SuperCSGO wrote:

Hello! Hi!

From the queue - a really well made map, not much to change!

[Hard]
02:10:624 (4,1) - Maybe lower note slightly for a less sharp curve? I think it's ok
02:23:011 - Put a note here since there's a drum in the background. done

[Normal]
00:06:946 (1,2) - Curve sliders slightly more towards each other for better flow. ^

GL, HF!

jack1817 wrote:

From my Queue,
안녕! 您好！

[General]
⏩Well made, it would be even better to include more design features.

[Pretty Normal]
⏩Comboing at the last part seems strange, please check, and I think the new combos are too frequently. Consider halving the number of new combos?
⏩00:27:075 (1,2,3,4) - Maybe do a zig-zag instead of round? The “tat” sound here are quite noticeable and they deserve attention. done
⏩00:36:366 (1,1) - Make these two sliders the same. I think better now
⏩00:51:075 (2,2) - I don’t know the reason but why don’t stack them? :3 a little bit of consideration for newbie? There is a concern that there is a risk of being masked by the score.
⏩01:41:785 (2) - Maybe move this one so 01:41:398 (1,2,3) - look visually spaced the same? done
⏩03:06:946 (1,2,3,4,5) - Maybe start a new combo at 03:08:108 (3) -. Oh, my mistake. thanks
⏩03:20:495 (1,2,3,4) - Start a new combo at 03:22:043 (3) - ^

[Pretty Hard]
⏩00:04:430 (2) - Mind the DS. I can feel differences in DS when testplaying. done
⏩00:07:527 (2) - ^ ^
⏩00:07:720 (3) - May change the slider angle of this one, right now the flow seems a bit weird. ^
⏩00:13:720 (2) - About DS. ^
⏩00:31:333 (5,1) - May change the DS of this to the same as 00:18:946 (5,1) - . ^
⏩00:34:237 (5,1) - Do this gimmick correctly by making the distance of it same as 00:05:011 (4,1) - . ^
⏩01:51:656 (4,5) - You should make slider angle of (4) same as 01:50:495 (1,2,3) - because of the vocal lines. I think better now! i think so

⏩Try to include more small jumps like 00:05:011 (4,1) - .

[Pretty Insane]
⏩The diff feels like a jumbo of different concepts, I think for design, you can do it better. Right now it blends pretty well, but can be further improved for sure.
⏩00:47:204 (1,2,3,4,1) - The flow is weird here. I'll think about it.
⏩01:25:333 (3) - The slider end carries a loud sound than the slider head, maybe change the pattern of 01:25:333 (3,4) - . um,,, i think it's ok
⏩01:37:527 (6) - New Combo? done
⏩02:38:495 (5) - If you make a break here, make the other two diffs the same as well. i tried, but brake time was short and could not be put in here
⏩02:56:495 (3,4,5,6) - Make the star more like a star. done


That’s all! Thanks for requesting
Good luck with the mapset

Xiaolin wrote:

Henlo Wonwoo, I didn't know you were playing osu xP // you know, i'm not real wonwoo xd

Anyways, from Q

General

1. I'd start the spinner that starts at the beginning of the map from 00:00:753 -, because that's where the long note starts from. ok
2. 03:25:140 - Add a note here on every diff? Because that's where the song ends, but it's up to you. well,, i'll thinking about this

Pretty Normal

1. 00:11:591 (1) - Since you follow instruments throughout the diff, you should probably move this slider to 00:11:398 -, because it has a more stronger sound than where the slider currently starts at. Besides, you used a whistle which was supposed to emphasize that sound. k
2. 00:16:237 (1) - Where the slider currently ends lands on a very weak breath sound, while other stronger sounds are covered by the slider body. I'd go with this rhythm, where stronger sounds are also emphasized. ^
3. 00:23:979 (1) - Same as the first point, would be better if you started it at 00:23:785 -. ^
4. 00:28:624 (1) - Same as the second point, try out this rhythm. ^
5. 02:27:075 (3) - Remove the reverse, and add a circle on 02:27:849 -. Because from that time stamp, a new section from the song starts, pretty much a shame of how it's emphasized by a slider end.. ^

Pretty Hard

1. 00:05:398 - This is clickable in both Normal and Insane, but in Hard, it's emphasized as a slider end. It's questionable considering the fact that the whole set was created by you.
2. 00:11:398 (4) - Whistle is also supposed to be on the slider head as well, because there's also a whistle-like sound on it.
3. 00:12:946 (5) - ^
4. 00:16:043 (4) - Isn't slider end supposed to be clickable? Not only it's because it's clickable in Normal, but also because slider end sounds much stronger than slider head.
5. 00:23:785 (5) - A whistle is supposed to be here, too.
6. 00:25:333 (5) - ^
7. 00:26:882 (4) - ^
8. 00:28:430 (6) - Refer to the fourth point.
9. 00:33:269 - Same here, this is clickable in both Normal and Insane, but it's emphasized as a slider end here when the sound here sounds pretty strong.
10. 00:47:204 - ^
11. Actually, from 00:47:011 - till 00:55:527 - 01:50:495 - 01:56:688 -, clickable objects are the vocals. But if you look at Insane and Normal, beats are clickable. Actually, Hard seem to focus mainly on vocals instead of beats, because most vocals are clickable instead of beats. But if you look at Insane, you seem to focus on beats instead of vocals. It's really questionable how your rhythm choice is different, when all of the diffs were made by you.. and if you don't understand this very well, then please poke me whenever I'm on.
12. 01:38:301 - Add a note here? I mean, it's mapped on Normal so..
13. 01:02:688 - 02:06:172 - These should probably be clickable instead.
14. 01:24:366 - 02:27:849 - 03:11:204 - These too, because they're clickable in both Normal and Insane, and also, it'd be nice to emphasize the song title better.
    all fixed

Pretty Insane

1. All hitsounds stuff I said in Hard applies here.
2. 00:05:011 (6,1) - 00:06:559 (6,1) - These sound the same, but jumps have a different DS. In the first timing, it has a 2.9 DS, but the second one has a 2.2 DS. To be honest, kinda of minor, but would be nice if they have a consistent DS because they both sound the same.
3. 00:16:043 (4) - What I said in Hard applies here too, not only that, but 00:28:430 (6) - is clickable, and it sounds the same.
4. 00:37:333 (6) - Should probably end on 00:37:430 - because you emphasize rap in this part, and also the 1/4 rap here sounds strong to be covered by a slider body.
5. 00:40:140 - How about adding a note here? Reason is the same as above. umm.. i'll thinking about this too
6. 01:24:366 - In the two other choruses, this is clickable, wonder why would you emphasize this as a slider end..
7. 01:36:656 (5) - Unnecessary circle. If you listen here with a 25% playback rate, you can hear that there's nothing here.
8. 01:50:591 (4) - Sounds similar to 00:47:108 -, and it doesn't have a 1/4 circle. So you should probably remove the circle here.
9. 01:53:688 (7) - ^ wel,l, this is adding to the vocals.
10. 01:54:559 (3,4,5,6) - ^ and also, there isn't any sound at (4).
11. 01:57:172 (2) - 01:57:946 (5) - 01:59:108 (3) - ^ ^
12. 02:07:527 (5) - Why is this jump while 01:04:043 (1) - isn't?
13. 02:09:269 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - These sound like 01:05:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - but the distance is different.. i did it on purpose, i wanted to make a difference between the two highlights
14. 01:08:688 - You should probably add a note here because at 02:12:172 (5) - there is a note and the two of them sound the same.
15. 02:13:914 (1,2,3,4) - These are jumps in the previous chorus, so why would these be jumps too? maybe i think it's ok,, just i think so
16. 02:14:785 - And shouldn't there be a circle here? I mean, it was also there in the previous chorus..
17. In the first kiai, you added a lot of 1/4's, but in the second one, there was barley any. Kinda questionable, since both of the kiais sound the same.
18. 02:38:785 - Why break? You didn't add it in both Normal and Hard.

The map doesn't visually look bad, it's just emphasis and rhythm is pretty weird.. but this is still a neat map for a first map.

Anyways, good luck!

lol

terratropic wrote:

NM from queue,

this is gonna be a short mod since i couldn't find much to fix

• General

1. bg should be compressed to .jpg to save space. recommended aspect ratio is 16:9 (eg. 1980x1080, 1366x768) so you'll need to edit the image file k
2. slider tick rate of 2 is kinda pointless when the last 2 diffs focus pretty heavily on 1/2 rhythms anyway, so i'd reduce it to 1 i'll thinking about this
   Insane
3. changing stack leniency to 5-6 makes stacks such as 00:13:914 (4,1,2,3) and 03:05:398 (2,4,6) look cleaner it's ok, i think so
   02:40:237 - to 02:46:430 - there should be an SV change here since its a quiet part of the song good idea but, i'll think about this too
   
   Hard
   01:08:108 (3,1) - stack? nope
   03:22:817 (3,1) - bad overlap k
   
   Normal
4. lot of 1/1 rhythms make this difficulty feel more like an easy, but star diff suggest it's a normal. you could try to add more notes on red ticks, have more sliders, etc but it might be too much work. you might wanna consider creating a separate normal diff that introduces 1/2 rhythms, and making this one your easy diff with longer sliders and such. idk, just some food for thought. rip my mapping skilli'll try
   02:52:624 (1,2,3,4) - ew lol

i hope my mods aren't confusing for a newer mapper
good luck!

Senery wrote:

Hi! NM from my queue

[Pretty Normal]

1. 00:27:849 (3,4) - maybe do something like this: https://puu.sh/xRrEC/a9a8dbbc43.png it looks nice and its the same way as (1) and (2) k
2. 01:19:333 (2) - you could make this a triangle with 01:17:785 (2,1) - k
3. 02:52:624 (1,2,3,4) - you should make some better slidershapes here because they are just straigh lines atm which dont look good it's means SEVENTEEN :<

[Pretty Hard]

1. 00:30:946 (3,4) - why is this stacked when 00:18:559 (3,4) - isnt? i think the sound is different
2. 00:48:559 (1,2,3,6) - you suddenly follow the vocals here even though you followed the music just before it 00:47:204 (1,2,3) - just suddenly switching between them is weird so you should change that k

I see that you switch from the main melody to the vocals pretty often on this diff(example was point #2) you should try to avoid doing that and stick to one song layer at the time

[Pretty Insane]

1. 00:12:946 (6) - you should space this one out a bit because of the vocal on it i think it's ok, i think so
2. 00:14:495 (6) - ^ ^
3. 01:35:204 (1) - you should have this as a circle, so its consistent with 01:34:430 (1) - and the emphasis is better on that note well,,
   it's better now, i think so

Hope it helps, good luck!

Neoskylove wrote:

Q
난이도 하나만 보겠습니다.

[Insane]
00:06:366 (5,6) - 여기 보시면 스택이 되어있는데 다른 음악적으로 비슷한 부분들 00:04:817 (5,6) - 이랑 00:07:914 (5,6) - 이랑 똑같이 스택 빼고 그냥 플로우 맞춰 나가시는걸 추천합니다. k
00:11:398 (5) - 여기 보시면 보컬음을 따라서 매핑이 되어가고 있는데 00:12:946 (6,1) - 00:12:946 (6,1,2,3) - 여기는 드럼 사운드를 따라간것 같아서 조금 어색하네요. 으음.. 좀 두고보겠습니다
00:11:204 (4,5) - 그리고 여기 사이에는 스택으로 표현을 해주셨는데 00:12:559 (4,5) - 여기는 점프로 표현이 되어있는게 조금 어색하기도 했습니다. k
00:16:624 (2,3) - 조금 쓸데없는 얘기지만 스택 조금 고쳐주세요. k
00:23:204 (3,4) - 여긴 왜 슬라이더가 아닐까요, 00:10:817 (3) - 랑 비교해 볼때 음악적으로 다르게 표현되어야 할 이유는 크게 없는것 같은데 말이죠. ^
00:28:237 (5,6) - 00:15:849 (5,6) - 윗 줄이랑 비슷한 문제입니다. 00:15:849 (5,6) - 는 보시면 디스턴스 맞추어 매핑하고 있는데 00:28:237 (5,6) - 는 점프가 되어있는게 상당히 일관적이지 않아서 조금 어색했습니다. k
00:36:946 (4,5,6) - 거리가 달라야 할 이유가 없어 보입니다. k
00:43:333 (4) - 뭔가 어색하게 느껴졌네요 저는. 00:37:140 (5,6) - 랑 리듬이 뭔가 비슷해야 한다고 생각되었는데 말이죠. [color=#FF800]음 전 같다고 느껴져서 좀 더 두고보겠습니다.[/color]
00:55:720 (3,4) - 보시면 앞뒤로 다른 패턴보다 조금 더 가깝게 배치를 하셨는데 그럴 이유가 전혀 없다고 봅니다. 드럼은 여전히 강한 것 같습니다. k
01:22:430 (3) - 여기도 앞에랑 똑같이 조금 더 큰 점프를 만들어 보시는걸 권장합니다. 음 지금이 더 좋은 것 같아요
01:24:366 (1,1) - 여기는 거리 맞췄다가 01:24:753 (1,2) - 여기는 안티점프 쓰셨는데 딱히 그럴 이유가 있을까요? 그냥 01:24:366 (1,1,2) - 잔잔한 소리인 이 세개를 한꺼번에 안치점프로 맞춰주는 게 더 좋을 것 같은데요. k
01:50:688 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:47:204 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 랑 같은 음악인데도 완전히 다른 리듬이랑 배치 같아서 상당히 어색하네요. 두 부분이랑 다르게 표현하고 싶었습니다
02:05:204 (3,4) - 전체적으로 이런 꼬리스택 못봤는데 갑자기 이런거 나오면 조금 헷갈릴 것 같네요. k
02:29:011 (5) - 이거 02:28:237 (2) - 복붙해봐요. k

GL

CucumberCuc wrote:

Hello

[Pretty Normal]
00:05:398 (1) move start slider slightly right for the same distance? for example k
00:06:559 (3,1,2) do the same distance k
00:18:172 (3,4) nope, it's far well,, i don't understand what it means
00:20:882 (1,1) from this pause it's not good distance for slider and next object, maybe replace circle? (but if you no want, can just leave) i think better now
00:25:333 (1,2) this distance far, do slider slightly are close k
00:28:624 (1) end slider move up for better distance k
00:36:366 (1) maybe move end slider and his centre left for better flow + copy this and paste on nest 00:37:914 (1)? ^
01:48:366 (2,1) as for 00:20:882 (2,1), but here can replace end slider* i think it's ok
02:05:398 (2) maybe be better if you move slightly left? k
02:20:882 (3) move slightly down? k
02:37:914 (3,1) as for 01:48:366 (2,1) ^
03:11:204 (1,1) as for 00:20:882 (2,1) ^

[Pretty Hard]
00:16:624 (2,3) maybe do far for new voice sound? i think it's better now
00:18:559 (3,4) do are close and 4,5 do far? ^
00:34:817 to 00:45:462 - maybe do like for 00:47:204 to 00:56:495? I mean the same distance between most objects, since there is only one voice (although I don't really listen kpop and all of a sudden there will be 2 of them, but still there is enough votes, so it is possible to do so) ^
00:37:914 (1,2) do slightly far k
01:08:882 (1,2) ^ k
03:25:140 - 03:25:914 you missed sound, maybe add spinner? (insane too) ^

HabiHolic wrote:

[General]

모든 난이도 해당이네요. 오프셋 뒤쪽에 노트,스피너,슬라이더 등 오브젝트가 있으면 안됩니다. 오프셋을 앞쪽으로 당겨서 하시는게 좋습니다. 오프셋을 753으로 바꿔설정해주세요 k

[Pretty Normal]

00:00:753 (1) - 스피너 어색합니다. 최소 00:02:301 - 여기서 끝나는걸로 해주세요. 앞에 바로 노트가 보여도 언랭 요소에 해당됩니다. 특히 쉬운 난이도에서는요
00:16:237 (1,2,3) - 이런 패턴을 초보자들이 소화할 수 있을지 저는 의문입니다. 리듬상 맞아떨어지지만 패턴이 너무 어렵다고 느껴지는 부분이었습니다. 패턴 단순화 시켜주세요
00:21:269 - 00:21:656 - 00:22:043 - 요 세군대 노트 빼먹으신 이유가 있나요? 아까 뒤에는 분명히 같은 리듬에서 들어갔는데. 왜 빠트렸는지 의문이 드네요. 그리고 왠만하면 악기소리 따라가는게 좋아요
01:03:462 (2,3) - 이거 위치 스왑해주세요. 흐름상 슬라이더 다음 노트가 자연스럽네요
01:51:462 (2) - 미세하게 간격 안맞습니다.
02:13:914 (1,2) - 위와 같은 이유로 위치 스왑 부탁드립니다. 이어지는 보컬에는 슬라이더 다음 노트가 더욱더 좋다는 점 명심해주세요
02:32:108 (3,1) - 이부분도 간격 맞춰주세요.
02:42:946 (2) - 저의 개인적인 제안입니다만. 여기에 소프트 클랩을 더하면 훨씬 시원하게 들리는 느낌이네요. 노멀 샘플셋 그대로 두시고 소프트 클랩까지 넣어보심이 어떠신지요?
02:46:043 - 요부분도 마찬가지로 (^)

다음부터는 뉴콤보 주기를 길게해주세요 지금 짤막해서 약간 뒤죽박죽인 느낌이었습니다. all fixed

[Pretty Hard]

00:16:237 (4) - 이거 저 지금봤네요 노멀도 혹시 휘슬이신지... 이런부분은 당연하지만 피니쉬가 훨씬 좋네요 다른분 의견도 몇몇 들어보니 그렇구요.. 지금 휘슬은 강조도 약하고 어색하다고 느꼈었습니다.
00:31:333 (5,1) - 왜 간격이 다를까요... 이건 생각해봐도 억지로 띄어놓으신거같은데.. 간격 일정하게 앞뒤로 맞추시거나 리듬을 변화하셔서 점프형식의 패턴을 만들어보시는것도 방법입니다.
00:35:591 (3,4) - 보컬 맞추려고 의도하셨다면 요 리듬은 아니고.. 밑 사진인 요런 리듬이 더 정확합니다.

SPOILER

00:39:075 (4) - 이거 Ctrl+G 해보시는게 어떠신가요. 지금 패턴보다는 흐름이 괜찮아서 좋을듯 싶어요
00:40:043 (3,4,5) - 보컬 따라가다가 이건 뒤에 비트 따라가신 이유가 있으신가요?.. 앞뒤랑 맞게 매핑해주세요 이런 파트 몇개 있는데 그것도 수정바랍니다.
01:13:333 (5) - 스택 확인바랍니다.
01:24:366 ~ 01:25:914 - 이부분까지 브레이크 대기부분으로 설정하셨는데.. 그래도 뒤에 리듬 따라가는게 좋지 않을까요? 없는것도 이상해서 지적해봅니다. 패턴이 딱히 생각이 안나시면 최소 스피너라도 넣어주세요
01:34:043 (3,4) - 리듬 Ctrl+G 해주세요 흐름 체크해보면 바꿔놓는게 훨씬 좋네요.
01:35:979 (3,4) - 이런 패턴같은 경우는 매핑 에딧창에서 보면은 리딩이 매우 쉬울거같지만 실상은 그렇지 않습니다. 대부분 플레이어들이 실수로 4번을 왼쪽으로부터 시작해서 치려고 하시는 분들이 종종 있기에.. 저라면 4번 슬라이더를 Ctrl+G 할것 같습니다. (제 개인적 제안입니다.)
01:38:688 (1) - 이런곳에서는 변속이나 그런것이 없으니 뉴콤보는 불필요합니다.
01:41:011 (5) - 이거요 01:40:430 (3) - 이걸 감싸는 형식으로 가시는게 훨씬 좋네요.. 지금은 너무 엉성하다고 생각해요.
01:45:849 (5,1,2,3) - 이런곳은 굳이 1/2로 다 맞춰짤 필요 없이 보컬 맞춰서 1/1 리듬도 추가해서 짜시는게 좋을거 같아요 너무 1/2 만 있어도 BN 분들이 지적이 올거같아서 저도 한번 지적해봤습니다. 음.. 이거에 대해선 좀 생각해보겠습니다
02:38:301 (3,4) - Ctrl+G 한게 흐름&리듬조화가 맞습니다.
02:54:172 (1) - 차라리 점프 넣으실거면 02:53:398 (3) - 이 노트 헤드에 스택해주시는게 더 보기 좋아요. 한번 바꿔보시고 생각해주세요.
02:55:333 (4) - Ctrl+G 해주세요. 점프형식으로 해도 너무 어색했다고 느껴지네요

나머지 모두 수정했습니다.

[Pretty Insane]

00:15:462 (3,4,5,6) - 패턴 잘 짜셨지만. 저라면 밑 사진처럼 했을거 같습니다.

SPOILER

01:25:140 (3,4,5) - 뒤에 리듬 있는데 힛사 넣어주세요.
01:30:559 (1,2,3,4) - 이런 새로 시작하는 리듬에는 간격 일정해서 다음으로 가게 하는것보다 점프를 넣어서 강조를 높이는 편이 좋습니다. 다음부터는 참고하시어 제가 말한대로 만드시는걸 권장드릴게요 호오.. 그렇군요 감사합니다
01:48:946 (5) - 이 노트를 01:49:333 (1) - 여기 헤드부분에 스택하시는게 흐름이 더 잘 맞는거같습니다. 뒤에 음 들어보면 타닥 하는 소리가 있어서 지금보다는 스택하시는것이 나아요
02:09:269 (1) - Check for the blanket
02:12:753 (2) - 이거는 02:12:946 (3) - 여기 헤드에 넣는게 흐름이 더 맞네요
02:26:301 (1,2,3) - 에드리브 연타인거 같은데 이부분이라면 저는 별로 추천드리고 싶지 않네요.. 그렇다고 4/3 박이 있는것도 아닌데 억지로 넣을건 없다고 봐요 음.. 이것도 좀더 생각해보겠습니다.
02:38:301 (4,5) - 패턴 Ctrl+G 해주세요 위에서도 설명한듯 싶으니 설명은 안하겠습니다.
03:21:656 (1,2) - 뉴콤보는 2번에 넣는게 정확하네요. 이건 님 실수인것 같네요
03:24:366 (1,2) - 대부분 단일 노트일경우만 끝부분에 뉴콤보를 삽입하지만 지금같은 경우는 슬라이더로 끝납니다. 즉 뉴콤보를 꼭 삽입할 이유는 없어요. 뉴콤보 삭제하세요

#modreq에서 보고 왔구요 질문사항은 인게임으로만 받겠습니다.
GL :3