Yugu wrote:

We Were Here

1. 00:34:503 (1,2,1,2) - can consider to become gradually increase ds to show the music changes 滑条速度已经变快了，看看要不要把音量动一动
2. 01:27:593 (4,5,1) - maybe they are too far compared to the slider's ds before , and music didn t have big changes . nerf some ds ? 2.85其实也还好，到时候看看其他人怎么看
3. 01:40:450 (1,2) - consider to adjust the 01:40:879 (2) - position ? although their ds still keeping 2.4x , but it looks not like 2.4x ds in vsual ds . player will not fully drag this slider to the slider end 01:40:450 (1) - . but same slider like 01:36:593 (5,1) - 这样子的话这个nc全是遮挡不好读，想到更好的之后会改01:33:593 (1,2) - , player must to fully drag the silder to the slider end . 我觉得可能有点小看玩家了
4. 03:49:539 (4,1) - 03:46:701 (1,2) - 1/4 ds same as 1/2 ds ? change it will be better imo 03:47:309 - 这地方的音效不太明显所以我放了一个间距比较小的跳，而且这两个地方时间点差的有点远应该不影响读图
5. 04:29:269 (4,5) - would like to make them symmetry ? √
6. 04:32:309 (2,2) - fix stack √
7. 05:33:109 (4,1) - have very strong sound but their ds smaller than 05:32:300 (4,1) - 's ds ? actually idk what reason you use for huge ds here . strong drum sound is start here 05:32:098 (3) - and the drum sound here even become weaker 05:32:502 (1) - . make ds more fit this part of music changes will be better 这个地方我跟了吉他，因为我觉得吉他和鼓比起来更能戳G点所以吉他的9个圈加了点间距，相对的鼓的间距就小一点，因为我感觉这一小段鼓的作用就是显得吉他更燃一点，不过还是改了一点
8. 07:56:230 (5,6,7,8,9,10) - i think increase ds triple is not very big sense here , guitar sound is not very big changes so maybe increase ds is extra 影响不大，不太打算改
9. 11:06:459 (1,1,1,1,1) - used stack maybe a bit waste these strong sound . can make some special design to show them 不需要了，做个NW出来感觉挺不错的，之前的SIMS也做了这么一个，两个主唱听的最多的曲子，就当放一个情怀把

nice map!
gl!

1. 00:23:992 (1) - since you have progression style for this song, consider to start increasing ds from here on downbeats since this is where new drum stanza begins, from 2x to ~2.7x I think will be enough
2. 00:25:744 (1) - ^ as being said, this will improve overall perception and will follow music intense increasing with chosen style better imo // 00:27:496 (1) and so on until 00:34:503 (1) - where you have SV speed up
3. 00:37:569 (2,1) - this transfer to 00:38:007 (1) - according to the music should be stronger then 00:37:131 (1,2) consider to swap 00:38:007 (1) and maybe also 00:38:664 (2) - for keeping reasonable transfers
4. 00:53:335 (4,1,2) - ^ this is kind of also but minor comparing to thing above because of overall phase, still consider to increase 00:53:335 (4,1) - ds here
5. 01:20:093 (2,3) - could benefit from uneven spacing to stress strong lyrics 01:20:307 (3) - here, something like http://puu.sh/zSIGi/e92dbe88dc.jpg maybe
6. 01:21:807 (2,3) - ^ same here
7. 01:49:450 (2,3) - this is out of consistency for spacing nor correspond anything in the background music, consider to lower spacing here. Similar spot for the reference 02:03:165 (2) -
8. 02:56:388 (9) - i don't see a reason to make this jump bigger then for example 02:53:306 (1,2,3,4) - this ones, there is nothing noticeable happens in the music here
9. 03:55:417 (4) - aesthetics, seems like this one is a bit off from overall style and build up randomly (no changes in the music) consider to use something that correspond chosen style more
10. 03:59:674 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - shouldn't this pattern be in opposite - expand to the climax of this part? with transfer to less intense on 04:03:526 (4,5,1,2,3,4) -
11. 05:53:000 (4,1) - why you decided to use extended spacing for similar transfer on the start 05:49:757 (5,1) - and switch to the plain DS later, seems unreasonable to me, especially when you use extended for this 05:54:013 (2,3) - which is much weaker
12. 05:56:243 (5,1) - ^ // 05:59:485 (6,1) -
13. 06:05:973 (5,1) - compare with 06:05:365 (3,4,5) -
14. overall i don't understand chosen structure for this song, it seems quite random in terms of spacing\contrast of what you trying to emphasize, tho rhytm and patterns is pmuch fine. Maybe i'll do another glance to this if you explain that because atm its hard to understand -> make proper suggestions for the map improving
15. 07:41:135 (4,5,1) - why not to stress transfer to 07:41:527 (1) - more? it will correspond music better http://puu.sh/zSJBw/fcf0c28569.jpg and similar parts

1. 00:17:642 (2,3,4,5) - 我听着这段应该是跟voice的，试一试这样
   
2. 01:05:160 (1,2,3,4,1) - 这可以摆个五边形
3. 04:48:500 (3) - 延长1/4试一试
4. 05:15:076 (5,6) - 换一下顺序
5. 09:18:291 (4,1) - 换一下位置
6. 09:39:242 (3,4,1,2,3) - 09:40:724 (3,4,1,2,3) - 这两组可以根据两边的节奏调整下ds

Sieg wrote:

hello there

We Were Here:

1. 00:23:992 (1) - since you have progression style for this song, consider to start increasing ds from here on downbeats since this is where new drum stanza begins, from 2x to ~2.7x I think will be enough
2. 00:25:744 (1) - ^ as being said, this will improve overall perception and will follow music intense increasing with chosen style better imo // 00:27:496 (1) and so on until 00:34:503 (1) - where you have SV speed up fixed
3. 00:37:569 (2,1) - this transfer to 00:38:007 (1) - according to the music should be stronger then 00:37:131 (1,2) consider to swap 00:38:007 (1) and maybe also 00:38:664 (2) - for keeping reasonable transfers fixed
4. 00:53:335 (4,1,2) - ^ this is kind of also but minor comparing to thing above because of overall phase, still consider to increase 00:53:335 (4,1) - ds here fixed but i think this ds is enough
5. 01:20:093 (2,3) - could benefit from uneven spacing to stress strong lyrics 01:20:307 (3) - here, something like http://puu.sh/zSIGi/e92dbe88dc.jpg maybe
6. 01:21:807 (2,3) - ^ same here i followed bass in these circles, the bass sounds no wave at 01:19:879 (1,2) - 01:21:593 (1,2) - so i think use the same spacing is nice and looks beautiful
7. 01:49:450 (2,3) - this is out of consistency for spacing nor correspond anything in the background music, consider to lower spacing here. Similar spot for the reference 02:03:165 (2) - fixed, 2.6->2.4...i think i'm correct at first...
8. 02:56:388 (9) - i don't see a reason to make this jump bigger then for example 02:53:306 (1,2,3,4) - this ones, there is nothing noticeable happens in the music here just a normal jump i think...it's common in a 4.9* mapset, and 02:53:306 (1,2) - is 3.15*1.2=3.78>02:56:388 (9) - 3.4*1.0=3.4 so it's not jump biggerlol
9. 03:55:417 (4) - aesthetics, seems like this one is a bit off from overall style and build up randomly (no changes in the music) consider to use something that correspond chosen style more hmm... i think just appeared once is no influence in the whole mapset, if i get a nice advise i will fix this
10. 03:59:674 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - shouldn't this pattern be in opposite - expand to the climax of this part? with transfer to less intense on 04:03:526 (4,5,1,2,3,4) - i followed drum in these square jumps, this part's drum 24 clap very strong, sounds excited, and it's a before chorus part, so i think use jump in this part is very siutable, and 04:03:728 (1,2,3,4) - drum 24 clap disappeared, only normal hit continued, and bass sounds lower and lower, so i decided 04:03:728 (1,2,3,4) - not use square jumps and ds is decreasing
11. 05:53:000 (4,1) - why you decided to use extended spacing for similar transfer on the start 05:49:757 (5,1) - and switch to the plain DS later, seems unreasonable to me, especially when you use extended for this 05:54:013 (2,3) - which is much weaker
12. 05:56:243 (5,1) - ^ // 05:59:485 (6,1) -
13. 06:05:973 (5,1) - compare with 06:05:365 (3,4,5) - lol my bad, fixed
14. overall i don't understand chosen structure for this song, it seems quite random in terms of spacing\contrast of what you trying to emphasize, tho rhytm and patterns is pmuch fine. Maybe i'll do another glance to this if you explain that because atm its hard to understand -> make proper suggestions for the map improving this song is spent me much time, from 2017.1 to 2017.11 because of graduating and finding job, so i think the reason is i forget many patterns when i did at first, i can't remember my 4 months ago thought lol
15. 07:41:135 (4,5,1) - why not to stress transfer to 07:41:527 (1) - more? it will correspond music better http://puu.sh/zSJBw/fcf0c28569.jpg and similar parts fixed

gl

jimmy55555 wrote:

02:40:566 (2) - 我覺得這應該再強調一下 那么具体是什么方面应该强调一下呢
04:18:728 (5) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10593622 很明显是2+2+1的鼓点，我感觉我这样子放应该没问题的
04:52:760 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - really misleading 不会啊，4.5*往上的图这种地方到处都是
04:52:760 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - misleading too 这不是和上一条是一个时间点的吗。。
05:33:311 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - 我覺得這種jump不適合這裡的節奏 这个地方到时候看看其他人怎么说
07:27:216 - 我覺得這裡有一個note比較好，原本的pattern太難判斷了 两个rank版本的 SIMS都是这么放两个的，应该不会有这种问题，到时候看看需不需要把这两个错开一点放
08:47:315 (1,2) - stacked will be better 或是08:47:315 (1) - 換成slider 08:47:509 - 这地方没有vocal 不是很好放slider啊，08:47:315 (1,2) - 这两个都是强点，中间没有vocal 只有一个能听到一点点声音的bass，感觉还是不放slider算了吧
10:53:126 (1,2,3,4) - 我覺得這個音沒有必要這麼強調 看看气他们怎么说，我这个地方跟的是bass， 感觉看上去和听上去应该不是太过分

AIR wrote:

这BG，养太大的斑点狗 bg随便找的，发现有牛逼点的就换

1. 00:17:642 (2,3,4,5) - 我听着这段应该是跟voice的，试一试这样
   这地方我跟的好像是vocal 啊，00:18:298 - 这个点没跟大概是因为不是很想全都用圈塞满
2. 01:05:160 (1,2,3,4,1) - 这可以摆个五边形 没地方了。。有地方肯定摆的，01:06:036 (1) - 而且我感觉这个finish用大一点的跳还挺好的
3. 04:48:500 (3) - 延长1/4试一试 04:48:703 - 这地方有个鼓点啊我还是跟鼓点吧，3/4反而听着有点怪
4. 05:15:076 (5,6) - 换一下顺序 这两个本来就放一起的啊。。
5. 09:18:291 (4,1) - 换一下位置 光换位置感觉不太好，我把他摆的再开一点
6. 09:39:242 (3,4,1,2,3) - 09:40:724 (3,4,1,2,3) - 这两组可以根据两边的节奏调整下ds 这两段应该是差不多的把

祝早飞

1. 00:39:759 (1) - 调整一下间距然后ctrl+G？前面一组三个顺时针 这里三个可以逆时针
2. 00:47:642 (1) - 这个NC感觉不是很有必要
3. 01:29:736 (5) - 好像突然变得有点近了 叠在3的尾巴那里？
4. 01:33:593 - 好像不需要finish 后面也是 感觉两组一个finish就ok
5. 02:59:470 (8,9,1) - 这里等距离钝角flow感觉后面1号重音突出的不是很明显
6. 06:11:446 (2) - 这里不该finish吧
7. 07:23:492 - 不要这个NC感觉好点
8. 07:38:391 (1,2) - 和前面差不多的感觉 交换NC舒服点 差不多就是06:19:351 - 那一部分NC分布的感觉 后面几个也是一样的建议
9. break结束时间好像是刻意没有拉满 不过感觉其实也没啥必要呀..

Misure wrote:

sry for late

[We Were Here]

1. 00:39:759 (1) - 调整一下间距然后ctrl+G？前面一组三个顺时针 这里三个可以逆时针 这样子应该没啥问题，虽然对自己一年半之前做的这部分的flow不是很满意但是应该够用了
2. 00:47:642 (1) - 这个NC感觉不是很有必要 有道理
3. 01:29:736 (5) - 好像突然变得有点近了 叠在3的尾巴那里？ 01:30:165 (1,2,3,4) - 我用了和这个地方一样的间距，01:31:236 (3,4,5) - 为这个地方的跳做个铺垫，01:30:165 (1,2,3,4,1) - 这地方应该没什么必要用太大的间距
4. 01:33:593 - 好像不需要finish 后面也是 感觉两组一个finish就ok 我也觉得好像没必要，回头问问看北大叫兽
5. 02:59:470 (8,9,1) - 这里等距离钝角flow感觉后面1号重音突出的不是很明显 02:59:470 (8,9) - 主要是这地方感觉也不太好放跳，因为这地方的音不是很强，想了一下觉得叠起来或者钝角跳比较好一点，既然已经钝角跳了那就钝角吧，这地方的重音有02:59:881 (1,2,3,4) - 大间距突出了，感觉钝角跳不算一个好选择但是也说不上差
6. 06:11:446 (2) - 这里不该finish吧 有道理 回头叫他再看看
7. 07:23:492 - 不要这个NC感觉好点 那就先去掉 nc，不过我觉得这地方有个重音，放个nc其实也没什么
8. 07:38:391 (1,2) - 和前面差不多的感觉 交换NC舒服点 差不多就是06:19:351 - 那一部分NC分布的感觉 后面几个也是一样的建议 07:38:391 - 这里肯定要 nc的因为是finish+kiai，07:37:606 (1) - 所以这个我也放了，一是和 07:38:391 (1) - 对应，二是怕这个nc太长，三是这个点的音效和之前的几个都不一样
9. break结束时间好像是刻意没有拉满 不过感觉其实也没啥必要呀.. 感觉没什么差。。不过还是拉一下把

nothing else to say, 稳定
Good luck

ACOMG wrote:

試打一次有點悶的感覺，往好的方向想就是很正經的一幅圖拉xd 可能时间长也是一个原因，不过我觉得这个图大概也就一个平均水准吧，给人的印象不是很深，但是应该也和烂图不搭边
我想為了讓玩家打的時侯更有feel，可以去更強調比較強的音，用flow/spacing之類的
像是

00:38:006 (1) - slider往上移，可以造成sharp angle有強調效果，另外我覺得綠線SV可以加至1.20x 我会考虑的

很詳細的找錯處我不是很在行，聽到第四首歌好像都沒有什麼錯處，抱歉啦
p.s.我個人是覺得1:18:165至2:26:950這首(好像是第二首)做的最好

assassincread wrote:

from my queue ~


[我們曾在這]

01:06:036 (1) - 這顆挪到(320,304)，然後感受下你的滑鼠/畫筆是不是比較順 我自己打图的时候觉得149，368这样子的地方是最顺的，从我自己打图的经验来看30度左右的夹角是最顺的，不过不是很喜欢，摆在原来的地方感觉好看一点
01:22:022 (3) - 尾部的drum sample sound去掉，這個和你要跟的音不一樣 好的
03:30:703 (7) - 這顆的距離太大造成你要強調的03:30:909 (1,2) - 失去應該要有的效果。是我的話會弄類似這樣 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10631934 你这个跳反而更大了啊。。
04:43:022 - 這個部分的drum-hitnormal4作為基底音效很不合適，原因是像04:43:530 - 04:44:138 - 04:44:544 - 04:44:950 - 這種滑條尾部多餘的音就會被很清楚聽到，選擇這種基底音效也要想到滑條尾部音效的處理，如果真要繼續用那就是把多餘的音都靜音掉，不然真的很影響聽覺感受 好的
04:43:023 (1,2,1,2,3) - 這些應該設為同一種顏色，因為它們在音樂中也是一起的，再說04:43:023 (1,2) - 這短NC被獨立除來變得突兀，但是這裡應該沒有需要強調的地方才對
04:50:529 (1) - 同上的NC remove 好的，之前是打算跟歌词来的，现在来看的话我用了相似的pattern其实应该已经够了
04:56:615 (3) - 這顆挪到(47,53)跟04:57:224 (5) - 尾部疊在一起，這種角度稍微放開的跳我覺得更舒適些 这个应该影响不大
05:34:928 (1) - 這個做為最後的結束點，又是finish強音又是被NC單獨獨立出來，不是應該更加放開跳嗎 ? 我會擺在(160,112)上 改到了295，384看看效果，个人打起来这个地方比较顺
06:55:027 (1) - 如果沒有要弄跳就不要NC，同間距還獨立出來看起來很突兀 一般来说的话我遇到finish音效肯定会放nc，不过这个可以参考一下
08:10:345 (1) - 我覺得這個NC不需要，08:09:757 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - 是同一組的，而且08:09:757 (1,2,3) - 沒有要強調卻被分開來，看起來很怪 我先去掉看看其他人怎么说，不过个人还是有点倾向保留这个nc的，因为音效已经完全不一样了
09:33:501 - 這個high part我想跟你說說我的感想，我覺得一直到09:38:686 - 都很棒，跳得很熱血很合曲，但是09:38:686 - 開始就把連打的間距整個縮起來了，音樂中傳達給你的真的是那麼柔弱的音符嗎? 我覺得很熱血啊，怎麼不放開移動呢 ? 到了09:44:612 (1,2,1,2) - 我覺得跳得很棒，配合人聲絕妙，但是後面越來越不對，09:47:575 - 這距離縮成這樣，我想說的是你偶爾縮一下沒問題，但是大段縮就好像音樂漸漸沒力了，這邊的音樂真的是這樣表現的嗎 ? Kiai part我覺得不用多說，處理的挺好~ 前面的串主要是不想做的太难，cs4.6再加上大间距真的有点难玩了，而且这样做的话一定会上5星，这种串应该是比较容易对难度产生影响的地方了，这首歌上了5星，难度会和之前的拉开太大差距，这不是我想看到的，所以我把串的间距改小了一点，后半句讲的很有道理，当时做的时候的确是有点不长脑子了
10:06:089 (1) - 為什麼是疊起來呢 ? 你都是2顆1/2拍疊著的，而在這種非常適合大跳的地方疊起來，整個就是high不起來啊 单独把这首歌拿出来做我肯定会放开摆啊，但是我还是觉得难度不好跟之前的差太多，真的很不想让这个图上5星的
11:06:459 (1,1,1,1,1) - 我知道這是個梗，不過你看遊玩的體驗上，明明這soft-finish這麼強，卻是以簡單的重疊作為結束，我感覺前面的熱血的感覺全部被收束到無了，是不是有更刺激更適合的排列設計能取代它呢 ? 我覺得這個節骨眼最好弄的精彩，讓人留下更深刻的印象 这个地方一直都没找到什么更好的来放，等我想到了我肯定要改掉的


最後的感想，這張圖對我而言不無聊卻不出彩，原因是很多兩個的1/2拍的重疊circles浪費了蠻多可以做為移動設計的機會，我不反對1/2拍重疊這樣的梗，但是太多了自然就浪費而且膩了。不過總的來說還是值得一玩的譜，音效上有所用心而且歌曲比我想像中的好聽，flow也不錯 ~ 这可能一直以来都这样的把，想不到更好的摆法就直接叠了然后往下做，之后也不去管这种问题了，因为这么叠的话虽然有各种各样的不好但是也不会出太大的错，算是无功无过，不出彩是肯定的，因为我从头到尾都只想这怎么样把图做的干净一点，flow更加好接一点，没想着往出彩这方面做，否则就太花时间思考了，本来就有够忙的 lol
star支持下

assassincread wrote:

03:30:703 (7) - 這顆的距離太大造成你要強調的03:30:909 (1,2) - 失去應該要有的效果。是我的話會弄類似這樣 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10631934

assassincread wrote:

assassincread wrote:

03:30:703 (7) - 這顆的距離太大造成你要強調的03:30:909 (1,2) - 失去應該要有的效果。是我的話會弄類似這樣 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10631934

這個的意思是說03:30:292 (6,7) - 的距離太大，反而強調不出03:30:909 (1,2) - 的重音，所以我的示意圖是把(7)拉近然後重新擺03:30:909 (1,2) - 讓間距有所區別~
補充說明這個而來xD

Misure wrote:

sry for late

[We Were Here]

1. 01:33:593 - 好像不需要finish 后面也是 感觉两组一个finish就ok 我觉得挺带感的，不过还是看看后来人的意见
   
2. 06:11:446 (2) - 这里不该finish吧 这个finish配合前面的whistle会比较好听，所以是故意的。不过之后多加了几个whistle来突出此

nothing else to say, 稳定
Good luck

assassincread wrote:

from my queue ~


[我們曾在這]


01:22:022 (3) - 尾部的drum sample sound去掉，這個和你要跟的音不一樣 fixed

04:43:022 - 這個部分的drum-hitnormal4作為基底音效很不合適，原因是像04:43:530 - 04:44:138 - 04:44:544 - 04:44:950 - 這種滑條尾部多餘的音就會被很清楚聽到，選擇這種基底音效也要想到滑條尾部音效的處理，如果真要繼續用那就是把多餘的音都靜音掉，不然真的很影響聽覺感受 fixed by adding 10%+soft

Josh123uaJ wrote:

Ayy from q.

We Were Here:
01:32:307 (2,3,4) - I'd make this and other similar triples have a little bit less spacing since it shares the same spacing as 01:44:950 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1) but that part has stronger drum sounds. i used spacing triple in every "is the" vocal so i think it's a stable pattern, needn't make a change
01:35:307 (1) - I don't get why this is the only slider in that song that has an anchor. Maybe have anchors in sliders such as 01:40:450 (1) and 01:54:165 (1) since a strong guitar note is being emphasized by the music.i don't know why either but i think it doesn't matter, because no obvious problem if i still use a slider with a anchor
01:47:736 (2) - Small aesthetic suggestion: Make this blanket more to the last slider's head to make it look a little better. fixed
02:19:450 (2) - Small aesthetic suggestion: Make this more curvy like 02:19:022 (1) to make it a bit more appealing.fixed
03:09:744 (1) - From this point in this song, you don't build up spacing for the 5 note streams anymore. Why is that? because vocal is a little stronger than drum but i still follow drum, so the spacing can be a little more stable than before imo
04:52:760 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I'd prefer if this builds up spacing due to increasing volume. fixed
05:27:641 (1,2,3,4) - Make it a back and forth like 05:26:025 (1,2,3,4). I liked the pattern switching that was going on. 05:26:025 (1,2,3,4) - at this piont, 05:26:025 (1,2) - 05:26:429 (3,4) - is the same, 05:26:227 (2,4) - is the same, but 05:27:843 (2,3,4) - at this point, 05:27:843 (2,4) - not the same, 05:28:247 (4) - is lower than 05:27:843 (2) - so i don't use the same pattern like before
05:51:784 (1) - Imo, it feels like the shape doesn't belong here. Vocal is pretty clean here. Same with 06:03:946 (3). fixed
08:11:717 (1,2,3,4) - In this stream, the guitar notes get higher pitched. You only build up space from 08:11:325 (1,2,3,4) while the rest stays the same space. I think for these particular 4 notes, you could be have like .60 spacing and then the next four notes you could have the spacing be .80x and then the last four notes could be 1.0x spacing (just at least build some spacing here for the guitar notes). i think it doesn't matter but this is a nice advice :^)
08:45:951 (3,5,7) - I don't think ncs are rly necessary (idk y, it just feels unnecessary for me) i think a strong vocal need a nc

Holy shit nice songs. I'd really like to see this ranked.

z1085684963 wrote:

06:19:351 (6,6,6) - nc plz no
audioleadin 0->2000 fixed
宽屏支持 fixed
combo color这么少，学学人家Anhedonia fixed
怎么不是v2，我要死了

KaedekaShizuru wrote:

瞎JB掰几句
06:19:351 (6) - 改slider甩向06:19:757 (1,2)
06:22:594 (6) - ↑
06:29:081 (1) - ↑
06:32:324 (6) - ↑ 这几个作图的时候就试过了，感觉滑条没有圈这么好
06:51:986 (2) - 建议从这里NC 感觉nc不如放到finish这种地方好一点
08:10:345 (1,2) - 不应是连打而是短滑条 吉他音应该比较明显的有一个转音，感觉其实这两种都可以，不过短滑条的话我可能没有一个好地方去塞了
09:46:094 (1,2) - 这组与09:46:835 (4,5) 不同 我认为应该放跳而不是叠 就是因为不同所以我才变了一下间距啊
09:50:538 (1,2) - ↑ 这个我感觉可以不改因为后面是kiai和大跳，先小跳一个应该没什么问题
10:37:478 (4,1) - 变间距应该从这俩之间就开始要体现了 顺便这整个串的后半不做点间距变化吗
10:50:071 (4,1) - ↑ 个人比较喜欢每4个圈换一下间距角度这种，间距换的太频繁感觉有点影响串的整体
11:07:571 (1,1) - http://puu.sh/A4liJ/acee4b12e4.jpg
最后一首听过啊 也是你的图 怀念
美丽

TT Mouse wrote:

02:54:950 (1,2,3,4) - 这串ds怎么减了。 感觉前面这么大一个间距的滑条之后可以放一个间距小一点的串缓一下

06:16:108 (1) - 往左移一点，钝角有点小卡手 √

07:26:236 (3) - 滑条尾巴加点音效？原曲有轻微鼓擦，建议whistle，改的话别忘了后面 大湿说不需要

clear worker

1. I feel like the HP is a bit low, while playtesting my HP didnt go down at all, even tho i did miss a couple times.
2. MA says that soft-sliderslide2.wav, soft-sliderslide3.wav and soft-sliderslide5.wav are unused, you can delete these if its true
3. you should lower the stack leniency to 5 or 6 so you avoid unnecessary stacks like this: 02:19:450 (2,2) -

1. 00:09:978 (1,2,3) - i feel like that this rhythm: https://puu.sh/A8Sfu/3deb2a77bc.png fits a lot better with the vocals then the 1 beat slider
2. 00:35:379 (1) - maybe make this 0.9x sv for a more graduate increase?
3. 00:41:510 (1,2,3,4) - suggest doing this like so: https://puu.sh/A8SkT/e71c427075.png so you emphasize the drum on (3) the same as (1)
4. 00:44:138 (1,2,3,4) - you should increase the spacing here a bit because of the sound change
5. 01:04:503 (2,3,4) - space these a bit more, it has a stronger sound than 01:04:065 (4,5,1) - so its a bit weird that these 2 have the same spacing

1. 02:36:868 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - why are these spaced differently? i dont really see anything different between the 2, same with the slider on (5)

1. 03:45:485 (2) - maybe space this out a bit more because of the drum on it? same for 03:46:093 (2,3) -
2. 03:59:674 (1,2,3,4) - i think its better to position these like so: https://puu.sh/A8SHa/ce6c35bf26.png then you emphasize the white ticks poperly because right now it seems you try to emphasize the red ticks with how they are positioned

1. 04:52:760 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - graduate increase in spacing because of the volume increase here?
2. 04:55:195 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - same for this?
3. 05:25:217 (1,2,3,4) - why do you give (1) so much spacing even tho (3) is a much stronger sound?
4. 05:34:928 (1) - this really isnt that strong of a note, so this should have a much lesser spacing then the notes before it

1. 06:27:865 (3,4,3,4) - you should make this the same as 06:27:459 (1,2,1,2) - because (4) really doesnt have a strong sound at all, espacially how much you spaced 06:28:067 (4) - from (3) really isnt right, you can even make (3) a slider
2. 06:31:108 (1,2,3) - why is this a triple? there is no sound on the blue tick and its seems the same as 06:30:297 (4,5) - these patterns

1. 07:23:884 (1,1,1,1,1) - i dont think NC'ing these all is necessary because there is no real change in sv or way of mapping thats needs a visual queue
2. 07:37:802 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - you should make this stream so it has a bit more curvation
3. 08:02:700 (1,2,3,4) - why does this part have more spacing than 08:01:915 (1,2,3,4) - ? if anything you should make 08:02:307 (1,2,3,4) - have more spacing because its the one that is different from the rest
4. 08:04:562 (5,6) - fix stack

1. 09:24:720 - you should silence this spinners end
   Full version when :^)

1. 11:06:830 (1,1,1,1) - same on She Is My Sin i dont think these need to be all NC'ed, except for the first one i didnt mention because of the SV increase
   God i love this song, amazing

Senery wrote:

Hi, M4M from my queue

[General]

1. I feel like the HP is a bit low, while playtesting my HP didnt go down at all, even tho i did miss a couple times. i think hp5.2 is not too low for a 11min marathon...
2. you should lower the stack leniency to 5 or 6 so you avoid unnecessary stacks like this: 02:19:450 (2,2) - i adjusted this to 5 but it still stack...i think it doesn't matter to read this stack...

[Edema Ruh]

1. 00:09:978 (1,2,3) - i feel like that this rhythm: https://puu.sh/A8Sfu/3deb2a77bc.png fits a lot better with the vocals then the 1 beat slider i dont wanna 00:10:854 (3) - this whistle appeared at a slider's end, i think i need a circle to reflect this whistle
2. 00:35:379 (1) - maybe make this 0.9x sv for a more graduate increase? it works
3. 00:41:510 (1,2,3,4) - suggest doing this like so: https://puu.sh/A8SkT/e71c427075.png so you emphasize the drum on (3) the same as (1) i followed piano here...
4. 00:44:138 (1,2,3,4) - you should increase the spacing here a bit because of the sound change yes i have been increase this spacing i think
5. 01:04:503 (2,3,4) - space these a bit more, it has a stronger sound than 01:04:065 (4,5,1) - so its a bit weird that these 2 have the same spacingi think it doesn't matter for a triple's spacing, because 01:04:065 (4,5,1,2,3,4) - it's continuity, so in most case i will not change this scaping because it is more smooth when playing imo

[Planet Hell]

1. 02:36:868 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - why are these spaced differently? i dont really see anything different between the 2, same with the slider on (5)02:38:306 (10,1) - this spacing is bigger than 02:36:662 (7,1) - so i use bigger ds in stream too

[Alpenglow]

1. 03:45:485 (2) - maybe space this out a bit more because of the drum on it? same for 03:46:093 (2,3) - ok fixed
2. 03:59:674 (1,2,3,4) - i think its better to position these like so: https://puu.sh/A8SHa/ce6c35bf26.png then you emphasize the white ticks poperly because right now it seems you try to emphasize the red ticks with how they are positioned 03:59:471 (3,2) - this two stack looks not good, i don't like this stack, i think pattern now is more smooth to play

[Ever Dream]

1. 04:52:760 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - graduate increase in spacing because of the volume increase here? ok fixed
2. 04:55:195 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - same for this? i don't like incarese spacing when 1/4 stream, 1/2 is ok
3. 05:25:217 (1,2,3,4) - why do you give (1) so much spacing even tho (3) is a much stronger sound? according to music, 05:25:419 (2,3,4) - is a pattern i think but 05:25:217 (1) - not belong to this pattern, so i fall apart 05:25:217 (1) - from 05:25:419 (2,3,4) -
4. 05:34:928 (1) - this really isnt that strong of a note, so this should have a much lesser spacing then the notes before itok fixed

[Bye Bye Beautiful]

1. 06:27:865 (3,4,3,4) - you should make this the same as 06:27:459 (1,2,1,2) - because (4) really doesnt have a strong sound at all, espacially how much you spaced 06:28:067 (4) - from (3) really isnt right, you can even make (3) a slider ok changed a little
2. 06:31:108 (1,2,3) - why is this a triple? there is no sound on the blue tick and its seems the same as 06:30:297 (4,5) - these patterns 06:31:108 (1,2,3) - vocal here is "just to", 3 tones

[She Is My Sin]

1. 07:23:884 (1,1,1,1,1) - i dont think NC'ing these all is necessary because there is no real change in sv or way of mapping thats needs a visual queue 5 slider's start ia the same strength, and they are all strong, so i think it worth to use a nc
2. 07:37:802 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - you should make this stream so it has a bit more curvation 07:37:802 (2,3) - 07:37:998 (4,5,6,7,1) - this two drumbeat is not the same, have a lillte difference, so i set this shape a lillte bent
3. 08:02:700 (1,2,3,4) - why does this part have more spacing than 08:01:915 (1,2,3,4) - ? if anything you should make 08:02:307 (1,2,3,4) - have more spacing because its the one that is different from the rest fixed but i still think it doesn't matter...
4. 08:04:562 (5,6) - fix stack stacked

[The Greatest Show On Earth]

1. 09:24:720 - you should silence this spinners end ok fixed
   Full version when :^) maybe 2019 idk lol

[Last Ride of the Day]

1. 11:06:830 (1,1,1,1) - same on She Is My Sin i dont think these need to be all NC'ed, except for the first one i didnt mention because of the SV increase
   God i love this song, amazing

Hope it helps! The songs i didnt mention were fine, good luck!

smallboat wrote:

[We Were Here]

沒有應用到的音效 : soft-sliderslide2.wav 07:26:236 (3) - appears here, probably it is a bug with AIBat
和 soft-sliderslide3.wav 05:46:919 (1) -


音效小於5ms (不能使用的) :
soft-hitfinish5.wav 也是检查器出bug了大概，因为从goldwave看，soft-hitfinish5.wav实际长度3.63796秒

05:21:162 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 跟背景音樂比較這有點太響了? 好的，大概改成45%
08:10:345 (1,2) - 這兒用whistle音效表達背景音效似乎不太適合 有意强调，感觉用whistle听得要更带感一些
08:13:090 (2,3,4,5) - 同05:21:162 ok

pw384 wrote:

gratz!!

Yumeno Himiko wrote:

goubi

Mirash wrote:

00:39:759 (1,1,1) - no feedback on those downbeat drums feels so cringe lol, could be nice if you drum sampleset them
02:16:879 (3) - missing whistle
02:22:236 (4) - you seem to be following guitar with drum sampleset here, so placing drum sampleset on 02:22:665 (5) - would be nice, right now it sounds empty
03:24:539 (1) - place at least drum sampleset on it
06:53:202 (2) - this should be a drum finish and not a soft whistle, just listen to that drum. also 06:53:405 (3) - 06:54:216 (1) - 06:54:824 (3) - and 06:54:013 (3) - could be drum clap for some rhythm variety. anyway look up this end of section i think it really needs stronger hitsounding feedback
11:06:830 (1,1) - 11:07:571 (1,1) - stacks are broken but thats whatever just pointing out

aside from section on 7 minute this is a good map

Shovan wrote:

Just wanted to ask you if there was any reason behind 06:31:209 (2) - ? It seems to me to only be there to confuse players. Barely any notable sound and the similar vocal sections before (example 06:29:486 (1,2) - ) were always done with 2 circles and not 3...

Aside from that it's a rather nice map and thanks for sharing the Nightwish love OwO

EncoreW wrote:

because of vocal

Shovan wrote:

EncoreW wrote:

because of vocal

That's what i meant with the comparison to other sections. There are clear vocals on the white and red tick of that section, just like for other vocals, but the blue tick is barely notable.

06:24:216 (1,2) - The word is "Listen". White Tick is "Lis", Blue Tick is a held "s" leading into the next syllable. Red tick is "-ten".
06:29:486 (1,2) - White Tick is the impact of the word "Did". The second half of the word (the second "d") is already on the blue tick. The red Tick is "We".
06:31:108 (1,2,3) - White Tick is the impact of the word "Just". The second half of the word (the held "s" that leads in to the next word "t") is already on the blue tick. The red Tick is "to"

Those three sections have the exact same vocal structure to me, but are mapped differently. It is fine to do it with 3 notes, but it is weird because it is done with 2 notes before.

So new question: What is different at 06:31:108 (1,2,3) - that made you put 3 circles? For me the vocals have the same structure.

EncoreW wrote:

06:31:108 (1) - ju 06:31:209 (2) - s 06:31:311 (3) - t to

pw384 wrote:

Hey men mapping is a perceptual activity of human being so it's not a necessity to be picky on things related to such trivial consistency

Shovan wrote:

pw384 wrote:

Hey men mapping is a perceptual activity of human being so it's not a necessity to be picky on things related to such trivial consistency

If you think the existance of a hitobject is trivial then I guess we will never share the same opinion. That being said I'm fully aware that mapping has a lot to do with individual perception
of a song and all I did above was state my perception of the song.