dw shiirn its good practice :^)
Regraz wrote:
From My Queue.
[General]
There're only 4 actual mod. It's not enough for a map for approval at all, get at least 4 other mods with proficient quality before pushing it to next stage of ranking process. if you say so
You could replace your BG with a .jpg one. It saves a lot of file size. .jpg would ruin the bg's quality which is a huge reason it exists to begin with
04:49:583 (1) - unsnapped slider end. aye
[Illusory Reality]
00:25:513 (2,3) - There's no reason to enhance the spacing here suddenly. There's no support from music. due to how 1/2 works this spacing is far less than the distance snap actually states. there is no real big increase in movement here
00:27:606 (5,6) - There's no reason to enhance the spacing here either. You could place a jump between 00:27:780 (6,1) - Since the downbeat at 1 should be emphasized. But for spacing of 6, it should be kept consistent with 00:27:257 (3,4,5) - Moved around a bit so that 5-6 wasn't a jump but 6-1 still is.
00:33:536 (1,3) - Persoanlly disapprove of this overlap pattern. god fine now it doesnt overlap
00:37:722 (1,2,3,4) - Spacing should be similar as 00:34:931 (1,2,3,4) - .They are exactly the same in music. uh huh
00:39:641 (5,6,7) - This flow is not nice enough. 7 should be Ctrl+G'ed I use this kind of pattern all over in the map. The only flowbreak is that the slider changes direction from the movement and it's at a perfectly fine point in the music to do so.
00:44:350 (3) - Srsly you have to NC this zzzzzz
00:47:489 (1,2) - This spacing is too large, it could easily be read as 1/2 instead of 1/4. k
00:49:059 (1,2) - It makes me sad that some of your 1/2 spacings are even smaller than some 1/4s like 00:49:757 (4,5) - It's really weird and hard to read. Also 00:52:024 (2,3,4) - It's 1/4 between 3 and 4 while it looks exactly the same as the 1/2 between 2 and 3. Additionally you use a 0.7x sv for 4 with no NC :< It could be quite confusing. This is a difference in experience, i think. 1/4 sliders that act as slightly extended 1/2 circles should be spaced as such, the music is extremely consistent and therefore reading shouldn't be all that difficult to notice. Having 1/4 sliders spaced larger than 1/2 circles is perfectly fine considering the 1/4 sliders have more emphasis when they are spaced more, and less when they aren't. As it should be, for 1/2 circle extended usage.
00:53:943 (2,1) - Too large with anti-flow. moved 1 but the flow breaking is perfectly fine
00:55:513 (6) - Is 0.4x a small change for SV? :< this is essentially a 1/2 hold so the speed increase is just to emphasize the wub. Playability is not a concern.
01:03:536 (3,4) - This is exaggeratedly large. moved a bit closer
01:11:596 - Hard to read as 1/4. moved a bit
01:12:606 (1,2) - Blanket :< looks fine to me but maybe it's better...?
01:12:954 (2,3) - Really Hard to read as 1/4. It's more like a 1/2 I think we're disagreeing a bit here on what constitutes "unreadable". Players play with the music. The music is very repetitive, and there are very few places where it varies from its established rhythm. In such cases, emphasis can be made much more freely in spacing because the player already knows what rhythm is coming. The player knows there isn't going to be a triple going from blue-red-blue ticks there, so when he hits a 3/4 slider he can safely assume that the next notes are going to be white-blue-red ticks no matter what the specific spacing is. This is something that was established in 2012, and I'm astonished at the modern day "everything must be perfectly consistent to be readable" mentality. Especially when they have absolutely no problem playing the map on their own. You on your own playtest only broke at the large circle sliders and only rhythmically stumbled during the swapping 1/4 slider/stream rolls.
01:15:048 (5,1,2) - 1/4 larger than 1/2. Not a nice choice. Also 01:20:629 (5,1,2) - and 01:26:210 (1,2,3) - 1/4 and 1/2 are in the same spacing. These are also examples of what I said above. The 3/4 slider->note is extremely common in this map and there are no spaced triples so readability is not an issue since it is extremely consistent in regard to the rhythm of the map. Spacing isn't the only factor in readability. I have not seen a single person in my dozens of playtests misread these patterns for even an instant. The only thing I've seen people consistently break on are the really big circle sliders and that's from just not paying attention. I'll need to rework those, probably.
01:23:071 (4,5) - There's really too large. you're right
01:29:001 (3) - You have to NC i disagree, this pattern is done very consistently and is finely readable.
And many similar issues so I wont repeat.
01:52:460 (5) - Though overmap is not completely banned according to the RC yet for me it could not be toerlated. This is following the music just fine. The echo of the snap more than constitutes a triple when I do so for the rest of the section. Listening on 25% is fine, but you play at 100% and the triple feels and sounds accurate at that speed.
===============================
Yeah I know it's all about style but.... well.
Karen wrote:
some subjective gameplay thingsIllusory Reality
- hp 3,6?? at least set 5 pls fuuuuuuuck i keep forgetting. Let's go with 5.8, my original plan.
- 00:54:117 (1) - i suggest to replace this with a circle since you emphasized that idk what it's called sound with 2 1/4 sliders 00:53:768 (1) - 00:54:292 (2,1) - , so it'd be nice if you use different rhythm on them. I don't want to replace it with a circle as it's also a wub but I repositioned 1 and 3 so that they were more uniform.
- 01:24:553 (6) - this overmapping doesn't make any sense i think, 01:23:768 (1,5) - they sound the same but why one is a circle the other one is a triple? it's unreasonable. This isn't overmapped... and 1 and 5 have completely different sounds
- 01:26:210 (5,1,2) - confusing spacing, i know you wanted to make a increasing spacing for 01:26:559 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this part so 01:26:559 (1,2) - this spacing is quite small but that can't be the reason for making the spacing same with a 1/4 rhythm 01:26:210 (5,1) - , you need rework here This isn't confusing. It's obvious it's a 3/4 slider when you play it and you know the next note will be on a white tick, not a blue tick, because this isn't the sort of weirdo neurofunk song to do so.
- 01:31:792 (5,1) - isn't it too far? and the pattern isn't so nice to play curved so that it's closer
- 01:45:396 (3,4,5) - as i explained, it's quite confusing They're completely different sounds and there isn't a beat on the blue tick this time so there is no triple.
- 03:23:245 (4,5,1) - 03:37:024 (3,4,5) - ^ i don't know if i missed any but at least reconsider what i mentioned :p I've looked at the map for quite a while and I'm satisfied with how the triples work. They fit rhythmically and consistently with the beat patterns and even if the noise the actual triple uses is very quiet, it fits very well with the beat patterns of the map.
- 03:30:397 (1) - same with 00:54:117 (1) - did the same thing here
- 03:40:338 (1) - why a spinner here but a slider 01:03:885 (4) - here, removed the spinner then, haha
- 03:52:373 (5,6,7) - maybe more comfortable if it's ctrl+g'd The way this movement half-flows half-jerks upwards is very important for the following pattern, which is the most complex in the map, and the one i've seen everyone nail in the playtest because everything before it leads up to it very fluidly.
- 05:00:048 (6) - maybe NC You're right~
i'm not a fan of wub wub songs so my mod is kinda bad this time but i think this map is better than your previous maps so i can bubble this.
Zexous wrote:
What is this speedranking
Thanks for your time!Nozhomi wrote:
Hi there~ zzz[General :]
- Metadata : Ok https://soundcloud.com/koan-sound/strike
- Timing : Ok
- AiMod : Ok
- SB : /
- Other : /
[Mapping / Rhythm :]- Illusory Reality :
- 00:25:513 (2,3) - I know it's for aethetic, but the spacing is too much different from other part using same sounds / intensity like 00:26:559 (1,2) - or 00:31:268 (4,5) - . Rotated 2 and 3 around their respective blanketed axis so that they are closer together without actually changing gameplay or anything.
00:54:641 (1,2) - Should be similar to 00:54:292 (2,3) - for spacing. agree
01:16:443 (8) - I don't think use a backtracking movement from 01:16:268 (7) - is a nice idea. I would CTRL+G because players expect to restart a movement to the right and would even do a contrast with 01:16:966 (4) - in the opposite movement. disagree. This entire setup plays very fluidly because of all 3 sliders pointing the same direction. The actual movement of the slidertrack has little impact on gameplay and players very rarely actually use a sliderball's movement on a 1/4 slider to decide where to go - tl;dr, I want the movement uniform for pattern's sake, rather than "slider points at target" sake. This is a unique part of the track and thus it uses a unique pattern.
01:31:792 (5,1) - Tbh I don't think you will change that, but this overlap have no purpose excepting be ugly :c or if was planned to be blanket pls move 01:31:792 (5) - end to 132:149. Keeping overlap, fixing blanket.
02:20:542 (5,6) - Could you adjust spacing here and use your ~0.80x spacing for this one ? From the entire section, you never did that. yeah this was an oversight
04:24:117 (2,4) - Can you avoid the overlap on the start circle of 04:24:117 (2) - ? i think i did it better. This is a bit awkward.
05:01:617 (1) - What do you think about split this spinner in 2 parts, where the first one end on 05:04:234 - and 2nd one start on 05:04:408 - ? Would fit so well the music on this part. Brief discussion on IRC, we decided323 spinners are better than 1. PARTY TIME[Hitsound :]
- Seems ok
Call me before I die for the end of the week (mean 9am utc+2) or you will wait sunday quite late XD
Mukyu~