Pencil-kun wrote:

M4M!
00:00:615 (1,2) - blanket this better woopsie
00:01:676 (3) - a red node on a slider this short *at that position* looks odd... would either remove the red node or move the node to the center change if will be mentioned more
00:03:004 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - assuming this is a hard diff, im not sure a pattern like this would be ok, (in insane im sure its ok but idk about hard) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
00:07:252 (2,3,4) - same with this ^
00:10:172 (3) - i dont recommend mapping to the instrument in the background, it's really soft and hard to focus on, even if its kickslider didn't get it, i think its ok
00:16:544 (1) - same as 00:01:676 (3) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
00:42:030 (2) - same as 00:01:676 (3) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
01:16:411 (4,5,6,7) - dont know if i would do this in a hard diff, (the kick slider mid stream) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
01:47:871 (1,2,3) - snap these to 1/4? nej
01:52:119 (3) - same as 00:10:172 (3) its fiiiiiine
02:02:207 (3,1) - could be hard to read for hard-level players life is hard
02:07:252 (4,5,6,7,8) - i think the stream body is fine, but i think theres a note in the empty blue tick between 8 and 1 i cant hear anything
02:31:278 (3) - try not to do this in hard difficulty but I want to!
02:57:694 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - lmao this aint a mod but i just wanna say how incredible this stream body is, GJ thank you, nothing special tho
03:16:013 (1,2,3,4) - this is ridiculously difficult to read, even for extra-level players. of course, you could keep it, since later on the pattern is repeated, but this could cause unnecessary breaks hmmmm
03:42:561 (3) - i feel like the node after the red node is way too sharp. may be
03:44:951 (5,6,7,8) - this is difficult to read. :thinking:
03:50:526 (2) - curve this better i refuse
04:01:411 (3) - ctrl+g this to fit with pattern? it already fits with pattern
04:23:446 (1,2,3,1) - this isn't fitting in a hard difficulty. i hope it is

good luck! thx dude! u 2

HighTec wrote:

for some reason i can't explain

get a better quality on your bg pls, you can have up to 1920x1200 so try to use that yup

00:00:349 (1,1) - visually very close making it hard to read when 00:00:615 (1) - is supposed to be clicked. i would prefer to see something like this to help the player out with reading. also please remove a tick of 00:00:349 (1) - cuz now it's not buffered and for a beginning in a map this is a really mean move (especially since the rest of the map isn't hard either) they already drastically overlap each other, it is basically zx pattern. i don't see any reason to remove it, there's no such thing as "difficult for beginning", because if something is hard in the beginning, player can restart map without fristration. also you shouldve looked further, there are plenty of similar patterns
00:02:473 (1) - i dont get this slider at all. as first why is it stacked on 00:02:207 (4) - when they both have a different pitch and effect to the listener of the song? unstacked also why is this even a slider when 00:02:738 - is a clear major drum beat? the note has currently no emphasis and itd be nice to have some tapping emphasis on the note. trumpet
00:03:004 (2,3,4,5) - "align" having (3,4,5) go into another direction than (2) doesn't seem logical at all to me since they're all part of the same drum riffle that's happening here. yea, i don't know why i made it like that
00:03:668 (6) - overmapped. i can hear drum also 00:03:535 (5) - is a strong drum beat which could be emphasised more if it were to be made into a kickslider. reworked that stream
00:04:862 (1) - here you suddenly make the 1/4 not clickable eventhough you had a little stream before, seems like inconsistent note density to me i think too much bursts (even 113 bpm) aren't good for such part of song, so i made slider, not triple also why is this note not spaced out? it's not that strong it has a strong beat which should also visually be seen as stronger.
00:07:252 (2,3,4) - what's happening over here is something i don't like at all. as first the triple spacing is somethign that's really unexpected for players of lower level. why you may ask? cause of the spacing difference! at this level of play, people start getting used to 1/4 being in a song and thus expect something consistent for them to be able to recognise it and then later play it accordingly. however, you leave the player no chance here. having the distance from 00:07:252 (2,3) - being significantly higher than 00:07:650 (3,4) - makes up for inconsistencies and thus makes it really hard to read for the player. i would highly discourage doing patterns like these unless you're mapping insanes or higher. maybe it is insane 00:07:252 (2) - also this slider has a cymbal at the tail of it which could me made clickable as its noticable in the song. the whole combo represents vocal, and i think slider tail is enough for that cymbal
00:07:783 (4) - oh my boi this slider ruins so much potential emphasis that could be given in the song. you essentially combine two different pitches of the ?saxophone? which is something you didnt do before. 00:08:048 - has a note worth emphasising because of that, however no feedback from the map has been given here so that doesn't represent the song. vocal
00:10:172 (3) - i looked ahead of the map only to realise that this is the only time you emphasise the 1/8 at its current situation. for example 00:14:420 (3) - has the 1/8 too but you decide not to make them here? seems weird and sounds weird to have them inconsistent. i'd personally love to see no 1/8 emphasised as they are very minor anyways. you looked poorly
00:16:145 (3,4) - why not space it out like what you did before with the 1/4? i agree or even why is this clickable if 00:13:358 (1) - wasnt eventho its the same stuff in the song? p inconsistent clickables show the same emphasize as slider parts sometime. its not inconsistency, its variety
00:16:544 (1) - oh no you just didnt ruin the emphasis and song representation here ooooooh nooooo anyways, point is that 00:16:743 - has a way more noticable beat in the song cus of the longer lasting instrument. id prefer seeing a rhythm like this so that you could also emphasise the vocal on 00:17:075 - in a minor way. (since u dont acknowledge it atm) all instruments except vocal stop playing after slider tail
00:17:473 (2) - i see no point in emphasising the 1/8 here when u didnt before in the whole major to major beat. seems really silly to suddenly emphasise something that was completely ignored for silence before. its ride cymbal there, cmoon
00:20:526 (4,5) - WoW LaD this spacing Hold Your Horses what makes (5) worth emphasising here so much that the spacing must be so much bigger than 00:20:791 (5,1) - while (1) is the more notable beat in the song due to the strong presence of vocals. snare, also want to make something clear: there are no jumps throughout the whole diff, space is used mainly for aesthetics purposes, the only thing that makes diff difficult is rhythm structure
00:22:650 (3,4) - same here, why is (4) spaced so unevenly big while nothing special in the song happens? (4) has the same sound as 00:21:853 (2) - but yet the spacing isn't that massive from its previous note. ^
00:23:712 (5) - the tail of this slider has a real loud piano sound but now ur like completely ignoring it by making it not clickable cuz u decided a slider would somehow be better than having beats that need emphasis to be emphasised? vocal, also piano is nt that strong
00:24:906 (5) - overmapped i can hear drum

w/e no point in me writing a wall of text here.

Teaching time!
When to use spacing increases: When a note in the song is that strong that it has to be visually different from the rest too, usually on beginning of vocals or major downbeats. Currently in the map I see that spacing increases have been used randomly, so that the emphasis comes across really strange as the notes beforehand match up but don't have the same emphasis shown. The text above should help indicate the real strongest beats in the song that you can throw big spacing changes on. This is really important as you seem to be using Distance Snap patterning a lot in which you should also be consitent in its usage. im aware of this information
What rhythm do I follow? Try to listen carefully to the song and try to recognise what stands out most in the song. Are the vocals important enough? Or is there an instrument that is louder and more noticable than the vocals? In an instrumental part, do I hear just one instrument clearly over the rest or is there that one drum beat that stands out more? Always try to go for the sound that is most notable to the listener in general, not just you. what makes me different from usual listener? For example, having a map fully mapped to drums does NOT represent a song cause of the actual strong notes you ignore emphasis on. Try to make the most important sounds clickable as a physical response is also required if you want to have a real strong note.
Any restrictions in difficulty? Since the song is calm I would HIGHLY recommed you using a minimum of 1/4 rhythms and try to avoid using 1/8 rhythms. A map should give the feeling of the song to the player as well, not just show what all the notes are in the song. It's fine to sometimes skip over some 1/4 in the song if you want to make the feeling more calm, as I would say that this song really is. if ill get similar opinions, ill make hard diff and thisll be insane
That's all for me, try to relook your map and see what similar situations occur to what I've written above. The flow of the map seems to be generally fine so nothing about that for now thank you for mod

good luck! you too!

Ward74 wrote:

Hard

00:42:561 (1,2,3,4,1) - Stack the slider with the stream but I like it
00:32:738 (1,2,3,4,5) - The next time avoid putting stream in diff hard because a lot of people don't use 2 key when they learn streams are ok for hard diff, its even 113 bpm
00:51:588 (1,2) - Blanked ? don't want to
01:04:331 (3,4,5) - Not the same spacing ? It's a jump if yes don't do this in hard diff its not a jump and this spacing is intentional
01:16:411 (4) - It can be confusing for newbies hard players are not newbies
01:45:570 (3) - The slider is between tick yellow and blue its for piano, 1/3
01:52:119 (3) - It's better https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8429225 snare drum rustling sound
01:58:889 (3,4,5,6,7) - Not the same spacing intentional
02:31:145 (2,3,4,5,6) - ^ ^
02:35:393 (1,2) - Not the same spacing too 02:36:721 (1,2) - ^
02:39:376 (1,2,3,4) - God damn you add this in hard diff i hope its acceptable
02:58:092 (4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - Insane is it a compliment or?..

It's a fun map good job and good luck :p thank you! good luck too

MadHypnofrog wrote:

привет, м4м

сразу: кастомный диффнейм только на последней диффе можно, если только из названия всех остальных не становится сразу понятно, что это за диффа. в твоем случае это не так, поэтому изик переименовать придется знаю, это временно

хардос
00:00:349 (1) - а стоит ли этот звук того, чтобы его так выделять сходу кикслайдером на 2.8* диффе? этот звук в принципе стоит того, чтобы его выделять, старрейт тут непричем
00:00:614 (1,2) - лучше 2 1/2 слайдера, потому что в музыке ритм идет 1-2-1-2-1-2, а ты 00:01:145 - вот этот тик оставляешь без клика мне кажется так нормально, 3 слайдера делать как-то тупо
00:10:172 (3) - опять же, там эти барабаны (если я все правильно расслышал) вообще еле слышны, не стоит на них так акцентировать внимание, оч сильно не вписывается в общий ритм мне нравится порой подчеркивать щетки по рабочему барабану
00:10:703 (4,1) - не нужен стак здесь пускай пока побудет
00:14:420 (3) - овермап, 3/4 опять же не очень хорошо идет под этот 1/2 ритм. если уж совсем хочешь его оставить - хотя бы конец слайдера засайленси удлиненный слайдер - не овермап
00:20:791 (5) - зачем выделяешь здесь клэп этот? у тебя идет акцент под вокал, поэтому лучше сделать джамп не 4-5, а 5-1 мне кажется эта комбинация 4-5-1 хорошо подчеркивает и вокал и снейр
00:29:287 (1,2) - аналогично ^, тут еще нк местами поменяй - в прошлом паттерне у тебя по-другому было согласен
00:30:349 (4,1) - оптяь нк местами поменяй, на 4 начало новой строки здесь. мне кажется сейчас логичнее оставить комбо такими алсо можно бахнуть паттерн из одинаковых слайдеров на 120 градусов друг относительно друга повернутых так лучше
00:32:738 (1,2,3,4,5) - овермап, кикслайдеры хотя бы воткни, потому что на 2 и 401:02:606 - звука нет есть же
00:36:455 (4,1) - нк свапни пианино пускай так будет подчеркнуто
00:39:243 (2) - ну оч много овермапаешь ну не, прислушайся(
00:42:561 (1,2,3,4,1) - для харда опять сложновато, потому что изменение спейсинга. такие паттерны обычно делают где-то в 4*+, но не в 3* видимо придется делать хард, а это назвать инсейном. все следующие подобные места отмечу этим цветом
00:50:526 (1,2,3,4) - а я бы здесь стаки не делал совсем, потому что вокал становится громче, чем раньше не, это круто подчеркивает музыку
00:55:305 (1,2) - нк свапни, на 2 новая строка да
01:02:606 - вот на этот тик триплу мапай, а не на 01:02:871 (3) - , где звука нет вроде есть
01:03:535 (1,3) - ну ты понял нет ._.
01:11:632 (4) - овермааап не
01:16:411 (4) - сложно делаешь. такое для новичков прочитать будет довольно сложно из-за неожиданной 1/8. просто на круг замени хм
01:19:862 (3) - ... файт ми
короче у тебя ну очень много 1/4 овермапа в местах, которые ну совершенно не просят этих триплов/стримов, особенно учитывая то, что ты мапаешь хардик. пройдись по диффе и поудаляй, ну либо уж иди и делай джампосы и превращай диффу в инсейн (хотя это еще не будет оправдывать того, что ты ставишь кликабельные ноты туда, где нет музыки) они есть, я ̶в̶е̶р̶ю̶ слышу! ну джампы в любом случае делать не буду - не та музыка
01:25:570 (1,3) - хорошо смотреться будет, если бланкет запилишь но он же на 1-2, а тут и так хорошо
01:46:013 (1,3) - нк свапай пока так оставлю, типа слова
да, на тему нк: у тебя довольно часто зачем-то стоит нк на сааамом начале вокала после перерыва. чаще всего получается, что такой вокал идет за 1/2, 1 либо 3/2 бита до даунбита (большой белый тик), на котором вокал на порядок сильнее + еще бит идет сильный. поэтому логичнее нк ставить именно на него. есть, конечно, исключения, когда даунбит смещается на 1/2 назад, или же в мелодии, которой ты следуешь, сильный звук смещен (яркий пример - 00:02:473 (1) - ), но чаще всего ставить нк на даунбиты лучше всего думаю надо будет покопаться с нк
01:47:871 (1,2,3) - к чему это вообще? 2 совершенно ни под что мапнута, там даже на красном тике звук еле слышно гитарка, мне она кажется тут достойной выделения
01:48:933 (1,2,3) - флоу нехороший, лучше двойку слева поставь мне нравится это движение
01:52:119 (3) - триггерд рррррр
01:56:898 (5,1) - стак опять непонятно откуда, у тебя по-моему два раза только встречаются стаки на этот звук, и они как-то ни под какой паттерн не укладываются по-моему нормальный способ внести вариативности
01:58:225 (1) - куда нк ставишь-то ну лан, поставил на (2)
01:58:491 (2,3,4) - да, стримы с изменяющимся спейсингом в хардах - тоже не лучшая идея может быть
02:14:154 (7) - сильный вокал, а у тебя стак на нем да наоборот, не сильный, а низкий и спокойный
02:18:402 (1) - аналогично, побольше спейсинга можно ^
02:21:853 (5) - и да, кстати, у тебя довольно странные спейсы на вот таких вот клэпах. ты вроде как мапаешь под вокал и акцентируешь его, а вроде у тебя вот эти клэпы постоянно ловят большой спейс, даже если на них нет ничего такого важного ну "клэпы" же, для них-то и спейс
02:28:756 (2) - пониже сделай, чтобы без оверлапа это "хороший" оверлап
02:31:145 (2,3) - это мало того что играется плохо на харде ну блееен, 3 еще и ни под что замапана, там звук только на даунбите перкуссия
03:28:092 (3) - ыыы овермап блин, ну я же не кхм-кхм чтобы объекты просто так ставить
03:29:818 (1,2,3) - зачем здесь спейсинг маленький такой? музыка почти не меняется с предыдущего паттерна может увеличу спейс, но все равно чтобы меньше чем в предыдущем паттерне
03:33:004 - странно начинать киай здесь, как мне кажется это же явно кульминация
03:35:924 (3,5) - у тебя получается, что ты эти два слайдера мапаешь под завывания в вокале, а 03:40:836 (4,5,6,7,8) - уже делаешь стрим. некошерно хорошая вариативность имо
04:01:411 (3) - почему спейс меньше, чем на 04:00:880 (2) - ? тройка уж точно посильнее звук чем двойка исправил
04:23:269 (3,1,2,3,1) - в слайдеры это все, юзать 1/3 круги до инсейнов - совсем не лучшая идея, люди собьются мбмбмб

что могу сказать, очень много овермапа. слишком много. нет( диффа сейчас спейсингом похожа на хард, ритмом - на овермапнутый инсейн, это надо фиксить. с нк я тебе уже описал, просто пройдись по диффе и речекни все да. спейсинг периодически тоже довольно странный, когда ты прыгаешь с выделения вокала на выделение битов это смотрится оч странно, поэтому придерживайся чего-то одного ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

удачи! большое спасибо, тебе того же!

ColonelCorndog wrote:

Hello! hellohello

Hard
03:33:004 (1) - do you need kiai time for this part? I think it would perhaps be better to confine it to the chorus of the song i think this is climax of the song
04:24:110 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - This is quite a lot of spinners to have one after another. Maybe you should use sliders for the first four and then have the last spinner on the end. maybe its hard for this difficulty, if I hear it again, ill make changes

This is a very exciting map to play, the stacked notes are quite satisfying along with the chilled out music. The hard difficulty is challenging but very fun to play also. Good luck with getting ranked! thanks a lot, ill definetely need that luck. also thank you for star c: Good luck you too!

ne0ku wrote:

Hi From #medreqs (m4m)

Insane

For a 2.87 star map the style of mapping is a bit incorrect > newer players will be playing this map so to have techniques like 00:00:349 (1,1) - , 00:10:172 (3,4,1) - , 00:17:473 (2,1) - is a bit weird and maybe should be changed? that's why I made "Hard" diff and this is "Insane" diff

OD is too high for this - newer players playing a streamy map? 100s everywhere > consider lowering to 7/7.5 maybe ill lower it, seems fine for insane tho

00:07:650 (3,4) - stack these? not fluent enough with 00:07:252 (2) - its intended

00:16:544 (1) - you have no other sliders like this before, consider changing? i think its fine

00:37:517 (4,5,6) - niceeee hitsounding ty c:

00:42:561 (1,2,3,4,1) - ummmmm? stack? unless u meant that i meant that

01:10:703 (1,2,3,4,1) - pretty advanced technique for newer players ye, diff is not for new players tho

01:47:606 (5,6,1,2,3) - works nicely but could be too complicated for newer players to read intended

01:50:261 (5,6,7) - could be mistaken as triple, consider spacing more? at this pace i think player has enough time to react

01:53:712 (3,1,2,3) - NICE ty

02:31:145 (2,3,4,5,6) - too complicated for newer players (again) idk if u want to change all of these, its just under 3 stars people wont be expecting that type of rhythm < ill stop with these now sr <> actual difficulty

03:12:163 (2) - remove this as it doesnt match up with the following 03:12:827 (4,5) - hm? i can hear sound on this slider

04:26:234 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - alot of spinners, works nicely? maybe some players may struggle? there are some maps with even bigger amount of spinners, its not hard to play them at all


Really nice map - gl with ranking thank you, you too c:

1. 00:03:004 (1,2) - though sliderticks seem barely useful in high diffs, it's quite important in low ones. no matter what you want to do, you should better not block it.
2. 02:22:384 (1,2) - I'm surprised that you just ignored 02:22:650 - . I can understand if you want to keep the long slider, but ignoring that sounds quite bad to me. 02:23:181 - sounds more ignorable in this case, so you can try to map a circle "before" that slider instead of after.
3. 02:27:960 (2) - I'm pretty sure doing back-and-forth like this in Normal diff is totally not a good idea.
4. 03:34:066 (3) - 03:42:561 (2) - NO. you didn't introduce any of the 3/4 sliders like this in the earlier of map, so having it here should not be a good idea. (also based on your sv settings the slidertick is blocked so it becomes worse) I would do some long sliders to replace these cuz this part has the most significant woohoo sounds (you know what im saying).
5. 03:36:455 (3) - I hope this is a mistake. 3/4 can't do anything here.
6. 04:32:473 (1) - I don't think 531ms is long enough for a recovering time after spinner. Should better make it longer.

1. From 00:43:092 - to 01:17:075 -. the most significant thing you did is that you have some long sliders, 3/2 or longer, when the song is not intense.
   BUT, From 02:08:048 - to 02:42:030 - you didn't do the trick much. It is also surprising that you have some long sliders like 01:28:491 (2) - 01:31:676 (1) - when it goes intense. Same goes to some objects like 01:03:004 (2,3,1) - , which are shorter than usual. For those reason above, I think you didn't really handle the overall intensity well here, when you can just switch between two types of objects to get what you want around there.

1. 00:02:473 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - though it make sense, I still hope that you can focus on the kick drums (00:03:137 - ). Can't say implementing a 5-circle stream is great either.
2. 00:42:030 (1,1) - don't overuse NCs
3. 01:58:491 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - 02:26:898 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 03:31:942 (3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 03:40:172 (3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 04:05:659 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - I'm sure this stream is too long for hards, even if you're in low bpm. I would rather do 5 maximum, and anything above that will be replaced with hold repeats.
4. 03:43:889 (2) - what is this for? if that's a note for pianos, it should be 1/2 earlier. (but it's not recommended anyway, they are barely audible.)
5. 03:48:402 (3,4,5) - 04:22:384 (3,4,5) - about the way how you deal with 1/3s.. it looks bad. you should add 1 NC to show them at least. also, instead of 1.4x, i would rather do 1.8x or 2.0x ds to separate them. (an additional note, increasing SV is legit here since it can show the difference between 1/4 and 1/3 repeats)
6. 04:24:110 (1,1,1,1) - 04:32:473 (1,1,1) - since the second one has saxophone in background, treating them all with spinners feels bad tbh.

1. 00:10:172 (3) - for the whoosh sound - it's not consistent through the map. There are TONS OF SOUNDS LIKE THAT(e.g. you didn't use it on 00:14:420 (3) - ) but you did it only ONCE in a part. No matter what excuse you have here, it is not legit at all.
2. 00:16:544 (1) - have you ever tried to have two stacked circles here
3. 01:10:703 (1,2,3,4,1) - what makes you decide to make ds change in this stream?
4. 01:47:871 (1,2,3) - I tried to find the reason why it was mapped: no background sample support, no vocal, no piano samples, no cymbal rides, no drums. and that one is intended to be mapped like that. hmph.
5. 02:31:145 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - a fascinating weird spot: you did a 1/8 repeat, but not on 02:31:676 (5,6) - . and weird spacing usage.

1. What you concern about: background pianos > vocals > other instruments > cymbals, fx samples > drums
2. What people concern about: drums = vocals > other instruments > background pianos > cymbals, fx samples

Nerova Riuz GX wrote:

no kd. i found someone who denied it for me. i'll shoot a star as a return. that's really weird, because kudos is the smallest reward i can give you for wasting your time on my map and you deny it for some reason

[General]
I can see the reason why you set two timing points. just use one with offset -1508. yes, i dont know why i forgot about this option

unused hitsound:
soft-hitwhistle38.wav
soft-hitwhistle39.wav
soft-hitwhistle99.wav yes, forgot to remove them

[Normal]
In general, I won't put that much NCs in Normal diff. Those combo numbers help low tier players to recognize their place and ordering, so you shouldn't place them quite often. (You don't really need that much health recovering here also.) You should probably consider to half the NCs. applied this suggestion

1. 00:03:004 (1,2) - though sliderticks seem barely useful in high diffs, it's quite important in low ones. no matter what you want to do, you should better not block it. never thought about that, fixed
2. 02:22:384 (1,2) - I'm surprised that you just ignored 02:22:650 - . I can understand if you want to keep the long slider, but ignoring that sounds quite bad to me. 02:23:181 - sounds more ignorable in this case, so you can try to map a circle "before" that slider instead of after. absolutely
3. 02:27:960 (2) - I'm pretty sure doing back-and-forth like this in Normal diff is totally not a good idea. i don't think its difficult
4. 03:34:066 (3) - 03:42:561 (2) - NO. you didn't introduce any of the 3/4 sliders like this in the earlier of map, so having it here should not be a good idea. (also based on your sv settings the slidertick is blocked so it becomes worse) I would do some long sliders to replace these cuz this part has the most significant woohoo sounds (you know what im saying). i think such thing doesn't need introduction because sliders generally are easy to play, all you need to do is just hold button and move cursor. this place shouldn't be hard for newbies
5. 03:36:455 (3) - I hope this is a mistake. 3/4 can't do anything here. there is actually sound on slider tail.
6. 04:32:473 (1) - I don't think 531ms is long enough for a recovering time after spinner. Should better make it longer. ill see

I won't say the normal is well-made since there are bunch of things feels awkward, for example:

1. From 00:43:092 - to 01:17:075 -. the most significant thing you did is that you have some long sliders, 3/2 or longer, when the song is not intense.
   BUT, From 02:08:048 - to 02:42:030 - you didn't do the trick much. It is also surprising that you have some long sliders like 01:28:491 (2) - 01:31:676 (1) - when it goes intense. Same goes to some objects like 01:03:004 (2,3,1) - , which are shorter than usual. For those reason above, I think you didn't really handle the overall intensity well here, when you can just switch between two types of objects to get what you want around there. i think object density doesn't do anything with intensity for such song and for such difficulty. I absolutely understand what is the point in what you have written, but my point is that it doesn't matter in this case

but overall it looks not bad. You didn't make the movements cluttered, all basic and clear moves.

[Hard]
You didn't add hitsounds. i screwed up with a programm a little bit, fixed

1. 00:02:473 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - though it make sense, I still hope that you can focus on the kick drums (00:03:137 - ). Can't say implementing a 5-circle stream is great either. i think bass drum is far less audible than what i have emphasized
2. 00:42:030 (1,1) - don't overuse NCs thought it was a good idea for this part, fixed
3. 01:58:491 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - 02:26:898 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 03:31:942 (3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 03:40:172 (3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 04:05:659 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - I'm sure this stream is too long for hards, even if you're in low bpm. I would rather do 5 maximum, and anything above that will be replaced with hold repeats. ill consider changing it if will be mentioned more
4. 03:43:889 (2) - what is this for? if that's a note for pianos, it should be 1/2 earlier. (but it's not recommended anyway, they are barely audible.) i think you don't hear brass at all
5. 03:48:402 (3,4,5) - 04:22:384 (3,4,5) - about the way how you deal with 1/3s.. it looks bad. you should add 1 NC to show them at least. also, instead of 1.4x, i would rather do 1.8x or 2.0x ds to separate them. (an additional note, increasing SV is legit here since it can show the difference between 1/4 and 1/3 repeats) maybe
6. 04:24:110 (1,1,1,1) - 04:32:473 (1,1,1) - since the second one has saxophone in background, treating them all with spinners feels bad tbh. changed final parts in all diffs

I would like to see more of those kick drums on blue ticks being represented here. (e.g. 04:32:473 (1,1,1) - ) you made a typo
you did much better than normal on this diff.

[Insane]
I'd say the main difference from hard and insane is that you're free to use any kind of spacing changes in insane diffs. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't really use it that much.

1. 00:10:172 (3) - for the whoosh sound - it's not consistent through the map. There are TONS OF SOUNDS LIKE THAT(e.g. you didn't use it on 00:14:420 (3) - ) but you did it only ONCE in a part. No matter what excuse you have here, it is not legit at all. yeah, that was a stupid idea. finally ill change it
2. 00:16:544 (1) - have you ever tried to have two stacked circles here yup, and i think slider works better
3. 01:10:703 (1,2,3,4,1) - what makes you decide to make ds change in this stream? aesthetics
4. 01:47:871 (1,2,3) - I tried to find the reason why it was mapped: no background sample support, no vocal, no piano samples, no cymbal rides, no drums. and that one is intended to be mapped like that. hmph. ...its guitar
5. 02:31:145 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - a fascinating weird spot: you did a 1/8 repeat, but not on 02:31:676 (5,6) - . and weird spacing usage. i had struggles with this part, i didn't want to ignore 1/8 even tho its barely hearable and this rhythm structure is the best option i found in terms of playability and audibility

i suddenly stopped here because i feel your sight of mapping is quite different from we've got here.

[]
The major difference from what we have is actually the thing we concern:

1. What you concern about: background pianos > vocals > other instruments > cymbals, fx samples > drums
2. What people concern about: drums = vocals > other instruments > background pianos > cymbals, fx samples

You basically just did it upside down its not quite true. i tried to rethink my mapping process and i came up with idea that i MOSTLY followed basic emphasize (vocal/drum), BUT when some instrument did stuff which is quite unique or unusual, i emphasized that, because i thought it would make my map more diverse and interesting, that's the reason why HighTec did a wall of text (but didn't finish it)
I won't say it's either bad or good, but no matter what - your execution is obviously not good enough for what you want to express, unfortunately. i really hope this is subjective, because i still think that this map is quite decent and many people can enjoy it, even experienced with mapping

I can still see spaces for you to improve.
Good luck, and have a good day. Thank you a lot.

yShadowXOP_ wrote:

INSANE

01:27:429 (5) - NC? yes
01:49:331 (2,3) - stack? its intended to be like that
01:52:119 (3) - i did not find any change in the music to be a slider 1/8 changed with previous mod
02:07:252 (4,5,6,7,8) - Try to fix this stream, it's very strange i think its fine
02:39:376 (1,2,3,4,1) - i liked the floow thankies c:
04:13:623 (2) - here are 1/8 beats there are plenty similar sounds in the song, i dont think there is much reason to map them

i really hope that this map is right rank necause he is great thanks a lot!

Good luck with map You too

Kyuukai wrote:

ay m4m

pls dat background size DDDDD: inb4 one person told me to use it

Normal
00:16:545 (5) - make a 1/2 slider or make another note here 00:16:810 - since u're following the main sound instrumental
00:20:527 (5,6) - idk what u are following here xd
00:30:350 - make that clickable, important sound
00:32:474 - ^
00:42:031 (5) - same as the 1st thing I said
00:47:341 - make it clickable
00:59:022 (4,1) - not intuitive at all, even if you're following the vocals with that 00:59:819 (1) - slider, you're mainly focusing on the instrumentals behind, so the player will more likely think u'll be following instrumentals instead of vocals here
01:00:084 - clickable
01:04:332 - ^, I'll stop pointing them out from now on, look at ur map and find the similar sounds
01:17:076 - 01:17:208 - why is that kiai lasts for 0.2seconds lmao, it should stop here 01:51:058 -
01:23:182 (3,4,5,1) - ugh, that doesn't look good, try to make 01:23:978 (4) - that slider's curve pointing toward 01:25:040 (5) -
the same problems lasts during the whole map, rhythm is messy and sometimes the structure is not really good, most of important sounds are skipped, patterning is not bad
i decided to remap it because when i made this diff i was following some stupid rule which i came up with by myself

Hard
00:03:403 (3,4,5) - what are theses mapped for lol set effect volume to 0% and youll hear it
00:04:863 (1,2,3) - ^
00:07:651 (3) - ^
00:12:195 - ^
00:20:261 (2) - ^, I'll stop pointing out the overmapping from now on xd good
00:25:040 (4,5) - don't think this is readable for a Hard player ill see
00:29:553 (4,5) - maybe you can extend the 4 to the 5 and delete 5 instead ? U're following vocals theres sound on the end of 4 tho
Well, same problems as the Normal diff thoughout the whole diff but u've added the overmap in that diff D:

The map itself is not bad if we speak about patterning, a lot of them flows pretty well but there's too much problems about the rhythm thanks for mod!

bob80905 wrote:

Here's a m4m

Insane

"Insane"

• 
  

1. According to the rules, this is a "Hard" difficulty, so you may want to change the name of this difficulty to Hard. very interesting this, this, this and this. how these and billion other mapsets got ranked if icon diff doesn't correspond to sr? (sr is not equal to difficulty)
   That said, (ofc you've heard this b4) I don't think streams all over the place is suitable for a difficulty like this. 113 bpm streams, i can't feel my fingers Plus, there are not many sounds that are stream-like in the music itself. It feels like you just added a stream in the beginning because streams are cool. I recommend doing this instead
2. 00:07:253 (2,3,4) - This spacing is bad. try this instead You need equal distance for such a short time gap as this. this spacing is ok. the bad thing is that used it very barely. this map is way too inconsistent and thats why its bad
3. 00:11:500 (2,3,4) - Same with this as above^ ^
4. 00:17:474 (2) - I don't think 1/8th spaces are very suited for a map under 3 * difficulty. maybe just delete this? It sounds better if you just delete it. such things trigger me badly
5. 00:24:509 (2,3,4,5) - I don't understand why there has to be a stream there. Why not instead emphasize Aimer's voice? there's no part of the song that correlates with this stream, it's put here for no reason imo. there is sound that is absolutely audible, its drumsI recommend deleting 3 and 5 off the map and moving 2 and the next circle to a better spot.
6. 00:29:553 (1,2) - This is hard to read for a difficulty like this. So is this. 00:26:899 (2,3,4) - its "insane" difficulty. i think those players can read stacks pretty well
7. 00:37:253 (2,3,4) - Can you delete 3? I think it does better emphasizing the piano/trumpet, and I don't see what part of the song 3 is trying to correlate to. drum
8. 00:39:244 (2) - This should be deleted imo. ^ why xd
9. 00:41:899 (1) - Same as above^ ^
10. 00:45:217 (1,2,3,1,2) - This structure is weird imo. i think its cool
11. 00:59:553 (3) - Should be moved closer to the next slider, equal spacing. big white tick, beggining of new measure
12. 01:02:739 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Weird structure. cool structure
13. 01:10:704 (1,2,3,4) - You should delete 2 and 4. This is wayyyyy hard to read. Also 2 and 4 don't correltate to any sound in the music. it may be hard. and its intended
14. 01:16:412 (4,5,6,7) - This isn't suited for this difficulty. And you know, this is a slow bpm, calm song, so it's hard to get the difficulty high at all... If you want to express the sounds, I recommend using a single reverse slider. There are sounds you are trying to express here, but you're doing it too hard imo.
15. 01:19:730 (2,3,4) - 3 and 4 should be deleted. Only 2 correlates to a sound in the music.
16. 01:24:244 (3,4,5,6) - I think this is too technical and complex for a difficulty like this. Maybe you should try to focus more on Aimer-sama's voice here instead of the instrument. i wanted to make it technical and complex. because 1/2 sliders and circles are dumb
17. 01:26:633 (3,4) - Hard to read. not at all
18. 01:32:739 (3,1) - Should try to focus on her voice more than this. I don't know what you're trying to express here. because it makes map interesting. click on 3 for vocal, 1 for snare
19. 01:33:536 (3,4,5) - Should remove 4
20. 01:41:899 (5,6) - Should delete 5, move 6 somewhere better kick on 5
21. 01:45:217 (2,3) - Complicated, maybe focus more on the beat instead. i like it
22. 01:47:607 (5,6,1,2,3) - I can't even read this. Could ya focus on more simpler sounds in the music? Like thisfor example.
23. 01:49:332 (2) - There is a sound here, but the distance is too far. I recommend removing it, or moving it closer to the previous slider
24. This looks like a triple. Recommend spacing it out for less confusion. this looks like a typo
25. 01:53:713 (3) - You should make this a circle. If not, 01:53:447 (2) - make this a slider. Consistency.
26. 01:58:093 (3) - The sound here isn't prominent enough to warrant putting a circle here. Recommend removing this
27. 01:58:890 (2,3,4,5,6) - Maybe make the stream smoother?
28. 02:02:208 (3,1,2,3,4) - This structure is weird, and I think too complex for this difficulty.
29. 02:04:598 (3,4) - Hard to read
30. 02:05:925 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Super hard to read
31. 02:26:899 (2,3,4,5,6) - For this I think the music calls for a double after slider 2 and a circle where 5 used to be, removing all the rest.
32. 02:31:279 (3) - This doesn't belong, there is no 1/8 beat here. Just a regular stream here would suffice.
33. 02:36:191 (2,3,4,5) - 5 doesn't represent any sound in the music, and you skip a sound between 2 and the previous slider
34. 02:40:969 (1,2,3) - looks like a triple, may want to space these
35. 02:44:686 (2) - Think this should be a circle
36. 02:51:589 (3,4) - might be hard to read. This too. 02:53:447 (3,4) -
37. 02:58:093 (4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - A stream that has a kink? Pretty difficult for a < 3* difficulty, wouldn't you say?
38. 03:06:589 (6,7) - I think this should be deleted.
39. 03:12:164 (2) - There is no indication that this is so early in the song, the distance is huge. Also, this is hard to read. Finally, you shouldn't use 1/8th beats. Not for a song like this. Maybe replace the head with a circle. Like this
40. 03:15:217 (5,6,7) - Hard to read if triple or not
41. 03:17:607 (4,5,1,2,3) - Bad structure imo.
42. 03:22:120 (8) - Should delete this and just add a circle where the slider head is.
43. 03:21:722 (7) - I recommend sticking to the prominent sounds here. like this
44. 03:26:368 (4) - This shouldn't be a reverse, there's no sound where the slider reverses
45. 03:27:695 (2,3) - Awkward, why not make a slider where 2 starts, and ends on the red tick?
46. 03:29:819 (1,2,3) - Hard to read
47. 03:32:872 (9) - No sound here to correlate to the music. This is a 5 stream, in reality, not a 6. Maybe make a reverse slider to make these sounds instead of a stream?
48. 03:36:722 (4) - This should just be a circle imo.
49. 03:40:040 (2) - Delete this
50. 03:44:952 (5,6,7,8) - Very hard to read. Also, 1/8 beat shouldn't be here. This should, in reality, be a 5 stream, or a reverse slider that makes a sound 5 times.
51. 03:48:403 (2,3,4) - Should move these further away to indicate a little longer space in time.
52. 04:02:474 (5) - Blanket? hard to read
53. 04:00:350 (1,2,3,4) - This is not consistent with 04:02:739 (1,2,3,1) - . You should change the first case to a longer second slider, like you have in the second case.
54. 04:08:580 (4) - hard to read
55. 04:16:412 (3) - Recommend making this a circle. easier to read.
56. 04:17:607 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Ultra Hard to read. 04:17:872 (2,3,4) - This is really just a 5 circle stream right here. Recommend doing that instead, or a reverse slider that makes a sound 5 times.
57. 04:20:129 (2) - Delete this.
58. 04:22:916 (2,3,1,2,3,1) - Not consistent.04:22:916 (2,3) - is slider circle, but 04:23:447 (1,2,3) - Is three circles. You should keep the same pattern. Also, if you're going to end the slider on a 1/6 beat, you should have 04:23:447 (1,2,3) circle 2 be on a 1/6 beat as well. Or slider end, if you decide to change it. You should though, because there's no indicator of a time stop. The circles are equi-distantly placed. This is a recipe for mistaking it for a triple and combo breaking right before the song ends. So, 04:23:447 (1,2,3) you should change this to be either more spaced, or to be consistent with your previous pattern and make it slider-circle.

Overall, I don't think your structuring is very well done. Also, you make this map too complex and technical for a low bpm song on a difficulty under 3 stars. I think it should be simpler (particularly removing any hint of using 1/8 beats.) So structure/object position can be worked on, proper emphasis of Aimer-sama's voice, and proper distance to accompany that. Some of your distancing was ehhh at times. Just fyi, try emphasizing Aimer-sama's voice with distance when she's singing the chorus, and it should play better. Also keep distance relatively equal for the given part of the song. If the song changes into a quiet part, then maybe lower the overall average distance of notes by time.
If you couldn't tell, I love Aimer-sama, and I don't think Osu! has enough Aimer.
Osu doesn't have enough Aimer until all of her songs are on Osu!
Long live Aimer!
um, at some point i got tired of checking every point of this mod. its obvious that our points of view are extremely different. anyway, now i understand why this map is bad, thanks to all previous mods and this one too, i wont remake it
(Good luck! ) you too dude