MadBricktree wrote:

It is completely unintentional and should be fixed if it is an issue.
However, I question whether the missing space in a guest diff is an issue at all considering that...
1. it is hardly noticeable, to the point that not a single person noticed the past year and...
2. it hardly has a role in indicating the difficulty since that is what the number at the end of the difficulty name does.

I'll contact a QAT to confirm if this really is an issue that undermines the quality or the rankability of this set.

Kawawa wrote:

MadBricktree wrote:

It is completely unintentional and should be fixed if it is an issue.
However, I question whether the missing space in a guest diff is an issue at all considering that...
1. it is hardly noticeable, to the point that not a single person noticed the past year and...
2. it hardly has a role in indicating the difficulty since that is what the number at the end of the difficulty name does.

I'll contact a QAT to confirm if this really is an issue that undermines the quality or the rankability of this set.

not for the chart issue but a fundamental problem. so I assuming It's entirely a mistake, so was right.
If all the guest difficulties are no space at all, It can work as related point but this is not a case for it. so It's a good idea to fixing it because still 1st day. That's all. but I'm not the one who judge it finally, so I just leave the opinion here. anyway hope everything is well for the map!

Lude wrote:

Hello, nice LN map. Just few concerns about Lv. 8, density issues

1. 00:55:821 (55821|1,55915|1,55915|3,55915|2,56008|3,56008|2,56102|3) - Using these kind of structure is not coherent with the song, specially the 4th column, you barely gave triple jacks throughout the map. I'd recommend to replace these notes. 00:49:540 (49540|2) - Same goes with this, you could simplify the pattern by moving it to col 4 - The part at 00:55:915 (55915|3,55915|2,56008|3,56008|2,56102|3) - is basically equivalent to the part at 00:56:665 (56665|1,56665|0,56758|0,56758|1,56852|1) - (it's there to put emphasis on the brass.) For 00:49:540 (49540|2,49633|2,49727|2) - this 3 note long jack, please refer to my reply to one of lulu's mods (which basically sums up to that the current pattern is rather easy due to its readability and hand balance + it looks prettier imo)
2. 01:09:040 - You could just simplify these snaps by either only following melody or drums - The whole section is based on piano and drums. I see no reason to simplify here considering that it the current pattern isn't hard at all since the different snaps are mostly separated.
3. 01:10:165 - Clap 3, yet these two bass (01:10:540 (70540|0,70540|3,70540|2,70633|3,70633|1,70633|2) - ) has triple chords. 3-3-2-3 is quite heavy compared to the progression of the song. In my opinion, 01:10:633 (70633|2,70633|3,70633|1) - these could be doubled, 01:10:821 - triple here and double 01:10:915 - here to make it 3-2-2-3. Follows the drum more properly, and yet gives the staccato rhythm for players. - That would be inconsistent considering my layering approach which is explained in one of my previous posts (basically there are 4 different instruments that are being represented in this section.) Also, the difficulty jump is not all that high here considering that there are plenty of sections previous to this that is quite close in density. Also, IMO the music in this section is intense enough to warrant a slight increase in difficulty.
4. 01:13:258 (73258|0,73258|2,73258|3,73352|2,73352|1) - Same goes here, chords does not follow the patterning logic (01:13:540 (73540|2,73540|3,73633|2,73633|1,73633|3) - bass double and snare triple). - Refer to the reply above.
5. 01:15:040 - Popped up right now, add a note at 4? - I think it's fine without an extra note there since that'll mean that a line in a transitional section has bigger chord size and complexity than the start of 01:15:415 - a new section

I'll see if I can find out more. Lv. 9 is just excellent. Good luck! - Thank you for the mod. I will be waiting for your next post.

MadBricktree wrote:

Rivals_7 wrote:

heyo. a couple of light concern on hitsounding that could be improved. - ic

[All]

00:53:665 - this bit seems to be missing a C. if i saw the overall structure that similar to this such as - 00:52:071 - 00:56:571 - 00:55:071 - then its surely a bit off - from what i can hear it's not a kick but a really loud hihat/some-other-percussion. Paired with the background synths it kinda does sound like a kick but not quite (compare with all the 1/4 snaps nearby if that helps.)

01:41:290 - (except mentholz) this sounds like a ghost. idk. or maybe if there is some sound, its pretty faint - just a very faint piano.

[Kaito]

00:24:790 (24790|1,25352|1,25540|3) - missing W - I deliberately did not put any hitsounds there. It was explained in my reply to one of lulu's mods which basically sums up to that the notes don't properly follow the drums.
00:52:165 (52165|2) - 00:52:915 (52915|1) - 00:54:415 (54415|3) - 00:55:165 (55165|2,55915|1) - 00:56:665 (56665|2) - missing C - The C samples are intentionally ignored in this section for reasons similar to the point above.

[mentholz]

00:26:383 (26383|0,26477|1,26571|2) - missing C? feels like its intended so maybe not - Those notes do not represent the drums.
00:50:008 (50008|2) - C i think - i guess yea

[5]

00:35:196 (35196|3,35290|2) - it seems that you misplaced the C because it was suppose to be in a swapped positions like other diffs did - actually an error

01:15:415 -> 01:39:415 - thorughout Lv 2 to 6. there is a couple mount of missing C throughout them. either it is intentional or not, it looks just odd since most of the notes are there for percussion yet no percussion HS for the feedback - all of the "missing C/W/anyhitsoundsample" in this section deliberately "missing" to make way for the keysounds.

These are just a couple of points of missing hitsound. seemingly unintended, but since the pattern are mostly following percussion, just like the two highest diff did (implying the hitsound reference were referred from there), there should be some sort of more consistency in-between. - save for 2 genuine errors that you pointed out, those "seemingly unintended" "missing hitsound"s are all (or at least should be) intentional. There is no need for cross-difficulty consistency for anything if the difficulties follow different formulas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tfw no flashy kiai stuff - i don't like kiais
else is cool and good - thanks for the mod

Wonki wrote:

안녕하세요 몇가지 문제를 발견해서 적어봅니다

HP관해선데요 최소한의양심이있다면 HP를낮춰주세요 롱놋곡에 HP9는 양심없는행동이라고생각합니다 - 롱놋이 많기는 하지만 롱놋 부분들이 별로 길지 않아서 아예 롱놋을 못읽는게 아니면 HP문제는 없을거라고 생각합니다.

Lv. 9

00:26:008 (26008|3,26008|2,26102|3,26102|2) - 드럼이랑 신스음을 잭으로하셨는데 신스음을 12 로옮기고 00:26:196 (26196|0,26196|1) - 여기에있는 드럼음을 34로 옮겨서 00:26:290 (26290|2,26290|3) - 이노트와 잭으로 만드는게 이치에 맞다고 생각합니다 - 드럼과 신스음은 00:25:915 - ~ 00:26:571 - 전 구간 다 있는데요.

00:39:415 - 이쪽파트의 잭에 관한건데요 00:39:508 (39508|1,39696|3,40071|1) - 저는 무슨음에 잭을 넣었는지 도무지 이해가안갑니다. 잭을 넣을거면 00:39:790 (39790|1,39883|0) - 이런 서브음에 잭을 넣으셔야지 반대로넣으신거같아요 - 무슨 음을 따라 잭을 넣은게 아니라 매 1/1에 잭을 넣은건데요. 모들 드럼마다 잭을 만들면 잭 난이도가 너무 높아집니다.

00:40:446 (40446|0,40540|0) - 마찬가지입니다 객관적으로 봤을때도 (00:40:352 - 00:40:446 - ) 여기쪽 서브음이나 (00:40:540 - 00:40:633 - ) 여기쪽 서브음에 잭을넣어야 맞다고생각되는데 지금 보시면 정반대로 잭을 넣으신거같네요. - ^

뒷부분에 나오는잭도 수정하셔야할거같습니다

00:51:040 (51040|1,51040|0) - 00:51:227 - 여기까지 롱놋으로하셔도 괜찮을거같네요 - 그러면 전환이 별로 안예쁘게 되는데요

00:51:696 (51696|1,51790|2,51883|3,51977|2,52071|1,52165|3,52258|2,52352|3,52446|1,52540|2,52633|3,52727|1,52821|2,52915|3,53008|1,53102|3,53196|2,53290|1,53383|3,53477|2,53571|1,53665|3,53665|2) - 물론 이런 짜잘한음에맞춰서 롱놋으로 하는거도 괜찮다고 생각하지만 제생각에는 00:51:415 (51415|2,51696|1,51977|0) - 이렇게 메인음을 살리셨는데 00:52:165 - 이쪽부터나오는 메인음에는 짜잘한 부분에 롱놋을 넣기위해서 신경을쓰지않으셨더라구요. 메인음을 살리는게 곡표현에 더좋다고 생각합니다. 그리고 애초에 일관성도 맞지않네요. 00:55:915 (55915|1,56665|2) - 메인음을 표현하기위해 넣으신걸로 보이는데 완벽하게 메인음을 표현하는게 좋다고생각합니다. - 이 난이도에는 관악기음보다 현악기음에 더 큰 강조를 줬습니다.

00:56:758 (56758|3) - 무슨 롱놋인가요? 어떤음인지 알수가없습니다 - 현악기음입니다.

01:08:008 - 여기에도 잭표현이 되야한다고 생각합니다 일관성문제군요 - 이 부분의 피아노가 대체적으로 4/1마다 2연타가 없어서 넘어갔네요.

01:21:415 - ~01:24:415 - 이파트에도 문제점을 발견할수있는데요 01:21:977 - 01:22:821 - 이쪽부분에는 노트가없고 01:23:477 (83477|2) - 이쪽에는 노트가있네요 일관성문제라고생각합니다. - 01:23:477 - 에 노트가 하나 잘못들어간거 같네요.

01:30:508 (90508|0) - 여기에 노트하나를쓰셨다면 01:30:696 (90696|0,90696|1) - 이부분에도 노트하나를써야한다고생각합니다 - 원래 둘다 두개를 넣어야 하지만 01:30:508 - 여기에 더블이 있으면 치기 불편하게 되어서 노트를 하나 지운것입니다.

도움이됬으면 좋겠네요 - 모드 감사합니다.

Wonki wrote:

리퀄되기전에 빨리얘기해야겠네요

일단 HP에대해 답을해주셨는데 기본적으로 롱놋을잘치는분들은 HP가9이건 9.5이건 상관을안할겁니다. 근데 대체로 롱놋 랭크맵을 보신다면 플레이수가적고 깬사람이 많지않다는걸 알수있죠. 그걸 보면 롱놋을 잘치는 사람이 얼마없다는뜻입니다. 롱놋위주로치는 사람위주가아닌 랭크맵을 즐기는사람들을 위한 맵이되기위해서는 HP를 낮춰야한다고생각합니다. 솔직히 8.5까지만내려줘도 대다수의사람들이 좋아할거에요. - 이 난이도는 롱놋 초보자용이 아닙니다. 기본적인 풀롱놋 패턴을 읽을 수 있는 사람들을 위해 만들어진 난이도입니다.

00:49:352 (49352|1) - 이쪽에 노트가좀몰려있기도하고 하니 4로옮겨주시는게 좋을거같네요 - 롱놋과 숏놋이 다른 손들로 나누어 져있어서 오히려 현재 패턴이 더 치기 편하다고 생각합니다.

00:56:758 (56758|3) - 이쪽이 현악기음이라고 답해주셨는데 00:57:040 - 이쪽에서 현악기음이 짤립니다. 00:56:946 - 여기에 롱놋을 끊고 00:57:040 - 여기에 따로 발생하는음에 롱놋을 새로집어넣어야한다고 생각해요. - 00:57:040 - 여기에 있는 음은 현재 표현이 되고있는 현악기 음과 다릅니다.

01:07:915 (67915|1) - 대체적으로 4/1에 음이없다고 넘어가셨는데 그나마 저쪽음에 강조를하기위해 짧은롱놋이라도 하나필요하다고 생각합니다 - 노트수가 이미 충분히 강조를 하고 있고, 짧은 롱놋을 넣으면 오히려 치기 어색하고 01:07:915 - 의 강한 피아노와 타악기음의 표현을 약화시킨다고 생각합니다.

genkicho wrote:

*warning : this is not important >.>im bad at english* - that should be fine

sorry i just jumped in randomly here.. just want to share my opinion on LV.9
not saying the map is bad, it's actually good ok (subjective), but :
the inverse at 00:27:415 feels so heavy for beginning of song, also imo it doesnt fit the song well, first time i played it i was like : "wtf why inverse" -- what i feel about these inverse parts are that theyre forced for the sake of LN, it's kinda fun to play though, but as i said, imo doesnt rlly fit the song - it's not exactly heavy considering the entire difficulty. The first LN wall that you spoke of has a very simple structure (try converting the LNs to SNs if that helps you visualize it) and is relatively easy to read for a LN wall. LN walls are basically what the difficulty's concept revolves around so it'd be strange to remove any LN wall just because "they felt heavy."

but i dont have any good advice either... so... yea just saying what i feel about the map >.>

not mod for inverse but whatever

--
imo 00:27:415 feels so uncomfortable and (randomly placed?) or maybe you were trying to follow the pitch but it feels uncomfortable. might want to try these
Phase 1 - Base >Modified
Phase 2 - Base > Modified
Phase 3 - Base > Modified
After Phase 3 - There u go - read previous reply

--
01:15:415 Chorus : idk these patterns feels so uncomfortable (yeah im bad at thhese 2 hand notes in inverse) but it's weird that the previous inverse are FAR easier.. well this might be just high level stuff but might want to reconsider this nvm my hands just tired - rip. Inverse can be extremely stamina draining to those not accustomed to it.

--
01:26:946 imo this just looks weird. It's like : theres no transition between phase. i mean, it re-entering the chorus, which use inverse pattern but the inverse is used even before the chorus starts, so it looks like theres no transition there, or at least it looks like the transition starts at wrong time.
idk maybe something like this or like this | more like transition pattern - That shield in col 4 will likely make the transition even weirder. The transition in question is placed with PR and to warn the player of another LN wall.
--
maybe thats all, but well i cant mod those inverse part because thats how you want to map it >.> - well it's the whole concept of the difficulty. The point of Lv. 9 is to fill a niche need for inverse patterns (which basically means that the intended audience is very small.)

smh 4 edits srry i dont want to sound rude need to edit many times - rip. language barrier is a real issue

Wonki wrote:

01:07:915 (67915|1) - 도대체 여기가 뭐가강조됬다는지 전혀 이해가가지않습니다 설명해주세요 듣기에는 01:09:790 - 01:10:165 - 이쪽부분보다 훨씬더 명확하게 소리가 들립니다 - 01:07:915 - 에있는 드럼과 피아노요..?



00:53:758 (53758|0,54040|0) - 이렇게 끊었듯이 00:56:758 (56758|3) - 여기도 끊어줘야된다 이말이에요 일관성에 전혀 맞지 않습니다 분명히 음이 2개로 나뉘어져있습니다 - 현악기음 노트는 00:53:665 (53665|2,54040|1,54415|0) - 여기에 있는데요???


그리고 듣다보니 오프셋이 잘못된거같아서 적어봅니다

1938로 바꾸셔야할거같네요 00:01:938 - 여기부터 드럼시작입니다 - 1938으로 하면 너무 늩다고 생각하지만 한번 다른 사람들도 물어보겠습니다.

Niks wrote:

어쩌다가 보게됐는데 오프셋이 1938까진 아닌것같고 1910이 정확한거같습니다 - ✅

Wonki wrote:

오프셋은 다시보니 맞는거같네요 마지막으로 몇가지 추천해드리고싶은게있어서 짚어봅니다 - 👌

01:50:665 (110665|1,110665|0,110758|2,110758|3,110852|0,110852|1) - 12 - 34 - 21 보단 01:50:665 - 이쪽피니쉬사운드에 맞춰서 12 - 12 -34 가 더 적합하다고생각해요



이런식으로 - 이 부분은 곡이 잔잔함으로서 일부러 치기 슆게 잭을 피했습니다. 그러나 여기에 임팩트가 부족하긴 한거 같아서 [14][23][14]트릴로 바꿨습니다.

01:57:040 - 이쪽부터 나오는 피아노 3음 있죠? 그걸 강조하면 더좋을거같네요 - 노트는 추가하지 안았지만 스트림의 방향을 바꿨습니다.



화이팅 - 모드 감사합니다.

MadBricktree wrote:

Joe Castle wrote:

i would strongly suggest that the source should be changed to BMS and move cytus to the tags, since the song's first appearance was in the BMS contest "Wire Puller 2" in 2011, then in 2012 was featured in cytus with "Chapter VIII (8): Another Me".

Heres some useful link:
1. http://manbow.nothing.sh/event/event.cgi?action=List_def&event=67
2. http://manbow.nothing.sh/event/event.cgi?action=More_def&num=39&event=67