1. Collab Hard (2,95 stars, 497 notes)
2. Insane (3,56 stars, 667 notes)
3. Normal (1,78 stars, 231 notes)

IceBeam wrote:

привет!

очень клевая мапка получилась, ты и правда далеко не новичок. не вижу с ней каких-то проблем, разве что хотел предложить улучшить пару моментов:

02:47:730 (1,2,3) - у тебя вообще очень цельная и логичная мапка, что касается паттернов. есть и симметрия, и повторяющиеся ритмы - я такое очень люблю, потому что это показывает серьезный подход к маппингу, а не просто выброс рандома. и вот здесь мне бы очень хотелось консистенции в ритме.

вот я о чём - предыдущий ритм звучал очень здорово 02:44:101 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - я бы хотел чтобы ты его продолжила и дальше и сделала 2 лупа одинаковых:

SPOILER

ну а дальше у тебя уже пойдет твоя часть в том же 1/3 ритме.

Твою мысль поняла, но не хочу убирать 4 слайдер, который ставила в вокал. Вместо этого решила выделить биты, которые были на концах слайдеров нотами, надеюсь получилось неплохо.

если решишь исправить это, то опять же для консистенции не забудь исправить ритм и тут 03:00:068 (2,3) , добавив недостающие от предыдущего ритма ноты.
Ой, здесь же вокал полностью перекрывает всё остальное, такой же эффект как вот здесь - 02:49:918 (1), поэтому я так сделала. Поспрашиваю ещё людей, что они об этом думают.

03:24:502 (5) - у тебя уже была похожая часть и в начале, и там у тебя дистанция к новому комбо была значительно больше. здесь же оно посередине. не то, что бы это плохо читается, но когда прыжок более акцентирован, то выглядит и играется приятнее. ну просто что-то вроде такого бы:

SPOILER

ну или в любое место, можно даже поставить (5) чуть правее и ниже 03:24:018 (4), но только не посередине.
Сделала

03:31:277 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - я понимаю что тебе надо было сделать последний припев каким-то особенным и самым бодреньким, но все же немного овермап. дело не в сложности, а в том, что ноты эти звучат для меня ну совсем лишними, но наверное это мелочи.
Ты прав, лучше их уберу, тем более что я почему-то не хитсаундила их никак
04:05:388 (1,2,3) - тут планировался именно такой стак? как-то выглядит странно. либо все спрячь под конец слайдера, либо выведи оба (2) и (3) в линию как ты делала раньше
Ай, я хотела всё под слайдер, но на этой карте почему-то вечно ломаются стаки ><
в остальном шикарно хотелось бы увидеть больше сложностей и ранк, так что удачки

DendyMudak wrote:

Здрасте

Normal

00:27:665 (1) - мб сменить направление флоува?
Не, по-моему смена флоу тут ни к чему, тем более что я вот тут - 00:30:568 (1) меняю направление, потому что музыка меняется
00:34:681 (2,3) - лучше его оверлапнуть хоть немножко, игроку будет легче читать этот момент
не знаю, там же под дсом всё, по-моему читабельно
00:46:293 (2,3) - ^
сейм
01:09:760 (1,2) - выглядит сложновато для нормала
Да ну, по-моему вот это - 01:09:034 (2,3) сложнее. Да и потом я не знаю, как иначе передать вокал здесь
02:15:080 (1,2,3) - можно изменить форму паттерна, а именно слайдеров, сделав их прямыми, сам паттерн просто станет тригольником, но не будет однообразное повторение этой формы
окей
02:56:449 (2) - лучше бы чтобы его направление было прямо на слайдер, так как тут идёт именно это 02:57:175 (3,4)
О, спасибо что показал, пошла и на 3,4 такое же сделаю
02:59:352 (2,3) - ^
На самом деле тут получается такой мини прыжок, чтобы передать силу вокала
03:00:804 (4) - форма слайдера не очень красивая в совокупности с остальными
Понимаю, зато в вокал заезжает красиво
03:53:060 (4,1) - бессмысленное повторение одного и того же паттерна, место же много на поле, зачем такое делать
А по-моему прикольно

when ranked?
Хз, когда sp подрастёт и бны найдутся

Djulus wrote:

:eyes:
хсы чекал
в ласт диффе
03:40:721 (3) - whistle забыла.
о, и правда забыла
02:11:452 (4,5,1,1,1) - и эти тоже (наверное)
Нет, тут всё как надо стоит

1. 00:18:230 (2,1) - flow indicates the player to go through the slider tail, as the spacing is big and the tail is closest, so i'd recommend moving 00:18:230 (2) - a bit down
2. 00:45:084 (1,2,3) - idk if forcing that kind of flow is great for your lowest diff, as it works worse than 00:34:681 (2,3) - or 02:19:192 (2,3) - imo
3. 02:53:304 (3,4) - ds
4. 03:37:093 (2,3,4) - oh this pattern is idk lol but 03:37:819 (3,4) - head (4) and tail (3) overlaps while on 03:37:093 (2,3) - it doesn't happen

1. 00:37:825 (7,8) - feels like the second slider should receive some higher impact, as it just seems the same thing as the previous one and with some boring spacing. I'd recommend changing sv a bit so the spacing could be kept as someting small
2. 00:40:487 (6,7,8) - that's like, so whatever, but feels like the slider shape isn't that nice as transition to the next pattern 00:40:728 (7,8,9) -, and as we are talking about a hard diff it's kinda hard to expect something like this when you are kinda noob
3. 01:02:502 (1) - oh this triggers me a bit, you were following the instrumentals and randomly just ignored a lot of sounds and put a slider till 01:03:107 - which has no important sounds at all either. This also happens on 01:05:405 (1,2) - that has not a really recognizeable transition and sounds just weird since people won't expect such change randomly
4. 03:02:739 (5) - wouldn't be better circle + slider here?
5. 03:07:094 (4,1) - such a high jump to introduce a calm part, dunno if really necessary, you can keep the same spacing as 03:06:610 (2,3,4) - i think o.o
6. 03:21:852 (1) - is this NC on purpose? cuz usually you would NC 03:21:610 (3) - i guess, also i'd recommend NCing 03:24:512 (3) - and 01:51:613 (4) -
7. 03:56:688 (1) - what is sliderend trying to cover after all? i'm los t s ts, but after listen to 03:53:785 (1,2) - and 03:55:237 (1,2) -, it sounds so out of place
8. 04:02:495 (1,2) - maybe you should try to extend both or just keep both ending on one tick after the red one
   
   you and mirash work so well together wow

1. 01:09:640 (2) - unsnapped by 1ms wha t
2. 00:13:150 (1,2,3,4) - idk, maybe it would be cool to NC these sliders, although it can looks like waste of NCing, you did something like this during the entire section to represent the strongest piano sound as some kind of "reset" on the loop, so i think it's valid
3. 00:26:214 (1,1) - oh, NCs like this makes me a bit tilted, as both represents the same sounds while you decided to kept 00:26:940 (1) - as some "new section mark" making usage of NC. IMO it would make sense on 00:27:664 (1) -, but feels just spammy. Same idea goes to parts as 01:59:838 (1) - etc
4. 00:27:664 (1,2,3) - i can't see a real difference gameplay-wise on that pattern when compared to 00:26:214 (1,2,3,1,2,3) -, it plays the same, only the slider has a little curve to the opposite way but the player will do the same, maybe to avoid it and create something different you should rotate a bit or idk
5. 00:32:746 (4,5,6) - hmm 00:32:988 (5,6) - being considerably smaller makes the pattern feels a bit asdsadasd, as your spacing here in general is a bit large and "jumpy", while this pattern is a bit smaller randomly, maybe the player would expect something a bit larger
6. 00:37:101 (4,5,6) - maybe something like this would work better than the actual flow on 00:37:343 (5,6) -, not sure, such a small thing tho
7. 00:38:551 (4,1) - I'd swap NCs as the strong sounds starts on the (4) Slider
8. 01:17:017 (1,1) - these are the only sliders which has no whistle on tail on the kiai and it is related to 01:28:631 (1,1) - 02:49:918 (1,1) - 03:01:529 (1,1) - i guess, so looks like and error, not sure, i suck at hitsounding
9. 02:11:452 (4) - looks like this pattern marks a new sub-section, so idk, i'd nc as i said on my 4th point
10. 03:02:497 (5,6,1) - it was really intended? looks so painful for no reason, as you used to put some sharp angles
11. 03:05:158 (4,5) - spacing is so small
12. 04:02:495 - why you decided to reduce sv here? not sure about it, also 04:14:107 - is basically the same thing but with the common sv used on strong parts so
    
    overall this diff is pretty cool, nothing really important i can notice

avalanche wrote:

приветик

Insane

01:33:710 (1,2,3,1) - ну, тут музыка резко идет на спад, поэтому думаю можно это подчеркнуть сильно пониженным спейсингом мжду последними нотами
вероятно, это слишком субъективно, но почему-то мне сразу бросилось это в глаза
убавила немного
03:32:738 (3,1) - вот тут флоу плохой, реально, движение сильно прерывается (нигде я подобного не замтеил, тоже сразу обратил внимание)
Может быть и так, но по-моему это очень подходит музыке
04:14:834 (2,1) - прыжок от конца первого слайдера к началу второго слишком резок и не следует логике на протяжении большей части твоей мапы, где звучат скрипки (я не уверен, но где-то я видел похожие моменты, проверь все свои паттерны подобного плана)
Выделяю сильный звук, который приходится на 1 слайдер

Collab Hard

00:37:825 (7,8) - придирка по части эстетики, опять же, НО! оверлап выглядит не к месту (он еще и корявый какой-то)
Нормальный оверлап, чего ты
01:12:663 (3) - слайдер стал медленнее вразрез с высокой нотой певца, ммм???
С чего бы ему быть медленнее, в харде стейбл 1.2 св в киае
02:47:014 (7) - не понимаю, с чем связана пауза после этой ноты, потому что вроде как часть мапается не под вокал (по крайней мере, не полностью)
Странно что ты про это место не спросил, он ж точно такое же. И да, по-моему это прикольно, когда перед слайдерами под вокал есть вот такая пауза

нормал не буду моддить, ибо я попросту не очень шарю

от мапсета складывается двоякое впечатление: с одной стороны, довольно годно, но с другой его нужно долго полировать (я бы ремапнул, но так можно про все сказать)
Я прошу моды именно для того, чтобы отполировать сет, внезапное откровение
сори, что мало написал, но больше особо ничего не смог выжать

Trynna wrote:

Hey, this song is so good, it really susprised me at first, you have my support to rank this

Norml al

1. 00:18:230 (2,1) - flow indicates the player to go through the slider tail, as the spacing is big and the tail is closest, so i'd recommend moving 00:18:230 (2) - a bit down
   done
2. 00:45:084 (1,2,3) - idk if forcing that kind of flow is great for your lowest diff, as it works worse than 00:34:681 (2,3) - or 02:19:192 (2,3) - imo
   okay, it make sense, I'll change it
3. 02:53:304 (3,4) - ds
   ds
4. 03:37:093 (2,3,4) - oh this pattern is idk lol but 03:37:819 (3,4) - head (4) and tail (3) overlaps while on 03:37:093 (2,3) - it doesn't happen
   But it happens with 2's head, so I think it's okay

MyAngelMirash (not yours) feat. Pandarks Hard Difficult (y)

1. 00:37:825 (7,8) - feels like the second slider should receive some higher impact, as it just seems the same thing as the previous one and with some boring spacing. I'd recommend changing sv a bit so the spacing could be kept as someting small
   I think if I increase spacing only it will be enough
2. 00:40:487 (6,7,8) - that's like, so whatever, but feels like the slider shape isn't that nice as transition to the next pattern 00:40:728 (7,8,9) -, and as we are talking about a hard diff it's kinda hard to expect something like this when you are kinda noob
   Ctrl+j slider's shape. Ah, and we used this spacing before, so I think newbie will be able to defeat this pattern
3. 03:07:094 (4,1) - such a high jump to introduce a calm part, dunno if really necessary, you can keep the same spacing as 03:06:610 (2,3,4) - i think o.o
   true
4. 03:21:852 (1) - is this NC on purpose? cuz usually you would NC 03:21:610 (3) - i guess, also i'd recommend NCing 03:24:512 (3) - and 01:51:613 (4) -
   oke
   
   you and mirash work so well together wow
   Thanks

Last

1. 01:09:640 (2) - unsnapped by 1ms wha t
   wtf, fixed
2. 00:13:150 (1,2,3,4) - idk, maybe it would be cool to NC these sliders, although it can looks like waste of NCing, you did something like this during the entire section to represent the strongest piano sound as some kind of "reset" on the loop, so i think it's valid
   Uuh, but it looks like real nc spamming >_<
3. 00:26:214 (1,1) - oh, NCs like this makes me a bit tilted, as both represents the same sounds while you decided to kept 00:26:940 (1) - as some "new section mark" making usage of NC. IMO it would make sense on 00:27:664 (1) -, but feels just spammy. Same idea goes to parts as 01:59:838 (1) - etc
   Okay, I'll remove it
4. 00:27:664 (1,2,3) - i can't see a real difference gameplay-wise on that pattern when compared to 00:26:214 (1,2,3,1,2,3) -, it plays the same, only the slider has a little curve to the opposite way but the player will do the same, maybe to avoid it and create something different you should rotate a bit or idk
   I ctrl+h few patterns
5. 00:32:746 (4,5,6) - hmm 00:32:988 (5,6) - being considerably smaller makes the pattern feels a bit asdsadasd, as your spacing here in general is a bit large and "jumpy", while this pattern is a bit smaller randomly, maybe the player would expect something a bit larger
   oke
6. 00:37:101 (4,5,6) - maybe something like this would work better than the actual flow on 00:37:343 (5,6) -, not sure, such a small thing tho
   looks cool
7. 00:38:551 (4,1) - I'd swap NCs as the strong sounds starts on the (4) Slider
   lol ok
8. 01:17:017 (1,1) - these are the only sliders which has no whistle on tail on the kiai and it is related to 01:28:631 (1,1) - 02:49:918 (1,1) - 03:01:529 (1,1) - i guess, so looks like and error, not sure, i suck at hitsounding
   I used soft sliderslide for slider with finish in it's head and normal for strong vocals, so you right about first slider, soft whistle added
9. 02:11:452 (4) - looks like this pattern marks a new sub-section, so idk, i'd nc as i said on my 4th point
   ok
10. 03:02:497 (5,6,1) - it was really intended? looks so painful for no reason, as you used to put some sharp angles
    Oh yeah, I'm cruel person (oooops)
11. 03:05:158 (4,5) - spacing is so small
    fixed
12. 04:02:495 - why you decided to reduce sv here? not sure about it, also 04:14:107 - is basically the same thing but with the common sv used on strong parts so
    These sausages were too big, I'll increase sv again
    
    overall this diff is pretty cool, nothing really important i can notice

-Tochi wrote:

• 
  Hello!
  M4M from my queue
  
  [Insane]

1. 00:15:329 (2) - Maybe ctrl+g for another flow?
   oke
2. 00:19:684 (1,2) - These objects aren't stacked properly.
   stacked
3. 00:37:345 (5,6) - Why is the spacing here lower than 00:36:861 (3,4) ?
   It sounds less loud for me when I mapped it, make it similar now
4. 00:40:731 (2,3) - Sliderheads aren't stacked properly on those objects.
   Hm, I didn't notice if it was unstacked when I move it, so I dunno
5. 01:09:642 - Circle is unsnapped according to Modding Assistant.
   Just an 1/6 circle, it's okay for this map
6. 01:17:020 (1,3) - Try to avoid this small overlap, it looks unintentional and random. It would be better if you overlap it more so it looks intentional like: http://i.imgur.com/qPv7nFj.jpg If you want the coordinates for that, then it's x:368 y:354.
   Done, dunno if it become better or not
7. This is related to the above but; 01:18:472 (1,3) - this is what I meant by making it look more intentional xD So why not do the same with the previous one at 01:17:020 (1,3) - to keep them consistent.
   Yeah, I see
8. 02:17:986 (1) - Why not make this curvy the other way around like: http://i.imgur.com/vBGt9eN.jpg for a better flow from the previous objects.
9. 02:44:114 - Second kiai part seems good (y).
   thanks
10. 03:39:998 (2) - This' sliderhead is not properly stacked under 03:38:547 (3,4) 's tail.
    fuk stacks
11. 03:52:337 (1,2,3) - Why not stack this' sliderhead on 03:50:885 (1,2) 's tail.
    fixed
12. 04:15:562 (1,2) - This is not properly blanket, I suggest you to fix this.
    I didn't plan to make a blanket here, just two sliders with the similar to 04:14:836 (2) - curve looking good without blankets
13. 04:16:287 (2,3) - Same here with the circle.
    same here
    
    [Collab Hard]
    These are unsnapped according to Modding Assistant:
    01:03:109 - Slider end
    03:00:685 - Slider end
    03:57:295 - Slider end
    03:58:748 - Circle
    04:00:198 - Slider end
    04:03:827 - Slider end
    He's lied to you
14. 02:10:728 (3,4) - You could improve this blanket more.
    But I'm not a blanket master, dude. I mean usually I don't make a blankets at all
15. 02:44:114 - Second kiai part seems good, couldn't find something worth pointing out.
16. 04:17:013 (2) - Maybe stack this under this 04:12:658 (1) 's tail?
    done
    
    Cool map, good luck with it!

1. Nothing to point out here.

• Well done.

1. 00:08:071 (2,2) - The same I've mentioned about the volume in the end of these sliders on the Insane difficulty.
2. 01:02:505 (1) - I've tried to understand the sense behind the choice of this as the rhythm of this part, and I couldn't understand it, due that it doesn't follow the voice/music in a proper way. Short it by 1 tick. Sounds a lot better.
3. 01:27:181 (2) - 03:00:081 (3) - 03:56:691 (1,1,2) - Same as above.
   
   Good one.

1. 00:02:265 (4) - 00:08:071 (5) - 00:10:491 (2) - Could you consider to decrease the volume in the end of these sliders? I'd rather to use 15 or 10% to make it softer, since the sounds at these sections are barely audible.
2. 00:28:877 (3,1) - Honestly this is way too much spacing for an Insane. Jumps are fine, but emphasizing them with a really high space it's quite overdone ,and random in my opinion. I'd like to move it closer against to the previous circle.
3. 00:31:296 (4) - Why this isn't being emphasised? It's weird due that you've been doing that each beat, so that makes the section inconsistent.
4. 00:34:199 (4) - Same as above.
5. 00:43:635 (5,6,7) - This stack could be improved by moving the circles a bit under the slider.
7. 01:09:642 (2) - I'm pretty sure that this is overmapped due that this rhythm is not even in the song itself. So I highly recommend you to delete it off, due that it has nothing to do with the song.
9. 01:48:713 (5,1,5,1,5,1) - I'm not agree at all with these antijumps. Overall the idea is great and I get why you've decided to do that, but I'd like to do something like this instead to make it clear and less confusing.
10. 03:21:612 (5,1,5,1,5,1) - Same as above.
11. 02:07:825 (1,2,3) - Ugly stack. 04:09:755 (1,2,3) - Same.
12. 03:39:998 (2,3) - Overall the pattern is really great, but it could be improved by doing another shape easily. How about to change (3) by this kind of shape? (Remember to use the same shape for the next slider.
    Here's the code in case that you need it:
    
    

    [HitObjects]
    168,376,220724,6,2,B|188:308|256:283|256:283|324:308|344:376,1,266.666656494141,8|0,0:0|0:0,0:0:0:0:

13. 04:01:772 (4,5) - Why the sudden change of space between these objects? I'd like to increase it at the least a bit.
14. 04:03:949 (3,4) - Way too much space for a jump. Nerf it please.

Gero wrote:

General

1. Nothing to point out here.

Normal

• Well done.

Hard

1. 00:08:071 (2,2) - The same I've mentioned about the volume in the end of these sliders on the Insane difficulty.
2. 01:02:505 (1) - I've tried to understand the sense behind the choice of this as the rhythm of this part, and I couldn't understand it, due that it doesn't follow the voice/music in a proper way. Short it by 1 tick. Sounds a lot better.
3. 01:27:181 (2) - 03:00:081 (3) - 03:56:691 (1,1,2) - Same as above.
   
   All fixed by Mirash, because it was in his parts
   
   Good one.

Insane

1. 00:02:265 (4) - 00:08:071 (5) - 00:10:491 (2) - Could you consider to decrease the volume in the end of these sliders? I'd rather to use 15 or 10% to make it softer, since the sounds at these sections are barely audible.
   Sure
2. 00:28:877 (3,1) - Honestly this is way too much spacing for an Insane. Jumps are fine, but emphasizing them with a really high space it's quite overdone ,and random in my opinion. I'd like to move it closer against to the previous circle.
   Oh, you're right I'm a dick, wrong spacing here, nerfed
3. 00:31:296 (4) - Why this isn't being emphasised? It's weird due that you've been doing that each beat, so that makes the section inconsistent.
   oops
4. 00:34:199 (4) - Same as above.
   aah, placement is so hard
5. 00:43:635 (5,6,7) - This stack could be improved by moving the circles a bit under the slider.
   fuk stacks in this map, but I think this one is fine as it is
7. 01:09:642 (2) - I'm pretty sure that this is overmapped due that this rhythm is not even in the song itself. So I highly recommend you to delete it off, due that it has nothing to do with the song.
   I was sure that I mapped it on the "ex" in "unexpectedly" word, so may I have this note here? o.o
9. 01:48:713 (5,1,5,1,5,1) - I'm not agree at all with these antijumps. Overall the idea is great and I get why you've decided to do that, but I'd like to do something like this instead to make it clear and less confusing.
   Dunno, I really like this effect when you suddenly jump from 5 to 1, also I think it's not really a problem on bpm like this
10. 03:21:612 (5,1,5,1,5,1) - Same as above.
    same
11. 02:07:825 (1,2,3) - Ugly stack. 04:09:755 (1,2,3) - Same.
    I tried to fix it, but I guess these stacks live their own life
12. 03:39:998 (2,3) - Overall the pattern is really great, but it could be improved by doing another shape easily. How about to change (3) by this kind of shape? (Remember to use the same shape for the next slider.
    Here's the code in case that you need it:
    
    

    [HitObjects]
    168,376,220724,6,2,B|188:308|256:283|256:283|324:308|344:376,1,266.666656494141,8|0,0:0|0:0,0:0:0:0:

    
    Ah, this slider looks so cool, but I prefer to keep similar shapes in this kind of patterns. Btw, I tired to make this pattern more symmetrical, I hope it's not going to be offscreen now xd
    
13. 04:01:772 (4,5) - Why the sudden change of space between these objects? I'd like to increase it at the least a bit.
    Increased a bit
14. 04:03:949 (3,4) - Way too much space for a jump. Nerf it please.
    Done

Call me back.