Hi M4M from #modreqs!
General- Rank criteria states you need to have a difficulty that's at most 2.00* for a full spread, unless it's a marathon.
- The above means you'll need to make 2 difficulties that are easier than your current lowest difficulty in order to satisfy the rank criteria
- You need to hitsound XD
Intense- Not sure why it's called "Intense" and not just "Insane" for the sake of easier identification
00:07:885 (3,4,5) - Keeping consistent with the start patterns I would make these a jump. Having an anti-jump doesn't set a precedence for what style you're going for.
00:12:342 (1,2) - I don't hear a sound worth mapping to on the 1/4. Playing at 25% I can't hear anything at all really that denotes a sound to be played, I would change it so there are just 1/1 notes or sliders. You can also do 1/2 filler sliders so that it doesn't feel empty.
00:13:542 (5,1) - Blanket this properly please
00:14:057 (1,2) - ^
00:15:428 (1,2) - ^
00:16:285 (2,1) - This overlap shows in play and doesn't really look nice aesthetically, I would seperate them apart. Preferably it would be nice to seperate them by the same amount in relation to the sliderend. For example, this would be good practice to do in my opinion:
Here you see the slider-end as well as notes '1' and '2' are the same distance and a player does notice the distance of notes, sometimes subconsciously so it helps with note determination when playing.
00:16:800 (1,2) - Not sure what your idea was for the spacing here, but it doesn't really make sense with how you've mapped so far.
00:18:171 (1,2) - Another overlap, same reason as before.
00:19:542 (1,2) - ^
00:21:600 (3,4,1) - ^
00:26:057 (1,2) - The second blanket isn't the same as the first one so the slider look kind of sloppy, I see your intention. I would recommend copy-pasting either slider so that they flow better and look nicer aesthetically due to the 'perfect' blanket. Also the spacing could do with a little nudge further.
00:27:428 (1,2) - Plays odd with the jump just before. The music hasn't really slower down or changed pace so the sudden change in spacing feels kind of off. This is further reinforced by the fact they're 1/2 sliders and speed is much less intense. I suggest increasing the spacing a bit more.
00:28:800 (1,2) - ^
00:30:171 (1,2) - ^
00:31:028 (4,5) - The anti-jump here doesn't fit with the rest of the map style, I would space them out more for consistency.
00:34:285 (1,2) - Again I can't hear anything in the song that would warrant a 1/4 type slider. The fact the slider ends are randomly overlapping creates an odd pattern that isn't too readable by a player without looking at it in the editor first.
00:43:799 (8,1) - Incorrect spacing from the rest of the stream.
00:45:085 - Add a note here perhaps?
00:45:257 (1,2) - Copy-paste instead of trying to replicate manually. Things such as the copy-paste function are invaluable to mappers and I can see you've used them occasionally. I would use it here too in order to keep consistency in the slider shapes ^^
00:45:942 (3,4,5,6) - I like the pattern used, but I would keep the same distance on all the notes for more consistency with your jumps before. The distance between notes '4' and '5' are good. I would use that distance for all these notes.
00:46:628 (1,2) - Same slider type would work nicely don't you think?
00:47:314 (3,4,5,6) - ^^
00:48:685 (3,4,5,6) - Imperfect square. Moving notes '5' and '6' down and to the left a little bit should make this much less noticable if not remove the imperfection entirely.
00:50:400 (3,4) - I think the music change at this part could be expressed in a different way, it's a really powerful part that I think could be expressed better XD
00:51:428 (3,4,5,6) - ^^^
00:53:142 (5) - Moving this note to these co-ordinates would make the pattern look more concise and readable: (X:256 Y:72)
00:56:057 (5) - Stacking this on note 3 would create a more readable pattern, the distance from the sliderend to this note is 1/2 and the player could easily mistake this for a 1/4 pattern or something similar.
00:57:600 (1,2,3) - Perhaps make this a stream, the song hasn't really changed from the stream just before and it kind of feels underappreciated with just having 1/2 sliders ;(
01:00:342 (1,2,3) - ^
01:03:771 (3,4,5,6) - (same suggestion as 00:51:428 (3,4,5,6) )
01:06:342 (2,3,4,5) - ^
01:07:200 (1,2) - Again, copypasting these instead of a manual replication makes for a much cleaner looking map at the end result.
01:09:942 (1,2) - ^
01:12:000 (1,2,3,4) - I don't understand the sudden use of 1/4 sliders this hasn't changed from any other part in the song and the 1/4 sliders feel kind of off-putting / random to include like this.
01:14:057 (1,2) - The overlap like discussed earlier doesn't really look too good in most peoples eyes. I would suggest spacing them out more because aesthetically it's not too good and it can confuse some players while playing.
01:22:285 (4,5,6) - Something like this is good because it shows you're still appreciating the 1/4 aspect the song has given you, but in a different way. I would use this pattern for places like: 01:19:542 (1,2,3,4) so the player can still understand and appreciate the song.
01:19:542 (1) - Move the end anchor to the left a little so the sliders are the same :3
01:20:228 (3,4) - Copy+paste slider 3 to replace slider 4, same reason as before
01:22:285 (4) - Copy+pasting this to replace slider 6 would also be a good idea, so the player gets some kind of rhythm going with their cursor. It can also aid with note anticipation for the player.
01:24:514 (4,5) - Space these out a little bit more :3
01:25:028 (1) - ^^
01:25:714 (3,4,5,6) - Anti-jump kind of plays odd because every other time you've used a jump to express this part of the song. I would keep it as a jump for a matter of consistency.
01:26:228 (6,1) - Blanket this better. The sliderend can be moved in a little bit so the curvature of the slider goes over the circle in a more concise manner.
01:26:742 (2) - ^ (except the middle anchor should be more curved so it goes over the sliderend better).
01:34:628 (1,2) - ^
01:35:657 (1) - To make the stream look cleaner and more well made I would move this slider to these co-ords to further amplify the stream shape chosen. (X:344 Y:296)
01:37:371 (1,2) - I'll make a box visual just in case you're unsure of the blanketing technique
You can see that the slider curves neatly around the slider-head of the upcoming slider. A good rule of thumb is to use the approach circle as a guide for whether your blanket is correctly curved. In this case I positioned the timeline so the approach circle is curved around the slider as a guide.
01:52:114 (7,1) - This 1/1 gap kind of kills the flow. It's amplified by the small spacing between these two notes as the player could easily mistime the upcoming slider as a 1/2 gap instead of 1/1.
01:53:314 (4,5) - The curvature of the slider doesn't really play well with the note positions here. In a visual I can explain this better.
Given the small window a slider has and how a cursor usually 'dashes' through one this type of shape can be really odd to play in practice.
01:58:628 (3,1) - Slight overlap issue. I am sure you know my reasoning now XD
02:01:200 (3,4) - Blanketing issue here, my guide should help
02:03:428 (1,2) - ^
02:06:171 (1,2,3,4) - The jump pattern plays weird here because of the cursor movements thats happening. In a small space you need to slow down to hit the notes then suddenly speed up and the song doesn't warrant it really.
02:06:857 (5,6) - ^^ (more of a copy-paste to fix this though)
02:20:571 (3,4,5,6) - Anti-jump here plays weirdly due to how infrequently you've implemented them. They feel kind of random and done on-the-fly rather as to in correlation with the music. Keeping it a jump does more justice.
02:28:114 (1,2) - Blanketing again
02:29:485 (1,2) - Overlap here for the same reason as always
02:32:571 (1) - Almost perfect blanket, just needs a tiny bit more intensity on the curvature in my opinion.
Passion- For this difficulty I think calling it "Intense" would work better because the custom name would work with the song more than on an insane.
- In my opinion it just seems like a slightly harder version of the previous difficulty. I mean it's not a bad thing but for the sake of difficulty flow it doesn't really bring any more elements that the difficulty below brings. I am not saying in any way to remove this difficulty, but I think you should add more complex game mechanics to make it more of a challenge to players wanting a really hard difficulty
Good luck in your map!
)
