1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked/Approved Beatmaps
show more
posted
@Liiraye

for what it's worth i think kroytz is kind of a cunt for intentionally mapping something in such a similar style to an already ranked version to begin with, but it's hardly going to get him all the credit when people point out the similarities anyway.

Monstrata didn't help the situation by going "I don't want to start drama but..." then posts about it on twitter.

Both sides are cunts.
posted
Wow, gratz guys, I just had to remove 1 page of comments this time but we're still not there.

Titus wrote:

Can we get a clean up of this thread because this is not the place to start witch hunting
wow, calm down there, I'm not paid to clean up the messes you should avoid themselves, you know.
You should mind the way you say things because that sounded like an insult to me. I'm not your janitor :v


@Shiirn, we know how you like to express your opinions, but can you please avoid stirring more drama because someone got triggered by a word?
That would be great.
posted
both maps are shiet, so why are we talking about them ?? xdddddd

Seriously, a majority of my patterns are "stolen" from DaxMasterix, and old shiirn's maps. What's the real problem here ?
But when patterns are stolen from your popular 2016+ mapper, with a few changes, then people just act like kids.

#osu_mapping_community_2017
posted
The fact that an old BN doesn't know the difference between adapting a style inspired by someone else and plagiarism really worries me. How about you look at the facts presented and show me all the other mappers that go around mapping ranked songs with the exact same patterns. Even TV Sizes are different when it's the same song involved.
posted
This was ironic.
posted

MrSergio wrote:

Wow, gratz guys, I just had to remove 1 page of comments this time but we're still not there.

Titus wrote:

Can we get a clean up of this thread because this is not the place to start witch hunting
wow, calm down there, I'm not paid to clean up the messes you should avoid themselves, you know.
You should mind the way you say things because that sounded like an insult to me. I'm not your janitor :v


@Shiirn, we know how you like to express your opinions, but can you please avoid stirring more drama because someone got triggered by a word?
That would be great.
Huh? I'm not saying it's your job, just that it's starting to get very hard to actually read a mod or even do one when everyone is basically witch hunting Kroytz right now, not sure how it sounded like an insult to you though, not my intentions.
posted
Let's be fair here.
Kroytz mapped this extremely similar to what Monstrata mapped.
Okay, and? Why do we need to start drama over something this silly?
Let it be. Flame me if you want to, I'm just saying that this is uncalled for.
Let the mapper do what they want to do, and don't turn into osu!'s feminazi's.
posted
:?

Epsile wrote:

Let's be fair here.
Kroytz mapped this extremely similar to what Monstrata mapped.
Okay, and? Why do we need to start drama over something this silly?
Let it be. Flame me if you want to, I'm just saying that this is uncalled for.
Let the mapper do what they want to do, and don't turn into osu!'s feminazi's.
ok first off plagiarism is against the rules. Heck a TV size map was warned by QAT because the last 10 secs were mapped exactly the same as another ranked map (funny enough it was one of monstrata's maps; no I'm going to link it).

As for uncalled for? how is it uncalled for to say that he plagiarized someone's map when he did?????????????? It's impossible to be subconsciously inspired so much to the point that the patterns are almost the exact same, it's pretty obvious that he looked very hard at monstrata's diff extensively.

I don't even like monstrata or his fan base but the fact he tried to take offence when accused of plagiarizing is fucking laughable and stupid af.

"let the mapper do what they what to do". Ok let other people copy off each other's test or homework or high profile studies (w/e so I couldn't think of better examples) because it's what they want to do.... Yh no

Ppl getting angry that Kroytz is breaking the fucking rules and just disrespecting other mapper's isn't flame. Fucking hell. Just look at it from a third person's perspective and not from kroytz's point of view

Epsile wrote:

Let's be fair here.
Let's be fair and inform the mapper that copying is against the rules????? :thinking:
[]
PS: Your avatar pisses me off because it's giving me a clueless look that I imagine you are giving to your computer screen rn because you can't understand why people can't just "map how they want to do" when it's "extremely close" to someone else's map
posted
Kisses couldn't have said it better. But I still can't understand why anyone would plagiarize like this though. It makes the map seem effortless which is pretty disrespectful to the goal of mapping in my opinion. It would be nice to hear some sort of explaination. It's a bit of an awkward situation and it's more than obvious. I think I can speak for the majority of mappers and say that if we were in monstrata's shoes we wouldn't want the same thing happening to our maps. I didn't think it was that serious until I saw monstrata's 2nd post

@shiirn mapping styles aren't something that stick for a couple months and then suddenly change. Mapping is changing constantly everyday. I haven't seen the full map of this yet, but from the many examples that monstrata posted, there's only a few where kroytz "tweaked" some patterns, while the rest were just blatant copy/paste. There's no thought that goes into something like that. It's effortless, lazy, and in a way just plain disrespectful. The worst part about this is that he's mapping the exact same song to rank it (while taking his patterns) which is an even bigger fuck you to monstrata. You wouldn't want me going into one of your maps, taking a pattern, increasing some DS, and ranking the same map while not even crediting you (let alone asking you) would you? That's not how mapping evolves, which is why nobody does it. Lilraye makes a great point:

Liiraye wrote:

If people had that mentality we'd still be stuck in djpops era of mapping buddy. Just because it works doesn't mean there are not others and better ways to map them.
posted

Net0 wrote:

[General]
  1. Tags; You could add kawaii metal. Some use it to refer to this musical style. Especially babymetal. I don't know about this one since it's still metal... I've never heard of 'kawaii metal' before so I'll just leave this out >>
  2. There’s a lot of inherented points at the same time; whoops, fixed.
  3. Unsnapped objects 04:17:957 (4,5) fixed -
[Crimson Rebellion ]
  1. There’s a missing stream sounds in a lot of patterns in the first kiai here 01:08:885 - between this two 01:08:812 (6,7) -; 01:10:715 (3,4) -;01:11:154 (5,6) -;01:11:373 - . I think that either you wanted it to be a more friendly start without many streams mapped or maybe you want to keep the pattern wise jump flow intentionally. Just mentioning this to suggest you to maybe make this more stream like since your map appeal are streams mostly. The first strum of the guitar holds the triple while the rest of the picking is on 1/2 for this. Adding triples to the rest wouldn't make the first triple stand out as much in the measure.

  2. This pattern 01:09:837 (5,6,7,8,9) - currently works visually blanketing this object 01:10:422 (1) - , but I believe that 01:10:129 (9) – could work better visually if it was positioned as one the circles of this star you have used here 01:10:276 (10,1,2,3) - . This is a nice suggestion, I actually did try to do that before. The only way it would work would be for (9,1) to be spaced higher meaning the stream would be way bigger and I wouldn't want that. This little makeshift star is as close as its gonna get without it being overspaced.
  3. I don’t get why lowering spacing here 01:12:764 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - works better than what you have done before 01:02:227 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - . At first you solo works with a consistent spacing and then changes into kick sliders that speeds up the cursor movement. On the previous pattern I’ve mentioned you have done low spacing streams with less emphasis. I kinda get it it’s a personal perspective that the guitar could work with less intensity at this part 01:12:764 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) – but in real terms, it’s just that the sounds are not so acute but feels excessive the way you have lowered it. Especially considering the contrast that the following jumps 01:13:934 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) – have with this stream. I think you've explained my reasoning lol. The contrast between low DS streams into higher spaced jumps was the idea. With the first tornado stream, there aren't isolated drums to make for 1/2s but a kickslider into larger spaced stream to get the riff boost.
  4. This could fit better 01:26:081 (2) - into this pattern 01:26:081 (2,4,6) - if positioned in x:227 y:359 to make it equidistant. Sure thing.
  5. I don’t really see why overlapping this 02:23:812 (12,13) - . If it’s a kick slider pattern idea 02:23:885 (13,14) – this seems off compared to the other ones 02:15:617 (6,7,8,9,8,9,9,10,12,13) - . Here’s a suggestion http://puu.sh/tNbbf.jpg but do it however you want. Hm, yeah I tried to position this a bit elsewhere but the slider-end of the first kick makes for a blanket on the 1/2 slider in the next measure. The way it plays is more of a back and forth jump so it's not too awkward for players.
  6. Don’t do it 02:40:568 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - . Looks great and spacing emphasis is good, however you can avoid this pattern mainly because this could be mapped with any other kick slider pattern without causing commotion with the community because it’s pretty similar to the other ranked version and this is the only part that I felt like commenting over this “issue”. Like this idea here 02:51:105 (1,2,3,4) – but horizontally mapped instead of vertical for example. I'll change this~
  7. This slider end 02:56:373 (1) - could be pointing at the next stream instead of how it is now. Just a simple copy paste ctrol+H and replace imo works great. http://puu.sh/tNbIF.jpg If I do that then the lead-in to the slider is reversed lol.

It’s a really well done map. Pretty polished and shows you had a lot of effort into its aesthetic. I really like the fact that you didn’t spike the difficulty as much as the other ranked version. We can see some pretty spaced streams early on the map and that helps you getting a more consistently wise map. Unlike many people think, this mapset actually adds a good different experience compared to the other version especially because this one is harder.

Best of luck o/
Thanks for the mod Net0~

@R3K3M It wouldn't fit for approval time.

@Aireu: 04:19:276 (6,7,8,9,10) - hey man playing this is like stapling your nuts to the roof and jumping off so please change into something flowy I make the circly part a bit wider so your nuts can be safe.


@Everyone else: If you have issues with the map, specify where and why they are issues and I can try to respond to them, thread isn't for flame and arguments, make for constructive criticisms to help for improvements. The rising ladder kicks at ~2:40 was the only pattern deliberately copied (albeit slightly altered but still copied) so I apologize for that since it was wrong of me to do so and that's why I've agreed to make a different pattern for all your good reasons~ As far as all the other nuances pointed out, I can't say much for since they are very suspicious from both a mapper and non-mapper point of view.

Lets go on an exhibit:I generally prefer symmetries when it comes to kick sliders as can be seen in most of my maps:

^ Could this be elsewhere? So why was it on the same side that monstrata did it? I mean, there's many different ways to map this, to me personally, I envision it looking like this and being either on the left or right side of the editor. I could map it towards the bottom, or the top, maybe a different kick pattern entirely but that wouldn't be pleasant for me as with any other object placement I do. Just because it can be done dozens of different ways doesn't mean it has to be, at the end of it all, it just becomes a preference or taste.


What about the designs of streams? Well let's look at some more pictures lol. My stream designs are quite typical and logical to me. To say that I 'copied' them is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. But hey! Why were they identical at around the same times then? Maybe it's possible we both had similar ideas, but different reasonings? I don't know how monstrata came up with his stuff.





The biggest one I find is how the two maps are structured. Maybe to a player they both play similarly but how they're structured at the core is quite different. Let's take a look shall we?

Okay so we got nothing new going on with monstrata style here. These are only but some because this is a 5 minute song after all, but the idea is a lot of his jump patterns and style of structure revolves around triangles/hexagrid formations. Nothing wrong with this, it plays fine afterall and that's how he wanted to do things.




But what about my structure? My style of structure is also a bit keen on some triangle bases, but not to the extent of monstrata. Generally, I try to use triangles as a way to separate space usage from each other as to not give unpleasant overlaps. And overlaps themselves are usually blankets under circles or sliders cuz that is logical to me. Maybe monstrata also does the same? But so do a lot of other mappers because this formation of structure is not unique, its quite generic.






Even when I glance at both of the structures they are quite similar and that's simply because him and I use a lot of equidistant rotational angles and triangulation. Not just this song/map specifically but in general I'd say.
Blankets underneath streams isn't a new idea and it's something that I've been doing in almost all my maps. It looks visually appealing and I wouldn't be surprised if any other mapper does it.









Yes, there are a lot of similarities and the point that monstrata was making was 'why do they have to be SO similar at these PRECISE times?' and again I can't really answer that because I just map to how I see fit the music. Yes I understand there are a plethora of ways you can map any given sound or object, but if what looks or sounds logical to me somehow matches up with another mapper's logic, who's to say who's right or wrong there?

Edit: apparently i need to activate windows lolololol
Edit2: slightly formatted better
posted
You provide some strong evidence as to why those patterns that appear very similar might just be due to your predisposition as a mapper. It's a general overview of your mapping, and your argument on the streams is enough for me. I still think some of the more specific circle/slider patterns are just far too similar to be borne completely out of a similar mapping philosophy because honestly our styles are not very similar - especially in freedom of note-placement. I favor a much more rigid structure that in many cases only allows me 3-4 different logical places to put my next object. In regard to pattern freedom, your style is much looser and you can actually place your next object in a variety of "general locations" whereas my structured style specifically restricts me to specific coordinates to fit my structure. That why, when I see some of these patterns I go "huh, you had a lot more freedom of pattern choice, yet you come up with the same pattern at the same time at the same location on the screen at similar angles/slider orientations etc..." Like you said though, no one can really judge for sure whether you just happened to think the same as me on multiple locations. With that in mind then, lets consider your intention for making this map.

If I understand the intention of this map correctly, your objective was to map a new and unique version of Road of Resistance that offered players a different approach to the song - one that specifically differed from how I mapped it. "No more monstrata" or something lol. Wouldn't it make sense to do something different for those sections now that I've pointed out how similar they are to my version? Your objective is to create a map that's different from mine after all, so at those sections where your approach was identical to mine, consider changing your approach because that would result in patterns that differed from mine - which would support your goal of creating a map that approaches the song differently compared to my version.
posted
Incorrect monstrata, my objective for this map wasn't to give players a different approach, or a new and unique version of anything. Initially, I said I would create a "better" RoR but that's quite arrogant of me to say and rather subjective. Whether one person or another says which version they like more doesn't matter to me personally, I simply wanted to map this song. The "no more mr monstrata" thing was a loose way of saying "no more triangles" since your version is heavily based around triangles - again, that's not wrong (since a lot of people love it) but just not how I envision a babymetal/dragonforce map to look like. If people like yours the way its mapped that's fine too, I think it's a solid map. My objective for this map was to simply just... map. I've always liked the song and I wanted to do one, but never got around to it when I saw you were mapping it long time ago. I haven't mapped anything for a while either and so I really just wanted to make something since some people thought it would be cool if I did one and I was itching to do this song too. Not every map needs a clear goal to accomplish. Sometimes it's okay to map something because you want to.
posted
It makes me laugh when people are being kids because someone else just copy/pasted or took patterns from another person, who mapped the same song, and modified it. People are still saying that "copy pasting is for lazy mappers, for noobs, for shietmappers" etc. But... can't we see somewhere "property of <insert mapper here>" ? Guys, it's just a game with circles and sliders, when you already saw some patterns that play well and made people happy, then it's natural to take them and modify them to add your personal "touch" and, try to improve it. I didn't say that copy pasting is good, but people should really change their stupid elitist and selfish mentality "fuk you, you stole my pattern, i worked hard on it, pls give credits to me". When you're contributing to a community, you should not act like this, and you should feel proud that someone else took your patterns because that person thinks they worked well. But if it's just for memes, then fuk you.

It's so fun to see people acting like kids for just a game with circles and sliders. It's not a serious business that makes money. If you're looking for recognition with your maps, then just s*** some balls, seriously.
posted
Cherry Blossom, your outlook on osu! is why you are not relevant. In any case, one look through our conversation and you'll realize that whatever elitist and selfish mentality you're trying to strawman doesn't actually exist. Please stop trying to make things worse by making up a fake situation about me trying to claim some copyright to my patterns.

[]

Back on topic, I will respect your objective for mapping this how you do. I'm sure you're more than aware of how similar some of these patterns are. I can't force you to make any changes to them because its possible you thought of everything yourself. All I can say is, trying something different would both benefit this situation, and benefit the originality of your map. In any case, I'm tired of this drama. I think everything that can be said about this situation has already been said. Best of luck with this map moving forward.
posted
I downloaded this map expecting it to be more exciting than Monstrata's one. I myself find Monstrata's RoR kind of boring. And that doesn't mean its objectivly boring or that its a bad map. But this is the same map with easier streams and the higher AR just makes it look awkward.

Kroytz, Ascension To Heaven is one of my favourite maps of all time. You are better than this. :/
posted

Cherry Blossom wrote:

It makes me laugh when people are being kids because someone else just copy/pasted or took patterns from another person, who mapped the same song, and modified it. People are still saying that "copy pasting is for lazy mappers, for noobs, for shietmappers" etc. But... can't we see somewhere "property of <insert mapper here>" ? Guys, it's just a game with circles and sliders, when you already saw some patterns that play well and made people happy, then it's natural to take them and modify them to add your personal "touch" and, try to improve it. I didn't say that copy pasting is good, but people should really change their stupid elitist and selfish mentality "fuk you, you stole my pattern, i worked hard on it, pls give credits to me". When you're contributing to a community, you should not act like this, and you should feel proud that someone else took your patterns because that person thinks they worked well. But if it's just for memes, then fuk you.
Are you sure I invented things you didn't say? Your statements are just trying to make the situation worse by commenting on an exaggerated situation that you created. (Which by the way, is the definition of the straw man fallacy). I just find it deplorable that you are trying to agitate a situation where both the mapper and the person voicing the concern are trying to wrap up and sort out our concerns and grievances. I don't yet know what Kroytz will do moving forward, but I'm no longer pursuing this matter.
posted
00:26:962 (1,5) - rotate to make them point to 00:26:669 (4,5,6) - .
00:30:474 (1,2,3) - move to blanket head of 00:30:621 (3) - with 00:30:913 (4) - .
00:33:261 (2,3,4,5) - line these up.
00:32:529 (5,1) - move red slider point of 1 so that it works better with 5. also make 1 rectangular to second part of 5.
00:33:992 (1,2) - maybe move 2 a little more down. li feel like theyre a little close.
00:39:251 (4,5) - i feel like 5 should be more emphesized.
00:40:275 - i think there is too much nc going on here. remove nc 00:40:275 (1) - here and 00:41:153 (1) - here.
01:15:324 (4,1) - this emphesis feels a bit to strong to me. id change the spacing to .8 or lower.
01:18:324 (5,6,1) - 1 could be more emphesized. right now 5-6 is larger than 6-1. especially since you chose generally large spacing it feels weak.
01:25:349 (3,4,1) - this linear flow doesnt seem healthy after the flow here 01:25:056 (1,2,3,4) - . personally i would change the kickslider pattern.
01:27:983 (1,2) - , 01:25:642 (1,2) - these spacing differences are too big imo.
01:51:837 (2,3,4,5,6) - these big spacing differences seem unjustified to me.
02:18:910 (9,10) - maybe tilt these against each other a bit would look nicer imo.
02:18:910 (9,10) - this could be a nice blanket.
02:47:300 (1,2,3,4,1) - the spacing looks fine imo but i feel like the jump shouldnt go left as much.
03:01:642 (1,1,1) - silence sliderends.
03:06:324 (1) - ^
04:19:276 (6,7,8,9,10) - this turn is way to sharp at that spacing imo.
04:20:959 (1,2) - this could be blanketed.
04:30:105 (10,1) - make 10 overlap with the body 1 of perfectly.
04:38:665 (7,8,1,2) - this doesnt look very nice to me. I get the emphesis on 1 but i feel like the turn is enough. no need to kill the curve.
04:52:861 (1,4) - fix this blanket.
04:53:739 (5,1) - ^
04:55:643 (1,1) - ^

gj on the map. fuck the circle jerk
posted

sdafsf wrote:

00:26:962 (1,5) - rotate to make them point to 00:26:669 (4,5,6) - . They need to face downward as to follow the flow from the previous objects, not move back into them.
00:30:474 (1,2,3) - move to blanket head of 00:30:621 (3) - with 00:30:913 (4) - . Oh I get what youre saying, but the slider ends of 00:29:889 (3,4,3) - are to visually look triangular. moving to blanket would also underspace the objects.
00:33:261 (2,3,4,5) - line these up. they are lined up I double checked ;;
00:32:529 (5,1) - move red slider point of 1 so that it works better with 5. also make 1 rectangular to second part of 5. Adjusted by a couple degrees so its perpendicular but cannot make the rectangle because it looks kinda funny. Having as a 45 degree angle seems good for me.
00:33:992 (1,2) - maybe move 2 a little more down. li feel like theyre a little close. cannot because 00:33:992 (1,2,3) - visually looks as a triangle. and the slider-end makes a bit of a blanket.
00:39:251 (4,5) - i feel like 5 should be more emphesized. emphasizing beat actually starts on the 4 but I think creating a structural pattern can leave a pretty good ending for this section.
00:40:275 - i think there is too much nc going on here. remove nc 00:40:275 (1) - here and 00:41:153 (1) - here. stylistic NCs to separate the drums from each other and make for symmetry.
01:15:324 (4,1) - this emphesis feels a bit to strong to me. id change the spacing to .8 or lower. hm, doesn't really feel like all that much especially since it goes back inward.
01:18:324 (5,6,1) - 1 could be more emphesized. right now 5-6 is larger than 6-1. especially since you chose generally large spacing it feels weak. spacing is barely that much different from each other. the counter-flow from the (1) slider also helps the player because if it was too big, then the counterflow might feel really harsh to play.
01:25:349 (3,4,1) - this linear flow doesnt seem healthy after the flow here 01:25:056 (1,2,3,4) - . personally i would change the kickslider pattern. I could change the kick patterns or maybe the direction of the (1) slider. If this is brought up a couple times again, then I'll change this cuz I can sorta agree but im not entirely sure yet.
01:27:983 (1,2) - , 01:25:642 (1,2) - these spacing differences are too big imo. eh I think not.
01:51:837 (2,3,4,5,6) - these big spacing differences seem unjustified to me. It followed a triangular scheme but I made the spacings on all them a little closer together
02:18:910 (9,10) - maybe tilt these against each other a bit would look nicer imo. maybe? su - su vocals are equal was the idea.
02:18:910 (9,10) - this could be a nice blanket.
02:47:300 (1,2,3,4,1) - the spacing looks fine imo but i feel like the jump shouldnt go left as much. I need the visual jump otherwise its gonna look too even with the previous 4 beats,
03:01:642 (1,1,1) - silence sliderends. fixed all of these
03:06:324 (1) - ^
04:19:276 (6,7,8,9,10) - this turn is way to sharp at that spacing imo. people have hit these before but I'm gonna get some more testplays to see if this is not as comfortable as it looks.
04:20:959 (1,2) - this could be blanketed. the first slider will be ugly either way x[
04:30:105 (10,1) - make 10 overlap with the body 1 of perfectly. sure.
04:38:665 (7,8,1,2) - this doesnt look very nice to me. I get the emphesis on 1 but i feel like the turn is enough. no need to kill the curve. your idea and mine work either way, I just like the tiny bit more emphasis~
04:52:861 (1,4) - fix this blanket. fixed these all
04:53:739 (5,1) - ^
04:55:643 (1,1) - ^

gj on the map. fuck the circle jerk
thank you sdfssfasfafasd - i dont know how to say your name x3
posted
I know the opinion of a inexperienced player/mapper like me probably doesn't matter but I'll try throwing my 2 cents regarding the map and this whole drama thing. (Also I delayed writing this down so most of the flaws I noted where posted by mister sdfaasdsfasd before me, like those horrendous loud sliderends)

About the map:
Stacks like these 00:33:700 (3,4,5) - 00:36:041 (5,6,7) - and in a few more cases throughout the map are not lined up dew to them being stacked. What happens is for example 00:33:700 (3) - is originally lined up but gets pushed upward left due to stacking. You might want to fix this, might not. It's on you to choose.

01:04:568 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I like these. Having a larger death stream would be too hard for this early in the map.

01:12:764 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - I saw another mod suggested changing the spacing there. And I would encourage that cause these just look bad to me. Maybe if you did a less spaced version of 03:50:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - at a W shape?

01:15:324 (4,1) - The spacing change is a bit too harsh there. Especially with HR it borderline becomes a stream jump. I think the very sharp angle that is formed 01:15:105 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - will provide enough of emphasis.

01:51:983 (3,4) - Maybe space these guys a bit more. It will kill the symmetry between 01:51:251 (6,3,4) - but will be more playable. If you want to keep your shapes you can even overlap 01:52:129 (4) - over 01:51:251 (6) - .

02:54:543 (8,1,2) - Imo a sharper angle here would help emphasize it a bit more.

02:56:373 (1) - Maybe you could change this slider to an upside down ? shaped, similar to 03:03:983 (1) - . Not only will it help with the whole plagiarism issue but the inward pointing slider end will reduce the distance between slider and the next stream and maybe even make the flow more natural (but uglier).



04:02:081 (1,1) - Nice choice placing sliders there.

Everything else I wanted to say has already been pointed out or fixed. So I'll move on to my opinion about the whole drama thing. I watched some of your streams during the creation of this map. I saw how much work and thought you put in quite a few of the patterns involved in the map. It's a shame you got lazy on certain occasions and copied monstratas patterns (even if they were optimal), I liked your new approach on the slider ladder at 02:40:568 - and I think you can find alternatives on the other cases too (the more serious ones that is). Good luck
posted
mods

00:20:378 (3) - ctrl+g
00:22:279 (1) - ctrl+g
00:23:157 (4) - ctrl+g
01:10:861 (4) - move up slightly
01:37:203 (6) - move so it stacks with 01:36:910 (4)
01:52:129 (4) - move right and up so distance is the same between 01:52:276 (5,6)
02:55:934 (2) - flip horizontally and make it so the distance is the same as 02:56:081 (3,4)

good map man
show more
Please sign in to reply.