2017-08-04 07:33 -Light-: не мог бы ты замодить мапу?
2017-08-04 07:33 -Light-: ACTION is listening to [https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1349969 ClariS - Sayonara Memories]
2017-08-04 07:36 m3gB3g: 6 минут
2017-08-04 07:36 m3gB3g: норм
2017-08-04 07:36 m3gB3g: ща сыграю
2017-08-04 07:43 m3gB3g: мне нравится!
2017-08-04 07:43 m3gB3g: я бы ранкнул
2017-08-04 07:44 -Light-: ну я и хочу попробывать ранкнуть...
2017-08-04 07:45 m3gB3g: но несколько слов у меня всё таки есть
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: 03:14:796 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - вот этот стрим
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: 03:15:546 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - мб чутка больше спейса между кружками?
2017-08-04 07:46 -Light-: из-за заворота?
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: да
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: курсор по скорости там проседает
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: а интенс песни повышается
2017-08-04 07:46 m3gB3g: чувствуется плохо
2017-08-04 07:47 m3gB3g: а увеличив спейс тех кругов которые я выделил ты оправдаешь заворот
2017-08-04 07:47 m3gB3g: и аргументируешь увеличение спейса интенсом
2017-08-04 07:49 -Light-: ну типо там флоу ломается
2017-08-04 07:49 -Light-: и все такое
2017-08-04 07:49 m3gB3g: 03:26:421 (5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3) - вот тоже весьма рисковый момент. Нет слайдеров.
2017-08-04 07:50 m3gB3g: лично мне нравится
2017-08-04 07:50 m3gB3g: но хз че бны скажут
2017-08-04 07:50 m3gB3g: 03:14:796 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - ты уже сломал флоу, я же сказал что курсор у поворoта проседает
2017-08-04 07:52 m3gB3g: 00:26:796 (1,2,3) - думаю плохой мув. Можно сделать удобнее и аккуратнее
2017-08-04 07:53 m3gB3g: 00:26:983 (2,3,4) - вот проблема
2017-08-04 07:53 m3gB3g: спейс разный, а интенсивность ритма одинаковая
2017-08-04 07:55 m3gB3g: 00:24:171 (3) - я бы чутка повыше его поставил. Конечно потеряешь стак с 00:23:046 (1) - но 00:23:796 (1,2,3) - круги поставлены под новый звук в музыке и лишение стака оправдана
2017-08-04 07:55 -Light-: а можешь на форум все это написать?
2017-08-04 07:56 m3gB3g: я скину туда лог чата
2017-08-04 07:56 m3gB3g: ок?
2017-08-04 07:56 m3gB3g: у меня и так всё
2017-08-04 07:56 m3gB3g: остальное мне нравится

Deramok wrote:

here my piece of mind as requested through tokiko

first and foremost i'll have to make a disclaimer on how i'm anything but an expert with meta style jumpy maps, which i'll mention whenever it may be of importance to keep in mind.

1. about the triples in the first section of the map, they seem a bit random at times to me in when they are mapped. for example 00:17:983 (2) - isn't a triple even if it's the piano playing it. 00:18:358 (3,4,5,6) - with 3 i'd expect the strong notes all to be mapped with 1/2, which would btw work for consistent emphasis, but then the triple on 4 defies that already, making the concept nill. 00:19:858 (5,6,7) - and 00:21:358 (4,5,6) - does the same (i appreciate how you spaced out 00:20:233 (8,9,10) - though).
2. 00:25:108 (7,10) - as opposed to 00:24:358 (4) - these do not have the extra spacing from the last note, which was a nice touch since it's quite obviously a more stressed note. 7 has a lower pitch though so i can appreciate a lower spacing on that, 10 however has no excuse. you repeat the issue in different variations as well with 00:27:358 (4,7,10) - as an example. the spacing between the inbetween notes is also inconsistent in concept. it's fine to vary on those but the relation between the sets should be there (as in the second set having generally lower spacing than the other two due to pitches)
3. 00:38:608 (8) - as this note is quite clearly not as important as the preceeding ones as audible by pitch and volume, it would make sense to use it for contrast purposes, having it at a lower spacing from the previous note. gives way more emphasis to the musical structure. it's a common meta thing to do it like this though, to my displeasure, so it's acceptable and not inherently a mistake. i just wanted to have mentioned it
4. 00:41:796 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - similar with these kinds of things, they are no mistakes but they trigger me personally. what you do here is for one not paying regard to nuances in the instruments (as most visible in 00:42:358 (1) - ) and more importantly not distinguishing between them, creating something that i'd entitle as senseless jump spam. both instruments are just mushed together with indistinguishable spacing concepts and all as the same kind of object and following in the same angular direction without breaks. it's a mush and not very representative of anything. it's important to establish a clear focus on an aspect or an instrument of the song while incorporating others via nuances if called for. both of the above points i assume you'll probably keep as is as it would likely mean major changes throughout the map, but i'd like you to keep it in mind for future maps if you by any means can get behind and agree with either of them. won't point out future occurances
5. 00:44:796 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - the spacing on these notes seems pretty random, a gradually decreasing spacing would be most representative of the gradually decreasing pitch of the followed instrument.
6. 00:49:296 (1) - concernign all of these notes on downbeats. as they are now they get a lot less emphasis than the notes that follow them due to slider leniency. so what ends up with the most emphasis is a triple on a weak hi-hat
7. 00:51:546 (5,6) - these two are different from the others of their kind in this section because they don't have distinct syllables on them, which makes them perfect to bring in variation in form of using different objects for example with a rhythm like http://puu.sh/xdf27/ad633643d3.jpg (alternatively with 12 and 13 as a slider or a tripple with 11 and 12) to stress the piano and with a slider on the first note to signify the start of the long vocal.
8. speaking of triples. i'm not sure if you left them out intentionally and if yes, by what system, but there are ones between 00:48:171 (4,5) - 00:50:046 (5,6) - 00:53:046 (5,6) - 00:54:546 (5,6) - 00:56:046 (5,6) - at first i'd assuem you're just only mapping every other triple.. which is questionable in of it's own but at least a concept, but then 00:57:733 (6,7,8) - happens. and in the second iteration of the part it just goes haywire. the object choice in general goes haywire there too for that reason and i do not understand it aside of at least the coherency you give each set via flow directions, which btw is a common issue for me on meta maps, so it might very well be fine for others.
9. 01:24:546 (4) - odd choice to suddenly give focus to the snare that you willingly threw on sliderends throuout the previous part of the section
10. 01:44:608 (6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3) - it's another one of those things that i just want to mention but aren't inherently wrong by meta standards.. pattern structure and aesthetic. it's missing. there are no recognisable shapes or constructions in this sequence of objects aside of the angular direction and it isn't exaclty clean looking either. there's even unlucky overlaps that look like they can't have been on purpose (01:46:108 (8,3) - ). it's a matter of polish
11. 02:06:737 - why is there no note here, several instruments would imply it. especially the four notes before here do as well.
12. 02:34:296 (1) - avoid 1/16 buzz sliders. with a glissando like this, no beat available snap is really appropriate anyway most of the time. and 1/6 sliders are horrible for playability due to just how easy they are to break on and how little they add (the hitwindow gets cut by the repeat point). just making it 1/8 is plenty already. also the length is questionable

from this point on it doesn't make much sense for me to continue. as i see most of the rest is just repeats of the same things i've covered already and pointing out nitpicky stuff is of little benefit for now.

to reinstate the most important factors i want to complain about:

1. pattern structures need to be established, atm they're fairly random at many occasions, at least when there are more than 3 notes in a row.
2. object choice in relation to rhythm emphasis and consistency
3. focus and distinction on and between song elements
4. spacing emphasis

some of those points may be less important to other people, as said i'm no expert with this kind of mapping. but i'm pretty sure at least the bold one is of importance to just about anyone. also to be noted is that i won't tell you to apply those things to the entire map. i'd rather advice to keep it in mind, rather one at a time than all at once as well, when you start a new project since these points really would require major parts being restructured completely.

now even with all those things, the map might well be "rankable" anyway, but i imagine bns would be reluctant to push/icon it unless they use low standards, which is by any means not unheard of.. if you're going for that in the first place. if you just want to collect experience, all the better.

to drop a positive as well, i don't see much wrong with the flow as a general matter, so that's nice.

hopefully the post was comprehensible and not entirely disagreeable