Bonsai wrote:

Why does only the diffname of the Easy have an adverb instead of an adjective lol It just sounded nicer. Painful Easy sounded weird to me, and Painfully Easy just sounds a lot better.

Also I heavily dislike 01:28:074 (5,6,7) in the highest diff bc horizontal jumps are generally harder to play than vertical ones of the same spacing, and I don't really see much reason to make (6) so special as it's still the same note as all the others in the music, would suggest smth like Yea, this kind of arrangement is really special because of the sharp angles i've set up, as well as the visually noticeably increase in DS. In all instances, the player is moving in very acute angles that also double back on the path of the previous two circles, creating an X flow that is a lot more comfortable to play. Why don't I want to dip down below the x axis? because if 5>6>7 involves an angle that dips, it actually becomes more difficult to control given how i've been controlling the gradual y-axis vextor decrease. What I mean by this is that 3>4 then 4>5 then 5>6 and then 6>7, you can notice that the length of y-axis movement decreases considerably as this jump pattern aims to turn all y-axis momentum (from 1>2>3>4, that use minimal x-axis movement) to purely x-axis movement. This is done by sharp angle changes, and a clear visual pattern that shows the change in y-axis from nearly full-screen to nearly 1/3rd the screen by the time 5>6 is played. This allows the player to snap to 7 much more easily because through these jumps, y-axis velocity has been gradually but surely decreased.

You often see remnants of this concept in slightly slanted linear sliders (which I often spam) because its just much more comfortable to have both an X and Y axis movement when you jump from one object to another. The exception is here, where the jump pattern is specifically tailored to make the switch from "a lot of Y movement" to "a bit of y movement" to "no y movement". Otherwise, having some y-movement is usually better since players don't have to cease all movement on one axis voluntarily in order to properly snap to the next object. (It's also why you almost never see perfectly horizontal/vertical jumps nowadays since they are quite tricky to set up if you don't know the idea behind it, imo)this
Doesn't 00:22:843 (5) deserve an NC? And for drain-balancing purposes at 00:37:613 (1,2,3,4) I'd suggest not NCing 00:24:074 (1,1) - 00:36:997 (1,1) - 01:14:843 (1,1,1,1) xd I don't think NC is necessary, and the NC spam there is to show the anti-jumps.

Tortured Soul Extra: Why does 00:22:843 (1) reverse twice? I don't hear a note there and you didn't do that in the following reverse-sliders either (even though 00:25:382 does actually have a note in the music lol) There's a note there though. And I think this fits very well as a rhythmic reduction of Eclipse that uses 5 note streams here.
And again I don't see why 01:28:074 (5,6) is suddenly that much higher spaced than the rest as I don't see that in the music at all, continuing your pattern like this would already increase it in relation to the previous two notes again, that's definitely enough I like the angles a lot actually. And i've always enjoyed having spacing increases to create a growing intensity in jump patterns. I think we've discussed this in a lot more detail when the topic was about quaver xD.

I like how I see that same issue in all other high diffs too except the Excrutiating Extra where it's like "hey, let's not space (4,5,6) at all" for some reason lol Yea. With this many diffs, I'm also aiming for different interpretations. Basically trying to emulate different styles while still showing elements of my own.

Karen wrote:

#2

Bonsai wrote:

Karen wrote:

#2

what


@Monstrata: It would be cool if you could convey your point a bit simpler, all I got from this is that you're talking about angles which I don't really understnad bc my suggestion barely changes any angles at all, I just simply reduced the spacing to make it more fitting, you can still make (6,7) be horizontal by moving (7), I have nothing against that. Theres a huge angle change from 4>5>6 though, looking at your example. 6 Needs to be lower to reduce the angle. I also want a larger spacing here to emphasize the intensity increase I'm trying to convey. I was barely talking about angles tbh. A lot of it is y and x axis vectors. When you consider jumps, you also consider angles, and their alignment with the x and y axis. When you move your hand, unless you are slanting your hand or holding your pen/mouse at an angle, you will be putting force on your pen/mouse in both an x and y axis, the combination of which, gives the slant (maths maths etc...).


Yes, we discussed forceful increase of intensity in jump patterns in Quaver already, and your point was that you purely did it for difficulty, so I don't really see what you're trying to tell me lol That quote looks really bad out of context, can you not paint me in that color, thanks. We can move Quaver discussion to quaver, it's getting ranked sooner or later anyways.

Intensity increases naturally from the amount of jumps you map, when you already have more high-spaced jumps in a row here than anywhere else then there is no need to forcefully increase the spacing even more when it has absolutely zero justification in the song

My point about NCing 00:22:843 (5) - is that this is the start of a measure and it's only natural to NC those since you're doing that everywhere else too, and you have a lot of those short combos anyways, so the question for me is rather whether there's any reason not to put a NC here It's mor natural to NC this way imo. The reason people NC on the start of the measure is to give an indicator of rhythm. I believe I'm doing the same, except i'm showing the rhythm by not NC"ing on the downbeat.

Do you really feel the need to indicate obvious anti-jumps at this diff-level? I highly doubt that any player skilled enough for this map will misread them when not NCd, and this just creates unnecessary imbalance in the drain, so again I don't see a reason why not NCing them would be bad in any way It doesn't hurt.

And I still definitely do not hear any note at 00:23:074 and you didn't map it in any other diff either, not even Eclipse, so maybe you wanna make a rhythmic reduction here too eh I'll take a closer look when I'm home.

Maakkeli wrote:

7*
00:40:690 (1) - wanna fix the rhythm here? It's a normal triple at the red tick

Bonsai wrote:

And I still definitely do not hear any note at 00:23:074 and you didn't map it in any other diff either, not even Eclipse, so maybe you wanna make a rhythmic reduction here too eh

mick2903 wrote:

I like how OD is matching AR on the above insane diffs... like in the good old times, where you had no choice but to have them match Osu! needs more high OD goodness :3

alacat wrote:

I don't know why only 45% volume in Excruciating Extra diff. But i can hear sounds/hit sounds when i'm playing. If Monstrata wants to fix this, pls poke me :p