Hailie wrote:

M4M -

• General

1. Countdown Conflicts with tMb's Hyper difficulty oops, forgot to add it
2. Just think that 2.4 CS is a tad bit too big on the hard- I understand what ya doing but maybe make it just a little smaller pretty okie to me, makes linear graduation with two other diffs
3. May just be me but ur Normal is more like an advanced (not even saying this because of the sr but actually looking at it) and that it seems to big of a jump compare to how simple the easy - Not really suggesting another difficulty - but possible nerf the Normal a bit is all I am really saying ill probably just buff easy instead
   - just pointing it out - don't know if it is an actually problem since I still noobish at modding

• Insane

1. I suggest using ur finish on note like this 00:04:644 (1) - (basically the start of almost every NC) since it close to it but recognizable enough to blend into it thats a really great idea! thanks
2. 00:04:930 (3) - (minor) will flow bit better if you rotate the slider to -5 degrees okie
3. 00:06:073 (2) - this type of note has a pew type sound that loud and noticable - In my opinion I feel you should emphasize it more by giving it more spacing hm, i think it would feel unnatural considering what im usually emphasizing

• Hard

1. 01:35:786 (1) - make this more clear by move it away from this slider 01:34:929 (1) - hm, but im making such space for all extended things instances

yup that bout it... there wasn't really much that I could find in the map at all (why I said my mod wouldn't be useful in game >.>) dw, mod is valuable when its helpful to the mapset, yours was pretty helpful

GL and have a star Thanks, ill mod your map a bit later today

-Faded- wrote:

Hey, m4m from #modreqs

[General]

1. In your spread, the Normal difficulty is technically classed as a hard, and on the website the N icon is skipped. I'm fairly sure this is unrankable, so to be safe I would nerf the Normal a bit. uh, its not unrankable, there are a few mapsets with N icon skipped in ranked section that are not too old, and spread makes sense, its just an icon

[Easy]

1. Why do you have tickrate 2? I don't see a reason why in this 210bpm song; tick rate 2 would be chosen instead of 1. It just artificially inflates the combo if you ask me. to make with different lenght even more distinct from each other by making different amount of slider ticks in them
2. 00:35:501 (4) - This slider is a bit too close to the edge for comfort. Even though it't not offscreen on my display, you should still move it to be safe. i don't see a problem with it

[Normal]

1. AR5 is much more fitting due to the large cs and dense rhythms here. okie
2. 00:59:215 (4) - Maybe place some sort of hitsound here? The sound is quite strong, and the sound is distinct from the sounds at 00:58:358 (1,2,3) - so placing a hitsound would help emphasise it. hm, true

[Hard]

1. 00:36:358 (5,1) - Not really a fan of the flow here, I think it would be better if (5) directly lead into (1). Like if you were to stack (1) underneath 00:36:215 (4) - for example. im fine with current flow, represents downbeat welll imo
2. 00:58:358 (1,2,3,1) - You should place a green line to lower the hitsound volume here, something like 30% would be more appropriate. This is because the sound you are mapping to is quiet in comparison to the other instruments in the song, so lowering the hitsound volume would help the map represent the music. hm, current voluma doesn't seem unappropriate tho. if other people mention it, ill change
3. 01:03:786 (5) - You seem to be missing a whistle for this slider head. A whistle would be appropriate here as it'll make it consistent with your current hitsound pattern. eagle eye ..or ear?
4. 01:18:786 (3,1) - For this part, maybe you should start the NC on (3) instead of (1), so that the 1 beat gap becomes more apparent. im making ncs mostly on downbeat, except for exotic instances, wanna keep it consistent
5. 01:34:929 (1) - This note is very low, in fact mod assistant says it's potentially off the screen. (although when I look at it, it appears to be fine). Maybe move it up a bit to be safe? okie, better safe
6. 01:35:786 (1) - This slider should end at 01:36:072 - . Past that, there isn't any sounds that would justify this buzz slider carrying on. There is only a fade-out. Even at 5%, the hitsounds from the buzzslider greatly overpower the music. okie

[Insane]

1. 00:45:787 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - This pattern would probably be more readable if you had the NC on 00:46:358 (2) - instead. It'll more clearly convey that there are two sets of notes, with a stack/stream at the end. i agree that this change would make things more straight forward but this way of ncing doesn't represent music that well as current one. high-pitched sounds come groups of three so thats why ncs are like this
2. 01:35:787 (1) - Like I mentioned in hard, this buzz slider should end earlier at 01:36:072 - i few people told the same, changing it now

Very clean map across all difficulties, I like it. Good luck ~ Thank you and you too

July - San wrote:

Hii From mod req!
M4M

My map: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/597903

Easy

00:30:929 (7) - (Extend this for 00:31:501 - )
00:35:501 (4) - (Extend this for 00:36:072 - )
or do something like this ( 00:40:072 (6) - )
00:44:644 (5) - (This too, extend)
00:53:786 (5) - (This) um, but why tho? when modding try to think why mapper made things like that and if things lack meaning or you have better suggestion, describe that in your mod. these things are 3/2 because there are important sounds on their tail, if a made them 2/1, they would end on nothing

Normal

The Normal It's good for me!

tMb's Hyper

01:33:072 (2) - (Make something like this.)



01:21:644 (2,3) - (This too)

Okay That's all, for me..

Hey Dude! Perfect Map! Thank you! Good luck! You too! Even though your mod wasn't that helpful, i'd mod your map in return, but advice for the future - try to contact with person you are willing doing m4m with before actually making mod

bite you death wrote:

hello, nm from modreqs

• general

1. why 2 slidertick in normal and easy but not any other diff? i think having buffed slidertick on those diffs would help beginners at reading sliders with different length
2. i think you should rename easy to normal and normal to advanced, because easy diff patterns look a lot like normal diff hmm but there snapping-wise they are named corrctly
3. why not just make a good cs spread? 2 2.2 2.4 3.5 4 isnt good imo why these numbers should be linear?
   
   insane
   
4. 00:06:073 (2) -, 00:24:358 (2) -, 00:28:930 (2) -, 00:33:501 (2) - i think you should curve this like 00:10:644 (2) - and 00:15:216 (2) - , curve fits better than sharp angle imo but i really want to make some variety ;;
5. 00:41:216 (1,2,1,2) - this pattern could potentially be hard to read, because before this there are no stacks like this i agree but im fine with this
6. 00:52:644 (2) - this sound is pretty major, should be spaced further imo and nc in this section i follow high-pitched synth only, while making space emphasize to snare, wanna keep it consistent
7. 00:56:644 (1,1) - i think circle + 1/2 slider works better like so, also remove nc from first (1) same as above
8. 01:34:930 (1) - maybe a stream here? sliders feel kinda dull hm, difficulty spike in such a calm section? i don't think thats a good idea
   tbh good diff, i dont like the aesthetics but its your style i guess
   
   easy
   
9. consider checking the general comments
10. tone down the repeat sliders a bit? there seems to be way too many of them imo don't see a problem with it
11. 00:35:501 (4,5,1) -, 00:44:644 (5,6,1) -, 00:53:786 (5,6,1) - kinda hard to read/hit, consider changing (1) to a slider in all of these, atleast the first one hm, but why is it hard to read tho, time-distance equality thing should work

couldnt find much, good set. Thanks!
gl You too

Namki wrote:

[Easy]

1. 00:08:072 (6,1) - / 00:17:215 (6,1) - / 00:40:072 (6,1) - и так далее — попробуй сделать флоу помягче, чтоб оно было более круговое, что ли. Изик же, эти прямые углы не очень хорошо смотрятся и играются. мне лично нравится как они выглядят, а в понятие "флоу" на лоу дифах я не верю
2. 00:13:501 (6,1,2) - вот такого рода паттерны не рекомендуется использовать, потому что очень много надо кликать и новички могут очень легко такое дело мисриднуть. Лучше сделать реверс или 3/1 слайдер. 1/1 гапы же, и вести практически ничего никуда не надо, пускай учатся, а то вот не встретятся со сложностями в начале, а потом ничего сложнее хиторигото или хаитая сыграть не смогут потому что читать не научились
3. 00:27:501 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - слишком много последовательных кругов, ты действительно думаешь, что это нормально играется, если ты новичок? Бтв очень резко меняешь ритмику так, трек не меняется и ничто не говорит об этом, странно. Просто вариации. Ну на самом деле подумаю чтобы сделать их более балансными, почаще чередовать, а не так редко. Вообще, новичкам же слайдеры тяжелее играть чем кружки
4. 00:36:358 (5,1) - еще мне не нравятся такие штуки, если делать изик, то делать его прям очень-очень легким, а это уже нестандартный ритм и паттерн, который ты показываешь пару раз в карте, что ли. ну "тайм-дистанс экуолити" понятие же для этого и существует - чтобы новички видели визуальную разницу между временными промежутками, и мне кажется эта дифа является оч хорошей тренировкой для этого т.к. тут достаточно разных временных гапов которые оч отличаются визуально
5. 01:17:786 (1) - / 01:22:358 (1) - / 01:26:929 (1) - / 01:31:501 (1) - можешь сказать мне, чем они отличаются от 01:34:929 (1) - ? Конечно можешь, это же очевидно, ты даже последний слайдер выделил шейпом отдельным, но почему ты не сайленсишь слайдертики тогда? Там же нет эти звуков во время того, как идет слайдерболл. действительно

[Normal]

1. 00:05:501 (3,4,1,2,3) - я не считаю это подходящим паттерном для нормала. Объясняю. 00:05:501 (3,4) - стаки вообще не очень приветствуются в лоу диффах, а тут сразу двойной. это ведь не самая низкая сложность в мапсете, комплексность нормала это причина по которой я сделал изик. По сути, по рк такое должно допускаться - это просто 1/2 гапы, хоть и 210 бпм, кружками я подчеркиваю то, что там еще как бы 1/4 звуки, обрезанная версия стрима, так сказать Мне не нравится, что два разных звука выделяются одним и тем же 00:06:644 (3,1) - . Если спрашивать мое мнени, то я бы сделал как-то так. Понимаю, но другого варианта я не вижу. В твоем примере ты оставляешь даунбиту конец слайдера, я подобные вещи оч не приветствую, тем более когда даунбит супер-очевидный
   *пример*
   Это не очень нарушает твою задумку, просто убрал парочку кликов и чуть-чуть андермапнул, чтоб лучше фитало под нормал. Предлагаю еще использовать побольше 00:08:072 (1,2,3) - такого.
2. Это, в принципе, всё, что мне сильно не понравилось. НО я бы перекроил всю диффу, слишком она получилась у тебя интенсивной. Я б понизил денсити снаппинга и увеличил спейсинг, чтоб не сильно ср просел Имеет место быть, но скорее всего я просто бафну изик, назову его нормалом, а это адвансд будет, если прям совсем не покатит. Просто сейчас я вижу смысл в своем ризонинге и хочу оставить как есть

[Hard]

1. 00:44:358 - штука кликабельная должна быть. Тут тоже 00:48:929 - , а то пустовато как-то, сильный слишком звук. Оч хочу в этой секции фоловить синт. Трек весьма однообразен, и поэтому в секции, которая чем-то отличается от всего остального, я хочу четко показывать различие
2. 00:58:358 (1,2,3,1) - оч. экстримально. Это не паттерн для харда. В лайт инсе уже лучше, но всё равно даже там это смотрится сложновато. рааазве? я уверен что видел подобные штуки в хардах, тупо 4 раза кнопку зажать же
3. 01:35:786 (1) - а попробуй заменить его на спиннер до 01:36:786 - . Вроде ниче так. я был бы не прочь, но многие люди ругались, что то, что идет после 01:36:072 - практически не слышно

[Hyper]

1. Такое дело, что у в начале нового такта после двух 1/2 ударов идет паттерн из курва с белым и красными якорями, и вот мувемент с первого слайдера на второй у тебя идет круговое или с удобным углом. Пример: 00:23:216 (3,4) - / 00:25:501 (3,4) - / 00:28:930 (3,4) - круговое флоу. 00:27:787 (3,4) - удобное флоу с оптимальным углом ну и так далее, думаю, понял меня. 00:32:358 (3,4) - но вот тут ты ломаешь флоу и структуру, первый слайдер идет круто, но вот второй всё делает плохо, получается переход на 00:32:644 (4) - идет неудобно, приходится очень сильно уводить курсор в обратную сторону. Со стороны игрока это не очень удобно (лично я такое играю хорошо, но структура там все дела, понимаешь.). 00:33:501 (3,4) - похожий паттерн, но тут из-за абузинг слайдер лениенси, он не доводится до конца, поэтому и играется это куда лучше.
   00:34:644 (3,4) - а вот тут то же самое.
2. 00:38:644 (5,6,1,2) - смысл в том, что ты не делал 00:38:930 (1,2) - в линию с 00:38:644 (5,6) - этими до этого. Тут ты, например, сделал джамп 00:29:501 (5,6,1,2) - , а тут 00:24:930 (5,6,1,2) - треугольник. Предлагаю подвинуть 00:38:930 (1,2) - просто направо к правой второе головы слайдера, ну то есть, сделать джампик, чтоб тот один джамп не выглядел одиноко в этом парте.
3. 00:41:216 (1,2,3) - этот 90 процентный угол выглядит настолько вне контекста диффы, насколько это вообще реально, тут либо треугольник равносторонний, либо линейное флоу.
4. 01:26:787 (4,1) - стак сломал.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Супер интересная диффа, мне даже понравилось модить это. ыыы, а мое не понравилось модить((((((

[Insane]

1. 00:06:644 (4,5,1,2,3) - скучно. У тебя же настолько интересный трек с кучей всего в нем. Попробуй вот что. 00:06:930 (1,2,3) - поверни на 15 градусов против часовой стрелки и подвинь влево, чтоб 00:06:787 (5,1) - был джампик. Красивый флоу прям под карту! Что думаешь? У меня тут все очень жестко со спейсингом, джампы я делаю исключительно к снейру. Если применить твою задумку, то пришлось бы переделывать все и карта была бы совершенно другой. У меня же тут всякие виды эмпхасиза - читалка, формы, флоу, св, недостаточно что ли?(
2. 00:11:216 (4) - ?
3. Алсо, мне не очень понятно, почему ты одинаково выделяешь 00:12:358 (5,6,1,2) - и подобные. У тебя настолько много вариантов, как можно замапать этот момент, а ты выбрал наискучнейший. Ладно стаки, но со спейсингом ты просто обязан поиграть. Если бы я поигрался со спейсингом, то контраст к джампам был бы нулевый
4. Вообще, ничего критического я не нашел, но мне показалась ну слишком скучной. Этот одинаковый спейсинг как в 2011 году, обычные углы между паттернами. Я бы очень хотел увидеть тут интересный спейсинг, например, сейчас ты выделяешь большим спейсингом вот этот звук 00:05:216 - , всё понятно, но там же есть не только он! Можно выделять новые такты, например, тут 00:11:501 - , или 00:15:787 (4,5) - в такте там всего два таких звука, почему не выделить их? Ну буду всё исписывать, но я надеюсь ты понял мою идею — спейсинг требует доработки как по мне. Я понимаю твою задумку, но моя мысль заключается в том, что из-за частых вариаций с ним теряется контраст. Кроме того, спейсинг далеко не единственный способ эмпхасиза, и кроме него в карте достаточно штук имо, которые выделяют отдельные моменты в музыке. Консистентный спесинг - это просто мой выбор, с ним мне легче структурировать свою карту, в ней гораздо меньше рандомностей которые я не очень люблю (ну по крайней мере не очень люблю, когда сам их делаю)

гл Спасибо большое. Извини что много отшил, но тем не менее считаю полезным посмотреть на свою карту с другой перспективы

ShiiTsuin wrote:

o/
tMb's Hyper
Generally good use of the play area, though the large circles and lack of spacing makes the map feel a little cramped >~<
00:16:072 (3,4) - These guys kinda overlap with 00:17:216 (1) in the editor :/ ✖ - I think, this overlap isn't so wrong.
00:18:644 (3) - Very slight overlap with 00:19:787 (3) . ✔ - I tried to do it better than I could. And there is no overlap, if you turn "Hit animation" on.
00:22:930 (1,2) - Not blanketed particularly well by 00:23:501 (4) . ✔ - Yes, changed.
00:42:644 (3,4,5,6,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Like the overall triangle pattern, don't like the amount of overlapping, even if it's done intentionally. ✔ - ^

Really like how this is made, visually appealing patterns along with consistency make it one of the nicer looking maps I've played. I would have maybe like to have seen a bit more spacing or more experimentation with spacing, but what you've got is fine

Good luck getting this ranked!

-Faded- wrote:

Hey, m4m from #modreqs
[TMb's Hyper]

1. 00:52:787 (2,2,2) - The stacking on the sliderends are very slightly off. Minor, but fixing this will make the pattern look nicer.
2. 01:29:216 (1,2) - These notes are a bit close to the edge of the screen. Not directly off, but I'd still move it up to be safe.

Very clean map across all difficulties, I like it. Good luck ~

July - San wrote:

Hii From mod req!
M4M

tMb's Hyper

01:33:072 (2) - (Make something like this.) ✖ - I want to make this circle clickable. And I hate revers sliders



01:21:644 (2,3) - (This too) ✖ - ^

Okay That's all, for me..

Hey Dude! Perfect Map! Good luck !

Namki wrote:

[Hyper]

1. Такое дело, что у в начале нового такта после двух 1/2 ударов идет паттерн из курва с белым и красными якорями, и вот мувемент с первого слайдера на второй у тебя идет круговое или с удобным углом. Пример: 00:23:216 (3,4) - / 00:25:501 (3,4) - / 00:28:930 (3,4) - круговое флоу. 00:27:787 (3,4) - удобное флоу с оптимальным углом ну и так далее, думаю, понял меня. 00:32:358 (3,4) - но вот тут ты ломаешь флоу и структуру, первый слайдер идет круто, но вот второй всё делает плохо, получается переход на 00:32:644 (4) - идет неудобно, приходится очень сильно уводить курсор в обратную сторону. Со стороны игрока это не очень удобно (лично я такое играю хорошо, но структура там все дела, понимаешь.). 00:33:501 (3,4) - похожий паттерн, но тут из-за абузинг слайдер лениенси, он не доводится до конца, поэтому и играется это куда лучше.
   00:34:644 (3,4) - а вот тут то же самое.
2. 00:38:644 (5,6,1,2) - смысл в том, что ты не делал 00:38:930 (1,2) - в линию с 00:38:644 (5,6) - этими до этого. Тут ты, например, сделал джамп 00:29:501 (5,6,1,2) - , а тут 00:24:930 (5,6,1,2) - треугольник. Предлагаю подвинуть 00:38:930 (1,2) - просто направо к правой второе головы слайдера, ну то есть, сделать джампик, чтоб тот один джамп не выглядел одиноко в этом парте.
3. 00:41:216 (1,2,3) - этот 90 процентный угол выглядит настолько вне контекста диффы, насколько это вообще реально, тут либо треугольник равносторонний, либо линейное флоу.
4. 01:26:787 (4,1) - стак сломал.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Супер интересная диффа, мне даже понравилось модить это.

гл

Yamicchi wrote:

#modreqs M4M
[Easy]
• 00:40:072 (6,1) - Usually you don't make objects flow this rough. It's good for rhythm transition but not if you only make it once i don't think its that rough cause spacing between these objects is extremely small, they even overlap each other drastically
[Normal]
• There's a pretty big gap between Easy and Normal, and I think it's because of these 00:05:501 (3,4,1) - patterns. As of 210bpm, I wouldn't recommend having these in Normal. You can replace them with a 1/2 slider, that way Normal wouldn't be too hard uh, yeah, i should do something with spread :c
• 00:27:786 (2,3) - with the autostack, the blanket looks pretty bad. I would suggest blanketing these 2 instead of 00:27:786 (2,1) - i actually blanketed 2 and 1 though
• 00:58:358 (1,2,3,4) - to seperate these from 00:58:072 (3) - and also to reduce the amount of 1/2 train, how about making 00:58:072 (3) - a circle? i don't think that this train of 1/2 gaps is that long though
• Why do you have those breaks in Normal but not Easy though? true
[Hard]
• 00:06:929 (1) - is this overlap intentional? ? o.o
• 00:59:215 (1) - This is really unexpected as people would hardly know what beat this slider is, firstly because of the NC and secondly because the overlap is big and this is the first and only time when it appears in the map, why don't you just make it a 3/4 slider or something? i don't think its difficult to read, every click is on the white tick
• 01:22:358 (1) - 01:26:929 (1) - ... Edgy slidershape to represent the different sound maybe? nah, these are too bulky to slidershapes that i want on them, would look bad
[Insane]
• 00:07:501 (4) - There's nothing much in the sliderstart, so why is the spacing so big though? It's pretty much too big compare to other similar patterns you have these are just sliders so i think this spacing is not that critical and i duuno how to fix it properly without breaking everything
• 00:08:073 (1,2) - While here, you have (2) a specific sound but the spacing shows the opposite i'm emphasizing snare only with space
• 00:10:644 (2) - Gotta say I like the previous shape more xd this one looks bad i like it :c
• 00:12:358 (5,6,1,2,3,4) - every pair of stacks represent different sound, I don't think stacking them the same like this is a good idea. Anything better? uh, every pair sounds pretty stack-ish to me, sometimes i make variations, but i think this way is pretty okay too
• 00:30:644 (4,5,1,2,3,4) - Same goes
• 00:14:930 (1,2) - Flow is linear and spacing is small, not quite a good way to represent the sound on (2). i'll probably change later, if someone else mentions it
• 01:34:930 (1) - Hmmm, why not having kicksliders or stream here? would be too intense for calm part of the song

DeviousPanda wrote:

hi o/// m4m with this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/674092

I really like this mapset, goodluck with pushing this forward! Thanks a lot!

*im not that good with modding easier difficulties, but i hope the suggestions there are still good

Insane:

*im going to focus mainly on minor improvements and subjective issues i have, because this diff is already at a rankable standard imo

1. 00:05:787 (1) - small visual suggestion: make this the same curve as this 00:05:216 (4) - right now they look like this:
   if i made them the same, there won't be a blanket
2. 00:06:358 (3,4,5) - the emphasis used here (as shown by the whistle hitsound on this note 00:06:358 (3) - ) is weak imo because it follows the same linear path, try something like this for more impact: this flow seems pretty random to, i like how it is atm
   
3. 00:08:501 (3) - the use of a slider here feels off, both the red and white tick have the same sound, so mapping it with a slider doesnt sound right imo, i suggest changing this ti two circles uh, but they are not the same, there is kind of *whoosh* sound on 3, thats why it is a slider
4. 00:10:644 (2) - 00:15:216 (2) - 00:19:787 (2) - 00:24:358 (2) - 00:28:930 (2) - 00:33:501 (2) - 00:38:073 (2) - 01:00:930 (2) - 01:05:501 (2) - 01:10:073 (2) - 01:14:644 (2) - i get what your doing with this sound throughout the song, but all of these sliders are inconsistent shapes, i suggest making these all the same shape and maybe something sharper to show the emphasis you have on these sounds like this:
   inconsitent shapes are intended, if i made them all the same, then it would feel way too repetitive
5. 00:13:073 (4) - same as 00:08:501 (3) - this is used throughout the map, so if you do change this make sure to do it on all of them
6. 00:08:930 (5) - same thing about use of changing direction for emphasis as 00:06:358 (3,4,5) - (youve dont it good here 00:13:358 (5,6) - )
7. 00:45:358 (4) - this staight line looks a bit bad imo, maybe change it to this:
   but i like it :c
8. 00:56:358 (3) - this slider looks baaad, the curve is too curvy that's intended, i don't think it looks bad :c
9. 01:17:787 (1,2,3) - maybe change these rhythms to this:
   this just sounds better, and when i played through this this note 01:18:501 (3) - through me off current rhythm makes more sense to me cause all notes have same kind of emphasize
10. 01:22:358 (1) - 01:26:930 (1) - 01:31:501 (1) - can you make these shapes consistent because its the same sound variety \o/

tMb's Hyper
wow this diff is really clean, not much i can say about it tbh but ill try
01:09:787 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - this difficulty spike seems unnesecary

teaMblack19 wrote:

I think there is nothing unusual here. I have similar pattern at 00:14:929 (1,2,3,4,5,6)

thats reall all i can see on this map, great job making this

Hard:

1. your use of "triples" 00:07:786 (4,5,1) - and your use of "doubles" 00:08:358 (2,3) - is really confusing to play, because they both look the same so maybe dont stack 00:07:786 (4,5) - (this happens troughout the map too) how is it confusing almost all gaps are the same - 1/2 o.o
2. 01:04:644 (3) - this looks ugly imo, maybe try this: why is it ugly? :c
   
3. 01:22:358 (1) - 01:26:929 (1) - 01:31:501 (1) - maybe put a red anchor on all of these to differentiate the special sound like you did in the insane maybe later. sharp shape doesn't seem appropriate

Normal

1. 00:06:644 (3) - can you make this two circles to be consistent with 00:05:501 (3,4) - because newer players will get confused by the different mapping here (this happens throughout the map so if you change it change them all) i'll just change "triples" to sliders to fix spread also. circles were to 1/4 sounds tho, immitation of stream
2. 00:08:072 (1,2,3,4) - i know this fits perfectly it just seems like the diferent rhythm will catch some players out here but thats the point.
   rhythm in music changes = rhythm in the map changes
3. 01:17:786 (1) - these should all end on the previous red tick imo sounds good
   yea looks cool

Easy:

1. 00:12:644 (5) - bad use of rhythmn, just extend it out to the white tick (again this happens throughout the map) i can clearly hear strong sound on redw tick

i hope the long mod on the insane makes up for the small ones on the other diffs long mod <> good mod

gl with rank Thanks

FruityEnLoops wrote:

quick mod for Insane, no kd


00:10:644 (2) - 00:15:216 (2) - 00:19:787 (2) - 00:24:358 (2) - 00:28:930 (2) - 00:33:501 (2) - 00:38:073 (2) - 00:47:216 (3) - 00:51:787 (3) - 00:56:358 (3) - 01:00:930 (2) - 01:10:073 (2) - 01:14:644 (2) - all these emphasize the same sound, yet they don't use the same shape. i'd suggest using the same shape to add consistency to the map using the same shape would be really boring, i made them different intentionally, to create some varriety while visually emphasizing this sound

01:35:787 (1) - maybe getting a special hitsound for this? idk, just feels off to have the same hitsounds as 01:34:930 (1) - while they are completely different hm, theres whistle on this thing tho. i don't have any idea what hs should i use tbh

ViolentBoo wrote:

Easy:
00:13:786 (1,4) - I know these sliders are very similar but I think you should copy and paste then rotate regardless for extra neatness.
00:22:929 (1,3) - ^
00:32:072 (1,3) - ^ i don't really see any point in doing so if its not noticable in-game
00:35:501 (4) - I feel like this is ALMOST out of bounds, I would like it moved but since it's not I guess it's fine. oh, it actually touches then end of the screen, fixed
00:58:358 (6) - I was second guessing myself on why you chose to have the slider tick rate on 2 until i saw this slider and I was like WOAH nice. thats not the only reason, also i want to make sliders with different length visually different from each other
Normal:
----
Hard:
---
Hyper:
Ctrl shift A, objects arn't snapped. fixed
Insane:
00:06:073 (2) - With these sliders (that represent that specific sound) I feel like each on each slider should either be an angled slider or a curved for each 16 measurements. For example 00:04:644 (1) through 00:22:930 (1) could be angled and 00:22:930 (1) through 00:41:216 (1) could be curved. (Although it's a pretty minor thing and it's fine the way it is, but it's what I would have done if I was mapping this.) yeah, i didn't go much into numbers here, i think its fine the way it is now

VERY fun map. Really hope it get's ranked. Me too lol Really neat too. Thanks for mod!

Frostmourne wrote:

General
Besides difficulty gap between Easy, Normal and Hard, the mapset looks good.

Easy
perfect imo

Normal
It could be too hard for Normal and be having a problem for difficulty gap between Easy and Normal.
Consider making a new diff between Easy and Normal, or you could lower your SV, AR, object placements(removing some such as circles after slider like 00:49:501 (2) - 00:54:072 (2) - and so on) but that requires re-doing the whole map to adjust SV correctly. i think spread is fine as it is currently. easy - 1/1, 3/2, 2/1 gaps, normal - 1/2, 1/1 gaps, hard - 1/2 gaps + jumps (i don't count extended slliders as 1/4 gaps)

Hard
00:17:929 (4,5) - unexpectedly long jump for being in a Hard diff
00:40:786 (4,5) - ^
01:12:786 (4,5) - i don't see anything inherently wrong with jumps in this difficulty cause they appear not that often and they don't create jump chains
01:18:215 (2,3) - the whole map was continuous until this gap is surprisingly breaking it. Considering re-making it to a repeat slider unless you would like to keep stop-hitting concept like you have done to the rest hm, i'll think about it

SPOILER

If you did above here, consider remaking the rest of the map too for consistency.
Also it is harder from Normal one and could have difficulty gap. Consider removing some big jumps in Hard.

tMb's Hyper
fine

Insane
fine

Naxess wrote:

Greetings,

just some pointers

• [Insane]

1. 00:07:216 (3) - Use ctrlg here and move it closer to the stack for consistency with 00:16:073 (1,2,3) - 00:20:644 (1,2,3) - 00:25:216 (1,2,3) - , then ctrlg 00:07:501 (4) - as well so flow is accounted for in changing it. Even 00:11:501 (1,2,3) - is going backwards in a way but 00:07:216 (3) - is currently the only one going away from the stack like this here. There's also another later at 00:38:930 (1,2,3) - , so could do the same there. i don't think that its a big issue, "slider into stack"-thing is just something that I use sometimes, it doesn't affect gameplay that much + i don't have this thing in the next similar section here 00:11:501 (1,2,3) -
   
2. 00:13:787 (1) - Suddenly making this a slider after the same sounds were reflected as two circles previously, 00:04:644 (1,2) - 00:09:216 (1,2) - , seems a bit inconsistent. Makes it seem like something is different here and that it's similar to that of 00:14:073 (2) - , despite the tails having completely different sounds, 00:13:930 - 00:14:216 - . Would suggest making this two circles like previously for consistency. Refer to 00:18:358 (1,2) - , which comes after, for instance. made first 2 circles here 00:04:644 - a slider instead - for "consistent variety" (cause I use "slider - 2 circles" variation for same instances in this 00:59:501 - section)
   
3. 00:14:644 (4,5) - Similarly to above, you did streams for these twice already, 00:05:573 (5,6,7) - 00:10:144 (5,6,7) - , so the player will likely be expecting that here as well. Anything breaking expectation generally provides emphasis, often done when the song changes in accordance to that change in the map, but nothing actually changes here so such a drastic change seems quite unwarranted. Either have this switch places with 00:10:144 (5,6,7) - as to vary it consistently where every other one is the same, or just make all of them streams. For actually consistent variation, refer to how you did it at 00:23:859 (5,6,7) - 00:28:358 (4,5) - 00:33:002 (4,5,6) - 00:37:501 (5,6) - . Applies to 00:19:216 (5,6) - and the others as well. at this point just 15 seconds of drain time passed + i don't think it would be that sudden for player at this skill level
   
4. 00:22:930 - Making this somehow different from the previous section would help highlight that the background melody is gone here. In general it seems calmer so perhaps reducing spacing more would help convey that feeling in the map as well. Could even change some rhythms to reflect it, like making 00:23:859 (5,6,7) - repeat sliders instead, to make it less intense than the previous section. i think -15% sv does great job + 2 circles in the beginning of each musical square (is that how this called? i meant "each 4 measures") are stacked, so less movement in general + modding assistant difficulty strains picture tells that this section is noticeably less intense than previous
   
5. 00:29:787 (1) - This should probably be two circles with a slider going towards it as mentioned in the first point about 00:25:216 (1,2,3) - 00:16:073 (1,2,3) - 00:06:930 (1,2,3) - etc. Suddenly using a slider doesn't make much sense since it'd make it too similar to 00:30:073 (2,3) - , which don't have distinct tails like 00:29:930 - does. definitely
   
6. 00:38:644 (4) - This should be two circles according to the pattern of 00:24:930 (4) - 00:29:501 (4,5) - 00:34:073 (4) - , since it comes after that last one. Doing a slider here may make sliders feel too prominent and would also make it seem different in gameplay to earlier parts, even though it's the same in the song for this section. yup, made more consistent variety
   
7. Just note that a lot of the above applies to 00:59:501 - as well. i made things so they feel overall more consistent i guess
   
8. 00:42:930 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - This part isn't actually grouped in 3, since 00:43:501 (2,3) - have drums unlike the others, and 00:43:216 (3,1) - are the same sounds. As such, placing a new combo at 00:43:358 - doesn't make much sense, and neither does it being a triangle like this. Would try stacking 00:43:216 (3,1) - and then rearranging the others. Something along the lines of 00:45:787 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - but without the jump. Same goes for 00:52:073 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - . i don't care about drums here (except snare, spacing too snare is consistent throughout the whole difficulty). 00:41:216 - at this point comes major change in music - high-pitched synth. from this point way of comboing and patterning changes in order to emphasize it. i chose this way because the whole track is pretty repetitive and I emphasize everything that stands out. so, as to this instance - listen to synth only - 00:42:930 (1,2,3) - these notes are the same as 00:43:358 (1,2,3) - these. 00:45:787 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - as for these, someone suggested to change nc here, i tried it and didn't really like and accidently saved the change. so yeah, swapped (4) and (1)
   
9. 00:44:930 (2,3,4,5) - Seems strange when comparing to 00:40:358 (3,4) - . 00:44:930 (2) - has pretty distinct sounds so not mapping them actively but then doing so for 00:45:216 (3) - , which is much weaker, doesn't seem right. Would swap the rhythm of 00:44:930 (2,3) - , possibly stacking the circle on the slider head, for example like this. yup, made something similar to your suggestion
   
10. 00:48:073 (2) - Having both this and 00:47:644 (2) - be represented in the same way would miss 00:48:073 (2) - having drums on it, so something along the lines of this rhythm, would probably reflect that better. again - making these things different would make less emphasize to high-pitched synth => less contrast of section with it and without it
    
11. 00:56:644 (1,1) - Having this many repeats in the second part of this section but none in the first seems pretty strange. 00:54:073 (3) - was fine by itself but along with these it becomes a bit too frequent. 00:57:073 (1) - also has drums on he last two edges unlike 00:56:644 (1) - so mapping them in the same way would be a bit misleading. Better to just do it like 00:47:501 (1,2,1,2) - , however it looks after the above point. okay, made slider + circle

btw the Easy -> Normal spread gap is pretty noticeable in that Easy didn't have a single 1/2 gap, while Normal uses them very frequently; in almost every combo consecutively. It does have 1/1 gaps, but 1/2 is much more common, so probably something you'd want to look into. Refer to the guidelines for difficulty levels here. In general sliders with 1/2 gaps are actually harder for newer players than circles with the same gap, something which changes as you get better at the game. okie, i guess i'll buff easy with some 1/2 so this gap won't be this big

also 00:59:215 (1) - in Hard uses 1/6 snapping while Hyper and Insane instead use 1/8, would make the one in Hard 1/8 as well. fixed

Thank you for modding!

Xayler wrote:

Hey, from my queue! Would be appreciated with a M4M.

Insane
00:19:216 (5,6,1) - This kind of movement is pretty harsh imo, considering that this is 210 bpm as well. I'd ctrl+g at least the 2nd kick and rotate the kicks a bit for better movement.
00:37:501 (5,6,1) - ^
00:42:073 (1,2,1) - ^ etc and so on. I don't see any problem with it, i think it represents sounds nicely
00:56:644 (1,1) - The 2nd slider is pretty much not noticable really at the first glance, I'd make it a bit more seen so increase the spacing there. I think current spacing is enough to make it readable

Hard
00:58:358 (1,2,3,1,1) - These sliders are pretty bad to read since there isn't really much room for them. I'd extend 2 sliders here and remove 2 sliders (1/8 is pretty harsh also in Hard) for better readability. i just spread them out a bit

Normal
As relating to the mod above, I suggest to make some 1/1 repeat sliders or 2/1 sliders during the first part before the break times. It's quite tense with that constant 1/1 and 1/2 sliders so it could make a lot of confusion as the song pretty much repeats itself all the time. we discussed spread issue and Naxess said that buffing easy is a decent idea

Easy
Just as Normal, but I'd highly recommend you to use only 1/1 sliders in Easy. 1/2 sliders at 210 bpm is like you're using 1/4 sliders at 105 bpm, even if the song supports it, just leaving it unmapped will make it easier to play for most of beginners. High bpm is very harsh for beginners. i don't have any problem with easy having 1/2 slider, even though, if nominating bn finds this as an issue, I'd rename easy as "normal" and normal as "advanced"

The rest seems fine, modding some aesthetic things would be also possible in Insane, but I feel like it's not needed. Good luck with the set! Thank you, I'll get to your map soon
Posting the map just in case: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/677685

Bubblun wrote:

m4m from my queue

Besides some ranking criteria stuff, I think this map is really well done. I love the stucture style (Especially in the Insane) It's hard to make sliders with different curves fit together well, so it's really interesting to see a relatively new mapper create something with such a varied structure. For my mod I'm going to be helping out with the criteria, and pointing out some minor details you may or may not care about, okay? okie

Metadata

Nice Kurzgat style bg I don't know what Kurzgat style is D:

I found Kola Kid's bandcamp and Soundcloud (His 'Website' led me to a screamer and that really pissed me off) but anyways, the 'Earth' in the title is lowercase. As seen here. Don't worry, it's not his screamer I mentioned xpp tbh i think title with "e" uppercase looks much better and makes more sense, but if other metadata experts will tell me to make it lowercase, i will :c


Insane

00:05:216 (3,4,5,6,1) - Looked really good. Didn't think to lead into the upcoming note like this, but I love how the slider bodies blanket each other this way.

00:28:358 (4,5) - Love how 4 blankets 1 while still being a little further off in the timeline. that.. wasn't intended xD I don't try to make these kind of aesthetics because its only noticeable in the editor, and even not by everyone That's some depth in your aesthetics! I think the placement of 5 could be slightly adjusted to have those aesthetics, as your visual style seems based around how players play sliders and how curves look around other curves, which I think is really interesting as a mapper myself who tends to use a more simplified structure based on parallelism and alignment. I tried moving 5, but didn't think it was curved enough to do a blanket or to try and replicate your slider patterns, so I instead copied 4 and rotated to make https://puu.sh/yfSp8/1f5a87619a.png i find 00:28:358 (4,5,1) - this pattern more recognisable and appealing

00:42:644 - I love how you contrast this section from the rest of the song with your use of overlaps. Really keeps the map engaging and gives more variety, which I thought was creative. Thanks! That was my idea for this section and I'm glad someone appreciated it

Love the visual ideas and innovative gameplay. AR seemed a bit high, but I thought the map as really fun. The structure style reminds me a lot of tyui, who is known for his innovative patterns and concepts. I think the AR is better at 9, as the patterns were a bit easier to read, but it's really up to you, as there's no rule to what AR is considered acceptable. I'd be glad to make oldschool-ish 9 ar, but i think it would be too uncomfortable at 210 bpm


tMB's Hyper

00:33:787 (4) - Like how you contrast the downbeat from the rest of the 1/2 with an anchored slider. I usually don't find this concept interesting as a lot of mappers overuse this idea and create uninteresting visuals, but for the case of a 1/2-heavy low-difficulty it's interesting here as there's less room for creativity.

00:46:929 - Interesting take on this section of the song. I like how instead of staying consistent with the rhythm you intentionally mix it up to create an engaging experience. Love the variety in the mapset in general. gj

Not much to say about this diff, I say it's pretty solid.


Hard

Another solid diff. Really clean and well-spaced.

Easy and Normal both looked clean af, so gj xddd


Final point I'd like to address is the spread. I love how all the diffs roughly increase by '1' it's very tidy and to-the-point. I think the gap from Normal to Hard doesn't follow your spread though, as the jump in AR and OD is roughly 3. Not to mention the 1.2* difference between the 2 diffs compared to Hard>Hyper>Insane is roughly .7 i think making linear sr graduation is hell of a task to do and there is no even much reason to make it,
cause the idea of a spread is to make all players be able to enjoy their favourite song in the game, and I think current spread does the job quite well

The easiest fix here to me would be to map an Advanced diff, as that 3 stat difference can be balanced into a rough 1 stat difference by one diff. Besides that, the rest of the map is golden. gl for ranking!

peace Thanks a lot for kind words, really appreciate it. I'll get to your map soon

6th wrote:

Hey!

[Easy]
Woah this is an Easy ? xD I bet that any new player wouldn't get more than 70% on it. I think it is way too dense and too fast, actually I don't get how the SR can be that low. Keep in mind that an Easy diff could be the difficulty a player begins on osu! with. Needs remapping imo. Maybe avoid using 1/2 when the BPM is that fast (or even 1/1), also keep DS high enough to avoid notes to overlap between them. Okay, I'll rename diffs

[Normal]
00:32:358 (2,3) - Slider's leniency seems to ruin the flow a bit. I think that players will probably hit (3) earlier than they should because of that, to avoid it you may want to move (3) down. Okie

[Hard]
00:06:929 (1,2,3) - Forcing the player to hold (2) to play the pattern correctly makes it lack of movement. Maybe use CTRL+G for (2). i doesn't force player to hold 2
00:22:644 (5,1) - Minor, but spacing should be visually higher to have it consistent. at this place spacing changes, and visual spacing too
01:03:644 (4,5) - Spacing variation is too big here, it will surprise hard players. The linear flow makes it even harder to play btw. i like how it looks and i believe it plays well too
01:17:786 (1,2,3) - Considering (1) is "extended", players may think (3) is on white click. You shouldn't fully overlap circles with sliders to improve readability. I'll change it if will be mentioned more. I don't think that this causes readability issue though

[Hyper]
00:10:929 (4) - The flow is rather smooth along the map so that antiflow feels weird.
00:20:073 (4) - Lacks of spacing with (3), unconsistent with 00:20:930 (3,4) - and stuff

[Insane]
00:41:787 (2) - The stack is random and makes the pattern feel clustered, has no point here imo. You can get rid of it. in this section I use this thing to represent difference of the section from previous sections
00:45:787 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - This is confusing actually because you stack 00:46:216 (1) - with 00:46:073 (3) - but there 00:42:930 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - (1) is stacked with (1). It can trick players. These patterns look and play differently, its intended
00:48:358 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - same issue here, this unconsistency is really annoying while playing.
00:51:787 (3) - Use a weird shape like you used to do for that sound please (like 00:56:358 (3) - etc), so it is consistent. I want to have cute blanket here :c
00:59:501 - Why does SV increase here ? Is the song more intense than before ? Not really. its more intense imo, it has background malody which makes it sound differently

Good luck. You too

6th wrote:

i don't have any problem with easy having 1/2 slider, even though, if nominating bn finds this as an issue, I'd rename easy as "normal" and normal as "advanced"

By the way, this should not be the behaviour you want to have as a mapper tbh. If only BN's opinions are revelant then yeah just ask them to mod your map and don't make "random mappers" lose their time...

Uh, I think you took what I said too personally, I didn't want to offense anyone and I care about every opinion. The point is that such thing as "renaming difficulty" is really minor, its something I can change in a second. I'm sorry to make you feel like that, that wasn't my intention

Come[Back]Home wrote:

Easy it is gone :c

* 00:29:215 (4,5,6) - This seems kinda boring tbh, maybe replace (5) with a slider instead?
* 00:36:358 (5,1) - This is too confusing tbh, new players will click way too early cause two circles that close to each other look like you'll have to click faster. you should replace (1) with a slider instead. same here 00:45:501 (6,1) - 00:54:644 (6,1) -
* 01:34:929 (1) - how about you let this slider end here 01:35:501 - and place a circle at 01:35:786 - instead? fits way more the music and is a more fun way to end the map.

Normal

* 00:38:929 (1) - This one is almost out of the playfield which makes it look really weird fixed
* 00:40:072 (4) - This one is touching the hp bar fixed
* 00:42:358 (4) - almost at the same height as the hp bar but its not near it, so I think its ok
* 01:17:786 (1) - why doesnt this one end here 01:18:644 - ? really weird. same with the sliders after that I think it is better as it is now, in before it was like your suggestion, but one person suggested to end it earlier and I think that it is better cause now it ends on sound, which feels more natural imo

advanced

* 00:34:358 (1,2) - almost out of the screen. same here 00:39:215 (2) - but it is not offscreen. 4:3 resolution is also fine
* 01:01:501 (3,1) - almost touching the hp bar but hp bar is from the opposite side of the screen D:
* 01:17:786 (1) - same as in normal

Hard

* 00:22:501 (4,5) -this flows really bad, how about you move (5) a bit lower? makes it flow better 440/368 I think it is not that different from your suggestion + I like this kind of flow
* 00:59:215 (1) - I dont think 1/8 repeat sliders are allowed in Hards, I may be mistaken though hm, why not? they play just like those 1/4
* 01:08:215 (4,5) - this was somehow really uncomfortable to play, how about you move (5) a bit more to the right? kinda same as above, this is pattern which I use sometimes

Insane

some patterns are hard to read, but i guess its fine. reading challenge is intentional, I find it more fun to play this way good diff~ I hope that you meant it, thanks!

squirrelpascals wrote:

Hi, from queue!

do you have a metadata source for this?
insane

• 00:06:073 (2) - make this consistent with the aesthetic you used for 00:10:644 (2) - and 00:15:216 (2) - , etc? This is just a variation of slider shape for this sound that I use througout the whole difficulty. Didn't want to use just roundish because that would be too repetitive. There are plenty of angular sliders for same sounds

• 00:44:073 (2,1) - strange rhythm choice here, it would feel better to have a clickable rhythm on 00:44:358 - to go with the punchy, more aggressive sound. ctrl+g here would work for that well. same here 00:52:930 (1,2,1,2) - My main concern for this section is high-pitched synth which appears from 00:41:216 - , I don't care that much about other sounds

00:47:501 (1,2,1,2) - would sound better going slider, circle, slider, circle instead of the way you have it now because the stronger of these synth notes is at 00:47:787 - and 00:48:216 - To be honest, I don't hear how it is stronger :< + I think sounds in groups of 3 represented better if first and second one has stronger emphasize than third

• 00:54:216 - strong beat, feels weird to have just a reverse arrow over it Yup, made it just like other

Also changed some stuff for consistency: 00:53:787 - there were 2 circles, now a slider, 00:56:644 (1,2,1,2) - made circle-slider-circle-slider instead of slider-circle-sldier-circle + now looks neater

hard

pretty cool, we don't see many cs 2 hards loll

• 00:35:215 (4,1) - having stacking enabled makes these objects touch Fixed

• 00:38:072 (2,3) - this jump looks randomly big Nerfed a bit

• 00:42:929 (3) - i think a ctrl+g on this or replacing it somehow would make all of 00:42:644 (2,3,4) - less stressful to play and create a smoother flow between 00:42:929 (3,4,1) - Hm, but I don't think that its stressful to play, this reverse barely requires any movement

advanced

• 00:10:358 (4) - 00:16:072 (3) - nc here instead, because downbeat Yup

• 00:04:643 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - you repeat this rhythm throughout the entirety of this diff. This rhythm works well but it gets noticeable repetitive, you need to change it up a bit so it's not the same thing over and over.

The problem is you mapped to the loop that the song revolves around. Since this whole rhythm pattern lasts 4 downbeats, try doing something different every other set of 4 downbeats, if that makes sense. Also maybe take advantage of new instruments and when instruments start playing, like at 00:22:929 - 00:41:215 - Reduced density in section without background melody

That's really my only concern xp

normal looks fine
fixed rhythm issue on advanced diff and call me back Thank you for modding! I'll get to gd-guy and then contact you

Naotoshi wrote:

[insane]
00:05:787 (1) - tbh seems weird to have 2 drum finishes on same slider. tho i get why you did it, 00:07:787 (5,6) - you make them both clickable most of the other times. Didn't get the point of this tbh, timestamps lead to different sounds. In first case I use 2 cricles or a slider for variety, for second I use 2 stacked circles only

why do u switch from these curved sliders to red point ones? maybe it's better to keep them both the same to show a greater connection across the map with how you represent that sound. For variety, I think it works quite well. Otherwise roundish shape would be annoying imo

00:41:216 (1,2,1,2) - this rhythm seems subpar, 00:41:501 - there is that high pitched sound here and not 00:41:644 - . i think following that sound is better since it sticks out a lot more, it's quite noticeable compared to the background that you mapped. I mapped to those high-pitched sound actually, but I don't think that their pitch is the most important thing here, I emphasize repetitiveness of those sounds (00:41:216 - 00:41:358 - 00:41:501 - these note are the same as 00:41:644 - 00:41:787 - 00:41:930 - )

00:43:787 (1,2,1,2) - same here, 00:44:073 (2,1) - ctrl g on that seems nicer to me. Same as above, "1-2-3-1-2-3" idea
etc.

01:17:787 (1) - these sound weird because of the slider tick, i think ending on the white tick is better. even though you lose the held aspect having a tick there sounds quite strange Hm, I agree, but how do I fix this? :c Can I put 5% volume green lines on these ticks??

[hard]
tbh same issue with top diff here imo. you don't highlight the higher pitched melody in this 00:41:215 - and i think that detracts from the quality a lot since that is what makes this section unique from the others. But i do highlight it tho o.o Just look at those 1/2 reverses, there weren't a single one in previous sections

other than that the diff is ok

[adv]
definitely consider raising AR to 6-6.5 imo. combined with your heavy use of sliders the number of objects on the screen is quite high overall. stuff like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9605806 just seems way too dense for a lower diff like this. yeah, made 7

00:27:694 - how come the density drops so much in this section? Background melody is gone from 00:22:929 - so I think object density drop represents this very well

[normal]
ar 5 at least, maybe 5.5 or 6. note density on lower diffs needs to be lower so that they are easier to read. using reading as a challenge on higher diffs is ok but not on the lowest diff on a set. made ar 5.5, od 4.5, hp 4.5

theres a bunch of random spacing inconsistency / minor overlaps that look weird i guess I went through the diff and didn't notice any to be honest

or stuff like 01:16:644 (4,1) - lo adjusted a bit, it was pretty okay tho, i wouldn't notice in-game o.o

yea overall not too bad, but i dont like the sections where the melody is not highlighted since that is the only part of the song that sticks out to me. It's odd, because that actually was the thought I had in mind while making those sections - to represent that high-pitched melody starting from 00:41:216 - . In insane there are a lot of objects grouped by 3 and I made objects overlap to show that sounds are the samelet me know what you think Thanks for modding, I'll get to gd-guy and then contact you

Come[Back]Home wrote:

tMb's hyper

* 00:27:215 (5) - the pattern would look way better if this slider was the same as 00:26:358 (1) - I use a slider with a red anchor for each such sound.
* 00:42:644 (3,6) - too hard for a hyper imo, its too hard to read. same here 00:47:215 (3,6) - 00:51:786 (3,6) - 00:56:358 (3,6) It's alright I think. Besides, I did AR higher.
* 00:52:786 (2,2,2) - might be too hard because of readabiltiy, but if you stack them, pls stack the sliderends properly, it looks really weird right now Ok, I stacked the sliderends properly.
* 01:10:358 (4) - its touching the hp bar I'm not ready to sacrifice my structure for this.

squirrelpascals wrote:

Hi, from queue!
hyper

• 00:04:929 (3,4) - looks overspaced compared to 00:09:501 (3,4) - or 00:14:072 (3,4) Fixed.

• 00:19:787 (3,4) - this looks like it should actually be spaced more, compared to what you did at 00:15:215 (3,4) - or 00:10:644 (3,4) - Ok, changed.

• 00:38:787 (6,1) - looks like a pretty large jump here, in comparison to the rest of this section LOL, I didn't notice it. Fixed, of cours.

• 00:46:930 (1,2,3,4) - flows pretty awkwardly because of a very quick motion of jumping up toward the slider, following it down, and jumping up again. i think placing 00:47:073 (2) - somewhere above 1 would help solve this and create smoother flow between 00:46:930 (1,2,3) - . suggestion I like you suggestion, thanks. Changed.

• 00:51:644 (2,3) - dont you usually have a jump here? at places like 00:42:501 (2,3) - 00:47:073 (2,3) - Yap, fixed.

• 01:24:644 (1,2) - 01:28:501 (2,3) - 01:30:787 (2,3) - etc. - inconsistent with how you managed the same 1/2 gaps at 01:19:358 (2,3) - 01:20:073 (1,2) - 01:21:644 (2,3) - etc. would rather you just used one of these spacing choices These sliderends is not random. I use it to map BG sounds. I want to highlight it, but I don't want to make it clickable, so I use sliderends for this.
normal looks fine
fixed rhythm issue on advanced diff and call me back

Naotoshi wrote:

[tmb]
imo the ar should be a bit higher, the density is really high in some parts and it seems unfitting. like at 00:11:144 - there are 5 or 6 objects on the screen at the same time. Ok, AR 9 is alright I think.

or like 00:57:715 - where with all the staacking it just sort of becomes a massive cluster fuck of objects

01:19:501 - imo 1/1 slider here, or silence tail, sounds beetter. the extra hitnormal on the overmapped slider end sounds really out of place considering the song is slowing down in terms of density. (From the past reply ^) These sliderends is not random. I use it to map BG sounds. I want to highlight it, but I don't want to make it clickable, so I use sliderends for this.

good diff

yea overall not too bad, but i dont like the sections where the melody is not highlighted since that is the only part of the song that sticks out to me. let me know what you think