1. osu!community
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked/Approved Beatmaps
posted

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
posted
12sp12sp12sp12sp12sp12sp

00:01:600 - shouldn't this be normal hitnormal
00:14:200 - 01:41:972 - should probably be silenced like other overmapped blue tick tails in less intense parts
01:36:572 - finish?

anime
00:23:886 (1,2,3,4,1) - movementhere seemed a bit too "simple", compared to what you did before, even if things are less intense here. this just felt too comfortable lol
the slightly uneven spacing on the pentagon patterns in chorus 2 actually looked really noticeable ingame
like how this diff plays, cute

collab anime
00:47:029 - no idea why this tick is ignored when it seems so similar to the two 1/2 before it
01:08:800 - could probably have soft whistle on this to make it a bit more intuitive, suddenly clicking something that gives so much less feedback seemed weird together with the heavy undermapping
01:22:514 (3,2) - this looked really off with how the map utilizes so much stacking things, if it at least used the autostack direction, or 01:24:057 (5) - continued it if might work better // 01:34:172 (2) -
01:28:857 - with how vocal focued rthythm is, undermapping this seemed really weird, especially if 01:28:343 - basically says "idc about cymbal clicking here" lol

easier collab anime
01:47:543 (1) - very slightly offscreen

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)
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) -
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) -
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

[]

reply to the old mods and poke me when it has 12sp
posted
collapsed text
[normal]
00:46:514 (1) - doesn't really need an NC to emphasize this tbh, 2 1/2 sliders would prolly be more suitable for the diff too feel like song is different enoguh to support nc, and too clam to use 1/2ss
00:56:286 (3) - maybe a 1/2 slider? missing the downbeat makes me sad prefer to use circles only here. fits with rhythm in hte rest of the map more i think
01:36:572 (1) - finish d
01:39:143 (5) - 1/2 earlier for the snare plss vocals more important than snare in this case
01:51:657 (5) - same as earlierfollowing bor's cue


[hard]
00:16:943 - circle here too cuz 00:19:686 (7) - //00:22:172 (6,1) - 00:27:657 (6,1) - same here and maybe 00:33:143 (6,1) - added
00:36:057 - y ignore? ;/ pause makes 1 stand out more
00:46:514 (2) - if ur following the vocals it's kinda odd that u don't map the last note changed
00:57:314 (3) - put it in the 4th quadrant cuz acute angles are cute?? prefer wide here:(

[insane]
00:10:686 (1) - 01:39:828 (1) - y nc tho visuals mostly (dontkillme)
00:18:743 (3) - clap yes
00:23:886 (1) - soft finish sounds too intense for what should be calm
00:46:772 (3) - dont rly think this is necessary, esp since the mutliple repeat slider is pretty hard to read already imo lol sound seems so prominent a
00:54:743 (3,4,5) - switch places? the reverse is kinda covered up gotta keep gameplay as broken as possible
01:01:257 (2,3,4) - switch in timeline sounds better to me imo, first 2 downbeats are essentially the same vocals dont really support that
01:29:714 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this is pretty intense considering the stuff i've seen so far lol nerfed
01:36:572 (1) - finish add


Sidetail wrote:

hi



[normal]

00:39:657 (3) - remove sliderend finish did
01:39:314 (1,2) - you should really should use claps only here instead and 01:40:000 (3,4) - finish hs on only this cuz mixing them up sound really bad. made them all finishes
00:10:172 (1,2,3,4) - ^ (1|2) & (3|4)

[hard]
00:10:172 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - make this 00:10:172 (1,2,3,4) - clap only and 00:10:857 (5,6,7,8) - finish only did
00:18:400 (1,2,3,4) - sounds empty while 00:15:657 (1,2,3,4) - had more full-er hs sound, mind you that second part of repeat also has better sound 00:29:371 (1,2,3,4) - they'rethesamenow i think
00:40:000 (4) - remove finish yes
00:55:086 (4) - remove finish, sampleset-normal finish seesm ok here actually
01:17:543 (2,3,4) - clap only rather than entire 01:17:543 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - being finish only prefer keeping it the same
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) -
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

[insane]
00:40:000 (6) - remove finish yes

c:

Finshie wrote:

[Hard]
  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. vocals are 1/1 and the other referenced thing is 1/2, so circle density shows that
  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) - song got like way calmer
  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 i usually keep 1/4 spacing on hards for babies like this :(


[Insane]
  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. so me like this? think it looks cooler smaller, though i did readjust how centered everything was
  2. 00:52:343 (1,1) - the jump feels too big and sudden and it looks like 1/1 ds moved it (but not enough probably)
  3. 01:19:429 (1,1) - this flow is kinda weird. the direction going bottom right corner feels so random idk which direction would be not random a

DeRandom Otaku wrote:

Hi. sorry late.
[Insane]
  1. 00:10:686 (1) - 01:39:828 (1) - why do u have these NC's tho makes the triangles like not look terrible
  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 contrast between jumps and stacks makes it work as emphasis:(
  3. 00:46:857 (1) - You dont need this nc true
  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) - nade it bigger


cool

Lasse wrote:

12sp12sp12sp12sp12sp12sp

00:01:600 - shouldn't this be normal hitnormal yesye
00:14:200 - 01:41:972 - should probably be silenced like other overmapped blue tick tails in less intense partsyesy
01:36:572 - finish?yes

anime
00:23:886 (1,2,3,4,1) - movementhere seemed a bit too "simple", compared to what you did before, even if things are less intense here. this just felt too comfortable lol
the slightly uneven spacing on the pentagon patterns in chorus 2 actually looked really noticeable ingame
like how this diff plays, cute fixed fgixed

collab anime
00:47:029 - no idea why this tick is ignored when it seems so similar to the two 1/2 before it fdfd
01:08:800 - could probably have soft whistle on this to make it a bit more intuitive, suddenly clicking something that gives so much less feedback seemed weird together with the heavy undermapping dfdfdf
01:22:514 (3,2) - this looked really off with how the map utilizes so much stacking things, if it at least used the autostack direction, or 01:24:057 (5) - continued it if might work better // 01:34:172 (2) -
01:28:857 - with how vocal focued rthythm is, undermapping this seemed really weird, especially if 01:28:343 - basically says "idc about cymbal clicking here" lol

easier collab anime
01:47:543 (1) - very slightly offscreen sdsd

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)
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) -
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) -
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

[]

reply to the old mods and poke me when it has 12sp
gl~
posted

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
https://bor.s-ul.eu/0mVUNpik.osu

hard: yes
posted
H E L L O T H E R E
posted
add bor's current name to tags

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

Lasse wrote:

normal
00:46:514 (1) - no idea if nc is intentional but doesn't seem necessary either way
this isn't mine but wouldn't that nc idea be also replicated at 00:56:629 (1) - (more pattern focused to highlight stuffs)
posted
^what he said. song sounds different enough to support it i think

and tagged
posted
borsy
posted

Lasse wrote:

borsy
:3
posted
posted
nice slider tick rate
posted
Pishifat love lolis
posted
Hello!
Unfortunately I couldn't find any metadata source that confirms that "チノ(CV.水瀬いのり)" is how the artist should be formatted and I didn't find the source you used in this thread (if you have one, could you please provide me with it so I can approve the metadata on the metadata Discord?).

  1. Album: http://www.gochiusa.com/contents/cd/index02630000.html (from the official website of the anime)
  2. Chino dubbed by 水瀬いのり (romanisation: Inori Minase): http://www.gochiusa.com/contents/staff/index.html
  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/

_____________________________________________________

tl;dr. if you do not have any source confirming that the artist should be formatted as "チノ(CV.水瀬いのり)", you can either format it as:
  1. 水瀬いのり (romanisation: Inori Minase)
or
  1. チノ(水瀬いのり) (romanisation: Chino(Minase Inori) or Chino (Minase Inori))


Thank you very much!
posted
i have no sources
posted
Okay, sir. I'll have to place you under arrest for not having any sources. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
posted
appleeaterx sent me this: http://db2.nbcuni.co.jp/contents/hp0004/list.php?CNo=4&AgentProCon=26349
I'll approve the metadata on the Discord server, sorry for the inconvenience
posted
i have one source
posted
what's the meaning of this, pishi
Please sign in to reply.