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

- titan wrote:

hi, m4m from my queue (sorry it took so long :( )
Subsequent
00:10:003 (4,5) - imperfect blanket too small for me too care
00:12:794 (4,5) - ^ ^
the soft-finish sound in places like 00:18:898 and 00:19:247 is really loud compared to the other hitsounds (probably because i use the default skin and everything is really loud in the default skin.) but if you wanted to make the hitsounds more consistent for everyone you could add the soft-finish from your skin to this map's folder so it would have the same hitsounds you have ? 00:18:898 - this is intended, 00:19:247 (1) - this is fixed If your skin has a soft-hitfinish to be very loud or noticeable, I suggest to change the skin or edit it.
00:49:596 (2) - one of the curves looks kinda weird idk here's an image with a skillfully crafted circle highlighting what curve i'm talking about

i get that it's meant to wrap around itself but like you could mess around with anchors to get it nicer think it's just fine, you have no idea how hard it is to make similar with only white anchors.
00:55:526 (2,3,4,5,6) - i'd really not recommend using additions for every note of a stream (at least at this bpm and volume) because it works as more of a distraction than anything else. (same thing goes for other cases where you do this) I tend to differ, if I made it like that, than that means I like it, if you want people to change obviously intended stuff, you'll have to give really strong arguments or simply ignore it.
02:00:410 (3,1) - blanket too small for me to care
02:41:049 (5,1) - ^ lol fixd
02:52:212 (1) - could blanket itself a tiny bit better made it tiny bit better
03:38:259 (1,2) - blanket (sorry this is becoming a blanket mod i'm terrible with high diffs) such slider blankets with rotation are usually made to not perfectly blanket the circle but the sliders.
03:39:131 (1,2) - ^ fixd
03:39:131 (1,3) - i like the overlap but it feels out of place here if you like it why you feel it's out of place. These are minimalistic overlaps,
and acceptable even if the structure is not even remotely tied to partial overlaps.

04:35:642 (1) - this slider looks uneven I agree, and if you check the timeline there's a reason for it.
04:57:968 (1,2) - blanket https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9212871 jesus man, are you really doing this in all of your mods. Just look at it's current state and you want me to fix it.
04:59:363 (1,2) - ^ fixd

nice map. good luck!
Kudosu! is just for this 00:19:247 (1). Anyways if you're making a m4m queue, be sure to accept maps in which you can tell something constructive. People will be mad for you, but I'm quite tolerant so its fine.
posted
Hello! From Q.

Subsequent

  1. 00:02:328 (6) - This circle feels like as if it's landing on nothing. Listening with a 25% playback rate, it sounds like a fading sound, so it's really unnecessary to make this clickable.
  2. 00:05:468 (2,1,2) - The gap between between 00:05:468 (2,1) - is quite big when (1) sounds weak, while 00:05:642 (1,2) - have a smaller gap when (2) sounds strong. I know that it's because of NCs, but still, it's really unreasonable when a weaker sound has a bigger jump than the stronger sound.
  3. 00:10:352 (5) - In parts like these, the sound on 00:10:526 - is either emphasized as a slider end or a reverse, plus, a 2/2 feels quite sudden since it was never used to emphasize these parts throughout the section. A reverse slider would better IMO.
  4. 00:17:154 (1,2) - Similar to the second point, the gap is quite big when (2) sounds weak, when 00:16:805 (1,2) - sound stronger, but have a smaller jump.
  5. 00:37:299 (2) - Uh, perhaps this was added accidentally? Because it clearly lands on nothing..
  6. 00:38:256 (5,6) - How about replacing these with a 2/4 slider? Because (5) and (6) are both basically the "aaa" sound, emphasizing it with a slider would be better instead a triplet. Or you can just remove it, because 00:39:916 - isn't emphasized when it's the same thing.
  7. 00:41:660 (5) - Again, this lands on nothing.
  8. 01:41:049 (2,1) - The 1/4 gap here looks verys similar to 1/2 gaps like this one 01:41:224 (1,2) -. This could most likely confuse a lot, consider making 1/4 gap closer so it doesn't look similar to 1/2 gap.
  9. 01:48:462 (2) - A very weak sound, I don't really think that this should be clickable..
  10. 01:59:276 (7) - ^
  11. 02:06:951 (5) - Why suddenly add a note here when the rest of the highnotes weren't 1/4? Most of them were 1/2, so it really feels random..
  12. 02:07:823 (2) - ^ Plus there isn't any sound in the background..
  13. 03:28:666 (2) - In parts like these, you'd emphasize it with this rhythm, I wonder why you didn't emphasize it that way, when in the same section, 03:30:061 (1,2) - is emphasized that way, and they both sound similar too.
  14. 03:50:294 (5,6) - Same issue here regarding 1/4 gaps looking very similar to 1/2 gaps, in the same section, there's a 1/2 gap that looks similar to this, so you should probably change the gap here to avoid confusion.
  15. 03:53:084 (3,4) - 03:55:875 (5,6) - ^
  16. 04:55:788 (3) - This really lands on nothing either..


Good luck!
posted

Xiaolin wrote:

Hello! From Q.

Subsequent

  1. 00:02:328 (6) - This circle feels like as if it's landing on nothing. Listening with a 25% playback rate, it sounds like a fading sound, so it's really unnecessary to make this clickable. there's this constant trippy synth goin on with 1/2 rhythm.
  2. 00:05:468 (2,1,2) - The gap between between 00:05:468 (2,1) - is quite big when (1) sounds weak, while 00:05:642 (1,2) - have a smaller gap when (2) sounds strong. I know that it's because of NCs, but still, it's really unreasonable when a weaker sound has a bigger jump than the stronger sound. idk I'll have to disagree. It sounds subjective, grouping the notes differently sounds really off, and it is rather subjective and not really debatable in which is the most important note here. Let's say it's in this way for conventional grouping, giving a NC on white ticks, avoiding any awkwardness .
  3. 00:10:352 (5) - In parts like these, the sound on 00:10:526 - is either emphasized as a slider end or a reverse, plus, a 2/2 feels quite sudden since it was never used to emphasize these parts throughout the section. A reverse slider would better IMO.woow using the term 2/2 instead of 1/1.
    But anyways I'll be keeping it for variety. If it's emphasized by a slider end or a reverse, than it is not really emphasized at all? Those actions don't stand out at all.
  4. 00:17:154 (1,2) - Similar to the second point, the gap is quite big when (2) sounds weak, when 00:16:805 (1,2) - sound stronger, but have a smaller jump. 00:17:154 (1,2) - just mapping a bit on a whim here and interesting pattern weaving, but giving some spacing to (2) is not something I'd find as a mistake.
  5. 00:37:299 (2) - Uh, perhaps this was added accidentally? Because it clearly lands on nothing.. there's this guitar string going on or something.
  6. 00:38:256 (5,6) - How about replacing these with a 2/4 slider? Because (5) and (6) are both basically the "aaa" sound, emphasizing it with a slider would be better instead a triplet. Or you can just remove it, because 00:39:916 - isn't emphasized when it's the same thing. i'd keep it to follow the drum roll.
  7. 00:41:660 (5) - Again, this lands on nothing. 00:41:660 (3) - what are you doing with NCs... Anyways, It's kinda an additive overmap,
    since the vocal appearing together with some hihat slide / guitar string fading call for it. I think it's a fine addition, and feels better than having it empty to me.
  8. 01:41:049 (2,1) - The 1/4 gap here looks verys similar to 1/2 gaps like this one 01:41:224 (1,2) -. This could most likely confuse a lot, consider making 1/4 gap closer so it doesn't look similar to 1/2 gap. I don't think it'll confuse anybody, its a 1/4 slider and most usually just considered just like a circle. +the new spacing on 1/2 is a new section, while I really like the momentum from the 1/4 slider, and I never saw anyone misread it in all of my testplays.
  9. 01:48:462 (2) - A very weak sound, I don't really think that this should be clickable.. other than the sound being weak, it feels like it compliments the vocals.
  10. 01:59:276 (7) - ^ aight, removing this one. Would be better if it was gone.
  11. 02:06:951 (5) - Why suddenly add a note here when the rest of the highnotes weren't 1/4? Most of them were 1/2, so it really feels random.. drums
  12. 02:07:823 (2) - ^ Plus there isn't any sound in the background.. drum roll
  13. 03:28:666 (2) - In parts like these, you'd emphasize it with this rhythm, I wonder why you didn't emphasize it that way, when in the same section, 03:30:061 (1,2) - is emphasized that way, and they both sound similar too. you have a point, will do.
  14. 03:50:294 (5,6) - Same issue here regarding 1/4 gaps looking very similar to 1/2 gaps, in the same section, there's a 1/2 gap that looks similar to this, so you should probably change the gap here to avoid confusion. yea, will adjust
  15. 03:53:084 (3,4) - 03:55:875 (5,6) - ^ yea
  16. 04:55:788 (3) - This really lands on nothing either.. there's a guitar string or something. I like the occasional 1/4's.


Good luck!
thanks for the mod
posted
Hi from my q!

I would reduce the NC usage in this map, a LOT of them are for emphasizing back and forth jumps
00:00:803 (1) - assuming you'll eventually fix this slider length
00:09:131 (1) - would be nice if sliders in this section were curved like 00:02:852 (3) - , would make a nice pattern (straight, curved, straight, curved)
00:10:352 (5) - Would make this straight to be consistent in your section here, would make more sense since past this THEN you use the curvy sliders
00:15:410 (4,5) - doesn't follow a straight path
00:18:201 (4,5,6) - sort of an awkward construction, try this https://puu.sh/xRMow/48bf6710ff.png
00:32:677 (5) - I get that you're trying to place this equidistant to 00:31:805 (2) - but I would stack this on top of 2 instead, the spacing just feels too big
00:38:259 (6,7,1) - I would lessen the spacing used here, it's still a relatively calm part, no need for spacey streams
00:40:701 (5) - randomly curved slider amidst all straight sliders
00:41:660 (3,4) - Not sure why two circles are necessary here
00:44:712 (1,2,3,4) - Not sure what spacing you're following, otherwise this is random
00:45:410 (1) - almost certain this would lead to 100 on the end since you leave only 1/16 time to hit the next slider which is not even close to the previous one, I would consider shortening the duration of it
00:55:875 (6) - NC
01:04:073 (5,1) - Would make this inline with each other
01:11:049 (4,5,1,2,3) - I think it would make more sense to just put the NC on the start instead of the middle
01:23:433 (4,5,1) - equal spacing
01:32:503 (1) - no nc
02:24:480 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I would polish this, or simply stack. just playing it felt sort of clunky
02:49:422 (5) - this is sort of just... meh, but I can't think of a better design choice atm!
03:01:108 (2,3,1,2) - not sure why you sudddenly faltered from your "directly stack" approach
04:36:863 (4,1) - These should be same slider, ctrl-h ctrl-j

Very interesting gimmick map. a couple of design-y aesthetic-y things I kinda felt were out there but that's just personal preference, watch your rhythm consistency as well!

ok best of luck~
posted

Ambrew wrote:

Hi from my q!

I would reduce the NC usage in this map, a LOT of them are for emphasizing back and forth jumps still keeping.
00:00:803 (1) - assuming you'll eventually fix this slider length literally unfixable
00:09:131 (1) - would be nice if sliders in this section were curved like 00:02:852 (3) - , would make a nice pattern (straight, curved, straight, curved)alright
00:10:352 (5) - Would make this straight to be consistent in your section here, would make more sense since past this THEN you use the curvy sliders adjusted the previous sliders so yea
00:15:410 (4,5) - doesn't follow a straight path too small for me to give a fk ;d
00:18:201 (4,5,6) - sort of an awkward construction, try this https://puu.sh/xRMow/48bf6710ff.png pure symmetry is generic and mostly I dislike it if the sliders are too close, I'd really choose inversion+rotation here, looks better imo.
00:32:677 (5) - I get that you're trying to place this equidistant to 00:31:805 (2) - but I would stack this on top of 2 instead, the spacing just feels too big I disagree, like the construiction and spacing. It's after a slider so its totally fine.
00:38:259 (6,7,1) - I would lessen the spacing used here, it's still a relatively calm part, no need for spacey streams loud drum roll. It plays well since the spacing to it and movement is quite comfortable.
00:40:701 (5) - randomly curved slider amidst all straight sliders so what? +there are tons of curved ones in the section.
00:41:660 (3,4) - Not sure why two circles are necessary here guitar string + vocals. Feels pretty dope to have them there imo.
00:44:712 (1,2,3,4) - Not sure what spacing you're following, otherwise this is random 00:44:712 (1,2) - are more intense than following 2 notes, so they're given bigger spacing, and the other two lower, how weird is that, huh?
00:45:410 (1) - almost certain this would lead to 100 on the end since you leave only 1/16 time to hit the next slider which is not even close to the previous one, I would consider shortening the duration of it are you high, there's 1/4 time to hit the next slider
00:55:875 (6) - NC i'd rather keep it as is.
01:04:073 (5,1) - Would make this inline with each other I wouldn't, would mess up the pattern building and spacings.
01:11:049 (4,5,1,2,3) - I think it would make more sense to just put the NC on the start instead of the middle adjusted nc's a bit more
01:23:433 (4,5,1) - equal spacing yea
01:32:503 (1) - no nc yes sir
02:24:480 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I would polish this, or simply stack. just playing it felt sort of clunky idk most people really like it, and I do to.
If you can think of a way to polish it / stack it, would be nice to leave it here.

02:49:422 (5) - this is sort of just... meh, but I can't think of a better design choice atm! it seems fine, one slider looking meh to one person is not dangerous, and it's just a slider.
03:01:108 (2,3,1,2) - not sure why you sudddenly faltered from your "directly stack" approach new section so why not? It emphasizes the vocal intensity increasement.
04:36:863 (4,1) - These should be same slider, ctrl-h ctrl-j am okay with rotation too tbh.

Very interesting gimmick map. a couple of design-y aesthetic-y things I kinda felt were out there but that's just personal preference, watch your rhythm consistency as well! thanks for the feedback. I didn't want the rhythm to be obviously consistent, but rather vary it plenty to make the map more fresh.

ok best of luck~
thanks for the mod
posted

MaridiuS wrote:

00:45:410 (1) - almost certain this would lead to 100 on the end since you leave only 1/16 time to hit the next slider which is not even close to the previous one, I would consider shortening the duration of it are you high, there's 1/4 time to hit the next slider


sorry I meant that in musical terms. 1/4 is the beat snap divisor. It's not the same as the time. 1/4 = quarter notes = every white tick. 1/8 = eighth notes = every white & red tick. 1/16 = sixteenth notes = every white, red and blue tick. that lands on a blue tick, hence 1/16. hope that made more sense!
posted
change the bg to jpeg
drum-hitnormal4.wav unused hitsounds

[map]
01:18:898 (1,2,3,1) - here you have a flowy movement, really a lenient one too. but 01:20:119 (2) - this slider just forces the player to stop basically. It feels really awkward to play, it would fit better if you just map the slider normally as it will keep the flow going on better.

01:23:433 (4,5,1) - this type of movement just strains the player for no reason.

01:32:154 (1,2) - this should be a slider according to your map

01:32:765 (4,1) - why is this so far away from the slider

01:36:863 (2) - same about the movement thing I talked about.

01:51:863 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - just convert streams from sliders, look better this way. also I think 01:52:387 (1) - should be a slider for the downbeat. fits better

02:03:549 - this calm section has too much note density. You decrease the spacing but I think that alone is not enough. You should cut down both the object density and spacing. You don't have to map everything during calm section.

01:00:584 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is just awkward to play and hard to read. same for the next one nearby. You don't seem to be using the "hard to read and repeat pattern" concept very consistently. It just kind of shows up for this section and more or less just doesn't show up ever again. It'd be better to just map these normally

Some slider shapes in the Kiais force the player to halt and stop. Which I believe it should be flowy like the song. 02:50:294 (1,2) - like here, in reality the player will just move a bit but they will sit on top of the slider without moving. so these 2 sliders just make the player stop. The donut ones are probably the biggest offender here. You need to consider that players will not follow the sliders like the AUTO does.

you map it consistently so my suggestion applies to all similiar parts (So that I don't have to point everything out and you don't have to copy paste your replies all over the place)

GL
posted

timemon wrote:

change the bg to jpeg ye
drum-hitnormal4.wav unused hitsounds ye

[map]
01:18:898 (1,2,3,1) - here you have a flowy movement, really a lenient one too. but 01:20:119 (2) - this slider just forces the player to stop basically. It feels really awkward to play, it would fit better if you just map the slider normally as it will keep the flow going on better. idk dude the C sliders feels flowy to me, I spin them always when I play, otherwise if it's just a stop motion, they wouldn't be as present in the meta as they are.

01:23:433 (4,5,1) - this type of movement just strains the player for no reason. reason: 01:23:782 (1) - emphasis on this. I vary the map with medium spaced wide jumps to highly/medium spaced sharp for emphasis. Feels fine to me with this bpm and cs3.3.

01:32:154 (1,2) - this should be a slider according to your map 01:32:852 (1,2) - I'm varying these notes often. Usually if there's a slider before it, i give it two easy to hit notes in order to give sliders on vocals as a form of differentiation : 01:33:201 (3,4) -

01:32:765 (4,1) - why is this so far away from the slider pattern building, will probably remap, kinda sad.

01:36:863 (2) - same about the movement thing I talked about. same

01:51:863 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - just convert streams from sliders, look better this way. also I think 01:52:387 (1) - should be a slider for the downbeat. fits better stream looks pretty nice to me even by freehand. I won't make it a slider, in order to make the following pattern work like they do, with
1 2 slider 1 2 slider.


02:03:549 - this calm section has too much note density. You decrease the spacing but I think that alone is not enough. You should cut down both the object density and spacing. You don't have to map everything during calm section. that's pretty subjective, but being on 172bpm a little bit of tapping doesn't hurt. There are plenty of 1/2 sliders in a row for some relaxing, and since it's a buildup the spacing on the start is also chill. The song goes with constant 1/2 notes, and I couldn't find anythnig particular to do 1/1 sliders or something.

01:00:584 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is just awkward to play and hard to read. same for the next one nearby. You don't seem to be using the "hard to read and repeat pattern" concept very consistently. It just kind of shows up for this section and more or less just doesn't show up ever again. It'd be better to just map these normally No testplayers except filthy pp farmers who have never seen a gimmicky pattern had trouble on that. I personally think it's a nice touch and feels much better than some low spaced 3stack in some random placement.

Some slider shapes in the Kiais force the player to halt and stop. Which I believe it should be flowy like the song. 02:50:294 (1,2) - like here, in reality the player will just move a bit but they will sit on top of the slider without moving. so these 2 sliders just make the player stop. The donut ones are probably the biggest offender here. You need to consider that players will not follow the sliders like the AUTO does. idk i follow sliders when I play, so I don't plan on changing them if a few players prefer to not move or something.

you map it consistently so my suggestion applies to all similiar parts (So that I don't have to point everything out and you don't have to copy paste your replies all over the place)

GL
Thanks for the mod.
posted
Hi from my queue!

[Subsequent]
  1. 00:11:922 - no need for a green line here
  2. 00:45:061 (3,4) - move 00:45:061 (3) - to create a straight line with 00:44:887 (2,3,4) - then ctrl+G those two circles
  3. 01:08:782 (1,2,3) - what's the reason to space them out like that? there're no beats that stand out
  4. 01:12:619 (5,6) - do you really think this needs bigger jump than 01:12:445 (4,5) - ? I could understand it's for an emphasis if it was the other way around
  5. 01:15:584 (2) - if you move this more to the left side, you'll get much better flow imo
  6. 01:32:503 (3,4,1) - you can't just make triples in places you want them and ignore the rest (like I am the one to talk about the consistency lol); I just don't get it why you don't make them in places like 01:24:392 - 01:29:974 - etc
  7. 02:03:549 (1,2,3,4) - I think they're too similar to previous 1/4s (02:02:328 (2,3,4) - ); how about forming them into a square?
  8. 02:24:480 - unnecessary green line
  9. 03:10:526 (1,2,3,4) - this feels really weird to play; something like 03:13:317 (1,2,3,4) - would be much better
  10. 04:39:305 (4,5) - I don't think there's need for a jump this big


[Afterword]
You got better at mapping since the last time I've modded your stuff. There are still few things you can improve. About the M4M as you can probably tell, I'm more of a metal person so, unless you don't mind giving me a ticket without expiration date just take it as a NM c:
Good luck!
posted

Catshy wrote:

Hi from my queue!

[Subsequent]
  1. 00:11:922 - no need for a green line here 1.00sv and volume increase?
  2. 00:45:061 (3,4) - move 00:45:061 (3) - to create a straight line with 00:44:887 (2,3,4) - then ctrl+G those two circles did it actually lol
  3. 01:08:782 (1,2,3) - what's the reason to space them out like that? there're no beats that stand out heavy drum roll
  4. 01:12:619 (5,6) - do you really think this needs bigger jump than 01:12:445 (4,5) - ? I could understand it's for an emphasis if it was the other way around 01:12:794 (6) - if you listen a bit, this has some heavy electronic + kick sound on it. Wanted to add more circles to click right before the start of the buildup.
  5. 01:15:584 (2) - if you move this more to the left side, you'll get much better flow imo small spacing big circles, and I also think it plays fine the way it is.
  6. 01:32:503 (3,4,1) - you can't just make triples in places you want them and ignore the rest (like I am the one to talk about the consistency lol); I just don't get it why you don't make them in places like 01:24:392 - 01:29:974 - etc I actually can, with vague 1/4's going in the background, some are subjectively more noticeable and it freshens the pattern building, resulting in those triples not harming the gameplay, while more patterns are made.
  7. 02:03:549 (1,2,3,4) - I think they're too similar to previous 1/4s (02:02:328 (2,3,4) - ); how about forming them into a square? squares on overlapping spacing is gay. Keeping, about 10% testplays misread it so idc, git gud or something xd
  8. 02:24:480 - unnecessary green line true
  9. 03:10:526 (1,2,3,4) - this feels really weird to play; something like 03:13:317 (1,2,3,4) - would be much better feels just as weird as I want it to be.
  10. 04:39:305 (4,5) - I don't think there's need for a jump this big i'm fine with it, its not "this" big, its of a reasonable size.


[Afterword]
You got better at mapping since the last time I've modded your stuff. There are still few things you can improve. About the M4M as you can probably tell, I'm more of a metal person so, unless you don't mind giving me a ticket without expiration date just take it as a NM c: You could you know at least mention what are you referring to when talking about "things I could improve", as I didn't took a grasp of it in the mod. whenever you map some song that I may like, call me and I can do an irc or something.
Good luck!
Thanks for the mod.
posted
Subsequent
i don't want to mod this map detailedly because it doesn't reach the quality of being ranked, the main problem the map is stacking overuse
it's hard to make a map clean with a small cs but it doesn't mean stacking everywhere makes it clean, your map looks like "oh i can stack them here so lets do it" and it ruins the flow, aesthetics and everything
for example, 01:00:584 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is extremely terrible to play in most cases because it's barely readable
01:04:770 (4,2,3,4) - same
00:31:456 (1,4) - not reasonable at all

the other problem is the slider design, in the kiai sections you curve literally every slider a lot like 01:22:038 (2,3) - , it's unnecessary, and also uncomfortable to play, especially for those sliders with curved tails, player wouldn't move their cursors to the tails a tall, so the edgy shapes just give players cancer, and make the slider flow not smooth

it also has some emphasis issues like 01:34:596 (3,4,1) - but it's not that important comparing to the problems above, you can improve it after you know the basic mapping knowledge

00:23:956 (2) - move this down http://puu.sh/xWs40/c1c552a061.png

sorry for a short mod, you can mod less diffs on my map too
gl.
posted

Karen wrote:

Subsequent
i don't want to mod this map detailedly because it doesn't reach the quality of being ranked, the main problem the map is stacking overuse
it's hard to make a map clean with a small cs but it doesn't mean stacking everywhere makes it clean, your map looks like "oh i can stack them here so lets do it" and it ruins the flow, aesthetics and everything
for example, 01:00:584 (3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is extremely terrible to play in most cases because it's barely readable
01:04:770 (4,2,3,4) - same
00:31:456 (1,4) - not reasonable at all

if you're having this much trouble reading it, you should really be ashamed on a 5,4* star tbh. How dare I base the map on overlaps and have unusual / a little bit hard patterns to read. I won't bother into explaining the concepts and how every section has something unique to it while the map overall being based on full overlaps and ~2x emphasis.

the other problem is the slider design, in the kiai sections you curve literally every slider a lot like 01:22:038 (2,3) - , it's unnecessary, and also uncomfortable to play, especially for those sliders with curved tails, player wouldn't move their cursors to the tails a tall, so the edgy shapes just give players cancer, and make the slider flow not smooth I curve every slider a lot. See, it is consistent, and your reason is strongly subjective. This is seen in many maps too. and saying that it gives cancer when I play it and other testplayers with ease, I am seriously putting in question your capabilities.


it also has some emphasis issues like 01:34:596 (3,4,1) - but it's not that important comparing to the problems above, you can improve it after you know the basic mapping knowledge Basic mapping knowledge, after mentioning something like that, don't you feel that the mapper will feel worthless and stupid? Making all of his motivation die.
Whats more, you do this expecting a mod back. Please take a look at osu! code of conduct. Maybe you just had a bad day.


00:23:956 (2) - move this down http://puu.sh/xWs40/c1c552a061.png

sorry for a short mod, you can mod less diffs on my map too
gl.

Anyways please be less rude in your mods, especially as a BN, other modders/mappers are supposed to look up to people in your position
.
posted
Karen's mod was rather badly worded. Don't use words like ''terrible'' or ''gives players cancer'' in your mods. You're supposed to encourage change and help the mapper, not crack down on them.

That said, MaridiuS, could you stop crying? Your response is rather immature as well. You point Karen towards the CoC, but your own message comes off as childish and sarcastic. You don't have to comment on the capability of the modder in your response. You're doing the exact same thing as Karen now.

I encourage both of you to take a look at the CoC instead.
posted

Voli wrote:

Karen's mod was rather badly worded. Don't use words like ''terrible'' or ''gives players cancer'' in your mods. You're supposed to encourage change and help the mapper, not crack down on them.

That said, MaridiuS, could you stop crying? Your response is rather immature as well. You point Karen towards the CoC, but your own message comes off as childish and sarcastic. You don't have to comment on the capability of the modder in your response.

I encourage both of you to take a look at the CoC instead.
I just thought if I sounded offensive it could make the point of his mod being offensive stronger. Explaining in detail would sound wasted, and merely dismissing it as subjective won't make the impact on him as he would soon forget it. Thanks for coming to try to calm it out, but I think there won't be any drama past this point.
posted

MaridiuS wrote:

Explaining in detail would sound wasted, and merely dismissing it as subjective won't make the impact on him as he would soon forget it. Thanks for coming to try to calm it out, but I think there won't be any drama past this point.
The same could be said for Karen's comments, perhaps he thought you'd just dismiss it, hadn't he been harsh. No need to justify, just stop.
posted
oh, i didn't want to be rude at all, i just didn't know how to explain some points and my english is terrible, sorry for that
if you still consider it as a bad attitude, i'm fine with it, as long as you understand my mod
i wish it won't kill your motivation
posted
Anyone for any reason viewing this thread, dw about Karen, we cool now.
posted
Okey dokey
posted
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.
Please sign in to reply.