Djulus wrote:

твиттерим?
03:56:644 (1,2,3,4) - не думаешь что у этого спэйсинг слишком большой или сам паттеррн плохой?

EijiKuinbii wrote:

так и должно быть?

Monstrata wrote:

06:23 Monstrata: 00:19:245 (1,1,2,1,1,2) - Feels really similar. You copied the symmetrical idea, and also the idea of making the heads really close together 00:20:295 (1,2) - when usually you'd put jumps. Talked to you about symmetrical theme here + spacing now is bigger
06:23 Monstrata: Only difference is 00:19:995 (1) - etc... are kicksliders instead of circles, but the rhythm is the same in terms of clicking.
06:25 Monstrata: 00:49:495 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Same idea here. You used the same kickslider arrangements and circular flows. Changed
06:27 Monstrata: 00:55:195 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - copied same rhythm and symmetrical rotational arrangement Changed
06:28 Monstrata: 00:58:795 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - Same, copying the rotational slider flow and rotating movement. I created this pattern without seeing yours and for me it's really different one
06:29 Monstrata: 01:11:475 (1,2,3,4) - Same as mine, except mine is vertical This too ^. Yea, they are maybe a little similar, but you know, it's generic pattern which I can see in every 2nd map, so this was just from my head, believe me
06:29 Monstrata: 01:16:552 (1,2,3) - Same idea of using increasing SV's here even though they sound the same . Changed
06:31 Monstrata: 01:18:814 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - 01:21:814 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - Are quite similar too... especially where you increase spacings. I'm slightly okay with this since its possible to interpret the music that way still its really difficult to shift spacing with only 7 notes to begin with I just can't see the other way to map it :rip:
06:34 Monstrata: 01:25:264 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Really similar flow and jump pattern to mine xP. These jumps are made in your style, yea, but like cmon, jumps aren't sliders, or you want to say that every ranked map has stolen jumps? Meh. Tho, I would say I got inspiration for doing these jumps from Zen Zen Zen, not from Babymetal
06:35 Monstrata: 02:10:264 (7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - Why did you have to switch to circle-only. the first part was actually different, but then you made it the same Hate this part tho changed everything in this part
06:36 Monstrata: 02:48:514 (1,2,3,4) - Pretty obvious copy xP slider shape, and SV's. Changed, now my is better
06:37 Monstrata: 02:59:014 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - Feels kinda similar too since I also used symmetrical patterns with slider emphasis at the bottom of the screen Your sliders went all over the playfield when my is just in 2 corners + I emphasize 2 strongest guitar sounds, NotLikeThisYou
06:37 Monstrata: 03:08:764 (1,2,1,2) - Same, symmetrical pattern and the same rhythm xP. Changed and remapped the whole part to match new pattern
06:39 Monstrata: 03:56:644 (1,2,3,4) - same as earlier
06:39 MashaSG: Stupid russian buses, I'm here
06:39 MashaSG: And... wall of text xd
06:41 Monstrata: 05:10:173 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Pretty similar too xP Changed!

Xinying wrote:

Really clean and well-structured map! I have some suggestions...

Now and Forever

1. HP6.6 too brutal? Nah I think it's ok since HP doesn't fall above 1/2 of HP bar with HR
2. Disable widescreen support if there's no SB. Sure!
3. 01:23:089 (2) - Mute these slider ends? They symbolize the faded instrument and will work better with Vol: ~approx 20%. This applies to all similar sliders that are mapped before chorus. Yea, good suggestion!!
4. 01:42:364 (2,3,4,1) - This feels really sharp when playing. I would place 01:42:814 (4) - at 133|263 - basically 01:42:664 (3,4,1) - is isometric. ok, agree with this
5. 02:35:014 (4) - I think a sharper turn at around 376|360 would emphasize the higher pitch better ok, agree with you, changed!
6. 02:58:264 (1) - Instead of a slider, mapping beats at 02:58:389 and 02:58:514 - would lead to 02:58:639 (7,8,9) - better. Don't really think so
7. 03:25:564 (7) - ctrl-g flows better. ^
8. 03:29:014 (1) - Instead of a single note, I would map a 1/1 slider with a muted sliderend to emphasize the guitar. It would be inconsistant with 03:20:014 (9) - and I like this more
9. 04:52:096 (2,1) - and 04:57:460 (6,1) - are unstacked, but you stacked similar structures like 05:20:826 (3,1) - . For aesthetics I think it is better to keep it stacked consistently. ok, fixed

Yeah these are all just minor suggestions and feel free to reject them without a reason. I like how you emphasize the guitar using sliders like these 01:23:089 (2,2,2,2) - . 04:04:583 (1) - Really neat crafted slider here. 01:18:814 (4,5,6,1,2,3) - and streams which emphasizes pitch using different flow + distance spacing here is really well done too. Have a star and good luck for ranking!

squirrelpascals wrote:

hi there

tales

• 00:36:028 - seems bad to skip over this note, its pretty strong and you had rhythms on it previously Yea, someone had already said the exact thing about this patter, so Fixed!

• 00:50:995 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - would recommend starting this with more spacing to indicate 1/3 here, it looks too similar to the stack on 00:49:195 (6,7,8) - I didn't like this pattern tbh, so now it's changed to 2 1/3 sliders

• 01:05:937 (8) - move nc here, downbeat is here and holds more weight Ok, Fixed!

• 02:14:614 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - this stream shape looks pretty lopsided Eh uhh.... it looks pretty fine to me, but if you show something better I would change it ofc

• 02:58:264 (1) - same as the first mod about skipping over this guitar beat These are different situations + this way I feel like I'm emphasizing 02:58:639 (2,3,4) - much more than by your way

• 03:03:389 - would like this to be clickable, since it seems to be the stronger part of this slider because of the extra flute note. plus it feels weird in general to skip over after you map to it here 03:03:514 (2,3) - Ok, changed to a 2 circles instead of a slider, it should be not so hard to hit I think

• 03:06:514 (6) - would like an nc here because its an obvious downbeat, but i see the symmetry youre going for. 03:06:139 (5) - would work too for this if you dont want to ruin symmetry because you start covering lower notes here Fixed by NCing (5)

• 03:14:614 (5) - nc to indicate 1/4 -> 1/3 change

• 03:18:214 (7) - same, nc for downbeat Sure!

• 03:18:814 (3) - this seems to be better represented by a slider because its the highest pitched of the ascending tone at 03:18:214 (7,1,2,3) - ,so the note has a stronger impact . this is more of a suggestion than anything though I just wanna emphasize these triples, so yea

• 03:25:564 (7,8) - this whole thing 03:25:114 (5,6,7,8,1) - would feel better flow-wise if these two were swapped You are second who tells me this, Fixed!

• 03:37:414 (1,2) - looks like a bigger gap, can you space these to be closer? Fixed!

• 03:49:260 (1,2,3) - because of your different use of beat snaps here, time distance equality will make this part much more readable Ok,
I think it's good now

• 04:03:983 (4) - nc here, or better indicate the change to 1/3. same for 04:06:983 (4) - Sure, tho applied this on first KIAI too

• 04:18:683 (7,8) - smpother gameplay if these two were swapped, would give really good circular flow from 04:18:533 (6,7,8,1,2,3) - Ok,
I agree

• 04:20:933 (5,1,2,3,4) - can you make these two look more structured together? the slider direction looks random lmao Hmmm it's just a perfect triangle consists of 3 sliders, I do have this pattern in 1st KIAI as well tho
https://puu.sh/xDHOj/88a6842fc8.png
https://puu.sh/xDHPC/644dc5e5d9.png

• 04:50:543 - hitsounding feels really loud in this part, can you lower it all by like 2- (sorry ) UHHHH Ok, I lowered them all by -15, I really think this should be enough

• 05:04:761 (1,2,3) - why these different snappings here? all these notes really sound the same Fixed!

• 05:05:715 (1,2,3,4) - this part is pretty deceiving because of the all similar spacing with different timeline gaps, would suggest adding time distance equality. Also, 05:06:029 (2) - geels like it should be extended to the blue tick, it doesn't feel any different from this note at 05:05:715 (1) - Changed!

Good quality, call me back

squirrelpascals wrote:

00:51:595 (1) - snap this so i can bubble

1. 00:16:845 - and 00:16:995 - the 40% volume changes at the intro are really hard to hear in contrast with the 80%. do you think it's possible to make the volume change less extreme, maybe to something like 60%?
2. 04:52:310 (1,2,3,4) - honestly i think this pattern would be more appropriate as a plus shape instead of the curved slider + triangle shape; since the piano is going down an arpeggio using the same slider shape for each piano note fits more nicely imo
3. 05:01:183 (1) - finish here is too loud since there's not really a cymbal crash here; a whistle on its own is perfectly fine
4. 05:23:773 (2,1) - the double here feels kind of extreme; it basically plays as a 1/12 double which is already kind of insane, and this late into the song i don't really recommend blindsiding players with something like that lol. consider deleting the (2)?

Monstrata wrote:

Congrats!

TheMefisto wrote:

Поздравляю~

Sieg wrote:

крутая карта

DendyMudak wrote:

грац

Yuii- wrote:

Interesting map, hope to see more stuff like this from you in a near future