Cellina wrote:

00:10:203 (1) - isnt this supposed to snapped on 00:10:167 (1) - if you were trying to snap exactly on vocal's voice? current one sounds bit weird

Monstrata wrote:

00:10:203 (1,2,3) - This is completely off...
00:22:096 (3,1,2) - ^

00:35:810 (5,6) - Shouldn't this be a 1/4 slider? Sounds really forced as a 1/4 circle, not to mention it's really difficult to read cuz of the overlaps. I think keeping up the note density in general is worthwhile, plus the clicking rhythm is the syllables I'm pretty sure. Also I don't think its hard to read since players tend to notice things based on approach circles and since there is an approach circle for both circles the player can see there are more objects to click under the overlap
01:01:417 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - This plays so poorly cuz of the angles. But even before that, you begin the pattern on the blue tick instead of the red tick. Don't shift to a rhythm that ignores the vocal layer when your map is following the vocals. Begin on the red tick so it's still clear you're following the drums but respecting the fact that vocals begin there. It's how you map to multiple layers. The way you're doing it right now you're ignoring the significance of the vocals. I think the angles are ok, I mean the whole kiai spam section emphasizes big hits with sharp angled movement by pointing circle movement 00:48:667 (2,3) - against the prior (1,2) movement, so this stream is just a step above that to emphasize all the big drum hits. Also as for mapping the vocals, all the vocals are still clickable, its just much easier to notice the more dense and high volume notes.
01:17:381 (3,4,1) - These are really poor angle choices going into the slider. this also happens in other locations like 01:15:453 (3,4,5,6,1) - 01:16:524 (3,4,1) - 01:18:239 (3,4,1) - 01:22:096 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - and 01:24:774 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - which are all after the second kiai has begun, as an attempt to introduce 01:24:774 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - to help recognize the patterns emphasis, and increase progressive difficulty(just increase difficulty based on some time to avoid repitition)

This would work a lot better

01:22:096 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - Really poor flow too. You have a lot of rotational movement going here, but then you force players to do a really short up/down movements between 3>4>5 before switching to a another zigzag left/right movement for 5>6>1. It's really uncomfortable to play because you have a poor set up for it. I feel like this was explained in the prior point.

Aside from that, what is with the overlapping? You know it's hard to read so using them anyways means you probably want to create tight flows or "something" to sacrifice readability, but I can't see any reasoning right now. This is an interesting point, but I don't actually believe that the overlaps increase the reading difficulty in general, I think its more applicable to a group of players I cannot identify with. I like to believe I place notes with an idea in mind for playability, and I think the overlapping just comes with the fact. I would like to mention in a lot of regards I do try to keep the overlaps looking pretty too by making them look similar which is most easily seen in places like 01:05:596 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - . If you would like more reasoning behind different overlaps I will be sure to provide those as reasons as clearly as I can.


[]

In any case if you're mapping to vocals you really need to retime some parts because they are very off. I agree with the ideas on the timing being off, I didn't quite realize these until you pointed it out, but I know I'm not skilled enough to fix the timing on my own regard
I would like to mention that the song itself is correctly timed, monstrata is just wanting me to accomodate the unsnapped vocals when the other instruments played are timed correctly

_83 wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

In any case if you're mapping to vocals you really need to retime some parts because they are very off. I agree with the ideas on the timing being off, I didn't quite realize these until you pointed it out, but I know I'm not skilled enough to fix the timing on my own regard
I would like to mention that the song itself is correctly timed, monstrata is just wanting me to accomodate the unsnapped vocals when the other instruments played are timed correctly

_83 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure it would be fair to the player to correctly snap to the vocal sounds with new timing since they are unsnapped from the metronome. How will the player decide to click out of time from the song. I think the difference is small enough there won't be error in playing as is. Either way I could change the timing if there is timing provided and if I thought it would be more fitting to do so but as of right now I'm using the best timing I believe to exist.

Also I think it would be strange to suddenly have the expectation that just because the vocal is mapped then the timing has to be perfectly snapped to those vocals especially when the vocals are unsnapped. I'm sure there are other vocals in this that are similarly unsnapped because vocals are not synthesized. And in that case the timing of this song would become so unreliable. Then in other maps the timing could be much more disastrous just because someone wants to map a non synthesize-able instrument?

anyways please consider these thoughts and concerns

_83 wrote:

I did consider this, but knowing the problems I've stated with the "corrected" timing makes me quite discouraged to change the timing even if this was dq'd because it wouldn't improve the map in my opinion. I also think it would be unfair to subject unrankability to mapset(s) where difficulties within the mapset(s) in question would differ in rhythmic approach.

pingal1ty wrote:

I can't even play this.

Including the 3.96* which should be easy.

Not going to go into details because I know it hurts mappers feelings, but I honestly don't understand how can this be even qualified when its full of overlaps and other unreadable stuff on it.

[TimingPoints]
-1261,428.571428571429,4,2,1,40,1,0
10167,397.350993377483,4,1,0,40,1,0
10763,487.80487804878,4,1,0,40,1,0
11250,444.444444444444,4,1,0,40,1,0
12024,428.571428571429,4,2,1,40,1,0
12024,-83.3333333333333,4,2,1,40,0,0
12453,428.571428571429,4,2,1,40,1,0
12453,-83.3333333333333,4,2,1,40,0,0
21024,-133.333333333333,4,2,1,40,0,0
47167,-74.074074074074,4,2,1,40,0,0
48453,-74.0740740740741,4,2,1,70,0,1
48881,-100,4,2,1,70,0,0
50167,-74.0740740740741,4,2,1,70,0,1
50596,-100,4,2,1,70,0,0
51453,-74.074074074074,4,2,1,70,0,0
51881,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,1
52310,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,0
53596,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,1
55203,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,0
55310,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,1
55739,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,0
57024,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,1
57453,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,0
58739,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,1
59167,-66.6666666666667,4,2,1,70,0,0
60453,-50,4,2,1,70,0,1
61310,-50,4,2,1,70,0,0
62167,-40,4,2,1,70,0,1
75239,-40,4,2,1,70,0,0
75881,-40,4,2,1,70,0,1
84453,-40,4,2,1,70,0,0
86167,-40,4,2,1,70,0,1
86381,-50,4,2,1,70,0,0
89167,-50,4,2,1,30,0,0
90881,-50,4,2,1,5,0,0

Example of how you can fix this

Example of one way to fix it

Something like this already plays a lot better because 1 is further to the left to account for drift

For example, the way you set it up, this type of movement would play very well

Monstrata wrote:

Timing:
I appreciate the work you put into timing but I'd rather not mess up the mentronome to have things snapped to random beats when I can have them snapped in an existing metronome for reasons stated prior.

Expert

00:35:810 (5,6) - I don't think your reasoning is sufficient xP. The second syllable is very weak. It's one syllable, otherwise you would have put a circle between 00:37:739 (8,9) - too because of the "i" syllable. But that's not going to fit because even though "tai" is two syllables in japanese it is pronounced as one in this and most cases. Your argument for density isn't well supporter either because in places like 00:39:239 (5) - right afterward, you use sliders instead of two circles. Same as 00:42:667 (7) - .I'm glad that you pointed out some mistake I made so I decided to change 00:37:739 (8) - to be a slider to cover for the missing vocal beat at 00:37:739 (8) -
00:48:453 (1,2) - Not a good rhythm choice if you want to focus on vocals. You know how weak 1/4 slider-ends are, so skipping the vocal on 00:48:560 - is not good for the concept you're going for.I don't think 1/4 slider ends are weak, and the 1/4 slider helps facilitate the jumpy movement I want for the big BOOM sounds at (1,2). It's a technique adapted from RLC where the movement from the pattern takes on the emphasis rather than the specific rhythm itself, though in my case I don't miss the beats with my objects or have additive rhythms
01:01:096 (3,1) - You didn't really address my main concern which is that the vocal rhythm is obscured by the drum rhythm. When you play this, you will notice the drums because you begin the stream too early. If you began the stream on the red tick in time with the vocal, then you would map the vocal rhythm while supplementing the drum rhythm which creates a blend between both instruments. It would be contradictory not to map all of a stream when I map some of it, which is also why the slider end for 01:01:096 (3) - is snapped to a beat
01:04:096 (2,3,4,1) - Movement here is really poor. Your entry angle is the issue. You have a lot of rotational movement going here but the movement from 2's end to 3>4>5 is really out of place and suboptimal to the movement you've created. the entry angle is fairly ambiguous considering players at this skill level are highly tuned to game mechanics like slider leniency. I believe the entry angle for this is entirely up to the player because of this

Example of how you can fix this

01:08:596 (3,4,5,6,1) - Again poor movement. Your rotational flow ends too early because 3>4>5>6 is too curved to support the curve of slider 1. that was the point, the angle change to (1) creates an emphasis.

Example of one way to fix it

01:13:096 (4,5,1) - Doesn't take into account player's tendency to drift counterclockwise following your sharp rotational movement from 3>4>5 please explain this one more to me, I don't see the difference between what you linked and what I have.

Something like this already plays a lot better because 1 is further to the left to account for drift

01:14:810 (1,2,3,4) - 3>4 is really counterintuitive considering the movement from 1>2>3. It doesn't help that 01:15:453 (3,4,5,6,1) - has a really poor angle choice too. 4>5 is completely linear and 5>6 is downward again, so you basically force the player to move down > pause > down > up in terms of y-axis movement and that is just really uncomfortable and unintuitive to play. the movement in no means was intended to be intuitive, like I explained in a prior mod reply this was to create the wiggles to the notes so they couldn't be played like a straight line in an attempt to emphasized each one.
01:16:739 (1,2,3,4,1) - You have a good counterclockwise flow set up but the angle from 3>4>1 messes it up because you force the player to make a very small clockwise movement in the process. I explained this in prior.
01:18:024 (2,3,4,1) - You set up a really good rotational pattern with that sharp angle shift from 4>1 but you do nothing with it and 1>2 is a wide angle flow. explained prior.

For example, the way you set it up, this type of movement would play very well

In any case, I don't believe the overlaps are intuitive either, and they make the map unnecessarily cluttered.

pingal1ty wrote:

I can't even play this.

Including the 3.96* which should be easy.

Not going to go into details because I know it hurts mappers feelings, but I honestly don't understand how can this be even qualified when its full of overlaps and other unreadable stuff on it.

_83 wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

Timing:
I appreciate the work you put into timing but I'd rather not mess up the mentronome to have things snapped to random beats when I can have them snapped in an existing metronome for reasons stated prior.

Expert

00:35:810 (5,6) - I don't think your reasoning is sufficient xP. The second syllable is very weak. It's one syllable, otherwise you would have put a circle between 00:37:739 (8,9) - too because of the "i" syllable. But that's not going to fit because even though "tai" is two syllables in japanese it is pronounced as one in this and most cases. Your argument for density isn't well supporter either because in places like 00:39:239 (5) - right afterward, you use sliders instead of two circles. Same as 00:42:667 (7) - .I'm glad that you pointed out some mistake I made so I decided to change 00:37:739 (8) - to be a slider to cover for the missing vocal beat at 00:37:739 (8) -

Doesn't answer my point about slider-ends being weak. Again, the click on the second syllable doesn't fit well, and with your use of 1/4 sliders it just fits a lot better to use that here. You even said in-game yourself that you consider 1/4 sliders to be similar to circles (which isn't true really), but even going by your logic a 1/4 slider would fit better here.

00:48:453 (1,2) - Not a good rhythm choice if you want to focus on vocals. You know how weak 1/4 slider-ends are, so skipping the vocal on 00:48:560 - is not good for the concept you're going for.I don't think 1/4 slider ends are weak, and the 1/4 slider helps facilitate the jumpy movement I want for the big BOOM sounds at (1,2). It's a technique adapted from RLC where the movement from the pattern takes on the emphasis rather than the specific rhythm itself, though in my case I don't miss the beats with my objects or have additive rhythms

Rhetoric aside, the movement doesn't take on emphasis. The movement ends up emphasizing the next note. If you want movement to be the point of emphasis, look to handsome/probox/sing/ people who use variable high-speed sliders, and mappers who actually tailor slider velocity to intensities. Your "jumpy movement" runs into a lot of faults because you only use sharp angles once in the whole sequence. Stuff like 00:50:381 (2,3,4,5) - is all wide angled,
as is 00:52:096 (2,3,4) - . Where you do use "jumpy movement" which is really just sharp angles, is places like : 00:51:346 (3,4) - 00:56:167 (1,2) - 01:11:381 (1,2,3,4) - . But they don't fit your criteria of using jumpy movement for the big "BOOM' sounds at all.

01:01:096 (3,1) - You didn't really address my main concern which is that the vocal rhythm is obscured by the drum rhythm. When you play this, you will notice the drums because you begin the stream too early. If you began the stream on the red tick in time with the vocal, then you would map the vocal rhythm while supplementing the drum rhythm which creates a blend between both instruments. It would be contradictory not to map all of a stream when I map some of it, which is also why the slider end for 01:01:096 (3) - is snapped to a beat

In this case it's better to turn 01:01:096 (3,1) - into two 1/4 sliders and use emphasis to highlight the vocal on 01:01:095 - while using a lack of emphasis for 01:01:310 - before leading into the stream with the vocal at the start. You value 1/4 sliders similarly to circles so use this as a compromise and I'd be okay with it. Otherwise this rhythm still as I said, neglects vocals and is counterintuitive to your map's vocal focus.

01:04:096 (2,3,4,1) - Movement here is really poor. Your entry angle is the issue. You have a lot of rotational movement going here but the movement from 2's end to 3>4>5 is really out of place and suboptimal to the movement you've created. the entry angle is fairly ambiguous considering players at this skill level are highly tuned to game mechanics like slider leniency. I believe the entry angle for this is entirely up to the player because of this

The entry angle isn't up to the player because of the way you set this up. it might be up to them betwee a range of maybe 5 degrees. In any case I'm saying the entry angle is poor and doesn't utilize the flow of the sliders you created. This is what the entry angle looks like if you only took into account slider 2

angles

However, that movement is unrealistic. Players arc, especially when presented with this kind of set up and a strong rotational flow. So your movement will actually look something like this: And as you can see, because players are going to be arching rightward, the flow of 3>4 being leftward already causes issues with the entry angle.

arcs

Example of how you can fix this

01:08:596 (3,4,5,6,1) - Again poor movement. Your rotational flow ends too early because 3>4>5>6 is too curved to support the curve of slider 1. that was the point, the angle change to (1) creates an emphasis.

Still poor movement, but I can accept this.

Example of one way to fix it

01:13:096 (4,5,1) - Doesn't take into account player's tendency to drift counterclockwise following your sharp rotational movement from 3>4>5 please explain this one more to me, I don't see the difference between what you linked and what I have.

In my example, 1 is to the left of 4, rather than to the right, speaking in terms of X values. The reason why they play differently is because of player's tendency to drift and over-curve on a larger movement. 3>4 is a very fast movement and 4>5 prompts the player to make a tight curve. Players will tend to drift when they curve which is why when you position 1 the way I have, you give players a lot more leeway to adjust after the sharp rotational movement. Basically, you're converting Y -axis momentum (3>4) into x-axis momentum by allowing the player to move faster on the x-axis when playing 4>5>1 instead of forcing the player to slow down on both axis.

Something like this already plays a lot better because 1 is further to the left to account for drift

01:14:810 (1,2,3,4) - 3>4 is really counterintuitive considering the movement from 1>2>3. It doesn't help that 01:15:453 (3,4,5,6,1) - has a really poor angle choice too. 4>5 is completely linear and 5>6 is downward again, so you basically force the player to move down > pause > down > up in terms of y-axis movement and that is just really uncomfortable and unintuitive to play. the movement in no means was intended to be intuitive, like I explained in a prior mod reply this was to create the wiggles to the notes so they couldn't be played like a straight line in an attempt to emphasized each one.

It's fine to use wiggles, but players will not feel a wiggle movement here because of the orientation. Rotate it like 15 degrees to the zigzag creates a noticeable up/down movement or rotate the pattern like 75 degrees so theres a noticeable left/right movement and players will recognize it. Down > pause >
down >up > is not a wiggle.

01:16:739 (1,2,3,4,1) - You have a good counterclockwise flow set up but the angle from 3>4>1 messes it up because you force the player to make a very small clockwise movement in the process. I explained this in prior.

Where? In this mod reply? I don't think this applies to any other case I've seen so far.

01:18:024 (2,3,4,1) - You set up a really good rotational pattern with that sharp angle shift from 4>1 but you do nothing with it and 1>2 is a wide angle flow. explained prior.

^

For example, the way you set it up, this type of movement would play very well

In any case, I don't believe the overlaps are intuitive either, and they make the map unnecessarily cluttered.

Monstrata wrote:

Expert

00:35:810 (5,6) - I don't think your reasoning is sufficient xP. The second syllable is very weak. It's one syllable, otherwise you would have put a circle between 00:37:739 (8,9) - too because of the "i" syllable. But that's not going to fit because even though "tai" is two syllables in japanese it is pronounced as one in this and most cases. Your argument for density isn't well supporter either because in places like 00:39:239 (5) - right afterward, you use sliders instead of two circles. Same as 00:42:667 (7) - .I'm glad that you pointed out some mistake I made so I decided to change 00:37:739 (8) - to be a slider to cover for the missing vocal beat at 00:37:739 (8) -

Doesn't answer my point about slider-ends being weak. Again, the click on the second syllable doesn't fit well, and with your use of 1/4 sliders it just fits a lot better to use that here. You even said in-game yourself that you consider 1/4 sliders to be similar to circles (which isn't true really), but even going by your logic a 1/4 slider would fit better here.

That wasn't exactly the point. As mentioned in the prior mod response at https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6235861 I stated that the intention was to increase the clicking density overall in this section. having the clickable circle you stated as an issue was my method of doing such thing.

00:48:453 (1,2) - Not a good rhythm choice if you want to focus on vocals. You know how weak 1/4 slider-ends are, so skipping the vocal on 00:48:560 - is not good for the concept you're going for.I don't think 1/4 slider ends are weak, and the 1/4 slider helps facilitate the jumpy movement I want for the big BOOM sounds at (1,2). It's a technique adapted from RLC where the movement from the pattern takes on the emphasis rather than the specific rhythm itself, though in my case I don't miss the beats with my objects or have additive rhythms

Rhetoric aside, the movement doesn't take on emphasis. The movement ends up emphasizing the next note. If you want movement to be the point of emphasis, look to handsome/probox/sing/ people who use variable high-speed sliders, and mappers who actually tailor slider velocity to intensities. Your "jumpy movement" runs into a lot of faults because you only use sharp angles once in the whole sequence. Stuff like 00:50:381 (2,3,4,5) - is all wide angled,
as is 00:52:096 (2,3,4) - . Where you do use "jumpy movement" which is really just sharp angles, is places like : 00:51:346 (3,4) - 00:56:167 (1,2) - 01:11:381 (1,2,3,4) - . But they don't fit your criteria of using jumpy movement for the big "BOOM' sounds at all.

Firstly, I think the mappers you stated aren't very good, we can have this kind of discussion at another time, but I don't think its appropriate to refer to other mappers since its off the topic. Secondly, 00:48:453 (1,2) - is a jumpy movement because where you start clicking (1) and where you click (2) would be considered a 1/2 jump (its not very big) but that's how its played. I didn't make that 1/2 jump because I noticed there was a vocal sound on the blue tick at 00:48:560 - that would have been skipped over. To compromise between wanting to emphasize the big crashes at 00:48:453 - and 00:48:667 - I chose to mimic the 1/2 jump while still technically mapping to the vocal with the slider end of (1)

01:01:096 (3,1) - You didn't really address my main concern which is that the vocal rhythm is obscured by the drum rhythm. When you play this, you will notice the drums because you begin the stream too early. If you began the stream on the red tick in time with the vocal, then you would map the vocal rhythm while supplementing the drum rhythm which creates a blend between both instruments. It would be contradictory not to map all of a stream when I map some of it, which is also why the slider end for 01:01:096 (3) - is snapped to a beat

In this case it's better to turn 01:01:096 (3,1) - into two 1/4 sliders and use emphasis to highlight the vocal on 01:01:095 - while using a lack of emphasis for 01:01:310 - before leading into the stream with the vocal at the start. You value 1/4 sliders similarly to circles so use this as a compromise and I'd be okay with it. Otherwise this rhythm still as I said, neglects vocals and is counterintuitive to your map's vocal focus.

I admit, this is a very strange rhythmic approach, but due to my rythmic approach for the new musical phrase that starts at 01:00:453 - vocals have clicking priority. I found if I took your solution of adding a click to the white tick at 01:01:310 - it would distract from the long vocal hold starting at 01:01:096 - that the length of 01:01:096 (3) - was intended to emphasize. Though it was also essential to note there was a loud 1/4 stream coming up and I couldn't half map it. I decided ending the slider on the white tick was a good compromise between mapping the full stream and emphasizing the long held vocal.

01:04:096 (2,3,4,1) - Movement here is really poor. Your entry angle is the issue. You have a lot of rotational movement going here but the movement from 2's end to 3>4>5 is really out of place and suboptimal to the movement you've created. the entry angle is fairly ambiguous considering players at this skill level are highly tuned to game mechanics like slider leniency. I believe the entry angle for this is entirely up to the player because of this

The entry angle isn't up to the player because of the way you set this up. it might be up to them betwee a range of maybe 5 degrees. In any case I'm saying the entry angle is poor and doesn't utilize the flow of the sliders you created. This is what the entry angle looks like if you only took into account slider 2

angles

However, that movement is unrealistic. Players arc, especially when presented with this kind of set up and a strong rotational flow. So your movement will actually look something like this: And as you can see, because players are going to be arching rightward, the flow of 3>4 being leftward already causes issues with the entry angle.

arcs

I understand what you mean by arcing, I call it implied movement, and its a movement that some players do follow, but not all players.
Other players may decide to use slider leniency as I suggested; this is also suggested via many sliders in prior sections requiring similar playing techniques to have the appropriate difficulty this map was created to give. Examples would be seen at 00:48:881 (4,5) - 00:50:703 (5) - etc.

01:13:096 (4,5,1) - Doesn't take into account player's tendency to drift counterclockwise following your sharp rotational movement from 3>4>5 please explain this one more to me, I don't see the difference between what you linked and what I have.

In my example, 1 is to the left of 4, rather than to the right, speaking in terms of X values. The reason why they play differently is because of player's tendency to drift and over-curve on a larger movement. 3>4 is a very fast movement and 4>5 prompts the player to make a tight curve. Players will tend to drift when they curve which is why when you position 1 the way I have, you give players a lot more leeway to adjust after the sharp rotational movement. Basically, you're converting Y -axis momentum (3>4) into x-axis momentum by allowing the player to move faster on the x-axis when playing 4>5>1 instead of forcing the player to slow down on both axis.

I actually really appreciate this explanation, though it took me about 15 minutes to quite understand what your point was. You want a sharper movement from 3,4,5 because that would be more comfortable to play due to the implied movement given by (3). Though implied movement or not,
I think the more open angle players will take 3,4,5 is essential to give more emphasis to (1) especially since there is a 1/2 gap after it. Basically I wanted 1 to be the sharper movement compared to 4,5 to help emphasize the 1/2 gap coming up.

Something like this already plays a lot better because 1 is further to the left to account for drift

01:14:810 (1,2,3,4) - 3>4 is really counterintuitive considering the movement from 1>2>3. It doesn't help that 01:15:453 (3,4,5,6,1) - has a really poor angle choice too. 4>5 is completely linear and 5>6 is downward again, so you basically force the player to move down > pause > down > up in terms of y-axis movement and that is just really uncomfortable and unintuitive to play. the movement in no means was intended to be intuitive, like I explained in a prior mod reply this was to create the wiggles to the notes so they couldn't be played like a straight line in an attempt to emphasized each one.

It's fine to use wiggles, but players will not feel a wiggle movement here because of the orientation. Rotate it like 15 degrees to the zigzag creates a noticeable up/down movement or rotate the pattern like 75 degrees so theres a noticeable left/right movement and players will recognize it. Down > pause >
down >up > is not a wiggle.

I understand what you mean, but I truly believe there to be a tilted XY axis that players would wiggle along to.

01:16:739 (1,2,3,4,1) - You have a good counterclockwise flow set up but the angle from 3>4>1 messes it up because you force the player to make a very small clockwise movement in the process. I explained this in prior.

Where? In this mod reply? I don't think this applies to any other case I've seen so far.

If you look at the initial mod reply where you brought up these exact points, you will see I responded. https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6235861
basically I did it on purpose to try and keep the wiggles for a progression type of emphasis that applies to the second kiai section to create variety in the form of progressive difficulty.

01:18:024 (2,3,4,1) - You set up a really good rotational pattern with that sharp angle shift from 4>1 but you do nothing with it and 1>2 is a wide angle flow. explained prior.

^
^

For example, the way you set it up, this type of movement would play very well

In any case, I don't believe the overlaps are intuitive either, and they make the map unnecessarily cluttered.

Let me know.

Monstrata wrote:

00:10:310 - Change this bpm to 132.25 so it aligns with the next white tick.
Also on Easy, 00:10:738 (1) - is wrongly snapped.
yes
Normal

00:17:810 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - The drum rhythm becomes denser towards the end so I don't think this is a good approach. You make the note density sparcer for those 1/1 gaps. changed approach here

could try a rhythm like this instead

00:25:953 (3,4,5) - This is on the wrong polarity. You should be putting the clicks on the white ticks atleast for the sliders. You can hear the syllabic emphasis is on white ticks. changed something here too

something like this would work

00:37:095 (2) - Should make this a 1/2 slider instead. It's not like the other rhythms, theres a vocal on 00:37:310 - ... Compare it to 00:39:024 - 00:44:167 - etc yes
00:41:810 - ^Something here too? yes
00:49:095 (3) - These are just a mistake imo... You can't capture vocals using this type of rhythm and it totally doesn't capture the vocal intensity with a weak gameplay element like a repeat slider. honestly, when originally mapping this I thought for a while how to map the vocals, but they are so so dense it was hard to think of something so I just increased the SV for this section and mapped to the drums instead since they are a clear and easy to follow rhythm
00:57:667 (3) - 00:59:381 (3) - These ones especially stand out because clicking on 3 is already really weird as the vocals aren't even present there. The vocals are on blue ticks . I would rethink the rhythm here. I don't think you can afford to map both instrument and vocal when working within the constraints of a Normal diff. read above point
01:20:595 (5,1,2,3,4,1) - Weird way to shift into instrumental layer here. You don't even map the drum on 01:22:095 - . Also the orientation between added rhythm for the drum thing
01:20:595 (5,1) - and 01:21:667 (2,3) - make the DS seem too similar imo so it really baits people into thinking this is a 1/1 gap as well. yeah I made some mistake with my DS concept I was doing LOL

[]

Man, the more I look the more I find xd. Probably better that you find new BN's for this anyways, I think it can still benefit from more work, or at least more perspectives.

Mir wrote:

For the topdiff:

- 00:35:810 (5,6) - Agreed with Monstratos, this seems quite odd to map this then not map 00:37:738 (8) - 00:42:667 (7) - etc I mapped them with slider ends, clicking density was already high enough for my liking
- 01:01:095 (3,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - https://i.imgur.com/T7x6nE2.png ? that would make me skip the snare sound on white tick
- 01:04:095 (2,3,4,1) - Kinda agree with Monstratos here, I think doing something like this might be nicer whilst still being somewhat harsh. I tried something here I might need ur guy's approval

Was suggested to look at the Normal:

- 01:20:595 (5) - I agree here too I think 01:21:024 - should at least be clickable to have a nicer more coherent transition. The rest is okay tho imo since wait I don't see why this would need to be clickable, its an open slider end which is pretty strong already
01:22:095 - seems more like a pick-up note which isn't a focus of the map overall as seen by 00:37:310 - etc

Other stuff for discussion I suppose.

_83 wrote:

- 01:04:095 (2,3,4,1) - Kinda agree with Monstratos here, I think doing something like this might be nicer whilst still being harsh.

Okorin wrote:

Catlogs. okay mir.
i think you also did a few things i said in discord before?
new timing seems to work great

01:02:810 (3,4) - miss additional hitsounds on all diffs that map those? aaaa


[hard]
00:07:096 (6,1) - triple would probably work better i guess? just 1/2 feels weird with so many vocal things when I was making this I was thinking very spread like, so between the expert, insane, and this its supposed to go down in rhythm density. I'll change it if you still find it appropriate to do so.

[normal]
00:00:239 (1) - delete this? starting map off with a circle is pretty mean especially since they have no point of reference, doing this would make it same as 00:01:953 - so that people are given a fair amount of time to get into the map true
00:03:881 (1) - any special reason for dumb red anchors?? they look odd as heck its supposed to be like "oh bounce to the beat" since players at this level roughly will follow the slider shape like this and 00:13:310 (4) - 00:16:738 (3) -00:17:810 (1) -
00:19:310 (1,2,3) - this is generally a meh idea, people at this level can read stuff if it stacks like two circles, but 3 completely stacked usually just makes everyone spam the pattern especially since you have more 1/1 or slower stacks surrounding it changed second circle to 1/2 slider
00:28:953 (3,5) - overlap is more unaesthetetic than usually and doesnt even look that intended its supposed to mimic the angular idea of 00:22:738 (4,5) - but since there wasn't a lot of room, 00:28:953 (3) - is pointing down instead of sideways
introducing quad 1/2 into the diff later on doesnt really help

nothing too major though