• 
  [General]

1. The offset seems a bit early, 435 sounds more accurate.
   
   [Insane]
   Going to mod top diff since it's the most likely to include mistakes due to the high object density.
2. 00:05:189 (3,4,5) - Pitch is going down throughout this so it'd make sense if the spacing followed accordingly. Something like this could work, for instance. Nothing wrong with how it is at the moment, but you could always take that extra step to resemble the song more if possible. Alternatively, you could differentiate the instrumental layers by stacking (2) and (3) in some way, for instance like this.
   
3. 00:05:189 (3,6,1) - These could probably use consistent visual spacing to look more structured or whatnot. Also adds emphasis to 00:06:072 (1) - which reflects the piano nicely.
   
4. 00:06:777 (3) - I feel like spacing these to place emphasis on the strong piano impacts would better follow the song. In order to not make it over the top, you could use contrast to make it seem like it's spaced more than it actually is, in this case by reducing the spacing between 00:06:072 (1,2) - . For example, something like this would be much more impactful on (3) than something like this, even if the spacing to (3) is the same.
   
5. Speaking of that part, try keeping the curvature of sliders similar, especially where multiple ones are visible at once like at 00:06:072 (1,3) - . This will generally make things look more intentional and visually pleasing, and less like it's randomly done. Applies throughout the map, for example at 00:17:013 (1,2) - 00:21:601 (3,3) - etc.
   
6. 00:06:777 (3,1,2) - The flow seems awfully counter-intuitive here, especially since 00:06:072 (1,2,3) - was already breaking the clockwise motion. Generally you'd want to avoid breaking flow too much in a map, since doing so would make it feel rigid in gameplay, with slider shapes losing their visual implication of where the next object is to be placed. Usually people would expect the next object to appear somewhere within this red circle. You could easily make it more intuitive here by flipping 00:07:483 (1) - vertically.
   
7. 00:17:013 (1) - This seems kind of underwhelming compared to 00:15:954 (1,2) - . Song clearly emphasizes these so building some contrast by spacing would reflect that. It does break flow but preferably it would stand out in more aspects than just rotation. You could potentially reduce the spacing between 00:16:483 (2,3) - and then increase it between 00:16:660 (3,1) - , with similar reasoning to that of the third point.
   
8. 00:17:542 (2) - Similarly this is also pretty powerful in the song yet the spacing seems to imply that 00:18:248 (4) - is stronger. You could potentially position them like this instead. That way 00:17:542 (2,3) - clearly shows that 00:18:072 (3) - is stronger than 00:18:248 (4) - , and that 00:17:542 (2) - is of similar strength to that of 00:17:013 (1) - .
   
   Same thought process can be used on 00:18:777 (3,4,5) - 00:19:836 (1,2) - 00:21:601 (3,4,5) - 00:24:424 (1,1,1,1) - etc you get the idea. Basically contrast the sounds more with use of spacing to resemble the song more accurately. The lower the spacing for regular sounds, the more the stronger sounds will stand out in turn.
   
   
9. 00:24:424 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - This looks quite unstructured and a bit messy, could try placing all the strong beats in the same place 00:24:424 (1,1,1,1) - , sort of like this. Then, make the rest follow some pattern. I tried something here, but it's not the best pattern since the spacing gets a bit ridiculously high at the end, although having increasing spacing in some way would represent the buildup better probably. Up to you how you arrange it, but would still advice making it more structured than it is currently.
   
10. 00:27:248 - Personally I would've done this rhythm like this, since currently 00:27:954 - is mapped as a circle despite not having an impact there in the song. So instead I following the piano from 00:27:777 - to cover 00:27:954 - with a tail, as this allows for better filler rhythm, considering what the song has to offer.
    
    The vocals on 00:28:130 - and 00:28:307 - can be done more clearly by two separate clicks for each impact. The reason why I'm ending a slider on 00:28:483 - is to indicate that we're switching from vocals to piano in the following measure. Instead of drawing out the vocal syncopation at 00:28:483 - , I just end a slider there to show that I'm not going to be following that vocal. Alternatively you can follow the piano instead by swapping the rhythm for these two in my example, might be easier actually.
    
    
11. 00:40:836 (4,5) - Would swap these rhythmically. Reason being that 00:41:013 - is a slider end even though it's on a white tick with drums and vocals and everything happening on it. 00:47:542 (3,4) - are fine since their tails don't have vocals on them, unlike here. Additionally you'd usually want to end sliders on vocal syncopation 00:41:189 - when the following downbeat has an important beat 00:41:366 - , in order to indicate that we're not following the vocal there and are instead going to switch instrumental layer.
    
12. 00:50:542 (2,1) - Should probably be spaced further to avoid the player confusing (1) for landing on 00:51:072 - , as there are still sounds here.
    
13. 01:03:072 - I expected this to be clickable since it's the main melody of the song and probably what stands out most when listening to it. Would try something like this.
    
14. 01:07:483 (3,4,5) - Hmm I can't really hear this triple in the song. Are you sure you want to keep it like this? I was expecting it to follow the guitar, which has an impact on 01:07:660 - as well as 01:09:072 - . So for the second one you'd swap 01:08:719 (2,3) - . This way the vocal also gains some rhythmical emphasis by being drawn out properly like the song suggests.
    
15. 01:09:954 - This is also rather strong, and reflecting it solely with a kink in the slider shape usually doesn't work well. Much better to just have it clickable as a circle, making the slider a 1/2 instead. No need to do it on 01:10:483 - since 01:10:130 - is stronger, unlike 01:09:601 - .
    
16. 01:13:042 - Potential for a triple here. Could try something like this, like what you did at 00:39:601 (5,6,7) - .
    
17. 01:15:072 (1,2) - In comparison to the above, these aren't actually supported by the song and seem to just be overmapped for emphasis. It worked pretty well at 01:01:660 (2,3,4) - 01:03:777 (1,2,3) - since there weren't any triples in the song around there for them to be ambiguous with, but here you've got 01:13:042 - 01:14:454 - 01:15:866 - 01:17:277 - , all of which are currently ignored. Overmapping and undermapping on their own are fine, but combining overmapping and undermapping on same parts is essentially the same as ignoring the song. Anyway I'd suggest removing this triple and instead prioritizing the triples that are here in the song if you want to add notes on blue ticks.
    
18. 01:20:895 - There's a buildup in the background here. Might be able to cover some of that or at least reflect it in intensity by making this part more rhythmically dense.
    
19. 01:28:307 (1,1,1) - The song is building up right before it ends so I was expecting these to increase in SV, not decrease. Compare it to 00:58:660 (1,1,1) - , for example.
    
    Overall spacing could probably use some work, especially in terms of what is to be emphasized. At 00:39:248 (4,5) - 00:40:130 (1,2) - , the snare is being heavily emphasized, yet it's completely ignored at 00:41:013 - 00:41:719 - etc, which ends up feeling inconsistent. I'd suggest reducing spacing of anything not important and then having more important things noticeably larger spacing, as to build spatial contrast throughout the map and accentuate specific beats more. This way you also avoid any inconsistency in spacing and can represent the song with confidence.
    
    In my opinion, flow like 00:06:777 (3,1,2) - is breaking a bit too much. 00:11:719 (1,2) - is alright, but when it happens basically all over 00:31:307 (1,2,3) - 00:40:660 (3,4,5) - 00:43:307 (2,3,3) - , it starts losing it's effect and ends up emphasizing nothing because of it's constant usage. It becomes more of a theme of the map than anything, which may not be the best idea with a counter-intuitive aspect, but maybe that's just me. I just feel like you could cut down on the flow breaks a bit and only use them for specific and reoccurring parts in the song if possible, for instance in the piano part 00:28:660 (1,2) - 00:31:307 (1,2) - 00:34:307 (1,2) - since that seemed to work well. May be difficult to change in the map as it is now, but something to think of for future maps I suppose.

50542,375,4,2,0,30,1,0
50542,-156.739811912226,4,2,0,30,0,0
51274,352.941176470588,4,2,0,30,1,0
51626,-166.666666666667,4,2,0,30,0,0
52680,366.97247706422,4,2,0,30,1,0
52680,-160.25641025641,4,2,0,30,0,0
53052,352.941176470588,4,2,0,30,1,0
53052,-166.666666666667,4,2,0,30,0,0
54463,338.983050847458,4,2,0,30,1,0
54463,-173.611111111111,4,2,0,30,0,0
55483,352.941176470588,4,2,0,30,1,0
55483,-142.857142857143,4,2,0,30,0,0

Monstrata wrote:

Insane

00:06:072 (1,3) - Use the same slidershape. Take slider 3, copy paste it, and Ctrl+J and use that for 1. +
00:34:307 (1,2) - This is a calm section, so I would avoid jumps this big. Make this smaller so the section doesn't feel like its as difficult as later parts. Helps the map reflect the intensity of the song at different levels. Actually try stacking 00:34:836 (2) - 's slidertail with 00:35:719 (1) - 's head. i think the stacking looks a bit odd and the jump is fine, so i'll leave it as it is
00:38:366 (1,2,3,4) - Your spacing here could be a bit more consistent.
00:41:189 (5,1) - And maybe try blanketting, or making the pattern a bit more even like: changed the sliders around to avoid blanket -w-

~

00:50:189 (1,2) - The spacing is a bit dubious because its 1/1 but you make it seem like its a 1/2 spacing with your placement. adjusted them by a bit

something like this

00:55:836 (4,5) - here too could be spaced a bit more, see how its a bit similar to 5>6>1 after. i dont really see how its similar though, it picks up pretty quick after 4 >.<
01:26:542 (1,2,3,4,5,1,1,1,1) - This is cute. The spacing doesn't respect time-distance equality, but here it's done really well.

Overall the spacing you use on the map could still use a bit more finetuning, I pointed out a few places, but if you understand my logic, see if you can apply it elsewhere too. spacings should be fine, none of them are too explicit looking to me uwu

Hard

00:03:248 (1,2) - Lets not do jumps like this in the intro. +
00:18:424 (4,1) - A bit too close... Looks like a 1/2 jump or something instead of a 1/1 gap. moved up by a bit
00:21:601 (4,1) - Swamp NC's +
00:35:719 (1,2) - This is way too big for the section. Try an arrangement like this: i think its fine

~

00:49:836 - Here you shift to only 1/1 rhythms, so even though your spacing looks like 1/2 objects, theres nothing to confuse them with 1/2 rhythms cuz there aren't any 1/2 rhythms, so this is good!
00:57:248 (2,1) - Here though, could use a bit more spacing.
01:00:072 (2) - For sliders like this, two ways to construct them. Try one of them instead of this. +

thunderbolt, through the slidertick if you have one

Z with a red node on the slider-tick

01:09:248 (4,1) - A bit too big. moved in
01:29:013 (5) - Space this out a bit more so its similar to the jumps earlier. did

Generally two points of improvement are: 1) jumps being too big for their section, or just being too big for a Hard difficulty in general. 2) 1/1 and 1/2 spacing being confused sometimes. I think i pointed out most places though, but definitely go through again.

Normal

00:56:542 - This felt unnecessarily empty. Add a circle? If this were an Easy i'd be okay, but since this is a Normal you can afford to make the rhythm a bit denser. +

[]

I think this set is promising. Made some notes on Insane and Hard for stuff you should go through again. Idk if you are still working with Frostings but if you are, ask him to check for those issues too. You can call me back when you feel confident in the map. If you're still working with Frostings, get his approval too~ (Also don't forget to check my map, i'd appreciate it, thx!)

Frostings wrote:

no Kudosuu

Normal:
01:20:895 (4,1) - swap NCs here
01:23:719 (3,1,2) - and here

Hard:
00:21:601 (4,1) - swap NCs
01:28:836 (4,5) - maybe you could use the same distance that you use here 01:27:777 (1,2,3) -

Insane:
00:32:542 (3) - I think you should make this 1/2 slider to maintain flow
00:50:189 (1) - :X I think you should move this back to where it was before. Movement is too erratic
01:03:954 (3,4,5) - this looks really weird. I don't think you should stack them like that. Also the rotational flow might be a little much combined with the previous slider
01:13:130 (4) - make sure you stack this properly !!
01:28:307 (1,1,1) - I actually did like fast to slow better me too!! so im bringing it back

thanks uwu

Doormat wrote:

oh i thought i told you to call me back after you got a few mods s:

can i qualify this after the timer?

1. 01:27:601 (4,1) - spacing here is kind of similar to the 1/1 spacing you used for the previous combo, maybe try moving in the 4->1 in a little more to avoid potential confusion?
   
   SPOILER

   

1. 00:15:601 (3,1) - still think you should Ctrl + G the (1) here. i get it's intentional so i'm guessing you wanted high spacing to presumably emphasize the introduction of drums, but this 1/4 spacing is really extreme and out of place with regards to the rest of the mapset. even if you look at your other double repeat sliders, none of them have a crazy distance of 7.6x between notes
2. 01:27:601 (4,5) - same as the hard tbh; moving the NC from 01:28:130 (1) - to 01:27:777 (5) - might also help with differentiation between 1/1s and 1/2s

Doormat wrote:

can i get a metadata check?

[Hard]

1. 01:27:601 (4,1) - spacing here is kind of similar to the 1/1 spacing you used for the previous combo, maybe try moving in the 4->1 in a little more to avoid potential confusion?
   
   SPOILER

   

[Insane]

1. 00:15:601 (3,1) - still think you should Ctrl + G the (1) here. i get it's intentional so i'm guessing you wanted high spacing to presumably emphasize the introduction of drums, but this 1/4 spacing is really extreme and out of place with regards to the rest of the mapset. even if you look at your other double repeat sliders, none of them have a crazy distance of 7.6x between notes i tried working around it but i do agree 7.6 is too high, so I applied it
2. 01:27:601 (4,5) - same as the hard tbh; moving the NC from 01:28:130 (1) - to 01:27:777 (5) - might also help with differentiation between 1/1s and 1/2s

rest is okay, no kudosu for this post

Doormat wrote:

me irl

can't qualify this right away due to some metadata issues, lol.

there's no space in between the ~ and the japanese lettering, so fix that.

Song Title: さよならのゆくえ～TV size～
Romanised Song Title: Sayonara no Yukue~TV size~

also your Title/Unicode in your Insane doesn't match the Title/Unicode in your Normal/Hard

Doormat wrote:

metadata looks good now, but i'm going to rebubble it just to be safe. you can ask monstrata to qualify it after 24 hours.

grats on your first map!

Frostings wrote:

hyp

Kisses wrote:

00:21:072 (5,6,7,1,2,3) - going back to my previous mod I still think these are 1/3 and that when playing its really obvious you're playing a wrong snap https://i.imgur.com/1qfXlRB.png