this mod has given me a lot to think about, so ill leave this in the grave while i comb through my map and revise stuff xd
pishifat wrote:hi uber told me to mod your map!! hello there
there's a lot of stuff here i think is okay. rhythm is solid, visuals are okay, and movement is comfortable pretty much all the time. there's some things you might want to think about if you're looking to get this beyond an okay map though:
the thing i see with a lot of difficult maps is how object placements don't relate to each other beyond bare minimum playability. like, sharp angles are comfortable, so anything within a sharp angle is treated as good enough, even if it isn't very polished in the bigger picture.
in your map, i can see the logic behind some placements beyond just comfort sometimes, but not always. for example,00:33:030 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - sliderbodies are in line with jumps, and overall spacing increases as the song's intensity does. you're presenting your ideas clearly, so it's good stuff.
what you should be thinking more about is how 00:34:184 (1,2) - could fit into that. placements you've got now play fine, but don't really form any recognizable pattern, making them seem random (even if you think they're not). 00:34:184 (1,2) - these could be less "random" by visually connecting to surrounding objects in some way.
for example, 00:34:328 (2) - could be equally spcaed between 00:33:463 (1,2) - . given how close the objects are together, it's easy to see their relation.
00:34:184 (1) - is far from any other objects though, so it's harder to clearly relate it. by reflecting the shape formed by 00:33:895 (1,2,2) - though, it's easy enough to see their relation
or you could relate them like this, or like this, or like this, and so on. there's unlimited ways to relate objects with each other
wow this is such a broad concept that ive been missing...
that's a lot of words to explain something simple, so i think you get it. try to make placements pretty much everywhere as clear as possible. the further apart objects are, the harder it may be to clearly relate them. for the most part, your calmer parts are okay about this, whereas it gets a lot messier when there's more density/spacing (for what should be obvious reasons now)
to make myself more clear, here's some examples of clear placements
02:52:357 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -
00:45:578 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -
these are solid
and here's some unclear placements:
02:41:684 (3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1) - compare what you've currently got to the same thing with clear relationships between objects
02:36:347 (2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - " "
these don't look like they've had as much thought put into them
by thinking about more is micro stuff, it'll affect the macro more than you'd expect !
aside from this whole rant^, there's not much else i ahve to complain about:
01:49:905 (3,4,5,6,7) - spacing emphasis seems kinda nonsense with 7 here. you probably already know how to handle that yea fixx
also confused about spacing emphasis leading into downbeats like 00:22:357 (6,1) - 00:24:088 (6,1) - . it's not like spacing like that is a bad thing, but you contradict it with like 00:29:280 (3,1) - 00:25:818 (7,1) - and so on all the time. i dont really get it get hmm ill make this more consistent
01:51:780 (1,2,3) - triples mapped to nothing are gross when they're not used to lead into a strong sound oh heck... then i'd have to change a lot
04:37:440 (1,1) - comboing mistake i assume oops
03:17:248 (1) - 04:42:199 (1) - try to like handle sliderslide/tick hitsounds here in a quiet way lol. jarring when compared to the song's near-silence oko
ok bye!! ok thanks!!