1. Cataclysm (5.74 stars, 784 notes)
2. Easy (1.51 stars, 90 notes)
3. Hard (3.35 stars, 298 notes)
4. Insane (4.51 stars, 444 notes)
5. Normal (2.07 stars, 167 notes)

Cheesecake wrote:

Hi, from modding queue

[Insane]

00:03:987 (2) - Ctrl+G I do fancy all my sliders pointing upwards
00:07:587 (4,5) - Make this blanket by doing this I'll make it more ambiguous whether it's supposed to be a blanket or not
00:40:887 (1,1) - Ew this overlap Unnoticeable ;d
00:57:687 (1,2,1,1,2,1) - Well this is new, I don't think buzz sliders are too hard for 4.5* I like long sliders


[Cataclysm]

00:10:587 (5,6) - This is really misleading imo, I'd reccomend a good ol' Ctrl+G I like the little anti-jump there
00:13:887 (3) - Make this a bit closer to 00:13:287 (1) - so that 00:13:287 (1,2,3) - this whole part is equidistant I'll make it more ambiguous whether they're supposed to be equidistant or not
00:36:237 (2) - Ctrl+G? I do fancy all my sliders pointing downwards
00:51:687 (1) - I'm not sure if these should really be 1/8, all the gaps make it sound really weird as well (this applies for this whole section up to 01:15:387 (8) - ) I think it plays fine
01:28:587 (8,9,1) - Flow from (9) to (1) doesn't look good, try and see if you can make this part flow clockwise rather than anti-clockwise or however you want to do it so that it flows into 01:28:887 (1) - properly Oks
01:37:887 (9) - NC Oks

Good luck

Spiral527 wrote:

from my queue

Hard

00:07:212 (3,1) - don't stack like this, move these down to make them more visible spacing them more kinda goes against my intentions for this pattern
00:09:087 (2) - stack the head of this on the tail of 00:07:887 (3) Why?
01:19:287 (1) - move this up more, it blocks too much of the next slider Intentional
01:42:087 (1,2) - when I was a hard player I didn't like stacking like this. Can't say I'm a fan now I don't see a problem with it, and if I remain consistent it should be fine
01:43:287 (1,2) - ^
01:46:887 (1,2) - ^
01:48:087 (1,2) - ^
01:52:887 (1,2) - ^
01:54:087 (1,2) - ^

Normal

00:03:687 (2) - not sure if this is intentional, but the sliderslide here is drum (which seems to be intentionally avoided elsewhere) Yes they're intentional
01:50:487 (1) - ^
02:00:087 (1) - ^

01:21:687 (1) - beautiful slider (not part of my mod, just wanted to say that)

Couldn't find anything in Insane or Cataclysm which is why I didn't mod them

1. 00:25:137 (1) - Wouldnt it make more sense to end the slider on the white tick? (theres an actual sound there)
2. 00:51:687 (1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - For this section i think you should lower the volume to around 45% as oppose to 60%
3. 02:04:737 - Add a note here? (its fine either way)
4. 02:10:587 (4) - I think if you made this slider 1/8 instead of 1/4 itd have a nice build up to the finish. (also compliments the build up cymbal)

NucleaRaven wrote:

Hi from my queue o/

[Cataclysm]

1. 00:25:137 (1) - Wouldnt it make more sense to end the slider on the white tick? (theres an actual sound there) Mapping the wubwub
2. 00:51:687 (1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - For this section i think you should lower the volume to around 45% as oppose to 60% Hmm makes sense. I've changed hitsound volumes around the map as well now that you've mentioned it
3. 02:04:737 - Add a note here? (its fine either way) Hmmm I'd like to slow down this part as much as possible, and adding a note makes it too fast
4. 02:10:587 (4) - I think if you made this slider 1/8 instead of 1/4 itd have a nice build up to the finish. (also compliments the build up cymbal) Nah I think the 1/4 is enough and I get a nice pattern out of it

Amazing map gl with rank Tyty

Potato-chii wrote:

00:18:687 (4) – If you want a blanket here, maybe fix it. And I’d recommend you to take the slider end away from 00:18:387 (3) because newbies often mistake it as the slider head.

Potato-chii wrote:

02:11:037 (1) – Why end spinner there? Why not here 02:14:487 ?

Potato-chii wrote:

01:08:487 (1) – Maybe not this shape again?

Scebtile wrote:

Hello from my modding queue!

I'm very sorry I only modded the insane diff because I was just really busy and had no time for the Calamity diff. Tests are annoying :/

Insane
• 00:16:137 (4) - Not sure if the clap on this is intentional but if it is, then it just doesn't sound good at all. I suggest you just put the clap on 00:15:987 instead. Oh yeah nice catch
• 00:22:737 (1) - There should be 3 notes instead of this 1/1 slider because there is a sound at 00:22:887. Or you could make a 1/2 reverse slider, whatever you find better. Nah, I can emphasize drums better by omitting the quieter and unnoticeable sounds
• 00:23:787 - You might not agree on me with this one, but there should be a note right here. Although since its a low drum hit, you should make the note a drum and reduce the volume for it. I did it and it sounds perfect. Up to you though. I actually mapped it by NOT mapping it
• 00:24:387 (2) - Same with point 2. (Although this one might be fine because of the high whistle sound in the song)
• 00:25:137 (1) - ^ (This one isn't though)
• 00:30:237 - There should be a note here. Not following the piano like sounds, but the drums in the background. Trying a mapping technique mapping the downbeat as a circle and omitting the eighth following. It works well here
• 00:31:287 (1) - Same with point 2.
• 00:33:687 (1,2) - This overlap is fine but it could be better imo.
• 00:47:487 (1,1) - This overlap could also be better. I messed around a bit, and I found that if you select all 3 notes at 00:47:487 (1,2,3), and then move them to x:84, y:240, the overlap becomes way better. (Visually ofc)
• 00:58:887 (2) - I think that if you NC this, it would be much more fun to play this part in tag-coop. (Yeah I know the slider is short compared to the one next to this one. But still, more fun in tag-coop ^^) Implying anyone plays co-op
• 01:03:687 (2) - ^
• 01:11:337 (1) - There is no need for the NC here. Ok
• 01:27:387 (1) - The random 2.00 SV change here is really awkward to play. I could understand the one at 01:26:787 (1) since it's only 1.5. But a 2.00 SV change just ruins the flow your map had imo. I like how it plays, and the extreme curve slows down the feel significantly
• 01:28:362 (6,7) - This overlap is also fine but it also could have been better.
• From 01:33:687 up until 01:36:912, I think it would sound better if you put drum hitsounds on each slider start and slider end. I experimented with some hitsounds and they all sounded bad
• 01:39:687 (1) - This note should really be a slider like the sliders at 01:39:987 (1,1,1). It should also be mixed up with them. Fits the flow better. o

The rest of this diff is perfectly fine.

Really nice map. And again i'm sorry that I couldn't mod 2 diffs. Good luck on rank.

Shurelia wrote:

00:40:887 (1,2,3,4) - Should be at insane or extra not on hard diff imo.

1. sudden distance change may be bad in normal imo(like in 00:18:387 (3,4) - ), i suggest to keep ds in an average about 1.1x or something( even at downbeats, still inapproriate in normal imo
2. 00:32:487 better to be clickable at downbeat
3. 01:15:387 (1,2) - only stack in this diff, or maybe no stack(1/4 slide and a single note)?

1. 00:05:487 (3,4) - jump seems no reason
2. 00:07:887 (3) - ctl+g
3. distance seems too large to me, maybe higher sv to suit it or just make them tider
   
   not mention all the distance thing above

1. looks fine to me

cHelli wrote:

NM as requested
[Normal]

1. sudden distance change may be bad in normal imo(like in 00:18:387 (3,4) - ), i suggest to keep ds in an average about 1.1x or something( even at downbeats, still inapproriate in normal imo Because so many people are mentioning it, I went over the entire diff to see if there were things I could change that didn't need to belong. I ended up changing a couple distance issues (the ones that were a little too far and could easily be moved closer without breaking the intended structure)
2. 00:32:487 better to be clickable at downbeat It might play better if I consider only this bar by itself, but if I used this mindset for every single bar in the song, it'll get boring pretty quick
3. 01:15:387 (1,2) - only stack in this diff, or maybe no stack(1/4 slide and a single note)? I've actually thought about this a lot when I was mapping this part, and what I have now is the result of maximizing "ease-of-play : feel" ratio

[Hard]

1. 00:05:487 (3,4) - jump seems no reason There is a reason
2. 00:07:887 (3) - ctl+g Ok
3. distance seems too large to me, maybe higher sv to suit it or just make them tider The rhythm is pretty sparse and the distancing is pretty fine from my PoV. Realistically, I think the hardest part in the whole diff is 00:10:887 (1,2,3) - which doesn't even break the holy "distance snap". And it reminds me I should probably make this easier because it is actually too hard ...
   
   not mention all the distance thing above

[Insane]

1. looks fine to me

Nice map

GL~

Reditum wrote:

WHAT A CALAMITY!!!
bahahahhahha!!!!!!

Extra:
00:12:312 - Would be nice to have a note here since it's pretty prominent in the melody and this is the first instance of the main melodic theme Actually If I wanted to follow the melody precisely it would have to start another 1/4 before what you said. But I don't want to do that, which is why it's the way it is currently.
00:43:587 (2,3,4) - would be nice to have these spaced out more so it doesn't feel so jerky The antijumps are intentional to follow the music feel
01:20:787 (1,1) - NCs need not apply I had a specific system for NC and it follows. That being said, I went through the whole diff to brush up on comboing again

Insane:
00:02:787 (1,1,1) - like you relaly don't need these NCs. Especially because the next pattern doesn't have them I disagree. The next pattern is different in a way that the overlap is easily read
00:57:687 - Ok so this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE diff spread issue right here. the previous part has all of these 1/4 streams but you have sliders. This makes it INCREDIBLY unbalanced between your difficulties, which is a big no no and you'll run into a lot of issues over spread here. I'd suggest mapping this part out more. I could map this using triples or 1/4 sliders but it's already overly done in the diff. There probably needs to be a difficulty gap between an Insane and an Expert diff, otherwise they would be the same map

Hard:
im really lazy I'm not going to point out all of your combo blunders but like if you have multiple (1)s in a row that's generally not a good idea unless there's an explicit purpose. There is an explicit purpose
00:02:487 (1) - RC states (or should state, since staff is too lazy to update it and they'll yell at me if I do it) that Hard diffs must have 1 full beat of space between the end of a spinner and the next slider. So uh this is a boo boo If someone brings it up, I'll look at it again
00:02:487 (1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,3,4,1) - this is literally the same pattern from the insane im going to kill myself omfg Um It's not the same pattern, but they are definitely similar. Weird, it's like the two diffs are the same song mapped by the same mapper in the same style...
01:21:762 (1,1) - You could seriously map way more than just this. Spinners are probably not the best fit here, but I like them as they set this section apart from the others, and spinners in Hard are usually difficult and exciting. The spinners set the player up perfectly for the next section in the song
01:33:687 - ok be real with me did you just fucking copy-paste parts of this map from the insane Nope, I don't look at my own maps for inspiration

Normal:
ok so big general statement, your spread is like really screwed here. You have a bunch of 1/2s in the hard diff, yet these are all really long sliders. This feels more like an easy diff, and there needs to be some intermediary diff between this and hard. You can even tell by the star ratings being so far apart (1.93 - 3.36 stars apart is enough to be a really big concern for easier difficulties). Before I started mapping Normal, I had two things in mind: 1. I wanted only 4 diffs in this set. 2. I wanted the easiest diff to have relatively fast AR and SV with uncommon DS. Because of RC's <2.00 star rule, I decided to map relatively easy rhythm to compensate for my decisions for the diff's properties. I don't see your point about star rating as those values are arbitrary, but I can see the problem with the rhythm discrepancies.... I feel Normal is on the very difficult side of an Easy diff, and Hard is on the easy side of a Hard diff, and I don't really think the spread suffers from a lack of a traditional "Normal" diff

It's actually like a really nice map and I love what you did with the but has some glaring spread problems that make it not ready for ranking at all.

eINess wrote:

From Modding Queues o/

[General]

1. looooooool funny BG , but is it safe? o.o

what do you mean? It's a masterpiece

[Extra]

1. 00:12:087 - How about add KiAi here? owo mm.. I don't like adding too much kiai in maps
2. 00:11:187 (3) - little confused x_x add NC pls NC kinda ruins my intended pattern..
3. 00:11:937 (7) - how about think change 1/4 slider? we can heard 00:12:012 - this sounds enough. oks
4. 00:17:787 (1) - remove NC and add NC 00:18:087 (5) - instead. Did something else
5. 01:21:687 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - how about this thythem? It can more fit with electric sounds and can more emphasize 01:22:587 (10) - clap sound
   
   SPOILER

   
   ooh I like this

[Hard]

1. 00:47:487 (1,2,3) - hm... make reverse slider to more easy to play? o3o\ ok

[Normal]

1. different object's distance and 1.93 stars... well.. I don't think so this diff is not good for lowest dff. you're mapping awsome. try to make easy. you can. Hmm.. I want the easiest diff to be simple but not too trivial. If it was a slow song, I would agree and make an easier diff, but I think a really easy 1-star diff wouldn't fit with the song. I could make one similar style as Normal but using a lot of 1/1 and 2/1 sliders, but the difficulty would be similar and, in my opinion, it would ruin the spread more than leaving it as it is
2. 01:12:087 (1,2,3,4) - are you sure this rhythem really fit with song?? Idk what sounds you want to follow. I actually tried a lot of things here and this has probably the best rhythm:playable ratio

mulraf wrote:

Hey from my queue o/

General:
__________________________________________________________________________________
- well. that's an interesting uh.... bg... you got there. to say the least. erm yeah. don't know about that. Yeah took me a while to get it perfect
- there's a lot of different slider verlocities in the various difficulties. this is NOT a rule JUST a guideline - give it a thought. at least for some velocities that are very, very close:
"A maximum of three slider velocities should be used (including 1x). For example, you could have a single map using 0.6x, 0.8x, and 1x; or 0.75x, 1x, and 1.5x; etc. If more than three slider velocities are used, then they should make sense and be intuitive. If slider velocity changes are able to be merged (e.g. close values like 0.8x and 0.7x) while still flowing/working correctly, then they should be. " I would argue the difference in .1x SV change is pretty noticeable in high bpm. ...I actually don't know how I choose my SV values, it's pretty random (or sometimes extremely specific if I want to create certain slider)
- 02:11:037 (1) - This spinner isn't ending right on the tick in every difficulty. I've done it intentionally. (I think?) the music stops right there

Normal:
__________________________________________________________________________________
- 01:09:687 (1) - Starting at this note you already change the NC pattern to every 2 downbeats again, however, the change in the songs is a bit later. i'd recommend nc'ing every downbeat like before that and starting with every second one at 01:16:887 (1) again Hmm.. I think I chose to NC every downbeat just to highlight the long sliders individually rather than coupling them together. After they end, no need to maintain the combo pattern

Hard:
__________________________________________________________________________________
- 00:16:812 (4) - i'd recommend removing this note since it's a bit hard and doesn't flow as good (and i don't hear that sound there anyways). Think it plays fine. Also I hear a sound there
- 00:25:962 (5) - ^ What do you have against triples !!
- 00:44:487 (1) - delete the hitcircle, move the spinner 1 tick closer and extend it one tick Probably play better, but also boring
- 01:10:887 (4) - NC here instead of the next tick No need I think (I actually found a weird timing point because of this suggestion though, so pretty cool)
- 02:09:687 (3) - NC o true

Insane:
__________________________________________________________________________________
- 00:37:287 (1) 00:39:687 (1) 00:42:087 (1) - i don't know. i just can't bring myself to like this circle right before the spinner. in my opinion it'd be better if the spinner just started one tick earlier. but i guess for the insane difficulty this is fine and is rather your taste. just think about it. this happens more often throughout the difficulty and i personally never like it and i think the song would also be matched if you used the other solution Nah you're delusional (or maybe I am)
- 01:00:087 (1) - nice pattern but there is no change in the song and that spinner is very slow and easy for insane. i'd think about changing it to 2 different spinners with mini-streams or mini fast repeat-slider-whatever's like in the following similar sections as well Noo my slider Hmm.. Previously here I had it all filled with long sliders. I agree the transition is really awkward.. I might undermap the part right before it instead to make it flow better


I'll skip catacylsm since it's a bit to hard for me (even though i can nearly make it through the first half )
and sorry for the vague mod. it's a very original/creative way you did this beatmap (which i like). but since i'm kinda new at mapping/modding i don't have that much experience with those creative patterns. e.g. the nc's look really, really spooky but i guess i still get the idea most of the time. but sometimes i'm just confused lol. sp00ky NCs

Shyotamaze wrote:

Hi, from uuh.. idk I'm lost

General

1. Nothing to say

Hard

1. Check AIMod, you need to be careful with the DS in that difficulty since you don't have an Easy I use DS as a guideline, not a rule

Hard

1. 00:14:187 (4,1) - No blanket? Style preference
2. 01:47:787 (4,1) - ^

Insane

1. 00:07:587 (4,5) - No blanket?
2. 00:08:787 (2,3) - ^
3. 01:00:087 (1) - I love this slider dude Thanks
4. 01:16:887 (1) - No shape? (it still looks nice but a shape would be better imo) I really like the slow straight slider, works pretty well with the music and the patterns that follow
5. 02:08:487 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1) - That ending may be a bit too similar to the Hard Yeah... It's the same for the three higher diffs. I use it because it's probably the best pattern to use there and to give the mapset a sense of unity I guess

Hm yea quality mod amirite guys :^), if you don't rank it with that background I'll cry :^)
Good luck!

Kibbleru wrote:

watagod

4399guangguang wrote:

[Cataclysm]

01:34:287 (9) - Change it into a short slider Not a bad idea, but extremely hard to implement for me with the way I've set up the pattern and I think just a note is ok too
01:35:487 (9) - ^

[Insane]

Too many spinners. What do you have against spinners

00:01:287 (1) - Spinner is quite strange Plays fine (I think)
01:00:087 (1) - Not really understand this slow star slider Oh yeah I was gonna change up this section so it feels better. Did that now

[Hard]

The distance between objects is weird.

8 spinners,seriously? C:

00:12:087 (1) - Put it right next to the previous slider It is D:
00:21:687 (1) - Shorten it by 1 beat ?
00:26:487 (1,1,1,1) - These are not necessary to split into 4 combos.Also don't put too close to each other Mmm looks alright
00:32:187 (4) - Distance dude Jumps op
00:38:487 (2) - NC o
00:52:887 (1) - dat distance
00:58:887 (1) - A little bit closer is okay This actually just took me an hour to implement, no joke
01:11:787 (2) - Put it upside down Nah
01:18:987 (1) - Follow the sequence Want to make the beat different for the light whistle
01:27:687 (1,1,1,1) - No NC,too close
01:31:887 (4) - Strange distance
01:34:287 (3) - Short slider as the previous two Ehhh It's alright
01:35:487 (3) - ^
01:39:687 (1) - Put it closer to the sliders
01:44:487 (1) - Distance
01:50:487 (1) - Slider velocity is strange to be suddenly slowed down Very intentional D:

1. 00:10:887 (1,2,3,4) - Feels forced for visuals and hurts readability. I don't even see the point of 3 and 4 having different slider velocities when they're pretty much the same sound, the only difference is that the sound for 3 is held a little bit longer.
2. 00:24:087 (1,2,3) - This angle just feels very weird to snap on imo, maybe ctrl+g 3 for a sharper movement?
3. 00:30:687 (5,6) - I'd space this further away so it doesn't get mistaken as a slider leniency 1/4 jump coming from 00:30:387 (4)
4. 00:33:087 (5,6) - ^
5. 00:36:087 (1,2,3,4) - Same thing mentioned in the first point
6. 00:39:087 (6,1) - This anti-jump felt unintuitive since there's still a drum hit on 00:39:237
7. 00:57:387 (9) - I'd NC this for more readability as a 3/4, the slowdown does make sense but it's still very abrupt
8. 01:22:737 (1,1) - I don't see the purpose behind these NCs, it's just in the midst of 1/2 jump spam and those notes aren't mapped to any unique sounds
9. 01:27:387 (1) - A huge slider velocity boost here really isn't fitting for such a weak and almost inaudible sound, plus the slider ends on 01:27:537 which much stronger. Maybe have the slider velocity increase on 01:27:537 instead
10. 01:28:137 (4,5,6) - This isn't following the melody properly like 01:27:912 (2,3,7,8,9). 6 should be moved forward by a tick and then 5 should be turned into a 1/4 slider.
11. 01:54:087 (1,2) - This gap in the rhythm feels out of place for the peak of the song

1. Uh, this diff is fine, but it can't possibly be used as the lowest diff in the spread when there are so many ds jumps (unless those were unintentional). Also, the overall density feels more like an easy than a normal since you have so many 4/1 and 2/1 sliders and very little 1/2. There's a large gap between this and the hard diff.

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Why is there NC spam here? It's no different than 00:04:887 (1,2,3,4) and 00:07:287 (1,2,3,4), and there's nothing really special going on in the music
2. 00:05:487 (3,4) - Nothing happens in the song but all of a sudden there's a huge jump here, seems like the pattern was forced
3. 00:37:287 (1,1,1,1) - I still don't understand the purpose of the NC spam, that goes for 00:39:687 (1,1,1,1) too
4. 00:40:887 (1,2,3) - This is difficult to read as a polarity change, you spaced them like 1/2 but players will naturally ignore 1/4 slider tails anyways
5. I guess this is more of a personal thing, but I think players will find stuff like 00:44:562 (1,1) and 01:12:087 (1,1) extremely underwhelming and boring for their level of skill. Imo you can definitely map some of those parts out more.

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Again, I don't see the point of the NC spam
2. 00:09:687 (1,2,3) - This polarity change is pretty difficult to read with this spacing, especially with a 1/2 jump right before which is higher in distance. I'd space them out more
3. 00:34:887 (1,2,3) - ^
4. 01:27:387 (1) - Same thing mentioned in Calamity diff

sukiNathan wrote:

from queue

[Cataclysm]

1. 00:10:887 (1,2,3,4) - Feels forced for visuals and hurts readability. I don't even see the point of 3 and 4 having different slider velocities when they're pretty much the same sound, the only difference is that the sound for 3 is held a little bit longer. The intention isn't really for the visual, I want the SV to slow down then speed up quickly again exactly the way it is now because that's how I feel the music plays. I could potentially substitute (3) as a single circle instead if it's too much of a problem, but since the visual did work out alright, I'd rather keep it if possible
2. 00:24:087 (1,2,3) - This angle just feels very weird to snap on imo, maybe ctrl+g 3 for a sharper movement? I don't understand. Ctrl+G doesn't seem like a good option either
3. 00:30:687 (5,6) - I'd space this further away so it doesn't get mistaken as a slider leniency 1/4 jump coming from 00:30:387 (4) Quite readable with high AR + I don't want to disrupt the pattern too much
4. 00:33:087 (5,6) - ^
5. 00:36:087 (1,2,3,4) - Same thing mentioned in the first point
6. 00:39:087 (6,1) - This anti-jump felt unintuitive since there's still a drum hit on 00:39:237 Hmm, I don't like it, I think. I'm mapping the strongest prominent sounds to emphasize them further. Giving too much love to the insignificant side skits moves attention away from the main act
7. 00:57:387 (9) - I'd NC this for more readability as a 3/4, the slowdown does make sense but it's still very abrupt I think it's fine, don't wanna be NC'ing randomly
8. 01:22:737 (1,1) - I don't see the purpose behind these NCs, it's just in the midst of 1/2 jump spam and those notes aren't mapped to any unique sounds This is entirely for visual purposes to satisfy probably only myself. So, in my head, I find NC in the middle of a polygon very satisfying if it's disconnected from the notes that follow, so that's why the first NC is there. The second NC is there mainly to follow the previous NC pattern
9. 01:27:387 (1) - A huge slider velocity boost here really isn't fitting for such a weak and almost inaudible sound, plus the slider ends on 01:27:537 which much stronger. Maybe have the slider velocity increase on 01:27:537 instead Disagree. There's no sound from your suggested timestamp to the next beat. I opted to implicitly map the strong sound at your timestamp with the shape of the slider angling sharply and ending abruptly on it
10. 01:28:137 (4,5,6) - This isn't following the melody properly like 01:27:912 (2,3,7,8,9). 6 should be moved forward by a tick and then 5 should be turned into a 1/4 slider. To account for the stronger drums, this is the best rhythm I can come up with
11. 01:54:087 (1,2) - This gap in the rhythm feels out of place for the peak of the song Fixed

[Normal]

1. Uh, this diff is fine, but it can't possibly be used as the lowest diff in the spread when there are so many ds jumps (unless those were unintentional). Also, the overall density feels more like an easy than a normal since you have so many 4/1 and 2/1 sliders and very little 1/2. There's a large gap between this and the hard diff.
   
   Maybe I don't know much about this, but from my experience, new players struggle mainly with slider mechanics and low AR (I've introduced countless friends to this game and every single one of them has the same problem if they're not already musically-inclined). The way I opt to map lower-end diffs is to not worry about DS because that's actually not something new players struggle with (people know how to use their mouse to click things, they're just maybe not used to clicking it at exactly the right time). So I use higher AR to make the map more readable, and faster SV to ease on learning slider mechanics. I use simpler rhythm so the map is still easy to follow, and then I can map more visually since I'm no longer restricted by DS or slow SV. That's the style choice on how I map anyways.... I really honestly disagree that this can't be the lowest diff. Something easier will be completely mundane and will hurt the set in my opinion.
   
   As for the difficulty gap between Normal and Hard, I think the gap between Hard and Insane is almost identical, and similarly Insane to Extra. Since hitting higher difficulty caps grows exponentially, the skill required to improve from playing the Normal to Hard is actually similar to that from Hard to Insane. I actually think the biggest gap is from Insane to Extra in this case, but people are generally more lenient about that which is why it's the way it is. Hope I can get my point across.
   
   (Oh yeah, also, that being said, 1/2 jumps in Normals is completely not fine and I never do anything like that. Also using 1/2 sliders like you suggest would probably require me to overlap them, and I think overlapped 1/2 sliders with CS3 are super ugly)

[Hard]

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Why is there NC spam here? It's no different than 00:04:887 (1,2,3,4) and 00:07:287 (1,2,3,4), and there's nothing really special going on in the music So, without NC spam, it looks really weird to me just because of the pattern. NC spam just for the visuals as the sliders completely overlap one another
2. 00:05:487 (3,4) - Nothing happens in the song but all of a sudden there's a huge jump here, seems like the pattern was forced I can't deny, this was 100% fullly-intentionally forced Visuals > all
3. 00:37:287 (1,1,1,1) - I still don't understand the purpose of the NC spam, that goes for 00:39:687 (1,1,1,1) too
4. 00:40:887 (1,2,3) - This is difficult to read as a polarity change, you spaced them like 1/2 but players will naturally ignore 1/4 slider tails anyways Not for Hard players
5. I guess this is more of a personal thing, but I think players will find stuff like 00:44:562 (1,1) and 01:12:087 (1,1) extremely underwhelming and boring for their level of skill. Imo you can definitely map some of those parts out more. I love spinners I actually think they're really exciting, especially for the average osu player (I could be completely wrong of course)

[Insane]

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Again, I don't see the point of the NC spam
2. 00:09:687 (1,2,3) - This polarity change is pretty difficult to read with this spacing, especially with a 1/2 jump right before which is higher in distance. I'd space them out more Anti-jump
3. 00:34:887 (1,2,3) - ^
4. 01:27:387 (1) - Same thing mentioned in Calamity diff

good luck!

Desperate-kun wrote:

Talking about the actual map, I do understand the concept behind it. Jumps are used in a way mappers typically use them in any diff higher than Normal. From the perspective of an experimental mapper it doesn't make much sense to use an entirely different concept (distance snapping all the way through) in the Normal if anything up from Hard is allowed to have big jumps after sliders, so that concept is used for the Normal too. It is also used consistently and the patterns are clearly structured and make sense.

Now there is the problem that in most situations there is a direction change directly after the jumps, leading to setups that might be very hard to read for newbie players. Just to give a few examples:
00:04:887 (1,2) -
00:07:287 (1,2) -
00:13:887 (3,1) -
For each of those, the tail of the second slider is closer to the previous object than it's head. This is repeated throughout the whole map. That means this Normal requires the skill of differentiating between sliderhead and slidertail via approach circles / numbers on sliders, which is a skill most Normal difficulty players don't have.

Another problem I can see is that many of the jumps are almost twice as big as the regular distance spacing, which means the 2/1-gaps could be misread as 1/1-jumps too (or the other way around, but 1/1-jumps are used much more frequently and introduced way earlier). There are different ways professional players read complicated rhythms like that, paying close attention to approach circles (very hard) and playing after intuition (objects will more likely start on a white / red tick than a blue tick for example (for higher diffs), which would mean objects will more likely start on beat 1 or 3 than beat 2 or 4 transfered to this particular map) are two of them. The map is not made in a way that would contradict these strategies, but those are skills that most Normal difficulty players don't have either.

I would say the difficulty does well at what it's trying to do but it doesn't fit as the lowest difficulty of the mapset due to the advanced skills required to play it that I explained above. I would recommend to add an Easy difficulty that introduces jump usage, but doesn't do the things I mentioned above (meaning it DOESN'T use jumps with direction changes directly after and it DOESN'T use jumps twice as big as the standard spacing). That would most likely be the best option.

I'm sorry for my complex sentences here, I didn't really know how to put it more simple though.

Bakari wrote:

If a player is capable of reading jumps they should proceed to Hard difficulties, Normals give them an idea of distance spacing and interrupting this is irrational and will have a negative impact on future mapping in general.

With all of the explanation given above, I've to say just one thing, players are not machines indeed, but they are getting used to more intense rhythms and breaking that process with jumps is not an option to me.

Jumps are breaking normal spacing values, this statement alone makes the idea of using jumps in Normals inappropriate.

Kibbleru wrote:

k some things
bold = u better fix if u want me to buble xd

hard
01:04:887 (1) - touches hp bar sam
01:39:387 (1,1) - it would be better if u space this the same as the rest tbh tr
01:57:987 - why did u skip this one, u dont do it elsewhere uh because the slider is cool
02:09:687 (1,2,3,4) - imo its alot better to play if u just removed 1 repeat from each of them, it would fit pretty nice too imo. cuz the motion is kinda weird rn ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


insane
00:34:887 (1,2) - imo swapping nc would make it easier to read? holy actually no joke this is god suggestion
02:00:387 (4) - eh what am I looking at

SPOILER

extra
00:11:187 (3) - i would honestly ask for either an nc or slight length variation from the previous ones pce
00:36:387 (3) - ^
00:17:187 (2) - curve this more for the structure a

SPOILER

00:27:687 (1,2) - i legit don't know why but the way u made this part actually looks so awful LOL. try some red anchors maybe? uh fixed? iodk

SPOILER

00:32:487 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i think in general could use some more spacing here. I think the pacing is alright, rhythm gets kinda complicated here
00:58:137 (4,5) - more spacing pls, so ppl can tell the difference between this and 00:57:687 (1,2) - true

u gotta make ur white combo colour darker, its unrankable otherwise iirc a

is the source supposed to be tohou or bms? the ranked version has tohou the original song this was remixed from is from Touhou. This one is from BMS which is apparently what we're putting as the source. BMS, original song