I appreciated your time and your help and even your explanations. Even if I just fixed one single thing it was a good mod (ignoring the "movement" you mentioned so much times xD). Stuff I rejected have been explained by me as well. Thank you very much!
negusver wrote:NM as requested
The movement in this diff feels a bit concerning. The 0.8 distance snap create a stop and go movement that doesn't really emphasize anything.
Examples are everywhere - compare movement from 00:00:155 - to 00:00:840 - wtih movement from 00:00:840 -
to 00:01:526 - the same theme repeats itself, but movement is drastically different. I get it that you want to create a patternized style as a gimmick that repeats itself, just as the music does, but that doesn't mean that emphasis should be neglected as much as it is.
I get that on higher difficulties the high sv combined with low ds is supposed to make the sliders carry movement entirely by themselves, but I don't think that gimmick works with the given rhythm.
My advice would be to decrease the overall sv and use 1.0 ds This would mean a full remap of the diff and I don't want to do it. Furthermore the decrease of SV and increase of DS wouldn't change that much the concept you wanted to point out: higher pitches > major spacing. The map would be anyways constant in its structure that players wouldn't even notice the difference between the actual map and an ipotetic one with higher DS and lower SV. The difference would be minimally perceptible that makes it not worth to full remap the diff.
I think the rhythm from 00:00:155 - to 00:10:440 - is way to dense comparatively
Also compare movement from 00:11:126 - to 00:00:155 - - the former is the actual part where the main instrument kicks in and therefore should offer more movement, but the opposite is the case ^ I will not apply changes that would mean to make a movement inconsistent with the rest of the patterns. The best choice for the easiest diff is to keep the same spacing/sv/structure on its patterns indipendently from the intensity of some parts of the music.
00:04:269 (3) - wouldn't let it end on 00:04:955 - , I think circles on 00:04:955 - and 00:05:297 - would create better emphasis - given that the theme alternates, I think it makes sense to break ou t from th e structural gimmick You are actually right here. This can be a very valid option to apply but the one I applied is valid too: if you compare this 00:02:897 (1,2,3) - to 00:08:383 (1,2,3) - and all next parts they are all consistent keeping the structure of "first element - circle - second element (similar to first element)" like I did for 00:00:155 (1,2,3) - and 00:05:640 (1,2,3) - respectively. This is a personal idea that I do not want to change. So, to be clear: if I removed the repeating arrow from 00:04:269 (3) - I would break the consistency with 00:09:755 (3) - (that doesn't have the higher pitch on the tail) and with the 00:00:155 (1,2,3) - (concept of: "first element - circle - second element (similar to first element)".
00:22:097 (1,2) - offers more movement than 00:24:840 (1,2,3,4) - and should therefore be used in in the second part instead of the first Mh.. it doesn't lol I mean, the movement is just following sliders' bodies while on second part that has to be emphasized the movement is much "intense" with 4 unstacked circles actually xD I didn't get you on this
why is the rhythm from 00:24:840 - to 00:26:897 - much less dense even though intensity of the music increases Because it's an easy diff and I explained you why some lines upward
The same things repeat themselves over the entire difficulty, so I'll let you figure things out
I'm not gonna comment on structure, because it really doesn't matter with 0.8 ds, so rhythm and movement mod only yay
I think this diff suffers from random pattern variation, that doesn't really reflect on much movement-wise.
I think non-repeat sliders only starting 00:00:155 - offer too much movement compared to 00:11:126 -
stacking 00:18:669 (3,4) - seems inappropriate It's because the 00:18:669 (3,4) is actually filling the flute melody not the piano one..
00:22:097 (1,2,3,4) - would use 1/1 sliders instead of circles and 00:23:469 (5,6) - circles instead of repeats, because of inappropriate stop movement implied by 00:23:469 (5,6) - The repeating sliders (5) and (6) have been mapped to open the next section with an 1/2 rhythm instead than the usual 1/1 circles. An other option would have been to use an 1/2 slider and a circle immediately afterwards but I dislike to use it for Normal diffs because it's too hard to play. The 1/1 circles are made to fill the piano melody of the music since this part has an higher intensity than previous ones. This means that if I used 1/1 slider like you say I would lose that major intensity I want to give while playing these sections.
00:46:783 (1) - I'd control j this for consistency with 00:35:126 (4,1) - also I think emphasis would be better (I know I said I wouldn't be commenting on structure but I'm not perfect) The flow would become less smoother actually. Maybe you didn't get why I decided to make this slider like this so I will try to explain: the previous 00:46:097 (3) - is directed on top side and now it's followed by 00:46:783 (1) - that is directed bot side and the following 00:48:155 (2) - is directed on top side again while the next is directed on bot side and so on. This is a mapping technique I use veeery often to make the flow smoother during gameplay
00:51:583 (3,4,1) - wouldn't stack these, I know you did the same on 00:18:669 (3,4) - but the latter should offer more movement because more tension The stack leniency would destroy the curved slider in all its shape
01:00:497 (1,2,3,4,5) - I don't think is a good variety to 00:55:012 (1,2,3,4) - because movement is too different with the change of angles Nice catch, it's even inconsistent with all previous parts with the same rhythm where I didn't use any kind of stack. Fixed in a different way
01:05:297 (2) - would turn into circles to reduce movement (man I'm using "movement" a lot, I guess thats just what I pay attention to, sorry) Why should I be inconsistent here with all previous parts like 00:59:126 (1,2) - ?
01:05:983 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - not so keen on this idea, I get it you try to emphasize white ticks because new sound, but because of 0.8 ds it would be emphasized anyway. Its less dense than the intro I didn't try to emphasize ticks lol I just love this kind of change in pattern structure
01:18:669 (5,6) - don't like it, theres no movement but loud sounds, would prefer 3 1/2 sliders
01:21:412 (5,6) - dito
01:27:926 (1,2) - stop implied by music so stack these (I think structure break is good because of drastic music change) I dislike stacks between sliders in mostly of my maps. This kind of pattern are very smooth and cool to see and play
01:33:412 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I would stop using these circle patterns with given rise of tension, because of 0.8 ds The tension is given because of the highest part of the music I guess? :\
no comments on structure either due to small ds
Kinda like this diff, I think the gimmick fits well with given rhythm, so not much to say here.
Although there's still some random pattern variation that doesn't make much sense movement wise. Oh wow I see you hate my patterns movement so hard xDDD
00:00:155 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - why do you use more movement here instead 00:02:897 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - I think the other way around would make much more sense
same for 00:11:812 (1,1) - and 00:14:555 (1,1) - It wouldn't change anything from my point of view
00:19:355 (1,1,1,1) - I would use similar sliders to 00:16:612 (1) - given the decrease in pitch it doesn't change that much and making some changes on sliders' shapes sometime can be less annoying to play imo
00:26:555 (2) - don't like this slider ending there, would just move the douplets 1/2 earlier This pattern is full symmetric and then this slider is symmetric to 00:24:840 (1) - . Also this slider fills better the lower pitch on its tail
00:46:783 (1) - slider shape seems unfitting, theres no stop in music (red anchor this way implies stop) All sliders I used to open these sections (on previous parts) are made at the same way with red waypoints ehm..
00:49:526 (1,1) - music is continuous, slider arrangement implies break The structure of rhythm pattern is still based on consistency with all other parts.
00:55:012 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - increased movement of this would be more fitting at 00:57:755 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - Same of before
00:59:640 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - i don't like this entire part, you tried to change the rhythm, due to changed theme, but it doesn't feel intuitive, I think some more variation with circles would do the trick The rhythm is always 1/2 .. I only changed the way I mapped the patterns because it must be different from previous one since it's closing the section
01:08:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - why didn't you use this kind of movement in earlier similar patterns that weren't emphasized structurally You are actually right but if I used this kind of rhythm on the previous section the star rating would be much higher than this and the H symbol would swap to I (it was the same rhythm before indeed!) and I prefered to keep it harder only here because it's the further part of the music that anticipates the kiai section. I would change this but I can't because of star rating
I would stack 01:16:955 (1,2) - for better emphasis given how harsh new sounds are, dito for similar spots in the kiai, because I don't think movement difference to 01:22:440 - is enough Stacks don't mean "emphasize" to me, it means the opposite actually xD Stacking it would decrease the intensity of the beginning of kiai section
01:26:212 (5,6) - this variation seems pretty random, theres no decrease in pitch nor stop implied by the music Mh you are right. I tried to fix this without destroying the connection between previous and next patterns (I mean 01:24:840 (4,1) - ) but I didn't find anything else to apply. If you have any idea, or any pattern, I am here to see and fix it. For now, since I didn't find any solution, I will keep it like this.
I'm not really good enough to judge this diff properly as I can't really play it, but it seems that similar issues of movement variation that doesn't really make sense may be applied here. Also it's too late rn, I may edit this later who knows. Oh you are still complaining about this "movement" xD Do you maybe mean flow? Well. You can't talk about bad flow on my Insane and Extra maps, sorry. Flow is my stronger skill while mapping xD
refer to Insane