 (1,2) - Another case of the slider end being stronger than the actual HDash which results in very strange gameplay.
01:31:282 (3) - Again, note isn't really that strong, you can get rid of the HDash to it.
01:32:378 - There is definitely a note here, and there's no reason to ignore it, add a circle here.
01:32:897 (3) - No strong sound at all here, get rid of the HDash.
01:33:589 (2) - No HDash to this when you've had HDashes to a lot weaker sounds throughout? It sounds ridiculously strange and needs to be changed.
01:34:050 (4) - ^
01:34:743 (3) - HDash strength to this needs to be weakened considering the antiflow movements afterwards, forcing flow to feel strange.
01:35:436 (2) - This sound is stronger than the previous one, why is there no HDash to this?
01:36:474 (2) - This sound is really weak, no reason to even have a dash to this, let alone a HDash.
01:37:512 (3) - Again, sound is pretty weak here, no reason for a HDash.
01:38:205 (2) - You've missed out HDashes to a lot stronger note, having a HDash to this sounds odd in comparison, best to remove for consistency.
01:38:897 (1) - Same with this.
01:40:282 (3) - No reason for such a strong HDash strength to this, it can be reduced slightly.
01:40:974 (2) - This note isn't that strong, you can get rid of the HDash to it.
01:42:012 (4) - There is barely any sound here at all, let alone enough for you to have mapped this as a HDash... I'd really recommend just removing this note entirely, it's unnecessary.
01:42:185 (2) - No sound on this at all, remove it.
01:42:301 (4,5,6) - 4 is the same sound as 5 and 6, so I really don't understand your HDash usage here. It'd be best to just remove HDashes to both 5 and 6.
01:42:762 (4,5,6) - ^
01:43:051 (1,2,3,4) - And again, there's no need here to have HDashes to any sound other than 4, the other heads aren't even very strong, I'd just have a normal stream with no dashes for that.
01:44:436 (1) - Firstly, reduce the strength of the HDash to this, it feels odd, especially considering how this note isn't very strong compared to a lot of your other HDash usages, and secondly, the repeats here would sound a lot better as actual mapped sounds, they're definitely strong enough to warrant that.
01:45:936 (4) - This sound is very weak, there is no need to have a HDash to this and it just feels like pure overmapping.
01:46:512 (2) - On the other side, this sounds like it should have a HDash to it, but you decided not to, despite the strongness of the sound. Add a HDash to this sound.
01:46:973 (4) - Maybe a normal dash would sound better for more of a buildup effect.
01:47:666 (3) - Vocal here really isn't strong enough to be indicitive of a dash, and there's not really any other strong instrument here either, so maybe best to remove.
01:48:128 (1) - Same as earlier, would be best to map the repeats of this seperately, sounds a lot better considering the strength of the notes on those.
01:49:974 (1) - This note isn't really that strong, would be fine to get rid of the HDash to it.
I can't finish this now, because it's my birthday, so I'm going out later, but I'll try to continue tomorrow.
워... 모딩이 무슨 1초에 한개씩...ㅋㅋㅋ
happy birthday
Since this is out of qualified, CLSW asked me to take a look at the timing for the piano ending. Code is included below, though I would like a second opinion on it before this gets pushed forward again just to confirm. Metronome is 3/4 and everything is intended to snap to white ticks.
Aside from this, let's hear what MBomb and CLSW have to say before rushing back into qualification. Please keep discussions civil and on-topic.
TimingPoints
410969,326.086956521739,3,2,0,30,1,0
411890,240,3,2,0,30,1,0
412603,288.461538461538,3,2,0,30,1,0
412891,230.769230769231,3,2,0,30,1,0
414020,244.897959183673,3,2,0,30,1,0
414721,210.526315789474,3,2,0,30,1,0
414931,240,3,2,0,30,1,0
415362,235.294117647059,3,2,0,30,1,0
416054,214.285714285714,3,2,0,30,1,0
416696,240,3,2,0,30,1,0
417407,292.682926829268,3,2,0,30,1,0
417699,255.31914893617,3,2,0,30,1,0
418330,461.538461538462,3,2,0,30,1,0
420898,461.538461538462,3,2,0,30,1,0
Aside from this, let's hear what MBomb and CLSW have to say before rushing back into qualification. Please keep discussions civil and on-topic.
MBomb
Topic Starter
Thank you very much jbh! Gonna update after I take a break.
Oh, here comes the same people who wants “Visibility”
SOMEONE want to say "Now You See Me".....oh, sorry, should I plus 2 to this? I mean "Now You See Me 2"
PS: "Now You See Me 2" will be released in the UK on July 4 2016 ( Should I also "congrats" for you choosing the same time to mod?)
有些人真是呵呵
Hope SOMEONE understand this.
SOMEONE want to say "Now You See Me".....oh, sorry, should I plus 2 to this? I mean "Now You See Me 2"
PS: "Now You See Me 2" will be released in the UK on July 4 2016 ( Should I also "congrats" for you choosing the same time to mod?)
有些人真是呵呵
Ascendance wrote:
so leave it to CLSW to reply to the mod when it's finished and don't cause any dramas.
MOD IS NOT MAPHollow Wings wrote:
mappers even told some unbelieveble ideas or various suggestions as other styles' mappers.
Hope SOMEONE understand this.
I'm on both sides. On the first point, MBomb, there's no reason to turn this map into your own creation. Everyone's mapping style is different, there's really no need to textwall this hard, especially since the a lot of things on there are subjective as hell, or quite minor.
On the other hand, being rude to MBomb is unacceptable. He's doing his job as not only a nominator, but also a member of the community in every right. He wants to improve the map, so leave it to CLSW to reply to the mod when it's finished and don't cause any dramas.
CLSW, call me back when you're ready / if you need a 3rd BN again.
On the other hand, being rude to MBomb is unacceptable. He's doing his job as not only a nominator, but also a member of the community in every right. He wants to improve the map, so leave it to CLSW to reply to the mod when it's finished and don't cause any dramas.
CLSW, call me back when you're ready / if you need a 3rd BN again.