this song is fucking awsome!!!!!
and good map
hope this got ranked
and good map
hope this got ranked
forum
Katakiri Rekka - Moe Ochiru Hokori -Counter raid Another D-
posted
Total Posts
34
recheck, plz don't delete ur work nextime ;p
00:25:161 (1,2,1) - can improve visual by cute blankets -> https://puu.sh/xMvac/988e41bc43.png
00:45:816 (1) - ctrl-g would make the 1/1 gap much more intuitive
01:00:570 - should increase volume for this section
04:27:988 - again volume, the section lacks feedback
05:08:685 (6) - this jump is going too far to properly aim (for me at least)
05:41:758 - why it turns to blue and white halfway?
00:25:161 (1,2,1) - can improve visual by cute blankets -> https://puu.sh/xMvac/988e41bc43.png
00:45:816 (1) - ctrl-g would make the 1/1 gap much more intuitive
01:00:570 - should increase volume for this section
04:27:988 - again volume, the section lacks feedback
05:08:685 (6) - this jump is going too far to properly aim (for me at least)
05:41:758 - why it turns to blue and white halfway?
Topic Starter
Garden wrote:
recheck, plz don't delete ur work nextime ;p
00:25:161 (1,2,1) - can improve visual by cute blankets -> https://puu.sh/xMvac/988e41bc43.png Fixed blankets
00:45:816 (1) - ctrl-g would make the 1/1 gap much more intuitive Fixed
01:00:570 - should increase volume for this section Done
04:27:988 - again volume, the section lacks feedback Done
05:08:685 (6) - this jump is going too far to properly aim (for me at least) nerfed the jump slightly
05:41:758 - why it turns to blue and white halfway? Fixed it now, thanks
+
too fast lolGarden wrote:
+
[The Abyss]
- 00:48:767 - whistle fits pretty good here.
- Spacing between 01:28:111 (4,5) - seems uneven because as far as I can see you made spacing more or less equal unlike this pattern. Consider making spacing a bit more consistent for this pattern 01:27:865 (3,4,5) - .
- Whu would you emphasis this 01:38:808 (4) - more than the other three? Music doesn't seem to change. From my pov a proper back n forth with little spacing altering would fit better. The same 04:43:357 (5) - . And here as well 05:26:881 (9) - . 05:49:750 (5) - same.
- 03:53:193 - / 03:54:299 - / 03:55:775 - / 03:56:144 - etc. - they're giving too much feedback but there are no prominent sound in music so I'd highly recommend you to silence sliderends a little bit, ~15% would be perfect. This suggestion goes pretty much for the every slider in that section.
- 04:39:791 (1,2) - quite harms overall visual bc you didn't overlap these sliders.
- 05:29:709 (11) - NC?
- 05:34:258 (7) - also quite big jump out of nowhere, musically it sounds the same as 05:33:890 (4,5,6) - . Thus spacing should be also equal.
- 05:38:808 (1) - pretty prominent sound thus it requires more spacing.
Topic Starter
Namki wrote:
[The Abyss]gimme also meta and you may call me back after
- 00:48:767 - whistle fits pretty good here. Added whistle to head
- Spacing between 01:28:111 (4,5) - seems uneven because as far as I can see you made spacing more or less equal unlike this pattern. Consider making spacing a bit more consistent for this pattern 01:27:865 (3,4,5) - . Made more even
- Whu would you emphasis this 01:38:808 (4) - more than the other three? Music doesn't seem to change. From my pov a proper back n forth with little spacing altering would fit better. The same 04:43:357 (5) - . And here as well 05:26:881 (9) - . 05:49:750 (5) - same. Fixed so that it is proper back and forth. (more consistent)
- 03:53:193 - / 03:54:299 - / 03:55:775 - / 03:56:144 - etc. - they're giving too much feedback but there are no prominent sound in music so I'd highly recommend you to silence sliderends a little bit, ~15% would be perfect. This suggestion goes pretty much for the every slider in that section. Added 15% volume to every slider end in that section
- 04:39:791 (1,2) - quite harms overall visual bc you didn't overlap these sliders. Made better overlap
- 05:29:709 (11) - NC? I have debated it before with modders. it works best to not have nc
- 05:34:258 (7) - also quite big jump out of nowhere, musically it sounds the same as 05:33:890 (4,5,6) - . Thus spacing should be also equal. Made more consistent jumps
- 05:38:808 (1) - pretty prominent sound thus it requires more spacing. Made higher spacing by changing a bit of layout
qualified!
good decision bringing it back
Give me source where used romanization"Katakiri Rekka" . Offical romanization is Rekka Katakiri
Topic Starter
Hey Lama, I used metadata from this ranked map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/511505Lama Poluna wrote:
Give me source where used romanization"Katakiri Rekka" . Offical romanization is Rekka Katakiri
Offical romanization is Rekka Katakiri - https://vk.com/im?act=browse_images&id=817806
http://www.rekka.jp/live/
http://www.rekka.jp/ on end "Copyright(C) 1998 - 2018 Rekka Katakiri & CLOSED/UNDERGROUND all rights reserved."
http://www.rekka.jp/live/
http://www.rekka.jp/ on end "Copyright(C) 1998 - 2018 Rekka Katakiri & CLOSED/UNDERGROUND all rights reserved."
Topic Starter
Hey Lama, You are correct that it is her name. Here is from the official ranking criteria that is really handy to have read(https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/Ranking_Criteria):
"Eastern artists must be written in the proper 'surname firstname' format (e.g. Japanese/Chinese/Korean). For artists which have a preferred romanisation, use this one. If you're unsure of your artist's name, then check previously ranked maps, Google, Wikipedia, or ask a BN for help."
Did a check to see if Katakiri is a japanese surname, and it is. Therefore I can conclude that she should be written as Katakiri Rekka.
In the case I am wrong, about 10 other maps has the romanisation "Katakiri Rekka" and 0 has "Rekka Katakiri", and deriving from whats already established might cause confusion.
Thanks for providing critique, atleast. I could have made a mistake.
"Eastern artists must be written in the proper 'surname firstname' format (e.g. Japanese/Chinese/Korean). For artists which have a preferred romanisation, use this one. If you're unsure of your artist's name, then check previously ranked maps, Google, Wikipedia, or ask a BN for help."
Did a check to see if Katakiri is a japanese surname, and it is. Therefore I can conclude that she should be written as Katakiri Rekka.
In the case I am wrong, about 10 other maps has the romanisation "Katakiri Rekka" and 0 has "Rekka Katakiri", and deriving from whats already established might cause confusion.
Thanks for providing critique, atleast. I could have made a mistake.
ok im bad
Timing is sort of fucked up from around 2 mins in atleast;
02:01:677 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - these sound already off by some amount
02:02:538 (1,1) - there are fine I guess since they are hitting the latter drum hits (02:03:275 (1) - ain't really hitting either of em) and after these the timing is too late for pretty much the whole track more or less, most prominently you can hear this late in the song like the last kiai for example 05:44:709 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - sound already pretty damn cluttered for how off it is (like it's off by ~20ms at this point).
I just dloaded this set for the first time so I doubt it's from me having outdated stuff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
02:01:677 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - these sound already off by some amount
02:02:538 (1,1) - there are fine I guess since they are hitting the latter drum hits (02:03:275 (1) - ain't really hitting either of em) and after these the timing is too late for pretty much the whole track more or less, most prominently you can hear this late in the song like the last kiai for example 05:44:709 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - sound already pretty damn cluttered for how off it is (like it's off by ~20ms at this point).
I just dloaded this set for the first time so I doubt it's from me having outdated stuff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Topic Starter
Hey Henry, I cant really seem to hear the delay, and when I add +20 in offset it sounds way off. Are you sure you are listening in on the drums(orchestra)? because it's completely mapped to it, rather than the vocals.
I also want more people to voice their concerns about the timing, before any changes happen. And the timing of this map has been discussed before in an older thread.
Edit: I had more people take a look at it, and they also felt it was to late, it should be about -15ms (not +20, as I said above). Therefore i'll be pushing that fix through.
I also want more people to voice their concerns about the timing, before any changes happen. And the timing of this map has been discussed before in an older thread.
Edit: I had more people take a look at it, and they also felt it was to late, it should be about -15ms (not +20, as I said above). Therefore i'll be pushing that fix through.
alright, disqualified since mapper wants to make changes to timing
only took a quick look but around -15 for that last part sounds nicer for me too
minor additional point: for silenced sliderends like 02:02:538 (1,1,1) - consider using soft instead of normal sampleset since that work better
and mentioned before these sound pretty off
you say it has been discussed in the old thread, so maybe try to find it and link the discussion?
might be nice to get more opinions on the timing before getting it requalified
only took a quick look but around -15 for that last part sounds nicer for me too
minor additional point: for silenced sliderends like 02:02:538 (1,1,1) - consider using soft instead of normal sampleset since that work better
and mentioned before these sound pretty off
you say it has been discussed in the old thread, so maybe try to find it and link the discussion?
might be nice to get more opinions on the timing before getting it requalified
Wew howd my post turn into +20 suggestion? Didn't I say the timing's late so needs -ms >.<
I mean yeah obviously lolAltuth wrote:
Hey Henry, I cant really seem to hear the delay, and when I add +20 in offset it sounds way off. Are you sure you are listening in on the drums(orchestra)? because it's completely mapped to it, rather than the vocals.
Topic Starter
list of changes:
02:24:039 added -15ms offset (from this point and to the end)
02:02:497 (1,1,1) - pushed 1/6th earlier, in order to hit more clearly. and added soft slider end)
01:56:390 (9,1) - reimagined distance between these two (made bigger for consistency)
Will wait a couple days before trying to qualify. If anyone has any objections, now is the time to voice them
02:24:039 added -15ms offset (from this point and to the end)
02:02:497 (1,1,1) - pushed 1/6th earlier, in order to hit more clearly. and added soft slider end)
01:56:390 (9,1) - reimagined distance between these two (made bigger for consistency)
Will wait a couple days before trying to qualify. If anyone has any objections, now is the time to voice them
Timing was adjusted a bit, sounds fine to me. Also I'm quite satisfied with changes from the list above. Good to go!
re