Kroytz wrote:

the best

• [Ambivalence]

1. 00:20:212 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Not sure about the spacing here, seems to kind of jump to a much larger spacing for the really quiet sounds
   
2. 00:23:512 - to 00:39:562 - . This entire section is in 1/3, aside from the kicksliders at 00:32:437 - .
   
3. 00:47:962 (1) - Slightly off screen
   
4. 01:01:912 - Kinda curious about the kiai here for such a calm section :/
   
5. 01:06:712 (1) - Off screen with 4:3
   
6. 01:11:512 (1) - ^
   
7. 01:46:312 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This is sex holy fuck
   
8. 02:21:712 (1) - Off screen lol
   
9. 02:47:512 - :heart_eyes:
   
10. 03:21:262 (2) - More off screen stuff xd
    
11. 04:19:537 (2) - Top of the sliderbody is slightly off screen
    
12. 04:47:662 (2) - I feel like the sv should be lower for this slider because of the slowdown effect in the sound being mapped there.
    
13. 05:53:362 (1) - Off screen x d

Lavender wrote:

overkill

Mazzerin wrote:

Lavender wrote:

overkill

hell no

FoxyGrandpa wrote:

• [Ambivalence]
  
  00:20:212 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Not sure about the spacing here, seems to kind of jump to a much larger spacing for the really quiet sounds lowered spacing
  
  00:23:512 - to 00:39:562 - . This entire section is in 1/3, aside from the kicksliders at 00:32:437 - . fixed
  
  01:01:912 - Kinda curious about the kiai here for such a calm section :/ lul i added that, imma prob take it off now since more than 1/3 of the map is kiai
  
  04:47:662 (2) - I feel like the sv should be lower for this slider because of the slowdown effect in the sound being mapped there. fixed

Best of luck probox

Kujinn wrote:

👌

only thing left is a sick -tochi storyboard

shiro_Chaos-ryu wrote:

Its such a waste of work if this is for ranked , people not gonna try to FC it .

most cameilla maps break the PP system by so much ,
that a default higher PP reward of + 50-80 higher then its actual PP reward could be a great way to motivate people to try this properly.

shiro_Chaos-ryu wrote:

i see a map for deletion thanks, gets praised and posts nonsense chatbait , protip dont post at all

Mazzerin wrote:

Lavender wrote:

overkill

hell no

Xayler wrote:

So I like to check these pianos on songs somehow and I tend to find things... The notes what are currently snapped at the end are quite wrong (1/8 logic is pretty good, but they really don't land there tbh). Imo they need a red line, but I came up with the general snappings (1/12 & 1/16) and many notes should be now at least "very" close to it, maybe like +-1ms.
Some notes were right though, but I'll just post them all what are at the end as I already made the changes so I don't want to do it again.

Box 4 Box

06:03:412 (1) - should end at 06:03:580 - 1/16 snapping
06:03:730 (2) - should start at here with 1/16 snapping, should end at 06:03:918 - 1/16 snapping
06:04:087 (1) - should be fine
06:04:262 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping (somewhat I hear it like it fits there)
06:04:437 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:637 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:837 (1) - should be fine
06:05:062 (2) - should be fine
06:05:268 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:05:512 (2) - should be fine (well does need a red line here imo)
06:05:755 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:018 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:312 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:237 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping (1/12 also works)
06:07:362 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:462 (3) - should be fine
06:07:762 (1) - should be fine
06:09:062 (1) - should start at here with 1/12 snapping (1/16 or 1/8 is kinda questionable as it starts later imo with it - this is also pretty much heard also)
06:13:162 - I also hear that the hold sound ends here, but you probably don't map/follow it

Feel free to decline them, but that's just what I hear and would be probably better right now without red lines...

Opsi wrote:

bonzi plz mentor me so the trinity will be complet

Halfslashed wrote:

[Ambivalence]
01:32:512 (3,4) - You can show off the snare/kick more by using lower spacing here. don't really think so, it changes hardly anything imo.
04:38:812 (1,2,3) - Stacking these triples is fairly underwhelming, I suggest spacing these out a bit more like you had at 02:24:262 (2,3,4) - doesn't really change anything unless i crank that spacing up imo, and cranking that spacing up was my original intention and it turned out beign a total mess so i did it this way.
05:09:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I think this half of the stream doesn't work too well as an accelerating stream, since the note strain of 16 circles at this bpm is already enough for the player to feel a gradual intensity increase. I suggest using a uniform spacing similar to 05:09:412 (1,2,3,4) - here, then basing the other half of the stream's accelerating spacing off of that, since the other half of the stream has more audible intensity increases between each set of 4 i don't know if that's really an issue though, the speed up isn't really there until 05:10:312 (1) - happens , where you have a sharper angle between the streams.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Opsi wrote:

bonzi plz mentor me so the trinity will be complet

you dont need mentoring after im don with ur ass

Halfslashed wrote:

[Ambivalence]
00:13:912 (1) - Having a 1/2 repeat for an entire measure contradicts the pacing you established for this slow part, especially since the player is doing nothing but holding down here. I recommend using two 1/2 double repeats instead, or some other similarly more intense rhythm. In this specific part theres a synth sound repeating the same note on the same rhythm as this, so that is the sound I am mapping to. Plus, something contradictory like this isn't really that bad; it adds contrast to a slow part of this song, which I admit have mapped it to a really high intensity and spacing than it suggests. Therefore,
I think this slider is perfectly justified.
00:28:312 (1) - I know you have a primarily drum based rhythm, but I will still point out that I think having such a strong melody sound on a slider tail is lame. If you agree, I would suggest changing this rhythm to a 2/3 slider + circle, since if you didn't change the repeats before, the player should be expecting this rhythm. I mean it was alternating repeats before at 00:25:912 (1) - , so yeah the player is expecting a repeat. Also, I'm alrdy sort of mapping the strong melody sound through the increasing slider velocity, so I think it's fine.
00:32:437 (2,1,1,1,1,1) - Having increased rhythm density with the 1/4 sliders is one thing, but as is, this spacing is overkill for this section of the map. I think if you used about half the spacing you're using, this would fit the intensity of the song better. Spacing isn't really overkill since the spacing before this was already increasing with the slider velocity, which at the same time in this section I am also resetting with each kickslider. I think the lowering of slider velocity compensates for the increased spacing of this pattern.
00:42:712 - It'd be cooler if you kiai flashed on every wub rather than each pair. By that I mean, the kiais would start on here and 00:43:162 - , probably ending 1/1 after each of those points. too much work LOL sorry, I think the kiai flashes enough, otherwise it might be too much xd
01:50:212 (2) - This should start a 1/4 tick later if you're following the wubs, but honestly i'd skip it, since you use drum based rhythm. Making 01:50:362 - a circle would probably work better here. I think its fine where it is, cuz at the time its placed is when the wub sound of 01:49:912 (1) - cuts off, and then the wub sound of 01:50:212 (2) - fades in. Also there is already a circle right after 01:50:437 (3) - and this rhythm of long slider to 1/2 slider to circle really helps ease the player into such an intense section.
03:07:912 (1,2,3,4) - This spacing increase is really big to 03:06:712 (1,2,3,4) - and while there is a pitch increase, it cannot be compared in intensity to 03:06:562 (8,1) -. I suggest using about half the current spacing here. I dont think half the spacing would work really well here, since im trying to blanket the 03:07:912 (1,2) - circles outside of 03:07:312 (1) - . However, I will try to reduce the spacing as much as I can while still retaining the blanket.
03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Based on the rest of your streams, this is out of place since you're using jumps with fairly uncomfortable angles for emphasis of the downbeats rather than direction change. At this bpm, these also are quite the difficulty spike when this is just the middle of a build up. I recommend using a stream with direction changes rather than a spontaneous split stream. I already adressed this before, but personally I really think its fine. It's out of place because its introducing streams in this section, because so far its only been triplets and kicksliders. Right before it there was a wub break that serves as a gap between the first half of the build up and the second half. A stream this divided and spaced really emphasizes that the next section will be really difficult. (which it is) Plus, all of my streams after have been linear so changing the direction would be pretty inconsistent of me.
04:48:112 - More of a general issue I have is that your rhythm density is really high here since you're mixing the drum and harmony rhythms, so this makes 04:57:112 - feel like the pacing drops, but it's actually the opposite since this is where the buildup starts. It's hard to give you specific direction, but basically I think it'd be better if you either buffed the build up or nerfed the rhythm density a bit in this section (I think the latter will work better for you). Ill just buff the buildup lul

Halfslashed wrote:

No, I didn't forget.

[Ambivalence]
00:48:712 (1,2) - As funny as it sounds, I think lowering the spacing here compared to stuff like 00:47:512 (1,2) - would emphasize the increasing intensity of the wubs here, since it requires a harsher movement to hit the successive sliders. I see where you're coming from but these shapes and the movement here doesn't really support adding this without changing the sliders and it is good enough as it is for me not to change this
00:51:112 (1,2,3) - I can't hear anything that justifies this amount of cursor motion here. These are relatively unintense sounds and yet you have decently high SV, as well as crossing the playfield in 3 objects. This takes away emphasis from the much stronger drums in the next combo. I recommend reducing spacing/SV by quite a bit here, maybe even changing this to a 1/4 double reverse + circle. It is mapped this way because of the stong sound at 00:51:112 - compared to no such sound on other parts with less spacing like 00:53:212 - . You still have that big background noise compared to no such sound which makes me want to have it at the speed that it is.
00:51:712 (3,4,5,6) - Given the audience of this map, this sort of simplification just doesn't do the song justice. The snares are clearly following a 3/4 rhythm structure which is also supported by the kicks, so I suggest using a rhythm like this instead. The current way follows the melody while also landing on all the drum sounds - I agree that the strong sounds aren't clickable but that is because I simply can't arrange the objects in a way that would keep the current intensity while following the kind of rhythm you have here while these kicksliders accomplish the fast feeling motion that is wanted from this part. If someone were to show me an arrangement that would work I'd consider having replacing my current pattern.
03:11:512 (1,2,3,4,5) - This doesn't clearly follow drums or vocals. If you wanted to switch to vocals a rhythm like this would be more appropriate. Changed
03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Based on the rest of your streams, this is out of place since you're using jumps with fairly uncomfortable angles for emphasis of the downbeats rather than direction change. At this bpm, these also are quite the difficulty spike when this is just the middle of a build up. I recommend using a stream with direction changes rather than a spontaneous split stream.
04:10:312 (1,2) - This harsh spacing reduction actually puts a ton of emphasis on 2, which is a very weak beat. You should change this to a 1/4 slider, since even a 3/4 clicking gap is more intuitive to play than this massive spacing decrease into a cross screen jump. This spacing actually emphasises the slider following it and this is a way to make it more intuitive to play the next slider on blue tick.
04:10:537 (1) - Since you don't seem too opposed to rhythms combining multiple instruments, how about making this slider three circles instead? It fits the intensity that the snares are providing better than what you have, which is just underwhelming. Nah this simply has to be a slider
04:25:312 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - I mean, mapping this with all circles is totally fine, but this spacing is crazy considering the drop in intensity in this section. I suggest nerfing this spacing quite a bit, maybe something closer to what you had for 04:03:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Slowing down too much feels unfitting - the current way is quite nerfed when compared to the other streams
05:35:812 (3,4,6) - Try ctrl+g on this rhythm, I think it fits what you're following and captures the strong beats more effectively here. Reworked a lot of this section but its rly tough to make intuitive
05:54:712 - Spacing is really overkill in this section compared to the intro, when they're both similar intensity. Byfar shouldn't be mapping these calm sections, man. Jokes aside, probably better to have spacing more consistent with the intro. Nerfed a tiny bit

Good luck!

- Frontier - wrote:

probox im your big fan

Halfslashed wrote:

No, I didn't forget.

1. wtf are these tags
2. normal-sliderslide.wav is unused
3. according to modding assistant, soft-sliderslide.wav and soft-sliderslide4.wav aren't proper blanks, replace them with this .wav file instead

1. 01:01:912 (1) - part of the slider border is slightly offscreen for those using a 4:3 resolution
2. 04:19:537 (2) - off screen slider
3. 01:01:312 (3,1,1,1) - not sure how i feel about this rhythm choice; music is placing emphasis on 01:01:312 - 01:01:462 - 01:01:537 - 01:01:687 - 01:01:672 - and 01:01:837 - . having a slider start on 01:01:612 (1) - is the only odd rhythm choice.
4. 01:25:912 (1,2) - imo it'd make more sense and nicer aesthetics to start the symmetrical shapes here instead of at 01:27:112 (1) - since this is where the music is starting to get louder
5. 01:32:362 (2,3,4) - 3->4 should have less spacing than 2->3 imo, since you're going from snare to kick. why not try stacking 01:32:662 (4) - with 01:32:062 (1) - ?
6. 01:39:712 (1) - are the whistles on slider body and slider end intentional?
7. 02:35:212 (1,1,2,3) - i'm not normally one to point out blankets too often but holy this is really bad
8. i'd like to see a bit more distinction between Combo Colour 2 and Combo Colour 6; it's a bit hard to tell that 02:34:912 (1) - is a fast slider whereas 02:35:212 (1) - is a slow slider because the colours are so similar to each other. maybe try darkening Combo Colour 6 by a bit
9. 02:47:212 (1) - shouldn't this be Combo Colour 2 if you're going with the "light = slow, dark = fast" thing from before
10. 03:07:312 (1) - this 3/4 reverse slider feels really off with the rest of the section; why suddenly switch to vocals here when you were mapping to synths before and after this? i think it's more appropriate to map to the white/red ticks of the synth
11. 04:07:912 (1) - 3/4 reverse slider doesn't really sound.. right? like what is this mapped to because i don't hear anything that supports a 3/4 reverse slider rhythm
12. 04:09:562 (2) - 04:10:762 (2) - i think you meant to put these timing points on 04:09:487 - and 04:10:687 - instead lol
13. 04:11:662 (2,1) - spacing here is kind of extreme. actually, shouldn't rhythm at 04:11:512 (1,2) - be reversed (Ctrl+G)? 1/4 slider then circle doesn't seem right and doesn't fit with the rest of your rhythms, e.g. at 04:21:112 (1,2) -
14. 04:49:912 (1,2,3) - looks a bit uncomfortable to play with the sudden back-and-forth jerking movements due to the high SV and snaps. why not try switching 04:49:912 (1,2) - in the timeline?
    
    SPOILER

    
15. 05:15:562 (1,1,1,1,1) - sv increases here are pretty drastic; it literally jumps from 0.50x to 1.00x to 1.50x to 2.0x very suddenly. i think it'll help with the buildup if the sv increase was more gradual, e.g. 0.50x to 0.75x to 1.0x to 1.25x to 1.5x or something to that effect
16. 05:19:312 (1,2,1,2) - should also probably be mirrors of each other, seeing as how you do it with 05:19:912 (1,2,3,1,2,3) and 05:20:512 (1,2,1,2) - -
17. 05:28:912 (1,2,1,2) - ^read the above, although i guess this one might be a bit more difficult due to the limited mapping space you have
18. 05:50:812 (2,1) - also doesn't really fit in with any of the sounds in the music imo. imo i think you can extend 05:49:912 (1) - to 05:50:962 - and then map a slider from 05:51:112 - to 05:52:012 - for the background string sounds
19. 06:09:111 (1) - i might be going crazy but i'm pretty sure the sound here starts on the yellow tick at 06:09:074 -

Doormat wrote:

[Ambivalence]

1. 01:25:912 (1,2) - imo it'd make more sense and nicer aesthetics to start the symmetrical shapes here instead of at 01:27:112 (1) - since this is where the music is starting to get louderit's fine imo, it's just the transition between quiet and loud so it has properties from both: more spaced, but not yet simmetric.
2. 01:32:362 (2,3,4) - 3->4 should have less spacing than 2->3 imo, since you're going from snare to kick. why not try stacking 01:32:662 (4) - with 01:32:062 (1) - ? changed the lazy way
3. 02:35:212 (1,1,2,3) - i'm not normally one to point out blankets too often but holy this is really bad i don't really consider this as something that has to be blanketed. In fact, i don't think it's even possible to blanket them in a decent way without throwing 02:35:212 (1) - off the center. Just try it for yourself, try to blanket 02:35:512 (1) - to 02:35:212 (1) -'s tail and 02:35:812 (3) - to 02:35:212 (1) -'s head, while still looking out for 02:35:662 (2) - and making sure the pattern remains a perfect triangle. In the end you get something like this. I don't know about you but i prefer 02:35:212 (1) - actually beign in the center.
4. 05:15:562 (1,1,1,1,1) - sv increases here are pretty drastic; it literally jumps from 0.50x to 1.00x to 1.50x to 2.0x very suddenly. i think it'll help with the buildup if the sv increase was more gradual, e.g. 0.50x to 0.75x to 1.0x to 1.25x to 1.5x or something to that effect sightly decreased, it's 0,5x > 0,9x > 1,3x > 1,7x now. Still keeping 2.0x on 05:16:312 (1) - , though.
5. 05:19:312 (1,2,1,2) - should also probably be mirrors of each other, seeing as how you do it with 05:19:912 (1,2,3,1,2,3) and 05:20:512 (1,2,1,2) - - ok but... why exactly? It doesn't necessarily have to be like that just because 05:19:912 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - and 05:20:512 (1,2,1,2) - are similiar, right?
6. 05:28:912 (1,2,1,2) - ^read the above, although i guess this one might be a bit more difficult due to the limited mapping space you have same as above, i don't see a reason why they should be like that

Doormat wrote:

Halfslashed wrote:

No, I didn't forget.

Sorry, but I did forget to mod last month LOL

Placeholder

[General]

1. wtf are these tags xd
2. normal-sliderslide.wav is unused fixd
3. according to modding assistant, soft-sliderslide.wav and soft-sliderslide4.wav aren't proper blanks, replace them with this .wav file instead fixed

[Ambivalence]

1. 01:01:912 (1) - part of the slider border is slightly offscreen for those using a 4:3 resolution fixed i hope
2. 04:19:537 (2) - off screen slider same
3. 01:01:312 (3,1,1,1) - not sure how i feel about this rhythm choice; music is placing emphasis on 01:01:312 - 01:01:462 - 01:01:537 - 01:01:687 - 01:01:672 - and 01:01:837 - . having a slider start on 01:01:612 (1) - is the only odd rhythm choice. This arrangement is consistent with the other one at 00:51:712 (3,4,5,6) - and they are arranged like this since it follows the melody and is imo the best way to map these sounds while still making them fast movement since I wasn't able to do an arrangement with the drum rhythm that would feel as fitting, they would feel underwhelming compared to the intensity in music when compared to my current arrangement
4. 04:09:562 (2) - 04:10:762 (2) - i think you meant to put these timing points on 04:09:487 - and 04:10:687 - instead lol Nope this is intentional
5. 04:11:662 (2,1) - spacing here is kind of extreme. actually, shouldn't rhythm at 04:11:512 (1,2) - be reversed (Ctrl+G)? 1/4 slider then circle doesn't seem right and doesn't fit with the rest of your rhythms, e.g. at 04:21:112 (1,2) - The current way is good because of the spacing you have before it - the "pull" movement here feels very natural and the slider is forgiving by nature so no point in nerfing spacing.
6. 05:50:812 (2,1) - also doesn't really fit in with any of the sounds in the music imo. imo i think you can extend 05:49:912 (1) - to 05:50:962 - and then map a slider from 05:51:112 - to 05:52:012 - for the background string sounds ignoring this 05:50:812 - would be inconsistent and weird - Having 2 long sliders here would also make 05:52:237 (2,1,2,3,1,1,2,3) - a bit weird since I would have slowed down the intensity too much with these long sliders you suggested. Imo the current way also works since it does follow the melody even though it "morphs" during 05:50:962 -
7. 06:09:111 (1) - i might be going crazy but i'm pretty sure the sound here starts on the yellow tick at 06:09:074 - It does - fixed!

fix what you need to fix and we'll see how things go from there

Doormat wrote:

[Ambivalence]

1. i'd like to see a bit more distinction between Combo Colour 2 and Combo Colour 6; it's a bit hard to tell that 02:34:912 (1) - is a fast slider whereas 02:35:212 (1) - is a slow slider because the colours are so similar to each other. maybe try darkening Combo Colour 6 by a bit done
2. 02:47:212 (1) - shouldn't this be Combo Colour 2 if you're going with the "light = slow, dark = fast" thing from before done
3. 03:07:312 (1) - this 3/4 reverse slider feels really off with the rest of the section; why suddenly switch to vocals here when you were mapping to synths before and after this? i think it's more appropriate to map to the white/red ticks of the synth for this section ive been prioritizing mapping the vocals over the synth, as seen in 03:02:512 (1,2) - ,and 03:04:312 (2,2,2) - , it just so happens that 03:07:312 (1) - is the only place here where the vocals dont land on the red tick, so i emphasized it through this long slider, whilst ignoring the synth for this short time. I could do 1/2 sliders instead to hit both but i think it would add too much intensity to a part that should be downtime from the kiai anyways
4. 04:07:912 (1) - 3/4 reverse slider doesn't really sound.. right? like what is this mapped to because i don't hear anything that supports a 3/4 reverse slider rhythm its mapped to the vocoder synth lol, same with 04:08:437 (2,1,2,1,1) -
5. 04:49:912 (1,2,3) - looks a bit uncomfortable to play with the sudden back-and-forth jerking movements due to the high SV and snaps. why not try switching 04:49:912 (1,2) - in the timeline? done

chatlog

19:32 Doormat: 04:09:562 (2) - 04:10:762 (2) -
19:32 Doormat: you mentioned that timing points on red tick is intentional
19:33 Doormat: but i find that hard to believe when every other 1/2 slider that goes over a white tick has a timing on its slider end
19:33 Doormat: e.g. 04:11:737 (1) - 04:12:937 (2) - 04:14:737 (2) - 04:19:537 (2) - 04:20:137 (1) - 04:21:337 (3) - etc.
19:33 ProfessionalBox: timing point
19:33 ProfessionalBox: wait
19:33 ProfessionalBox: I might have misread that
19:33 Doormat: green lines
19:33 Doormat: yeah
19:33 ProfessionalBox: as wrong snap
19:33 Doormat: no
19:33 ProfessionalBox: lets see
19:33 Doormat: i was talking about green lines
19:34 ProfessionalBox: the green lines are
19:34 Doormat: sorry i probably could've used better wording
19:34 ProfessionalBox: leftovers from the past
19:34 Doormat: o
19:34 ProfessionalBox: I can delete all of the unnecessary ones
19:34 ProfessionalBox: they serve no purpose
19:34 Doormat: no what i'm saying is
19:34 Doormat: shouldn't the green lines on those two sliders i posted
19:34 Doormat: be moved back to the blue tick
19:34 Doormat: before it
19:35 ProfessionalBox: does it change something? the sampleset?
19:35 Doormat: yeah
19:35 ProfessionalBox: oh i know why
19:35 ProfessionalBox: sliderslide1 is muted
19:35 ProfessionalBox: that's why the green line is there?
19:36 Doormat: it's affecting the slider end though
19:36 ProfessionalBox: to mute the slider
19:36 ProfessionalBox: but there are no hitnormal samples on either?
19:36 ProfessionalBox: so it shouldn't matter ?
19:36 ProfessionalBox: or am I drunk
19:36 Doormat: hang on
19:37 Doormat: right now 04:09:487 - is following S:C2
19:37 Doormat: same with 04:10:687 -
19:37 Doormat: every other case after these two has that slider end following S:C1
19:38 Doormat: you don't have a soft-hitnormal2 so it's defaulting to the soft-hitnormal in my custom skin and it makes this really weird sound that seems unintentional
19:38 ProfessionalBox: DDDDDD
19:39 ProfessionalBox: I can add the samplesets there
19:39 ProfessionalBox: is it only those 2
19:39 Doormat: i guess that's the easiest solution LOL
19:39 Doormat: yeah it's only these two which is why i thought it was really weird
19:39 ProfessionalBox: I'll do that
19:39 Doormat: since every other slider end after it follows sampleset 1
19:39 ProfessionalBox: no point in talking about this more
19:39 Doormat: k
19:39 ProfessionalBox: since its such a simple thing lmao
19:40 ProfessionalBox: fixed now
19:40 ProfessionalBox: xd
19:40 Doormat: also this point was ignored 01:39:712 (1) - are the whistles on slider body and slider end intentional?
19:40 Doormat: in the mod
19:40 Doormat: whistle on sliderbody comes off as unintentional
19:40 ProfessionalBox: fixed it
19:40 Doormat: k
19:40 ProfessionalBox: Sing probably missed it
19:40 Doormat: yeah just one thing for sing then lol
19:40 ProfessionalBox: if its a hitsounding thing I can fix taht too'
19:41 Doormat: it's not
19:41 Doormat: it's a rhythm thing
19:41 ProfessionalBox: alrightt

Sing wrote:

03:07:312 (1) - this 3/4 reverse slider feels really off with the rest of the section; why suddenly switch to vocals here when you were mapping to synths before and after this? i think it's more appropriate to map to the white/red ticks of the synth for this section ive been prioritizing mapping the vocals over the synth, as seen in 03:02:512 (1,2) - ,and 03:04:312 (2,2,2) - , it just so happens that 03:07:312 (1) - is the only place here where the vocals dont land on the red tick, so i emphasized it through this long slider, whilst ignoring the synth for this short time. I could do 1/2 sliders instead to hit both but i think it would add too much intensity to a part that should be downtime from the kiai anyways i don't really agree with your logic here; it sounds more like the vocals land on 03:07:462 - rather than the blue tick. musically 03:07:312 - is the same as 03:02:512 - so the rhythm choices you use should be similar to reflect that

Kibbleru wrote:

no fear, for kibbleru is here!

00:27:562 (3) - wouldnt it look nicer around the middle?

SPOILER

ehh not rly imo, i dont like how it overlaps 00:26:512 (2) - sliderhead, plus i like the increased spacing it currently is helps transition into 00:27:712 (4) - which is at an even bigger spacing
02:01:912 (1) - can u move this up a bit, i dont think its actually off screen but its dangerously close so just in case sure

Kibbleru wrote:

no fear, for kibbleru is here! heLLo tHEre

00:43:612 (1,2,3) - the spacing inconsistency here intentional? no it was just freehanded, fixed
02:23:212 (2) - ^ moved up
05:50:962 - im not too sure what the head is following here the instrument is on 05:51:112 - ? really faint melody, made it into a short slider and moved the initial one a bit

call me back

Yauxo wrote:

It feels odd to me that noone has at least mentioned them, but the slowdown Sliders in the end of the first Kiai seem out-of-place to me
(02:35:212 (1) - 02:40:012 (1) - )

I assume you were going for A B A B, where A is fast and B is slowed down, but each B2 has a strong beat in the middle of it so you just didnt slow it down - effectively making it A B A A?
For consistency and probably less confusion while playing, I feel like a simple A A A A wouldve worked better here (or B A B A, really). You could argue that this doesnt matter in a 7* Wubmap, but there's just nothing that indicates such a change (neither design (same Slider length) nor music) and it buggs me :v

Monstrata wrote:

Hi, I found a serious issue that needs to be fixed. Title should be "Feeling Sky"

Source:

4312,300,4,2,1,20,1,0
363112,315.789473684211,4,2,1,20,1,0
363743,352.941176470588,4,2,1,20,1,0
364448,394.736842105263,4,2,1,20,1,0
364842,441.176470588235,4,2,1,20,1,0
365283,468.75,4,2,1,20,1,0
365751,560.747663551402,4,2,1,20,1,0
366311,470.588235294118,4,2,1,20,1,0
367252,444.444444444444,4,2,1,20,1,0
367474,571.428571428571,4,2,1,20,1,0
369074,478.08764940239,4,2,1,20,1,0

ProfessionalBox wrote:

imo the ending is accurate enough as it is and I also brought this up when bubbling the map and was told that there is no problem

Raiden wrote:

funnily enough around 50-60% of the notes after I applied my timing were not more than 1-2 ms off (some were even on point) however the 40-50% rest needed more than 5-10 ms shifts so... in my opinion timing the slowdown is way more accurate than the odd snaps that are currently in place. Let's wait and see what others think about it.

Doormat wrote:

to elaborate, the current snaps are well timed to the music so i thought that there wasn't an issue with the current setup.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Also even though objects are 5-10ms off you can't really tell by ear anyways without slowing down to 25% speed which I think is a good proof that there is no need to do the changes as a player is more likely to play the objects with my current placements anyways supported by the consistency in rhythm argument pointed out earlier.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

fixed with timingpoints bonsai provided

Raiden wrote:

BibleThump

non-one wrote:

01:06:712 (1)
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.

non-one wrote:

01:06:712 (1)
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.