Renard - Because Maybe! pt. 1

Total Posts
show more
Topic Starter
im lazy lol
Is this going to have a Taiko marathon aswell? I hope this time we will have it since a lot of people had their parts for pt.2 and never got together for ranking orz
Yaay progress, you are awesome Dragon :3
Daayum so waiting for Banned Forever part >:O
hey finish this
plz rank this
Topic Starter
so if you taiko guys wanna make a collab for it just get someone to organize stuff because progress on the standard diff is finally going on
So hyped for this! *star*
good shit (:
bd in 2019 when
small thing i'd like to add:
00:25:699 (5) - could you make this one repeat shorter? this would make it easier to hit the next slider without sliderbreaking and gives more emphasis on the slider
same thing at 00:32:244 (3)
[MTF] Wolfette

INB4 Because maybe complete album
Topic Starter
Holy shit
jsut realized doesnt that score cap thing affect this map or no
first mod got em

  • hopefully this won't end up as a huge list

    starting off with timing-related issues, 00:00:063 (1) - to 00:17:517 (1) - is almost all off-timed by about +5 ms avg. with the most notable offenders of being ridiculously off-timed being 00:02:790 (3) - 00:07:153 (3) - 00:11:517 (3) - 00:15:881 (3,5) - the sliderends/circle (in the case of the last one) here, tbh the beginning just kind of seems really off in general and idk if this is a consistent thing between the different because maybe parts but it's really weird

    general: probably should add "blue dragon" to the tags considering uh

    actual map stuff:
  1. 00:22:972 (1,2,3) - rhythm is kinda confusing here, the most potent instrument is the synth which would make more sense to follow, but regardless of that I'm not really entirely sure what this is following considering no other instrument really follows the rhythm you chose here
  2. 00:27:335 (1,2) - this also is inconsistent throughout this section where you actually do map the synth 00:26:790 (3) - on this note, this is the only time you don't in the post-1/8 slider section, kinda seems out of place imo
  3. 00:36:881 (5,6,7,8,1) - more personal preference than anything but I really prefer the semi-spaced stuff you do practically everywhere else over a stack like this, gives it a lot more momentum
  4. 00:51:063 (5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - although if you don't change the stack streams please at least change this one because this plays really awkwardly without momentum going into the jump, would feel a lot more intuitive if it wasn't (sidenote 00:51:472 (2,3,4) - why is this the only spaced triple in the entire song)
  5. 01:52:426 (1) - would make more sense to have this end on the white tick where the vocal lands
  6. 01:56:790 (7) - nc here for consistency with this section
  7. 02:08:790 (6) - ^
  8. 02:54:063 (4) - nc to differentiate the 1/4 and 1/8 sliders

all the above were already answered and responded to, figured I'd just edit this post instead of making a new one

ok anyway, gonna separate it into NC suggestions / useless suggestions and actual rhythm-related / pattern suggestions just to keep things a bit neater

nc stuff and useless stuff
  • countdown isn't needed, would be better to just remove it

  1. 01:09:881 (12) - neglected to mention this earlier and it doesn't matter *too* much but this is basically the only note before a break that isn't NCed, probably would be better to be consistent
  2. 03:37:142 (4) - would make more sense to have this NCed to keep the "every downbeat there's a NC" consistency thing
  3. 04:12:596 - I'm gonna assume this was caused by an AR change so they basically don't mean anything but I'm pointing this one out anyway in case you care enough to fix them, it happens with basically every break in the song so
  4. 04:18:596 (4) - NC for same reason above but moreso 04:16:415 (1) - because you do it everywhere else
  5. 07:00:733 (7) - this one's not really necessary, (imo) the notes aren't emphasized enough to warrant a NC here
  6. 07:35:506 (1,1) - these also aren't necessary especially since you didn't do the same thing 07:31:142 (7,8) - here, only thing is that the follow points get kinda ugly 07:35:642 (8,9,10) - here so idk your call I guess
  7. 08:05:506 (1) - could probably get away with NCing this instead of the triangle after, doesn't really affect playability much and makes more sense consistency-wise
  8. 08:31:960 (3) - NC would be cool for the change in vocals here
  9. 09:03:051 (7) - missing a clap on this sliderend(?)
  10. 10:31:542 (1) - this slider curves a lot more than the other sliders and I'm not really sure why but it stands out immensely
  11. 10:34:270 (4) - going off the pattern 10:51:724 (1) - here, wouldn't it make more sense to NC this for consistency? (I know it's a different rhythm so this is kinda subjective more than anything)
  12. 12:05:087 (2) - this is definitely missing a clap, though
  13. 12:07:270 (2) - same thing here
  14. 12:09:452 (2) - yea
  15. 12:27:179 (5) - NC for downbeat consistency (and you did it 12:29:361 (1) - here too)
  16. 13:12:970 (1,2) - personal opinion, but all of these would look a lot more aesthetically pleasing if it looked like this with the sliderend a bit higher from where it curves into itself
  17. 13:38:061 (1) - how do you even manage to make sliderart like this
  18. 14:27:425 (5) - moving this a bit to the right would make the aesthetics consistent with 14:26:198 (2,3) - i.e. where the sliderends and sliderheads are symmetrical
  19. 14:28:243 (1) - probably should silence the slidertick on this since no note lands here
  20. 14:30:425 (3) - same for the first and third ticks on this slider
  21. 14:34:789 (1,4) - Uhhh This Is An Imperfect Stack Because It Is Off By 1 Millimeter Please Fix
  22. 14:49:380 (5) - NCing this would help introduce the rhythm change here
  23. 15:38:061 (1,2,3) - same hitsound suggestions above apply here as well, also maybe NC 15:40:243 (3) - since it's slower (though it'd be inconsistent and would ruin the combo gimmick thing)
  24. 18:28:107 (5,6) - side-note the curve here for the slider really doesn't fit the angle at which the player comes into the slider from, also NC 18:28:243 (6) - this
  25. 18:31:789 (4) - also NC this for consistency with 18:23:061 (1) - this part
  26. 18:34:380 (1) - this spinner is VERY LOUD please reduce the volume before I die
  27. 18:54:425 (1) - honestly this should be a kiai considering how intense it is compared to the rest of the song here, and since this is sort of the "main song" (the one everyone's going to recognize playing this, at least) it would make the most sense here rather than, say, 06:26:233 (1) - the preview point or something similar, just my opinion though
  28. 19:11:607 (3) - while you're NCing 1/8 sliders like 02:54:063 (4) - then might as well do this one as well

actual stuff
  1. 03:45:051 (2,3) - this is a lot less emphasized than stuff like 03:42:869 (2,3) - even though it's the same rhythm, while the pattern concept and aesthetics are really neat I still feel like it should be emphasized more for the sake of consistency
  2. 04:02:233 (1,2) - these two sliders might be bordering on burai sliders, imo they're perfectly readable as they stand but idk where that would stand against the ranking criteria so?? uh
  3. 04:20:778 (2,3) - I'm not entirely sure if this is 1/3 snapped but the sliderends of these seem to be off-timed and are snapped correctly if it's 1/3, it's not really a huge deal as it stands right now because it doesn't affect playability but I'd personally just change it since the middle tick seems alright even on 1/3 snapping
  4. 04:29:506 (5,6) - strangely literally none of these afterwards are actually 1/3 snapping so I have no clue what the hell is going on there, though this should be NCed
  5. 05:02:642 (3,4,5) - this is the only time you map the triple here in this section, I feel like mapping the triple elsewhere like 04:58:142 (2,3) - here and 05:07:006 (4) - here would help a lot, kinda feels undermapped the way it is right now (would also help transition into the next section a bit better tbh)
  6. 05:45:051 (2,3,4) - sort of overmapped triple, would fit better 05:45:187 (4,5) - between these notes where there's a more audible sound playing
  7. 05:51:051 (11,12) - imo this could definitely be spaced out a lot more, maybe instead of having 05:50:915 (10,12) - this overlap you could do something like this?
  8. 05:57:324 (6,7,8,9,10) - would be pretty neat if you incorporated the wub (or whatever it is) in the background here into the rhythm, something like this would be kinda cool imo
  9. 06:22:892 (3,4) - direct stack on this would help differentiate the 1/6 and 1/8 rhythm in this section since you direct-stacked every 1/8 rhythm prior
  10. 06:37:687 (6,8) - direct stack also looks much neater and emphasizes the note a bit better on this considering you do it 06:42:051 (6,8) - here and other places, as well
  11. 06:52:551 (2,3) - wouldn't it make more sense to emphasize the clap here? feels bland without some sort of movement considering it's not really a "slow section" like some of the others
  12. 07:12:869 (7,8,1) - movement on this stack is awkward since the notes before it (5 and 6) weren't stacked, back and forth would do much better here to keep the pace, would also mean you'd have to move 07:13:142 (1) - to be less away from 8 though
  13. 07:24:460 (6,1) - this has like no emphasis whatsoever lo l imo would benefit a lot more if 07:24:596 (1,2) - this was Ctrl+Ged, keeps the momentum from the previous pattern
  14. 07:33:187 (6,1) - goes for this one too, though this plays a lot better imo since it's going from a downwards pattern to side-to-side, flows a lot nicer that way
  15. 07:37:960 (4,5) - should be emphasized in the same way 07:20:506 (4,5) - this is for consistency, and besides that a stack feels kind of underwhelming before a break
  16. 07:54:051 (4,5) - stack breaks the momentum here, everything had motion prior to this while this just kinda stands still for no reason
  17. 07:55:960 (2,3) - imo would separate the stack here to emphasize the vocals, helps differentiate them a bit more
  18. 08:12:596 (6) - having the snare be on a sliderend is pretty zzz since you didn't do it practically at all in the map before, would feel a lot better if this was emphasized with a slider or circle instead of a sliderend
  19. 08:13:687 (5) - same thing here
  20. 08:28:687 (3,4,5,6,7) - this rhythm is overmapped where it is currently, no note lands 08:28:756 (4) - here and I'm pretty sure you meant to do something similar to 08:25:551 (3,4,5,6,7) - rhythm-wise anyways; moving the stream over to start on the red tick fixes this issue
  21. 08:29:778 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - same thing as above, 08:29:846 (4) - is overmapped
  22. 09:08:778 (4,5) - I think a slider fits this rhythm more since it's relatively low-intensity and the rhythm of it is pretty weird to hit compared to the other stack like this (also NC 4 if you take the suggestion I said above)
  23. 10:28:270 (1,2,3,4) - literally no (longer version: you didn't do this pattern to represent a rhythm like this at all in the past 10 minutes, kind of pointless / hard to read if you do it now, though I'd get testplays before coming to a safe conclusion in any case; personally I know I'd screw up reading this and miss or get a 50)
  24. 13:22:789 (1) - this song in general feels a LOT more dense than basically the entire rest of the map what with the constant triples starting 13:40:243 (1) - here; imo I would make some of the triples either repeat sliders or undermap some of them i.e. what you did 15:51:152 (1) - here so that this section is less dense (unless you were going for dense, which in that case go ahead, I'm just salty about Smoke Tower from the last part)
  25. 13:42:152 (8) - playability-wise, kind of was expecting this to be a bit higher maybe overlapping 13:40:789 (6,7,8) - the triple here; not a big issue but I think it would play better if it were near that
  26. 14:10:789 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,1) - this is actually really creative, though I think 14:11:198 (5,9) - having these gradually space out instead of being the same spacing would add more emphasis to this pattern, personal opinion though
  27. 14:15:152 (1,2) - with how dense the previous section was I wouldn't be surprised if this was read as a triple due to the stack, maybe space this out instead so that possibility isn't a thing? (it really doesn't matter since even if you play it like a triple you'll hit it most of the time anyway)
  28. 15:07:243 (9,10,1) - this is way better as a 2-note stack rather than a 3-note stack, the way it is right now it reads like a triple which, again, due to the density of the map before it, is pretty easy to break on (and you can actually break on this one so)
  29. 15:59:607 (9,1,2) - yeah basically everything I said about inconsistent stacks apply on this one, separating 9 from the rest would be ideal here
  30. 16:16:516 (5) - nothing really lands on the sliderend as it stands right now, maybe removing a repeat and adding a circle to where the sliderend hits currently would help? idk, feels sorta contrasty considering 16:14:334 (5) - these had the synth to back them up and now there's just nothing
  31. 17:18:698 (3,4,5,6,7) - stacked streams feel underwhelming considering the build-up to one of the most intense sections of the entire map, I'd space these out just so they feel a bit less...boring, I guess? not really sure how else to put it zz
  32. 17:59:607 (6,7,8) - would make more sense to have this be consistent with the triples in the section (as in spaced out), kinda doesn't fit right now
  33. 18:32:607 (1) - why is this a different rhythm than stuff like 18:28:243 (6,7) - ? would make more sense to have it fully mapped imo
  34. 18:54:834 (3,4,5) - considering how intense this section is, wouldn't spacing out all the triples in this section make more sense? would also keep the momentum going in a high-momentum section
  35. 19:26:607 (3) - leaving the red tick unmapped feels unnecessary considering you follow almost all the rhythms in the song, would be better to just have it mapped with a sliderend or smth
  36. 19:40:788 (5,6,7,8,9) - similar point to the triples in the previous section, this kills momentum that's given in other places like 19:41:607 (2,3,4,5,6) - here, would honestly be a lot better if it was spaced out for that reason imo (also it'd be consistent with the majority of the last section as well)

ok i can't mod all of it right now cuz i go sleep soon but i got through the first song so pogchamp hey what's poppin

Mishima Yurara wrote:

jsut realized doesnt that score cap thing affect this map or no
no it caps at 1,240,000,000
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply