1. bor's Easy (1.83 stars, 169 notes)
2. Collab Hard (3.45 stars, 375 notes)
3. Collab Normal (2.18 stars, 221 notes)
4. Insane (4.5 stars, 499 notes)

Uber wrote:

hello there welcome to the next installment of "i hate all the ranked maps of this song so i made my own"

Hiicantpk wrote:

I mean, its not like we have a good map of this yet.

1. 00:52:686 (1) - not stacked properly
2. 01:29:714 (3) - 2 notes would be nice cus of the 2 syllable vocals here
   neat.
   
   blanket mod
   00:27:657 (4,1) -
   00:30:743 (1,2) -

1. 00:03:143 (3) - missed the sound at downbeat but you mapped it at 00:06:057 - ?
2. 00:08:800 (4,5,1,2,3,4,1) - 1/2 chain seems too long. maybe change 00:09:314 (5) - into 1/1+note? applying this could make a room for 00:11:543 (1) - cause it looks squished down there

1. 00:16:943 - 00:22:429 - 00:27:914 - 00:33:400 - 01:44:714 - maybe a note in all this ? since you put note at 00:19:686 (7) - and some other parts but it sound the same.
2. 00:23:886 (1,2) - why is this 1/2 sliders while you use 4 notes like in 00:18:400 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:29:371 (1,2,3,4) -
3. 00:55:772 (2) - could make the spacing from previous slider bigger since its almost hidden underneath the slider and newbies might find it hard to hit
4. 01:19:429 (2,3) - the overlap doesnt look good and its kinda hard to read. probably wanna change that 2 slider where its body doesnt overlap 3 that much
5. 01:19:772 (3,1) - same issue as earlier , if you could make the spacing alittle bigger thatd nice.
6. 01:21:829 - 01:32:800 - this sounds awkward not to map since the sound is really noticable
7. 01:30:400 (3,4,5,6,7) - cant almost see the notes. maybe have the same ds as 01:29:714 (1,2) - ?

1. 00:33:486 (1,1,1) - would be nice if the distance of these 3 looks visually the same with 00:32:972 (3,4,5) - spacing. some like this?
2. 00:52:343 (1,1) - the jump feels too big and sudden and it looks like 1/1 ds
3. 01:19:429 (1,1) - this flow is kinda weird. the direction going bottom right corner feels so random

Gaia wrote:

m4

[bor]
00:05:714 (3) - 00:06:057 (4) - (tail) whistle sounds not strong enough
00:34:857 (3) - nothing is actually here maybe u wanna try to remove this and extend (2) by 1/2? the start of a vocal phrase/break is right here
00:46:000 (4) - cuz polarity and there rly isnt much on the downbeat this rhythm is a difficult one to talk about, firstly polarity doesn't exist for this, but I don't map the red ticks afterwards because I needed to set up for the vocal start on (5) and then to do that I put a 1/1 circle before it (since easy diff should avoid 1/2 rhythm)
00:52:686 (1) - idk bout this //overlap gimmick kinda late to introduce at this point so prob best to leave it out its not a gimmick or even slightly tricky, go watch easy players try this, because I have.
00:56:114 (3,4) - mebe I'm keeping similar sounds to the same object when i can,
00:58:172 (1,2,3) - y do u follow 2 different things with the same melody going on // 01:03:657 (1,2,3) - these all map to vocals so theyre gud but ya its really following one thing, but I noticed this part slows down, so I lowered note density and followed the strong notes that made the most sense.
02:01:257 (1,2) - dont really wanna ruin ur pattern but at least make the spacing more equal? lol Perfect distance snap is not required,
the gap is large enough for an easy player to play it correctly.

also mite wanna check some blankets no
otherwise cool sliders

[normal]
00:11:543 (1) - ok but y tho ?
00:19:086 (4,1) - not rly a fan of this flow I'm a fan of this flow.
00:34:857 (5) - if ur gunna do gimmicky stuff like above and 00:24:400 (3) - then Y not here too //actually i think leaving the circle out sounds better too cuz there isnt much there on the downbeat there is no gimmick, its just movement and the movement changes based on the strong points in the song.
01:55:086 - 01:57:829 - this shouldnt be skipped tho imo very clearly mapping to the vocals here.

[hard]
01:21:314 (1,2) - 01:23:715 (4,5) - ik ur following vocals but it really feels empty to me when u completely ignore snares like this it doesn't feel empty to me
01:28:172 (1) - but crash on the downbeat :s hard players tend to try and follow sliders as best as they can, so this is emphasized
01:30:400 (3,4,5,6,7) - kinda looks weird the way it's stacked, maybe manually stack it to go left? also the beat after still has the drum roll so it also feels pretty empty it doesn't look weird to me.
01:34:172 (2) - maybe jump? u hsed the crash too no jumps
01:44:114 (5) - 01:46:857 (5) - (etc) nothing on the 1/4 here did stuff
01:44:714 - tho there is a sound here hard to really confirm it.

glhf!!

Sidetail wrote:

hi

[borgy]
02:01:257 (1) - would really like sliderend (02:02:629 - ) to be clickable tho whole map is based on movement type rhythm that equalizes slider tails bumps and heads (roughly)
02:04:000 (1) - start it on 02:03:743 - just like hard (consistency) and more time for beginner to spin. its win win I want it to feel slower.

[normal]
00:11:543 (1) - rather put it above 00:11:200 (4) - , not squished down below.. down makes more sense to me since its more of a drastic change (pushing out from a circlular feel instead of pulling in.)
01:02:114 (3,4) - this rhythm feels bit odd... try this I'm doing more of a vocal focus, the string plucking is highlighted by slider bumps
02:03:829 (1) - why not just start this spinner on 02:03:743 like hard. more time to spin for new players is good imo reason stated above,
its "inconsistent" between diffs because pishi and I have different preference.

[hard]
01:19:429 (2,3) - aesthetically that look really out of shape from other parts, also you might want players to really move their aim there, for current one, players can just hold aim on same spot which isnt really fun at all I'm ok with just holding and pushing down a little, though I mentioned above: hard players tend to attempt the entire slider, so it works out.
01:30:400 (3,4,5,6,7) - move left more so that its clear enough to see like 01:30:057 (2) - from 01:29:714 (1) - its clear enough, these players look at approach circles
01:39:143 (1) - really feels off when 01:39:314 - is done passively while 00:33:486 (1) - and 01:17:372 (1) - is actually clickable. make that clickable please :l another point 01:28:343 - has a slider end to a strong sound, explained prior.

c:

Finshie wrote:

hi

[Easy]

1. 00:52:686 (1) - not stacked properly doesn't matter.
2. 01:29:714 (3) - 2 notes would be nice cus of the 2 syllable vocals here movement based rhythm for whole map, also 4 circles in a row is hard so I only do that at certain points.
   neat.
   
   [Normal]
   
   1. 00:03:143 (3) - missed the sound at downbeat but you mapped it at 00:06:057 - ? the set up for 00:06:057 - is very different because it starts a build up that I chose to highlight here and the vocals take a small break. thus the rhythm focus shifts.
   2. 00:08:800 (4,5,1,2,3,4,1) - 1/2 chain seems too long. maybe change 00:09:314 (5) - into 1/1+note? applying this could make a room for 00:11:543 (1) - cause it looks squished down there its moderate length, though since its super intense part and not super long it isn't that bad, though if super swag people tell me "dude stop" then i will
   [Hard]
   
   1. 01:19:429 (2,3) - the overlap doesnt look good and its kinda hard to read. probably wanna change that 2 slider where its body doesnt overlap 3 that much
   2. 01:19:772 (3,1) - same issue as earlier , if you could make the spacing alittle bigger thatd nice. both no, its 1/4 gap for hard diff,
   3. 01:21:829 - 01:32:800 - this sounds awkward not to map since the sound is really noticable vocal focus.
   4. 01:30:400 (3,4,5,6,7) - cant almost see the notes. maybe have the same ds as 01:29:714 (1,2) - ? they are visible enough.

gl~

1. 00:10:686 (1) - 01:39:828 (1) - why do u have these NC's tho
2. 00:34:514 (1,2) - Consider adding movement between these because it plays weird after a jumpy part, 01:51:314 (1,2,1) - same
3. 00:46:857 (1) - You dont need this nc
4. 01:17:372 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Why is the spacing on this build up is so much smaller compared to the first part 00:10:172 (1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1,2,3) -

1. 01:19:429 (2,3) - the aesthetics just dont fit in. They are too off here compared to the rest.

1. 01:06:400 (1,2) - 01:07:772 (4,5) - diff already has a lot of 1/2 and 1/1 stacks mixed and now theres a 3/2 stack. just a normal diff. Dont confuse newbies too much with these

1. 00:03:314 (3) - u r following vocals right? if yes, this is p wrong since no vocal at 00:03:314 - but then theres a loud vocal at 00:03:829 - which is executed on a slider repeat which is pretty bad for emphasis
2. 00:10:172 (1,2,3) - do circles here too like 01:17:372 (1,2,3,4,5) - . they fit better with build up
3. 00:33:486 (1,2,3) - same. like 01:39:314 (1,2,3,4,5) -
4. 01:50:286 (1) - This is obviously intenser than all those build ups earlier. a simple 3/1 slider is too under done

DeRandom Otaku wrote:

Hi. sorry late.
[Hard]

1. 01:19:429 (2,3) - the aesthetics just dont fit in. They are too off here compared to the rest. it looks good to me, also there are more obvious aesthetic blemishes to worry about. (if aesthetics mattered)

[Normal]

1. 01:06:400 (1,2) - 01:07:772 (4,5) - diff already has a lot of 1/2 and 1/1 stacks mixed and now theres a 3/2 stack. just a normal diff. Dont confuse newbies too much with these they are not next to eachother so its not against the guidelines

[Easy]

1. 00:03:314 (3) - u r following vocals right? if yes, this is p wrong since no vocal at 00:03:314 - but then theres a loud vocal at 00:03:829 - which is executed on a slider repeat which is pretty bad for emphasis the emphasis is occuring through movement since players at this level tend to try to follow sliders exactly.
2. 00:10:172 (1,2,3) - do circles here too like 01:17:372 (1,2,3,4,5) - . they fit better with build up but this section is weaker, plus sliders like this are still pretty strong
3. 00:33:486 (1,2,3) - same. like 01:39:314 (1,2,3,4,5) - same
4. 01:50:286 (1) - This is obviously intenser than all those build ups earlier. a simple 3/1 slider is too under done movement explained prior.

cool

Lasse wrote:

bor
00:04:686 (1,2,3,4) - can you use visual spacing instead of ds here? stack makes it look a bit weird (just move 4 a bit left) a
01:17:372 (1,2,3,4,5) - seems a bit much of a diff spike compared to the similar 00:10:172 (1,2,3) - these are very different, there is much more background stuff going on for the 01:17:372 -
01:39:314 (1,2,3,4,5) - seemed slightly better since music builds up more towards it
01:19:772 - 01:41:714 - should probably map this since it stands out a lot and 00:13:943 (2) - a
02:03:143 (2,3) - you usually had 1/1 stacks and the 3/2 before this is distance snapped so this could really throw off beginners noobies are much more likely to rely on the approach circles just like they learned from peppy's tutorial
p

Lasse wrote:

normal
00:46:514 (1) - no idea if nc is intentional but doesn't seem necessary either way

Lasse wrote:

borsy

1. Album: http://www.gochiusa.com/contents/cd/index02630000.html (from the official website of the anime)
   
   • → No mention of the artist (only the character).
     → Artist can't be found on the CD covers: https://m.blog.naver.com/salamnoon/220651458108
2. Chino dubbed by 水瀬いのり (romanisation: Inori Minase): http://www.gochiusa.com/contents/staff/index.html
   
   SPOILER

   
3. From another "Chino" album: 歌：チノ(水瀬いのり) [Vocals: Chino(Minase Inori)] http://www.gochiusa.com/contents/cd/index03440000.html
4. 水瀬いのり usually prefers to have her name romanised to "Inori Minase": https://inoriminase.com/

1. 水瀬いのり (romanisation: Inori Minase)

1. チノ(水瀬いのり) (romanisation: Chino(Minase Inori) or Chino (Minase Inori))