1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more

Nyanaro wrote:

insane 10/10 mod

While i personally like this map otherwise, there is something i noticed while playing and would like to mention.

[Sweet Surrender]

When playing maps with high slider velocity and sudden hard-to-read jumps such as 01:42:243 (4) - A player requires time to read such sliders and jumps before actually clicking them. This combined with the map's AR10 makes high velocity sliders and jumps like this close to unplayable excluding players with beyond incredible reaction and reading skills (Which i would say are around 5 of.)

An example of a map similar to this is Hollow Wings' Halozy - Kikoku Doukoku Jigokuraku. This map features the same type of elements as the Sweet Surrender difficulty of CANDYYYLAND. How Hollow Wings' manages to handle reading objects for this map is using an approach rate lower than what the map would otherwise supposed to have, to give the player time to read these objects and patterns beforehand, making them entirely playable.

What i suggest for CANDYYYLAND's Sweet Surrender difficulty is the same. The AR should be lower so that the player could have more time reading the difficult sliders and jumps, making the map more playable and easier to read. I personally suggest AR9.6, but that would be up to the mapper to decide.
i don't think AR10 is much of a problem (or i didn't personally have the issue you're mentioning), maybe it's just you? regardless i think lowering the AR to 9.6 would make a few parts worse, iirc anything below AR10 messes up the taiko stack near the end. more importantly, i don't think the 320bpm back and forth jump part would play well for most people on a lower AR. not at home so i can't link timestamps but you probably know what i'm talking about
Oookay, so after consideration I do indeed feel like at least something should be said about this map. I realize I said before I wouldn't post anything but seeing the negative reception and the fact that nobody's even trying to do something about it is somewhat off-putting and I'd regret not saying something in the near future. Let me preface this by saying first that "overdone" is inherently subjective, so for the purposes of this mod please think instead "misrepresentative of the song's actual intensity" if I say overdone (mainly because that's way easier to say).

This is going to be focused on the topdiff.

Sweet Surrender
  1. 00:14:118 - This SV in this section feels much too high for the calmness of the song. When a normal 1/2 slider goes half-way across the screen in a part that only has the addition of drums and a few more notes in the melody from 00:00:618 - I think it's a bit much. Lowering it to .8x or .9x would fit a lot more than 1.2x in my opinion.
  2. 00:38:868 - The intensity of the song barely changed yet 1/4 sliders now go across 70% of the screen. I don't think this increase is very representative of the song, at most I would have these at 1.5x AT MOST, anything higher is pushing it I think. There's only some snares and some melody notes and I don't believe those call for such a drastic change in SV.
  3. 00:39:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - This is exactly the same in the song as 00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - so I'm not quite sure why you decided to use 2.65x sv 1/4 sliders with perfect overlaps the second time, and simply circles the first time? 00:45:618 (1,2,1,2) - These are more intense than that and have half of the SV. Not only is this inconsistent in itself, it is completely inconsistent with 01:29:118 (1,2,1,2,1) - which is also the same thing.
  4. 01:04:555 (1,2) - I don't see why 1 should be a slider especially if the drum it's only is only going to be covered by 01:04:836 - . It feels like you put a lot of emphasis on the drum then ignore the same intensity drum right after. I know you want to obviously map 01:04:649 (2) - so it makes sense, but I think having 1 as a circle would fit a lot better imo.
  5. 01:05:305 (1) - Note doesn't exist in the song. It's a little odd especially that usually you would avoid overmapping in this section. I think that extending 01:05:118 (1) - to be a 1/2 slider would fit much more the song, but either the SV would need to be lowered or some rearranging would have to be done. I do believe that a change would be beneficial here, though.
  6. 01:08:493 (1,1,1,1) - Should keep your NCing consistent: 00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) -
  7. 01:25:743 (1) - Not really seeing why this is a 1/4 slider, seeing as 01:24:993 (3) - wasn't. The melody ending doesn't seem like a good justification for this either, I would suggest just leaving it as a circle, especially since the added sliderend kinda sounds out of place.
  8. 01:25:180 (1,2,3,4,5) - I don't think this should be a quint mainly because you also did the exact same quint at 01:27:243 (1,2,3,4,1) - except it has a much more intense melody on it. I think for the first one having two 1/4 sliders would work a lot nicer.
  9. 01:30:618 - This section also uses a completely different concept from 00:42:618 - yet the earlier section even has added snares you decide to ignore. I also don't see why 01:30:618 - should be any different from 01:27:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - because again, it's the same thing with only slight variation at 01:33:243 (1,2,3,4,1,1) - with the backing melody.
  10. 01:36:618 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is not really acceptable imo, this sort of spacing/rhythm concept was never introduced before this and such a massive emphasis on 01:36:993 (4) - is so overrepresentative of the small variation in percussion there that it feels out of place.
  11. 01:50:118 (1,2,3) - The song's rhythm actually changes here, it's not the same as 01:49:368 (1,2,3) - at all. It's actually more along these lines than what you currently have. It feels really weird to play as it is too.
  12. 01:53:493 (1,2,1,2,3) - would be nice to emphasize the "ooo" sound at 01:54:243 - like every other buildup does: 01:30:243 (1) - 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) - 02:42:243 (1) - . Would look a lot more consistent and representative.
  13. 01:57:618 (1) - This slider seems really out of place, if you're just going to spinner out the rest of the buildup it would make more sense to start the spinner at 01:57:618 - instead of putting a slider then ignoring the rest of what that slider's pattern would have mapped out with a spinner.
  14. 02:02:305 (1,1) - This doesn't play very well, you have to make a very fast movement to the end of the slider, then to the beginning again only to move again at high velocity to the end. It's not very practical for a slider arrangement and not only that, but since that is so uncomfortable to play players will mostly get 100s on these sorts of arrangements at this speed. I would suggest flipping the second slider so you get something like this instead. This is also the only time in this entire kiai an arrangement of this kind is used, every other instance has cleanly placed sliders like 02:05:305 (1,2) - 02:08:305 (1,1) -
  15. 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) - This, similarly, does not play very intuitively. The flow and SV changes make this very difficult to 300 especially with how a player is more likely to move as the red line indicates than the expected green line. Naturally, you are aware of this. So you would also be aware of how the player will be more inclined to drop the sliderends to hit the slower 1's and miss the end of the faster 1's as a consequence, leaving this whole pattern as not much more than an acc dropper with questionable flow. Let's not even mention the speed at which the player needs to accomplish this, it's all 1/4 and 1/8 sliders.
  16. 02:06:618 (1,1) - This flow is also extremely unintuitive, as the player will definitely drop the sliderend of the first 1 to get to the second 1. I think a more intuitive slider arrangement is ideal here.
  17. 02:08:680 (2) - Does not exist at 02:02:680 - so maybe it should be removed or added in one of those places. Seems inconsistent.
  18. 02:08:305 (1,1) - These have the same issue as 02:06:618 (1,1) - but can be easier adjusted with just flipping one of them.
  19. 02:08:868 (1) - This is... something else. Arguably the only high velocity reverse in the entire map other than 02:11:493 (1) - which is a lot more intuitive, is wildly inconsistent with 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) -
  20. 02:09:993 (1,1) - Again the flow of these is questionable.
  21. 02:10:649 (1,2,1,2) - Definitely overrepresentative of the sounds. They're not as intense as anything else in this section yet get 1/4 back-and-forths. I think a stream would fit more or something, but not this pattern. The angle this comes out of is also extremely unintuitive and would fit better if the whole pattern were flipped instead. Most players screw up here that I can see.
  22. 02:12:055 (1,2) - Would recommend lowering SV significantly as these are not strong sounds at all. 02:12:430 (1) - Should also imo be nerfed SV-wise as it stands out the most here where all it is is a small screech in the background.
  23. 02:13:743 (3,1,2) - Also plays unintuitively imo, you need so much velocity to even begin to finish the entirety of 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - and this arrangement does not provide that initial speed at all. Would suggest a different arrangement (probably one that has a lot of pull-back movement like this) instead.
  24. 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - This is just a little bit overboard I think. It's not representative of the actual intensity here and the movement contradicts the concept of the pattern itself. Seeing as 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - decreases for the same pitch (which it shouldn't) but 02:14:868 (1,2,1,2,1) - doesn't. I think this section really needs to be reconsidered in terms of intensity. 02:17:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - As well suffers the same problems except the spacing is even higher than before (even though the song is the same intensity as the previous pattern)
  25. 02:15:618 (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1) - This is frankly ridiculous, it's a completely new concept that plays so much differently from anything else in this kiai. Not only that but it increases in intensity when the song is constant throughout, the same flaw that 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - has. The reading spike this induces is quite high and unexpected and the biggest issue is just how out-of-the-blue this is and unfitting with the map in general.
  26. 02:24:149 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Again while at least this time the pitch/intensity does increase, the spacing is just a bit overdone imo. I think just something like this would fit a lot more and give the same effect.
  27. 02:35:868 (1,2,3,4,1) - What is this even following LOL. There's no 1/4 entry here at all and definitely not one strong enough to warrant a 1/8 sliderstream at this spacing. Two 1/4 sliders like before would have been fine.
  28. 02:44:305 (2,2) - This.. also doesn't really seem necessary. There's nothing on the reverse at all and there's no real difference in the song on these.
  29. 02:48:524 (4,1) - There's been some crazy jumps but this one seems a little excessive.
  30. 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - This rhythm doesn't even follow the song, like, at all. The start of this phrase is on 02:49:368 - which is in the previous pattern. 02:49:930 - This is the start of the next phrase but ends on the last note of the phrase of the previous pattern. Basically what I'm saying is if you deleted 02:49:368 (3) - and moved back 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - to that spot it would fit what the song is doing. 02:49:930 - This note also gets zero emphasis despite being fairly prominent and syncopated as it just blends into the previous pattern.
  31. 02:50:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Mapping all of this melody just to end on the drums at 02:50:868 (1,2,3) - seems a little sudden and a bit odd of a switch. I think that it would make more sense to continue following the melody as the drums are really secondary here, and the melody hits such a peak that gets ignored just to follow the 3/4 drums not even with sliders, but with circles.
  32. 02:52:180 (1,2,3) - This sounds no different in the song than 02:51:805 (1,2,3) - so adding 1/8 sliders doesn't really seem all that appropriate.
  33. 02:55:930 (1) - This note is overmapped, the melody starts on 02:56:024 - and for a pattern like this it would probably be beneficial to follow exactly what the melody is doing, especially since this is the only overmapped note in this stacked pattern. Apparently it is playable too but introducing this as a concept near the end of the map is a little bit unfair as well as this is very reading-heavy and no stacking like this was ever done before in the map. It feels like another out-of-the-blue addition to the map's already plentiful concepts.
  34. 02:57:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is backwards, in my opinion. The song increases linearly from start to end, but the pattern density decreases from start to end. It would make more sense to start with circles and end with 1/8 sliders than vice versa here.
  35. 03:04:555 (1) - Would recommend mapping both of these drums with two circles rather than putting a slider on both then a slider on 03:04:743 (1) - which has only a drum on the head. Umbrella-ing the drums with sliders like this doesn't seem so representative.
  36. 03:05:399 (4,1) - Jump feels a little excessive considering barely anything changes about the intensity other than the pitch of the melody. I think a nerf would be appropriate.
  37. 03:13:743 (1,2) - This feels awkward and doesn't follow the rhythm of the song here, what would be more accurate is this. This persists throughout this kiai and feels really off especially when there's barely anything on the blue tick there.
  38. 03:13:836 (2) - I can get behind a deathstream section but I don't really agree with how much contrast is given between the two phrases. One is basically a stack and one is a cross-screen spaced stream. Contrast is nice but sometimes it can be too much. I think lowering the spaced stream to about 1.0x would be much more appropriate.
  39. 03:36:430 (1) - This slider feels very weird as it umbrellas the fade out jingle that the previous patterns were mapping. I think turning this into a 1/4 slider and ending the song here would be sufficient and still quite nice.

So overall the map has interesting concepts but the way slider entry and exit angles and movement is handled is extremely questionable. In fact the movement of this map is questionable in general as a lot of things play unintuitively and could have easily been accounted for when mapping but now as the entire structure has been formed changing anything would be a pain in the ass, which is why I fully expect to be redwalled for the majority of this mod. The rhythm of this map is also sub-par I think, as some parts fail to acknowledge the song's own patterning and overmapping for no clearly discernable reason other than "aesthetics" comes to mind.

The biggest issue here I think is the map throws together so many different concepts that the player has very little time to learn them (think sections like 02:12:618 - 00:38:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - 00:40:743 (1,1,2,1,2) - (these are the only times you use this obvious of slider-stacking btw). This leaves the whole map with a very incohesive feel that not necessarily lacks structure, but lacks concept, because it uses so many drastically different ones that an overall concept cannot clearly be discerned - and trust me I've tried, I've been looking at this for at least 3-4 hours trying to figure out what is going on.

Again, I know you know what I said before and that I wouldn't post, but I think it's gotten to a point where I would regret not trying at least to tell you what I think and some steps to make the map more intuitive and more representative than it is.

Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.

  1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured.
  2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression.
  3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented.
  4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) -
  5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup.
  6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng.
  7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here.
  8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this.
  9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here.

winber's diff, while still pretty intense, suffers from fewer issues than the topdiff. The only clear issues I see are misrepresentation of the song through mapping generic rhythm (see 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc) and the 1/8 slider gimmick is quite frankly unfair to play even if it's SSable. It's just really unclear how far to move to SS it, and as soon as you attempt to move to SS those, the reentry to the stream gets awkward.

I hope you can give me a point-by-point reply and that we can come to a consensus.

EDIT: Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.
Yea the only complaint of mine is that you guys didnt allow the player enough of time to learn concepts you built.

00:36:618 (1,1,1,2,1,2,1,2) - and 00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - examples of what i mean

you dont distinguish what is fast and what is not, the player is like WTF

however i think its just a matter of this kind of music, its meant to be unexpected but when you equate 3/4 slider into 1/4 with the same form/spacing and shit, it feels a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit too much

00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - hoyl sh... it literally contradicts 01:24:243 (1,1,2,3) - this place with almost the same spacing/placement/form, but its 1/2s instead of 1/4s
00:37:368 (1) - remove nc, here u have nc on sv change but theres no sv change

00:38:868 (1,2,1,2) - this part only maps the background synth with 2.65, and really weakens 00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - in comparison, since this has vocals too.

00:35:868 (1,2,1,2) - imo ctrl-g each of these to match raising pitch + intensity much like u do here 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) -

00:53:868 (1,2,3,4) - imo these prolly should move upward to match raising pitch and intensity

00:54:618 (1) - ctrl-g to match pitch , u can move it up too to maintain same spacing

00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) - nc

01:40:368 (1,2,3) - why's the spacing so low here, compared to 01:39:618 (1,2,3,4) - or 01:41:118 (1,2,3,4) - or 01:45:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - ?
I don't really get why you ignore the 1/4th in these either.

02:47:868 (1) - i don't hear anything to warrant a repeat here

03:03:805 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - these are different rhythms here but they're mapped the same way moving it back to 03:03:618 - is the right way to capture this rhythm imo
honestly here i don't even see any reason to skip over the melody as before and after you map it fully

02:03:055 (2,2) - why aren't these 1/8 to match consistency with 02:04:555 (1,1) -

02:23:680 (1) - why not two circles to maintain consistency with the prior section

01:48:618 (1,2,3) - idk what this rhythm is supposed to capture, you missed the syncopated melody on 01:48:993 -

same here 01:50:118 (1,2,3) -

02:08:680 (2) - why map this note

i think this 03:11:493 (1,2) - works better stacked under 03:11:118 (1,2) -

i don't see a reason to make a sharp stream 03:29:868 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - , whereas the rest are flowy curve

02:45:430 (4) - this seems like a part of 02:44:868 (1,2,3) - this pattern when it's seperate, it lacks the vocals, it'd change the shape here to help distinguish this,
top diff
02:15:797 - nice unsnapped green line
I will look at the mods on friday (have irl stuff to do until then) so if anyone else has anything else to say then pile them mods up. I'll say it right here so that it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone but I am not looking to fundamentally change the map so there are frankly only 2 kind of changes I'm going to apply:

1) Unrankable issues
2) Suggestions that would enhance the map HUGELY (this is very much all down to me and my views no surprise but I won't talk here on the behalf of handsome so he can choose to apply what he wants, if he wants)

I want for people to realize that my view on the top diff is that the map is just how I want for it to be. We worked on this map for a good while and the only 2 options I see going forward are:

1) Ranking the map as it is (with possible changes as mentioned earlier)
2) Not ranking the map (Beatmap Graveyard)

So in either scenario the map will be practically the same no matter the outcome. I appreciate everyone who wants to make the map better by chipping in with a mod so if you have anything you want to say when it comes to possible changes on the map, please do. Even if I reply with a disagreement it doesn't mean I'm not glad to see people wanting to help to make the best map there can be.

Lastly (this isn't tied as closely to what I've been talking about in this post earlier, mostly a reply to some general hate I guess since I felt like I wanted to respond to it aswell) I wanted to point out that I constructed the whole set in mind with pleasing most of the technical map lovers out there (4 extra difficulties of which atleast 3 are fundamentally different). There should be a difficulty for most to enjoy so even if one or more of the difficulties isn't to your liking, there is someone out there who enjoys the ones you might not. I hope everyone can keep that in mind when it comes to the future of the mapset instead of demanding this for not to be ranked purely because in their eyes a single difficulty on it doesn't look like it should be ranked. If the mapset itself wasn't rankable then we would never even be having this conversation.

I hope the community can stay being more open minded like it has when it comes to maps made in recent times and in the end it is the beatmap nominators who make sure that the maps they nominate are worthy of being ranked so just because you yourself might not recognize the worth in a map it doesn't mean that others see the map same way as you do.

RLC wrote:

Fuck players

Mir wrote:

Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.
I too make maps to be strictly SS'able and especially complain about parts that play "unfairly" even though they're completely fine!

Sure the map might be overdone but your reasoning is piss poor and it's as if you didn't actually try to understand why the diff was mapped as it was

Shiguma wrote:

Mir wrote:

Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.
I too make maps to be strictly SS'able and especially complain about parts that play "unfairly" even though they're completely fine!

Sure the map might be overdone but your reasoning is piss poor and it's as if you didn't actually try to understand why the diff was mapped as it was
I didn't expect you to type such a post. Color me surprised.

The point isn't if they're SSable or not, it's about whether it's fair difficulty, and honestly, it doesn't look like it is. If it is fine in your opinion, can you explain why it's fine then, instead of just bashing on my statement pointlessly?

I would rather have a civil discussion than passive-aggressive flaming, I just want explanations on how whatever I wrote is fine. If there's a valid reason that the 1/8 sliders are fair difficulty then I'll concede, sure.


We talked it's fine.

My point does still stand, I don't really care if they're difficult to SS or whatnot I just think that the rng factor is the biggest issue.
ok since everyone is voicing his opinion, here is my two cents:

before I start, I have to mention that I do like ProBox personally, and its just my opinion. Ill be ok if it gonna get thru, cuz this map gonna shift the meta a lot, which is always nice.

so here we go:
Sweet Surrender

Two quotes:
"If you got to write paragraphs to explain stuff you mapped - you failed as a mapper" (c) Shiirn
"Nobody is special just because hes trying to be special" (c) Loctav

I might be mistaken in wording but you got the thing, right? I truly believe these two quotes are describing quite nicely what is happened in this mapset. You guys tried to squeeze the shit out of your minds to make the player be like "WAAAAAOW" but in reality players are like "WTFFFFFFFFF"

Here is quick explanation of why that is the case here: basically you guys kinda ignored progression as a concept in some parts, or just made the shit to escalate way too rapidly.

00:36:618 (1,1,1,2,1,2,1,2) - basically you dont tell the player what is fast and what is slow, these are completely the same.
00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - same thing

00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - I mentioned that thing already, you didnt prepare the player for such flow burst.

01:01:368 (1,2,3,4) - the way you make escalation here is way different from 00:49:368 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - these are the same music phrases but ehhhhhh in first one you do 3.3x > 3.3x > 3.3x> 3.3x > 5.7x > 5.7x
In the second one theres is like: 2.3x > 3.9x > 4.2x > 4.3x

What i mean here, is that you dont really know what it is when you see it. The structure you built is deluding. Here is another example:
00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - and 01:24:243 (1,1,2,3) - these are literally the same pattern-wsem so the player is getting ready for huge triplet, but LOLJK its not. its 1/2s.

01:25:180 - 01:36:618 - this part is done really nicely!

01:45:055 (2,3,4) - thats too much in my opinion, its ok when you break the triplets into something like 01:36:805 (2,3,4) - its cool and at least has a flow in it (but still, its 1/4s the f...?) This is also the place where most of players fail.

01:53:680 (2,1) - compare it to 01:51:805 (2,1) - this spike is HUGE and indicates literally nothing (another Candy-Candy chorus), here you got a strong beat 01:53:868 (1) - and no spacing to the previous slider end at all.

02:08:305 (1,1) - these are equal, you increasing the sv instead
02:08:868 (1) - same, have no idea why you choosing patterning over logic here

02:15:805 (1) - 02:16:180 - 02:16:555 - 02:16:930 - this stuff if where most of players fails at, why? because you didnt restructure these slow sliders (at least make them straight like here 00:42:993 (1) - or here 02:18:243 (1) - ) the biggest flaw of this map in my opinion
02:21:805 (1) - 02:22:180 (1) - same

02:55:930 - so this thing. It lacks 3 (flow, emphasis, structure) out of 4 the most important things in mapping (rhythm is left). You basically removed the visual aspect of the game here. Everyone gets misses/100s/50s cuz of it. I would suggest to make an offset x=2 at least.

03:15:243 (1) - you sacrificed structure/flow for aesthetics here. But how is this expected?

Few words about hitsounds in general:

00:39:055 (2) - 00:39:430 (2) - this hitsounds are really questionable, i mean, i basically have no idea why is 00:39:055 (2) - has a Normal and not add/soft+whistle (like this 00:39:430 (2) - )
why is 00:39:430 (2) - add/soft+whistle? You got 4 sounds, 00:38:868 - 00:39:055 - 00:39:243 - 00:39:430 - 1,3 are loud, 2,4 are quiet, but instead of replicating this into music you make these 3 as loud ones 00:38:868 (1,2,1) - and the last one 00:39:430 (2) - as a quite, despite all of them has the same placement and speed.

00:52:180 (1,2,3) - its really hard to read, you did kinda similar thing with triplet here 00:48:618 (1,2,3,4) - but it was rather a hold-stream.
02:00:618 (1,1) - 02:09:993 (1) - 03:06:243 (1) - I think that sliders like that should be more simple form-wise, because most of players are struggling in hitting these (i actually watched Yaong's and OPJames replays). My suggestion is to nerf it, like 20% less SV. Let people bitch about fast sliders on hollow wings maps.

00:23:118 (1) - it doesnt reflect the music properly, 00:23:868 - this thing is a new sound measure, even being a part of 00:23:118 - doesnt make it that dependent to previous vocal phrase.
00:08:118 (1) - actually its an aesthetic thing but still triggers me. THAT RED ANCHOR!!!!!!!!!

Overall I can say that you can fix all of the major issues in like 20 mins of ur time and requalify this. Theres not that much to cry about but still you got to make this a bit more readable.

fanzhen's Extra

I know there are no standards in regards of slider art but...
00:00:618 (1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1) - how do the reflect the song? they are completely random, doest correlate with each other. Hello its 2017 you can make more simplistic and at the same time more nice stuff.
00:46:743 (1) - you could make this look way better, since you started that grid:

01:01:368 (1) - and this 00:49:368 (1) - i honestly think you should kinda choose what kind of pattern you use for that sounds. I Still think that escalating distance is better than double-jump-double-jump.
03:30:618 (1) - I mean... 03:27:618 (1) - 03:29:118 (1) - 03:24:618 (1) - 03:26:118 (1) - and suddenly a cringed something 03:30:618 (1) - and 03:32:118 (1) - 03:33:618 (1) -

03:35:868 - here shud be an NC I guess?

01:37:180 - I think it should be 1/2 instead of 3/4, since it lacks the clap like 01:37:930 - here.
02:05:118 (4) - 02:02:118 (4) - this might be a slider end? just like in top diff? youre mapping vocals there, that drum sound implied to be on slider end.

Hitsounds (i removed custom hitsounds):
02:28:180 - 02:28:368 - 02:28:555 - 02:29:305 - 02:29:680 - etc what happened here?
02:24:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - turn off the custom hitsounds and listen.
like... youre making rhythm from claps on 02:25:368 -
but ignoring the normal-hitnormal 02:27:243 - which is referring to 02:25:743 - 02:26:493 - so I guess it might be like
02:24:993 - here might be a normal-hitnormal
02:26:868 (7) - might be a copy of 02:25:368 (3) - (add/normal, clap+whistle)

02:27:618 - from here we got 02:28:180 - 02:28:368 - 02:28:555 - suddenly
why? I mean I know Im not supposed to ask that but, explain please why did you do that in that way. Its just irregular and wrong (in my opinion).

02:59:868 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - sounds nice but, is this a proper reflection of objects? (circled 1/4s stream)
03:04:555 (3,4,5) - same thing, please explain why you picked drums there.

even after that it makes me question your logic of hitsounding, since its pretty irregular how you place them.

Yo Probox man, did you even check these things ^ ?

So in few words, please fix hitsounds, they are inconsistent (in my opinion, ill be glad if you would explain it for me)

I would actually check the other diff but it took me 2 hours to write this already.

So in conclusion I wanna say that this map is quite revolutional in some kind of meaning? Cuz after that people gonna abuse huge sv/ds spikes and others nice stuff, but as I mentioned above, I buelieve it still needs like a day or two to make shit work.

Dont take this mod personally, I Know how it feels when everyone attacking you without a reason (from ur perspective) but you CAN STILL get away with that, if you really want to - go ahead and reject everything with some vague wording w/e. The real question here is what consequences we are going to go thru after that. I mean, on a long run.
Hey there, I'm disqualifying this map to halt the ranking process as there are still many concerns from the community and for you to address these properly.

Additionally, I'll give my own opinion here as well:
[Sweet Surrender]

My main issue with this difficulty is the lack of a general concept. It's almost like you have new patterns and gimmicks every measure which results in bad pattern introduction. You should introduce concepts in a save environment first so that the player can actually learn to play them. As it is now, it's just like the whole map spikes in difficulty constantly.
I'd say most of the patterns on their own are fine but the context they are used in makes them feel incredibly forced and random.
Moreover one of the parts that bothers me specifically is the one starting at 01:36:805 - . In my opinion patterns like 01:38:305 (2,3,4) - are among the hardest to play in this difficulty, yet this is a pretty calm section in comparison.
A similar point about difficulty imbalance goes for the stream at 03:24:993 - , it's extremely hard to keep stamina on this stream and to aim it in general even though this is the much calmer outro. Having a breather in form of a slider or something would be incredibly helpful.

tl;dr The difficulty fails to introduce gimmicks properly due to the lack of a general concept which causes an imbalance in difficulty.

I think the other modders addressed these concerns really in depth already but if you still want to hear more from my side, feel free to contact me and I'll be glad to help you. Good luck o/
dq this early just makes me feel like the next time this gets qualified there will be more mods that would have come in now because people only wake up to mod when the map gets qualified thats why I was hoping it would be qualified for atleast until friday when I start to fix... whatever I guess.

02:00:618 (1,2) -

arent these patterns unrankable cuz u according to the ranking criteria 02:00:618 (1) - slider body has to disappear completely before you place 02:00:993 (2) - cuz if you delete 02:00:993 (2) - and go on 02:00:993 - then 02:00:618 (1) - is still visible

idk if you get it im bad at explaining things

anyways gl probox with the set!!

yoooooo today i tried to buy a candy bar from a vending machine and it got stuck i blame this mapset give me my dollar back probox

ProfessionalBox wrote:

dq this early just makes me feel like the next time this gets qualified there will be more mods that would have come in now because people only wake up to mod when the map gets qualified thats why I was hoping it would be qualified for atleast until friday when I start to fix... whatever I guess.
:( i feel bad for u probox i love u sm
if alien was rank y not this 1 2

Yo Probox man, did you even check these things ^ ?
It seems like there was a bit of concern on the W1nber sliders, let me just clear up why I considered them fine.

Slider tails only consider your position 36ms before the end of the slider, the rest of the tail doesn't matter.

Take 03:18:618 (1) - as an example, its tail is on 03:18:664.
664 - 618 = 46, which is how many ms the slider is.

36 / 46 = 78%, inverse it to 22%

This means you only need to hit 22% of the slider to SS it

W1nber's slider is 145 osu pixels tall when vertical

145 x 22% = 32

This means 12ms after hitting the slider, your cursor needs to be 32 osu pixels away from the head, this is a visualisation of where the slider ball is.

That doesn't look too nice, but when you account that the slider ball is larger than the circle, you end up with this

In reality, the difference in aim is only 11 osu pixels. While the slider is intimidating, it's not nearly as bad as it looks. I already knew how slider bodies worked when nominating, and I considered it to be a fair use of the mechanic.

If you would like a more detailed explanation, Mo has you covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYAujNMPVbY
show more
Please sign in to reply.