Camellia - Routing

posted
Total Posts
50
show more
sdafsf
[ rever:b:]
  1. 00:17:999 (3) - this would work better as 2 circles i think
  2. 00:24:978 (2) - i know its a strong drum beat but having this continous rhythm kinda undermines the melody. and emphesiesed slider end like 00:23:207 (3) - or just a 1/1 break would fit better imo. similarly i think making the drum rhythm clickable in other parts like 00:31:645 (2) - - feels off to me. http://puu.sh/xscA6.jpg this ryhtm would work very nicely imo. these are just examples so if you decide to implement it check for other clickable drums without melody
  3. 00:31:332 (3) - again 2 circles would fit
  4. 00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - im guessing this is supposed to look chaotic?
  5. 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) - this is too spaced in comparison to the previous 1/4 jumps in the kiai i think
fucking cute

[ lasse]
  1. 00:17:999 (3) - could work as 2 circles
  2. 00:31:332 (3) - ^
  3. 00:40:290 - missing beat
  4. 01:30:811 (1,2,3) - curve could be cuter
big circles :sweat_drops:

[ Another]
  1. 00:12:478 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is too little contrast imo
  2. 00:17:999 (3) - i dont get why you never map this 1/4 it stands out to me so much 00:31:332 (3) -


gl! uwu
Topic Starter
Mir

sdafsf wrote:

[ rever:b:]
  1. 00:17:999 (3) - this would work better as 2 circles i think - disagree cute piano thing there :(
  2. 00:24:978 (2) - i know its a strong drum beat but having this continous rhythm kinda undermines the melody. and emphesiesed slider end like 00:23:207 (3) - or just a 1/1 break would fit better imo. similarly i think making the drum rhythm clickable in other parts like 00:31:645 (2) - - feels off to me. http://puu.sh/xscA6.jpg this ryhtm would work very nicely imo. these are just examples so if you decide to implement it check for other clickable drums without melody
  3. 00:31:332 (3) - again 2 circles would fit
  4. 00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - im guessing this is supposed to look chaotic? - yeh
  5. 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) - this is too spaced in comparison to the previous 1/4 jumps in the kiai i think
fucking cute

[ Another]
  1. 00:12:478 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is too little contrast imo
  2. 00:17:999 (3) - i dont get why you never map this 1/4 it stands out to me so much 00:31:332 (3) - I don't hear it at all


gl! uwu
Ty uwu
Lasse
adjusted the shape of the spaced triple, can barely hear the missed beat and it's not important for the song, other things are pretty clear 1/2 emphasis to me
thank
Topic Starter
Mir
All updated.
Halfslashed
[Reverb]
00:02:374 (3) - The sound this is representing isn't particularly held and actually sharply cuts off. I see that you want to represent the held part of this that starts on 00:02:478 - so I recommend you use a 1/4 reverse here instead.
00:02:895 (1,2,3) - Contrast here is off due to the large spacing between 1,2. I recommend either lowering the spacing between 1 and 2 or increasing the spacing between 2 and 3, since right now there is actually less emphasis to 3. If you lower spacing between 1 and 2 make sure to also lower the spacing between 00:02:061 (1,2) - so that this spacing stands out relatively.
00:10:082 (1) - I never thought I'd see the day...
00:10:707 (4) - At 00:04:040 (4) - you had an angle change to emphasize the sharp piano sound but here you don't have any such angle change, so I recommend using the same slider arrangement that you had before.
00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - I have a dream that one day you will stop NC spamming for 1/3.
00:36:228 (1,1) - On a more serious note, I recommend you use a slider instead of a circle here to fit the low held sound as well as using a higher SV for the second slider, since right now due to the lack of motion and the rhythm gap the contrast into the second make these beats feel weaker than necessary. Ending the second slider on 00:36:540 (1) - also lets you represent that "AAAAH" sound and should provide contrast should you increase the SV of the second slider.
00:46:332 (1,1) - Due to the spacing here, the transition into the next section feels really weak. I recommend overlapping the head of this with the tail of 00:46:020 (1) - and raising the SV of the second slider. You could also add a nice swinging motion by ctrl+g on the first slider.
00:46:853 (1,2,3) - 00:50:186 (1,2,3) - Wrongly snapped, this should be 1/6 and there are 4 notes here.
00:56:645 - Since you're using extended sliders, the sliders in this section and similar sections are very underwhelming in play and don't fit the synth very well I suggest drastically increasing the SV here.
01:16:436 (6,7) - It'd be cool if you made the spacing decrease more obvious here to match the pitch of the synth better and provide more contrast to the next beat.
01:30:915 (2,3) - I think stacking these would work better, since the equal spacing blends these together a bit too much to make it clear on whether or not you're prioritizing synth or piano.
01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't think blending together the various instruments for an end stream works too well here since you finish it off with 1/4 jumps, creating an artificial difficulty spike. I would recommend having 01:52:374 (4,3) - as 1/4 sliders to prioritize the piano, switching to drums for the final jumps instead.

[Lasse's Extra]
These hitsounds are lit.
Since it's an IIDX song I guess you could also use "Black Another" if you wanted.
00:17:478 (1) - I recommend using a larger SV here since the combination of 00:16:853 (1) - and the 1/2 gap make this feel like a massive drop in pacing. You could also increase the spacing to 00:17:790 (2) - drastically.
00:35:395 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I can't say I understand why you're using increasing spacing when the pitch of the piano is decreasing here and would recommend you switch from increasing to decreasing spacing instead.
01:23:311 (1) - :weary: :ok_hand:
01:37:478 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - I can't understand why you're decreasing SV here either when the song seems to be building up to something here. Also, the second synth sound is noticeably more cut off than the first, so I recommend using 1/4 sliders for 01:38:415 (2,2,2) -. This would also allow you to make 01:39:874 - clickable which is a strong vocal/synth sound.

[Another]
00:35:395 (1,1,1,1) - It doesn't make sense that you're using more misleading 1/3 in this difficulty than your top difficulty. The combination of NCing and relatively even visual distance makes this a reading difficulty spike. Musically it also makes sense to pair these 1/3 together and make them both repeats, and you can show the intensity decrease with SV and motion. Something like this could work.
00:40:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - I recommend making this an actual buildup by changing 00:41:020 (1,1) - into 1/4 slider + circle patterns and 00:41:853 (1,1) - into stacked circles. You can also make 00:42:686 (1,2,1) - more spaced to have contrast there as well.
01:28:415 (2,3) - Yes.

[Hyper]
00:18:103 - I think you should map this note since its part of the melody that you're following, since right now skipping this seems like unnecessary simplification.
00:34:145 (4,5,1) - I know you wanted to make the kick clickable but this is actually a less intuitive rhythm than what you probably intended, since you have a melody focus. I recommend a rhythm to follow the melody while keeping the kick clickable.

[Advanced]
The amount of 1/4 you use makes this feel relatively dense on AR6, so I recommend using AR7 here.
00:17:061 (4) - I think a 1/1 gap would fit the stop in the synth here, so I recommend using a circle here.
00:27:895 (2,1) - I think a stack would fit really well here to create a stronger lead in to the next section.
00:33:207 (5,1) - I think you're better off making this a 3/4 reverse since players will likely hear the skipped kick and get really confused, especially while they're interpreting the 3/4. Would also fit your melody focus better I think.
00:46:020 (1,2) - I recommend using circles here to provide contrast from the verses, since there are less instruments playing here.
01:06:228 (2,3) - 3 is a fairly weak beat and this is a relatively straining pattern, so I recommend using a 1/2 slider here instead.

[Normal]
The main issue with this difficulty is its long note chains. At this BPM you can be more lenient in note chains than normal, but that still only allows about 10 objects connected with 1/2 gaps unless you have stuff like 3/4 repeats in the mix (in which this is more lenient). Most of the difficulty has lots of long chains so break those up with some 3/4 or larger gaps. I pointed out a few that I found particularly problematic.
00:04:978 (1) - The way the end of this slider overlaps itself is misleading for players at this level due to the way it obscures the slider border. I recommend just straightening out the end here.
00:35:395 (1) - Similar to the above, except you're probably better off using a completely different shape.
00:46:020 (1,1) - I recommend using a more straightforward placement here, since the player will likely have issue interpreting the 3/4 gap due to the visual distance between these two sliders and possibly let go of the slider early. Try this.
00:59:561 (4,5) - These circles seem really out of place due to the faint drums they follow, as well as their high intensity, to the point where I think you're better off starting a slider on 00:59:145 - and ending it on 00:59:665 - .
01:18:207 (1) - I recommend using circles here to break up the massive chain of 1/2 you have.
01:29:978 (1) - Skipping the 1/3 here is probably a good idea since right now you have a massive chain of 1/2 and the player will probably misread this with how its placed in the middle of a long beat chain. I recommend using a circle here.

[Beginner]
I don't think the spread between this and the normal is good, since the normal has stuff like passive 1/4, and active 1/2, while this difficulty is mapped with strictly enforced 1/1 (occasional 5/4). You'll probably need to go back and incorporate more passive 1/2 into this difficulty.
00:18:728 (2,3,4) - This even visual distance creates a readability issue in that the player may want to click 4 before 3, so I recommend spacing this out a bit more like you did with 00:14:978 (1,2,3) -
00:52:061 (2,3) - I recommend placing this circle more in the path of the slider like this(you'll need to adjust some following objects to preserve DS) since right now the player may let go of 2 early to hit 3 due to the tight placement.

Good luck!
Topic Starter
Mir

Halfslashed wrote:

[Reverb]
00:02:374 (3) - The sound this is representing isn't particularly held and actually sharply cuts off. I see that you want to represent the held part of this that starts on 00:02:478 - so I recommend you use a 1/4 reverse here instead. - it is actually held and a 1/4 reverse would overmap the reverse and i don't want that so this is fine as is imo
00:02:895 (1,2,3) - Contrast here is off due to the large spacing between 1,2. I recommend either lowering the spacing between 1 and 2 or increasing the spacing between 2 and 3, since right now there is actually less emphasis to 3. If you lower spacing between 1 and 2 make sure to also lower the spacing between 00:02:061 (1,2) - so that this spacing stands out relatively. - this was a mistake
00:10:082 (1) - I never thought I'd see the day...
00:10:707 (4) - At 00:04:040 (4) - you had an angle change to emphasize the sharp piano sound but here you don't have any such angle change, so I recommend using the same slider arrangement that you had before. - removed angle change
00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - I have a dream that one day you will stop NC spamming for 1/3. - it's not necessarily for the 1/3 more for just the overall feel of the section, idk how to explain it tbh but it feels just weird to have it all nc'd and that represents it perfectly to me
00:36:228 (1,1) - On a more serious note, I recommend you use a slider instead of a circle here to fit the low held sound as well as using a higher SV for the second slider, since right now due to the lack of motion and the rhythm gap the contrast into the second make these beats feel weaker than necessary. Ending the second slider on 00:36:540 (1) - also lets you represent that "AAAAH" sound and should provide contrast should you increase the SV of the second slider. - i adjusted things here so we'll see how this plays out
00:46:332 (1,1) - Due to the spacing here, the transition into the next section feels really weak. I recommend overlapping the head of this with the tail of 00:46:020 (1) - and raising the SV of the second slider. You could also add a nice swinging motion by ctrl+g on the first slider. - emphasis is more on 00:46:645 - though so i think this is fine?
00:46:853 (1,2,3) - 00:50:186 (1,2,3) - Wrongly snapped, this should be 1/6 and there are 4 notes here.
00:56:645 - Since you're using extended sliders, the sliders in this section and similar sections are very underwhelming in play and don't fit the synth very well I suggest drastically increasing the SV here. - i'm gonna pull the subjective card and say I quite like how these are since the synth doesn't feel like it's decreasing in intensity it's fairly constant so i didn't change the sv
01:16:436 (6,7) - It'd be cool if you made the spacing decrease more obvious here to match the pitch of the synth better and provide more contrast to the next beat.
01:30:915 (2,3) - I think stacking these would work better, since the equal spacing blends these together a bit too much to make it clear on whether or not you're prioritizing synth or piano. - always vocals here so no stack for meh
01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't think blending together the various instruments for an end stream works too well here since you finish it off with 1/4 jumps, creating an artificial difficulty spike. I would recommend having 01:52:374 (4,3) - as 1/4 sliders to prioritize the piano, switching to drums for the final jumps instead. - whaaaaaaaa they're all just mapped to the drums, no instrument blending involved and the way i made this flow sets up the 1/4 jumps quite intuitively (if you can possibly pass with decent combo i don't think this is that hard to hit since there are harder patterns in the kiai)

[Another]
00:35:395 (1,1,1,1) - It doesn't make sense that you're using more misleading 1/3 in this difficulty than your top difficulty. The combination of NCing and relatively even visual distance makes this a reading difficulty spike. Musically it also makes sense to pair these 1/3 together and make them both repeats, and you can show the intensity decrease with SV and motion. Something like this could work.
00:40:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - I recommend making this an actual buildup by changing 00:41:020 (1,1) - into 1/4 slider + circle patterns and 00:41:853 (1,1) - into stacked circles. You can also make 00:42:686 (1,2,1) - more spaced to have contrast there as well.
01:28:415 (2,3) - Yes.

[Hyper]
00:18:103 - I think you should map this note since its part of the melody that you're following, since right now skipping this seems like unnecessary simplification. - i legit don't hear anything there lmfao
00:34:145 (4,5,1) - I know you wanted to make the kick clickable but this is actually a less intuitive rhythm than what you probably intended, since you have a melody focus. I recommend a rhythm to follow the melody while keeping the kick clickable. - i'm actually focusing more on the kicks than the melody here

[Advanced]
The amount of 1/4 you use makes this feel relatively dense on AR6, so I recommend using AR7 here.
00:17:061 (4) - I think a 1/1 gap would fit the stop in the synth here, so I recommend using a circle here. - there's a wubwub sound i wanted to catch tho
00:27:895 (2,1) - I think a stack would fit really well here to create a stronger lead in to the next section. - stack is ew, so did slider instead
00:33:207 (5,1) - I think you're better off making this a 3/4 reverse since players will likely hear the skipped kick and get really confused, especially while they're interpreting the 3/4. Would also fit your melody focus better I think. - this is a rhythmical error, fixed it in a different way
00:46:020 (1,2) - I recommend using circles here to provide contrast from the verses, since there are less instruments playing here.
01:06:228 (2,3) - 3 is a fairly weak beat and this is a relatively straining pattern, so I recommend using a 1/2 slider here instead.

[Normal]
The main issue with this difficulty is its long note chains. At this BPM you can be more lenient in note chains than normal, but that still only allows about 10 objects connected with 1/2 gaps unless you have stuff like 3/4 repeats in the mix (in which this is more lenient). Most of the difficulty has lots of long chains so break those up with some 3/4 or larger gaps. I pointed out a few that I found particularly problematic.
00:04:978 (1) - The way the end of this slider overlaps itself is misleading for players at this level due to the way it obscures the slider border. I recommend just straightening out the end here.
00:35:395 (1) - Similar to the above, except you're probably better off using a completely different shape.
00:46:020 (1,1) - I recommend using a more straightforward placement here, since the player will likely have issue interpreting the 3/4 gap due to the visual distance between these two sliders and possibly let go of the slider early. Try this.
00:59:561 (4,5) - These circles seem really out of place due to the faint drums they follow, as well as their high intensity, to the point where I think you're better off starting a slider on 00:59:145 - and ending it on 00:59:665 - I think the drums are fairly audible here so I won't apply this
01:18:207 (1) - I recommend using circles here to break up the massive chain of 1/2 you have.
01:29:978 (1) - Skipping the 1/3 here is probably a good idea since right now you have a massive chain of 1/2 and the player will probably misread this with how its placed in the middle of a long beat chain. I recommend using a circle here.

[Beginner]
I don't think the spread between this and the normal is good, since the normal has stuff like passive 1/4, and active 1/2, while this difficulty is mapped with strictly enforced 1/1 (occasional 5/4). You'll probably need to go back and incorporate more passive 1/2 into this difficulty.
00:18:728 (2,3,4) - This even visual distance creates a readability issue in that the player may want to click 4 before 3, so I recommend spacing this out a bit more like you did with 00:14:978 (1,2,3) -
00:52:061 (2,3) - I recommend placing this circle more in the path of the slider like this(you'll need to adjust some following objects to preserve DS) since right now the player may let go of 2 early to hit 3 due to the tight placement.

Good luck!
holy fucking shit this took a while to reply to

thanks Halfy!!
Lasse
extra sounds better to me and black another isn't very commonly used anyways
fixed first by adding circles to the empty 1/4 tick before 00:16:853 - and two similar spots later, seems nicer now

will keep the spacing increase for now since It works well with the piano there imo, even if the pitch is decreasing
sv decrease pattern is leading out of the chorus, so I think it works well, also going for the 1/4 there isn't really my intention

thanks!
https://0paste.com/15183.txt
Monstrata
Where's comfort
Naxess
Greetings,


  • [General]
  1. soft-hitnormal4.wav is unused because you're not using the hitnormal anywhere. 01:37:270 - has a S:C4 line, but all the notes there have Drum samplesets on them. So either incorporate this somewhere in the map or remove the file.
  2. So both drum-hitwhistle as well as soft-hitclap2.wav has some delay you might want to get rid of.

    [Normal]
  3. 00:14:978 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - 00:22:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - So it kinda looks like you were trying to have these consistent, but the latter one is one beat ahead of where the former is. Listen to 00:23:520 - and compare it to 00:16:853 - , for instance. Would probably be more consistent if the pauses in rhythm were on the same places in the song, right? In my opinion it'd be cool if the pause was after 00:17:061 - , like it is on 00:23:728 - , but both ways work. Depending on what you choose to emphasize, 00:16:853 - is analogous to the former.
  4. 00:17:061 (2,3) - are both similar to 00:18:103 (5,1) - in the map, but not in the song (also it feels like a bit too many circles but maybe that's just me). The above would solve that if you'd emphasize the wub drum instead of the vocal, although if the other way around, 00:17:061 - could be turned into a 1/2 slider to solve this instead. But ye depending on what you did on the previous point, 00:30:395 (2,3) - may also be of interest.
  5. 00:18:311 (1,2,3) - So (1) has NC here but not (4) at 00:24:978 (4,5,6) - ? Similarly comparing 00:20:811 - with 00:34:145 - .
  6. 00:26:540 - This part could probably be less ambiguous to 00:19:874 - and allow the cymbal to stand out if you did something like this. Alternatively arranging it like this, or simply ending the slider there instead of repeating.
  7. 00:54:874 (3) - Considering that you usually NC every measure, this could be a new combo to visually emphasize the difference between surrounding sections here.
  8. 01:31:228 (4,1) - Seems strange to have such a large gap when the beat is still going. Especially when 01:32:061 - is already similar to 01:31:853 - , so could place a circle there.
  9. 01:48:311 (1,2) - nice ds, tbh I'd have stacked these to indicate a larger time gap. While you're at it you can apply that to 01:46:228 (2,3) - as well for consistency. Current does work, but it might be easier to interpret if it stood out more visually, and wasn't the exact same as other types of time gaps.

    This kiai feels so barren density wise in comparison to the song lol, especially with gaps like 01:13:311 (1,2) - 01:14:040 (3,4) - constantly. Not much we can do about that though unless you want to change the density of other stuff to compensate, although wouldn't think it's worth.

    [Advanced]
  10. 00:58:520 (1) - Should probably not have this offscreen.
  11. 01:23:311 - Compare NCing with 01:16:645 - , might want to make that consistent.
  12. 01:29:978 (7,1) - Would swap their combos, both of these sound like they're part of the same pattern in the song, after all.
  13. 01:50:395 (1) - Isn't your combo concept to only place new combos on the 01:44:978 - 01:48:311 - 01:51:645 - sounds like in Normal? Otherwise 01:43:624 (3) - would have an NC as well.
  14. 01:53:311 - Was expecting the spinner to start from here like in Normal. Makes more sense in my opinion considering the sounds that are heard.

    [Hyper]
  15. 00:14:978 (1,2) - 00:28:311 (1,2) - Feels pretty off compared to other similar spots in the map like 00:15:707 (3,4) - 00:17:478 (2,3) - 00:18:207 (1,2) - or in the song like 00:16:228 (1,2) - 00:18:728 (3,4) - 00:19:561 (3,4) - . Replacing these with doubles would fit much better from what I can tell.
  16. 00:18:207 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Compare your combos here and 00:31:540 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - . 00:33:311 (1) - may be excused by it's different drum structure, but 00:32:374 (5,1) - might want to be made consistent. Or other way around, you do you.
  17. 00:20:811 (1) - Would say this makes more sense than 00:34:145 (4,5,1) - in terms of NCing. Applies to 00:59:353 (1) - 01:06:020 - as well. damit mir get your ncs right
  18. 00:38:207 (1,2) - Would have done this like 00:24:561 (2,3,4,5) - or like this instead, in order to bring more contrast to and from 00:33:207 (3,1,2,3) - .
  19. 00:55:603 (3,4,5) - Similarly to above, you could bring more contrast to the kind of concept you've got at 00:56:645 (1,2) - 01:02:686 (2,3,1,2) - etc, if this weren't of similar rhythm and visuals. Could potentially just replace (4) with a circle to solve this.
  20. 01:31:540 (5,1) - Former seems more distinct, so would've switched ncs.

    [Reverb]
  21. 00:37:061 (1) - btw there's an offscreen slider here as well.
Topic Starter
Mir

Naxess wrote:

Greetings,


  • [General]
  1. soft-hitnormal4.wav is unused because you're not using the hitnormal anywhere. 01:37:270 - has a S:C4 line, but all the notes there have Drum samplesets on them. So either incorporate this somewhere in the map or remove the file.
  2. So both drum-hitwhistle as well as soft-hitclap2.wav has some delay you might want to get rid of.

    [Normal]
  3. 00:14:978 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - 00:22:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - So it kinda looks like you were trying to have these consistent, but the latter one is one beat ahead of where the former is. Listen to 00:23:520 - and compare it to 00:16:853 - , for instance. Would probably be more consistent if the pauses in rhythm were on the same places in the song, right? In my opinion it'd be cool if the pause was after 00:17:061 - , like it is on 00:23:728 - , but both ways work. Depending on what you choose to emphasize, 00:16:853 - is analogous to the former.
  4. 00:17:061 (2,3) - are both similar to 00:18:103 (5,1) - in the map, but not in the song (also it feels like a bit too many circles but maybe that's just me). The above would solve that if you'd emphasize the wub drum instead of the vocal, although if the other way around, 00:17:061 - could be turned into a 1/2 slider to solve this instead. But ye depending on what you did on the previous point, 00:30:395 (2,3) - may also be of interest.
  5. 00:18:311 (1,2,3) - So (1) has NC here but not (4) at 00:24:978 (4,5,6) - ? Similarly comparing 00:20:811 - with 00:34:145 - .
  6. 00:26:540 - This part could probably be less ambiguous to 00:19:874 - and allow the cymbal to stand out if you did something like this. Alternatively arranging it like this, or simply ending the slider there instead of repeating.
  7. 00:54:874 (3) - Considering that you usually NC every measure, this could be a new combo to visually emphasize the difference between surrounding sections here. - yes but i feel like the note afterwards deserves the NC more
  8. 01:31:228 (4,1) - Seems strange to have such a large gap when the beat is still going. Especially when 01:32:061 - is already similar to 01:31:853 - , so could place a circle there.
  9. 01:48:311 (1,2) - nice ds, tbh I'd have stacked these to indicate a larger time gap. While you're at it you can apply that to 01:46:228 (2,3) - as well for consistency. Current does work, but it might be easier to interpret if it stood out more visually, and wasn't the exact same as other types of time gaps.

    This kiai feels so barren density wise in comparison to the song lol, especially with gaps like 01:13:311 (1,2) - 01:14:040 (3,4) - constantly. Not much we can do about that though unless you want to change the density of other stuff to compensate, although wouldn't think it's worth. - acknowledged but I think the more complicated rhythm choices I went for here offset that density drop.

    [Advanced]
  10. 00:58:520 (1) - Should probably not have this offscreen.
  11. 01:23:311 - Compare NCing with 01:16:645 - , might want to make that consistent.
  12. 01:29:978 (7,1) - Would swap their combos, both of these sound like they're part of the same pattern in the song, after all.
  13. 01:50:395 (1) - Isn't your combo concept to only place new combos on the 01:44:978 - 01:48:311 - 01:51:645 - sounds like in Normal? Otherwise 01:43:624 (3) - would have an NC as well.
  14. 01:53:311 - Was expecting the spinner to start from here like in Normal. Makes more sense in my opinion considering the sounds that are heard.

    [Hyper]
  15. 00:14:978 (1,2) - 00:28:311 (1,2) - Feels pretty off compared to other similar spots in the map like 00:15:707 (3,4) - 00:17:478 (2,3) - 00:18:207 (1,2) - or in the song like 00:16:228 (1,2) - 00:18:728 (3,4) - 00:19:561 (3,4) - . Replacing these with doubles would fit much better from what I can tell.
  16. 00:18:207 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Compare your combos here and 00:31:540 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - . 00:33:311 (1) - may be excused by it's different drum structure, but 00:32:374 (5,1) - might want to be made consistent. Or other way around, you do you.
  17. 00:20:811 (1) - Would say this makes more sense than 00:34:145 (4,5,1) - in terms of NCing. Applies to 00:59:353 (1) - 01:06:020 - as well. damit mir get your ncs right
  18. 00:38:207 (1,2) - Would have done this like 00:24:561 (2,3,4,5) - or like this instead, in order to bring more contrast to and from 00:33:207 (3,1,2,3) - . - the rhythm is different here cuz a drum intersects the melody so i had to opt for another double, otherwise they'd be the same
  19. 00:55:603 (3,4,5) - Similarly to above, you could bring more contrast to the kind of concept you've got at 00:56:645 (1,2) - 01:02:686 (2,3,1,2) - etc, if this weren't of similar rhythm and visuals. Could potentially just replace (4) with a circle to solve this.
  20. 01:31:540 (5,1) - Former seems more distinct, so would've switched ncs.

    [Reverb]
  21. 00:37:061 (1) - btw there's an offscreen slider here as well.
Fixed all not replied to.

Thanxess!
Naxess
Camellia is a genus of flowering plants in the family Theaceae. They are found in eastern and southern Asia, from the Himalayas east to Japan and Indonesia. There are 100–300 described species, with some controversy over the exact number. There are also around 3,000 hybrids. The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines and described a species of camellia (although Linnaeus did not refer to Kamel's account when discussing the genus).[1] Camellias are famous throughout East Asia; they are known as cháhuā (茶花, 'tea flower') in Chinese, tsubaki (椿) in Japanese, dongbaek-kkot (동백꽃) in Korean, and as hoa trà or hoa chè in Vietnamese.

Metadata: Official website,
what is supposed to be the index, but currently down for maintenance.
Voli
The implementation of the spacing concept on the top diff can use a lot of work imo

General spacing concerns / lack of contrast

I feel like the spacing concept of this map wasn't thought out thoroughly enough. Considering the high-bpm nature of the song, note-to-object jumps should be mapped with a lot of care because they can very easily disrupt the movement in your patterns and generally feel very clunky.

An example of this is just when the map starts out at 00:01:957 (2,1) - . While 00:02:061 (1) - is indeed a high pitched sound and could be emphasized over the rest of the pattern, the angle and immense amount of spacing (for this bpm) just make the pattern feel overspaced in its entirety. What doesn't help is that the player has to make yet another jumpy movement towards 00:02:165 (2) - with a very sharp/harsh angle, while the pitch only lowers here.

Another example would be 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) -. The spacing is the same over the entire pattern making the entire thing feel clunky and lacking in contrast. The sounds in the music aren't properly distinguished because you use the same huge spacing everywhere. Patterns with similar issues include:

  1. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4) - spacing is monotonous while the music clearly indicates a different pitch on every note (down>up)
  2. 00:39:179 - ^
  3. 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - spacing gets larger every time but the actual sound that differentiates from the rest (00:40:811 (3) - ) isn't expressed in any way
  4. 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5) - vs 00:53:936 (3,4) - why do these patterns have the same spacing? Also 00:54:457 (2,3,1) - isn't really a good idea since the player has to make a VERY jerky right/left movement when nothing in the music supports this (as the melodic sound actually fades here)
  5. 01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same issue again, monotonous spacing even though the pitch ups?
  6. 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ^
  7. 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - not only does this completely ignore any spacing concept that would relate to the music before in favor of some wide angled symmetric pattern, the transition to 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - also feels super clunky because the song's bpm wasn't taken into account while creating this pattern
  8. There are a lot of other examples of patterns with similar issues throughout the map.


Another reason I feel the spacing concept wasn't thought through enough is the amount of spacing you use on the ''transitioning'' notes (e.g. 00:01:957 (2) - 00:05:915 (4) - 00:12:582 (5) - ) is consistently high enough that they feel like jumps on their own considering the bpm. Some more extreme examples of this are 00:23:415 (4) - 00:29:249 (5) - 00:49:353 (2) - and a lot of others throughout the latter part of the map. These notes often don't really ''belong'' to any special sound in the music and their general purpose is keeping the rhythm natural and constant. However, the way you placed these combined with the song's bpm makes them stand out in an uncanny way contributing to my problem with the spacing concept.

Lastly, patterns like 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - and, as i said before, 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - feel too bluntly executed. The harshness of these angles is immensely contrasting with the slider patterns surrounding them.

tl;dr - I feel you should respect the song's extremely fast nature a lot more when creating patterns with super sharp angles/high spacing. As a result, I deem the difficulty unsatisfactory as of now.

If you wanna discuss, feel free to pm in game too of course.
Shiirn
i agree the map isnt ready for rank lol
Smokeman
short cancer mod before you rank this (might be too late)

comfort

01:38:728 (1,2) - you can make them overlap better just like 01:37:478 (1,2,1,2) - ot literaly any other slider you did in the map
01:48:311 (1,2,3) - This stacking concept looks out of place imo. Have 01:49:353 (3) - be stacked under 01:48:728 (2) - not 01:48:311 (1) - (do you feel the stack?). Tbh just recheck the stacking on the slider-ends of most sliders. There is a method to get them stacking even after loding up the map (or atleast better than how it is now oof)
01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - "Just gonna grab this one out random". You do focus to represent different sounds in the song in different and unique ways in context of the map (see: 00:16:853 (1,1) - or 00:19:040 (1) - ). But here you expect a simple back and forth to do the trick. You have strong beats on 01:52:895 (1,2,4) - and a weak one 01:53:103 (3) - tho the spacing doesnt indicate that. Since this such a fast song players will most likely not even feel the "slight" difference in spacing you put there hence why i recommend to you to make it more noticable... is not 01:21:228 (2,3,4,5,1) - all over again. 288BPMm is pretty fast oke? https://puu.sh/xyiMh/31e7cfbdf0.png
01:32:478 (1,2,3,4,1) - The spacing on this feels totally out of place in regard to 01:22:895 (4,5,6,7) - and how these were mapped in this manner on really distinct sounds. You have some kinda of scracth going on here so maybe sum sliders would fit it better cause sircles are harsher to hit than circles :s
00:01:957 (2) - Why not put this here https://puu.sh/xyhAN/bc6ece2213.png so its less cancer to play from the start ?
00:27:061 (1,2,3) - this is 1/6th. You could put sliders if you are scared of the 1/6th. Oke i thought you were following the piano thingy cause you put a note on 00:26:853 (3) - . If you follow the piano melody then please follow the piano melody dont just switch to drums cause you scared of 1/6th cause there are some drums here aswell 00:26:645 - so alkcöasdlkv. :[
01:21:853 (2) - this is really pedantic: https://puu.sh/xyibo/3178ef9dcd.png. 01:21:645 (1,2) - having as it is right now would imply some continuity with the sounds in the song from slider 1 to 2, BUT 01:21:645 (1) - is more of a buil-up for the climatic 01:21:853 (2) - instead. The mapping just doesnt reflect the sounds int he music very well and i am not gonna hammer this on every occurance cause w/e.
01:29:561 (1,2) - these and 01:30:117 (3,4) - these shouldnt be on similar visual spacings. Make them more distinct cause this is a pretty heavy change from the usualy shenanigans the song does
01:37:061 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - This shoudl totally be decreasing in spacing/speed just like the song does on all its layers xd
01:38:728 (1,2) - Make this shape flater than 01:37:478 (1) - 01:38:415 (2) - cause 01:37:478 (1,2,1,2) - is following this wierd vocal line and the other one is the piano. Both flow into eachother nicely in the song but they still sound distinctivly different
01:45:707 (1,2,3,4) - you cheaky Bir running out of space. 01:46:020 (4) - Is slightly off screen and imo you should have this not directly in the corner. https://puu.sh/xyiGz/defd5b4049.png Tbh should've noticed when the slider end node/anchor was off the grid aswell xd
01:25:395 (1,1) - woudl really ctr+g these. The buildup sounds like it comes from one place and doesnt go up and down :S


Waanted to keep this short but i ended up just posting down thing i found bothering on a sightread and some time in the editor.

IMO The difficulty of mapping this song is in being able to represent all the different kind of sounds in a proper manner. After that you can think about visual consistency and all that jazz.

BG in 2k17 https://osu.ppy.sh/b/797681 lul


Edit: uhm didnt see this getting popped... so i might drop a full check when i am not sleepy and you want me to :S
pkhg
hihi

reverb
00:39:770 (1,2,1) - not being mapped like 00:40:603 (1,2,3) - even if the music hasnt changed at all triggers me
01:14:249 (1) - idk why you mapped this with a slider. pitch gets higher gradually so using circles and gradually increase spacing as the pitch does makes more sense to me
01:37:478 (1) - higher sv for every nc'd slider of this section would be cool ya
01:52:790 (4) - move it to x330y113 lol
_handholding
Team Rocket popping maps at the speed of light
Topic Starter
Mir

Voli wrote:

The implementation of the spacing concept on the top diff can use a lot of work imo

General spacing concerns / lack of contrast

I feel like the spacing concept of this map wasn't thought out thoroughly enough. Considering the high-bpm nature of the song, note-to-object jumps should be mapped with a lot of care because they can very easily disrupt the movement in your patterns and generally feel very clunky.

An example of this is just when the map starts out at 00:01:957 (2,1) - . While 00:02:061 (1) - is indeed a high pitched sound and could be emphasized over the rest of the pattern, the angle and immense amount of spacing (for this bpm) just make the pattern feel overspaced in its entirety. What doesn't help is that the player has to make yet another jumpy movement towards 00:02:165 (2) - with a very sharp/harsh angle, while the pitch only lowers here.

Another example would be 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) -. The spacing is the same over the entire pattern making the entire thing feel clunky and lacking in contrast. The sounds in the music aren't properly distinguished because you use the same huge spacing everywhere. Patterns with similar issues include:

  1. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4) - spacing is monotonous while the music clearly indicates a different pitch on every note (down>up)
  2. 00:39:179 - ^
  3. 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - spacing gets larger every time but the actual sound that differentiates from the rest (00:40:811 (3) - ) isn't expressed in any way
  4. 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5) - vs 00:53:936 (3,4) - why do these patterns have the same spacing? Also 00:54:457 (2,3,1) - isn't really a good idea since the player has to make a VERY jerky right/left movement when nothing in the music supports this (as the melodic sound actually fades here)
  5. 01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same issue again, monotonous spacing even though the pitch ups?
  6. 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ^
  7. 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - not only does this completely ignore any spacing concept that would relate to the music before in favor of some wide angled symmetric pattern, the transition to 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - also feels super clunky because the song's bpm wasn't taken into account while creating this pattern
  8. There are a lot of other examples of patterns with similar issues throughout the map.


Another reason I feel the spacing concept wasn't thought through enough is the amount of spacing you use on the ''transitioning'' notes (e.g. 00:01:957 (2) - 00:05:915 (4) - 00:12:582 (5) - ) is consistently high enough that they feel like jumps on their own considering the bpm. Some more extreme examples of this are 00:23:415 (4) - 00:29:249 (5) - 00:49:353 (2) - and a lot of others throughout the latter part of the map. These notes often don't really ''belong'' to any special sound in the music and their general purpose is keeping the rhythm natural and constant. However, the way you placed these combined with the song's bpm makes them stand out in an uncanny way contributing to my problem with the spacing concept.

Lastly, patterns like 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - and, as i said before, 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - feel too bluntly executed. The harshness of these angles is immensely contrasting with the slider patterns surrounding them.

tl;dr - I feel you should respect the song's extremely fast nature a lot more when creating patterns with super sharp angles/high spacing. As a result, I deem the difficulty unsatisfactory as of now.

If you wanna discuss, feel free to pm in game too of course.
To be quite honest with you I don't think what you're "suggesting" is even feasible to the map and the way it's structured. You actually didn't give me any suggestions at all, you just pointed out everything you thought was wrong and left it there. Your "mod" is largely useless to me for that reason. What I think you want me to do is:

- Lower spacing of all the "transition notes" despite several of them having sounds and most of them follow the pitch even the first one you mentioned has lower spacing on 2 than 1 yet for some reason you ignore that aspect. Also the sharp angles are all intentional since I'm introducing them early, it's called "concept introduction" and that is why there are sharp angles here. If I lowered them to be like https://i.imgur.com/HUN4R04.png for 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) - or https://i.imgur.com/mwQ6j6T.jpg for 01:30:811 (1,2,3,4,5) - not only would it not represent the intensity but it would have a very noticeable drop in pacing that I feel is completely unjustified considering the intensity of the song. That said, I lowered some of the spacing of transition notes that seemed a little too over-the-top while still making them play acceptably.

- Vary spacing on streams that consist of 4 notes with similar intensity based on the individual pitches. That would look and play horribly and not even be consistent with the other patterns I used for the piano in every other instance that was increased/decreased in spacing OVERALL to account for differences in pitches eg 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4,1) - is staying relatively mid intensity 00:38:728 (1,2,3,4,1) - is higher intensity so it's obviously spaced more than 00:03:728 (1,2,3,4) - etc and for what you want me to do: https://i.imgur.com/baNCoIu.png 00:10:395 (1,2,3,4) - and https://i.imgur.com/n9ANbRE.png for 00:12:061 (1,2,3,4) - etc etc like this really doesn't matter to me, no player will really care about the intricacies of each individual piano pitch at this bpm they will more rather look at the overall intensity of the piano and relate that to the intensity of the map in that moment which is exactly what I'm doing. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - the spacing of the star is fairly uniform so I can contrast that with 00:34:457 (3,4,5,1) - which is much higher intensity relative to the star of which is mapped to relatively stagnant piano.

- 01:14:561 (2,3,4,5) - These have to go, because for some reason they contrast too much when I used patterns like this everywhere and contrast here is the whole point of using them. Spacing is even relative to pitch as seen with 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - 01:17:270 (1,2,3,4) - etc etc, there are sharp angles on transition notes like 01:30:811 (1,2,3) - because there is a vocal on the 2 and a triple would be underselling the overall intensity of the song here and be a noticeable pacing drop for stronger sounds. 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) - sharp angles 01:35:082 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - sharp angles etc etc etc it's all structured to be this way because if they weren't sharp angles and all flowy it wouldn't represent the intensity at all and the pacing would be so low and honestly boring. They've been introduced from the start of the map and have been used in moderation to emphasize specific points of the song of which I can list you every single one (I give examples at the end) and they work as intended and play perfectly fine. I can understand if you think they're overspaced but consider the whole map before picking at the individual patterns, there is a reason for the spacing I used and that is because if they were any lower spaced you'd have too much contrast in movement and end up emphasizing sounds that don't deserve it - thus I opted to keep spacing and flow fairly uniform and change them when there are differences in sound examples being 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - which plays absolutely fine by the way - nobody's ever complained about this. It has circular movement leading into intuitive sharp angle movement, so there's really no problem with how it plays. Even at this bpm. The spacing is uniform until 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - where the song noticeably spikes in intensity just like I mapped it to. I made some slight adjustments to the emphasis but the sharp angles stay, I won't change those.

- 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - For some reason don't emphasize the last note despite triples fundamentally being used to do exactly that, and again I'm not going for the individual sounds I'm going for the overall volume which if you notice, increases.

Overall I feel like you didn't really consider the context of the whole map and the entire idea I was going for and instead focused on the little itty bitty details that at this bpm nobody will care about. Your claims that I didn't think this diff out are honestly insulting to me because the entire reason I mapped this was to make a more playable version of Shiirn's (no offense Shiirn) and to fulfill one of the goals I had when starting to learn to map. Also a lot of the sharper angle stuff plays better than anything I did trying to apply your points and that proves already I considered the bpm and all of the flow usage before applying it structurally throughout the whole map. So no, Voli, I have put thought into my map. You didn't even give me any suggestions or anything to work off of - no ultimatum, no "goal" for the map to work towards to remove your veto. You basically came in, said "this, this, this, this is bad" then vetoed. While I don't dislike the veto system, when it's used like this it really looks stupid.

At this bpm prioritizing playability is key and if I have to make some sacrifices to song expression like not mapping every single piano pitch to it's individual spacing then fuck it I will.

EDIT: I adjusted some of the transition notes I found that were a bit overdone so hopefully that's something.
EDIT 2: Reworded the last bit cuz I wrote this at like 4am and I missed things:

- I did some adjustments overall to emphasis so check that if you can, most notably during the first kiai and 00:46:645
- I lowered spacing on 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - as you suggested

There, things. I had to guess most of what you wanted - obviously - but hopefully this is at least somewhat more acceptable to you.
egg and cheese
The "Thinking" diff actually has no longer any song representation when looking from a player's perspective. Due to the nerfs in the more intense parts, the map essentially feels like the exact same all over. When playing a map, shouldn't I be able to FEEL the difference?

btw reverb was fine with the intensity part, the sharp angles actually felt like they made sense cause of the songs many many different sounds all over the place. don't see why it has to be changed.
Voli
mir altered some patterns and explained his intents behind the kiai jumps. I understand them a bit better now.

I still have my doubts and I think many of the kiai jump patterns are borderline acceptable/could be improved upon either by making the transitions toward these patterns more natural or changing the nature of the patterns themselves. That said, I don't feel it's fair to keep holding a veto on the map for now. We got some external opinions and they differ quite a bit. For that reason, I do expect the nominating parties to look over these points of discussion as well before pushing it.

gl!

20:25 Mir: hi
20:25 Mir: wanna talk or busy?
20:26 Voli: ya we can
20:26 Mir: so before i continue making assumptions can you state directly what the problem you have with routing is
20:26 Voli: yeah
20:26 Mir: i feel like that would go miles in coming to some conclusion
20:27 Voli: the problem is that i feel like you didnt take the song's super fast nature into account while making your patterns
20:27 Voli: and as a result
20:27 Voli: the jumps feel way too overbearing in comparison to the slider pattenrs you use
20:28 Mir: could you give me a few examples and perhaps suggestions on how i could alleviate that
20:28 Voli: yea
20:28 Voli: but the thing is
20:28 Voli: that it's not just one or two patterns but rather a structural thing across the entire map
20:28 Voli: but
20:28 Voli: lets see
20:29 Voli: 01:20:395 (3,4,5,1) -
20:29 Voli: vs
20:29 Voli: 01:21:228 (2,3,4,5) -
20:29 Voli: the transition seems very jarring
20:30 Voli: because sliders play more naturally/flowy by nature too, theyre more forgiving etc etc
20:30 Voli: and there is lower spacing on them
20:30 Voli: 01:21:228 (2,3,4,5) - while this is a super harsh point to point up/down movement
20:31 Mir: the reverse sets up that movement already 01:20:915 (1) -
20:31 Mir: + gives leniency to begin the pattern
20:31 Voli: its also a bit hard for me to give you something to alleviate it because my opinion is that those up/down movements shouldnt even exist
20:31 Voli: with how you mapped the rest
20:31 Mir: + there's been sharp angles all throughout the previous parts to introduce this climax
20:31 Mir: 00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) - this is one of the first patterns
20:32 Mir: the player should know by here there will be patterns like this later
20:32 Voli: well you introduced that kind of spacing there sure
20:32 Voli: but that doesnt make the transitions any less jarring
20:32 Voli: between your slidermapping and those jumps
20:33 Mir: the transition was supposed to be jarring because the song rapidly intensifies there
20:33 Voli: i feel you just shouldnt use those
20:33 Voli: wide angled jumps/back forth movements in this way
20:33 Voli: on this bpm
20:33 Mir: but they play fine
20:33 Mir: it's not that they play badly or uncomfortably or jarring there must be some other reason
20:33 Mir: because everyone capable of holding a combo on this map has not complained about those being too hard to play
20:34 Mir: in fact most fc them easily
20:34 Mir: i mean if it's of any consolation toy 1 missed the map somewhere randomly and fc'd everything on the second try
20:34 Mir: so there's nothing wrong with how the map plays
20:35 Voli: come on now =.=
20:35 Voli: a top player fcs it so there's no problem
20:35 Voli: thats not rly a valid arumgnet lol
20:35 Mir: i said other people that can hold a combo fc it too
20:36 Mir: hightec fc'd some of it
20:36 Mir: woey fc'd all of it
20:36 Mir: kaifin fc'd all of it
20:36 Mir: i can even pass the map if i were still proficient with mouse and not in limbo between that and tablet
20:37 Voli: its not about the map b eing passable or not lol
20:37 Voli: i mean
20:37 Voli: a map doesnthave to be well excecuted to be passed or fc'd
20:37 Mir: but you said they're too jarring when i've never gotten any complaints about their usage
20:37 Mir: in fact quite the opposite, they play well enough and represent the intensity appropriately
20:37 Voli: the kiai jumps dont fit the context at all imo
20:37 Voli: and the way you transition towards them doesnt either
20:38 Mir: so how should i transition to them
20:38 Mir: i'm already setting up a reverse movement + giving a 1/4 reverse for leniency
20:38 Mir: i don't know how else to make the pattern easier to handle
20:39 Voli: well 1. get rid of the sudden humongous spacing compared to all your slider patterns 2. make your angles more bearable for an alt map
20:39 Voli: that's my take on it
20:40 Mir: https://i.imgur.com/QzcoLvr.png ?
20:40 Voli: wheres that o.o
20:40 Mir: i just made it
20:40 Voli: yea i mean
20:40 Voli: in the place of which pattern
20:40 Mir: 01:21:124 -
20:40 Voli: that seems a lot more resonable
20:40 Voli: reasonable
20:40 Mir: ok time to play with spacing
20:41 Mir: https://i.imgur.com/nUSekLw.png ?
20:42 Voli: you upped it again?
20:42 Mir: not as high as before
20:42 Mir: but yes i upped it a bit
20:42 Voli: yknow the thing is, those angles already make those notes stand out more than enough
20:42 Voli: so
20:42 Voli: putting that kind of huge spacing too
20:42 Voli: just makes it overbearing
20:42 Voli: since even with the small spacing from your first example
20:42 Voli: you still have to make a super snappy movement
20:43 Voli: cuz of the bpm
20:44 Mir: i'm inclined to disagree because despite the bpm the spacing increase is backed up by the increasing intensity of the song
20:44 Mir: i can nerf it slightly but not to the degree of the first example
20:45 Mir: around the second example is as far as i'm willing to take it
20:46 Voli: i'd have to see it in practice to rly be able to judge it accurately
20:46 Voli: but
20:46 Voli: chances are that the issue will still be there
20:46 Mir: there honestly isn't an issue to begin with imo
20:47 Mir: the spacing increase is exactly as the song's intensity increases
20:47 Mir: it's as sudden as the song is
20:47 Voli: the = my
20:47 Voli: its still my opinion after all
20:47 Voli: 'not a fact
20:48 Voli: but well thats what were allowed to do as bns if we rly disagree with the map
20:48 Mir: lol
20:49 Voli: like
20:49 Mir: so unless i remove all the sharp angled stuff
20:49 Mir: we can't agree?
20:50 Mir: every testplayer and modder so far has understood the relationship of intensity = spacing
20:50 Mir: the sharp angled stuff is already a concept in the map
20:51 Mir: it's used all over the place, not just there
20:51 Voli: but hear me out
20:51 Voli: spacing used on sliders
20:51 Voli: is something completely different than on notes
20:51 Mir: yes but i already showed you 00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) -
20:51 Mir: 00:13:936 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - as well
20:51 Voli: and since the rest of your map is
20:52 Voli: pretty much an alt map
20:52 Mir: 00:34:457 (3,4,5) - here is also some sharp angled stuff
20:52 Mir: 00:53:103 (5,6,1) - etc
20:52 Voli: 00:13:936 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - yeah i think i also complained about this one
20:52 Voli: that was one of the patterns i felt like you weren't respecting the bpm with
20:53 Mir: that's another pattern people often fc lol
20:53 Mir: that respects the bpm as much as it can
20:53 Mir: it starts off angled and small then increases to a high angular spacing into the slider
20:53 Mir: it's also all in one direction which makes it quite easy to hit
20:54 Mir: it sets up some of the other stuff
20:54 Mir: just like 00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) - sets up variable angle sharp angled movement
20:55 Voli: fair enough
20:55 Voli: 00:13:936 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -
20:55 Voli: yeah
20:55 Voli: i dont think this one is a big issue after all
20:56 Voli: but pretty much all the kiai jumps
20:56 Voli: x.x
20:56 Mir: they're hard but i think they're justified in that difficulty
20:56 Mir: i've set them up relative to the song as much as i could
20:57 Mir: in sections previous and after
20:57 Voli: well at this point
20:57 Voli: we're pretty much just saying
20:57 Voli: >i dont think this is justified
20:57 Voli: >well but i think its justified for the song
20:58 Mir: yes i think it's justified for the song, but why don't you think it's justified
20:58 Mir: is it just the spacing?
20:58 Voli: i've said it
20:58 Mir: the angles?
20:58 Mir: both of which i've already introduced
20:58 Mir: and the player is already aware they will be used as a concept
20:58 Mir: the contrast is too high?
20:58 Voli: 1. the spacing is humongous in contrast to all your slider patterns here
20:59 Mir: the song contrasts itself quite highly there too
20:59 Voli: making the transitions too jarring
20:59 Mir: you would think that but the angles help the spacing rather than hurt it
20:59 Voli: 2. i dont feel you even need this spacing to emphasize what you desired
20:59 Voli: as the movement is already enough with smaller spacing
20:59 Mir: a back and forth movement is much easier to keep consistent than if i had done more wider angles
20:59 Voli: which would go better anyways with the rest of the section
20:59 Mir: it really isn't with the sv i'm using
21:01 Mir: if i lowered it any further the pacing would be shor
21:01 Mir: shot*
21:01 Mir: it'd feel the same as the rest of the kiai because despite lowering the spacing the speed would be the same
21:01 Mir: and there would be no contrast, unfitting of how the song is contrasting
21:01 Mir: such easy low-spacing back and forths just won't work here
21:02 Voli: well
21:02 Voli: thats considering those jumps have to be back and forths
21:02 Mir: if they were flowy jumps they wouldn't contrast cuz the rest of the section is flowy
21:02 Mir: so yes they do have to be back and forths
21:02 Mir: and i set them up for that reason
21:03 Voli: 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) -
21:03 Voli: whats this anyways
21:03 Voli: it uses the same movement as the strong melodic sounds
21:03 Mir: supposed to follow the record scratching but yeah
21:03 Voli: but they aren't actually there here
21:03 Mir: i think i might change that
21:04 Mir: i was thinking https://i.imgur.com/niI34lZ.png
21:04 Voli: that seems cool
21:04 Mir: cuz they're not as sharp anyways
21:05 Voli: idk
21:05 Voli: can we ask like
21:05 Voli: a third (unbiased) opinion from a bn
21:05 Voli: on the kiai jumps
21:05 Voli: i mean
21:05 Mir: if i find one that doesn't hate this song sure
21:05 Voli: i kinda get what you're saying/going for
21:05 Voli: more now
21:05 Voli: with the contrast against flowy sections
21:06 Voli: but i still feel those patterns are just too unnatural with this song
21:06 Voli: and with the rest of the sections
21:06 Voli: section*
21:06 Mir: who do you suggest we ask
21:06 Voli: hmm lemme c
21:06 Mir: i'll upload the swapped out record scratching pattern
21:08 Voli: but
21:08 Voli: you said you were going to play with the spacing earlier, right
21:08 Voli: are you still doing this or
21:08 Voli: did you scrap the idea now
21:08 Mir: i can still play with it if i have to
21:08 Mir: but i would rather not
21:08 Mir: i feel like the spacing i have it at is the maximum allowed spacing
21:09 Mir: anything further would be too much
21:09 Mir: at least imo lol
21:09 Voli: trying to look for someone who's a bit more experienced with higher difficulty maps
21:09 Voli: idk
21:10 Voli: how about lasse
21:10 Mir: sure i guess
21:10 Mir: he's on the set though, idk if that counts as bias
21:10 Voli: oh he is?
21:10 Voli: lmao
21:10 Mir: could ask chaoslitz maybe
21:10 Voli: did you already ask his opinion
21:10 Voli: on your diff
21:10 Voli: what did he think (if you did)
21:10 Mir: i didn't
21:10 Mir: i just asked his opinion on the spread
21:10 Mir: i don't really know what he thinks of the topdiff lol
21:11 Mir: and if i did ask i think i forgot his opinion
21:12 Voli: kk we can ask chaoslitz
21:12 Voli: and maybe okorin
21:12 Mir: okorin wants nothing to do with the song lol
21:13 Voli: rly lol
21:13 Voli: i got it from him looking at it
21:13 Mir: i already asked him to check spread and he rejected my offer cuz of shiirn's ordeal
21:13 Voli: :shrug:
21:13 Mir: thinking
21:13 Mir: so he did look after all
21:13 Mir: idk you can ask him if you really wanna
21:13 Voli: he looked at it briefly and i saw it
21:13 Voli: then i pmed ''wtf routing again''
21:13 Voli: and he linked me this without saying anything
21:13 Mir: sounds like oko
21:14 Voli: well
21:14 Voli: i said unbiased
21:14 Voli: so that definitely doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea
21:14 Mir: shrug
21:15 Mir: chaoslitz isn't online rip
21:15 Voli: rip
21:16 Mir: i could ask plaudible
21:16 Mir: he likes alt maps
21:16 Mir: i don't think he's seen routing yet
21:16 Voli: yea sure
21:16 Voli: tbh any opinion is valuable either way
21:16 Voli: so the more the merrier
21:16 Voli: cuz rn its just your word vs mine
21:16 Mir: here's where a bancho group chat would be super useful
21:17 Voli: and that doesnt rly lead to anything
21:17 Mir: yeah i can see that
21:17 Mir: he seems afk
21:17 Mir: hnnng
21:18 Mir: o i could ask doormat if he's not playing skyrim
21:21 Voli: writing a bit of text so they can see the case more clearly
21:21 Mir: i wrote two lines woops
21:22 Mir: https://i.imgur.com/kk6H1cm.png
21:22 Voli: ya i gave him https://voli.s-ul.eu/u5njkj3n.png
21:23 Voli: notepad quality
21:23 Mir: notepad :weary:
21:23 Mir: https://i.imgur.com/1h9NxNf.png
21:23 Mir: i got this
21:23 Mir: idk what he gave you
21:23 Mir: oh it contains errors
21:23 Mir: wtf
21:24 Voli: it doesn t work
21:24 Voli: the imgur
21:24 Mir: yea
21:24 Mir: https://i.imgur.com/pR8REcC.png
21:24 Mir: wqhat the FUCK
21:24 Mir: why is it giving me errors??
21:24 Mir: https://puu.sh/xzLdg/27318b9f73.png
21:25 Mir: when you have to change to puush e.e
21:28 Voli: lol
21:29 Voli: yea he's telling me he generally thinks its fine but if anything some of the jump patterns could use nerfing
21:29 Voli: 01:17:270 (1,2,3,4) -
21:29 Mir: i can agree with that
21:30 Mir: puush is dying now i can't show you what i ended up with aa
21:30 Mir: lemme just upload it
21:31 Mir: done
21:33 Voli: seems more reasonable
21:33 Voli: 01:52:478 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) -
21:33 Voli: dont you think you can make the transition between those patterns better
21:33 Voli: lemme try something
21:33 Mir: i'm all for suggestions
21:33 Mir: i was going for something like 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) -
21:33 Mir: except with a flow change
21:38 Voli: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9088952
21:38 Voli: perhaps a movement like this
21:38 Voli: so you keep the patterning from 01:52:165 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) -
21:38 Voli: instead of switching to a wide angled square
21:39 Mir: hmm
21:39 Mir: it's actually really hard to see what you're doing
21:39 Mir: that might actually play worse though
21:39 Mir: since that 3,4,1,2 movement is really awkward
21:40 Voli: https://voli.s-ul.eu/7M6vFsna.png
21:40 Voli: (reversed)
21:40 Voli: imo it expressed it quite well actually
21:40 Voli: 01:52:895 (1,2) - >strong sounds
21:40 Voli: 01:53:104 (3) - transitional note with less spacing
21:40 Voli: 01:53:208 (4) - more again
21:40 Mir: ah i see
21:40 Mir: sec i misunderstood the pattern entirely
21:41 Mir: ideally it should start on the left i think
21:42 Mir: hmm
21:42 Voli: yes, i agree
21:42 Mir: or not
21:42 Voli: i think it should
21:42 Voli: because
21:42 Mir: how about
21:42 Voli: you're going left>right
21:42 Voli: already
21:42 Voli: and then left again would be the most predictable thing
21:42 Voli: instead of left>right>right
21:42 Mir: right
21:42 Voli: thats why i switched it
21:42 Mir: so how about this https://puu.sh/xzLXD/876b5224d5.png
21:42 Mir: lower spacing
21:42 Mir: tho
21:43 Mir: idk why i put it so high, probably was consequence of symmetry lol
21:43 Voli: that movement is probably fine but the reason why i put it below is so that the patterns are more separated
21:44 Voli: instead of intertwined, messing wth the transition
21:44 Mir: hmm
21:44 Voli: but
21:44 Voli: i guess you want more of a back/forth movement
21:44 Voli: than a criscross one like i did
21:44 Mir: i do kinda want more back and forth
21:45 Mir: 00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) - kinda like this i think
21:45 Mir: which is a crisscross but
21:45 Mir: a more back and forth one than what you had
21:45 Mir: in fact i could just copy that
21:46 Mir: https://puu.sh/xzM68/4cbc5ebee0.png
21:46 Mir: am i literally retarded or did i just make the same thing you did and rotate it 45 degrees
21:47 Mir: i think i should be diagnosed legally retarded yeah what you did is fine
21:48 Voli: lmao
21:48 Voli: the one you copied can work
21:48 Voli: i mean its better than what you had before imo
21:48 Mir: i asked hightec
21:48 Voli: i think its still better to separate the patter nentirely
21:49 Mir: he said it'd break his wrist
21:49 Voli: instead of stacking
21:49 Mir: so back to the drawing board
21:49 Voli: cuz you have the entire lower part oft he editor basically
21:49 Voli: free
21:49 Mir: yeah but the movement out of 3,4
21:49 Mir: points left and up
21:49 Mir: ideally it should point down
21:49 Mir: so what i did was just flip the whole thing
21:50 Voli: l;ol i see
21:50 Mir: https://puu.sh/xzMhg/ebc2202073.png
21:50 Mir: how's this
21:50 Voli: could you screenshot the alt pattern
21:50 Voli: too
21:50 Mir: the alt one?
21:50 Voli: yea like the symmetrical 1
21:50 Voli: cuz you flipped it right
21:51 Mir: yea
21:51 Mir: it's just ctrl+j
21:51 Voli: o
21:51 Mir: i needed a better angle
21:52 Voli: that might actually work well
21:52 Voli: what you did
21:52 Voli: its more of a rotational flow
21:52 Mir: yeah
21:53 Mir: i'll chalk it down to variation and circumstance
21:53 Mir: and call it a day
21:53 Mir: was there anything else
21:54 Voli: i'll lift the veto on your map btw, i dont think its needed anymore at this point since the person who you're gonna ask to qual this will hopefully address the issue aswell
21:54 Voli: since its in the thread
21:54 Mir: yea
21:55 Mir: it's hobbes btw he'll probably read the logs and make a decision
Topic Starter
Mir
Summary:
- Nerfed 01:17:270 (1,2,3,4) -
- Adjusted 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) -

That's about it.

Thanks Voli~
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply