xDololow wrote:

small thing

04:17:824 (1,1) - how about end those sliders on red ticks ( 04:18:274 and 04:18:874 .) , because it more feet the music. And make them more wiggly?
hummm...fix to 04:18:274 - because there's a change in the guitar sounds here .but 04:18:874 - not added. If choose the weaker drums here .will conflict with 04:18:424 (1) .

0w^

MaestroSplinter wrote:

So this is mapping has become, people complaining about every single object that the mapper has placed, even going disrespecfull and expect to someone listen him...


^We reached this point ? Someone needs to call respect ?

Mun wrote:

MaestroSplinter wrote:

So this is mapping has become, people complaining about every single object that the mapper has placed, even going disrespecfull and expect to someone listen him...


^We reached this point ? Someone needs to call respect ?

Discourse is not disrespect, and if anyone can't handle this level of discourse, they probably shouldn't be putting their own work out into a community that is centered almost entirely around the judging of said work. I'd even go so far as to say that avoiding providing any sort of thoughtful criticism in a map that you see needs work is far more disrespectful, and even patronizing. At the end of the day, the goal isn't to be disrespectful to 09kami, it's to make the map better before it's brought into the ranked section, a section of "finalized works."

But you need to know about "mod". It's about map communication .the premise of communication is that it can be discussed with mapper .when language is offensive, this is no respect. would u casually greet a stranger with offensive words on the street? at least I won't . for instance.when your map is Qualified, I'll use Chinese to "mod"(and based on the fact that I understand the need to use English.) .but my "mod" is based on maps .what would you think? think this is a mod or a provocation? at least for fieryrage's speech. I think it's the same effect . u can see my response to other people. I believe everyone has answered them in detail .that's what I call a kind of respect .At least I think that "mod" must be based on communication, and that exchanges are based on the most basic equal dialogue
edit : If you don't respect me, why do I need my map to respect what you call "mod"?" yes, you can say. You don't need to respect "mod". You just need to change it .So why should I change it? Can you make sure that what you mentioned is correct? You answered, "yes, because I found these mistakes! " Since I don't respect your mod, why should I take notice of your findings? I just want to say "no". mapper is not a machine. It's not when you type an error that you change it .the path to a map entering ranked is through mapper. at least I won't accept rude "mod". about maps. In my eyes, it's a formal occasion .

destruction zone

01:16:774 (5) - I opened the map and saw this - you should add a hitwhistle here! The sound in the song is almost entirely consistent with 01:16:174 (1,2,3,4) - but the lack of a hitsound + the difference in spacing makes it look and feel more like an entirely different beat. fix

As for consistency, the map is highly inconsistent, but I haven't seen any real reason provided for it. For example, look at the 2 measures starting at 01:17:824 - vs the 2 measures starting immediately after them at 01:20:224 - the rhythm changes completely in the middle of it. Major rhythmic inconsistencies like these are evident throughout the map.
About consistency .I don't even have to open the map to know what you're trying to say...consistency is not a necessary thing. It's just a condition. a mapping. This map varies in two ways based on voice and accompaniment .when you think you need to maintain a high degree of consistency, it's different from this map, mapping's policy .but I don't mean there's no need for consistency .consistency is not a requirement. There is no need for a whole map to maintain a consistency. Some details, etc. I'll read the map tomorrow and explain
edit : It looks just like I guess .

Beyond that, what's with your streams? For example, check out 01:36:124 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - it's quite obviously hand-placed, but the curve is extremely rough and abrasive looking. Do you have a reason not to use more consistent curves in your streams?
all streams just hand-placed.Is there any doubt about that? Do you have a reason not to use more consistent curves in your streams
So why more consistent? what you mean is the need for bigger flow., simpler streams ?no. Streams does not have to meet all the needs of everyone .It's just because you think .In fact, does it make sense to adjust it to a perfect arc? This is just looking pretty pretty in edit. For this AR., some ugly angles can have a more intuitive effect on test .

After that, why emphasize 01:36:874 (1) - instead of 01:37:024 (3) - ? Sure, the word "zone" starts at 01:36:874 (1) - but it's obvious to anyone listening that the most intensely emphasized note here is at 01:37:024 (3) - .

So I think it's too much trouble to explain these things. I've explained the same thing in front of post .according to your idea, should even delete 01:36:949 (2) -.01:37:024 (3) - As a place to start .but isn't that the way you choose it? but it's obvious to anyone listening that the most intensely emphasized note here is at 01:37:024 (3) - . are you sure it's anyone? I don't agree with that .I think it's necessary to follow "ZONE".
Such emphasis and construction issues are present throughout the map.

Mun wrote:

MaestroSplinter wrote:

So this is mapping has become, people complaining about every single object that the mapper has placed, even going disrespecfull and expect to someone listen him...


^We reached this point ? Someone needs to call respect ?

Discourse is not disrespect, and if anyone can't handle this level of discourse, they probably shouldn't be putting their own work out into a community that is centered almost entirely around the judging of said work. I'd even go so far as to say that avoiding providing any sort of thoughtful criticism in a map that you see needs work is far more disrespectful, and even patronizing. At the end of the day, the goal isn't to be disrespectful to 09kami, it's to make the map better before it's brought into the ranked section, a section of "finalized works."

destruction zone

01:16:774 (5) - I opened the map and saw this - you should add a hitwhistle here! The sound in the song is almost entirely consistent with 01:16:174 (1,2,3,4) - but the lack of a hitsound + the difference in spacing makes it look and feel more like an entirely different beat.

As for consistency, the map is highly inconsistent, but I haven't seen any real reason provided for it. For example, look at the 2 measures starting at 01:17:824 - vs the 2 measures starting immediately after them at 01:20:224 - the rhythm changes completely in the middle of it. Major rhythmic inconsistencies like these are evident throughout the map.
Beyond that, what's with your streams? For example, check out 01:36:124 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - it's quite obviously hand-placed, but the curve is extremely rough and abrasive looking. Do you have a reason not to use more consistent curves in your streams?
After that, why emphasize 01:36:874 (1) - instead of 01:37:024 (3) - ? Sure, the word "zone" starts at 01:36:874 (1) - but it's obvious to anyone listening that the most intensely emphasized note here is at 01:37:024 (3) - .
Such emphasis and construction issues are present throughout the map.

Shiirn wrote:

Please note that a lot of the issues that people have with this map are not due to you making "mistakes while mapping".

It's because the mapping quality is extremely low.

You are not paying attention to the music's level of intensity or where the music gets stronger or weaker, nor are you using the vocals at all.

As an example, 00:58:324 (3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - This is an pattern. It's not a bad one, nor is it a good one. But it uses the previous notes and goes under them. But the music doesn't do anything to suggest that. The music does not repeat in any way. This isn't a matter of "creativity" or "my style", it's just straight up ignoring the music in favor of putting a "pattern you think looks cool". This is your entire map.

Your entire map is "patterns you think look cool", not "patterns which fit the musical structure".

You have made a map with no soul. It is just taking music and turning it into a one-dimensional set of clicks with plain, simple patterns representing it.

That's rankable. But it's a horrible way to map. And accepting it just lowers the quality of mapping as a whole. And it's why monstrata's cookie map is an insult to everyone who has any respect for music or this game. Because it's rankable, but intentionally lacking anything resembling mapping.
That said, your map is "rankable", but if you're satisfied with ranking but being bad, that's your choice. You'll just end up being another soulfear - a forgotten relic only remembered by a few for "how badly they mapped for how hard they tried".

Shiirn wrote:

If you want a community-based content creation system, you're going to have to deal with criticism, often harsh. Because very few people actually get good at something by getting nothing but praise. "Rankable" should be equated with "Mediocre" - because that's what ranking standards are meant to be, a minimum quality threshold for maps. Aiming to be mediocre, being satisfied with being mediocre, is something that needs to be pointed out in a "are you SURE you really want to be boring?" question.

If you want a game where everyone gets praised for doing their best, go play Hello Kitty World.

1. 00:23:224 (1,2) - Here i don't really understand why you stack these objects when the whole section has spaced objects because if you want to properly emphasize vocals, then these objects should be distant. You stacked 00:23:974 (4,5) - to follow the song and not vocals which is more suitable than stacking 00:23:224 (1,2) - to follow vocals imo. If you plan to follow vocals then don't stack objects, it would give a better impression.
2. 00:26:824 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - The strongest note here 00:27:424 (1) - is just played with a low distance between 00:27:274 (4,1) - . So it is not really emphasized. And it looks like you prefered to emphasize vocals instead with the highest distance between 00:27:424 (1,2,3) - so it can be possible and it works. Concerning visual and structure, the way they are placed just looks like they are "thrown" away with a random distance between them, at least if you make the distance consistent between 00:26:824 (1,2,3) - , between 00:27:124 (3,4,1) - , it would be better.
3. 00:29:224 (1,2,3,4) - the same idea as ^, it also looks like they are thrown away.
4. 00:40:024 (1,2,3,4) - ^
5. 00:56:224 (1,2,3) - ^ , when you add a lower distance between 00:56:374 (2,3) - compared to the distance between 00:56:224 (1,2) - when the strongest note to emphasize is 00:56:524 (3) - so there should be more distance 00:56:374 (2,3) - or an equal distance as 00:56:224 (1,2) - .
6. 04:41:674 (3,4,5,6) - ^
7. 04:51:274 (5,1) - The distance between them should be higher or equal to 04:50:974 (4,5) - , because the strongest note is on 04:51:424 (1) - which should be emphasized better. The low distance doesn't really do it.

Shiirn wrote:

Please note that a lot of the issues that people have with this map are not due to you making "mistakes while mapping".

It's because the mapping quality is extremely low.

You are not paying attention to the music's level of intensity or where the music gets stronger or weaker, nor are you using the vocals at all.
This is a strange point of view .I even suspected that I had misunderstood this sentence .If follow this point of view. So this map, so the object just follows the sound of my brain? well, mine brain power is really too high .I think if I don't follow these .can't even finish the map

As an example, 00:58:324 (3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - This is an pattern. It's not a bad one, nor is it a good one. But it uses the previous notes and goes under them. But the music doesn't do anything to suggest that. The music does not repeat in any way. This isn't a matter of "creativity" or "my style", it's just straight up ignoring the music in favor of putting a "pattern you think looks cool". This is your entire map.
It's also a weird argument .But the music doesn't do anything to suggest that. The music does not repeat in any way. It's just a choice of location! yes. I can definitely stagger it. even change it directly. But what's the point? But the music doesn't do anything to suggest that. ?I don't think this paragraph tells you anything. I don't think your understanding is music. It's about you. It's about thinking. about mapping. "memetics" If you understand the word, you will see what I am trying to say. In your mind, you think everyone does that, but it's a prejudiced view. u rule out some of the things that you think are wrong . And it's a long process. When you keep a point of view for a long time, you think that's the only thing that's right .when you maintain this view, your thinking has been fixed, so I'm breaking this mindset . these are just some opinions. For what you mentioned. and about maps .there's a simple reason here, but you didn't notice it .00:58:324 (3,4,5,3,4,5,6) - delete these .bring your headset and slow down to 25%.Listen to the drum. 00:59:149 - if you say there's no sound here, I can tell you . It's only because of the different tones of 00:58:474 (5,5) - I think 00:59:149 (6) - need to fill that difference. Of course. If you insist on.00:59:074 (5) - can modify the slider for 1/4. Include other places .But for the players, I believe these places are relative to the 1/4 slider . A continuous stream is no sense of violation. This is not a view I have imagined .It's what I found when the player tested the map .00:58:474 (5,5) - Some people say that this is just a drum. Why do you need to distinguish them? Just because of the scale? yes. just because of the scale. It's a kind of detail .There's another reason .00:59:074 (5,6,1) - Here it is. It's a part of the voice. It's coincident with the drum . So that's what I need to explain to you about innovation .but when you look at the problem in a single angle, it's easy to ignore something else. When people collect these things before your eyes, isn't that an innovation?

Your entire map is "patterns you think look cool", not "patterns which fit the musical structure".

You have made a map with no soul. It is just taking music and turning it into a one-dimensional set of clicks with plain, simple patterns representing it.
The soul of this map. I think it's at least stronger than you see . take an inappropriate example .please look at someone else's Extraction Zone. and look at my map .I'm sure you have a lot of opinions about the difficulty, but I want you to see the middle section 02:05:824 (1) - 02:41:374 (6) - this is my favorite part .About"patterns which fit the musical structure".this is a veryveryveryveryveryvery subjective view . music will not tell you any design .tell you about it. It's the player. so about not "patterns which fit the musical structure".I think it should be amended as "patterns which fit the player".
.So when you choose "patterns which fit the player".u will consider a question. Is this suitable for most player? or "I seem to think it's flow ".It's a complicated problem. I don't want to talk about it .But I'd like to mention two points
1 In the case of high AR, speed issues need to be taken into consideration .As I mentioned before, the relation between the cround and the ellipse. They are in the case of high AR. Just a few deviations from the radian. These slight deviations are even invisible .but you would say that bigger round make players feel more flow .That's the right point. When you change an ellipse to a bigger cround, it really reduces the difficulty of the player. Also, increase flow. But I would like to make second points. In fact, it is not my point .It's hers .
2 one can play a map well, but you can't. then you're just too weak. but what I need to add is that we need a limit .I can add difficulty in many places. Even in one version, the difficulty is raised to 8.25 stars .of course. I changed it later. I don't think it's necessary .back to this topic. I don't think stream needs to be in full compliance with everyone's flow .of course, I can do that, too. if I want to complete this kind of map as a pp map .You can look at 1 toy and Xilver's mod. I almost completely took their advice because I knew what they were thinking. I watched them play with this map .that's why I limit the limit. They're the standard .but right now, almost everyone wants me to follow them on flow .And that's why. or the fuse .I think there's no need to explain any more


That's rankable. But it's a horrible way to map. And accepting it just lowers the quality of mapping as a whole. And it's why monstrata's cookie map is an insult to everyone who has any respect for music or this game. Because it's rankable, but intentionally lacking anything resembling mapping.

And accepting it just lowers the quality of mapping as a whole. Can I understand that only pp map can belong to the correct mapping? In fact, according to the idea you mentioned, there is only a fixed rhythm. fixied the ds. fixied the flow. fixed pattern is the correct way to mapping .

That said, your map is "rankable", but if you're satisfied with ranking but being bad, that's your choice. You'll just end up being another soulfear - a forgotten relic only remembered by a few for "how badly they mapped for how hard they tried".

If there's no malicious vote, let me try. At least I'm willing to go on the road map. Look for different ways with ppmapping .(and at least all of my rank maps have done this before

Shiirn wrote:

It's not bad like "why are you even mapping"?

It's just so plain and simple and could be so much better, but you'd need to basically remap over and over to make it better. People expect better from DragonForce maps.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Hello again, i can review this map if you need more feedbacks (the points i mentioned previously are just more or less "objective").
Note that's it's my own viewpoint, so take what is said below, very subjective.

I can agree that this map lacks of quality overall, but it is not really a "very bad quality map". This map lacks of structure (but this is a stream map so it's a little ok) but a majority of what is not stream is not really very well structured. I and people don't really expect perfect things, but at least try to make things a little tidied up and very carefully done with a real intention of making things structured. If i take your references like HW, her maps (despite they are "special" compared to others), there is a consistent structure behind them. I know we should not really compare maps because each style is different etc. but there is a lot of things in common in mapping. By making things structured and making things emphasized well, the quality of your map will be increased, that's my viewpoint.

first. thank for your viewpoint. .
But some ideas about stream. I'm different from HW .If you open Genryuu Kaiko. 04:05:781 - Notice the changes in these stream .they don't have much in common. or radians .04:08:555 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - like this. I'm sure my map has a similar place before, but everyone is proposing a point of view, consistency .04:09:942 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4) - And this. I don't think these are for flow., or even you can say. they're not an arc. But are they important? flow does make players feel smoother, but if all stream uses a flow., they can create a sense of aesthetic fatigue . I saw almost half of them letting me modify the shape of the stream . I can't guarantee it's the right change. Maybe I'll regret it later .Because you have to understand the shape, the stream of the flow. The size of the rotation. everything is a way. Maybe we can change that and make it easier for the players .but for players, that might not be a good thing .Maybe someone plays this map just for pp. In fact, these changes have indeed been done. But are you sure we need to make this compromise for this part of the player? In my opinion, it doesn't make any difference to completing a map for pp. I didn't blame anything, but... why don't we decorate something? For example, there are some difficult places. Isn't it a pleasure? Some people would say, "you don't make these changes. This map is already difficult. Why don't you lower it?!" In fact, this subtle change .It's an attitude .I don't want to compromise with everyone. I don't want to compromise with ppmapping .I just want players play maps for map instead of playing maps for pp

Well, i can point out some things that look a little "messy" to me like :

1. 00:23:224 (1,2) - Here i don't really understand why you stack these objects when the whole section has spaced objects because if you want to properly emphasize vocals, then these objects should be distant. You stacked 00:23:974 (4,5) - to follow the song and not vocals which is more suitable than stacking 00:23:224 (1,2) - to follow vocals imo. If you plan to follow vocals then don't stack objects, it would give a better impression.
   00:23:374 (2,3,4) - I thought what they meant was already obvious ... This triangle is following the guitar, because the three sounds are similar .00:23:674 (3,4) - if follow the vocals, this place should be a 1/1 slider
   
2. 00:26:824 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - The strongest note here 00:27:424 (1) - is just played with a low distance between 00:27:274 (4,1) - . So it is not really emphasized. And it looks like you prefered to emphasize vocals instead with the highest distance between 00:27:424 (1,2,3) - so it can be possible and it works. Concerning visual and structure, the way they are placed just looks like they are "thrown" away with a random distance between them, at least if you make the distance consistent between 00:26:824 (1,2,3) - , between 00:27:124 (3,4,1) - , it would be better.
   emmm...00:27:424 (1,2) - I modified their location .fix.but This irregular quadrilateral is a pendulum that I often use .no fixed spacing. This is a shape similar to an equilateral quadrilateral, but it is more fluid than the quadrilateral due to its uneven spacing. The fixed spacing will increase the difficulty
   
3. 00:29:224 (1,2,3,4) - the same idea as ^, it also looks like they are thrown away. same
4. 00:40:024 (1,2,3,4) - ^ same.but some changes in position
5. 00:56:224 (1,2,3) - ^ , when you add a lower distance between 00:56:374 (2,3) - compared to the distance between 00:56:224 (1,2) - when the strongest note to emphasize is 00:56:524 (3) - so there should be more distance 00:56:374 (2,3) - or an equal distance as 00:56:224 (1,2) - .
   fix
6. 04:41:674 (3,4,5,6) - ^ fix
7. 04:51:274 (5,1) - The distance between them should be higher or equal to 04:50:974 (4,5) - , because the strongest note is on 04:51:424 (1) - which should be emphasized better. The low distance doesn't really do it.
   fix

Well it would be better if you tidy up some patterns concerning the distance between objects. Randomly using distance to emphasize wrongly the strongest notes doesn't really give quality to your map. The other way round, using proper emphasis makes your map very good, comfortable and pleasant to play.
I don't really ask you to remap some parts (concerning the placement), but it would be nice to make things more tidied up at least. If i take another chinese reference, popner, "Sometimes remapping can be more useful than hundreds of moddings.".
Now that you made your stream shapes better, you should make your patterns more tidy, and then your map will be really nice.

No kd because you already kd my previous post (when i said no kd on it lol)

F1r3tar wrote:

02:36:724 (5) - You should nudge this to the left. Looks kind of weird.

Mir wrote:

Humhh.. I'm just curious about some things. Firstly I think consistency is quite important and this map is kinda consistent but there's one major thing that I'm sort of not quite getting.

- 00:46:024 - The kiai here has the same vocals going "EXTRACTION ZOOONE" a lot yea? But the rhythm and everything is completely different than what you did for 01:36:874 - namely the streams like 01:36:874 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) - don't appear in the first kiai at 00:46:024 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2) - there's a lot of rhythm variation here. (There's also not two snares on 00:47:824 (1,2) - there's just one so maybe remove the hitsound for the other?) I think this breaks consistency quite a lot when you introduce a completely different way of mapping the second kiai than the first then do it again for the last kiai 04:29:524 (3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2) - namely the increasing spacing stream thing. There's a lot of variation in rhythm where the song stayed the same. I get that you want to keep it interesting but I can assure you varying the way you place patterns and whatnot should avoid boring the player anyways.
00:45:874 (11,12,1) - hummm...It was a mistake. I didn't find it before .the subtle changes are in NC and 0.1 in DS .fixIn fact, there are three different mapping changes. The other section is 01:36:124 (1) - 01:56:224 (1) - .04:29:674 (1) - There are some big changes, but there should be no problem now


Umh, yeah. I just think that the consistency could be improved (regardless of rhythm it's more the concept of the accelerating streams that just doesn't really show itself until second kiai) perhaps if you did the decreasing/increasing spacing earlier on for 00:45:124 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - or similar where you do something like this for the first stream even that would already be an improvement imo. (also I think 00:45:874 (11) - should have an NC on it right?) 00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - Something like this maybe? You can definitely do it with 00:49:924 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - and so on.

- 03:18:124 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - As fieryrage (albeit somewhat fiercely) mentioned, this concept is quite unexpected and looks very inconsistent when it's not done for 03:19:324 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - where the sounds are quite similar. There are also places earlier in the map where you can introduce this so it's not super sudden like for example stacking 00:48:274 (2,1) - ? This might be a stretch but you can probably use additive hitsounding to introduce this as early as 00:04:624 (2,1) - if you do this (note I silenced the slidertail) and add a clap maybe on the 3 instead. Idk it's just an idea. At least if you introduce it really early you can avoid unfair breaks later cuz it's already been established as a present concept in the map.

melloe wrote:

tl;dr at bottom

hi! the hitsounds are cool, i like that you use hi-hats to emphasize when the singer sings "zone" (and other parts of the vocals). stream spacing is mapped to the vocals too which i enjoy a lot

the hi-hats are a little loud though, i suggest that you lower the volume a little bit. or you can make it so the hi hats fade out with every "zone" since the singer's "zone" gets softer toward the end. right now the hi hats start at 90% volume, maybe you could diminish the volume so that it starts at 80% and slowly goes down to 50%? or something along those lines. ZOOONnnee. also, i suggest that you avoid using too many hi-hats in other places, so that the wall of hi-hats can be reserved for vocals.
hummm..fix

i do think that your general aesthetics could use some polishing. individually each note might not seem to matter that much, but many slightly misplaced notes and roughly-shaped streams will affect the players/mapper's overall sense of the map, which is actually very important.
some examples: 01:51:874 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) - this whole stream, shape-wise, isn't very pretty. the right side bulges out a little, and the top side is flat. if it looked smoother and rounder, it'd look a lot nicer. 00:54:574 (5,6,7,8,9) - this stream is flat on the left, when i think it'd look a lot nicer when round.
another example is 01:11:074 (2) - this, and 04:52:474 (2) - . sliders like this will look VERY messy if not done exactly right. the 1st and 3rd segments of the slider should be equal in length, and parallel, or it will appear sloppy. i suggest you create one perfect version and copy paste that through the rest of the map, and rotate/flip when needed.
same to 01:51:874 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) - 00:54:574 (5,6,7,8,9) -I really don't want to change these. Because everyone has different tastes. It's not really necessary. I tried to compromise .some fix

regarding consistency, HW is certainly one of the most consistent mappers out there. with each of her maps she generally picks a couple of interesting patterns (deconstruction star), or one overarching aesthetic choice (tsubaki) and sticks with that for her entire map. every one of her maps is incredibly internally consistent. one pattern to reflect one part of the song. structurally speaking it's very minimalist (like handsome, except his maps are minimalist in structure AND in pattern). HW will have some slight variations in her patterns throughout her map, but they aren't very major and they're still governed by an overall consistency. mapping is a pretty flexible artform (all artforms are), but the one rule that should be followed 99% of the time is consistency. the other 1% of the time is for very weird songs, which extraction zone is not, and for very experimental mapping that i've never seen anyone do yet.

tl;dr
hitsounding is cool in that they accentuate vocals, but lower the volume and maybe make the "zoone" hitsounds fade out slowly instead of ending abruptly. and maybe make it so that you don't use hi-hats often except when there are vocals to accentuate

first thing to do is to polish up your aesthetics. aesthetics plays a large part in forming a player's impression of the "identity" of the map, which is the #1 most important thing. also, the #1 strongest tool in forming identity is to keep consistency.

anyways those are just my opinions, good luck!

F1r3tar wrote:

Another quick suggestion. 01:56:374 (1) seems unnecessarily long. You could end it at 02:03:124 and start a spinner on the white tick.

Lasse wrote:

01:56:224 (1) - make this one a bit louder pls, it's barely audible and stands out so much in the song. ~50% would be nice
fix
02:53:524 (13) - turn should probably be on 02:53:449 - to consistent with emphasis on 02:51:949 (8,12) - ?
fix
04:19:024 - can you decrease volume in 5% steps instead of 10% ones here? it's getting too quiet too fast imo, making it quite awkward to play
fix
still not really liking the usage of hihat samples, but I guess it's acceptable now and better than the old electronic drums
overall the map seems much better now, so feel free to continue with the ranking process

1. 01:53:899 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - fix that shape, take the idea from my first modpost. Try to make something like
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 01:31:174 (2,3,4) - there can be a higher distance between these 1/2 sliders to make them played better, they play easier compared to the other patterns concerning the distance. The same idea goes for 04:40:474 (1,2,3) -

Cherry Blossom wrote:

As requested.

1. 01:53:899 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - fix that shape, take the idea from my first modpost. Try to make something like
   
   SPOILER

   
   fix
2. 01:31:174 (2,3,4) - there can be a higher distance between these 1/2 sliders to make them played better, they play easier compared to the other patterns concerning the distance. The same idea goes for 04:40:474 (1,2,3) -

fix

idke wrote:

01:19:324 (2) - you forgot hitsound here fix
01:54:949 (16,8) - personal issue for me at these curves since they're quite difficult to play when the space streams dont align on the downbeat emmm...no
02:19:324 (3) - whistle here hummmm...no because 02:19:774 (4) - is whistle. 02:19:324 (3) - adding whistle feels a little strange
02:22:024 (2) - and here too (sounds a lot better imo), also to keep it consistent since its added here 02:24:424 (1) - 02:22:624 (1) - fix for whistle
02:26:824 (5) - also over here and beyond it seems to switch up the placement of whistle hitsounds, im unsure why, maybe keep it consistent?
hummm...no Because the song itself has a drum sound in this place
03:02:224 (2) - this note ends on red tick, not 1/3 purple no 03:02:424 - there was a distinct voice .03:02:374 - but it's fuzzy here
03:05:224 (1) - make sliderend clickable pls fix
04:10:399 (14) - this curve makes this stream extremely difficult to hit, maybe try moving 04:10:474 (15) - up by a little fix
04:18:424 (1) - blue and red tick after this note has drums that arent mapped, is this intentional? yup. this is to create a sense of pause. but more of the reason is that guitar sounds are the most important sound
04:30:724 (1) - 04:35:524 (1) - these ncs seem very inconsistent throughout the song, such as areas like this 01:37:924 (5) - and this 01:42:724 (1) -, im sure there are more but i lost track
fix. These places are largely due to differences in voices, so NC

feels a lot better when playing now

MrSergio wrote:

01:31:324 (3,4,5) - those hitsounds on the tail are not the best. If they require such strong hitsounding why are they not clickable.. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8916976
fix
05:01:324 (1) - doesn't this end at 05:02:074 - instead in the song?
fix

Broly wrote:

00:19:624 (9) - I feel like the NC should be here rather than 00:19:924 (1) - just like how you NC'd in the other part such as 00:32:824 (1) -
00: 32: 824 ( 1 ) - how do you see that they want to keep the same NC? Why don't you say 00: 30: 124 ( 5 ) - save the same?or 00:28:024 (7) - ?00:17:224 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - 00:18:424 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - 00:19:924 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - I don't want to say too much.

02:39:424 (1) - Don't you think this slider should end at the white tick instead of the blue tick? I don't think there's a sound ending on the white tick, but rather on the white tick.
This method of using the slider to express sound is not very difficult to see.02:39:949 - and, according to what you want to say. it should be here.but obviously. I didn't choose to stay here.02:40:849 - If you can understand the voice here

02:42:424 (9) - I would NC this part of the stream consdering you NC'd 02:43:024 (1) -
03:56:824 (9) - ^ I'd say the same thing here (03:57:424 (1) - as you NC'd this)
no, why do I do this? This is not a necessary NC

Sorry, it's not really a big mod, I'm not a very experienced mapper, but I hope this might somewhat still be helpful, but nice map, good luck.

I don't think it's good for this map.

Tukan4ik wrote:

Mod, because i feel like you need fix something untill it will be ranked and i think it will be helpful

00:06:349 (16,1) - make the sharp angle of stream on white tick with new combo, because sharp angles are important part of streams so they sohuld be white ticks with new combo
00:07:549 (16,1) - same here
00:08:749 (16,1) - same

？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？This guy says. need to add NC on the blue line?
are you sure. do you have a basic understanding of mapping?

00:45:424 (5) - move 5 a bit closer to 6, it will make spacing will looks smoother no
01:03:949 (4) - same no
01:09:124 (3) - maybe nc? why say mabey?Do you have enough reason to let me in here NC?
01:13:924 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - 04:52:924 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - 04:57:724 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - If you have reason to let all of these are NC.
01:36:799 (10) - move it a bit to 1, to make spacing smoother no. smoother.But it does not apply here. here is a force of strength.The contrast between the extreme deceleration and acceleration will be expressed by the power of 01: 36: 874 (1)
01:40:774 (5,6,1) - it looks so wierd so move 01:40:474 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - up to make sharp angle like this

SPOILER

same
01:41:599 (6) - move to 1 to make spacing smoother same
01:51:349 (4) - same no
01:53:749 (6) - same no
01:54:949 (16,1) - sharp angle at end of stream on white tick with new combo no
01:55:549 (8,1) - same no
02:35:824 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - change stream to 1/8 reverse sliders on strong sounds because 1/8 sounds are not that loud and important, so they should be repeats of sliders
Do you know this is 100 BPM?What is the difference between the sliders and the present? Just because you think it's 1 / 8 of all that looks difficult.
02:51:424 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1) - all sharp angles on white ticks, move it to white pls

ok. from this mod. I've found that you don't see the mod at all. there's no suggestion to make a good map of the map.All of your opinions. just for yourself. not for the map. you just make yourself feel more comfortable.Because many places. I believe in the previous mod. I have put forward very, very, very detailed views and views.But you don't pay attention to them. you just put it out. and there are some very strange ideas. for example. you think you should add NC on the blue line. I think this is the most basic mapping knowledge. but you don't understand.so.
”Mod, because i feel like you need fix something untill it will be ranked and i think it will be helpful“
What role do you put in this sentence? Is it a mapper? no. as a player ? I don't think your rank can experience this map very well.Like I said before. I don't compromise for everyone.Since you don't care about the previous discussion. why do you want to raise these questions now?Just to let me explain it again?

03:04:549 (8,1) - 1 should be at low spacing like 7-8 cuz it's end of this line, where spacing becoming lower and lower like you done it here 04:30:799 (2,1)

SPOILER

I believe in the details of my discussions with mir. so . no

03:18:574 (8) - nc this, remove nc at 03:19:024 (1) -
??????????????????????????03:17:824 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - 03:19:024 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - Look here. say your point. you're just saying let me do it. but there's no reason. these words look like " I think"
03:18:874 (10,2) - make them higher and at same high
wt.......Are you really writing a better mod for this map?
03:22:324 (1,2,3,4,1) - increase spacing on every note a bit, cuz sound getting higher no. you think you need to smooth, why do you suddenly increase the spacing here? Doesn't this view go against your point of view?
03:38:524 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - nerf jumps, there is not such powerful sound
???????????????????????????????????????????????????? no. are you joking? you feel is not obvious . really?
03:57:349 (16,1) - sharp angle on white tick with new combo same. no
04:10:624 (1) - after most spaced stream in map slider is 1.1x speed, player will move cursor so fast because large spacing and prob choke cuz slider is not fast enough, make it 1.5x atleast and sound is still high no.I don't recognize that when people play here, they can't even grasp the speed.
04:13:624 (1) - why you nced this slider but don't nced 04:14:824 (5) - ? no
04:36:499 (6,7,8,1) - it's not sharp enough for sharp angle, but too sharp for smooth stream lul
no
04:59:974 (1,2,3,4,5) - spacing changes a lot but sound is same
no

Also you done sharp angles on white ticks with nc many times, so i think you understand that they should be at them

I tried my best
I can't agree with you. are you sure you did your best? You don't even pay attention to this map before. you just occasionally see it. say something you think. I don't think your question can help me, but I think . when you put forward a mod . it's best to be responsible for your own statements . because it's not just about a mod . when some wrong comments come up . it makes people question the reason why you put this mod.

09kami wrote:

Tukan4ik wrote:

02:35:824 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - change stream to 1/8 reverse sliders on strong sounds because 1/8 sounds are not that loud and important, so they should be repeats of sliders
Do you know this is 100 BPM?What is the difference between the sliders and the present? Just because you think it's 1 / 8 of all that looks difficult.

F1r3tar wrote:

09kami wrote:

Do you know this is 100 BPM?What is the difference between the sliders and the present? Just because you think it's 1 / 8 of all that looks difficult.

Interesting. I didn't know 1/8 100 bpm was 100 bpm.

Surono wrote:

1/8 100 = 1/4 200

MrSergio wrote:

@09kami
That's not how you reply to mods + I already told you to edit your own posts instead of making a double post.

Give a read to https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/Ranking_Cr ... of_Conduct


@everyone
Refrain from straying away from the topic, you guys know you should be talking about the map instead of fueling any potential misbehaviour.
Also please report, the Code of Conduct is not just something we made up for show, it's a set of rules which should be respected.

Pachiru wrote:

I have a little suggestion, I don't really know if it's worth to DQ the map for this, but that would be cool to have your point of view, cause I'm questioning about it.

00:45:124 (1) - You make a good thing by using DS changes during stream to emphasize the song, and that fit pretty well. But there is some places where there was the same kind of "sound" or "melody", where you didn't make it. For instance here: 00:51:874 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) - it just felt weird to me, cause you made it previously, and this time, there is no DS changes.
00:51:874 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) - emmmm..just 00:50:674 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - and 00:51:424 (1,2,1) - slider .It's also a variation of spacing. 00:54:274 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - actually, I was here with an abbreviated spacing of stream., but because of MOD., I had to compromise

00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Same for here, I think it's because there is a curved shape, so it gives the feel like they are more spaced than previously, but when I look at it, those two notes 00:47:224 (3,7) - are at two different sides of the stream, so they're filling two different types of beats, but they're at the same distance from the last note.
emmm...I did not understand this passage .but 00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - just because flow zone 。02:05:824 (1) - u mean you should change to such a stream?

00:54:274 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - To me it's more a personnal taste, but I don't agree with the fact that the DS is reduced on the end of the stream, cause it feels like the word "love" is stronger than the rest of the stream, so that would make more sense if there is a 1.2x distance snap here, like you did previously, instead of a 1.0x.
I know!! because I had a similar idea with you before, but I think it should shorten the DS. to about 0.75, but in the next mod, I compromised the place

00:58:024 (1,2) - Wouldn't be better to play to just swap the place of those two notes? I think that in matter of flow, it might not be enjoyable to play. The flow here is pretty sharp, and it wouldn't be pleasant to having a sharp turn here while having no real strong beat. (If the problem is the distance snap, cause this note: 00:58:024 (1) - is distanced by 1/4 gap, then just move a bit the notes to make it better.)
hummm...I don't deny your idea. but proper reverse flow. may add a little extra flavor .u can take my remark as an excuse

01:38:749 (10,11,12,13,14) - I would recommend you to slow the DS on the end of this stream to emphasize well the song, plus to be consistant with that part: 01:37:624 (1,2,3,4,1) - where you added a DS changes for the same kind of sound.
this some part like 01:42:874 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,1) - It was designed on purpose .

That's all I can say. Beside the DS on stream, I think the map is good.

Pachiru wrote:

00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Same for here, I think it's because there is a curved shape, so it gives the feel like they are more spaced than previously, but when I look at it, those two notes 00:47:224 (3,7) - are at two different sides of the stream, so they're filling two different types of beats, but they're at the same distance from the last note.
emmm...I did not understand this passage .but 00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - just because flow zone 。02:05:824 (1) - u mean you should change to such a stream?

Pachiru wrote:

Pachiru wrote:

00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Same for here, I think it's because there is a curved shape, so it gives the feel like they are more spaced than previously, but when I look at it, those two notes 00:47:224 (3,7) - are at two different sides of the stream, so they're filling two different types of beats, but they're at the same distance from the last note.
emmm...I did not understand this passage .but 00:47:074 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - just because flow zone 。02:05:824 (1) - u mean you should change to such a stream?

I was just suggesting you to add some DS diversity here like you did previously, but don't worry it's still playable well, I just think that it could've make it more representative of the song, but if you prefer to keep it like this, then let's keep it