This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on Friday, August 28, 2020 at 4:29:21 PM

Artist: xi
Title: Double Helix
Tags: world fragments diverse system ad:piano 2 marathon
BPM: 156
Filesize: 8435kb
Play Time: 05:16
Difficulties Available:

1. Another (5.85 stars, 1680 notes)

Download: xi - Double Helix
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------

From my Timing Queue although I don't know if you forgot the point in my rules about telling me which part you wanted me to check, that could had made it easier, y'know?
Alright, offset is completely ok, hitsounds on auto and editor sound alright, it has a nice feedback in playtesting, pretty good.
I thiiiiink what you needed is a check around that piano solo part at 03:26:311 - , in which Timing goes unconsistent, pretty common in piano players.
So, your Timing doesn't sound bad, except for the very first part with the 2nd snake stream at 03:27:862 - , It's not well adjusted to the music's Timing.

You know, I'm kind of a perfectionist in these situations, when I get to time these, it's super complicated and it's only rankable when these parts have an almost perfect Timing, like, it's REALLY hard to. If that's what you're aiming for, I'd recommend you that you take the Timing Points directly from Double Helix's ranked mapset, they said they took the Timing from a taiko map, and then Nivrad00 re-timed it, and it just sounds perfectly.

If you're going to do it, here, because your map has a different offset.

1. Download the ranked map
2. On the Timing Points tab, copy all the Timing Points from the 3rd until the last one (example: http://i.imgur.com/b34pplJ.png)
3. Go to your map, delete Timing points from 3rd until the last one (example: http://i.imgur.com/O9Vpi9Z.png)
4. Paste in there and Move selected offsets by: -374, it is the difference between the other map's offset and yours. (example: http://i.imgur.com/Qs2TC0N.png )

Now just fix the sample sounds, volumes or whatever on the Timing Points and snap the circles.
This was way faster than me trying to find the right Timings, believe me, it's not easy bro.
What a song!! I like your mapping, good luck

You know, I probably should've checked if there was a ranked version already before timing it myself

Heh, it saves a lot of time

I checked it out
for now I swapped two red points so that the bpm matches the second stream
I'm gonna get someone to double check the timing

so fast NM from my queue



I have to go now so I am leaving it at this, it's possible that the entire mod is useless beacause I failed to see the concepts you were trying to put in your map. But anyway nice map it its the crazyness of the song well.

ty!
I fixed all the unreadable 1/4 jumps (two occurrences)

Oh yeah also I might change the 1/3 triangles as they are pretty hard to hit

The gaps you mentioned should be fine
I might end up changing the pattern with the slider ends problem, I don't really like it anyways, likely it'll just be a different pattern with the same rhythm though, as I don't really want boring 1/4 stuff there

I put NC on the intentionally messy 1/4 patterns, so that's why they're there

hi

[opinion]
- to make 1/4 and 1/6 streams more distinctive, how about making collection of combo colours that are rather dull for 1/4s and perhaps really intense colour for only 1/6? Making this point since spacing between 1/4 streams and 1/6 streams are pretty hard to distinguish let alone stacks. Here is a good example - look at 01:47:461 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - this really stands out of rest of 1/4 and helps tremendously in reading.
- overall, the slider (arts) seems very dull and repeats too often. would be really nice edition to this map if you can introduce more slider shapes and bit more intuitive than sliders with few red anchor points that wiggles sharply.

[another]
00:01:696 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I am not sure if 00:01:504 (5) - is long enough to make players to get used to 1/6. seems like if you never heard this song, well too bad sort of thing
00:04:677 - not sure why you left this out, but there is distinctive tone in the song.
00:05:446 (1,1) - rather looks messy...
00:09:293 (1,2) - is there reason why this is not stacked unlike everything else near this timepoint?
00:25:158 (1) - cut reverse to 00:25:254 and making 1/4 slider at 00:25:350 feels better since there is pretty nice kick sound there.
00:44:389 (1,1) - and 00:44:869 (2,1) - feels better with them stacked with each other since before there was already whole lot of circle->slider stacks to represent similar sounding part of the song.
00:12:850 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - wait hold on, why this 1/6 active notes not NCed for easier reading when 00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - is ._.
I have hard time believing notes like 00:57:946 (2,3,4) - is 1/4 there
01:00:350 (1,1) - doesnt look aesthetically pleasing that its covering almost entire slider. 01:12:658 (1,1) - atleast this look better
01:25:927 (1,1) - I am guessing that you`re not going for aesthetic looks
01:27:562 (5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - rather not play with ds since its really confusing when only thing that distinguishes between 1/4 and 1/6 is ds.
01:30:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Supporting above point, half of above is smaller spacing than this 1/6 spacing.
01:32:658 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28) - Perhaps NC?
01:38:812 (2,3,4,5) - i think you put this on slider for emphasis purpose but not sure if that is a clean solution.. try 208|100? end of stack to next object is plenty good emphasis
01:52:273 (2) - i dont think this is 1/6 rather 1/8
02:09:676 (1) - this doesnt look very nice and just stands out since rest of them were angular
02:21:840 (1) - I have no idea what this is mapped to, if this is mapped to shaker, it sounds bit too late
02:32:978 (1,2,3,4) - really confusing when you use that spacing visually same with 02:30:734 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -
02:33:619 (1,2,3,4,1,1,1,1) - this part sort of lost me with rhythm choices and nc. all those sliders 02:34:388 (1,1,1) - are just regular 1/4s so i dont see why they deserve nc
02:36:696 (9) - can you atleast have nc here so there is huge speed change - _ -
02:50:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24) - rhythm is rather variable so nc? the combo is getting pretty long anyways. (tho imo, this entire section mapping the piano instead of dramatic drum is bit overkill, it is very confusing and not very ideal from my perspective)
there is weak tone at every triple, so perhaps make each last note into 1/4 slider? 02:56:888 (3) - | 02:57:272 (6) - | 02:57:657 (9) -
02:58:042 (3) - unlike above, the tone at passive hit sliderend is rather discouraged, perhaps use circle or anything clickable?
03:10:830 (3,4) - feels better if there is another note at 03:11:022 and connects well with 03:11:119 (1) - .
03:12:465 (1,2,3,4,5) - this visual spacing is less than much faster 03:13:042 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - stream right after it
03:24:484 (1) - I prefer this red one`s shape but i guess this is personal pref
03:26:311 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - would be nice if this wasnt same visually spacing with one 1/6 stream just right before it
04:09:013 (8,9) - rhythm wise i prefer slider #8 without reverse and clickable notes until 04:09:590
04:24:975 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - for this, I actually prefer 00:11:504 (1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - `s rhythm. Current one seems bit confusing... in terms of spacing and etc
04:33:533 (1) - ??
05:11:033 (5) - this really maps to just single circle
05:12:667 (3,4,5,6) - that is really confusing due to significant overlapping and interferes with reading

this song sounds incredibly complex, so kudos to you for mapping it. hope this helps a bit

NM from queue better late than never xd

also someone help the pianist

1. 00:06:216 (2) - this seems a bit hidden under the other sliders, maybe try stacking the head on 00:05:158 (3) - 's tail. I think this'll also flow better into 00:06:216 (2) - since you wont have to jerk the cursor slightly back to hit 00:06:216 (2) - , since that also kinda creates awkward movement between 00:05:735 (1,1) - https://puu.sh/w7Epi/cea92479d9.png (great paint skills)
   
2. 00:30:158 (4,5,6) - questionable pattern imo, bc of the same distance kinda makes 00:30:543 (6) - a bit unpredictable, consider NC or increasing distance to make it more apparent.
   
3. 00:44:389 (1,1,1,2,1) - the placements here seem a bit chaotic, I feel like the spacing between this 00:44:389 (1,1) - should be nerfed at least if you're not changing the pattern in its entirety.
   
4. 00:54:004 (1,2,3,4) - I think the spacing between the patterns here could also be a bit more consistent or alternatively the pattern could be a bit rearranged? https://puu.sh/w7EW2/2495aba688.png . This probably goes against your maps fundamental design tho.
   
5. 00:59:389 (3) - the sliderend should be clickable imo
   
6. 01:00:158 (6) - would prolly be better off stacked onto 01:00:350 (1) - , just seems to be a bit too difficult in this section atm. Alternatively 01:12:369 (6,7,1) - this seems a lot more appropriate so maybe replicate this.
   
7. 03:37:306 (2) - I cant see the repeat the fuck, maybe unstack the 03:37:172 (1) - xd

I think the first half of your map needs a lot of polishing since it's quite different in design than the second half of your map, Good Luck!

Sidetail wrote:

hi

[opinion]
- to make 1/4 and 1/6 streams more distinctive, how about making collection of combo colours that are rather dull for 1/4s and perhaps really intense colour for only 1/6? Making this point since spacing between 1/4 streams and 1/6 streams are pretty hard to distinguish let alone stacks. Here is a good example - look at 01:47:461 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - this really stands out of rest of 1/4 and helps tremendously in reading. Yea I made it work (I think?)
- overall, the slider (arts) seems very dull and repeats too often. would be really nice edition to this map if you can introduce more slider shapes and bit more intuitive than sliders with few red anchor points that wiggles sharply. I'm not a creative genius

[another]
00:01:696 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I am not sure if 00:01:504 (5) - is long enough to make players to get used to 1/6. seems like if you never heard this song, well too bad sort of thing I'm just representing the song to the best of my ability
00:04:677 - not sure why you left this out, but there is distinctive tone in the song. Uh, I guess to emphasize the next object more
00:05:446 (1,1) - rather looks messy... It's supposed to be
00:09:293 (1,2) - is there reason why this is not stacked unlike everything else near this timepoint? Yeah for ... variation Also I have unstacked 1/4 directly after, it should be fine
00:25:158 (1) - cut reverse to 00:25:254 and making 1/4 slider at 00:25:350 feels better since there is pretty nice kick sound there. Yea sounds good
00:44:389 (1,1) - and 00:44:869 (2,1) - feels better with them stacked with each other since before there was already whole lot of circle->slider stacks to represent similar sounding part of the song. HIgh intensity Boiii
00:12:850 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - wait hold on, why this 1/6 active notes not NCed for easier reading when 00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - is ._. I NC for the pattern, makes it visually easier to see f the reading
I have hard time believing notes like 00:57:946 (2,3,4) - is 1/4 there There's one piano note at 1/6 but drums are on 1/4, so I just made the choice of 1/4
01:00:350 (1,1) - doesnt look aesthetically pleasing that its covering almost entire slider. 01:12:658 (1,1) - atleast this look better :[
01:25:927 (1,1) - I am guessing that you`re not going for aesthetic looks Ha, I am, doesn't it look great
01:27:562 (5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - rather not play with ds since its really confusing when only thing that distinguishes between 1/4 and 1/6 is ds. my colours should fix that now hopefuLLy
01:30:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Supporting above point, half of above is smaller spacing than this 1/6 spacing.
01:32:658 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28) - Perhaps NC? naw, this is perfect
01:38:812 (2,3,4,5) - i think you put this on slider for emphasis purpose but not sure if that is a clean solution.. try 208|100? end of stack to next object is plenty good emphasis ewwwwww no thanks
01:52:273 (2) - i dont think this is 1/6 rather 1/8 Sounds like four notes quantized equally = 1/6
02:09:676 (1) - this doesnt look very nice and just stands out since rest of them were angular Yeah it's intentional
02:21:840 (1) - I have no idea what this is mapped to, if this is mapped to shaker, it sounds bit too late I don't understand
02:32:978 (1,2,3,4) - really confusing when you use that spacing visually same with 02:30:734 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - coloursssss woohoo
02:33:619 (1,2,3,4,1,1,1,1) - this part sort of lost me with rhythm choices and nc. all those sliders 02:34:388 (1,1,1) - are just regular 1/4s so i dont see why they deserve nc it's the vIsuals
02:36:696 (9) - can you atleast have nc here so there is huge speed change - _ - nah It's great like this
02:50:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24) - rhythm is rather variable so nc? the combo is getting pretty long anyways. (tho imo, this entire section mapping the piano instead of dramatic drum is bit overkill, it is very confusing and not very ideal from my perspective) When I listen to the song, piano seems to be the emphasis here so I map the piano. I don't think NC will help the reading here at all tbh. Just gotta get lucky hitting those
there is weak tone at every triple, so perhaps make each last note into 1/4 slider? 02:56:888 (3) - | 02:57:272 (6) - | 02:57:657 (9) - eh it might mess with intensity a bit
02:58:042 (3) - unlike above, the tone at passive hit sliderend is rather discouraged, perhaps use circle or anything clickable? same as above
03:10:830 (3,4) - feels better if there is another note at 03:11:022 and connects well with 03:11:119 (1) - . aw but this is so unique
03:12:465 (1,2,3,4,5) - this visual spacing is less than much faster 03:13:042 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - stream right after it
03:24:484 (1) - I prefer this red one`s shape but i guess this is personal pref
03:26:311 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - would be nice if this wasnt same visually spacing with one 1/6 stream just right before it Yeah, isn't it exciting?
04:09:013 (8,9) - rhythm wise i prefer slider #8 without reverse and clickable notes until 04:09:590
04:24:975 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - for this, I actually prefer 00:11:504 (1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - `s rhythm. Current one seems bit confusing... in terms of spacing and etc
04:33:533 (1) - ?? LOL
05:11:033 (5) - this really maps to just single circle
05:12:667 (3,4,5,6) - that is really confusing due to significant overlapping and interferes with reading

this song sounds incredibly complex, so kudos to you for mapping it. hope this helps a bit

thanks beatastaR
I made new colours and changed the slider at 00:25:158 (1) -
I might experiment with some sliders if I can think of something

Kaitjuh:
00:30:158 (4,5,6) - I fixed the comboing, I put NC on the following slider so that it's at least somewhat apparent what the rhythm is
03:37:306 (2) - fk me I unstacked

The hidden slider should be fine, it makes the structure a bit tighter which I prefer more than the smoother flow from your example
the NC jump pattern is for that high intensitY
the stream is not a real issue
For the sliderend, I would have to get rid of the slider entirely and I prefer not to, to keep the flow moving
the stack .. I think it's better how it is to keep the emphasis on the 1

thank you!

Frostings wrote:

I checked it out
for now I swapped two red points so that the bpm matches the second stream
I'm gonna get someone to double check the timing

Why would you? It's a ranked Timing, after all the only part that needs checking is the piano and in my opinion it sounds almost perfect. Of course there are some few notes that don't match the Timing exactly, but they're like less than 30% of them and the milisecond difference is tiny, it would turn unnoticeable for players and wouldn't represent a problem in acc.

the timing in that version is brute forced to match every piano sound without taking into account 1/4 or 1/6 snapping
likely there is a better timing where you need minimal bpm changes
i could be wrong ofc

Yow!

1. 00:03:523 (6,1) - vs 00:02:466 (2,1) - I know you got some leniency here man but almost 10x stuff is a bit too much especially when you kinda introduced a similar stuff earlier thats not 1/2 gap and not 1/4
2. 00:09:293 (1,2) - seems to be the only custom stacked double in the intro, makes it feel a bit out of place why not just normal stack em? or could add some other halfstacked ones so its not the only one thats stacked that way like 00:11:504 (1,2) - for example
3. 00:13:956 (2) - sounds more like 1/8 slider to me
4. 00:16:119 (3) - ^ sounds like 5 sounds here in between (Pam papapa Pam if that makes sense lol)
5. 00:16:600 (6) - could use some sort of finish with how strong those cymbals are
6. 00:23:619 (6) - ^
7. 00:26:312 (7) - sounds like a 1/8 return here can hear 3 beats also better polarity imo, did somthing similar for these sounds 00:25:158 (1) -
8. 00:29:869 - that piano buildup thingy your following starts here so bit odd to not map this
9. 00:41:119 (1,2,3,1) - not really sure what your following here, skipped a piano and these sounds 00:41:119 (1,2) - are still going in the slider of 00:41:312 (3) -
10. 00:43:716 (3) - snapped to nothing
11. 00:44:004 (4,5) - piano goes 1/3 which I think your following
12. 00:44:485 (1) - no need to NC here just makes this more unreadable imo with all the combo colors and a follow point for 1-2 would be pretty nice
13. 00:55:735 (3) - make the arrow a bit more visible, not really noticable on default
14. 01:00:927 (1) - ^
15. 01:38:812 (1,2,3,4) - 1/8s, like 01:44:966 (4,5) - though you skip the weaker here so make this consistent
16. 01:45:350 (1,2) - bit inconsistent rhythm here, skipping 01:45:927 - or skipping the middle of 01:45:446 - one of them is off depending what your following
17. 01:46:793 - note here? piano and drum can stack it with (2)
18. 01:54:965 (4,5) - can hear a speedup here with the drums, think they are 1/6s so maybe a 1/6 reverse so it still plays like a normal trip?
19. 02:03:042 (1) - feel like making this one reverse less makes this 02:03:042 (1,1,1) - play a lot more intuitive since thats quite a big jump atm which you kinda expect 02:03:234 (1,1) - also be that quick of a jump
20. 02:04:676 (1) - piano is 1/4
21. 02:27:465 (1) - should be placed earlier, sounds like 1/16s or 1/8 return finishing on the downbeat if you were following that sound, it doesnt really follow anything atm
22. 02:50:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24) - prob some notes that could be timed a bit more using 1/12 mainly like 02:50:510 (2) - on 1/12 earlier 02:50:093 (1) - on 1/6 earlier, makes the intro 02:50:157 (1,2,3,4) - gradually decrease a bit but yeah still remains a bit of guess work, if you can find something gradually decreasing in the later parts as the piano gets intenser (like 1/16s shorter each time even) it may become a bit more playable in favor of slightly off time too
23. 03:10:542 (2,3,4,1) - them cymbals mate, could use some hitsounds
24. 03:36:619 (3) - yellow to blue 1/8 sounds a bit better to me since those beats sound faster
25. 03:38:582 (5) - would extend this to the yellow aswell since thats basicly the second strongest one after the downbeat
26. 03:39:472 (2,3) - feel like your skipping one here, maybe try a 1/8 return on the blue tick and just a circle on the red tick?
27. 03:57:667 (1) - finish like the next slider?
28. 04:15:360 (2) - why not extend this all the way aswell? gives 04:15:744 (1) - more impact imo
29. 04:18:052 (5,6,7) - sounds kinda paired inthe music, maybe make them both sliders? gives also a bit more impact to (8)
30. 04:23:436 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - rhythm gets more intenser here so why not just keep following hte main instrument here so its more dense of a rhythm? current rhythm feels a bit to easy compared to the music
31. 04:27:283 (1,1) - why not make this returns? kinda similar too ^ and pretty strong continous sounds here
32. 04:34:398 - second shorter 'motor' sound here lol dunno how to call it but if you map the first one might aswell map this one too
    
33. 04:58:436 (3,4) - feels odd to map this a bit random start back, why not delete this and start at the next stanza since this is still part of your "break "stanza in the music
34. 05:13:436 (1,2,3,4) - skipping those other 3 powerfull beats in the slider here which plays kinda off since these 05:13:436 (1,2,3) - are mapped

Props for mapping this gl!

Wishkey wrote:

Yow!

1. 00:03:523 (6,1) - vs 00:02:466 (2,1) - I know you got some leniency here man but almost 10x stuff is a bit too much especially when you kinda introduced a similar stuff earlier thats not 1/2 gap and not 1/4 Yea I think the leniency makes it fine
2. 00:09:293 (1,2) - seems to be the only custom stacked double in the intro, makes it feel a bit out of place why not just normal stack em? or could add some other halfstacked ones so its not the only one thats stacked that way like 00:11:504 (1,2) - for example I unstacked the suggestion
3. 00:13:956 (2) - sounds more like 1/8 slider to me Fixed
4. 00:16:119 (3) - ^ sounds like 5 sounds here in between (Pam papapa Pam if that makes sense lol) I hear Pam papa Pam lol
5. 00:16:600 (6) - could use some sort of finish with how strong those cymbals are Added a Soft Finish
6. 00:23:619 (6) - ^ Yea
7. 00:26:312 (7) - sounds like a 1/8 return here can hear 3 beats also better polarity imo, did somthing similar for these sounds 00:25:158 (1) - I hear two sounds at 1/6 snapping
8. 00:29:869 - that piano buildup thingy your following starts here so bit odd to not map this Fixed
9. 00:41:119 (1,2,3,1) - not really sure what your following here, skipped a piano and these sounds 00:41:119 (1,2) - are still going in the slider of 00:41:312 (3) - Drums I'm following drums
10. 00:43:716 (3) - snapped to nothing ?
11. 00:44:004 (4,5) - piano goes 1/3 which I think your following You're right
12. 00:44:485 (1) - no need to NC here just makes this more unreadable imo with all the combo colors and a follow point for 1-2 would be pretty nice I think it's fine. The NC signifies the emphasis change here
13. 00:55:735 (3) - make the arrow a bit more visible, not really noticable on default Fixed
14. 01:00:927 (1) - ^ This one should be fine
15. 01:38:812 (1,2,3,4) - 1/8s, like 01:44:966 (4,5) - though you skip the weaker here so make this consistent oh, yeah
16. 01:45:350 (1,2) - bit inconsistent rhythm here, skipping 01:45:927 - or skipping the middle of 01:45:446 - one of them is off depending what your following should be fine the sounds aren't really noticeable
17. 01:46:793 - note here? piano and drum can stack it with (2) Yeah sounds good
18. 01:54:965 (4,5) - can hear a speedup here with the drums, think they are 1/6s so maybe a 1/6 reverse so it still plays like a normal trip? Fixed
19. 02:03:042 (1) - feel like making this one reverse less makes this 02:03:042 (1,1,1) - play a lot more intuitive since thats quite a big jump atm which you kinda expect 02:03:234 (1,1) - also be that quick of a jump Seems fine
20. 02:04:676 (1) - piano is 1/4 Huh, yeah I don't know why that was like that
21. 02:27:465 (1) - should be placed earlier, sounds like 1/16s or 1/8 return finishing on the downbeat if you were following that sound, it doesnt really follow anything atm I guess so
22. 02:50:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24) - prob some notes that could be timed a bit more using 1/12 mainly like 02:50:510 (2) - on 1/12 earlier 02:50:093 (1) - on 1/6 earlier, makes the intro 02:50:157 (1,2,3,4) - gradually decrease a bit but yeah still remains a bit of guess work, if you can find something gradually decreasing in the later parts as the piano gets intenser (like 1/16s shorter each time even) it may become a bit more playable in favor of slightly off time too I'm gonna need a lot of help on this part. For now I made the two changes for the beginning two notes
23. 03:10:542 (2,3,4,1) - them cymbals mate, could use some hitsounds added
24. 03:36:619 (3) - yellow to blue 1/8 sounds a bit better to me since those beats sound faster Yeah
25. 03:38:582 (5) - would extend this to the yellow aswell since thats basicly the second strongest one after the downbeat mhm
26. 03:39:472 (2,3) - feel like your skipping one here, maybe try a 1/8 return on the blue tick and just a circle on the red tick? I snapped the slider on 1/16 I think that's what it is
27. 03:57:667 (1) - finish like the next slider? Yes
28. 04:15:360 (2) - why not extend this all the way aswell? gives 04:15:744 (1) - more impact imo For that smooth aesthetics
29. 04:18:052 (5,6,7) - sounds kinda paired inthe music, maybe make them both sliders? gives also a bit more impact to (8)
30. 04:23:436 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - rhythm gets more intenser here so why not just keep following hte main instrument here so its more dense of a rhythm? current rhythm feels a bit to easy compared to the music Yeah gotta remind myself to change this later -> Fixed
31. 04:27:283 (1,1) - why not make this returns? kinda similar too ^ and pretty strong continous sounds here Nah I think the gap is better
32. 04:34:398 - second shorter 'motor' sound here lol dunno how to call it but if you map the first one might aswell map this one too Yeah good idea
    
33. 04:58:436 (3,4) - feels odd to map this a bit random start back, why not delete this and start at the next stanza since this is still part of your "break "stanza in the music I think the lead in is cool
34. 05:13:436 (1,2,3,4) - skipping those other 3 powerfull beats in the slider here which plays kinda off since these 05:13:436 (1,2,3) - are mapped Yeah I changed it -> nvm I reverted it. It's hard to change it without messing up the patterning. If I can think of something I'll change it

Props for mapping this gl!

thank you for modding !!

Hi, I won't be modding this map this time around, but I did notice from looking over it quickly that the AR seems pretty low to me. Most of the map seemed like there were more than a handful of maps on screen at once, so I'd suggest upping it.

No KD, good luck.

I'm not too concerned about the AR. I prefer it on the lower side to show the chaos a bit better
The only things that could be bothersome are the 1/6 streams. If enough people mention it I'll consider upping it a bit

Hello from my queue
!

Pretty fun map, I must say. Take a star ☆
Good luck c:

00:40:927 - I did something different here
02:32:978 (1,2,3,4) - I spaced these out
02:40:926 (4) - Moved this

thank you!

may just be me but i cant really hear hitsounds very well while playing even with 70% hitsound to 30% music

thank you!
I unstacked 02:32:176 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - and remapped the descending piano so it's better playable
I decided not to make changes to the 1/6s. 1/6 repeat slider into 1/6 stream sounds harder than just 1/6 streams

The 1/8 slider is like that for better emphasis. I'd like the NCs to stay the way the are

The hitsounds are distinctive for me at 100/100, plus I don't really prefer any louder, especially with the prevalent Normal whistles

Map seems pretty fine from what I can tell, but I think for a lot of the streams you could make them more interesting since it's mostly consistent spacing and direction.

01:30:542 (4) - The piano sound stops here so the stream should show that, probably a change in direction and spacing?
01:30:606 (5,6,7,8) - Sounds like 1/4 rhythm to me instead of 1/6
01:32:273 (2,3,4) - Sounds like there should be something on the blue tick, maybe use two kicksliders?
01:32:658 (1,2,3,4) - Should be less spaced than the stream after it
01:32:850 (4,10,16,22,28) - Should be some mapping emphasis on the change in the piano on these notes, like jumpstreams or change in directions. Also needs new combo. Just seems pretty plain for the hardest stream in the map.
01:35:158 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - These should be split into 3s rather than 4s
I also don't think the jumps between 01:35:543 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - compliment each other,
I think the last quad should carry the flow from the previous one since the previous 2 have a circular flow and the last one breaks it.
01:52:658 (5,6) - This sounds like there should be a larger gap between these two notes, or getting rid of 01:52:658 (5) - completely
01:53:619 (4) - Sounds like a circle should be here and the slider on the blue tick
01:57:753 (1,2,3) - I think these are 1/6, no note on 01:57:945 (3), and 01:58:041 (4,5,6) - could be more spaced. Same for 02:03:907 (1,2,3,4,5,6). Also, 02:10:061 (1,2,3,4,5,1) and 02:16:119 (1,2,3,4,5) have the same rhythm but you mapped one with 1/6 and one with 1/4 like the previous 2.
02:06:311 (3,4,5,6,7) - I think these could be more spaced than 02:06:119 (1,2,3), 02:06:311 (3,4,5,6) can also be split in to doubles.
02:34:965 (1,1) - I think this could work better as two separate sliders since the circle has an odd timing.
02:35:926 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - I think these work better as three sets of triplets.
02:39:003 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - These also sound like triplets
02:51:311 (5,9,13) - New combo on these, rhythm sounds like it's in fours.
02:56:696 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Sounds like the blue ticks should also be mapped and then separated in to pairs, or 02:56:888 (3,6,9) - could be kicksliders.
03:22:657 (8,1) - Sounds like there should be a note between these two.
03:26:311 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - I think having the spacing decrease over time works well on this and the next stream. You could also split them into triplets and a quad, but the former probably works better.
04:20:167 (4,1) - Sounds like there should be a note between these two.
04:40:648 (2) - This sounds like it should be near the slider rather than with the stream.

Thanks I made the change on 01:53:619 (4) -

I don't think the streams should be as complicated as you suggest

You're right that 01:35:158 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - should be split as 3s ... If I can think of a good pattern I'll change it. Maybe I'll group them as 6

Stormdro wrote:

01:57:753 (1,2,3) - I think these are 1/6, no note on 01:57:945 (3), and 01:58:041 (4,5,6) - could be more spaced. Same for 02:03:907 (1,2,3,4,5,6). Also, 02:10:061 (1,2,3,4,5,1) and 02:16:119 (1,2,3,4,5) have the same rhythm but you mapped one with 1/6 and one with 1/4 like the previous 2.

Yeah it's 1/6 there but I didn't want to exhaust the same 1/6 into 1/4 pattern over again

thank you!

Mod from my queue.

Another

00:13:956 (2,1,2) - something like this would be a lot better imo: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8420642
00:17:081 (4,5,6,7,8) - 1/12 buzz slider instead?
00:29:196 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - holy shit this will be so hard to read, use a normal stream instead lol
00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - why all these NCs only three would be enough
00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - heck, even one is enough lmao
01:25:350 (1,2,3) - move it down a little, stack the sliderend on 01:24:965 (3) - .
02:08:907 (6,7) - this is misleading as hell, just put the 7 where 6 starts to avoid confusion
02:09:676 (1) - I'm not sure if that's rankable tbh
02:53:330 (16) - misleading, slider path is unclear, also NC maybe?
02:54:196 (17,18,19,20) - okay this definintely needs a NC
05:12:667 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - misleading af
05:13:629 (4) - undermapped
05:15:936 (2) - why are you using a buzz slider instead now? All the time before you were using things like 02:08:426 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) -

meh. I think the rest is acceptable.

gl

[Nemesis] wrote:

Mod from my queue.

Another

00:13:956 (2,1,2) - something like this would be a lot better imo: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8420642 I think it's fine, the stronger beat is where the circle is
00:17:081 (4,5,6,7,8) - 1/12 buzz slider instead? I do like my stream pattern
00:29:196 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - holy shit this will be so hard to read, use a normal stream instead lol lol
00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - why all these NCs only three would be enough
00:56:696 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - heck, even one is enough lmao
01:25:350 (1,2,3) - move it down a little, stack the sliderend on 01:24:965 (3) - . mmm no reason to do it
02:08:907 (6,7) - this is misleading as hell, just put the 7 where 6 starts to avoid confusion I thought it actually looked weirder that way, which is why it's the way now
02:09:676 (1) - I'm not sure if that's rankable tbh should be
02:53:330 (16) - misleading, slider path is unclear, also NC maybe?
02:54:196 (17,18,19,20) - okay this definintely needs a NC
05:12:667 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - misleading af ohh yeah
05:13:629 (4) - undermapped I already tried putting more notes there, didn't feel good
05:15:936 (2) - why are you using a buzz slider instead now? All the time before you were using things like 02:08:426 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I actually haven't considered this.. I think the slider works out because it puts more emphasis on the final slider+circle

meh. I think the rest is acceptable.

gl

thanks for modding!

Hello there, this will be a mod from my queue. And just putting it here right now, this mod will probably be very subjective as I personally don't agree with concepts of the map, and i will move on to explaining, how would I do it, as i think its the best way. So basically, this song uses a lot of chaotic rhythm and notes out of nowhere, really unusual song as a song, and even more unusual to mapping scene. I've seen few of this kind of songs, and i think this is the main problem of the map. Spacing. When you listen to this song, you will have hard time determining the rhythm of it, especially when you play it, I had 0 success in figuring out the overall rhythm, therefore my clicking was screwed. This is not a big problem in its own, but when you have chaotic spacing also added, it kinda feels really messy, and i felt no way to figure out patterns. So essentially, I think that this kind of map, is okay to follow such rhythm, it could be just a bit simplified for playabilty, but mostly it needs spacing patterning, to leave players less guessing on where will the next notes appear, but rather focused on rhythm. This is at least just my thought on how should this ideally play. Moving on to the mod.

00:03:812 (1,2,3) - this is what i talked about, I hear no big difference between this 3 stack and 00:04:293 (4,5,6,7) - this 4stack to make them have different spacing.
00:04:966 (1,2,3,1,1,2) - I'd have them actually be tidy, without many overlaps, will make it easier for players to realize what's going on. Reminder that most things i point out will be subjective.
00:10:158 (2) - prev 0.8x next 0.5x by mistake prolly
00:10:543 (6) - after this 1/6, since 00:10:735 (1,2,3) - is spaced differently from previous 1/4 i thought this would also be a 1/6 timing.
00:11:504 (1,2) - even though this has much more intensity than lets say 00:10:158 (2,3) - , it doesn't have increased spacing compared to it.
00:16:600 (6) - this gets 0 emphasis, I feel like it needs something, felt weird hearing that loud snare, and not doing anything about it.
00:21:119 (5,1) - so you have huge spacing as a jump stream, but on similarly intense note 00:21:985 (1) - you give it less spacing and it happens after a 1/2 slider end.
00:19:966 (6,7,8) - spacing, feels out of place. For the section I suggest choosing 1 or max 2 spacing for non important 1/4 beats, and for important ones like 00:23:331 (3,4,5,6) - give more.
00:21:504 (1,2,3,4) - if people don't use custom skin from map in game they would have no way to say that this is 1/6 as you stack 1/6 beats, not partially overlap. 00:18:427 (1,2,3,4) -
00:25:350 (2) - this has huge spacing, but this 00:25:543 (3) - is considered as a filler. I can tell that it has bigger intensity.
00:27:466 (1,2,2,3,1) - ease your overlaps a bit. I usually decide on one overlap surface amount and keep using it to make it tidy. I also suggest unoverlapping some things here, having too many is way too chaotic.
00:36:889 (6,7,8) - is there harm in stacking this on 00:36:119 (2) -
00:39:773 (3,1) - i just suggest not overlapping these two, the others work fine.
00:45:158 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - why don't you make their rhythm identical? 00:46:696 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1) - In such rhythmically chaotic map adding consistent rhythm on 2 downbeats counts as a break xd
00:50:927 (1) - if you don't overlap this ending with something, than i advise not overlapping this one 00:51:119 (1) -
00:51:312 (1,3) - this overlap is just ughhh
00:57:466 - to 01:19:196 - is a perfect section to map to the main beat and occasionally include chaotic beats that are in the song. Fully mapping the chaotic beats, makes playing it a chore tbh.
01:05:158 (1,1) - must you overlap this
01:10:542 (5,1) - the jump doesn't really deserve this much spacing imo.
01:25:350 (1,2,3) - why would you include this if you plan on ignoring it in the following 2 sliders? At least ignore that 2 stack here too.
01:49:196 (2,3,4,5) - make bigger contrast from stacked notes if you're trying to emphasize something new.
02:00:253 (5,2) - also my idea is to ignore this beats sometimes please, the rhythm is already chaotic enough.
01:59:965 (2,3,4,5,1) - i mean, are you even aware how hard this is to actually hit?
02:00:734 (2,3,1) - ease up on overlaps.
02:11:792 - out of all things to ignore you ignore this
02:13:234 - ending on this is ehh

but yeah I will kinda stop here. My point and idea is, if a song is this rhythmically chaotic, make the placement tidy and easily noticeable. When you're mapping the song with an idea to include all the weird 1/6 beats on blue ticks or whatever, having trouble to read where the beat is, and that it actually is a 1/6 is really annoying at least for me. The overlaps in my opinion shouldn't really exist in this map, at least make them rare, and more planned, with already destined amount of overlap happening over one or more sliders. Or the other solution is to ease up the rhythm. I mentioned spacing, but it also includes overlaps I guess.

Thanks for the mod!

02:13:042 (2) - I extended this to end on a better beat
00:16:600 (5) - I put better emphasis here

I felt like difficult rhythm with simple patterns didn't fit the style of the map, which is why I mapped it this way
-> In fact I went over the map and unstacked a bunch of notes because they were too tame

Most of the rhythm should be fairly straightforward, as I tried to map with actual playability in mind. There are some that are actually unreadable imo, but I feel like those won't get mentioned unless someone testplays it multiple times

Overlaps are a non-issue for me

I agree the emphasis is all over the place and it could have been better structured, but I guess it adds to the nature of the song

Hi ! you ask me for a Hitsound Modding on my Queue right ?
as your request i check it and i dont see any problem with your Hitsound. Everything is totally fine so no kudos please : )

^^

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.