havkz wrote:

wow hp 7 thats really high maybe change to like 6 or 5,8?

1. 00:30:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - imo this will follow the guitar part better, if you separate this 00:30:341 (5,6,7,8) notes out from the stack and give them some space, because they are played without palm-mute and sounds vastly higher, in compare to 00:30:101 (1,2,3,4)
2. 00:31:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - And yet, I also would like to suggest to make some NC design there. As i see the music, it would be good to make NC on this notes 00:32:021 (6,12) - because this is the strongest hits on the snare drum
3. 00:33:941 (1,5,11) - to the above, in the 21-note part these notes could be NC'ed
4. 26-note part could be unchanged, because there's any strong accents. Only dynamics grows. But i think you can make the NC every 4 or 8 notes, because its musically stable solution in general
5. 00:42:581 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this guitar pitch is the same note as this 00:41:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) , but the spacing is grows. In case you are reflecting a guitar pitch by spacing over the entire map (when it mapped to guitars ofc) this should be fixed. You could make this 00:42:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - with DS=1, and the nearest with 0.8, or how you like...
6. 00:57:461 (1,2,3) - idk why is it THAT spaced. I agree about nice view, but in compare to 00:55:541 (1,2,3) this (which is the same picking), mentioned triangle is twice spaced
7. 01:13:541 (4,5) - this is too spaced compare to this 01:08:501 (5,6)
8. 02:24:461 (4,5,6) - pretty stable part in dynamics, so i suggest to give 02:24:581 (5,6) - same space as 02:24:461 (4,5)
9. 02:26:261 (3,4,5,6) - ^ same, but it looks pretty cool, so idk
10. 03:04:181 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - guitar pitch is changed on this, but you still using the same space and rotation. At least reverse the direction
11. 03:35:021 (4,5,1) - i suggest to emphasize the strong beat of 03:35:141 (1) - by moving out from the stack. like this or idk (don't watch the timeline, i accidently moved it, im speaking only about position on the playfield)
12. 03:57:221 (1,2) - guitar pitch goes down, but spacing grows
13. 04:11:141 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - guitar pitch isn't that high to be that spaced (just in compare to what you did before) - this is even more spaced then this 04:07:541 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - but the first one is MUCH lower in pitch
14. 04:08:981 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - to the above, this could be MORE spaced
15. 04:11:141 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - too spaced
16. 04:16:361 (2,1) - move 2 a little bit, as you did it there 03:33:701 (1,2) - (kinda same part, or close to)
17. 04:29:621 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - 04:30:341 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - same guitar part, but view (spacing at least) is so different
18. 04:58:901 (3,4,5) - may be give 04:58:901 (3,4) - more space, because of the sound and accent on 3

1. 01:47:141 (1,1,1,1,1) - default whistles, what?
2. 02:19:541 (1,1) - ^
3. 02:23:381 (3) - missed whistle on the very sliderend
4. 02:27:221 (3,1) - ^
5. 02:44:021 (1) - sliderhead is missing something i think
6. 03:48:461 (7,8,9,10) - missed sounds
7. 03:51:701 (1) - hitfinish is applied to the whole slider, so sliderhead missing something
8. 04:30:101 (1) - whistle
9. 04:32:021 (1) - ^
10. 04:59:061 (4,5) - toms
11. 05:44:021 (4) - whistle on the very sliderend
12. 06:05:141 (1) - whistle

Mazzerin wrote:

havkz wrote:

wow hp 7 thats really high maybe change to like 6 or 5,8?

yea no I don't want to see any more 70% passes

Dammond wrote:

About the musical part

1. 00:30:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - imo this will follow the guitar part better, if you separate this 00:30:341 (5,6,7,8) notes out from the stack and give them some space, because they are played without palm-mute and sounds vastly higher, in compare to 00:30:101 (1,2,3,4)
   hard to think of any patterns that looks good with super stacked notes into barely stacked notes into super spacing, guitar sounds pretty vague there to me too so I grouped it by 8 instead of 4
2. 00:31:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - And yet, I also would like to suggest to make some NC design there. As i see the music, it would be good to make NC on this notes 00:32:021 (6,12) - because this is the strongest hits on the snare drum
   changed ncs so it looks good here, follow points made them ugly before
3. 00:33:941 (1,5,11) - to the above, in the 21-note part these notes could be NC'ed
   nah one looks better here
4. 26-note part could be unchanged, because there's any strong accents. Only dynamics grows. But i think you can make the NC every 4 or 8 notes, because its musically stable solution in general
5. 00:42:581 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this guitar pitch is the same note as this 00:41:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) , but the spacing is grows. In case you are reflecting a guitar pitch by spacing over the entire map (when it mapped to guitars ofc) this should be fixed. You could make this 00:42:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - with DS=1, and the nearest with 0.8, or how you like...
   hmm I wanna keep the growing intensity, I think it fits even if the pitch stays the same
6. 00:57:461 (1,2,3) - idk why is it THAT spaced. I agree about nice view, but in compare to 00:55:541 (1,2,3) this (which is the same picking), mentioned triangle is twice spaced
   snare drums on 2,3, doesn't really matter cause it's really easy anyways
7. 01:13:541 (4,5) - this is too spaced compare to this 01:08:501 (5,6)
   I wanna build intensity for the chorus there and drum pattern is a bit different (finish hitsounds cause of that)
8. 02:24:461 (4,5,6) - pretty stable part in dynamics, so i suggest to give 02:24:581 (5,6) - same space as 02:24:461 (4,5)
9. 02:26:261 (3,4,5,6) - ^ same, but it looks pretty cool, so idk
   I focus more on drums in that part
10. 03:04:181 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - guitar pitch is changed on this, but you still using the same space and rotation. At least reverse the direction
    yeah
11. 03:35:021 (4,5,1) - i suggest to emphasize the strong beat of 03:35:141 (1) - by moving out from the stack. like this or idk (don't watch the timeline, i accidently moved it, im speaking only about position on the playfield)
    ok
12. 03:57:221 (1,2) - guitar pitch goes down, but spacing grows
    THE PATTERN IS TOO GOOD FOK
13. 04:11:141 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - guitar pitch isn't that high to be that spaced (just in compare to what you did before) - this is even more spaced then this 04:07:541 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - but the first one is MUCH lower in pitch
    oh it's cause of snare drums again
14. 04:08:981 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - to the above, this could be MORE spaced
15. 04:11:141 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - too spaced
    ye same with these
16. 04:16:361 (2,1) - move 2 a little bit, as you did it there 03:33:701 (1,2) - (kinda same part, or close to)
    k
17. 04:29:621 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - 04:30:341 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - same guitar part, but view (spacing at least) is so different
    is it the same?? idk sounds a bit different to me and it's fine
18. 04:58:901 (3,4,5) - may be give 04:58:901 (3,4) - more space, because of the sound and accent on 3
    it's fine like this I like the descension effect

Hitsounds check

1. 01:47:141 (1,1,1,1,1) - default whistles, what?
2. 02:19:541 (1,1) - ^
3. 02:23:381 (3) - missed whistle on the very sliderend
4. 02:27:221 (3,1) - ^
5. 02:44:021 (1) - sliderhead is missing something i think
6. 03:48:461 (7,8,9,10) - missed sounds
7. 03:51:701 (1) - hitfinish is applied to the whole slider, so sliderhead missing something
8. 04:30:101 (1) - whistle
9. 04:32:021 (1) - ^
10. 04:59:061 (4,5) - toms
11. 05:44:021 (4) - whistle on the very sliderend
12. 06:05:141 (1) - whistle

thanks for the hitsound check, I use default whistles on just the guitar parts tho ye

Monstrata wrote:

Irre is such a good singer!

Beer wrote:

I don't think this is possible to be ranked. overused streams, fix that (even though I know death metal can be mapped in any way, just not THAT much xd)

Sonnyc wrote:

01:09:221 (1,2,3,4) - 01:14:801 (2) - 01:17:681 (2,3,4) - 01:20:501 (1) - 01:22:901 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - 01:37:841 (2,3,4) - 01:40:661 (1,1) - 01:43:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - 03:39:821 (6,7,8,9,10,11,1) - 04:05:921 (2,3,4) - 04:40:901 (1) - 05:47:061 (5) - 05:54:661 (4,5) - You will want to reconsider your rhythm choices this part. These are the ones that had a weak, or nearly no distinct beat in the song yet got mapped (which I consider overmaps). I see you were expressing some weak beats are an extremely close spaced streams. The thing is, some of those were really weak beats and mapping that way was pretty fine, but the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat. Some 1/4 reverse sliders are also in the list, because some 1/4 sliders were having a strong & real beat while the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat to get expressed. Mapping the same way didn't felt really great here.
02:20:021 - Personally, a change of pitch wasn't as notable as 02:19:541 which kinda felt apart froom the song. Imo, just using a long slider that starts from 02:19:541 would reflect the song better.
02:35:381 - The sudden switch from 1/3 to 1/4 along a similar looking stream shape doesn't really seem to be properly indicating the rhythm of the pattern.
02:51:701 - The claps at the slider end in this section... I can understand that it fits with the song, but in the viewpoint of hitsounds, since the tail's sound was much stronger than the head, while the prominent rhythm the clicking beats are following something other than drum beats, it really felt weird for me. Mind using some alternative hitsound file, or something?
03:48:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I wasn't pretty sure if this is accurate to be 1/4.
04:58:421 (4,1,2,3,4,5) - I'm pretty curious what happened to the patterning and the comboing. It kinda felt broken with the 3 combo cycle.
05:04:181 (1) - The slider concept I'm seeing here is mostly parallels. I'm pretty sure avoiding this overlap would work much better for consistency.
05:11:861 (1) - Parallel at the last part could be better.

I do approve the aesthetic concepts and the structure idea overall, but the map quite feels too excessive for me.
Popping over questionable rhythm choices.

Warpdrive wrote:

04:36:821 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - 04:38:801 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't these parts be with more spaced streams, because of the higher pitch again like in 04:32:501 ?

HML wrote:

lol ur gay

Maybe OD10? It's 250bpm for the most part, so why not?

00:00:581 (1) - Why a NC here? I don't think it's strong enough here to justify one, and it's the same change in pitch from 00:00:341 (1,2) -
00:04:421 (1) - Same dealio
00:08:261 (1) - ^
00:16:181 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - This is the same intensity as 00:17:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1) - , so why not make it the same DS?
00:25:301 (9) - NC this because it's a significant pivot and change in the stream. My philosophy is that if the sound is strong enough to warrant a pivot, fold, or change DS, it deserves to have a NC

00:45:701 (5) - I'd assume this is mapped to the guitar saying that there's no drum sound here, but how you structured your streams at this bit would say otherwise. Keep it if you want, but I personally would add 1/2 here, not 1/4/

00:51:701 (1) - This NC seems meaningless imo. No real sound to back it up.
01:19:541 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - It would be orgasmic if you made a climbing DS (increases every 5th note by .1) to fit with the gradual intensity raise

01:29:621 (1) - Is the same sound as 01:30:341 (1) - , so why did you give 01:30:341 (1) - a special slider shape?
02:00:821 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Here I suggest changing the direction at 02:01:781 (1) - . It feels like you're moving in teh same direction for a long time, and you change it on a not that is vastly weaker than it (02:02:261 (1) - )

02:20:981 (1,1) - Make this a stream like you did 00:37:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25) - . I think it would be amazing. Whenever I get here in the map, I expect streams and I find myself disappointed with what you did.

02:29:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I think this stream looks ugly because of the small angles you give the stream to pivot on, and the extremely sharp ones you give right after. It just looks half-assed and ugly.

03:49:301 (4) - NC this because the sound difference between that an 03:48:821 (1,2,3) - is pretty huge when you hear he stopped hitting the snare.
03:49:541 (1) - Get rid of NC as a follow-up
05:38:261 (3) - This ends on a stronger note than it starts on. Maybe just make them two notes?

Good luck

Lasse wrote:

apparently yes

00:27:461 (11,12) - seems a bit extreme spacing wise with how consistent stuff here it feels unjustified. maybe something like https://i.imgur.com/htNfJPt.jpg could work?
02:11:781 (2) - i don't really get why you decided to map this when you undermap similar stuff in this whole part
02:18:101 (1,2,1) - what's with the splitting of pattern/nc here? sounds more like either it should be one single thing or 02:18:261 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - also split in groups of 2? at least from how drums sound to me here
02:49:841 (1,1) - snapping like https://i.imgur.com/IrTRsa7.jpg at 02:50:771 - seems more fitting considering people won't click for the spinner anyway you at least get the end on the stronger beat instead of nothing
03:40:421 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - even if drums build up here, the contrast seems a bit too huge. just tone second pattern down a bit?
03:51:401 (4,1,2,3) - direction of the stack thing looks a bit weird with the stream shape, consider something like https://i.imgur.com/901HyVm.jpg ?
03:54:821 (1,2,3) - at this spacing, being uneven becomes really noticeable so polishing it a bit would be nice
03:57:221 (1,2) - why is this not split from before 03:56:741 (1,2) - ? seems better with guitar and cymbals
04:00:341 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - 04:01:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - feels overspaced since it's so similar to the ones before which also have guitar spam
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - just somehow get this slightly more spaced for visuals, similar to 04:56:901 (6,1) - would be nice
05:04:181 (1) - not sure but this might count as unclear sliderpath lol, looks kinda easy to mistake for a loop


looks like sonnyc's pop was addressed properly so just let me know when you replied

Strategas wrote:

yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.