1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
posted
This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on sábado, 11 de noviembre de 2017 at 10:32:55 a.m.

Artist: Mimori Suzuko
Title: Happy Happy Christmas
Tags: きゃにめ限定CD③ xmas x-mas marathon
BPM: 76.05
Filesize: 9325kb
Play Time: 05:14
Difficulties Available:
  1. Ding Dong! (5 stars, 937 notes)


Download: Mimori Suzuko - Happy Happy Christmas
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------
I quit from ranking this map for this year xd see ya' in nov 2018
posted
wtf how do you get modv1 by default
are you using fallback to submit?
mod placeholder I think
posted

Error- wrote:

wtf how do you get modv1 by default
are you using fallback to submit?
mod placeholder I think
yes, sadly my pc is too old so it sucks lol probably gonna get another one soon
posted
Que tal?
Solo soy una persona random pasando por mapas :)
Bueno la cancion es muy buena xd

Empecemos-

Ding Dong!

00:25:874 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - (Como esta colocado esos triples, no me han gustado, creo que estaría mejor dos sliders)

00:28:017 (4) - (NC)

00:30:874 (4) - (NC)

00:33:255 (2) - (Ese circulo no queda nada bien, creo que es mejor que lo quites) (O que le des una vuelta a esta slider 00:33:017 (1) - )

00:59:445 (6) - (NC)

01:47:421 (1) - (Esta spinner acaba aqui 01:49:802 - )

02:34:802 (4) - (NC)

02:35:159 (7) - (NC)

Bueno, No soy muy fanatica de los cambios de velocidad, no me gustan muchos los cambios de velocidad que tiene este mapa (Me refiero a que en varias partes esta muy lento pero de repente empieza a ir rapido, aun que eso es tambien en la cancion, no se si me explique xd), bueno en si la velocidad que tiene el mapa, pero por otra parte esta bastante bien, me ha gustado :)

Muchisima suerte--- :D
posted

July - San wrote:

Que tal?
Solo soy una persona random pasando por mapas :)
Bueno la cancion es muy buena xd

Empecemos-

Ding Dong!

00:25:874 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - (Como esta colocado esos triples, no me han gustado, creo que estaría mejor dos sliders) eso le quitaría la énfasis al piano

00:28:017 (4) - (NC) por que? no lo veo necesario

00:30:874 (4) - (NC) ^

00:33:255 (2) - (Ese circulo no queda nada bien, creo que es mejor que lo quites) (O que le des una vuelta a esta slider 00:33:017 (1) - ) no tiene caso, pues sigue un ritmo que se puede escuchar en 25% playback

00:59:445 (6) - (NC) por que? no lo veo necesario

01:47:421 (1) - (Esta spinner acaba aqui 01:49:802 - ) en realidad no, ya que la musica da una pausa antes del tick blanco

02:34:802 (4) - (NC) por que? no lo veo necesario

02:35:159 (7) - (NC) ^

Bueno, No soy muy fanatica de los cambios de velocidad, no me gustan muchos los cambios de velocidad que tiene este mapa (Me refiero a que en varias partes esta muy lento pero de repente empieza a ir rapido, aun que eso es tambien en la cancion, no se si me explique xd), bueno en si la velocidad que tiene el mapa, pero por otra parte esta bastante bien, me ha gustado :)

Muchisima suerte--- :D
gracias
posted


Hi. Here from Christams Queue. Hope this finds you well!

[Ding Dong!]

01:03:731 (2,1) – This flow was pretty uncomfortable, and I didn't feel anything in the music that warranted this level of discomfort. It contrasts pretty strongly with 01:03:017 (1,2) – and I don't get why.
02:39:445 (2,1) - ^ same thing for the mirror

01:10:874 (3,4) – This overlap is going for a different aesthetic than the equal visual spacing at 01:10:159 (1,2,3) - , so something looked out of place. Stacking (4) on (1)'s end would be one way of keeping a cohesive aesthetic.

01:15:517 (4,2) – ^ Same thing, though it's possible I just don't like overlaps that much. I feel like shooting for something like this is more in line with your other aesthetics: http://puu.sh/ygXIx/05955ef8eb.jpg

01:24:088 (4,5) – This can sometimes be confusing as reading it as 1/3 rhythm instead of 2/3 rhythm, but maybe this isn't an issue, I'm not the target audience anyway.

01:30:398 (2,3,4) – What are your thoughts on turning this into two circles instead of a slider each? I'll talk about my thoughts more later.
03:06:112 (2,3,4) -
04:10:398 (2,3,4) -

02:20:159 (1,2) – This symmetry looks a tiny bit off. Rotate this by 5 or 6 degrees clockwise and the y-values will line up, but the x-values won't (I'm doing ctrl + G twice to make the slider ends snap to their actual co-oridnates). Try to get them symmetrical there and then rotate them back into your blanket.

02:48:731 (1,2,1,2) – The overlapping (2) sliders had really cool flow :D

02:55:874 (1,3) – compare to 02:58:731 (1,3) - . Why is one stacked and the other not? Overall I like the stack one more so I want you to change 03:05:517 (5,2) – and 03:12:302 (3,1) - , but if you're going for a new aesthetic, okay, that seems fine, this isn't an issue. But I don't understand why some are and some aren't, so the contrast between them only felt distracting as opposed to embellishing something in the song.

03:38:255 (4,5,6,1,3,4,6,1) – See the pacing discussion for more, but why did you choose to stack these?

03:44:564 (1,1) – the low recovery time made me really have to try hard and focus which raised my level of stress (I don't want to say intensity or engagement because those have too positive of connotations). Do you feel like the music is very strong here to warrant that? I don't see it that way. Consider ending the spinner earlier (I feel like it doesn't have to snap to a specific beat).

04:01:945 (2,3) – These don't overlap that strongly. There is such a minor overlap that it looks pretty different from overlaps like 04:03:017 (1,3) – in an ugly way. Try embracing that overlap a little more, even if it only gets as far as what you did at 04:11:588 (1,2) -

When I first played this difficulty, I felt like this was not a mapping style for me. I like jumps more than I like streams, so seeing 00:25:874 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) – made me a nervous but okay to keep playing, and then 00:36:112 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) – made me quit. It's not that I hate spaced streams, but they are very challenging, especially when I have to change the flow in the opposite direction mid-stream. So what I'm getting at is that most of the map was easy except for spots like 01:19:088 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - . This felt like a huge difficulty spike and the only barrier to entry for someone like me who is sort of “getting there” when it comes to spaced streams. It makes me want to say “well I'm not the target audience, so who cares, I'll go play something else,” which may very well be true. But what about the people who finds this pattern a good level of engagement? In my mind, these players will be very skilled at spaced streams. Will they find a satisfactory level of engagement at 01:30:398 (2,3,4) – or 03:38:255 (4,5,6,1,3,4,6,1) – which to me sound like strong parts of the song? And what about parts like 02:55:874 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) – that have exciting vocals on the chorus? If I were only listening to the song instead of playing osu, I would say these were parts that felt particularly strong or interesting. Again, that might put me out of the target audience if I like these tracks but the map doesn't, but is it possible to make these parts feel special if the bar is set as high as 02:54:803 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - ? Does 02:54:803 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - even feel like a strong part of the song to deserve so much intensity?

I'm out of time. Good luck!
posted

pinataman wrote:



Hi. Here from Christams Queue. Hope this finds you well!

[Ding Dong!]

01:03:731 (2,1) – This flow was pretty uncomfortable, and I didn't feel anything in the music that warranted this level of discomfort. It contrasts pretty strongly with 01:03:017 (1,2) – and I don't get why. this is intended, trying to differ the vocals. i ranked maps with this previously.
02:39:445 (2,1) - ^ same thing for the mirror

01:10:874 (3,4) – This overlap is going for a different aesthetic than the equal visual spacing at 01:10:159 (1,2,3) - , so something looked out of place. Stacking (4) on (1)'s end would be one way of keeping a cohesive aesthetic. fixed

01:15:517 (4,2) – ^ Same thing, though it's possible I just don't like overlaps that much. I feel like shooting for something like this is more in line with your other aesthetics: http://puu.sh/ygXIx/05955ef8eb.jpg this one i consider it fine for now

01:24:088 (4,5) – This can sometimes be confusing as reading it as 1/3 rhythm instead of 2/3 rhythm, but maybe this isn't an issue, I'm not the target audience anyway. yep, this probably is not an issue after all.

01:30:398 (2,3,4) – What are your thoughts on turning this into two circles instead of a slider each? I'll talk about my thoughts more later. following the "ding"s vocals
03:06:112 (2,3,4) -
04:10:398 (2,3,4) -

02:20:159 (1,2) – This symmetry looks a tiny bit off. Rotate this by 5 or 6 degrees clockwise and the y-values will line up, but the x-values won't (I'm doing ctrl + G twice to make the slider ends snap to their actual co-oridnates). Try to get them symmetrical there and then rotate them back into your blanket. it would ruin the blanket with 02:19:445 (3) -

02:48:731 (1,2,1,2) – The overlapping (2) sliders had really cool flow :Duwu

02:55:874 (1,3) – compare to 02:58:731 (1,3) - . Why is one stacked and the other not? Overall I like the stack one more so I want you to change 03:05:517 (5,2) – and 03:12:302 (3,1) - , but if you're going for a new aesthetic, okay, that seems fine, this isn't an issue. But I don't understand why some are and some aren't, so the contrast between them only felt distracting as opposed to embellishing something in the song. I'm trying to use another style for this rhythm, as following vocals with stacking in these parts would look pretty weird

03:38:255 (4,5,6,1,3,4,6,1) – See the pacing discussion for more, but why did you choose to stack these? To do the flow easy, because the music is going lower and lower, so jumps wouldn't work well here

03:44:564 (1,1) – the low recovery time made me really have to try hard and focus which raised my level of stress (I don't want to say intensity or engagement because those have too positive of connotations). Do you feel like the music is very strong here to warrant that? I don't see it that way. Consider ending the spinner earlier (I feel like it doesn't have to snap to a specific beat). fixed to 1 beat recovery

04:01:945 (2,3) – These don't overlap that strongly. There is such a minor overlap that it looks pretty different from overlaps like 04:03:017 (1,3) – in an ugly way. Try embracing that overlap a little more, even if it only gets as far as what you did at 04:11:588 (1,2) - hmm, idk about this, gonna think wether the mods suggest this

When I first played this difficulty, I felt like this was not a mapping style for me. I like jumps more than I like streams, so seeing 00:25:874 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) – made me a nervous but okay to keep playing, and then 00:36:112 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) – made me quit. It's not that I hate spaced streams, but they are very challenging, especially when I have to change the flow in the opposite direction mid-stream. So what I'm getting at is that most of the map was easy except for spots like 01:19:088 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - . This felt like a huge difficulty spike and the only barrier to entry for someone like me who is sort of “getting there” when it comes to spaced streams. It makes me want to say “well I'm not the target audience, so who cares, I'll go play something else,” which may very well be true. But what about the people who finds this pattern a good level of engagement? In my mind, these players will be very skilled at spaced streams. Will they find a satisfactory level of engagement at 01:30:398 (2,3,4) – or 03:38:255 (4,5,6,1,3,4,6,1) – which to me sound like strong parts of the song? And what about parts like 02:55:874 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) – that have exciting vocals on the chorus? If I were only listening to the song instead of playing osu, I would say these were parts that felt particularly strong or interesting. Again, that might put me out of the target audience if I like these tracks but the map doesn't, but is it possible to make these parts feel special if the bar is set as high as 02:54:803 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - ? Does 02:54:803 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - even feel like a strong part of the song to deserve so much intensity? yeah, I understand your disagreement about all those spaced stream, but I find them more appropiate for rhythms like this because the music goes on a high level than the non-spaced streams. in short, more drums, more spacing (taken that inspiration from this map's top diff https://osu.ppy.sh/s/641695) About the stacks, as i said, i prefer to use different ways to illustrate the rhythms. gonna still take this in mind in case i get suggestions similar to this

I'm out of time. Good luck!
thanks
posted
Hi, NM from Christmas Queue here

Ding Dong!:
  1. 00:11:948 - I think leaving this sound unclickable isn't as good as having it clickable cause its rather strong + having such a long slider here 00:11:160 (2) - makes a bit of contrast with everything in this section but it doesn't really represent anything special
  2. 00:15:019 (4) - How about 1/12(?) reverse here? Cause you made reverses for similar sounds before
  3. 00:36:231 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - It's so much less intense than 01:19:088 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - but has the same spacing. I think you should lower it here
  4. 00:47:659 (3) - There are three similar to 00:48:017 (1,2,3) - sounds. Having low-spaced triple or 1/3 reverse would make more sense I guess
  5. 00:59:802 (1,2,3) - It's not /that/ different from 00:58:969 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - to stand out by a new combo and lowered spacing. You should probably nc 00:59:445 (6) - this too so nc on 00:59:802 (1) - doesn't stand out this much. (02:34:445 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3) - same)
  6. 01:05:695 (4) - You should probably snap it to 1/6 cause its just human error and there are no 1/4 anywhere else in the map + you snapped it to 1/6 in the next similar moment 02:41:469 (4) - here
  7. 01:30:398 (2,3,4) - How about circles instead? Cause sounds on tails of these things are noticably stronger than on their heads + you made clickable 01:30:159 (1) - here, which kinda sets type of emphasize on this sound from the beginning. (03:06:112 (2,3,4) - 04:10:398 (2,3,4) - same)
  8. 01:47:421 (1) - You should probably end it on white tick (04:27:421 (1) - same)
  9. 02:23:850 (5) - Is there a sound on this note? I think it should be deleted and this 02:23:612 (3,4,5,6,7) - pattern should be rearranged accordingly
  10. 02:34:564 (2) - Perhaps delete this note? There is no sound + you didn't place circle here 00:58:850 -
  11. 03:10:159 (1,2) - I think "perfectly straight" and "slightly curved" shapes don't mix well in one diff. Seems like unreasonable inconsistency
  12. 03:20:517 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - How about this rhythm? This way all snares except for 1/12 would be equaly covered by clickable which would make this place feel more comfortable I guess
  13. 03:22:898 - 03:28:612 - Note here? 03:23:969 (6) - Should be a reverse probably, just like 03:21:112 (6) -
  14. 03:27:778 (3) - Is this overmap intended? I can hear how snare missed here quite well
  15. 03:29:683 (6,7) - At this point drums represented by these sliders become so inaudible because of new sound starting from 03:29:683 - this point. I think would be better to represent this sound by changing these two 1/3 slider to 2/3 slider + circle
  16. 03:41:945 (2,3) - How about deleting (2) and making (3) a circle instead of a slider? I guess you wanted to follow both violin and sounds on white ticks,
    but I think would be better to ignore white ticks and fully follow violin because its the most important instrument playing here and it being mixed with sounds on white ticks this way doesn't feel natural while playing
  17. 03:42:898 (1) - Perhaps extend this? Because this sound is quite prolonged, placing such a short slider doesn't represent it well
  18. 03:59:921 (2) - There is no sound, I think this note should be deleted
  19. 04:04:326 (5,1) - You usually stack these
  20. 04:22:540 - Add circle here?
  21. 04:40:517 (2) - I believe this should be 2 circles instead with nc on first one. Because all similar sections before were mapped as three groups of 3 circles
  22. 04:49:088 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I think all of these should be either circles or reverse sliders cause currently first (2) stands out


Hope I helped. Good luck!
posted

h4d0uk3n1 wrote:

Hi, NM from Christmas Queue here

Ding Dong!:
  1. 00:11:948 - I think leaving this sound unclickable isn't as good as having it clickable cause its rather strong + having such a long slider here 00:11:160 (2) - makes a bit of contrast with everything in this section but it doesn't really represent anything special I used slider end here instead because I personally felt that using circles in most of clickable parts like this would feel overmapped
  2. 00:15:019 (4) - How about 1/12(?) reverse here? Cause you made reverses for similar sounds before consistency with spinner following it
  3. 00:36:231 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - It's so much less intense than 01:19:088 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - but has the same spacing. I think you should lower it here It has same drum intense althought, so using this spacing is also correct
  4. 00:47:659 (3) - There are three similar to 00:48:017 (1,2,3) - sounds. Having low-spaced triple or 1/3 reverse would make more sense I guess Hmm, gonna apply this idea if suggested by other mods too
  5. 00:59:802 (1,2,3) - It's not /that/ different from 00:58:969 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - to stand out by a new combo and lowered spacing. You should probably nc 00:59:445 (6) - this too so nc on 00:59:802 (1) - doesn't stand out this much. (02:34:445 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3) - same) Added NC to them
  6. 01:05:695 (4) - You should probably snap it to 1/6 cause its just human error and there are no 1/4 anywhere else in the map + you snapped it to 1/6 in the next similar moment 02:41:469 (4) - here ok
  7. 01:30:398 (2,3,4) - How about circles instead? Cause sounds on tails of these things are noticably stronger than on their heads + you made clickable 01:30:159 (1) - here, which kinda sets type of emphasize on this sound from the beginning. (03:06:112 (2,3,4) - 04:10:398 (2,3,4) - same) gonna think about this, because i think personally that is not needed
  8. 01:47:421 (1) - You should probably end it on white tick (04:27:421 (1) - same) rhythm stops in 1/6 so a white tick breaks the emphasis
  9. 02:23:850 (5) - Is there a sound on this note? I think it should be deleted and this 02:23:612 (3,4,5,6,7) - pattern should be rearranged accordingly yes, there is a sound
  10. 02:34:564 (2) - Perhaps delete this note? There is no sound + you didn't place circle here 00:58:850 - hmm
  11. 03:10:159 (1,2) - I think "perfectly straight" and "slightly curved" shapes don't mix well in one diff. Seems like unreasonable inconsistency rearranged
  12. 03:20:517 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - How about this rhythm? This way all snares except for 1/12 would be equaly covered by clickable which would make this place feel more comfortable I guess I feel this overmapped, so will keep for now
  13. 03:22:898 - 03:28:612 - Note here? 03:23:969 (6) - Should be a reverse probably, just like 03:21:112 (6) - done
  14. 03:27:778 (3) - Is this overmap intended? I can hear how snare missed here quite well I can hear the drum, weird
  15. 03:29:683 (6,7) - At this point drums represented by these sliders become so inaudible because of new sound starting from 03:29:683 - this point. I think would be better to represent this sound by changing these two 1/3 slider to 2/3 slider + circle good idea but gonna think about it
  16. 03:41:945 (2,3) - How about deleting (2) and making (3) a circle instead of a slider? I guess you wanted to follow both violin and sounds on white ticks,
    but I think would be better to ignore white ticks and fully follow violin because its the most important instrument playing here and it being mixed with sounds on white ticks this way doesn't feel natural while playing ok
  17. 03:42:898 (1) - Perhaps extend this? Because this sound is quite prolonged, placing such a short slider doesn't represent it well Added circle and slider
  18. 03:59:921 (2) - There is no sound, I think this note should be deleted yes there is a sound i can hear
  19. 04:04:326 (5,1) - You usually stack these copypaste mistake xd
  20. 04:22:540 - Add circle here? ok
  21. 04:40:517 (2) - I believe this should be 2 circles instead with nc on first one. Because all similar sections before were mapped as three groups of 3 circles fixed
  22. 04:49:088 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I think all of these should be either circles or reverse sliders cause currently first (2) stands out hmm, I think it's fine cause the rhythm intensity, editing the spacing of the stream is enough


Hope I helped. Good luck!
gonna end of answering this mod later w
posted
Christmas queue

timeline zoom wtf

00:10:370 (1) - mute sliderend?
00:11:160 (2) - lower the hitsound pls, especially at the head
00:20:517 (2) - seems like you want to stack it 00:21:588 (2) - , also it will fix blanket.
00:36:112 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - isn't this a lil bit look messy? especially 00:36:469 (3,1) -
00:44:326 (1,2) - fix up parallel?
00:45:874 (1) - this visual spacing looks odd with 00:45:517 (4) - , try to move it to the center?
00:53:374 (2,3) - isn't the flow a little bit too sharp, comparing with the else?
01:07:302 (3,6) - oops overlap
01:23:731 (3) - I wonder why this slider isn't in the middle of 01:23:017 (1,2) - , it'll looks better imo
01:27:183 (5,2) - not sure about this tbh
01:38:612 (4) - why drum? I don't really sure it fits there..
01:41:946 (2) - vocal starts 01:42:064 - owo
02:12:183 (3,1) - well.. yea, you know :3
02:27:659 (2,3) - ain't that sure with this flow,it's kinda too sharp imo
02:40:755 - missing vocal
02:51:231 (4,1) - blanket?
04:21:946 (2) - same as before
04:41:231 (1,2,3) - higher spacing would be much appreciated for this increasing sound
04:49:802 (1,2,3) - uhm, why is it decreasing while the song proggresively get stronger?

well, that's all~
not really a detailed mod tbh lol

gl~!
posted

Error- wrote:

Christmas queue

timeline zoom wtf

00:10:370 (1) - mute sliderend? no need
00:11:160 (2) - lower the hitsound pls, especially at the head why? i can't see a special sound volume change here
00:20:517 (2) - seems like you want to stack it 00:21:588 (2) - , also it will fix blanket. fixed
00:36:112 (2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - isn't this a lil bit look messy? especially 00:36:469 (3,1) - nope, it's a common stream usage in 1/3 and I used it in this case for the drums which sounds really strong here
00:44:326 (1,2) - fix up parallel? fixed
00:45:874 (1) - this visual spacing looks odd with 00:45:517 (4) - , try to move it to the center?
00:53:374 (2,3) - isn't the flow a little bit too sharp, comparing with the else?
01:07:302 (3,6) - oops overlap not really a major problem tbh
01:23:731 (3) - I wonder why this slider isn't in the middle of 01:23:017 (1,2) - , it'll looks better imo
01:27:183 (5,2) - not sure about this tbh
01:38:612 (4) - why drum? I don't really sure it fits there..
01:41:946 (2) - vocal starts 01:42:064 - owo
02:12:183 (3,1) - well.. yea, you know :3
02:27:659 (2,3) - ain't that sure with this flow,it's kinda too sharp imo
02:40:755 - missing vocal basing in rhythm, not in vocal in this case
02:51:231 (4,1) - blanket?
04:21:946 (2) - same as before
04:41:231 (1,2,3) - higher spacing would be much appreciated for this increasing sound
04:49:802 (1,2,3) - uhm, why is it decreasing while the song proggresively get stronger?

well, that's all~
not really a detailed mod tbh lol

gl~!
gonna finish to answer in a while

thanks for the mod
posted
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because 03:07:302 (1) - 's blanket gave me cancer anyway.
posted
nice meme
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.