1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
posted
This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on martes, 27 de junio de 2017 at 16:13:03

Artist: Nardis
Title: Cosmo Memory
Source: BMS
Tags: dubstep electro
BPM: 175
Filesize: 5356kb
Play Time: 02:19
Difficulties Available:
  1. LCFC's VIVACE (4,3 stars, 440 notes)
  2. PRESTISSIMO (4,97 stars, 475 notes)


Download: Nardis - Cosmo Memory
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------
LOVE THIS SONG AF

ADAGIO (Ez peezee lemon squeezy) - pls geedee
MODERATO (Nurml) - *and nobody caem xdddd
ALLEGRO (Hardini owo) - we neend 2TWO PEEPOL HEER
LFCF's VIVACE (This is an ''Insane'' masterpiece owo) - 100% - Thank you LowComboFC-kun owo
PRESTISSIMO (maz dieff eksdoot doot) - 100% - me owo

ok ask ''can i gd'' ok thax

noet: name gds arent from PORFERSSIOPNAL BOEX okei?? they are from jir: t/178700 (thx Kazuya)
posted
hell yea
posted
YHEA ME 2 IM GYA
posted
whoops
posted
offset should be around 34

[PRESTISSIMO]
00:30:186 (1) - 00:35:329 (5) - should be different because they represent different things, the first one is more of like impact and the second one is "slowing down", so I think the SV of the second one should be lowered

00:38:415 (1,2) - maybe consider making it like 00:36:700 (1,2,1) - (because 00:35:672 (1,2) - -> 00:36:700 (1,2) - , so 00:36:700 (1,2) - -> 00:38:415 (1,2) but swapped)

00:49:386 (1,2) - these don't go well (at least for the first time) if they're the same combo because such short spaced 00:49:386 (1,2,3) - will make player think of triple-tapping instead of stopping at the first note. However, 01:38:757 (1,2,3,1) - is okay
(same case with 01:00:357 (1,2) - but this time, player will have a mixed feeling about double-tapping/triple-tapping the sliders)

00:54:957 (1,2,3) - using 01:05:500 (4,5,6) -, 01:38:929 (2,3,1) - imo is better

01:28:129 (5,1,2) - this can mislead some player into thinking that they should nah nevermind i think this is fine (I had trouble in HR though)

01:46:643 (1,2,3) - since it already had a "buildup" (01:45:615 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - ), would be nice if the distance of 01:46:643 (1,2,3) - is more wide (make it move faster), and then ctrl + g 01:46:986 (4) - and move it up a little bit


02:06:529 - until 02:06:872 (4) - these sould be like 02:00:357 (3,4,5,6,1) -

Good luck :)!
posted

Sadistic Potato wrote:

offset should be around 34 its a fade-in (also offset is from stjpa's ranked set)

[PRESTISSIMO]
00:30:186 (1) - 00:35:329 (5) - should be different because they represent different things, the first one is more of like impact and the second one is "slowing down", so I think the SV of the second one should be lowered its is a flash sound so ill keep it until someone mentions this again

00:38:415 (1,2) - maybe consider making it like 00:36:700 (1,2,1) - (because 00:35:672 (1,2) - -> 00:36:700 (1,2) - , so 00:36:700 (1,2) - -> 00:38:415 (1,2) but swapped) nah

00:49:386 (1,2) - these don't go well (at least for the first time) if they're the same combo because such short spaced 00:49:386 (1,2,3) - will make player think of triple-tapping instead of stopping at the first note. However, 01:38:757 (1,2,3,1) - is okay
(same case with 01:00:357 (1,2) - but this time, player will have a mixed feeling about double-tapping/triple-tapping the sliders) so truu

00:54:957 (1,2,3) - using 01:05:500 (4,5,6) -, 01:38:929 (2,3,1) - imo is better this happens on Stjpa's ranked set (its an extra diff tho)

01:28:129 (5,1,2) - this can mislead some player into thinking that they should nah nevermind i think this is fine (I had trouble in HR though) so truu

01:46:643 (1,2,3) - since it already had a "buildup" (01:45:615 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - ), would be nice if the distance of 01:46:643 (1,2,3) - is more wide (make it move faster), and then ctrl + g 01:46:986 (4) - and move it up a little bit it would break conection if i ctrl g 01:46:986 (4) - with 01:47:329 (1) - but i spaced the stream


02:06:529 - until 02:06:872 (4) - these sould be like 02:00:357 (3,4,5,6,1) - nah

Good luck :)!
posted
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.
Please sign in to reply.