1. easy (1,47 stars, 160 notes)
2. normal (1,76 stars, 213 notes)
3. roaring tides (2,8 stars, 336 notes)

I thought of all people,
SHE could make me feel home again...




Hobbs | Lasse | Doyak
sauce

• 
  [easy]

1. 00:16:181 (2,3) - Why not make it blanket?
2. 00:28:813 (2,3) - Why DS0.72?
3. 00:29:603 (3,4) - It looks bad.
   I like this
   
   img

   
4. 00:42:234 (3) - I think that this should go up
   
   img

   
5. 00:48:550 (5) - 00:49:290 - Why is the end here?
   00:49:339 - I think it is here
6. 00:53:287 (2,3) - I can not stack
7. 01:38:287 (5,2) - I think that this overlap was useless with easy

• 
  [normal]

1. 00:21:708 (3,2) - overlap
2. 00:26:445 (1) - Why DS1.46?
3. 00:39:076 (1) - ^
4. 00:38:287 (4,2) - You can stack if you do not do it to DS 1.40
5. 01:03:550 (4,2) - overlap
6. 01:39:076 (1) - stack is better
7. 01:43:813 (4,1) - ^
8. 01:47:366 (5,2) - ^
9. 01:56:445 (4,1) - Why are you trying to avoid stack?
   02:09:076 (4,1) - 02:15:392 (4,1) - 02:23:287 (1,3) -
   Avoid overlap if you are willing to not stack
10. 01:58:813 (3,5) - overlap

• 
  [roaring tides]

1. AR7~7.5 is better
2. 00:01:971 (3,4) - Why did you lower the DS?
3. 00:06:708 (5,6) - ^
4. 00:13:813 (1,2,3,4) - Would you like to use the copy?
5. 00:16:971 (1,6) - stack miss?
6. 00:26:839 (2,3) - same
   00:01:971 (3,4) -
7. 00:31:971 (5,6) - ^
8. 00:39:866 (3,4,5) - Your map is so complex DS that I can not understand
9. 00:52:892 (3,4,5) - Why did you spread out by (5)?
10. 00:56:445 (5) - 01:02:760 (4) - 01:05:918 (5) - 01:18:550 (5) - 01:21:708 (5) - 01:28:024 (4) - 01:31:181 (5) - ^

Yasaija 714 wrote:

M4M

• 
  [easy]

1. 00:16:181 (2,3) - Why not make it blanket? isn't really noticable
2. 00:28:813 (2,3) - Why DS0.72? oh, how did that happen : (
3. 00:29:603 (3,4) - It looks bad. 4 should break the flow slightly since its on a sztong piano note
   I like this
   
   img

   
4. 00:42:234 (3) - I think that this should go up slight deviations in flow->slidercurve are fine with such low slider speed
   
   img

   
5. 00:48:550 (5) - 00:49:290 - Why is the end here? ugh, cant trusst AI mod to find 1/16 spacing. I don't even know how this could happen
   00:49:339 - I think it is here
6. 00:53:287 (2,3) - I can not stack it can not stack? Well it doesnt :<
7. 01:38:287 (5,2) - I think that this overlap was useless with easy looked really wierd indeed, fixed

• 
  [normal]

1. 00:21:708 (3,2) - overlap the ar is high enough for this to not be visible
2. 00:26:445 (1) - Why DS1.46? i used slight ds increses on important upbeats, will happen a lot
3. 00:39:076 (1) - ^
4. 00:38:287 (4,2) - You can stack if you do not do it to DS 1.40
5. 01:03:550 (4,2) - overlap
6. 01:39:076 (1) - stack is better
7. 01:43:813 (4,1) - ^
8. 01:47:366 (5,2) - ^
9. 01:56:445 (4,1) - Why are you trying to avoid stack? depends, if it adds to the aesthetic or the project in general there is no reason to follow any "stacking guidlines". You cann allways off-stack (the editor has a build in offset for that aswell)
   02:09:076 (4,1) - 02:15:392 (4,1) - 02:23:287 (1,3) -
   Avoid overlap if you are willing to not stack not stacking = overlaps ? lol
10. 01:58:813 (3,5) - overlap
    
    to make it a bit more interesting i ended up stacking in the first halve and off-stacking in the second one : )

• 
  [roaring tides]

1. AR7~7.5 is better would need to test that
2. 00:01:971 (3,4) - Why did you lower the DS?
3. 00:06:708 (5,6) - ^
4. 00:13:813 (1,2,3,4) - Would you like to use the copy?
5. 00:16:971 (1,6) - stack miss?
6. 00:26:839 (2,3) - same
   00:01:971 (3,4) -
7. 00:31:971 (5,6) - ^
8. 00:39:866 (3,4,5) - Your map is so complex DS that I can not understand
9. 00:52:892 (3,4,5) - Why did you spread out by (5)? to emphasise the third note (would be boring w/o imo)
10. 00:56:445 (5) - 01:02:760 (4) - 01:05:918 (5) - 01:18:550 (5) - 01:21:708 (5) - 01:28:024 (4) - 01:31:181 (5) - ^
    
    stronger notes in the song => higher spacing.. not really complex imo. Most of those you pointed out having wierd spacing pretty much follow a decreasing spacing pattern i pretty much used all the time with variations in object placement (so it doesnt atleast look repetitive).
    
    Would've loved some more diverse thoughts on this one rather than a listing of where one gimmick appeared throught 2 sections :/
    I'll take it as a good sign : )
    

Good luck! thanks : ]

Feb wrote:

:arrow: Map
Soft-hitclap3 and soft-hitwhistle3 are unused. ugh forgot to delete things from the folder again, thanks
Imo combo colour 4 is a bit to bright for a autumn based wallpaper, maybe a bit darker green? darker green now
Not sure why you write everything small letters. i think capital letters are terrifying :<
this song is about tragic love so i has to communicate thsi sentiment in every ounce of its being. Also memes but i cant find it right now so i am sorry :<

Easy
00:10:655 (3,5) –that almost touching thing doesn’t look visually pleasing imo in contrast to the distance between 4 and 3. it looks cool now
00:35:918 (3) – weirdly snapped to sth sth? how one manages to snap to 1/16 is unclear to me...

Normal
Ar 5 is more than enough imo, also would have great spread with ar 3 to 5 to 7 if you apply the one underneath too.

00:12:234 (3,4) –not quite sure why you skip such strong ½ beats in comparison to the mapping before where you mapped similar strong beats 00:07:497 (1) – with 1/2 s included. i wanted to do it like that at the start, but now i realize i didnt even keep it up. I liked the way the empty space emphasised the notes clicked and the pay-off at 00:13:813 (1) -
00:38:287 (4,2) –I don’t see why you would change the stacking in this diff its not exponentially either it looks abit out of concept here, 00:30:787 (2,4) –e.g. is stacked 01:03:550 (4,2) – this is not stacked, 01:56:445 (4,1) –this is stacked again, not sure, but for consistency I would stack these notes.
00:38:287 (4,2) – 01:03:550 (4,2) – it does look out of concept but i have this reoccuring slight spacing emphasis on important upbeats (4 in each of the 3 section somehow). First one could only stack if i broke the spacing for the note after the reverse slider, though i would prefere to have this offstacked than have it high spaced (reason why AR5,5 cuz i was scarred some of these off-stacks might be ugly uwa :[
01:03:550 (4,2) – this needs fixing, i was lazy... i think, i dont know why i let this one slider :/
01:56:445 (4,1) - kiai has different structure in general. i decided to go with stacking in the first half and slightly go with offstacking in the second half. Tbh dunno if thats a good idea since i made that change quite recently and havent tested it out yet, which i should've done by now :[[

01:52:497 (3,4,5) –kinda nazi, but they are not the same shape, which makes them look unaesthetically pleasing. Had to apply it 01:58:813 (3,4,5) –here too, but it looks quite alright here, since the first one is leading into different direction. 01:52:497 (3,4,5) - these were supposed to change their shape to the tone of the music. TBH i think i'll make the first on more linearand have them continuously get curvier, thanks : )
02:15:787 (5,6) – distance is here a bit off by 0.1x give me the pill...



RARRR

Ar8 is to much 7 is enough. Theres almost no hard rhythm in the map.
Jump from od4 to od 7 is quite large, how about keep it clean with od6? 2-4-6

00:50:129 (1) –maybe have less sound on the end here? The hitsound is quite loud here in contrast to the song, decrease it to 20%? ye 20 sounds nice
00:50:918 (2,3) –why no clap on these, but drumsampleset? :/ The claps would fit nicely here! oh boi, that was my idea but i didnt end up putting claps on them :/
01:40:260 (3) – drumfinish-addition here? y
01:40:260 (3,4,1) – can you hitsound the triplet here? At the moment you click nothing while playing this, also it’s the only time this happens in the map, so having feedback here would reduce the risk to fail. Add claps here on the drumroll? should've payed more attention to the hitsounding in that part : (
01:41:839 (3,4) -3 is stronger than 4 but 4 received more distance, I know you would like to have an pattern here with the jump to 1 there, but prioritizing stronger beats should still exist here.
^Adding to this:
01:41:839 (3,4,1) –this kind of spacing got used mainly prepattern for ½ beats, but now it gets suddenly for ¼ spacing ofc, you try to emphasize stuff here, but the transition should be a bit more obvious by 01:41:839 (3,4) –emphasizing these two correctly, having 3 be the stronger sound of the two. yea, will think of a cool was to change the pattern, so i can implement this idea. Thanks!
01:41:050 (2) – drum addition clap sounds here more appropriate imo yea boi
01:41:839 (3,4) – missing claps. indeed
02:05:129 (1) –no clap? Should be a clap imo. i did but used that custom sampleset 1 clap

maybe i should atleast adjust hitsound volume for each piano note individually, like pretending keysounding :thonk:

Gimme another map at some point, i feel like i couldn't help that much.
Thanks a lot for the help on this!!!
I might send you some wierd shit I've been making or smth :^)
although i thinked you helped me a lot on this


Good map, rank it. i will try :>

HighTec wrote:

M4M from SM8 Queue

[ General]

1. Unused hitsounds according to MA:
   normal-hitclap2.wav
   spinnerbonus.wav
   spinnerspin.wav
   ah ok

[ Easy]

1. 00:00:392 - I'm curious to why you skipped this note. Since the song actually starts off here I think it wouldn't be bad to have a single hitcircle. If you want impact on 00:01:182 (1) - I suggest you simply stacking the notes to have the emphasis rolling. could do
2. 00:12:234 (4,5) - Shouldn't this be a 1/1 slider, much like 00:05:918 (4) - is? Seems pretty inconsistent atm no, check the repeating pattern. I even put bookmarks down to help me (and also others) to see each section. I repeat this whenever the song did musicly something similar and so on
3. 00:16:181 (2,3) - Inconsistent flow. Unlike the situations that were done before, here the movement from (2) to (3) is the same circular/linear flow from 00:13:813 (1,2) - . (3) has to be placed negatively to make it consistent this is not inconsistent flow in my book. It's a fair use of flow alteration to emphasise the note in question ina unique way
4. 00:32:760 (1,3) - Why not use the same slidershape here? This could be a perfect oppertunity if you look at the objects following you would see that i decided against it because of the way i wanted the map to be played after that slider. Hence i rotated it upwards so said pattern fits
5. 00:50:918 (2) - Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a 1/2 slider here too, since the drums intensify here? Works better emphasis-wise as the song should become more difficult as the song is getting more intense \o/ it would make sens rythmicly for an Easy diff but i just cant find a shape fitting aestheticly atm :<
6. 01:24:866 (2,3,1) - Could polish this up a bit, I mean there could've been a triangle. The blanket's off too ww what triangle could've been where? The Heads might be in triangular formation but try to connect 3 dots and not get a triangle lol
7. 01:31:181 (2,3) - Can be really confusing for beginning players. This is the only time where you don't let (3) be in the circular flow that (2) created, making it inconsistent and thus more likely to confuse players. Would line (3) up with (2) like all other occations this looks wierd af, i dont remember mapping this tbh, i have some old copies of this version somewhere. Mb i messed somethign up and forgot to fix it ugh...
8. 01:39:076 (1,2) - I don't think the rythm here works well. The louder drums here occur on the tail of (1), making sure that there's no emphasis on them, eventhough I believe that emphasis there is really important. I would make 2 1/2 sliders instead to keep up with the 1/2 rythm used everywhere and to emphasise the important beats. drums might not be emphasised according to standarts but i wanted it to be less dense and unique from all the other section prior so it indicates something of different nature is about to come, which is does. 1/2 slider are boring if you have like 100 of them
9. 01:58:813 (1,2,3) - The amount of different slidershapes here makes this look messy, perhaps try to use some more similar shapes there are 2 different slider shapes used. I think its fine, using the same shape 3 times is lame and more so if the shapes dont differ much in their pairwise relative angle

[ Normal]

1. 00:04:339 (4) - Feels weird to have notes like these not NCd when the rest of the section do NC every major downbeat. Makes it look inconsistent. Also having a NC after a break in momentum can be a nice thing to have to regain some HP woa those are some long ass combos but i like the followpoints between the 1/1 sliders : (
2. 00:12:234 (3,4) - Wouldn't it be better to map sliders here too? The song builds up intensity and given the rythm that you've used now, it doesn't show that at all ;w; ah forgot to fix from last mod :c
3. 00:21:708 (3) - Why the long slider all of the sudden? The song stays the same so why make a mixup like this? because it cool lol
4. 01:16:971 (1,2,3,4) - Looks a little unpolished. Why not try something like this? thanks for the animation but 01:17:760 (2,3,4) - = 01:21:313 (2,3,4) - . I dont needs absolute precision in all of my objects. It. looks. boring...
5. 01:35:918 (1,2,3,4) - Seems like a risky move to suddenly throw in 4 hitcircles while that was never done before in the map, makes it hard for beginning players to read as they won't expect it as it was never introduced anywhere else. Would try to see if you can bring back some sliders It emphasises the high of this part pretty darn good with this upwards and then slight downwards movement. It works great and its not that fkn insane to play. Repeat the same rythm and calling it consistency is just lazy mapping when its the same thing 32 times in the song lol.
6. 01:58:813 (3,4,5) - This could use some polishing too. The blanket of 01:58:813 (3,4) - is obv off (4 needs to be more to the right) and the overlap of (3,5) seems random too, while you could try to come up with a pattern that makes sure that they can just be stacked. https://puu.sh/vz47P/5226a4e01e.png what blanket is off ? If you meant the "blanket around 3's tails then sorry thats not even suggesting a blanket so idunno...

[ roaring tides][notice][list]
[*]Idk there's nothing wrong objectively > objectivly wrong exists, lul , but I wanna point out that this diff feels like it's going all over the place, especially with its emphasis due to spacing the emphasis is in the spacing changes . Given what you seem to do all the time in the map literaly in the first third and those..., by emphasising every change in piano pitch constantly, what ends up happening is that the map becomes a bit of a mess. Consistency is key, and having consistent DS in patterns is way nicer to have as well ... are consistent . As the map currently lacks its consistency I can't say too much to not make a wall mod on just opinion > modding is not sharing opinions and interpretations on maps, lol . If you wanna discuss this and perhaps some help feel free to PM me. I'll see whether I have time w/ if you care enough hit me up, cuz at this point this look more of an excuse than a mod or anything close to creative/critical input. Sad i have to mod back knowing i got this :/

i am curious what you thought this map was supposed to be lol. talking about spacing changes as inconsistencies in a map this slow is kinda pointless. These can be ragarded as 1/1 beat jumps most of the time :/
I just want input on this map from other mappers. I dont care if you think "its only your opinion" or "its not objective" just formulate it in manner you deem appropriate/presentable to someone else and see where it goes lol. Even though we might disagree we could still find common ground on smaller things which i didnt consider and thus would improve this map !

mod my map pls i will mod back during the week-end some time... I didnt expect a mod from that queue since its been this long so it would've been nice to notify the other party once someone accepts the request.

good luck! good luck!

Realazy wrote:

hello

[easy]


00:01:182 - the two timing lines have conflicting volume values, the timing point is at 25% volume yet the sv line is at 30% ay
00:01:182 (2,3,4) - this could be more symmetrical to look a bit cleaner, even something as small as making a triangle with all 3 would look a bit neater i did a rhomb since the angles at which the slider-curves fall are kinda wierd
00:21:707 (2,3) - i think these could be placed a bit more in relation to each other than 00:20:129 (1,2) - since 00:20:129 (1) - covers stronger piano notes than 00:21:707 (2,3) - which represent notes of similar intensity i wanted 3 to break of the pattern 1 and 2 followed but since Easy diff maps are limiting i had to go with something wierd looking but still nice to play.
01:41:839 (4,1) - visual spacing looks pretty unbalanced here, i don't think it was on purpose? It is! The kiai is mapped on higher sacing
01:45:392 (5) - why not NC this instead of this slider 01:46:181 (1) - ? it kinda made sense when i only saw this diff but then i noticed in the normal diff you just NC downbeats here so... idk i think you should rather go with NCing the downbeats seeing how they're emphasized with the chime hitsounds Thats true, but i wanted to have these 3 slider patterns stand out from the rest. Later in the song I have this 4 slider pattern on a build up which i could've done with a 4 note combo aswell which would be kinda confusing.The normal diff is a bit different in that regard since its denser and i cant have too long combos
01:59:603 (2) - so i guess this is supposed to be related to this slider 02:00:392 (3) - but the way 01:58:813 (1,2) are arranged gives more the impression that they should be paired together instead of 01:59:603 (2,3) - , maybe apply the NC here instead since the pitch goes up anyway? i find the song structure very simple so i keeping the NC like this would be better imo. If the song was less predictable i might've gone with different NC'ing patterns like this one you mentioned
02:04:339 (1) - i think this should be exempt from this group of sliders 02:05:129 (2,1,2) - since for all 3 the pitch goes up then down pretty audibly, so they could be placed in a group of 3 together instead YOu hitting the nail with this one. I wished i had them go up the instead of down but no matter how much i changed the dif it felt off. To be on all 4 the pitch goes up and if i did the 3 NC pattern it would imply that its similar to the other 3 slider combos which isnt the case here

[normal]

00:20:129 (1,2) - i think this could reflect the pitch of the piano better if 1 was a reverse slider and 2 was turned into a circle, but i guess this is fine since it shows a difference from the other times where you use repeat sliders yes, i wanted to have it different. note that i sliced each of the 3 major sections into 4 parts which repeat musical between the 1st and 3rd, the 2nd and 4th are slightly different which is what we got here : D
00:21:708 (3) - this goes a bit offscreen, might want to raise the whole pattern a bit to prevent that oh noooooo :'[... thanks for noticing ugh..
01:37:497 (1) - why the NC here? ya makes no sense, lol thanks
01:52:497 (3,4,5) - why not use the same shape 3 times? i believe those sliders cover pretty similar sounds, only the pitch is lower each iteration so they could be placed in relation to each other yes, unlike the Easy, here i decided to have them change according to the pitch : )
if you were to apply the last suggestion then you could aswell do something here 02:17:760 (3,4,5) -
02:05:129 (2,1,2) - again, just like in easy, i think these could be grouped together considering they're of similar intensity, which is much more intense than 02:04:339 (1) - something like this would be cool imo but that's up to you the whole map is 90% curved sliders so i wanted this to stand out like in the Easy. The wierd upwards movemnt should indicate the hightening up the pitch (what i couldnt do in Easy :< )

[roaring tides]

01:10:655 (1,2) - aren't those on the same pitch as 01:09:866 (6,7) - ? if so it could be a nice idea to repeat the pattern to recreate the sense of repetition there is in the song this was what i went for in the beginning but i guess i forgot to adjust it to be clearer, thanks
01:47:760 (1,2) - i believe 1 should start where 2 is and vice-versa, the pitch on 1 is much higher I am so in love with the movement of this. It cleared the mapping-block i had. Having 1 and 2 reversed would create this wierd rectangle thing which would be kinda uncomfortable to play, hence they left to right movement in combination with how the pattern is designed makes it a lot easier and comfortable to play imo

lovely map and song, good luck! C:

Lasse wrote:

extra
things like 00:13:813 (1,2,3,4) - end up feeling a bit messy cause of the noticeably different overlapping. I think something like http://i.imgur.com/V1h8k7H.jpg or http://i.imgur.com/SdRbCUe.jpg might be nice if you want to keep spacing similar to current. first one would also make sense with how you did things like 00:26:445 (1,2,3,4) - lol yea, its quite a daring decision to have it overlap twice which i thought i would use again later but didnt.

00:20:129 (1) - don't think the big spacing increase fits as the piano is way weaker on this. could try sth like http://i.imgur.com/DcNwbZN.jpg its my wierd way of mapping piano. The spacing slowly builds-up and then it cuts down to a no-followpoint/overlap spacing for 2 reasons. 1. The spacing would be too huge if i kept a continuous spacing increase and would thus overblow the diffcurve of this part. 2. 00:19:339 (5,6,1) - With slower songs i feel like emphasis can be achieved by the path you have to follow after clicking an intense note. The reverb of 00:19:734 (6) - is like... filling the whole space soo i kinda wanted to have the player move through that space while the note rings :c

00:50:129 (1) - why is this a red node slider it doesn't fit you other visuals at all :/ music seems so similar to before kinda gimmicky to symbolise the the change and the adding of drums. Seeing it convinces me that mapping another circular slider would not feel right since the slider ends on some drumm-y thing and stuff. This is also the only red node slider in the whole map lol
01:02:760 (4) - missing whistle? // 01:28:024 (4) - I didnt put whistles cause i thought it was kinda cool not to c: . Whistles add a little melody of their own, so i wanted to cut them out here so the piano doesnt get overshadowed by higher pitched noise. I am using a finish on the following upbeat aswell and the hitsounds might become a bit too much in these parts. (the snare i used is kinda lower in pitch wich blends pretty well imo and doesnt undermine the piano too much imo)
02:24:866 (3,1) - can you not do this so late into the map when you never did it before lol creates such a huge unexpected and unfitting spike in reading difficulty ah yee, I knew i had to do something about that eventualy. Glad you mentioned it!
02:28:452 (1,2) - stack or space more, current is just going to make people misread right at the end of the map I know it looks wierd on paper but its a combintion of these concepts 02:19:734 (2,1,2) - 02:21:708 (3,1,2) - . In terms of visuals it does break the convetions of curved sliders by being straight sliders (02:04:339 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - like these but here the pitch gets lower which i made sure to represent by having other patterns in a lower spacing aswell like 01:59:603 (3,4,1,2,1) - in regard to 02:24:866 (3,4,1,2,1) - which had this wierd overlap because i thought it was a good idea but then not anymore)


normal
00:21:708 - would make more sense to end this on the white tick already, similar to what you did on spots like 00:28:024 (3) - 00:11:839 - 00:37:103 (2) - have strong piano notes while 00:22:892 - is really weak. So i went with something different :u
00:45:392 (1,2,3) - bit easy to misread with slider movement, why not something like http://i.imgur.com/5PiyJBA.jpg i flipped 00:45:392 (1) - since i liek the build-up of 00:46:181 (2,3,4) - :^)
01:04:339 (1,2,3,4) - this one is a bit better, but http://i.imgur.com/ESsxKB6.jpg with a higher quality square might be nice? yee this could use some of that gud stuff
spacing and sv changes on normal, nice .:oko_hand_old6:

easy
00:01:182 - red/green line settings wooooops -_ -

[]
I can qualify after bubble ok will contact you once i have set up something
(or bubble if you can find another t2 bn)

I wonder if i can rank this before hitting 16 posts and having a new second page hmm..

I wonder if i can rank this before hitting 16 posts and having a new second page hmm..

Smokeman wrote:

sorry to the guy i pm'ed yesterday :[

Naxess wrote:

Smokeman wrote:

sorry to the guy i pm'ed yesterday :[

hobbes too fast

ok so quickly before 12 sp

easy
00:20:129 - 00:20:918 - 00:21:708 - I'd have just made all this a repeat slider so sounds a grouped accordingly. Makes it consistent with the other three-grouped piano sounds like 00:01:182 - 00:07:497 - 00:13:813 - 00:26:445 - etc. Would also emphasize 00:23:287 - better by preceding it with a circle. There are 4 subsections in each main section of the song. Every second section is the the fourth but with a lower pitch and volume on the piano near the end (compare 2. mainpart part 2 and 4 near the end). Which is why i decided to map this different from everything else. Although it would fit musicaly to have a reverse it goes kinda against my consistency.

00:45:392 (1,2,3) - Bit unexpected here, would be more expected at 00:50:129 - due to the transition and it being different from previous measures. I had it like thi first, but 00:50:129 (1,2,1) - didnt feel like a good transition to me with the 1/2 sliders so i thought i would emphasise the climax of the 1. main part like this and keep the drums simple

01:34:339 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - Is also a bit dense compared to what the rest of this phase was doing. Keep it consistent with 01:09:076 - I'd say. So use a repeat 01:11:050 - 01:36:313 - and tail at 01:13:024 - 01:38:287 - . Maybe some variation to show that the song's piano pitch is a bit different this time around, but not this dense. Its the "last part of the 4 subparts"-effect again. I tried implementing your suggested rythm but it doesnt really appeal to me :S

02:23:287 - 01:58:024 - Was thinking since the pitch changes here and not 02:24:076 - etc. that perhaps setting the new combo accordingly would make sense. I mean it's pretty different from 01:46:181 - 01:52:497 - 02:11:445 - 02:17:760 - . Thats true but 02:24:076 (1) - is a more dominant sound than the circle even tho the pitch changes.

normal
01:42:234 - So from here there's a lot of 1/2 slider double circle spam so would try utilizing this stuff more 01:44:208 (5) - . Maybe add some at 01:50:524 - , 02:03:155 - and 02:15:787 - so it's appearance is doubled. Makes it more recognizable and predictable as well. Looking at the easy, it seems to place the repeats before the red tick sound 01:43:024 - , in order to then place a circle on the red tick and slider on 01:44:603 - to emphasize the piano. Both ways probably work, but latter makes more sense imo. Although...

The rhythm here is pretty similar to that of easy, but very different from roaring tides. This is a bit worrying so perhaps 1/4 can be implemented in some way. Maybe fill in the drums with circles or whatnot 01:43:616 - . imo a 1/4 stack wouldn't be too difficult in this bpm for a normal. Could even use the same unstacking concept as roaring tides uses as a kind of introductory visual element. Spacing to and from the stack would still need to be clear though.
I was thinking of doing that aswell when hobbes mentioned the constant 1/2 spam, but i didnt map more repeats because of the way the song changes its pitch to sound more intense. Although it stays rythmicly the same most of the times, I changed emphasis through angles and object placement like 01:50:524 (5,6) - 02:00:392 (5,1) - . Needless to say the other diffs use concepts like these to represent differences like these in the music

roaring tides
00:02:760 - 00:28:024 - Nice to have some consistency with ncing perhaps :gun: :fuck: time to rethink NC in this section

00:09:076 - so you've got tons of ncing around from 00:01:182 - to 00:51:708 - , but then it's much less at 00:59:603 - , from 00:51:708 - to 01:39:076 - despite being more dense (also rip bookmark 01:39:076 - ) i went with a clearer pattern for NCs since this section is less ambiguous int emphasis since there the intrumentation started to get fuller allowing me to map a more consistent tone than in the first section

00:52:892 (3,4) - This drum spacing concept is cool and I like but 01:12:037 - stood out as inconsistent. It's literally the only one done like this. Compare the ending of this and the last section of this main section of the song. Those small changes between the high pitch and low pitch sounds .:ok_hand::weary:

01:10:260 (7,1) - These stacks are really reminiscent of something like 01:02:366 (2,3) - so would not recommend spacing them like this. Considering that it's also a relatively low difficulty I'm assuming newer players are supposed to play it, so especially in that case you'd want to make things like this clear. Bruh this is an Extra lvl diff on some low-ass bpm :dab:. Seriously tho the NC should give it away (its teal on orange), besides some reading gimmicks are cool to have form time to time even on "lower" difs

01:34:142 (3,4) - 01:08:879 (3,4) - Could try making all of the drums with similar spacing, even if these are consistent by themselves. That way maybe you could try indicating some anti-jump like this instead or whatnot so things don't get ambiguous. I think i did what you suggest hear already hmm.. (some have slight variations for the sake of my aesthetic senseabilities)

Hobbes2 wrote:

Everything looks good, consider spacing 02:27:234 (2,1,2) - out normally (visually, I mean) in the easy diff. As in, use the usual visual spacing like 02:26:445 (1,2) - for 02:28:452 (1,2). Not a huge deal, so I wouldn't care if you changed it or not.

Lasse wrote:

top diff

this actually puts kiai on everything from 00:00:000 - to 00:01:182 - which is ????

easy
02:28:452 (1,2) - actual rhythm gap between these is bigger than 02:27:234 (2,1) -, but only slightly. so just keeping the same visual spacing would be much nicer as the sudden overlap makes it likely for beginners to misinterpret rhythm here
=> http://i.imgur.com/9fqQTiB.jpg


other things should be fine

Rizen wrote:

what's your metadata source? .-.

a mapset with the same song (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/382893) used this: