thanks for the stars dowoTofu1222 wrote:
But this song and the vocal inside is quite impressive. Star for you first. Idk if i can give it a mod but lemme sincerely wish it rank soon owob
thanks for the stars dowoTofu1222 wrote:
But this song and the vocal inside is quite impressive. Star for you first. Idk if i can give it a mod but lemme sincerely wish it rank soon owob
updated hope no HS was affected (if anything i can just copy paste the diff again)Couil wrote:
sup, NM req from my q
Sorry for the late mod, was busier than I thought this week : ( yo that's fineat_the_threshold00:02:984 (2984|0) - LN? Sounds like the other LN notes. doesn't really have that accentuated bass line piano
00:09:267 (9267|1) - Why is this LN shorter than the others? Sounds the same to me /shrug higher pitch than the pattern before
00:10:994 (10994|2,10994|3) - This is pretty low in comparison to the other jumps, maybe make it a single LN to represent the sound better? the LN thing is technically correct, but i didn't want to overuse it to the point of saturation, since it loses emphasis - i instead opted for a double
00:13:507 (13507|1,13507|0) - ^ (applies to the ones further into the song as well)
00:32:513 (32513|1,32670|1,32827|1,32984|1,33141|1) - Anchor maybe a bit too long. Would prolly change one of the jumps to make it <5.
00:37:539 (37539|2,37696|2,37853|2,38010|2,38167|2) - ^(guessing its intentional /shrug) shifted, not sure why they're the same doubles lmao
00:33:612 (33612|1) - Shouldn't this be on the same hand as the mini-jacks? Or are you mapping the guitar here mb. supposed to be doubled at the end, but general rule of thumb here is jacks on one jump on other
00:38:638 (38638|2,38638|3) - Why double? Same sound as before. was supposed to be doubled oops
00:44:764 (44764|2,45078|2) - Think these LNs would work better with the music if they were extended to 1/2 LNs instead.
00:49:790 (49790|2,50104|2) - ^
00:54:816 (54816|2,55130|2) - ^ damn this is cool
00:51:675 - Add note for the "screeching piano sound". Think that's what you mapped here 00:51:361 (51361|2,51518|2) edited
00:53:403 (53403|2,53560|0) - What are these following? If it's the piano i think they need to be extended to 1/2 LNs.
00:58:429 (58429|2,58586|0) - ^ there's this syncopated guitar strum that i did not want to touch on any further than just LNs
00:54:973 (54973|3) - Remove? Doesn't sound equally intense as the previous pattern, or maybe just make it a normal note. made them staccato LNs
01:00:314 (60314|2,60353|3,61570|1,61570|1,61609|0) - Think making these grace notes are a bit overkill, especially since you're not mapping each instance of the bass sound as grace notes.
01:06:596 (66596|2,66636|3) - ^
01:11:623 (71623|0,71662|1) - ^ (and prolly similar graces further ahead) it's supposed to be a flam for the beeop sound, not the bassline
01:02:513 (62513|3) - Move to 2 as it's not the same sound a 01:02:356 (62356|3,62670|3)?
01:07:539 (67539|0) - ^ (but to 1) if i do so emphasis on the synth pitches is lost imo (though this might trigger those PR enthusiasts)
01:05:026 (65026|3,65026|1) - Maybe make it a single, since it's less intense than the others. done
01:14:973 (74973|2) - Ghost note? very light violin on 1/6, i hid the 1/6 with the LNs
01:17:670 - Add note? would be out of place in this scenario
01:20:052 (80052|1,80104|0) - Think these are wrongly snapped (might just be me that's hearing it wrong /shrug). Think 01:20:104 (80104|0) should be here; 01:20:130 and 01:20:052 (80052|1) should be here; 01:20:078. think for the sake of playability i'll stick to 1/6 approx. for now
01:22:146 (82146|1) - Can't hear anything for this, ghost note? background piano which is pretty much the same as the beginning '>_'
01:25:916 (85916|2) - Think the LN ends here; 01:26:073 done
01:27:748 - Add note for guitar? added and re-arranged to make them more obvious
01:30:628 - Double? for beats like this i thought the second bass was a bit soften than the normal one, so i kept it as a single instead
01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) - Anchor, mb change 01:31:884 (91884|1,91884|0) to [12] note instead?
01:41:780 (101780|0,101937|0,102094|0,102251|0) - ^ (Probably intentional though) edited this one, was pretty left biased woops
01:35:235 (95235|0) - Should this really be snapped like this? Don't know what it's following but it looks kinda weird.
01:40:261 (100261|3) - ^ (guessing it's intentional) i'm kinda playing with the RC at this point, i personally believe there's a 1/6 synth overlayed by a 1/4 one at this point, so i kinda took care of both with this LN
01:51:047 (111047|1) - Maybe make these kinds of sounds mini-LNs to emphasize them better, like you did here; 01:50:575 (110575|2) had the LN only be at the start gives each section subtly more distinction between each other
02:30:667 (150667|2) - This feels a bit delayed, think it would work better if it was placed here; 02:30:628 i compromised a little at ultimately snapped it to 1/12 ok no more changes
02:44:921 (164921|2,164921|0) - Think this is a different sound from 02:44:607 (164607|2,164607|0). Maybe make it a [03] note? the difference is a bit too subtle for me
02:50:418 (170418|1) - Shouldn't this be on column 3? Like you did previously for this sound? edited
02:54:424 (174424|1) - Ghost note.
02:59:450 (179450|1) - ^
03:01:963 (181963|1) - ^ (thought some of these had a vocal sound as the note hit, but think everyone of these are ghost notes, probably wrong though /shrug Won't comment on the rest of them) the ones without the vocals are gone
02:59:842 (179842|0,179842|1) - Think this would work better as a [12] all parts edited seems cool
03:12:251 (192251|0,192290|1) - Believe this is a 1/12 grace and not a 1/8 grace. for the beep sound thing ye
03:22:408 - Note for vocals? Maybe move the grace note to here? might seem out of place in play actually, there isn't a strong syllable being pronounced there
03:24:659 (204659|2,204738|3) - Maybe make this a jack since the vocals are the same tone here? jack would be out of place sadly, i reserved that for the first part of the song
03:26:335 (206335|0) - Think this is supposed to start at 03:26:308
03:31:361 (211361|3) - ^ 03:31:335 sound peaks on 1/6
03:27:434 (207434|0) - Think this starts 1/12th of a note later. FUCK YOU AN
03:32:198 (212198|3) - Shouldn't this be a LN like you did for this sounds previously in the song? missed a spot
03:38:089 - Missed sound? (probably intentional but wanted to post just in case) not intentional whop
03:45:549 (225549|2) - Think it's supposed to be here; 03:45:589 the fuck an
03:51:047 (231047|3,231047|1) - Grace note? doesn't have a glissando
04:06:832 (246832|2) - Ghost note?
04:16:884 (256884|1) - ^ all exist to me, though a bit muffled
04:24:581 (264581|2) - ^ edited this one though
04:33:141 - Mb add LNs for the piano here + a note here to emphasize the piano sound.
04:35:497 (275497|3,275654|3) - Same here + note at 04:35:654 (275654|3)
04:38:167 (278167|2,278324|3) - ^ may consider, but i think it might overload the section a bit
05:20:732 (320732|0) - Think this starts here; 05:20:759 nice one an now i can't have LNs with the same length
05:32:041 (332041|0) - ^ 05:32:067 (might have skipped over a few since i played this section at 1.0x speed)
05:34:554 (334554|0) - ^ 05:34:580 (Don't know if my game has a bad offset or something so won't point these out further ahead) i think the LNs work fine in compensating for the somewhat late beat, but i'll keep a lookout for this part
Didn't look at anything besides the patterning + played the map w/o HS so have no idea the HS are good or not /shrug they're probably bad i hate hitsounds so much
osu needs technical maps tbh. pls rank. trying : )))
Also hope some of my suggestions are of help, GL ranking it! mod was useful, thank you
updatedAlsty- wrote:
hello , sorry for the delay , my lazyness is just to stronkk :' that's fine so as long as you got back
1|2|3|4aT_tHe_ThResHoLd
- 00:02:984 (2984|0) - 00:08:010 (8010|0) - its mini LN i guess? its kinda strong for me placed 1/8 ln
- 00:29:685 (29685|3) - move to 2 pattern is supposed to progress here so i'm keeping the similarity
- 00:31:256 - i'm just not like this for personal reason tho , its better to make it mini LN. sorry for my selfishness , you can keep it , its reasonable too =3= oh no, it's fine; i'd rather maintain this because otherwise there'd be no doing the flam of the synth justice really
- 00:34:162 - add on col 2?
- 00:39:188 - ^ 3 done both
- 01:01:570 - double? intentional, double would make the layering functionally a triple
- 01:06:596 - same , i dont think you should make it same like 01:00:314 - here. second case points to a double tho, also see above
- 03:58:291 (238291|2) - make this mini LN and move to 03:58:429 (238429|2) - to 2 it's meant to trip people up sorry
- 05:20:261 (320261|0,320759|0,321204|0) - any reason why the length is different? impossible to make them the same you can try but i changed the snaps again tho so they're the same now
Yes, the hardest map I've ever mod so far, you put so much effort for those snapping, and i cant even give pattern suggestions because i see all the notes you put is intended to be there. Can't wait to see this ranked! Good luck! thanks for the mod dude, also thanks for the 3 starss
That's where you're wrong kiddo.Litharrale wrote:
dibs bubble
thanks for the mod dudeHydria wrote:
That's where you're wrong kiddo. 8 - )Litharrale wrote:
dibs bubbleLimitation.00:02:984 (2984|0) - I feel like if this (and others) is a short LN than 00:02:827 (2827|2) - that should follow suit due to coming from the same instrument in the same measure i had my qualms about placing an LN there in general actually, removed it entirely because i didn't want to overdo it since i already have 00:09:267 (9267|1) - this thing
00:10:052 - onwards - interesting decision to ignore the piano during this section, intentional? i feel like piano notes throughout (00:11:151 - 00:12:879 - 00:13:664 - etc) wouldn't hurt the map it certainly wouldn't, but i didn't quite want to make the map a crockpot of everything in general; i get what you mean in any case, but i feel it's better if i focused on the percussion for the more percussion-oriented parts, and the piano/synth for the less percussion-oriented parts (at the beginning anyway)
00:20:994 - i want to say the ethereal vocal line is here rather than 00:20:968 - (same here 00:26:020 - ) i want to believe otherwise, will check with others
00:21:675 (21675|0,21910|2) - maybe make these wailing noises stand out a bit more with a 1/4 LN? (same 00:26:701 (26701|3,26937|1) - ) get what you mean, but again i didn't really want to oversaturate the part - if you notice there's a bit of progression from this part to 00:31:256 - for example too, and having those LNs would break the flow imo
move 00:35:340 (35340|0,35340|2) - to [24] and move 00:35:418 (35418|1) - to 1 for PR done
00:42:041 - wailing sounds like it starts here an has an issue
00:53:403 (53403|2) - there's two guitar sounds here represented by 1 LN (same 00:58:429 (58429|2) - ) didn't want to touch on the guitar too much, changed to 1 LN tho
00:54:188 (54188|0,54345|2,54502|1,54502|0) - this sounds like it should be all 1/4 notes did something
01:27:068 (87068|3) - if that's following what i think it is then it's on the 1/8 earlier ye
01:27:801 (87801|1) - 1/6 later this note's for the 1/4 violin
01:51:047 (111047|1) - 01:51:518 (111518|3) - 01:51:989 (111989|0) - etc. - couldn't these all be small LNs to reflect the main melody playing in this slow section only placed an LN at the start to kinda chop up the sections into pieces
also, MUH PR : ) pr is overrated tbh
02:30:785 - 02:40:837 -
1. I can barely make out what these notes are actually following in the music that's the cool thing about this part imo, i only followed the minute shifts in the synths here because i wanted the player to just hear the vocals for what they are first, 02:30:785 (150785|3,150785|0,150785|1,150785|2) - i think the quad is enough to shock them into listening the song
2. Untouched vocals that could be used (but might be hard idk how unsnapped they are) aaaa
3. 02:32:120 - 02:32:454 - 02:32:787 - 02:33:121 - sounds here that are ignored same deal as above, would break the immersion
02:42:643 (162643|1,162643|0) - need justification for this double all removed
05:31:570 - if these LNs are focusing on the really quiet instrument in the back then some more should exist at 05:32:905 - 05:33:298 - 05:33:769 - 05:34:083 - 05:38:324 - 05:38:638 - 05:38:795 - etc. unless these were purposefully ignored LNs were for the double bass (or some really deep sounding string instrument)
05:46:492 (346492|1,346570|0,346649|2,346649|3,346727|1) - should prob also be replicated in 05:46:178 - as well they are, feel free to check closer
06:01:884 - i would've mapped more of the outro but your choice beep boop
overall: interesting instrument selection throughout the map, definitely with the solo instrument focus in some of the slow sections, alongside making less noticable instruments stand out with LNs. Not a design I would go with myself, but it's good to see it being used anyhow, i just think it needs refining in a few places (letting more notable sounds be noticed throughout the map over the quietness). i went into the chart wanting to make it at least somewhat able to become more systematic as the song progresses, so i had to prioritize some instruments over others - it is nice to see that most of it actually works
updatedriunosk wrote:
sup abasos
i should really start not being lazy 123412341234123412431234123412341234 hellowhat programming sorcery code is thisdam this sexy stuf00:05:183 (5183|3) - sounds slightly lower pitched than 00:04:869 (4869|3) - changed it
00:29:057 (29057|2,29214|2,29371|2,29528|2) - intendedede? ye
00:38:324 - col 1 seems rather lonely it's partially due to the patterning
01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) -intendededededededed?actually wait it follows something also ye
03:13:507 - you mapped the piano at the beginning, why not do it here? progression of patterning
(unrelated) 04:20:732 - my ears same
04:28:193 (268193|3,268272|0,268272|2,268350|1,268429|0,268429|3) - im not sure how to say this but these hl'd notes feel somewhat out of place since the others like 04:31:806 (271806|2,271884|0,271963|2,272041|1,272041|0) - aren't as "flowy" if you noticed the trills are actually around 04:27:958 (267958|1,268036|3,268115|1,268193|3,268272|0,268350|1,268429|0,268507|1) -
04:30:706 (270706|0,270785|3,270785|1,270863|2,270942|3,270942|0) - ^ same deal
(unrelated) 04:41:308 - this reminds me of some artcore track that i like........ARForest? no please
05:00:628 (300628|1) - wrongly snapped, should be on the next 1/8 line
05:01:099 (301099|2) - ^ edited
06:02:041 (362041|2) - im not sure why you put a note here, was it to follow the "piano-synth" sound? in that case you should've continued mapping it's funny cause this is meant as a form of progression from the first 00:00:000 (0|0,157|3) - two notes - since the pitches here are a bit syncopated i threw them into the middle two columns but still kept the pitch ascension thing (i.e. left to right)
intrestnsignesting chartt
star for u cos good maaaaaap thx for the mod and star
yesRaveille wrote:
arforest is god tho wtffff
updatos, redl for HS updateRivals_7 wrote:
sup' hello
1234
https://puu.sh/yjmaq/b0a8e0be63.wav soft hitwhistle got some long silence so i kinda cut it replaced
00:09:267 (9267|1) - why is this shorter than the others? looking at your reply at raveille, doesnt seem to relate. understandable if its was following primary piano (it is higher pitch) but this is a secondary piano that has the same pitch as - 00:08:795 (8795|1) - the thing about this part is that the piano actually syncopates further than it did over at 00:04:083 (4083|3,4240|1) - , so to demonstrate that i just made the ln shorter
00:29:999 (29999|3) - extend? sounds still continuing actually think it cuts off nicely at the blue tick
01:07:382 - would suggest add a note (and F) on the next 2 blue line to cover some metal-crash-like noises idk
probably other places as well i guess i can see where you're coming from but if i layered those it detracts from the stack i made (which in this case is following the synth pitchs in the music
01:13:743 (73743|3) - delete i guess. not so strong it's about the same thing as 01:12:486 - , just slightly less audible; i could hear it without the hs though so i'll keep this for now
01:27:054 (87054|3) - shouldnt be this being a some kind of grace? refer - 01:27:329 (87329|0,87356|3) - edited part for clarity
01:35:235 (95235|0) - edgy LN
seriously tho its sounds ambiguous. what i heard clear is from - 01:35:183 (95183|2) - to the - 01:35:340 (95340|2) - i would like to argue that there exists a 1/6 here (since there's seemingly 6 beats syncopated with the 4 here) so i placed the LN for compensation; i'll ask around for more opinions dw
01:40:261 (100261|3) - same (?) ^^
03:32:277 - might be cool to accenting wubs
Applicable to anywhere similar might be a bit harsh :blobsweats:, also it kinda breaks the pewpew grace 01:40:261 (100261|3) - too
04:20:732 (260732|2,260811|2,260890|3,260968|3,261047|1,261125|1,261204|0,261282|0) - I would actually going for 33|11|44|22 jacks for some balance thing. but maybe up to you they're in the same audio channels if u used earpieces soooo
04:21:989 (261989|2,262146|2,262303|2) - 04:22:460 (262460|3,262617|3,262774|3) - 04:23:010 (263010|3,263167|3,263324|3) - not sure if its intended but other section spreads it more balanced 2 things:
1) the snares/hihats went in pairs
04:22:146 (262146|2,262225|0,262303|1,262303|2) - 04:22:460 (262460|3,262539|1,262617|2,262617|3) - like so, i made them the same hand because i felt that the gradation would be more obvious that way
2) the stacks sets a precedence for the next section
since the next section does those funky stack things it'd be nice to have some sort of primer
05:20:261 (320261|0) - 05:21:204 (321204|0) - 1/16 later done
HS is cool so far and besides the OD and HP which is kinda lol i psatisfied with most of it so i think i'll go with this
i made the OD and HP fucking gay because
1) this isn't the SR it looks like it is
2) no mash passes
3) no immediate 100% SS's from those gay acc people
updatedRivals_7 wrote:
yea cool
03:09:424 (189424|3) - ghost? changed
05:22:774 (322774|1,322853|2) - I guess this can be swapped to follow some kind of particular piano(?) to act something similar with - 05:24:816 (324816|0,324973|0,325130|0,325287|0) - 05:26:230 (326230|3,326387|3,326544|3,326701|3) - 05:29:842 (329842|0,329999|0,330157|0,330314|0) - not quite the main piano in the music, so
this is actually nitpick, idk what to mod lmao
pm/dm me if u still want to push. maybe... i can leave the bubbling to you
BLOBSWEATING INCREASESRivals_7 wrote:
for next BN: carefully check the snapping. in case i messed up :d
[11:18 AM] _A: for exavid at 01:35:183 - , is there 6 underlying beats too
[11:18 AM] _A: over the obvious 4 beats
[11:18 AM] Erin: give me a moment, I need to shower first
[11:37 AM] Erin: alright, 1:35
[11:37 AM] _A: ow o
[11:41 AM] Erin: so SM and osu reads mp3s differently so take this with a +83ms offset
[11:42 AM] _A: alright
[11:42 AM] Erin: 1:35.423 and the next 3 1/2s have bass kicks
[11:42 AM] _A: so 4 beats right there
[11:42 AM] Erin: 1:35.266 does not
[11:42 AM] Erin: there is a sound on 1:35.266 but you're not capturing it to begin with
[11:42 AM] Erin: or at least not with doubles
[11:43 AM] _A: mhm
[11:44 AM] _A: from the interval 1:35:183 to 1:35:497 are there too 6 beats in total (osu timing)
[11:44 AM] Erin: what do you mean by beats
[11:44 AM] Erin: bass kicks?
[11:44 AM] _A: synths
[11:45 AM] _A: cause i keep hearing "1 2 3" for the first measure in 1:35:183 to 1:35:497 (there's two measures)
[11:45 AM] _A: extrapolating gives 6
[11:47 AM] _A: or maybe i'm going crazy
[11:47 AM] Erin: i have no idea what you're talking about
[11:48 AM] _A: i hear 3 very light synth beats in the first bracket https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-378752711992279041-unknown.png
[11:48 AM] _A: other than the 2 more prominent ones
[11:49 AM] Erin: there's so many synth melodies now that I think about it
[11:49 AM] _A: yeah which is why i made it such that i compensate with the LN
[11:49 AM] _A: just need confirmation
[11:49 AM] Erin: i can't hear what the LN is going to
[11:49 AM] _A: it's compensatory
[11:49 AM] Erin: what are you compensating for exactly though
[11:50 AM] _A: the synth melody i described above
[11:50 AM] Erin: god, it's so soft
[11:50 AM] _A: ya..
[11:50 AM] Erin: but no the second iteration doesn't exist
[11:50 AM] _A: really?
[11:50 AM] Erin: ye
[11:50 AM] _A: fair enough
[11:51 AM] Erin: if it does exist it's at such a low key it's not worth accounting for
then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the pointLitharrale wrote:
Since I can almost predict your response to this, I might as well remind you that you can overwrite my pop but getting a different BN to bubble this
shrugLitharrale wrote:
I think this map is trying to emulate something that it's not and falls hard because of it. At first glance it seemed interesting, something like impulsive state but after having a closer look, this map feels like it's just being random for randoms sake. The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.
it's a pity that you missed the fact the LNs themselves follow a secondary synth that rises and falls in pitch - they correspond to each of the individual columns and what do you know they're PR'dLitharrale wrote:
First 10 seconds
In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.
Looking at a screenshot like this
You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...
It doesn't.
The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -
which are completely different to the first example.
00:04:240 (4240|1) doesn't sound the same as 00:09:267 (9267|1) and hence they're not mapped the sameLitharrale wrote:
00:09:267 (9267|1) - I can't even begin to understand why this is 1/6
so you're a BN and you're supposed to moderate and decide the quality of beatmaps holistically - and somehow you think that because of some simple misunderstanding of PR and patterning you dare have the basis to claim that whatever i've done is like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"? piss off will youLitharrale wrote:
So why is this section 3+1 and ignoring things like PR (only when it's convenient see bass notes like 00:08:010 (8010|0))? It just seems random and almost like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"
another misunderstandingLitharrale wrote:
00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"
see aboveLitharrale wrote:
00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6
3 things:Litharrale wrote:
Changing the last two points to what they should be turns the pattern into my thoughts on the map https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/WaOckt3.png
very light vocal stagger (again), it's the complement of 00:40:837 (40837|1,40955|1) - and i included it because i deliberately wanted the first entrance part of this section to be a little awkward since the music there feels like a rush of sounds to me and i wanted to keep the players on their toesLitharrale wrote:
00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)
"There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other" can you at least help me out here and tell me what you mean exactly?Litharrale wrote:
00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editor
so instead of assuming that it was a mistake on my part, you went ahead with your narrative and claimed that this is not only overemphasised, but emphasised arbitrarily. i'm finding it hard to not take offense just solely on what you've said here lith, please help me outLitharrale wrote:
00:58:429 (58429|1,58586|2,58743|3) - These LN overlaps are overemphasized seemingly for the sake of it. Making them longer would more accurately cover the sound and also make it not crazy hard to SS on
you chastise me for supposedly not PRing a previous section (which I did), but you're chastising me here for PRing an integral part of the song?Litharrale wrote:
This isn't even mentioning how it seems practically copy pasted from here 00:53:403 (53403|1) -
you shouldn't call something edgy and random simply because you don't understand the ideas of a less stringent (but still systematic) layering/patterning approach. it's hypocritical of you to call out on this map's less stringent layering/pattern when impulse state (which you faved) too has similar degrees of stringencyLitharrale wrote:
This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.
since when did you start using SR as an indicator for chart difficulty?Litharrale wrote:
Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map. Find better ways to stop people mashing
then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the pointBecause it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions
no BN has to go through with whatever you said because I have already explained myself on every single point of yours. If you think this somehow doesn't cut it then too bad it doesn't work this wayLitharrale wrote:
then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the pointBecause it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions
.P.S to future BNs, don't forget to override my veto you need to explain why it's invalid
...uh?Litharrale wrote:
Because it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions
00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning.even the song itself transitoned from percussion-oriented into synths-oriented so these "weird" transition is relevant.
Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map.people shouldnt always have to stick to the current meta. This map is not designed for lowkey ranks acc farmer.
The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.How is that even different? our name does not have any relevancy with our mapping quality.
None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out."Mapping is a social construct"
Rivals_7 wrote:
...uh?
mod and a veto is literally the same thing.This isn't true.
your words seems to implies " i dont understand this, i need more explanation" which shouldn't have to be a veto but a general overview of whats lacking, but still providing solutions. Mapper could pointing what is the flaws of your suggestion if rejected, then both of us could reach an agreement. Unlikely, my suggestions for this map would essentially be "remap" which we all know Abraxos wouldn't ever consider. I don't think this map should ever be ranked which is why I veto'd it
as i said few days ago in discord that abraxos seems to trying to not being repetitive, he changed his patterning on every bookmark he set. the song itself seems pretty repetitve on its percussion and he trying to differentiate them one to another, by following vocal, synths, or both into technically structural pattern. This is not about inconsistent,its about variation. I know you are even against copy-paste-like pattern to an extent most of the time. Variation is good but it's not automatically good. The way this map flows is janky and it's disguised as "technical"
whoa dont you dare leaving a veto now without giving any counter argument to abraxos' veto response first. It is your responsibility now.Litharrale wrote:
Rivals_7 wrote:
...uh?
mod and a veto is literally the same thing.This isn't true.
your words seems to implies " i dont understand this, i need more explanation" which shouldn't have to be a veto but a general overview of whats lacking, but still providing solutions. Mapper could pointing what is the flaws of your suggestion if rejected, then both of us could reach an agreement. Unlikely, my suggestions for this map would essentially be "remap" which we all know Abraxos wouldn't ever consider. I don't think this map should ever be ranked which is why I veto'd it Very weak argument. you are only looking at your perspective of mapping
as i said few days ago in discord that abraxos seems to trying to not being repetitive, he changed his patterning on every bookmark he set. the song itself seems pretty repetitve on its percussion and he trying to differentiate them one to another, by following vocal, synths, or both into technically structural pattern. This is not about inconsistent,its about variation. I know you are even against copy-paste-like pattern to an extent most of the time. Variation is good but it's not automatically good. The way this map flows is janky and it's disguised as "technical" so simply put its uncomfortable? maybe for you but maybe not for the others. again, you are only looking it based on your perspective, but not just that, you are also forced abrax to put on your perspective. which is already a violation on CoC
There's nothing more to be said here. Find another BN other than Rivals or me who will address my concerns. Just because you explained yourself doesn't mean this doesn't have to happen.
Rivals_7 wrote:
whoa dont you dare leaving a veto now without giving any counter argument to abraxos' veto response first. It is your responsibility now.
It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.Abraxos wrote:
Litharrale wrote:
00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"
another misunderstanding
must've felt good to utilize the "oh ho it breaks this and this rule" catch, but then again it's not a misunderstanding because you really do only hit a snare drum once, there are no vocals here.
First 10 secondsPR'ing a countermelody and not the main melody has always been an acceptable method of patterning. I wouldn't have done it, but this is an acceptable patterning approach. The reason for this is that PRing two different melodies can clash, and trying to accommodate for one or the other while keeping the existence of pitch relevance for both melodies could make the patterns appear arbitrary. ExaVid's intro falls under this category.
In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.
Looking at a screenshot like this
You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...
It doesn't.
The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -
00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6There is a sound on the 1/6 tick. Other positions are not as valid because the sound is on the 1/6 tick.
00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"This is fairly standard accentuation in "technically correct" 4K charting, and it has been used in conventional charting before. People use grace notes to accentuate certain buzz sounds, and people also use LNs to accentuate sounds that are not long. Unfortunately there aren't any mapsets that are ranked that utilise accentuation for instruments like that, but I thought a double would've been too concrete because the snare is very airy. It can be a standard double for sure since it's still a snare, but he wanted to emphasise the airiness of it. The lack of ranked mapsets that utilise accentuation of that nature does make this section contentious however, as much I see accentuation like this is used in multiple 4K communities that use a judging system more stringent than osu!mania's.
00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editorHow is it janky by any metric? He was layering the bells, and then the main synth when the bells are no longer present. There's no way of signalling a change here because of the presence of both rhythms are sudden. They are clear components of the music, and he layered them accordingly. There is a underlying (primary) melody in the bar you pointed out, but layering both the primary melody and the bells here creates convoluted patterning.
00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)This is part of the bell. It's an echo, but there's a sound regardless. Echoes can be charted if they are prominent enough, and the echo here is arguably prominent enough. Considering how he has layered doubles (i.e. liberally), I think placing a note there is justifiable.
This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.Most of the chart utilises standard percussion-based layering, but with a situational rule: when 1/4s are present in a section and there are two bass kicks of the same type in a span of a 1/4 beat, the second bass kick will be a single, and the single will be on one of the two columns that the double that corresponded to the bass kick. This, again, is fairly standard layering. Many charters utilise that in mapsets to reduce the difficulty of a section that would've been too difficult if the rule was set. I don't agree with that kind of rule because there are better alternatives, but what I believe is ideal is not the only valid way to layer something according to ranking criteria.
Aren't you forcing an impasse by not wanting to interact with him? You assumed that he was obstinate from the start by not giving many suggestions (other than one that he didn't agree with because his current configuration is more representative of the track than your suggestion). You did point out some sections that appear to be erroneous, but these sections either utilise conventional (but not as foundational) charting techniques that fall well within the realm of technically correct charting, or are not erroneous because they're justified by the presence and correct correspondence of sounds in the track.
Abraxos is not going to give up his semi dump, and I'm not going to agree to let it through. I don't claim to be able to see the future but this ain't gonna go anywhere
[1:09 PM] Erin: the main reservation I have is that there aren't any ranked charts that use ghost notes in the same manner you did
[1:11 PM] _A: where are the ghosts then
[1:11 PM] _A: don't think they're too hard to remove
[1:11 PM] _A: unless it's part of something
[1:11 PM] Erin: they're not "ghost" in a sense that they're not justified to anything at all
[1:11 PM] Erin: they're ghost in a sense that certain sounds correspond to two different moments of the chart
[1:12 PM] Erin: e.g. a flam
[1:12 PM] Erin: like the snare bit
[1:12 PM] _A: what snare bit?
[1:12 PM] Erin: the 1/12
[1:12 PM] _A: those aren't even ghosts
[1:12 PM] _A: honestly i think the separation in hands is enough to tell the difference
[1:12 PM] _A: unless somewhere i placed them on the same hand
[1:13 PM] Erin: 31
[1:13 PM] _A: which then would be wrong
[1:13 PM] _A: oh those
[1:13 PM] _A: well those are an easy fix lmao
[1:13 PM] Erin: i can probably say that they go to echo but that's still not particularly sound(edited)
[1:13 PM] _A: though i'd like it to be there but if you don't want it then that's fine
[1:14 PM] _A: i can use some double LN thing
[1:15 PM] _A: is just fine as well
[1:16 PM] _A: edited btw
[1:16 PM] Erin: the [14] here should be 4 https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392183256277188609-unknown.png
[1:16 PM] Erin: 21.xxx(edited)
[1:16 PM] Erin: there's two bass kicks of the same type
[1:16 PM] _A: uhhh
[1:16 PM] _A: im blind help
[1:16 PM] Erin: hm?
[1:16 PM] _A: cant see shit
[1:16 PM] _A: circle?
[1:17 PM] Erin: uhhh
[1:17 PM] Erin: it's the one with the 1/6
[1:17 PM] Erin: basically there's two bass kicks of the same type, and you layered both as doubles
[1:17 PM] _A: ok i see
[1:17 PM] _A: this thin
[1:17 PM] _A: edited
[1:17 PM] Erin: ye
[1:17 PM] Erin: it happens throughout, seems like a mistake
[1:17 PM] _A: im dumbo
[1:17 PM] Erin: because you've done the same for every other bass kick
[1:17 PM] _A: ya edited for that part and uh
[1:17 PM] _A: lemme find
[1:18 PM] Erin: you did miss the bass note in 2.984 btw
[1:18 PM] _A: dont think there's another part in the song that's the same
[1:18 PM] _A: 2.984?
[1:18 PM] Erin: it's of a higher octave
[1:18 PM] Erin: that's probably why you missed it
[1:18 PM] Erin: yeah, the intro
[1:19 PM] _A: i went by what i heard honestly
[1:19 PM] _A: and if i didn't hear it at the time i personally think it's not worth LNing
[1:20 PM] Erin: well again, it's of a higher octave
[1:20 PM] _A: hmmmm
[1:20 PM] _A: i could stackem
[1:20 PM] _A: if you want
[1:20 PM] Erin: you can just make it a LN on 1(edited)
[1:20 PM] _A: but but
[1:20 PM] Erin: higher octave
[1:20 PM] _A: the other LNs are lower
[1:20 PM] Erin: in conventional PR, an ascending piano melody will be patterned as 1234123412341234
[1:21 PM] _A: :(
[1:21 PM] Erin: it functions as a fiat octave
[1:21 PM] _A: i thought the stacking idea was cooler
[1:21 PM] Erin: "hurrrr random"
[1:21 PM] _A: gr
[1:21 PM] _A: ugh it feels weird making this the same
[1:22 PM] _A: gay or not gay https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392184812258983937-unknown.png?width=838&height=472
[1:22 PM] Erin: that's probably fine, accentuation and all
[1:22 PM] _A: ha
[1:23 PM] _A: gotem
[1:23 PM] Erin: and I don't know of any mapsets that utilise accents(edited)
[1:23 PM] _A: those charts aren't my charts you see
[1:23 PM] _A: edited
[1:24 PM] Erin: for 9.267, why is the LN 1/6 length exactly? the LNs go to the bass melody yes, but I'm unsure of why the length of it is different from others?
[1:24 PM] Erin: because it's a briefer sound?
[1:24 PM] _A: it's a completely different tone for the main synth
[1:24 PM] _A: but the bass stays the same
[1:25 PM] _A: so for bass it's LN and same column
then for main ir's just the change in LN length(edited)
[1:25 PM] _A: t
[1:25 PM] _A: fnigne
[1:25 PM] Erin: that's a fairly... complicated structure
[1:25 PM] _A: is it?
[1:25 PM] _A: the first iteration introduced the player to the bass ln concept
[1:25 PM] Erin: yes, but the LNs are all of the same length
[1:25 PM] Erin: iirc
[1:25 PM] _A: in the second iteration there's a change and hence the length here changes which is a new thing
[1:26 PM] _A: so players are already used to the bass ln thing
[1:26 PM] Erin: yes, but they wouldn't expect the LN lengths to change because the melody is practically the same
[1:26 PM] Erin: it'd be more blatant for layering
[1:26 PM] Erin: but I don't think it's entirely conspicuous with LN lengths
[1:26 PM] _A: would it be better if i made 00:02:984 - different lengths from the usual 1/4(edited)
[1:27 PM] _A: honestly speaking the tone there is diminished so it already warrants some form of differentiation
[1:27 PM] Erin: I think it's better to make everything the same length since you're PRing the bass countermelody, and the more straight-forward approach would be to have LN lengths correspond to the presence of the bass synth
[1:27 PM] Erin: I know what you're doing, don't get me wrong
[1:28 PM] Erin: but it's hard to track
[1:28 PM] _A: i really don't like that because it ignores the whole point of the diminished tone there
[1:28 PM] _A: it doesn't sit well with me at all
[1:29 PM] _A: what if i stacked the notes there then
[1:29 PM] _A: wait lemme
[1:29 PM] Erin: stacking would be odd to emphasise something that's diminishing in presence
[1:30 PM] _A: https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/sutXXYT.png first iteration https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/2qufard.png second
diminished notes sound awkward because they leave the listener hanging - there's not a lot of ways of presenting this awkwardness
[1:32 PM] Erin: see like I don't agree with this technique personally, mostly because I can't tell much of a fundamental difference between the melodies(edited)
[1:32 PM] _A: hmm
[1:32 PM] _A: well
[1:32 PM] _A: if you asked me ranking this is pretty secondary
[1:32 PM] _A: so you don't have to take that into account
[1:33 PM] Erin: but it's brought up regardless
[1:33 PM] _A:
>> mostly because I can't tell much of a fundamental difference between the melodies
i just cannot agree because of how diminished tones function really
[1:33 PM] _A: i mean
[1:33 PM] _A: it's just not the same feeling
[1:34 PM] Erin: is this the only LN that has a different length?
[1:34 PM] Erin: i can't tell atm since I'm using arrowvortex
[1:34 PM] _A: i can make it such that it's the only one, or accompanied by the higher octave 00:02:984 - ones here (these then will be 1/3 long)
[1:35 PM] Erin: if it's the only sound with a diminished tone (out of the entire introduction), you can justify the shorter LN length with the presence of a diminished tone
[1:35 PM] Erin: I don't agree with it fundamentally, but you can justify it that way
[1:35 PM] Erin: it's not random because it's the only time it appears
[1:36 PM] Erin: it can be arguably arbitrary, but if there's a fundamental difference in sound, the only arbitrariness of that is the fact that it's of a shorter length
[1:36 PM] Erin: but again, that's how accentuation works in the first place
[1:36 PM] Erin: a lot of people use LNs for accentuate sounds that aren't long, etc.
[1:37 PM] _A: so uh
[1:38 PM] _A: i'm keeping it i guess
[1:38 PM] Erin: it's the only one like that so
[1:38 PM] _A: i made the uhh higher octave one 1/4 long
[1:38 PM] _A: ya
[1:38 PM] Erin: yeah, fine then
[1:38 PM] _A: is that all?
[1:39 PM] Erin: nah, there's more
[1:39 PM] _A: how much more
[1:40 PM] _A: be quick i kinda need to like
[1:40 PM] Erin: there's a few more "ghost notes"
[1:40 PM] _A: do work stuff
[1:40 PM] Erin: ""
[1:40 PM] _A: lol where
[1:41 PM] Erin: you know that place where he mentioned that it was a ghost town or so?
[1:41 PM] _A: i've already talked about this
[1:41 PM] Erin: yeah
[1:42 PM] Erin: I get what you're trying to do, I'm going to see if it actually matches up
[1:44 PM] Erin: that part is probably unrankable unless there's newer rules unfortunately, I know what you're trying to do, and I think it makes sense, but it's not allowed because there has been no mapsets like this that are ranked(edited)
[1:44 PM] _A: can you point to which rule
[1:44 PM] Erin: you can somewhat chalk it up to accentuation
[1:44 PM] Erin: "every note must correspond to a sound"
[1:44 PM] _A: my god
[1:45 PM] _A: but there is a sound
[1:45 PM] _A: i don't get it
[1:45 PM] Erin: the sound must be on that specific moment(edited)
[1:46 PM] _A: it is?
[1:46 PM] Erin: that's the crux of it
[1:46 PM] Erin: i can't hear it
[1:46 PM] _A: well i can
[1:46 PM] _A: so what now
[1:47 PM] Erin: are you layering the bell?
[1:47 PM] _A: where
[1:47 PM] Erin: 41s or so
[1:48 PM] _A: yea
[1:48 PM] Erin: alright, there's a sound there
[1:48 PM] Erin: you're almost layering it strictly
[1:48 PM] Erin: just have to shift them a tiny bit
[1:48 PM] Erin: but it's the same distance essentially
[1:52 PM] Erin: 40.837 - move this down a 1/8
40.955 - move this down a 1/8
[1:53 PM] _A: oh if you want to do this then parts like 01:24:816 - are fucked essentially
[1:53 PM] _A: honestly if you don't want to then you don't have to go through this
[1:54 PM] Erin: >> [1:53 PM] _A: oh if you want to do this then parts like 01:24:816 - are fucked essentially
how?(edited)
[1:54 PM] Erin: there's nothing related there
[1:54 PM] _A: listen to them closely
[1:54 PM] _A: they're off
[1:54 PM] _A: an didn't snap them exactly to 1/4s
[1:55 PM] Erin: a 1/6 sounds right to me?
[1:55 PM] _A: 00:40:837 - i don't think this would be on a 1/8? circumstantially all the vocals have started on a white tick
00:40:942 - around here however it's 1/3 woops
[1:56 PM] _A: it sounds right on 1/4 too so yeah i don't even know man
[1:56 PM] Erin: i'm using a waveform + slowed down music without artefacts
[1:57 PM] Erin: the only thing other than that is the chorus
[1:57 PM] Erin: the 332/223 thing(edited)
[1:58 PM] Erin: the rest is standard percussion-based layering
[1:58 PM] Erin: there isn't a 1/4, it's just 1/2s
[1:58 PM] Erin: you can place a LN on the second 1/2
[1:58 PM] _A: oh ya i did that
[1:59 PM] _A: alright makes more sense
[2:01 PM] _A: https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392193856524779520-unknown.png?width=344&height=471
[2:00 PM] Erin: what
[2:00 PM] Erin: there's a clear 1/4 violin rhythm there
[2:01 PM] Erin: was pointing out 01:24:895 -
[2:01 PM] _A: tell me earlier then
[2:01 PM] Erin: i couldn't tell
[2:02 PM] Erin: editor makes it near-impossible for me because it's in downscroll
[2:02 PM] _A: donez
[2:02 PM] Erin: + a lack of colours
[2:02 PM] _A: yeah that's fine
[2:03 PM] Erin: 01:35:183 - use LNs here?(edited)
[2:03 PM] Erin: since you've used it for similar sounds before
[2:03 PM] Erin: 01:49:319 - different bass kick, use a double here
[2:05 PM] _A: muh emphaseize
[2:05 PM] Erin: my point is to emphasise it in a different way
[2:05 PM] _A: ik
[2:06 PM] _A: i don't like the LN thing above but sigh
[2:06 PM] _A: done it anyway
[2:06 PM] Erin: it repeats a lot so you have to keep track of that
[2:06 PM] _A: i didn't want it to be LN because the section was predominantly streams and
[2:07 PM] _A: yeah whatever
[2:07 PM] _A: it's not a big deal
[2:07 PM] Erin: there's one more section but it's more of a layering thing
[2:08 PM] Erin: 03:43:193 - should be a single, since it's the same bass kick as the bass kick before it
[2:08 PM] Erin: repeats throughout this section
[2:10 PM] _A: can this be disparate from the first portion because this portion talks about just chords
[2:10 PM] _A: idk i'm
[2:10 PM] _A: too tired to explain myself
[2:10 PM] Erin: you can, but I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for that
[2:11 PM] _A: because it's just chording here
[2:11 PM] Erin: unless you reduced density to accommodate for playability/musical relevance
[2:11 PM] Erin: thought so
[2:11 PM] Erin: I don't agree with it, but that's not a concern because it's typical layering(edited)
[2:13 PM] Erin: 04:01:413 - shift this to 2, creating a minijack breaks the double bass kick rule
[2:17 PM] _A: i just want to stop looking like some kind of stubborn old mule lith is painting me to be
[2:17 PM] _A: everything edited alright
[2:18 PM] _A: is that all
[2:18 PM] Erin: should be
It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.75-80% of the chart uses standard percussion-based layering. You wouldn't be committing that much time into changing the other 20-25% of the chart, especially since these concepts repeat throughout the chart.
it's just going to end up like dotabata 2.0if you want to paint me as some old, lanky stubborn mule then, by all means, please go ahead - i couldn't care less as to how you portray me as
It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.
I'm not going to check this thread anymore as I'm 75% sure it's gonna go very quickly downhill, more than it already has. I'm contactable through discord if you really want me to continue the discussion (I will follow the rule if requested) but I'm sure we all know it won't result in any good.
thisAbraxos wrote:
That being said, I will reiterate: I am neutral/passive to the progress of this chart, I know some people like it and if those people are willing to push this chart forward then I will do all I can to assist them in that regard. Otherwise, it'll be a no go for me.
map has changed quite drastically since he last modded, so i'm giving kudos because of that considerationMaxus wrote:
well i will continue this map progress then, hope this will reach rank state rival where r u thonk
[at the threshold]
00:12:094 (12094|2,12251|2,12408|2) - not sure if this is supposed to be triple stack since other similar places don't have that, maybe try move 00:12:408 (12408|2) - to col 4? done
00:29:685 (29685|3) - change to LN here? prefer it keeps the consistency with other LN. i changed the structure of it
00:32:827 (32827|1,32827|0,32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - Kinda personal, but personally not really fan of this somehow, i think making 00:32:984 (32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - 1-2-1 is better here. the same with 00:37:853 - i personally think it's fine? it gives a motion that i'm sending the attention to the right which makes sense since the followup of this part is a jack at 3. same for the second one
00:41:544 - is this purposely being lefted to emphasize 00:41:623 (41623|0) - ? just wanna make sure.ye
00:45:942 (45942|3,46099|3) - These notes somehow for me making the emphasis at short LN which mapping the wub2 sound much weaker. If you say "yes" to my previous line of mod, this one kinda contradicts it. delete these notes make the wub gets more accent. same with 00:50:968 - i did some magic thing here
00:52:774 (52774|3) - Slightly lower PR than 00:52:931 - , move to col 3? same with 00:57:801 - dddd
01:16:806 - The minitrill although seem to be a small one, when combined with 01:15:706 - causing the player to be stumbled easier, personally i recommend something like https://puu.sh/yQGCS/f1171fe4c7.png here. they're meant to trip people up ow o - 01:16:649 (76649|2,76688|1,76884|2,76884|1,77120|1,77120|2) - the bass beats stick to one column at a time
03:13:193 (193193|2) - move to col 4 due to slightly higher vocal PR? sdsdsa
03:16:649 (196649|0) - This kinda have quite vocal differences with 03:17:120 (197120|0) - , move to col 4 will accent that better. dqdasd
03:23:403 - Should be double note for consistency with 03:25:916 - a lil too weak for me; this part is already dense as hell so
03:26:937 - Double note too for consistency with 03:24:424 - ^^^
03:35:654 - Should be single note? since at 03:25:602 - 03:28:115 - its all single note. derp
03:40:209 - having some sort of extra emphasis here is nice (double LN or something maybe) i think the reducation in density is a good enough emphasis for me
03:46:492 (226492|2,226492|3) - try move them to col 2 and col 3? i know emptying col 2 is your intention for pitch purpose, but for me :
1.when the music already enter 03:46:178 - , it's already a new stanza here, so i think you can change the "ruling" here.
2. at 03:56:387 - when its new stanza you don't apply col 2 empty rule here.
3. this one almost the same piano as 03:47:277 - , more flowy to combine them.
i cleaned the whole thing so the only constant in this part is snare = [13] or [24] and bass [12] or [34]
03:56:544 (236544|2,236544|3) - you might also arrange this so it can be at col 2 and 3 too.^^^
04:44:293 (284293|2,284293|0) - Switch column here? pitch between 04:43:821 (283821|2,284293|2) - have quite distinct differences, compared with 04:50:104 (290104|0,290575|0) - that's really similar in pitch. derp
Well, since you said you wanna assist to push this map, i might as well try to sorry i just do it now x.x i've been busy too so it's not a problem