Kisses wrote:

00:16:593 (1,2) - when you end sliders on blue ticks like this it makes the jumps really harsh

Yahuri wrote:

blanket mod from q
02:48:317 (2) - i think this slider might be unrankable. when i played through the map i was unsure if there was a red anchor on the same spot as the slidertail (so the loop could go either right or left, not left only)
uhhhhh i dont think so, nobody of the testplayers missread that.
00:11:076 (1) - the bottom of this arc opens up a little bit, move the red anchor to a left 2-3 pixels https://puu.sh/wHqRi/2da3e073c2.png
okay
00:11:076 (1,2) - move the head of 2 closer to the body of 1
okay
00:47:973 (3,2) - are these supposed to be perfectly overlapped?
actually no
00:48:662 (2,1) - the head and tail of 1 are farther away from 2 than the rest of 1's body
okay
00:55:904 (3,4) - fix blanket, the tail of 4 is far away from the head of 3
okay
00:57:283 (3,4) - ^
okay
00:58:662 (3,4) - ^
okay
01:08:490 (7,3) - blanket?
okay
01:08:748 (3) - 01:09:007 (1) - the sides of 1 blanketing 3 are farther away than the middle
okay
01:10:042 (2) - move anchor 1px to left
okay
01:11:766 (1,2) - blanket?
no
01:16:248 (2,1) - move the tail of 1 closer to 2
okay
01:20:042 (1) - move the first anchor a few pixels to the left
okay
01:20:559 (3,2) - the sides of 2 are farther away than the middle
okay
01:21:076 (2,1) - ^ the sides of 1 are farther away than the middle
okay
01:21:421 (1,2) - move the first anchor point of 2 up left
okay
01:24:524 (2) - 01:25:300 (3) - move the anchor point of 3 down
okay
01:25:904 (2,4) - check both blankets
okay
01:52:110 (2,1) - the bottom half of the slider is closer to 1 than the top
okay
01:52:886 (3,1) - the head of 1 is closer to 3 than the tail of 1
okay
01:55:645 (3,1) - the sides of 1 blanketing 3 are farther away than the middle
okay
01:59:697 (2,3) - the sides of 2 blanketing 3 are farther away than the middle
okay
02:00:386 (4,5) - visual spacing varies
okay
02:00:214 (3,6) - move 6 down right
okay
02:09:697 (1,2,1) - looks a bit weird cuz 02:10:042 (1) - is pretty close to 2 but its farther away from 02:09:697 (1)
okay
02:09:697 (1,2) - move tail of 2 to the left
okay
02:11:421 (2,3) - the last few red anchors of 2 make it jut out away from 3, you can do this or sth https://puu.sh/wHrSN/483ab80627.png
okay
02:45:559 (1,2) - move the head of 2 a bit closer to 1
okay
03:05:214 (1,1) - move the tail of the second slider farther away from the first
okay
03:59:783 (5,1) - move the tail of 1 closer to 5
okay
04:10:817 (3,1) - move the tail of 1 closer to 3
okay
04:12:800 (2,1) - 1 is kinda close to 2 on 1's left side
idk what u mean
04:18:317 (2,2) - the tail of the 2nd slider is farther away from the 1st slider than the rest of the 2nd slider's body
okay
04:30:128 (3,1) - move the head of 1 farther down so u can get a better blanket without encroaching on the body of 3
okay
04:44:524 (2,3) - move the tail of 3 closer to 2
okay
05:06:248 (1,2) - the head of 2 is farther from 1 on 2's right side than its top side
okay

well shit thats long
pm if you need any clarification

• 01:06:938 (4) - I personally dont like how this reverse slider plays, maybe do smth liek http://prntscr.com/fw133u I mean.. smth like this would be more fun to play than that reverse u know, reverse slider makes you do a stop- but the song doesn't support that imo
  01:08:576 (1,2) - use different (more) spacing on these? I mean, just different spacing than 01:08:317 (5,6,7) - why? because 01:08:576 (1,2) - sounds more loud, more aggresive
  01:09:697 (4) - something similar could be done here (I bet you won't change, but even tho, I still don't really like the reverse, maybe use more kicksliders? the reverse could work sometimes but, I think that, if you have the space to change it, you should)
  01:10:042 (2,1) - http://prntscr.com/fw146t really niqqa? (oh wait, its making a blanket on the prev sliderend, Im dumb
  01:11:507 (3,1) - http://prntscr.com/fw14h5
  01:12:283 (3,4) - flows kinda.. bad, too wide angles, move the reverse up maybeh
  01:13:490 (2) - change this into a stream? here the stream would play a lot better tbh
  01:15:473 (1,2) - add a little bit more spacing on them to make more emphasize in the reverse by moving the whole stream and the 1 to the left you have a lot of space there xd
  01:22:455 (2) - check blanket with prev slider
  01:23:145 (2,3,4,1) - don't like the flow here
  01:19:007 (2) - remember to use NC on sliders when they change the sv (so this one's really fast, shouldnt it have NC?) check the others tho
  01:25:128 (1,2,3) - these 3 shouldnt have the same spacing since their sounds r soooo different, like.. put 2 closer to 3, away from 1 http://prntscr.com/fw15zq make this to reflect the music better and if you change it, check other parts like this (hope you change it :T)
  01:38:921 (3,4,5) - dont flow well, maybe use the red anchor on 01:38:317 (2) - to put the 3 after it http://prntscr.com/fw16kh
  01:41:076 (2) - this slider is ugly (like me)
  01:43:490 (1,2) - blankts
  01:59:266 (4,5,6,1) - flow could be improved
  02:02:110 (4,1) - ^
  02:12:283 (1,1) - please use more spacing between these, i dont think its intentional, but in the case it is, I think this is not really.. a good choice since you have NC on 02:12:110 (1,1,1) - and so on 02:12:455 (1) - so it feels like its a continuous stream without any gap (02:12:369 - )
  02:12:714 (2) - should be closer to next slider, misl,eading spacing
  02:14:093 (1,2) - why use a double here and a triplet here 02:14:783 (1,2,3) - should use either a double or a triplet but not both, its the same sound, I think.. a double works better considering the music, and so I think the same for other parts like this ( 02:20:300 (1,2,3) - 02:23:059 (6,7,8) - )
  02:26:507 (2,1) - I don't.. really get.. what you wanted to emphasize here with this spacing since theres like no loud sound on them, same with 02:32:024 (6,1) - it's like.. too random and misleading just because the beats on them is not really.. loud
  03:23:575 (6,1) - should NC on 6 and move it closer to the slider (1) since the beats on them r different than the rest of the stream
  03:53:921 (3,4) - dont really agree with what you make here, beats on 03:54:179 (5,6) - r louder than 03:53:921 (3,4) - so by logic.. 03:54:179 (5,6) - are supposed to have more spacing, because they're louder, right? you did the opposite so youre doing emphasize on beats that dont deserve such emphasize and DONT actually emphasize the sound you SHOULD emphasize (I said emphasize a lot :thinking:)
  04:01:766 (2,3,4,5,1,2) - dont want to offend but this stream looks maded by someone who has never mapped anything in his life and this is his first map xD
  04:40:386 (1,2,3,4,5) - should do smth similar to 04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - actually... 04:40:386 (1,2,3,4,5) - follows nothing

Itasha_S13 wrote:

• 01:06:938 (4) - I personally dont like how this reverse slider plays, maybe do smth liek http://prntscr.com/fw133u I mean.. smth like this would be more fun to play than that reverse u know, reverse slider makes you do a stop- but the song doesn't support that imo
  ok nice idea, gonna reconsider something
  01:08:576 (1,2) - use different (more) spacing on these? I mean, just different spacing than 01:08:317 (5,6,7) - why? because 01:08:576 (1,2) - sounds more loud, more aggresive
  already did
  01:09:697 (4) - something similar could be done here (I bet you won't change, but even tho, I still don't really like the reverse, maybe use more kicksliders? the reverse could work sometimes but, I think that, if you have the space to change it, you should)
  changed spacing
  01:10:042 (2,1) - http://prntscr.com/fw146t really niqqa? (oh wait, its making a blanket on the prev sliderend, Im dumb
  changed
  01:11:507 (3,1) - http://prntscr.com/fw14h5
  changed
  01:12:283 (3,4) - flows kinda.. bad, too wide angles, move the reverse up maybeh
  changed
  01:13:490 (2) - change this into a stream? here the stream would play a lot better tbh
  changed
  01:15:473 (1,2) - add a little bit more spacing on them to make more emphasize in the reverse by moving the whole stream and the 1 to the left you have a lot of space there xd
  changed
  01:22:455 (2) - check blanket with prev slider
  fixed
  01:23:145 (2,3,4,1) - don't like the flow here
  changed
  01:19:007 (2) - remember to use NC on sliders when they change the sv (so this one's really fast, shouldnt it have NC?) check the others tho
  01:25:128 (1,2,3) - these 3 shouldnt have the same spacing since their sounds r soooo different, like.. put 2 closer to 3, away from 1 http://prntscr.com/fw15zq make this to reflect the music better and if you change it, check other parts like this (hope you change it :T)
  dude chill its impossible
  01:38:921 (3,4,5) - dont flow well, maybe use the red anchor on 01:38:317 (2) - to put the 3 after it http://prntscr.com/fw16kh
  changed
  01:41:076 (2) - this slider is ugly (like me)
  changed
  01:43:490 (1,2) - blankts
  changed
  01:59:266 (4,5,6,1) - flow could be improved
  changed
  02:02:110 (4,1) - ^
  changed
  02:12:283 (1,1) - please use more spacing between these, i dont think its intentional, but in the case it is, I think this is not really.. a good choice since you have NC on 02:12:110 (1,1,1) - and so on 02:12:455 (1) - so it feels like its a continuous stream without any gap (02:12:369 - )
  changed
  02:12:714 (2) - should be closer to next slider, misl,eading spacing
  changed
  02:14:093 (1,2) - why use a double here and a triplet here 02:14:783 (1,2,3) - should use either a double or a triplet but not both, its the same sound, I think.. a double works better considering the music, and so I think the same for other parts like this ( 02:20:300 (1,2,3) - 02:23:059 (6,7,8) - )
  i disagree, there are 3 distinct sounds
  02:26:507 (2,1) - I don't.. really get.. what you wanted to emphasize here with this spacing since theres like no loud sound on them, same with
  02:32:024 (6,1) - it's like.. too random and misleading just because the beats on them is not really.. loud
  changed a bit
  03:23:575 (6,1) - should NC on 6 and move it closer to the slider (1) since the beats on them r different than the rest of the stream
  yea changed nc, not sure about ds
  03:53:921 (3,4) - dont really agree with what you make here, beats on 03:54:179 (5,6) - r louder than 03:53:921 (3,4) - so by logic.. 03:54:179 (5,6) - are supposed to have more spacing, because they're louder, right? you did the opposite so youre doing emphasize on beats that dont deserve such emphasize and DONT actually emphasize the sound you SHOULD emphasize (I said emphasize a lot :thinking:)
  im mainly following the drums in the entire map, drums and snares.
  so if i go with ur logic then i shud indicate this 03:54:438 - sound, which will contradict with 03:54:524 - next sound in 1/4 range, which is worse than making emphasis on 03:54:266 - 03:54:352 - 03:54:438 -
  04:01:766 (2,3,4,5,1,2) - dont want to offend but this stream looks maded by someone who has never mapped anything in his life and this is his first map xD
  changed a bit
  04:40:386 (1,2,3,4,5) - should do smth similar to 04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - actually... 04:40:386 (1,2,3,4,5) - follows nothing
  i explained the logic above

the map improved a LOT after the remap, yes
anyways I think you should try to put more attention on what you emphasize, since its not clear sometimes, like.. NO CLEAR AT ALL, it's like too random and the beats that Should have more emphasize are not emphasized at all, and flow, the flow on this map it's terrible sometimes, since you use too wide angles on things that are supposed to play fast (most of them on kicksliders) so I think you should try to improve that to make a map more enjoyable
once again, yes, map improved a lot after the remap, now it's not really boring but yeah, it could be a LOT better with better flow
dont need to kudosu

Celektus wrote:

[ Vortex]

1. Why is this jump 00:55:214 (1,2) - bigger than this one 00:56:593 (1,2) - and this one? 00:57:973 (1,2) - You might also wanna compare the intensity with this one 01:06:248 (1,2) -
   fixed
2. I think you should make the different design of this one more noticeable 01:12:800 (2) - most sliders so far had distinct anchors with apparent changes,
   this one is more subtle and I don't really see why it specifically needs to be this way. I'll suggest something like this
   
   I would say this about a few slider like 01:15:904 (1) - if the changes from the anchors aren't distinct why even use them, mappers will notice these only as kink imo. Though I'm if this is your style I won't question is any further.
   i dont really get the problem, i mean, uhhhh it works that way nicely enough??? maybe...??
   
3. why is this one smaller 01:13:490 (2,3) - than this one? 01:07:973 (2,3) - >If it's pitch based why does the stream spacing stay the same? I would either change the spacing into them by comparing most of these or making the pitch based idea more apparent.
   why? cuz im stupid
   
4. this jump into the Snare seems way smaller than all the others so far in comparison 01:17:283 (1,2) - You might wanna make it bigger.
   nice find
5. I think this Overlap conflicts with most of the design that so far has been established 01:21:421 (1,2) - I don't really mind how hard it is to read, but it stands out more than other similarly specific parts of the song. I know changing this is gonna be hard, but for example this sound 01:19:007
   (2) - got a less outstanding change even though I would argue it's more outstanding.
   fixed already.
6. I think this jump into 1 could be bigger 01:25:300 (3,1) - as it's in my opinion a bit more special and your movement isn't enough to make that apparent since you used movement like this already.
   increased a bit
7. I'm not sure about the difference between these 2 patterns 01:28:662 (2,3,4) - 01:31:421 (2,3,4) - The first seems to be more intense and
   increased ds a bit
8. I'd say super small spacing here would fit more than super big spacing 02:12:110 (1,1,1) - like this maybe
   uh i dont think so, personal preference
9. the rhythm here 02:27:886 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - could emphasize the lead sound more since they don't land on consistently the same objects. and this one lands on a slider end 02:28:490 - which is kinda suboptimal in my opinion.
   ok so this one is a bit tricky. i cant emphasize 2 layers here, cuz
   - its a calm part
   - these two layers arent coherent, basically its impossible to make it consistent, so i got to sacrifice one of them.
   
10. please make the slider border here complacently overlap 02:40:042 (1) - or in a way
    ok
11. this one could be faster to express the change in pitch 03:00:731 (1) - I would say 1,2x works better.
    ok
12. this slider could be different 03:07:628 (1) - to show that the build up with vocals starts here 03:07:973 (2) -
    no, it follows different idea. i didnt follow vocals in this map at all
13. It would make more sense in my opinion to start the stream from the Snare already 03:19:007 (2,3,4,5,6) - this would mean
    uhhh concept preference, i like it the way it is now.

Blanket box to hide cancer

1. There was one thing I wanted to mention about your sliders overall which I've seen in other maps from. You seem to not pay attention to how the slider head and end interact with the rest of the body. There are often part of your sliders like this where the portion near the head has a straight uneven curve with the rest of the slider. I think you do this without being aware of it and not because you don't care, if you do not care then I have no problem with that.
   well im actually aware of things im doing, so yea. most of stuff i did there was intentional.
   
2. 00:11:076 (1,2) - the middle of the curve between then is slightly bigger. than 00:08:317 (2,1) -
   fixed
3. the distance between body and circle is slightly bigger than from the slider end to the circle 00:19:352 (2,1) -
   fixed
4. similar to the one above 00:27:283 (1,1) - the slider borders are slightly further away.
   fixed
5. the head should be closer to the loop 00:48:662 (2,1) -
   fixed
6. I think this one is kinda apparent and easy to fix with 1/8th snap and staking 01:46:593 (4,1,2) -
   changed the pattern
7. 02:00:386 (4) - compare this with this more of a subjective taste thing in this case.
   changed
   02:29:352 (3,1) - one of them is off by 1° and I don't think that's either enough or inconsistent overall. nazi ik
   fixed
8. no stack? 03:20:904 (1,2) -
   fixed

squirrelpascals wrote:

Hi owo

bortex

• 00:22:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - I would recommend silencing these sliderends (and that last repeat slider) a little bit more, since the hi hats on those slider ends are so much more quieter. Same goes for 00:33:145 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) -
fixed
• 01:16:248 (2) - 01:38:317 (2) - 01:43:835 (2) - etc. I would also recommend using an nc to alert players of the high sv changes
i would argue with that. basically the sv change doesnt really matter here, cuz 01:06:248 - its already 1.6, same with others. these fast sliders are 1.5-1.7. it doesnt feel different. also, it would ruin the follow point scheme I was building thru the map.
• 01:50:386 (1,2,3) - Can you use more spacing contrast here so it's easier to tell which objects have a 1/4 and 1/2 timeline gap?
fixed
• 02:00:386 (4) - Snapped to 1/6 by accident? Better fix this and stick to a consistent 1/4 snap
fixed
• 02:07:283 (2,3,4) - This wide angle is pretty uncomfortable to play with this spacing you use, a slightly sharper angle would help here
changed
• 02:10:731 (4) - move this up by a tiny bit because this is barely touching 02:10:300 (2) - , same for 02:14:783 (1,1) - because of that stack sorry this is really picky lol
fixed
• 02:15:559 (3,4) - increase your spacing here? You usually use something similar to 02:12:455 (1,2) - 02:17:973 (1,2) same for 02:23:835 (4,5) -
fixed
• 02:29:352 (3) - snapped to 1/6
fixed
• 02:29:007 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - Can you make your combo lengths more consistent here? I don't see any type of pattern here atm, your combos are 2, 3, 4, then 2 beats long
fixed
• 02:21:766 (3) - snapped to 1/8?
its 1/16
• 02:48:317 (2) - Please make this sliderpath easier to read. Right now it looks like the slider can go to the right or left at 02:49:309 -
uhhh are u sure its a problem? nobody said anything about this, and noone of the testplayers failed this
• 02:50:674 (1) - also unsnapped lo
its snapped to 1/6, intended
• 02:51:076 (1) - Looks like you should extent this by 1/4, the sound the reverse arrow looks like it should land on is at 02:52:455 - and then you would have the sliderend land on the hi hat at 02:53:835 -
yea, my mistake
• 03:17:283 - 15% is too quiet off a feedback here imo, lowering the volume to 25% or maybe 20% would be optimal
uh its decreasing by 2-3% each jump, i dont see the problem here, its super consistent.
• 03:35:559 (2,3,4,1) - Flow feels uncomfortable here also, the sharp angle at 03:35:559 (2,3,4) - followed by the large angle at 03:35:731 (3,4,1) - feels awkward
changed
• 03:24:697 (3,4,5,6,1) - In this stream, the first half 03:24:697 (3,4,5) - is less curved than the second half 03:24:869 (5,6,1) - which makes the stream feel kind of messy. Please make the curve throughout the stream consistent, same for 03:56:421 (3,4,5,6,1) - and 03:58:490 (3,4,5,6,1) -
fixed
• 03:36:938 (2,3,4) - better to use consistent spacing here imo, will look aestheticlaly neater
fixed
• 03:41:938 (3,4,1) - Don't you usually use bigger spacing here? eg 03:44:007 (3,4,1) - 03:35:731 (3,4,1) -
fixed a bit
• 03:48:145 (1,1,1,1,1) - The length of these sliders makes this part feel very ovverexaggerated. you used a smaller slider length at 03:07:110 - and that part is even stronger than what you do herre. sv 3.5 or so would feel better here
like, literally no one ever got a 100 there, it fits perfectly, nobody complained. i guess different sound phrases can use different spacing concepts, doesnt matter if they are contradicting each other, if they are on the different parts of the song.
• 03:49:007 (4) - nc on this downbeat, same on 04:22:110 (6) -
ok
• 04:25:473 (4,5,6,7,1,2) - not a fan of how the second combo doesn't follow the flow of the stream, it just looks off
i mean, its the same as 01:08:490 (7,1) - ?
• 04:35:559 (5) - Feels strange how this slider skips over what you were mapping to at 04:34:869 (2,3,4) - (talking about the note at 04:35:645 - ). You should continue to map to that. A circle + kickslider or a repeat slider would work well here
ok changed
• 05:06:248 (1) - Why is this tail snapped to 1/8? This is pretty unexpected by the player and messes with the accuracy of hitting 05:06:248 (1) - , snap this to 1/4 instead
yea i fucked up

these snapping errors tho xp. everything else seems very minor though compared to the map as a whole

call me back once you reply

Pachiru wrote:

The sliders are reflecting the song very well, but I think that some patterns are strange. Anyway, congratz

wajinshu wrote:

Не думала что кто-то из украинцев умеет классно делать мапы

N0thingSpecial wrote:

done
ok before i start: i completely ok with changing stuff if your will suggesting it instead of just tell me shit.
so here we go.

read first

I'm gonna point out a big one out there first, you blanket everything, it's your style, but at the same time it makes your maps look uncanny, your blankets are precise to the point it makes it look uncomfortable. a real life comparison is, If you ever hear a piano piece played to perfection electronically with accurate piano sound, perfect linear dynamic changes, pitch tuned down to precise frequency, but it wouldn't sound appealing as it lacks the emotional part that human error brings, so it could only be human like, thus uncanny. just think about it, I could end the mod here just by pointing out the reason why people voted 1 on your map in the first place, it's a legit artistic reasoning that people always debate about.

If you disagree with the uncanny feeling then just ignore and move on the the next box, here's a list of uncanny aesthetic moments here
00:27:283 (1,1) - 00:38:317 (1,1) -
00:44:179 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - this is just symmetrical for the sake of symmetry when it doesn't complement rhythm and sound
01:01:248 (2,3,1) -
01:08:748 (3,1) -
01:10:042 (2,1) -
01:19:007 (2,3,1) -
01:32:110 (2,1) -
01:33:576 (3,1) -
01:41:852 (4,1) -
01:43:490 (1,1) - this one is arguable
02:06:679 (3,1) -
02:09:697 (1,2,1,2) -
02:17:714 (3,1,2,3) -
02:33:404 (2,3,4) -
03:53:490 (2,3,4) -
04:39:697 (2,3,1) -
i dont know man, it was on purpose, i have no idea like... i just dont know what shud i say to it.
Too perfect? hmmm idk

This is going to be fun

Ok my major complaint for this map is it's aesthetics, not saying there was no effort put into it, circle and slider placement probably have individual logic to them but that's the problem, you're looking at individual logic when it comes to placement, your macro patterning is almost non-existent.

before I start 00:13:835 (2) - this is sticks out badly as most of your sliders are curvy compressed shape with whirls at the end, the middle of the sliders sticks out like a tumor
I can agree with it.
WHERE THE FUN STARTS

00:22:110 (1,2,3,4) - you probably think this is good enough as it is minimalistic like the song, I get it, but in complete lack of sound, to justify circle placement you need consider the play field as an element to complement. I fail to see how the music supports a 4 1/1 sliders copy pasted disregarding angles correlating to each other, correlating to the play field, neither does it support an increase in spacing despite your copy pasting when comparing 00:22:110 (1,2) - to 00:23:490 (3,4) -
ok i agree

00:24:869 (1,2,3) - no flipping? nothing? symmetry? rotational symmetry? make it less uncanny to break up the empty intro? Anything?
yea maybe i could change that as well.\

00:33:145 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - this is a bit better, but since you're the guy who promoted "objective slider art" wouldn't you make 00:35:904 (1,2,3) - shaped more distorted as the eerie background sound increase in volume?
i honestly think these are fine

00:56:593 (1,3,4) - I didn't expect the the 1/1 slider the spoon the two 3/4 slider, as you didn't with 00:55:214 (1,3,4) - & 00:57:973 (1,3,4) - ,
, like I said lots of individual logic not much macro logic, patterning seem like it's a linear picturesque images forcefully sowed together.
i disagree with this, these are completely normal.

01:03:835 - why not start spinner here to match the start of the vocal?
yea makes sense

01:06:248 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - making things parallel is not bad, but zig zag polygonal placement feels very disconnected with curvy blanketing wub streams, when both segment is in same section of the song, a flawed consistency that occurred very frequently for the next 20 seconds.
i dont think its a problem honestly

01:11:766 (1,2,3,4) - sudden uncanny moment obligatory complaint
okay

01:18:317 (2,1) - 01:21:766 (2,2,1) - THIS is what your map needs, a good amount of variation coupled with recognizable pattern within the uncanny angular relationship with each other

01:23:835 (2,1) - and we're back to sliders being randomly angled
yes

01:28:317 (1) - why symmetrical sliders when there's nothing special happening in the song coughkillmecough
agreed

another example of disconnection: 01:24:524 (2,3) - parallel blankets cool, 01:25:904 (2,4) - parallel blankets cool, nice increase scaling pattern, but I fail to see how they spatially correlate with each other thus making an obvious connection between two sounds. also wouldn't it be wrong grouping as the scale down in 01:25:904 (2,4) - to 01:26:593 (1) - is more apparent than 01:24:524 (2,3,2,4) - in terms of obviousness, shouldn't that be the place to copy parallel blanketing sliders?
maybe

01:31:766 (4,2,1) - this is what I call cluster fuck where angles didn't matter, the previous cluster fucks I didn't care for because it was mostly clear what you're clustering, here you mixed both straight and curved sliders which the straight part sticks out like a sore thumb cause they have no correlation what so ever, not even cascade, parallel, rotational symmetry, nothing.
agreed

01:44:610 (4,1) - like, what is this? you usually have micro reasoning for specific slider arrangement (even if poorly reasoned imo), this just screams "I ran out of ideas let me use another polygonal shape I haven't used at all in the past 2 minutes, trapezium looks nice", weak reasoning.
agreed

01:45:904 (2) - same stuff^
agreed

01:46:593 (4) - and something completely ordinary to represent a sound you used distorted sliders to represent through out the map
agreed

01:52:110 (2) - same^ variation done poorly and lazily imo
agreed

02:02:628 (3,4,5,6,1) - 02:03:317 (3,4,5,6,1) - switch patterning around, read below
i think its different tho

02:05:386 (3,4,5,6,1) - 02:06:076 (3,4,5,6,1) - same^ even if you argue it's done consistently under both context making it ok, but since it's a constant that you've been using unorthodox angles/space/shape to represent that sound, I suggest switch it.
ok i agree


02:08:145 (3,4,5,6,1) - make it ordinary^
ok i agree



02:16:162 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - lacking in aesthetic separation can makes the sudden introduction 3/4 sound a bit harder to read, change angles shape or what ever you do within the premise of your style.
ok ill nerf some ds

02:22:197 - 02:31:421 - is done pretty good, until 02:32:110 (3) - you introduced an clustered slider body as a lazy way to transition angles from 90 to 45 degree, instead of using an entire slider cluster like 02:25:214 (2,3,4,5,1) - and 02:26:593 (1,2,1) - which one has outward expanding pattern and one has a cascading effect, 02:32:110 (3,4) - this is lazy.
ok i agree



03:18:662 - from this point on I'm not going to say anything about angular relationship cause I think I illustrated why I think they are uncanny and poorly reasoned for the past 2 minutes

03:45:386 (1,1,1,1) - you're running out of ideas, and you're starting to add ideas you previously haven't implemented IN SIMILAR SECTION OF THE SONG DONT USE 03:07:110 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - TO JUSTIFY IT, IT'S IN DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE SONG
HELLO its a unique sound, they are unique only because of that, honestly

03:48:145 (1,1,1,1,1) - this is more justified than the last one but I would still suggest removing it
i dont think so

03:25:214 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - until this progressive triangular jump part I thought you don't know other jump patterns, good job you made appropriate jump patterns that correlate to repetitiveness of the song, yay, use more progressive patterns is what I'm trying to say, I've seen way too many zig zag in to polygonal/triangle jumps in the first 3 minutes it's kinda boring in terms of playing it.
ok

03:38:317 (1,1,2,3,4,1,1,2,3,1) - nice pattern and SV manipulation grouping I'll give you that


03:59:007 (2) - you're really really really running out of ideas. a polygonal whirl slider art, for the first time, in 4 minutes, it sticks out like a sore thumb again
ok i agree


04:25:904 (2,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,1) - just like the intro 00:22:110 (1,2,3,4) -, minimalism doesn't excuse inconsistent copy pasting and spatial relation
ok i agree


despite all the negativity, 01:59:697 (2) - these sliders that appear consistently is actually pretty good

If you're not happy with the map, then don't rank it, it's like a middle finger to those who appreciates the map and those who actually want this map to be ranked, you don't care but others do.

Ampiduxmoe wrote:

честно говоря, удивился, когда увидел, что ее квалифнули в таком виде
я никогда ни с кем не контактировал насчет маппинга, маппал в одиночестве сам для себя (лул) и поэтому не знаю как тут у вас что делается, так что не буду против если мой пост будет проигнорирован как бесполезный (хотя сам считаю, что это не так)
дальше напишу просто что-то вроде моего мнения, как это должно быть

SPOILER

мне не понравилась общая эстетика карты и местами флоу и однообразие паттернов. А таккже то, как делаются, переходы между элементами, поставленными вертикально/горизонтально и элементами, поставленными под углом ~45 град (о наклонах вроде упомяну ниже)
00:22:110 - по таким секциям с простой копипастой тебе уже расписали, 00:24:869 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - вот эти шесть прямо вообще ужасно смотрятся. Это к вопросу об эстетике.
00:49:697 (1,1) - эти слайдеры, взятые парой, мне нравятся. Но посмотри на это 00:50:386 (2,3,1) - как по мне, это и выглядит неоч, и мув на слайдере делается неестественный. Я бы сделал что-то вроде этого https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8645129. Возможно субъективщина, но действительно спорные моменты стараюсь не трогать
00:59:697 (2) - этот слайдер скопипащен отсюда 00:48:662 - (да, да, ты немного изменил последний завиток), хотя саунды, на который они поставлены, звучат по-разному. 00:59:697 - отсюда идет более растянутый звук, так что 00:59:869 - тут можно поставить небольшой поворот через красную точку, а уже начиная отсюда 01:00:042 - закручивать
01:07:973 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - наверно имхота, но такие переходы в наклонах выглядят неоч. слайдер стоит вертикально, поэтому я бы стрим тоже сделал бы вертикальным. Мув будет более естественным и смотреться со следующим паттерном будет тоже лучше.
Бтв у тебя супермного элементов расположены чуть ли не по диагонали, что играется весьма странно и смотрится рандомно. Играть с наклонами надо аккуратно. Ты хрен где увидишь в ранкнутых картах слайдеры под 45 градусов, только в определенных отдельных паттернах вкупе с другими слайдерами и при переходах с постепенным изменением углов, в местах где это оправданно. Даже такую картинку слепил по юзанию наклонов в ранкед картах (а посмотрел я их очень много) https://puu.sh/tqxPO/505039c269.jpg
01:23:835 (2,1) - эти еще можно проигнорировать, но дальше будут очень странные(и эстетикой, и мувментом) слайдеры с рандомными красными точками, например 01:25:559 (1) - этот 01:45:904 (2) - или этот 01:52:886 (3,1) - или эти 03:18:662 (1) - или этот
01:41:852 (4,1) - я конечно понимаю, что бланкеты это круто, но зачем эти уродливые загибания на самых кончиках? Таких очень много, вот следом, например, идет 01:44:610 (4) -
01:46:593 (4,2) - про это уже писали, но я пожалуй тоже упомяну для убедительности. Такие моменты сразу чувствуются, как очень странные, потому что это самые простые изогнутые слайдеры на тех звуках, которые раньше ты маппил крутыми завитками. Зачем так? Да, как я уже писал, мапка однообразна, но так неестественно добавлять вариативности - удел новичков. Ищи другой путь сделать это, благо в осу возможностей для паттернинга слишком много. Сделай завитки не по прямой, как раньше, а по изогнутой линии, например.
01:59:697 (2) - почти идеально. попробуй сделать так, чтобы слайдерболл разворачивался на каждом сильном саунде, а саунды там стоят на кажом 1/3 тике. 01:59:812 - поворот 01:59:927 - поворот 02:00:042 - поворот
02:05:386 (3,4,5,6,1) - если бы ты не выбрал такую "концепцию" палкокарты, то тебе бы не пришлось настолько извращенскими способами пытаться ее разнообразить.
02:11:421 (2) - нагло скопипащенный слайдер отсюда 01:59:697 (2) - , хотя звуки, на которых они стоят, очень разные
02:12:110 (1,1,1) - если честно, из-за того что тут стоит на каждой ноте нк, я бы принял это за 1/3 стрим. Обычный 1/4, насколько я знаю, так не обозначают. 03:40:386 (1,1,1) - тоже самое 04:02:455 (1,1,1) - и это
02:48:317 (2,1) - кикслайдер некрасиво наезжает на предыдущий слайдер (да и на следующий тоже)
02:56:938 (1) - этому слайдеру очень нужен разворот на белом тике или ближе к нему 02:57:628 - , и опять же прислушайся к звукам и старайся на сильные делать разворот через красные точки, чтобы в полной мере передать трек
03:00:731 (1) - тоже самое, повороты не успевают за звуками
03:07:628 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - не знаю почему это сделано наипростейшими 1/2 палками, когда в треке звучат достаточно сильные тройки, замаппать которые бы соответствовало напряженному(имхо) билдапу
03:13:145 - я так понимаю уменьшение спейса тут идет от того, что шумы на фоне заглушаются. Однако отмечу, что войс(или что это) в этой же части становится более напряженным. Так что если уменьшать спейс, то не с такой скоростью.
04:03:835 (2,1) - нет, это так не работает. Если соединить два очень странных кривых слайдера бланкетом, лучше паттерн не станет.
04:29:352 (2,3) - очень непонятно какие звуки ты старался этими слайдерами выделить. Проигнорил три сильных саунда на фоне, при этом воткнул 3/4 слайдер с синего тика. Ни туда, ни сюда, как итог.
04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - те же звуки, но сделал ты уже по-другому (и правильно)
04:40:386 (1,2) - опять та же проблема. Я так понимаю это для разнообразия в карте. Но нет, это не работает в лучшую сторону.
04:51:766 (3,4,5,6,1) - интуитивно вообще непонятно как ты переключаешься между звуками. Пропустил важные звуки, зато задел еле слышный. То, что эту секцию (04:49:697 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ) ты пытаешься делать спокойной и это задумка, не будет оправданием, потому что следом идут два быстрых дабла, что сводит эту идею на нет. Сделать это как тут: 04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - (только без реверса в конце офк) и будет идеально. Даблы не будут столь неожиданными и играться момент будет гораздо комфортнее.
04:56:593 (1,2,3) - ^
05:01:766 (4,5,6) - ^ и плюсом неоправданно используешь другую конструкцию для тех же саундов, это не ок

у меня всё, надеюсь поможет, т.к. все-таки хочется увидеть это в ранкеде и в нормальном виде.
и удачи с импрувом эстетики в твоих картах, а то очень уж бросается в глаза
<3

hi-mei wrote:

Ampiduxmoe wrote:

честно говоря, удивился, когда увидел, что ее квалифнули в таком виде
я никогда ни с кем не контактировал насчет маппинга, маппал в одиночестве сам для себя (лул) и поэтому не знаю как тут у вас что делается, так что не буду против если мой пост будет проигнорирован как бесполезный (хотя сам считаю, что это не так)
дальше напишу просто что-то вроде моего мнения, как это должно быть

SPOILER

мне не понравилась общая эстетика карты и местами флоу и однообразие паттернов. А таккже то, как делаются, переходы между элементами, поставленными вертикально/горизонтально и элементами, поставленными под углом ~45 град (о наклонах вроде упомяну ниже)
00:22:110 - по таким секциям с простой копипастой тебе уже расписали, 00:24:869 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - вот эти шесть прямо вообще ужасно смотрятся. Это к вопросу об эстетике.
00:49:697 (1,1) - эти слайдеры, взятые парой, мне нравятся. Но посмотри на это 00:50:386 (2,3,1) - как по мне, это и выглядит неоч, и мув на слайдере делается неестественный. Я бы сделал что-то вроде этого https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8645129. Возможно субъективщина, но действительно спорные моменты стараюсь не трогать
00:59:697 (2) - этот слайдер скопипащен отсюда 00:48:662 - (да, да, ты немного изменил последний завиток), хотя саунды, на который они поставлены, звучат по-разному. 00:59:697 - отсюда идет более растянутый звук, так что 00:59:869 - тут можно поставить небольшой поворот через красную точку, а уже начиная отсюда 01:00:042 - закручивать
01:07:973 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - наверно имхота, но такие переходы в наклонах выглядят неоч. слайдер стоит вертикально, поэтому я бы стрим тоже сделал бы вертикальным. Мув будет более естественным и смотреться со следующим паттерном будет тоже лучше.
Бтв у тебя супермного элементов расположены чуть ли не по диагонали, что играется весьма странно и смотрится рандомно. Играть с наклонами надо аккуратно. Ты хрен где увидишь в ранкнутых картах слайдеры под 45 градусов, только в определенных отдельных паттернах вкупе с другими слайдерами и при переходах с постепенным изменением углов, в местах где это оправданно. Даже такую картинку слепил по юзанию наклонов в ранкед картах (а посмотрел я их очень много) https://puu.sh/tqxPO/505039c269.jpg
01:23:835 (2,1) - эти еще можно проигнорировать, но дальше будут очень странные(и эстетикой, и мувментом) слайдеры с рандомными красными точками, например 01:25:559 (1) - этот 01:45:904 (2) - или этот 01:52:886 (3,1) - или эти 03:18:662 (1) - или этот
01:41:852 (4,1) - я конечно понимаю, что бланкеты это круто, но зачем эти уродливые загибания на самых кончиках? Таких очень много, вот следом, например, идет 01:44:610 (4) -
01:46:593 (4,2) - про это уже писали, но я пожалуй тоже упомяну для убедительности. Такие моменты сразу чувствуются, как очень странные, потому что это самые простые изогнутые слайдеры на тех звуках, которые раньше ты маппил крутыми завитками. Зачем так? Да, как я уже писал, мапка однообразна, но так неестественно добавлять вариативности - удел новичков. Ищи другой путь сделать это, благо в осу возможностей для паттернинга слишком много. Сделай завитки не по прямой, как раньше, а по изогнутой линии, например.
01:59:697 (2) - почти идеально. попробуй сделать так, чтобы слайдерболл разворачивался на каждом сильном саунде, а саунды там стоят на кажом 1/3 тике. 01:59:812 - поворот 01:59:927 - поворот 02:00:042 - поворот
02:05:386 (3,4,5,6,1) - если бы ты не выбрал такую "концепцию" палкокарты, то тебе бы не пришлось настолько извращенскими способами пытаться ее разнообразить.
02:11:421 (2) - нагло скопипащенный слайдер отсюда 01:59:697 (2) - , хотя звуки, на которых они стоят, очень разные
02:12:110 (1,1,1) - если честно, из-за того что тут стоит на каждой ноте нк, я бы принял это за 1/3 стрим. Обычный 1/4, насколько я знаю, так не обозначают. 03:40:386 (1,1,1) - тоже самое 04:02:455 (1,1,1) - и это
02:48:317 (2,1) - кикслайдер некрасиво наезжает на предыдущий слайдер (да и на следующий тоже)
02:56:938 (1) - этому слайдеру очень нужен разворот на белом тике или ближе к нему 02:57:628 - , и опять же прислушайся к звукам и старайся на сильные делать разворот через красные точки, чтобы в полной мере передать трек
03:00:731 (1) - тоже самое, повороты не успевают за звуками
03:07:628 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - не знаю почему это сделано наипростейшими 1/2 палками, когда в треке звучат достаточно сильные тройки, замаппать которые бы соответствовало напряженному(имхо) билдапу
03:13:145 - я так понимаю уменьшение спейса тут идет от того, что шумы на фоне заглушаются. Однако отмечу, что войс(или что это) в этой же части становится более напряженным. Так что если уменьшать спейс, то не с такой скоростью.
04:03:835 (2,1) - нет, это так не работает. Если соединить два очень странных кривых слайдера бланкетом, лучше паттерн не станет.
04:29:352 (2,3) - очень непонятно какие звуки ты старался этими слайдерами выделить. Проигнорил три сильных саунда на фоне, при этом воткнул 3/4 слайдер с синего тика. Ни туда, ни сюда, как итог.
04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - те же звуки, но сделал ты уже по-другому (и правильно)
04:40:386 (1,2) - опять та же проблема. Я так понимаю это для разнообразия в карте. Но нет, это не работает в лучшую сторону.
04:51:766 (3,4,5,6,1) - интуитивно вообще непонятно как ты переключаешься между звуками. Пропустил важные звуки, зато задел еле слышный. То, что эту секцию (04:49:697 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ) ты пытаешься делать спокойной и это задумка, не будет оправданием, потому что следом идут два быстрых дабла, что сводит эту идею на нет. Сделать это как тут: 04:34:869 (2,3,4,5) - (только без реверса в конце офк) и будет идеально. Даблы не будут столь неожиданными и играться момент будет гораздо комфортнее.
04:56:593 (1,2,3) - ^
05:01:766 (4,5,6) - ^ и плюсом неоправданно используешь другую конструкцию для тех же саундов, это не ок

у меня всё, надеюсь поможет, т.к. все-таки хочется увидеть это в ранкеде и в нормальном виде.
и удачи с импрувом эстетики в твоих картах, а то очень уж бросается в глаза
<3

я не знаю какую версию карты ты модил, но я обновил эту часа полтора назад