PoNo wrote:

02:56:118 (3) -

02:56:493 (6) -

That two circles aren't stacked correctly, maybe its done on purpose. Just looks weird to me

https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/pOqHfLW.png

BoatKrab wrote:

I just see winber1's
02:06:993 (2) - There is Normal hs on its tail, but others are not

*no kds*

ProfessionalBox wrote:

PoNo wrote:

02:56:118 (3) -

02:56:493 (6) -

That two circles aren't stacked correctly, maybe its done on purpose. Just looks weird to me

https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/pOqHfLW.png

its done on purpose to prevent a bigger stacking issue.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

banter wrote:

I feel like there are some spacing issues in the last two diffs regarding the streams at the end.

fanzhen's Extra fanzhen's decisions can be explained with calming down at 03:30:618 - point to build suspense to the very last stream of 03:35:774 (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) -


Sweet Surrender I am emphasizing the 2 most important and polar opposite sounds in the song here (03:25:368 - this and 03:26:118 - ) with my arrangement. This kind of going from 100 to 0 is very good to catch those 2 sounds with the added snap movement that the player has to do and you can really feel the impact of the snap because of the arrangement.


winber1's diff also has misrepresentations of music. at 02:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - the music doesn't change in intensity and should have consistent spacing, however it's mapped as if there's a diminuendo. winber choose to approach this part without streams and his arrangement is built upon the same big distance snap movement at crucial parts like in the top diff

Fixed everything Sinnoh pointed out!

Kaifin wrote:

top diff

that whole section is also literally unplayable in comparison to the rest of the map, which sucks because the map is quite enjoyable

02:12:711 - this part is REALLY good to play though this is super nice

ProfessionalBox wrote:

uhh, ok. Just saying that the part which is in your opinion "super nice" and "really good to play" is the part which most people have to just spam to get through while my "unplayable section" isn't giving much trouble other than hitting all the slidertails. I don't know what to take away from this since it doesn't make any sense to me in the sense that my part is unplayble compared to the one after which is really good to play while in truth both are crazy, will reply with fixes/no fixes later if I ever find another nominator.

Kaifin wrote:

that being said, i don't think its fair to use "most people just spam to get through handsome's section anyways" as an excuse to make things play badly/unreasonably uncomfortably in your section..

-Nishiki- wrote:

sick map

storyboard

could go with a bit of background movement.like the bg should move as though there's a parallax shenanigans going on I ordered it like this,
very minimalistic.

Fanzhen's Extra

00:12:618 (1) - these sliders would be a bit nicer if the slider ends were silent. agree
00:23:118 (1,2,1,2) - should be gradually shrinking in slider velocity no need
00:33:618 (1,2,3) - instead of copying 00:30:618 (1,2,3) ,should this not copy 00:24:618 (1,2,3) ?it would make the section seem a lot more varied,especially since you use a different style every single iteration of the section anyways. I think it's good variety like this, every single one of these doesn't need to be the same [/color]
00:38:868 (3,4) - four short sliders instead of two 1/2 sliders might match the music a bit better. Buildup like this creates more suspense on the next part so it is fine to have like this.
00:45:618 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this should gradually shrink,but not like in my recommendation in sweet surrender.instead because the spacing is already kinda high in 00:44:868 (1,2,3,4) ,so it would only be fitting that it counter-acted on what 00:44:868 (1,2,3,4) did before it. yeah this shouldn't shrink in the first place imo, current way is fine
00:52:555 (2) - can be like 00:52:368 (1) before it. 2 different sounds so he didn't want 2 same sliders
01:01:743 (5) - should either be spaced a bit more or use a short slider to differentiate it from 01:01:368 (1,2,3,4) preceding it. No need to increase spacing as this is up to interpretation and fanzhen used this spacing consistently in the drop
01:02:493 (1,2) - a long slider might do the trick better than two beats here. I'd say this is preference again, I like the 2 circles myself
01:04:368 (1) - would have interesting flow if ctrl+g'd Interesting doesn't always mean better :^)
01:04:930 (3) - having an important sound so close to 01:04:649 (2) feels a bit odd.maybe change this it builds a triangle with 01:04:368 (1,2,3) - so hence this placement is a must
01:06:243 (1) - don't see why this needs an nc. NC supports reading here imo. Also having no followpoint from the center is more aesthetic
01:08:493 (1) - this can be two beats in the same stack as 01:08:305 (2,3) ,as this delivers the rhythm better and differentiates 01:08:586 (2,3,4) more. This puts emphasis on the very fast 1/8 slider to have them arranged like this seperately from the stack in addition to looking better and completing the pattern
01:10:368 (1) - seems a bit lazy. fanzhen didn't use spacing increase streams in the section at all so this doesn't suddenly call for one either imo. Also since the kiai already climaxed this is tehcnically a cooldown anyways so it should be easier than the parts before
01:39:149 - this sound goes unmapped Follows synth so not having the drum here is understandable (takes away from the synth to have a circle on the drum)
01:51:524 - pretty important sound here too unmapped added a circle
02:00:243 (4) - this can be 1/2 instead of 3/4 Current way emphasises the first object of the kiai much better, the faster snap motion created by the extra length is very essential
02:08:118 (3) - not sure how i feel about this being here I feel its fine
03:36:055 (1) - maybe nc here. This was an obvious design choice so not gonna touch

Sweet Surrender

00:22:555 (2,3,4) - would look pretty dope if 00:22:743 (3,4) were moved to overlap the peaks of the slider superseding it.though i can't make it look good for shit,you're like 10x more experienced than i am. eh? Not sure what you mean but the current way is just fine.
00:47:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - don't get why it's spacing more.it would be nicer if instead the stream was spacing less into the kiai. This should obviously be spacing increase in my opinion, no intention at all to change it.
00:49:836 (2) - why doesn't this overlap 00:49:836 (2) ? is it like flow or something and i'm just too stupid to notice 00:49:743 (1,2,3) - triangle pattern, also helps reading
00:52:368 (3) - should be a slider. 00:52:618 (1) - nope because of this starting at a very unique time. Also 2 distinct sounds so one should be circle one slider
00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) - would look bretty cool if 00:55:461 (2) and 00:55:649 (4) had ctrl+g on them and would go with the 'wub' more Current way is aes and good, no need to change
00:56:305 (1,2,3) - a bit dangerous if this is getting ranked.the cross screen triples by rrtyui was already pushing it,this spits in its face.if it's not getting ranked than who cares disregard this. 160bpm = all the difference in the world
00:59:305 (2,2) - having these replaced with straight sliders like pic related looks cool af (don't copy this though this is shit and wouldn't flow well with 00:59:868 (1,2) The movement is more fun without sliders. Also the vocal sound is very short on these timestamps so therefore simple circle is better in terms of following music too
01:00:618 (1) - maybe nicer as a slow slider instead Following the "unwind" sound which is rapidly repeating
01:04:649 (2) - there's an important sound on the tail of this slider.not sure if you wanna shorten the slider and add a beat next to 01:04:930 (3) or something but it should at least be notable.like maybe a little hook on the end of the slider to show there's an important sound around there (again don't copy line for line any shit i do). So many sounds happening at one time that I chose to follow the ones I found most necessary. Here I'm following the the "yea" sounds.
01:05:305 (1,2) - a bit overmapped. 01:05:305 (1) shouldn't exist. For such a cluttered section I feel like this bit of overmap is just fine.
It feels more natural than not having anything there thats for sure
01:10:555 (1) - shouldn't this be linked with 01:10:180 (1,2) before it?like take out the nc and put it on 01:10:743 (2) ,move it closer towards 01:10:368 (2) or something,just make it not a part of 01:10:555 (1,2) . 01:09:899 (2,1,2) - structure
01:26:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - a bit overmapped.just stress the beat on 01:26:118 (1,3,1) and you're good. Mapped to vocals + the lead melody as I find this the most appropriate (not landing a circle on a vocal would feel weird)
01:29:118 (1,2,1,2) - this might be cooler if it was like a horizontal version of 01:27:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) . I did something else here, its the exact same version as I think it fits nicely!
01:57:618 (1) - why can't the spinner start here? 95% of this difficulty maps map the first sound of a measure before putting a spinner afterwards. It feels more natural to click on this very important sound and spin afterwards rather than just start spinning on it right away
02:05:493 (2) - this should be a bit shorter so that it ends on the blue tick before 02:05:868 (1) .like use a smaller slider velocity there. Exact same sound as the one before so its the same like it should be
02:11:774 (1) - maybe make this like 02:11:493 (1) . Slowdown slider fits here perfectly
02:12:055 (1) - move the nc from here to 02:12:243 (2) . NC here indicates difference in slider velocity relative to last object
02:24:618 (2) - there's no nc here? Not having NC here is because of the pattern being built on 1-2 pairing jumps
02:35:868 (1,2,3,4) - this can just be a normal stream I think this catches what is going on better
02:36:993 (5,1,2) - these can be like two short sliders and the nc can start on 02:37:368 (3) instead. I don't see any issues with my current way
02:39:993 (5,1,2) - same dealio here. ^
02:54:805 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - i think this is overmapped a bit. drums
03:04:368 (3) - this could be a short slider unless you wanted to follow 03:03:805 (1,2,3) before it. Consistent with previous pattern and the gap in music is supported by this being a circle
03:06:618 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - needs a bit of cleaning.especially since 03:07:086 goes unmapped. Following synth
03:12:618 (4) - feels weird not having that be an nc Next object has nc, no need to have 2 in a row
03:15:618 (4) - then again,if it's a pattern,i guess it's fine presicely!

bretty good map probox
liking how it's coming along.sweet surrender feels like it's trying too hard to be technical though,so work on getting that stigma off.
hope to see this with a leaderboard some day! good luck

Vacuous wrote:

Sweet Surrender
00:09:618 (1) - doesn't this go offscreen? It looks like it does

Kaifin wrote:

Please reply to my mod it had parts from both you and handsome i just wanted to give my opinion specifically before you ranked it as to not disturb the ranking process

Kaifin wrote:

Please reply to my mod it had parts from both you and handsome i just wanted to give my opinion specifically before you ranked it as to not disturb the ranking process

theowest wrote:

Pre-nerf ver. better.

Kaifin wrote:

02:52:180 (1,2,3) - might want to make these a touch slower, really small window for the slider ends + it would read a little better since they're straight making them long af and can look like 1/4: just a minor thing though consistency with 02:49:180 (1) -

03:12:993 - making 03:13:930 - clickable as seen in this screenshot would follow the song a lot better and be more intuitive don't really understand where you're coming from, i'm mapping to the vocal/synth/beeps/idkwhattocallit. the second beep at 03:13:836 - is really loud and clear compared to others, but it pairs pretty well with 03:14:024 (1,2) - . i thought it was already pretty clear lol

Milan- wrote:

is really 02:24:571 (1) - on fanzhen meant to be snapped that way? owo

Okorin wrote:

02:24:618 (1) - shit's broken yo

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore