Alphabet wrote:
Just want to drop a few things about the highest diff I'm concerned about
[Kalitark's Hibike]GeneralMappu
- Any specific reason to why this diff is OD9.3? It's a little overkill don't you think? It also makes a pretty large jump in OD from the 5.52* diff which is OD8.7. If this was addressed before than that's okay, I just don't like the idea of a slow(ish) bpm map having such a high OD. Also remember that the second half of the map is a massive BPM change and it'll throw several people off. Making this map have such a small hit error just makes it so much worse and it's not helpful really. The only reason you've probably done this is to give the map more pp which is somewhat acceptable, but honestly is a bad mentality. osu! is actually a challenging rythmn game, and on a rythmn game you need to be accurate to fit the music intensity propelly. Also, the diff Kalitarks' Hibike is the last diff of this spread which is the most challenging one, I want a High OD to match first of all with the star rating and the pattering i'm using in the map, and also for the reasons i gave you above. High OD means as well "well rewarded", a player with a good accuracy on this difficulty will be well rewarded with some performance point accurate with the play. So yeah I want to keep the current OD if possible, there're no reasons for me to change it.
- 00:07:977 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I really don't like how weirdly this plays out, I was expecting a similar version to the first set of 1,2 jumps (00:05:397 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - ) since it uses emphasis based on small DS. Having medium ranged DS on the next pair of notes completely ruin the emphasis of these jumps when you want the exact opposite. This pattern is just a small back&fourth gimmick for those rythmn, it plays well and I have no reason to change it since it doesn't affect the playability of the map.
- 00:10:558 (1,2,3,4) - Why are these jumps spaced out so similar when you give the loud drums a much bigger DS on the next pattern (00:13:139 (1,2) - )? It looks weird and plays pretty weirdly since by introducing the small DS, you're giving the player an incentive to expect the next time the pattern appears to be the exact same so they'll under-aim the jumps. It feels pretty daft overall.first of all the difference between 00:10:558 (1,2) - and 00:13:139 (1,2) - this is that the second one's drums are louder + they have vocals snapped on them and I want to give my spacing a build up. The other jumps of this pattern are here to follow the constant rythmn of the drums + the vocals.
- 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't this whole pattern be descending in DS? Atm it's everywhere and isn't structured at all compared to 00:29:913 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - . If you don't agree, at least change 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5) - since there's a random huge jump on 4,5 that doesn't seem justified at all. Deserves a change imo I actually don't agree at all since this whole patterns has really strong vocals, and imo they are not deceasing, and I can here constant 1/2 drum rythmn, nerfing this pattern won't fit the the consistance of the diff.
- 00:40:235 (7) - This should have a NC imo to introduce the new combo scheme of having one every big white tick. This is also justified by having exactly the same spacing as the patterns right ahead. as you can see in most the the map I like to nc every 2 downbeats, and the reason is simple : acess to a better readability to follow my jump patterns by keeping the following points, and to NC every new vocals patterning. This is not a rule to nc every downbeat, am I wrong ?
- 00:43:945 (10,1) - I get that you're trying to be consistent with the triplets in the rhythm here, but every triple but this one is viable in the song and is clearly heard. This one on the other hand, is barely audible and kinda doesn't make sense because you've focused on nothing but the foreground (which is the vocals and the loud snares) up until this point (e.g. 00:32:494 (5,6) - , 00:28:139 (7,8,9,1) - ) every triplet, or 1/4 rythmns are barely noticable in this song, your issue here is valid imo, but here i want some variability in my 1/4 patterns, using triplets everywhere will make the playability a bit lame, having variations 1/4 is always better. It's like mapping a deathstream, sometime you put kicksliders to kill the rythmns or emphasis 1/2 beats that's barely stronger than the 1/4, it's just a case of variation here, so i'll keep my kicksliders. also i wanted more emphasis on 00:43:784 (9,1) - by using spacing according to the 1/4 sliders.
- 00:48:461 (1) - 00:48:945 (1) - These shouldn't be NCs, the 1/2 jumps all use a NC at every big white tick. If anything, the jumps should be using a more frequent DS than this little section here, it's no where near as intense as the loud drums and that's shown through the mapping too, why not have both to clarify to the player? It just makes more sense. is it written somewhere that those can't be NC? as you can see those 2 patterns 00:47:977 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - are the same, but rotated it a bit, to have a better readability and better visuals NC'ing the beggining of your gimmicks is always well apreciate gameplay wise, also focusing on drums to build up the DRUM+VOCAL intensity after it.
I will reply from now for kalibe since he told me he disagree with what you are saying, and I do aswell.. So let me reply propely to this at his place anyway, since Kalibe and I anyway has almost same point of view mapping wise.- 00:56:696 (2) - This isn't really important at all but this is the only type of hook slider in the whole diff and it's at a random place in the song, no key changes or anything. I don't agree since the actual shape of this slider offer you a nice circle flow to the next transition.
- 01:01:726 (3,1) - This is inconsistent because the finish is under-emphasized when you give it a bigger DS later on at 01:06:936 (2,3,1) - , 01:08:732 (2,3) - etc.This is not a thing, because like voice is not such loud as the previous ones, and by keeping 1/2 key spamming for a jump before, you already feel the intensity when you hit that slider. And I know Kalibe does lots of this kind of stuff.
- 01:12:145 (1,2,3,4,5) - Shouldn't this have a NC at 01:12:684 (4) - or smth since you have the NC change at 01:08:193 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - ? If not, then it all of these patterns should have the same, consistent NC as everything else. the second pattern has a rythmn break that's why he did a nc, to have better readability when you break the rythmn. Also ncing what you mentionned is subjective, no actual need to do that.
- 01:14:840 (1) - There is no justification to this NC other than it looks nicer. Up to you if you wanna change You replied for me! It looks nicer indeed, but not only because of that it's also because it's not the same rythmn as 01:14:301 (1,2) - have, so it looks nicer and player can't missread the overlap.
- 01:17:355 (1,2,3) - I don't like 3 being stacked with 1 since there is no reason for it to be there. The lyrics are different and the tone of the song is slightly lower. Why not have 3 spaced slightly lower? This will give the jumps after more of a punch and then it'll be justified with the actual song. "yuwuki.." feels like the ki is in the same section of this vocal pattern, having the same movement back and fourth for a jump build up is a nice thing to introduce the next transition, so yeah keeping that stacked.
- 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - To me this is emphasized strangely. 01:20:932 (2,1) - & 01:21:292 (2,1) - sounds like they should be the ones with higher DS here instead of the current spacing you follow (01:21:112 (1,2) - 01:21:472 (1,2) - ). With the drums increasing in intensity, they would be more represented with the proposed DS changes. It could be, but it's just constants drums here, spacing don't affect it so much, he's going for a V flow here which is pretty cool to emphasis drum rythmns like that, emphasis is correct anyways here.
Overall I think some of the emphasis used could be polished a little more, especially with 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - since sometimes you ignore the intensity increasing however sometimes you do. It's best to be consistent with these types of things since it gives the player one incentive to aim bigger instead of them remembering when the larger spacing comes. I know what you are trying to say, and I can valid that. But what i know is your emphasis modding is pretty subjective and you can interpret emphasis differently it depends on how do you want to interpret the music by your mapping.
Thanks for looking at my map, I hope my reasoning are understandable enough for you.Venix wrote:
00:17:010 (6,7) - I can't understand why you placed here spacing large like this. It doesn't emphasise ground on which you focused previously. For example 00:16:365 (4,5) - here you placed small spacing, because rythm is quite low, but spacing between 00:16:848 (5,6,7) - these objects can't be the same, because you've stronger rythm 00:17:010 (6) - here. But look for 00:32:332 (4,5) - this. It seems very undermapped, because rythm is stronger than previous one for which you've used higher spacing and this make no sense at all. These are more examples for spacing problems, but I'm pointing these ones with hope that you'll see what I mean. This kind of patterning is called a "build up", as you can see 00:16:365 (4) - the vocals are starting lower, 00:17:010 (6) - and accelerate here, and ends 00:17:494 (7) - here and goes louder. Same here 00:32:332 (4) - i emphasized this instead of 00:32:494 (5) - because I felt like vocals has more emphasis power than the kick here.
00:52:026 (1,2,3) - Here flow is a bit harsh and uncomfortable. I think it can be a bit smoother angle between objects here, because it plays very weird. sharp angles do sometimes gives more emphasis that you think, and it will create a nice v flow after it, so basicly this will not be changed.