nice map~
forum
Sharlo - Fuwafuwa
posted
Total Posts
82
Topic Starter
谢谢阿爸~abalee wrote:
[sumisola]
AR9有点水土不服 Orz 因为整个图遮掩程度很大，不用AR9，很多地方读图会出错，所以orz
00:43:079 (4) - 考虑下将这个和(3)再拉开一点， spacing好辨认些。 fixed
01:18:079 (8) - 这个slider的reverse arrow会被01:17:079 (5) - 的hit300挡到，换一下方向吧。 fixed
03:55:746 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 这一段的长白线上的音效可以试试加clap或者将whistle改成clap。 长白线是最强拍，因此我觉得在最强拍上加轻音效会比较好，而在3白线（次强拍）加重音效，听起来会更好，可能是个人习惯，不过这里还是不改了orz
04:09:746 (3) - 这个clap是不是忘了删... fixed
[sharlo]
话说不少奇怪的spacing啊...没看出排这些spacing的梗...
00:31:413 (1,2,3,4) - 推荐对称放置 fixed
[hard]
02:07:579 (5) - 这个不必拘泥于位置，和上一个垂直对称也好，反正要位置重叠的那个note也差不多看不见了 。 fixed
hi
[general]
Sharlo: 今天osu更新乱七八糟我不知道我这是不是最新版本 但我这显示的是latest ver所以 aimod告诉我:
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (repeat).
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (end).
Spinner New Combo
01:57:746 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner.
04:05:246 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner.
[Sumisola]
我给你微调了好多 全是stack和blanket形状 你直接带入就好了 http://puu.sh/1cCHF
00:18:913 (3) - 00:18:413 (2) - 感觉slider的弧度和stack都可以在做的更好
00:26:579 (5,6,7) -
00:30:913 (5) -
00:38:413 (1) - 00:39:246 (1) -
00:40:246 (5) -
00:41:079 (1) -
00:46:413 (1) - 00:47:913 (6) -
00:52:913 (4) -
01:16:246 (3) -
01:27:746 (5) -
02:14:413 (1) -
02:15:079 (3) -
02:16:746 (8) -
02:44:746 (3) -
02:54:746 (3,5) - 02:56:079 (7) -
04:25:579 (2) -
04:31:746 (1) -
[Sharlo]
00:20:079 (2) - 这个倾斜度感觉和右边不一样 往逆时针转一点
00:32:413 (5,6,7,8,1,2) - 这个比较不好
00:35:413 (8) - 不要clap 之后所有的这种都不要clap
00:49:079 (2) - 这slider有点猎奇 做成这样http://puu.sh/1cCIx
01:03:746 (1) - 这slider窝着有点难受
01:05:079 (1,4) - 这种意在对称的slider应该做的更对称一点 现在明显偏向尾部了
01:07:746 (3) - 01:12:413 (4) -01:28:246 (5) - 一样的问题 之后不赘述
01:13:913 (1) - 不要clap
04:06:413 (1,2,1,2) - 这节奏感觉作为hard+没必要这么1/1 太死板了
04:19:747 (3,1) - 这个blanket
hmm这两个难度都需要你和澄空多自我检查一下 澄空这slider也略不靠谱 把角度太尖锐的 不对称的blanket没弄好的都检查一下调整一下 尽量
[Normal]
00:46:413 (1) - 这个建议微调一下 把中间的node往右上一点
04:16:413 (3) - 这其实没必要做弧度？直接一个斜直线感觉够了
夏萝大哥下次唱tv size 累死了
[general]
Sharlo: 今天osu更新乱七八糟我不知道我这是不是最新版本 但我这显示的是latest ver所以 aimod告诉我:
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (repeat).
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (end).
Spinner New Combo
01:57:746 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner.
04:05:246 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner.
[Sumisola]
我给你微调了好多 全是stack和blanket形状 你直接带入就好了 http://puu.sh/1cCHF
00:18:913 (3) - 00:18:413 (2) - 感觉slider的弧度和stack都可以在做的更好
00:26:579 (5,6,7) -
00:30:913 (5) -
00:38:413 (1) - 00:39:246 (1) -
00:40:246 (5) -
00:41:079 (1) -
00:46:413 (1) - 00:47:913 (6) -
00:52:913 (4) -
01:16:246 (3) -
01:27:746 (5) -
02:14:413 (1) -
02:15:079 (3) -
02:16:746 (8) -
02:44:746 (3) -
02:54:746 (3,5) - 02:56:079 (7) -
04:25:579 (2) -
04:31:746 (1) -
[Sharlo]
00:20:079 (2) - 这个倾斜度感觉和右边不一样 往逆时针转一点
00:32:413 (5,6,7,8,1,2) - 这个比较不好
00:35:413 (8) - 不要clap 之后所有的这种都不要clap
00:49:079 (2) - 这slider有点猎奇 做成这样http://puu.sh/1cCIx
01:03:746 (1) - 这slider窝着有点难受
01:05:079 (1,4) - 这种意在对称的slider应该做的更对称一点 现在明显偏向尾部了
01:07:746 (3) - 01:12:413 (4) -01:28:246 (5) - 一样的问题 之后不赘述
01:13:913 (1) - 不要clap
04:06:413 (1,2,1,2) - 这节奏感觉作为hard+没必要这么1/1 太死板了
04:19:747 (3,1) - 这个blanket
hmm这两个难度都需要你和澄空多自我检查一下 澄空这slider也略不靠谱 把角度太尖锐的 不对称的blanket没弄好的都检查一下调整一下 尽量
[Normal]
00:46:413 (1) - 这个建议微调一下 把中间的node往右上一点
04:16:413 (3) - 这其实没必要做弧度？直接一个斜直线感觉够了
夏萝大哥下次唱tv size 累死了
Topic Starter
LKs wrote:
hi
[Sumisola]
我给你微调了好多 全是stack和blanket形状 你直接带入就好了 http://puu.sh/1cCHF 谢谢LKs这么耐心:) 还有其他一些没对齐的地方我也对齐了
00:18:913 (3) - 00:18:413 (2) - 感觉slider的弧度和stack都可以在做的更好
00:26:579 (5,6,7) -
00:30:913 (5) -
00:38:413 (1) - 00:39:246 (1) -
00:40:246 (5) -
00:41:079 (1) -
00:46:413 (1) - 00:47:913 (6) -
00:52:913 (4) -
01:16:246 (3) -
01:27:746 (5) -
02:14:413 (1) -
02:15:079 (3) -
02:16:746 (8) -
02:44:746 (3) -
02:54:746 (3,5) - 02:56:079 (7) -
04:25:579 (2) -
04:31:746 (1) -
[Normal]
00:46:413 (1) - 这个建议微调一下 把中间的node往右上一点 fixed
04:16:413 (3) - 这其实没必要做弧度？直接一个斜直线感觉够了 fixed
夏萝大哥下次唱tv size 累死了
你可以让别的垫子泡了等多几天我上架，也可以我泡了等别人来戳泡(大误
LKs wrote:
hi
[general]
Sharlo: 今天osu更新乱七八糟我不知道我这是不是最新版本 但我这显示的是latest ver所以 aimod告诉我:
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (repeat). fixed
02:28:746 (4) - Unsnapped slider (end). fixed
Spinner New Combo
01:57:746 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner. fixed
04:05:246 (2) - Consider adding a NC here, since this note follows a spinner. fixed
[Sharlo]
00:20:079 (2) - 这个倾斜度感觉和右边不一样 往逆时针转一点 fixed
00:32:413 (5,6,7,8,1,2) - 这个比较不好 fixed
00:35:413 (8) - 不要clap 之后所有的这种都不要clap fixed
00:49:079 (2) - 这slider有点猎奇 做成这样http://puu.sh/1cCIx fixed
01:03:746 (1) - 这slider窝着有点难受 fixed
01:05:079 (1,4) - 这种意在对称的slider应该做的更对称一点 现在明显偏向尾部了 fixed
01:07:746 (3) - 01:12:413 (4) -01:28:246 (5) - 一样的问题 之后不赘述 fixed
01:13:913 (1) - 不要clap fixed
04:06:413 (1,2,1,2) - 这节奏感觉作为hard+没必要这么1/1 太死板了 fixed
04:19:747 (3,1) - 这个blanket fixed
hmm这两个难度都需要你和澄空多自我检查一下 澄空这slider也略不靠谱 把角度太尖锐的 不对称的blanket没弄好的都检查一下调整一下 尽量 /.\
夏萝大哥下次唱tv size 累死了
yo
[Sharlo]
01:34:413 (4,5) -
01:37:079 (4) -
01:38:413 (4) -
01:40:413 (1,2,3) -
01:42:413 (4,5) -
01:45:079 (3,4,5,6) -
02:10:412 (1) -
02:29:079 (1) -
02:30:412 (1) - 其实这么短的slider没必要用五点 四点足矣
02:31:246 (3,4) -
02:37:746 (9) -
02:58:412 (3,4) -
03:00:246 (5) -
03:10:412 (3,4) -
03:11:412 (5,6) -
03:24:746 (3) -
04:19:747 (3,1) -
04:26:246 (6) -
http://puu.sh/1h44i
微调时间点
老样子覆盖我给你的文件 no kd
[sumi]
03:34:246 (7) - 放到x183y72
[Sharlo]
01:34:413 (4,5) -
01:37:079 (4) -
01:38:413 (4) -
01:40:413 (1,2,3) -
01:42:413 (4,5) -
01:45:079 (3,4,5,6) -
02:10:412 (1) -
02:29:079 (1) -
02:30:412 (1) - 其实这么短的slider没必要用五点 四点足矣
02:31:246 (3,4) -
02:37:746 (9) -
02:58:412 (3,4) -
03:00:246 (5) -
03:10:412 (3,4) -
03:11:412 (5,6) -
03:24:746 (3) -
04:19:747 (3,1) -
04:26:246 (6) -
http://puu.sh/1h44i
微调时间点
老样子覆盖我给你的文件 no kd
[sumi]
03:34:246 (7) - 放到x183y72
Topic Starter
LKs wrote:
yo
[Sharlo]
01:34:413 (4,5) -
01:37:079 (4) -
01:38:413 (4) -
01:40:413 (1,2,3) -
01:42:413 (4,5) -
01:45:079 (3,4,5,6) -
02:10:412 (1) -
02:29:079 (1) -
02:30:412 (1) - 其实这么短的slider没必要用五点 四点足矣
02:31:246 (3,4) -
02:37:746 (9) -
02:58:412 (3,4) -
03:00:246 (5) -
03:10:412 (3,4) -
03:11:412 (5,6) -
03:24:746 (3) -
04:19:747 (3,1) -
04:26:246 (6) -
http://puu.sh/1h44i
微调时间点
老样子覆盖我给你的文件 no kd
[sumi]
03:34:246 (7) - 放到x183y72
全部搞定~谢谢LKs~
03:23:746 (1) - arrow is totally obstructed(hidden). please make it visible
no kd
no kd
谢谢LKsLKs wrote:
03:23:746 (1) - arrow is totally obstructed(hidden). please make it visible fixed
no kd
To be frank, the map, especially [Sharlo] isn't a very high quality one.
But considering this is the first project the mapper has ever made and the diff doesn't contain unrankable stuff and what's more, after a series of adjustments/suggestions applied I see improvement on sliders' shapes and note arrangement so I'd like to give it a chance.
Plus, the map itself is memorable, which means a lot to Sumisola and Sharlo so the story/exertion behind it is the point that moves me and us
Already asked abalee for opinions and the answer was positive. so here we go
But considering this is the first project the mapper has ever made and the diff doesn't contain unrankable stuff and what's more, after a series of adjustments/suggestions applied I see improvement on sliders' shapes and note arrangement so I'd like to give it a chance.
Plus, the map itself is memorable, which means a lot to Sumisola and Sharlo so the story/exertion behind it is the point that moves me and us
Already asked abalee for opinions and the answer was positive. so here we go
Popped the bubble due to an unrankable stuff:
The slider end snapped to wrong place cause two object apart less than 10ms in Easy diff
please fix it and call me back
The slider end snapped to wrong place cause two object apart less than 10ms in Easy diff
please fix it and call me back
Topic Starter
All fixed~ Thanks for reminding me here. ^ ^Scorpiour wrote:
Popped the bubble due to an unrankable stuff:
The slider end snapped to wrong place cause two object apart less than 10ms in Easy diff
please fix it and call me back
rebubbled~
Bpm is still doubled ever since my post earlier.
Topic Starter
the original song is 180bpm when Sharlo remake it. And of course, I think those piano rhythm in this song here should be 180BPMthose wrote:
Bpm is still doubled ever since my post earlier.
Here's why you should not base it on the piano, but the rhythm instead:
Melodies are made out tones. These tones have a set length defined by the bpm (you don't know whether they are eighth notes or sixteenth notes, for example). However, drums are not based on tones in the same way; generally, the bass>snare>bass>snare makes one 4/4 measure. With that in mind, the bpm is clearly doubled in your map.
Melodies are made out tones. These tones have a set length defined by the bpm (you don't know whether they are eighth notes or sixteenth notes, for example). However, drums are not based on tones in the same way; generally, the bass>snare>bass>snare makes one 4/4 measure. With that in mind, the bpm is clearly doubled in your map.
Topic Starter
However.......as what you said above......BPM is clearly doubled but it never worsen any flow of this mapthose wrote:
Here's why you should not base it on the piano, but the rhythm instead:
Melodies are made out tones. These tones have a set length defined by the bpm (you don't know whether they are eighth notes or sixteenth notes, for example). However, drums are not based on tones in the same way; generally, the bass>snare>bass>snare makes one 4/4 measure. With that in mind, the bpm is clearly doubled in your map.
However, you can even set the bpm to 360 or 720. Those figures can work too, but neither is correct. And 180 isn't correct either; it's not about the fact that it's mappable and flows at 180 - it's mappable and flows and correct at 90.
With that being said, and hopefully understood, I hope you don't continue this senseless argument unless you can provide some sort of reason why it must remain at 180 and cannot possibly change it to 90, the correct bpm.
With that being said, and hopefully understood, I hope you don't continue this senseless argument unless you can provide some sort of reason why it must remain at 180 and cannot possibly change it to 90, the correct bpm.
I'll support BPM180 4/4.
There'll be a few choices: BPM180 4/4, BPM90 2/4 and BPM90 4/4.
Firstly, the song has a strong simple quadruple character over the simple duple one. This is indicated by the repetition length of vocal and melody. If it's a duple metre the main beat will be re-emphasized in a much frequent way. However in this song every accent is re-accumulated instead of a clear-cut accent. (e.g. through 01:37:913 - to 01:38:413 - ). This is theoratically a very poor choice on 2/4, and therefore the song should be a 4/4.
Now if we have to choose between BPM180 and BPM90 4/4, the easiest way is to fit the count into the beatings.
In usual practice 1/2 is used as the slightest regular beatings with 1/1 beatings a noticible one. In such way to judge BPM180 would be a suitable one.
In a song if 1/4 is used as regular beatings it should be intentional with a clear rapid sense than the BPM should have, but it's not the case here.
Another indicator is the repetition of the melody. In usual practice the melody is written in the manner that every bar is an unit, connecting and echoing each other. In the song the melody repeats every bar under the BPM180 4/4 scale.
When we decide where the bar ends, the accent on the note as well as the bridging towards the accent is very important. It should be uniquely used at the end of the bar. Take 01:38:413 - again as example, the syncopation is a sign of accumulating accent towards 01:38:413 - --- and this will never occur in the second beat of the bar, which is the case under BPM90 4/4 scale.
Moreover, BPM90 does not imply BPM180 is wrong. This is very vague when musicians write their transcripts. As a result it's very common to say BPM = 80-160, meaning that you can either treat it as BPM80 4/4 or BPM160 8/4. Of course this is not the problem on musical sheet because it's clearly written but this is the footnote for performance, the way you present it, and both is fine.
There'll be a few choices: BPM180 4/4, BPM90 2/4 and BPM90 4/4.
Firstly, the song has a strong simple quadruple character over the simple duple one. This is indicated by the repetition length of vocal and melody. If it's a duple metre the main beat will be re-emphasized in a much frequent way. However in this song every accent is re-accumulated instead of a clear-cut accent. (e.g. through 01:37:913 - to 01:38:413 - ). This is theoratically a very poor choice on 2/4, and therefore the song should be a 4/4.
Now if we have to choose between BPM180 and BPM90 4/4, the easiest way is to fit the count into the beatings.
In usual practice 1/2 is used as the slightest regular beatings with 1/1 beatings a noticible one. In such way to judge BPM180 would be a suitable one.
In a song if 1/4 is used as regular beatings it should be intentional with a clear rapid sense than the BPM should have, but it's not the case here.
Another indicator is the repetition of the melody. In usual practice the melody is written in the manner that every bar is an unit, connecting and echoing each other. In the song the melody repeats every bar under the BPM180 4/4 scale.
When we decide where the bar ends, the accent on the note as well as the bridging towards the accent is very important. It should be uniquely used at the end of the bar. Take 01:38:413 - again as example, the syncopation is a sign of accumulating accent towards 01:38:413 - --- and this will never occur in the second beat of the bar, which is the case under BPM90 4/4 scale.
Moreover, BPM90 does not imply BPM180 is wrong. This is very vague when musicians write their transcripts. As a result it's very common to say BPM = 80-160, meaning that you can either treat it as BPM80 4/4 or BPM160 8/4. Of course this is not the problem on musical sheet because it's clearly written but this is the footnote for performance, the way you present it, and both is fine.
Now this is something to give a read up on. If I had my pc running it would be a lot easier to give examples, but I guess all I can do now is refute your arguments.
When you say that each bar is taken as a unit, what you really mean to say is that each phrase is taken as a unit. What this means is that the phrase now becomes the independent variable, while the number of measures depend on the length of the phrase. Using this method cannot tell you whether the song is 180 or 90 bpm, so it is dismissed.
Your point on 'regular beats' is a little flawed since you deny the possibility of 0 or 2 or more regular (irregular) beats. If the song is 'mainly' 1/4, for example, it certainly does not have to be introduced by 1/4. Similarly, you dismiss the possible existence of a second beat syncopation, when really, one can easily just compose a piece with that said syncopation and render your point invalid.
What's more, it appears that my point raised about the bass>snare>bass>snare defining the measure has not been addressed, while it easily remains the simplest way of finding bpm. I, too, had my moments when I was bound by the strict rules of classical music, but this should evidently not be the case, don't you agree? :3
Note, this is not about me trying to prove that I'm correct; rather, it is more about getting the most things correct on a map that you can actually control before I (we) rank it.
When you say that each bar is taken as a unit, what you really mean to say is that each phrase is taken as a unit. What this means is that the phrase now becomes the independent variable, while the number of measures depend on the length of the phrase. Using this method cannot tell you whether the song is 180 or 90 bpm, so it is dismissed.
Your point on 'regular beats' is a little flawed since you deny the possibility of 0 or 2 or more regular (irregular) beats. If the song is 'mainly' 1/4, for example, it certainly does not have to be introduced by 1/4. Similarly, you dismiss the possible existence of a second beat syncopation, when really, one can easily just compose a piece with that said syncopation and render your point invalid.
What's more, it appears that my point raised about the bass>snare>bass>snare defining the measure has not been addressed, while it easily remains the simplest way of finding bpm. I, too, had my moments when I was bound by the strict rules of classical music, but this should evidently not be the case, don't you agree? :3
Note, this is not about me trying to prove that I'm correct; rather, it is more about getting the most things correct on a map that you can actually control before I (we) rank it.
Didn't we already have this discussion in #bat?
Anyway, the BPM doesn't matter as much as long as the tick rate is adjusted accordingly. Which it is in this case (rate 1)
At a glance, though, the Normal -> Hard is a pretty big jump up in difficulty settings and velocity. Might check later if I get some time (and the set hasn't already been ranked by then q:)
Anyway, the BPM doesn't matter as much as long as the tick rate is adjusted accordingly. Which it is in this case (rate 1)
At a glance, though, the Normal -> Hard is a pretty big jump up in difficulty settings and velocity. Might check later if I get some time (and the set hasn't already been ranked by then q:)
/me slaps Garven
Ranked.
Ranked.
lol wrong icon
yeah~!!
Congrats>w<//
Congrats>w<//
Congrats sumisola :3
Gratz-
Darksonic wrote:
lol wrong icon
我去这下你又有的晒妹了!
Sharlo's voice
这不科学
这不科学
Topic Starter
no 这很科学[CSGA]Ar3sgice wrote:
Sharlo's voice
这不科学
nice to see this ranked, congrats :3
Sharlo you have a wonderful voice 
congratz on the rank
congratz on the rank
Is this song an original composition?