hi
no kudosu since I already got kudosu here
General
- free kds lmao.wav is a lie, it doesn't give me kudosu. It should be removed nevertheless.
- Guys why are you making NCs so complex, this is no standard map xD
AJamez's Salad
General: I think this diff is already quite good, but it has got still some problems with distinct usage of distance - there are quite a lot distances in this diff that are somewhere in between a clear walk and a clear dash that may cause problems to players with poor reading ability (which is to be expected from Salad players). There are also some inconsistencies as well as some emphasis choices that are questionable. I will try to point out as many potential issues as possible.
General: I think this diff is already quite good, but it has got still some problems with distinct usage of distance - there are quite a lot distances in this diff that are somewhere in between a clear walk and a clear dash that may cause problems to players with poor reading ability (which is to be expected from Salad players). There are also some inconsistencies as well as some emphasis choices that are questionable. I will try to point out as many potential issues as possible.
- 00:04:369 (1,2,3) - These ones could be spaced out a bit more since you used similar spacing for 00:07:446 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - even though the piano notes are far stronger at 00:04:369 (1,2,3) - .
- 00:08:985 (1,2) - two issues here: 1. As ZiRoX said, there are too many dashes in this diff and 2. the spacing here is kinda awkward since the distance is walkable but seemed to be meant as a dash. Since we are in a calm part of the song and the sound is not remarkable enough imo to justify a dash I suggest to make it a clear but still strong walk.
- 00:09:754 (2,3) - Reducing the distance here just a tiny but would help to make the walk more distinct.
- 00:12:831 (6,1) - Why is this no dash? Piano is getting all fired up here.
- 00:15:139 (3,4,5) - This is just ???? Lemme explain why:
- 00:13:600 (1) - , 00:14:369 (2) - and 00:15:908 (6) - are all 1/2 reverse sliders, only 00:15:139 (3,4,5) - are single notes which is inconsistent.
- 00:15:139 (3,4) - and 00:15:395 (4,5) - having different spacing is just ??? because the reverse sliders did always cause constant spacing for these triples which makes it here inconsistent and just unnecessary.
- 00:14:369 (2,3) - This distance is weird to play, it is an half-assed walk which is just awkward, especially because 00:15:139 (3) - is a really remarkable piano sound so it rather calls for a dash instead of the current spacing.
- 00:22:062 (6,1) - If you make a dash at 00:18:985 (4,1) - you could make one here as well to keep up a certain rhythm in your map.
- 00:23:600 (1,2,3) - I kinda dislike the simplification here, you didn't map the 1/4 double notes here but mapped the sliders over it to somehow emphasize that section which doesn't work too well here. Introducing 1/4 notes just for this part though is not that nice either, so it is up to you. Either way: 00:23:600 (1,2) - Reduce a bit and make it a clear walk please.
- 00:27:190 (4,5) - Please reduce a bit to make the walk more clear.
- 00:28:216 (6,1) - Why is this a dash when 00:28:985 (1) - is so quiet?
- 00:34:369 (4,1) - This distance is neither a real walk or a real dash, please reduce the distance!!!
- 00:36:677 (3,4) - Another unclear distance, I would prefer a clear walk here since the piano gets so quiet.
- 00:38:985 (2,3) - Buffing the distance a bit would help to make the dash more clear.
- 00:43:600 (6,1) - Walk or dash? Decide and adjust the distance please!
- 00:45:908 (3) - Why did you make this a normal slider? You are ignoring the strong piano sound at 00:46:164 - which is not nice imo. Instead you emphasized them for the two previous sliders where these sounds are not so strong :thinking: maybe going for two normal sliders followed by two reversed sliders fits the section better?
- 00:55:908 (6,1) - Following the logic of the rest of the section this should be a dash.
- 00:57:446 (2,3) - Another unclear distance...
- 00:58:985 (4,1) - A slight buff wouldn't hurt to make it more clearly a dash.
- 01:01:036 (4,1) - Unclear distance
- 01:05:651 (6,1) - Unclear distance
- 01:08:728 (6,1) - Unclear distance
- 01:09:754 (4,1) - Unclear distance
- 01:10:523 (1,2,3) - Another section where it is obvious that avoiding 1/4 is a questionable decision - the piano sound lands on 01:10:908 - instead of 01:10:780 - .
- 01:14:369 (6,1) - Slight reduce of distance makes the walk more clear.
- 01:28:728 (7,1) - This should be definetly a dash considering how you mapped the rest of the section.
- 01:30:523 (1,2) - This being a dash would fit wonderfully imo since we arrived at the kiai section. and it is literally the same sound as 01:30:523 (1) - which also got a dash.
- 01:36:677 (1,2,3,4) - ASAAKSAG SDFADKA FDADJ whyyyyyyyyy is this so much more movement-inducing than 01:30:523 (1,2) - that is inconsistent please make it similar to 01:30:523 (1,2) - . Also: For 01:37:190 (3,4) - : The same suggestion as I made for 01:30:523 (1,2) - .
- 01:50:523 (1) - I would tilt this more vertically to fit the movement of the previous triple notes.
Platter
- 00:02:831 (1,2) - Just my personal taste but making them curved would make the following single notes stand out more (because the movement change would be more remarkable then), which is supported by the piano sounds.
- 00:03:600 (2,1) - The piano is a bit underemphasized imo, the change of movement isn't really here. If you applied the previous point: Hooray, everything is fine and you don't need to do anything! If not: make the gap a little bit bigger or make a direction change here.
- 00:05:908 (1,2) - Maybe just a tiny bit more distance here? The dash is not 100% distinct.
- 00:07:446 (1,2) - The second triple of piano sounds do not distinguish themselves well from the first ones in your map, it plays like one group with six notes instead of 2 group with 3 notes each, I would go for a bigger distance here or something else that makes it more clear.
00:10:523 (2,3) - The flow is leading to the left, placing the next notes on the right side is unnecessary antiflow (because it is not supported by the music imo) so I think putting them on the left side is much better. - 00:11:933 (4,1) - The piano sound on the slider is quite strong, a soft dash would fit here imo.
- 00:18:216 (1,2,3,4) - Even though I agree on making this part so dense I disagree on making this part harder to play than the previous two reverse sliders because the piano is more in the background here and therefore not that remarkable, something that is a bit easier to play would be better imo.
- 00:19:754 (1,2) - I can understand why you made this distance shorter than the upcoming ones, but a dash here would be better rhythm-wise imo. I think that the small difference in the piano sound is a bit overemphasized anyways but that is only my opinion.
- 00:28:985 (1,2) - The dash feels a bit overdone. The only thing that could potentially justify a dash here is the whispering vocal but that seems overdone as I said, especially because you didn't make a dash for 00:30:266 (4,1) - which is at least equally dash-worthy.
- 00:30:523 (1) - This note gets no emphasis at all in your map, it should be somehow noticeable while playing because it is completely underemphasized atm.
- 00:35:010 (4,1) - Making this a soft dash fits very well imo.
- 00:44:241 (4,1) - Soft dash again? Your movement gets quite monotone so a soft dash here would be good for emphasis and diversity.
- 00:53:600 (1,2,3) - i expect here some form of antiflow to emphasize the vocal and to be more consistent with the previous notes, so adding some kind of antiflow here is much appreciated.
- 00:55:908 (2,1) - By making 00:55:908 (2) - a reverse slider, the emphasis-effect of the reverse slider on 00:56:677 (1) - gets lowered. So I think making three single notes for 00:55:908 (2) - that go in one direction is a bit more neat.
- 00:58:216 (1,1,2,3,4) - This is ??????? because you put a very remarkable sound on the sliderend which is overall a really questionable decision and doesn't fit your map at all. Making something more fitting instead should be easy so I let you handle that yourself.
- 00:59:754 - The quite section starting here contains some confusing distances, I don't wanna post them here all, just take a quick look at what distances are no clear walk or clear dash and make them a little bit easier to read.
- 01:10:267 (3,1) - That hyper is completely out of place, please nuke it immediately.
- 01:20:523 (2) - This is the only reverse slider here that is completely horizontal which feels out of place. An idea to rework the section (only my personal taste): For 01:18:216 (1,2,1,2) - , making three single notes - reverse slider - three single notes - reverse slider seems to fit.
- 01:21:293 (1) - and 01:22:831 (1) - are you sure you wanna make them normal sliders? You ignore the notes in the middle of the sliders that way which you didn't do before. If you wanna keep normal sliders I suggest to make them at least the same shape to create some sort of rhythm.
- 01:23:600 (2,3) - Just changing the direction here doesn't seem to be enough for me since it is still a very plain movement, I expect here some kind of dash to emphasize the vocal better.
- 01:25:395 (3,4) - This time the vocal isn't emphasized at all imo, some sort of dash or at least direction change is needed imo (you did it better with the following pattern).
- 01:37:446 (2,1) - This is inconsistent with 01:31:293 (2,1) - , please make both a dash or none.
- 01:46:677 (1,1,1) - hyperdash-usage is inconsistent with 01:43:600 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - , please make it consistent (I would go for the hyperdash-usage of the first part since that makes the most sense to me).
- 01:48:985 (1) - and 01:49:754 (1) - are the only two objects in the whole section that don't force movement which feels weird, I would give them movement as well or use more non-movement-inducing sliders after these two, but as it is right now these two stand out too much.
Anatomy
Good Luck~- 00:01:293 (1) - By using a slider of this length you are avoiding the opportunity to map antiflow towards the sound at 00:02:062 - . Mentioned antiflow would be more consistent with the upcoming notes which all contain direction change/antiflow patterns in a rhythmic way, so I would dig it to shorten the first slider and map a single note at 00:02:062 - . Is not the biggest issue though.
- 00:25:395 (3,1,2) - It would fit the rhythm of the section better imo to make the direction change from 00:25:395 (3) - to 00:25:523 (1) - instead of 00:25:523 (1) - to 00:25:651 (2) - .
- 00:27:190 (5,1) - Making this a hyper would fit rhythm-wise imo, makes a good rhythm with 00:28:857 (3,1) - .
- 00:38:216 (1) - The idea behind the slider tilts in this section is nice but I would make it a little bit less diverse since this slider is a bit awkward to play imo, slanting it a bit more horizontally would fix that.
- 00:47:446 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - This whole section plays like "left-right-left-right-left-right-left-right.....", it feels like it doesn't really emphasize something with its flow, so I would suggest to make the flow a little bit more diverse, i.e. the horizontal movement at 00:49:241 (2,3,4) - feels not necessary (at least not to that extend).
- 00:56:164 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - The curved streams play nicely but making literally everything the same doesn't emphasize anything, please try to make it more diverse for the sake of emphasis.
- 01:10:267 (3,1) - The hyper feels overdone in the calm section imo.
- 01:11:806 (4,1,2,3,4,1) - Why are there 3 hypers so close to each other in such a calm section? I would remove the last two.
- 01:18:985 (2,1) - In this section though you managed to make less hypers than before even though the music is more intense? I would add a hyper here. It would also fit the hyper at 01:22:574 (4,1) - .
- 01:20:523 (2,1) - Same suggestion as for 01:18:985 (2,1) - .
- 01:23:343 (2,3,4,5) - I don't really like that pattern atm since it makes the single notes seem like four similar sounds (because all four are treated equally) but the first two are piano sounds while the last two are vocal so I would group them together like this.
- 01:25:139 (2,3,4) - The movement here seems overdone since the first two notes don't cover any important sound, so please make their movement more simple.
- 01:26:677 (2,3,4) - Similar issue here, the last note should be the emphasized one but it feels like the least important one in your pattern.
