1. Advanced (2.97 stars, 201 notes)
2. DiFf_(k)NAME (5.32 stars, 364 notes)
3. Easy (1.33 stars, 84 notes)
4. Hard (3.58 stars, 281 notes)
5. Insane (4.48 stars, 357 notes)
6. Normal (1.98 stars, 153 notes)

wajinshu wrote:

Hi! From your M4M queue
[General]
Uncheck widescreen and countdown
[Normal]
HP: 3.5 CS: 3 AR: 5 OD: 4
00:02:220 - 00:02:620 - delete this green tick
[Advanced]
HP: 4 CS: 3.8 AR: 6.5 OD:4.5
00:36:020 (3,4,5) - Spacing not consistent A stacked triplet.. What's wrong? The spacing before and after this pattern is consistent too.
00:19:020 (2) - Why rhythm not same as 00:12:420 (1,2,3) - I think they have same music imo
00:20:420 (1,2) - ^
00:22:020 (1,2) - ^
00:27:920 (3) - overmapped Nope.
00:31:120 (3) - ^^
00:59:520 (2) - ^
01:02:720 (4) - ^
01:14:420 (3,4,5,1) - 1/2 and circle in white big tick? That's cool but I think current one is well too.
[Hard]
00:31:620 (1,2) - blanket
00:35:620 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - ?
00:40:820 (5) - Why 2.00
00:55:420 (6) - NC
00:58:620 (9) - ^
01:06:620 (5) - ^
01:11:420 (10) - ^
00:56:020 (1) - Remove NC
00:59:220 (1) - ^
01:07:220 (1) - ^
01:12:020 (1) - ^
[DiFf_(k)NAME]
00:12:020 (3,4,5,6) - http://puu.sh/nxXsm/7b8dcd77d2.png?? That's nice but the purpose here is the increased spacing
00:20:820 (3) - maybe make it same 00:20:620 (2) -
00:49:620 (2,3) -maybe this because it's not very looks http://puu.sh/nxXDh/fbc7ce7786.png The whole zigzag movement and look is on purpose
00:58:620 (8) - this slider can be more sexy It's on purpose but I will most likely change it lol
01:04:420 (9,1,2,3,4,5,6) - D: looks not very beatiful I might try to do something else..
GL!
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/419714

1. 
2. 00:04:820 (1,2) - I would avoid stacks like these in a Normal difficulty.
3. 00:33:020 (4) - I'm not sure if it's entirely okay to have reverse sliders that repeat more than once in a Normal difficulty. Feels free to ignore this.
4. 01:13:020 (4) - ^
5. 00:20:220 (2) - Have something clickable on this white tick.
6. 00:15:220 (4) - There needs to be something clickable on the big white tick where the slider ends, because the instruments start there. You could try something like this:
   
7. 00:17:020 (2,1) - ^ Try the exact same thing, but turn (4) into a single note:
   
8. Just watch out for big white ticks overall.
9. 00:42:220 (4,5) - This pattern is rather confusing. Remember to avoid stacks!
10. 00:54:420 (1,2,3,4) - You go from stacking, to not stacking. You should instead keep the circles between the sliders rather than stacking. It's kind of messy to have both.
11. 00:40:020 (2) - Something clickable at this slider end would be nice!
12. 00:42:820 (6) - ^
13. 00:46:620 (3,4) - ^ Same here. You can try this rhythm out:
    

1. 00:04:220 (6,7,1) - There's not enough to support a triple here.
2. 00:06:620 (3,5) - Not so nice looking overlap.
3. 00:31:620 (1,3) - ^
4. 00:20:220 (7) - Make the big white tick clickable.
5. 00:40:020 (3) - Try this rhythm instead:
   
6. 01:16:220 (2) - You could try this out instead of one big reverse slider:
   

1. 00:12:420 (1) - This feels kinda strange because the rhythm in the song (most clear in the violin part) is this, but I get that it might be a little complex for a Normal diff. Similar sort of awkwardness at 00:15:820
   
   
2. 00:40:620 (3) - Kinda weird that this is a straight edged curve while all the other 1/2 sliders are either straight or smoothly curved
   
   
3. 01:10:220 (1) - Maybe change to a slider? IDK it just feels empty here
   
   
4. 01:18:220 (2) - NC because 1 is more of a pickup. And you have it as NC in Hard, Insane, and DiFf_(k)NAME

1. 00:00:000 (0) - Just a note, this diff is a HUGE jump from Normal, especially considering the other diffs in the set and the differences between them. Maybe nerf a bit with self mods? I'd rather not tell you how to make it easier, just that it probably could stand with some nerfing.
   
   
2. 00:24:420 (6) - This part feels very empty, while the music is just as dense as before, just with a different drum rhythm. Maybe change the rhythm to this or this?
   
   
3. 00:36:020 (3) - This looks hard to read for an Advanced level player because the stacking makes it look very connected the the 2 slider. Maybe play around with the angle?
   
   
4. 01:18:220 (2) - Same as Normal

1. 00:40:420 (4) - I feel like this jump pattern could be very awkward for Hard level players, especially considering the more straightforward DS from Advanced that you used.

1. 00:51:420 (1) - I would separate 1 and 2 a little bit more because it just looks plain weird as it is :/
   
   
2. 01:04:620 (5) - This too, it looks like 2 entirely disconnected patterns to me, and really confuses me when I'm trying to read it. I guess it is better than having just a run-of-the-mill 4 star insane diff lol

1. 3.6 HP LOL not 3.5 but 3.6 looolgggggg```` nothing wrong with it i just wanna know why you have it like that hahaha
2. 00:18:620 (2,3,1) - for one of my old ranked maps, i got so much flame from #modhelp for making this different DS & same spacing in timeline on my lowest diff of the map. so a BAT popped til it was changed 100%. i dont know if standards are different now but watch out for that since it seems to be part of the style of the diff (was the same for mine). im just not sure after 1.5 years if thats changed.
3. 01:14:520 (1) - uh lol ye same as advanced please

1. i dont get why advanced is suddenly CS 3.8. id understand if it was a part of the map where its consistent throughout all diffs like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/123839 but its just this one. raising CS from 3 only raises star rating by .1 and spread is fine even with this at CS 3. CS 3?
2. 00:58:420 (4) - double overlaps here can be really confusing so how bout moving 4 so its easier to read for advanced people
   SPOILER

   
3. 01:14:920 (1) - the cymbal this ends at is a really weak one. its similar to the one at 01:15:020 - too. 01:16:220 - is where all instruments stop along with the strongest cymbal so it really does feel off ending early. so end it at 01:16:220 - pls ye?
4. 01:17:620 (1,2,3) - this is actually really cool! i love it! such a sick rhythm for this part ~

1. 00:40:820 (5,6,1,2,3) - i was trying to fix some spacing and aesthetics here but i thought "why not make it a pattern like the one you have at 00:44:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - .." so how bout something like having 00:41:220 (1,2,3) - as a mirror of 00:42:020 (4,5,6) -? im my example, 00:41:420 (2) - is stacked on 00:40:020 (3) - tail
   SPOILER

   

1. 00:10:620 (5,1) - i reaaaaaally think this needs to be spaced. neat pattern. doesnt fit the music well though. i need a hard hitting 00:10:820 (1) - :c
2. 00:19:420 (5,1) - having one 1/2 spacing come out of nowhere is fine . but two consecutively really throws me off and doesnt fit the rest of the mapping style in this section. idk if its cuz you ran out of space or.. uh try this
   SPOILER

   
3. 00:24:020 (4,1) - i like to think im pretty damn good at reading at my skill level. this diff is below my skill level but damn is this pattern confusing!! even spacing between these three 00:24:020 (4,1,2) - make it so its hard to tell if 00:24:420 (1) - is on a white tick, but the main thing is that 00:24:020 (4) - this thing has two reverses on a short slider and 00:24:420 (1) - is at the top as if it continues off of 00:24:020 (4) - slider's 1 reverse. but it goes reverse again for the massive trickery what is this??!?!!11111 uh pls itd be nice if it was 1 reverse only and you can make it a 4 note stream before that reverse slider or something. just not this please lol
   SPOILER

   
4. 00:37:520 (2) - same as DiffFffFFNAME this is unnecessary and unfitting same reasons.
5. 01:04:620 (5,6,7,8) - this drastic change of spacing and change of direction feels too difficult for an insane diff. like. the same part on DiFFffF NAME diff was easier than this imo. change 01:04:620 (5,6) - into a 1/4 slider?
6. 01:21:820 (4,1) - why do you make this spacing so small ;-;

1. 00:05:020 (3,4,5) - consider making these notes not so equal spacing? i think itd be best to have 4 farther away from 3 and closer to 5 to emphasize the strong instrument at 00:05:420 (4) -. imo the pickup note on 00:05:620 (5) - is not very important so i think this would add a nice feel to the gameplay. something like this or some variation
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 00:08:220 (4) - i think ahving this as a 1/4 is excessive as im hearing in the music that the slight increase in tempo ends at 00:08:220 - rather than 00:08:420 - . so to mirror that, how about making 00:08:220 (4) - into a 1/2 slider and removing 00:08:420 (5) - ? like
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 00:10:820 (1,1,1,2) - same as 00:05:020 (3,4,5) - where i feel it would feel better if it had pairing rather than somewhat equal distances. itll also better accentuate the DS changes in your sliders. something like this?
   SPOILER

   
4. 00:18:820 (1,2) - space these out? the way it plays compared to the violin in the music seems unfitting, as its rather intensive here.
5. 00:35:220 (3,4,1) - i think itd play a bit better if theres some disconnect between 4 and 1. right now, in gameplay, slider 3 rotates in to 4 and then into 1 rather quickly and too smoothly, so the player needs to slow down ontop of a 1/2 spacing and then that really removes the emphasis from 00:35:620 (1) -. uhhh so try something like this to capture the instant drums at 00:35:620 (1) - more and get a BAANGGG in your 00:35:220 (3,4,1) - (im assuming you want bang since thats the same as the spaced 00:35:820 (2,3,4,5) -)
   SPOILER
6. 00:37:520 (2) - this seems very unnecessary :c the music is still slowing down here. a lot more here too. raising the density would have the opposite effect soo... remove?
7. 00:45:620 (2,3) - space this a bit? doesnt evne need to be a lot. just enough so that it doesnt feel like youre matching with 00:47:220 (3,4) - with the same stacking. b/c these are 2 very different parts in the song.
8. 00:58:620 (8,1,2) - uhhh i think you know the problem lol this stacking can be hard to read too and it doesnt match the style that youve mapped for this rhythm in the rest of the song
9. 01:04:020 (2,3,4,1) - i get that youre trying to use a style that youve mapped earlier in this diff but it doesnt fit well with the music here and is different from 00:49:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:51:420 (1,2,3,4,5) - . those two are constant buildups while 01:04:020 (2,3,4,1) - has emphasis on 01:04:220 (3) - right in the middle of the pattern. the flute is misleading as thats the only thing ramping up. so id suggest doing a different rhythm for 01:04:020 (2,3,4) - altogether, something that reflects the emphasis on 01:04:020 (2,3) - these two notes
10. 01:15:220 (1,2,3,4,1) - this is ridiculously difficult compared to the rest of the map but its not pressing i guess. more importantly, if you want to keep this pattern, could you please at least maintain the rotation that you had before so that its a lot easier to hit and smoother? hard jumps dont feel fitting here, relative to the rest of the map. so like thisss
    SPOILER

    
11. 01:21:820 (4,1) - increase the distance between these? right now its soooo underwhelming. at 01:20:420 (4,5,6) - i was like yes yes!! jump jump! and then i get to 01:21:820 (4,1) - with loud cymbals and staccato guitar notes and the distance is just like. oh. huh. so to match that pls increase distance to like this or osmething
    SPOILER

    

_vanity wrote:

Hello. I'm here from you M4M Queue.

[Normal]

1. 
2. 00:04:820 (1,2) - I would avoid stacks like these in a Normal difficulty.
3. 00:33:020 (4) - I'm not sure if it's entirely okay to have reverse sliders that repeat more than once in a Normal difficulty. Feels free to ignore this.
4. 01:13:020 (4) - ^
5. 00:20:220 (2) - Have something clickable on this white tick.
6. 00:15:220 (4) - There needs to be something clickable on the big white tick where the slider ends, because the instruments start there. You could try something like this:
   
7. 00:17:020 (2,1) - ^ Try the exact same thing, but turn (4) into a single note:
   
8. Just watch out for big white ticks overall.
9. 00:42:220 (4,5) - This pattern is rather confusing. Remember to avoid stacks!
10. 00:54:420 (1,2,3,4) - You go from stacking, to not stacking. You should instead keep the circles between the sliders rather than stacking. It's kind of messy to have both.
11. 00:40:020 (2) - Something clickable at this slider end would be nice!
12. 00:42:820 (6) - ^
13. 00:46:620 (3,4) - ^ Same here. You can try this rhythm out:
    

[Hard]

1. 00:04:220 (6,7,1) - There's not enough to support a triple here.
2. 00:06:620 (3,5) - Not so nice looking overlap.
3. 00:31:620 (1,3) - ^
4. 00:20:220 (7) - Make the big white tick clickable.
5. 00:40:020 (3) - Try this rhythm instead:
   
6. 01:16:220 (2) - You could try this out instead of one big reverse slider:
   

[]
Good luck!

IntelliTroodon wrote:

Hi, M4M from your queue :3

Normal:

1. 00:12:420 (1) - This feels kinda strange because the rhythm in the song (most clear in the violin part) is this, but I get that it might be a little complex for a Normal diff. Similar sort of awkwardness at 00:15:820 Normal is a normal, that's how it is
   
   
2. 00:40:620 (3) - Kinda weird that this is a straight edged curve while all the other 1/2 sliders are either straight or smoothly curved Small and quirky, just like the vocals.
   
   
3. 01:10:220 (1) - Maybe change to a slider? IDK it just feels empty hereIt's fine imo.
   
   
4. 01:18:220 (2) - NC because 1 is more of a pickup. And you have it as NC in Hard, Insane, and DiFf_(k)NAME

Advanced:

1. 00:00:000 (0) - Just a note, this diff is a HUGE jump from Normal, especially considering the other diffs in the set and the differences between them. Maybe nerf a bit with self mods? I'd rather not tell you how to make it easier, just that it probably could stand with some nerfing. There's no helping it lol, it's fine as long as the spread goes in a mannered way.
   
   
2. 00:24:420 (6) - This part feels very empty, while the music is just as dense as before, just with a different drum rhythm. Maybe change the rhythm to this or this? Your rhythm feel rather forceful than helpful, I like the current rhythm and prefer it as it goes really nice with the violin.
   
   
3. 00:36:020 (3) - This looks hard to read for an Advanced level player because the stacking makes it look very connected the the 2 slider. Maybe play around with the angle?
   
   
4. 01:18:220 (2) - Same as Normal

Hard:

1. 00:40:420 (4) - I feel like this jump pattern could be very awkward for Hard level players, especially considering the more straightforward DS from Advanced that you used.

Really liked this diff

Insane:

1. 00:51:420 (1) - I would separate 1 and 2 a little bit more because it just looks plain weird as it is :/ It's intentional as the real deal comes after the second note.
   
   
2. 01:04:620 (5) - This too, it looks like 2 entirely disconnected patterns to me, and really confuses me when I'm trying to read it. I guess it is better than having just a run-of-the-mill 4 star insane diff lol I can't really agree, it seems completely fine and fun.

Sorry, I don't feel comfortable with my modding skill to attempt to mod the hardest diff

Really fun map/song, and sorry if my STD modding sucks XD

Yoges wrote:

M4M time. This might be a bit rushed because of your time limit (also the queue opened right before I had to go to bed).

[Normal]

1. You have a lot of spacing errors. Check your Ai Mod. I can feel them during gameplay too. Some of the spacing seems misleading.
2. 00:38:020 (1) - From here to 00:50:820 (4) - Is more intense than anything In the kiai. I'd suggest just using stuff like 1/1 sliders that have 1 repeat along with some normal sliders and notes. And also you could make the kiai a bit harder too. I can't really follow 1/4 instruments on a Normal so I mainly follow vocals here, this section ended being a bit harder than the kiai and it's completely fine as the kiai is more instrumental with held vocals, although I did nerf some parts here to get this diff under 2 stars again.
3. 01:08:220 (1) - Rule of thumb, Don't have more than 1 repeat on easier diffs. If you do it tends to confuse newbies and throw them off. I really like those, I'll keep them for now.
4. 01:13:020 (4) - ^
5. 00:59:420 (1,2) - Why unstack the (1)? It can suggest to the player that the time between the (1) and the (2) is longer than the time between the (2) and the (3) when they're actually both the same. There were a few other notes like this I saw. Fix them too. I don't really want 3 stacked notes on a Normal, this is just fine imo.

[Advanced]

1. 00:04:420 (1) - Remove the NC and put it on 00:05:620 (3) - Instead
2. 00:07:020 (1) - Your NC spamming is a bit unnecessary. Remove NC on 00:07:020 (1) - , 00:09:620 (1) - & 00:07:820 (1) - and then add NC on 00:08:220 (2) -
3. 00:33:020 (4) - I don't feel the shape fits the music. I don't hear anything sharp or drastic in the music to justify the pointyness of the slider. Just have it curved really. But I like it~ It's not precisely followed by the vocals but it goes really nicely.
4. Your kiai suffers from the same issue as the normal. 00:12:420 (1) - That section is much more intense than the kiai. Refer to my comment there.
5. 01:22:620 (3) - Similar to 00:33:020 - Why not just full spiral? Because it's ugly.

[Hard]

1. 01:21:020 (7,8,1) - Stack that properly under the (5)
2. Not much else I could find here. Maybe I could have done a better job if i were allowed a placeholder. C:

[Insane]

1. 00:11:020 (2) - NCs on all SV changes. Also I don't think linear flow fits the music here. Try something like this?
2. 00:33:220 (1,2) - Turn that into a spaced stack? I thought that was a slider instead of a note on a slider first time I saw it because of the speed the song was going at lol.
3. 00:40:420 (3,4,1,2) - Similar shit but these are more excusable because the song is slower.
4. 01:04:620 (1) - NC here

[DiFf_(k)NAME]

1. Can't mod experts. Especially stream based ones.

kunkakunkakunkakunka wrote:

Hi.
From your Q～
General

1. Tag: Please add 「opening」「tv size」
2. I think that HP balance of all diff is not good. In addition, I think that advanced in particular and hard diff do not need same "4". I recommend this Too unforgiving for such high density map.

Normal

1. I think that spacing is small to overall. I recommend DS1.2 Gotta hold on 'dat no more than 2 SR.
2. 00:33:020 (4) - I can't recommend 2 reverse personally. You change it to 1 reverse, and would add circle? http://puu.sh/nyso6.jpg 01:08:220 (1) - same 01:13:020 (4) - same Same as said on previous mods.
3. 00:43:820 (8) - Please revise distance (x1.21)
4. 01:14:520 (1) - A end point thinks me to be 01:16:220 - Because, I think that 01:16:220 - is stronger in a sounds than 01:15:620 -
5. 01:17:620 (1,2) - Would you change snap? I recommend that I pick up the sound of cymbals in snap. http://puu.sh/nytbp.jpg nah current one is cool

Advanced

1. 00:33:020 (4) - 2 reverse. This recommends the change of contents same as normal diff. Same.
2. 00:58:220 (3,4) - This overlap is difficult to play. Would you remove stack? For example http://puu.sh/nyulq.jpg
3. 01:14:920 (1) - This recommends the change of contents same as normal diff.
4. 01:17:620 (1,2) - ^ Same.

Hard

1. 00:34:620 (5,1) - I felt a sense of incongruity in rhythm. try this pls http://puu.sh/nyuG9.jpg
2. 00:35:620 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - I can't kinda recommend the stream of the hard diff. try this pls http://puu.sh/nyuO8.jpg Low spaced stream is just fine, it's pretty fun.
3. 01:01:420 (2,3) - I felt a sense of incongruity in rhythm. I think that it is not necessary to pick up a sound of the 01:01:720 - . try this pls http://puu.sh/nyuZn.jpg
4. 01:16:220 (2) - 2 reverse. This recommends the change of contents same as normal diff.

Same.

Because it is not enough mod tbh, I'm sorry. There isn't too time lol
GL

Kihhou wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/4949312 m4m

[Normal]

1. 3.6 HP LOL not 3.5 but 3.6 looolgggggg```` nothing wrong with it i just wanna know why you have it like that hahaha Because I can :^)
2. 00:18:620 (2,3,1) - for one of my old ranked maps, i got so much flame from #modhelp for making this different DS & same spacing in timeline on my lowest diff of the map. so a BAT popped til it was changed 100%. i dont know if standards are different now but watch out for that since it seems to be part of the style of the diff (was the same for mine). im just not sure after 1.5 years if thats changed.
3. 01:14:520 (1) - uh lol ye same as advanced please

[Advanced]

1. i dont get why advanced is suddenly CS 3.8. id understand if it was a part of the map where its consistent throughout all diffs like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/123839 but its just this one. raising CS from 3 only raises star rating by .1 and spread is fine even with this at CS 3. CS 3?
2. 00:58:420 (4) - double overlaps here can be really confusing so how bout moving 4 so its easier to read for advanced people
   SPOILER

   
3. 01:14:920 (1) - the cymbal this ends at is a really weak one. its similar to the one at 01:15:020 - too. 01:16:220 - is where all instruments stop along with the strongest cymbal so it really does feel off ending early. so end it at 01:16:220 - pls ye?
4. 01:17:620 (1,2,3) - this is actually really cool! i love it! such a sick rhythm for this part ~

[Hard]

1. 00:40:820 (5,6,1,2,3) - i was trying to fix some spacing and aesthetics here but i thought "why not make it a pattern like the one you have at 00:44:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - .." so how bout something like having 00:41:220 (1,2,3) - as a mirror of 00:42:020 (4,5,6) -? im my example, 00:41:420 (2) - is stacked on 00:40:020 (3) - tail
   SPOILER

   

[Insane]

1. 00:10:620 (5,1) - i reaaaaaally think this needs to be spaced. neat pattern. doesnt fit the music well though. i need a hard hitting 00:10:820 (1) - :c
2. 00:19:420 (5,1) - having one 1/2 spacing come out of nowhere is fine . but two consecutively really throws me off and doesnt fit the rest of the mapping style in this section. idk if its cuz you ran out of space or.. uh try this
   SPOILER

   
3. 00:24:020 (4,1) - i like to think im pretty damn good at reading at my skill level. this diff is below my skill level but damn is this pattern confusing!! even spacing between these three 00:24:020 (4,1,2) - make it so its hard to tell if 00:24:420 (1) - is on a white tick, but the main thing is that 00:24:020 (4) - this thing has two reverses on a short slider and 00:24:420 (1) - is at the top as if it continues off of 00:24:020 (4) - slider's 1 reverse. but it goes reverse again for the massive trickery what is this??!?!!11111 uh pls itd be nice if it was 1 reverse only and you can make it a 4 note stream before that reverse slider or something. just not this please lol
   SPOILER

   
4. 00:37:520 (2) - same as DiffFffFFNAME this is unnecessary and unfitting same reasons.
5. 01:04:620 (5,6,7,8) - this drastic change of spacing and change of direction feels too difficult for an insane diff. like. the same part on DiFFffF NAME diff was easier than this imo. change 01:04:620 (5,6) - into a 1/4 slider? no t_t it's fine
6. 01:21:820 (4,1) - why do you make this spacing so small ;-;

[DiFFFFFffFFffNAME]

1. 00:05:020 (3,4,5) - consider making these notes not so equal spacing? i think itd be best to have 4 farther away from 3 and closer to 5 to emphasize the strong instrument at 00:05:420 (4) -. imo the pickup note on 00:05:620 (5) - is not very important so i think this would add a nice feel to the gameplay. something like this or some variation
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 00:08:220 (4) - i think ahving this as a 1/4 is excessive as im hearing in the music that the slight increase in tempo ends at 00:08:220 - rather than 00:08:420 - . so to mirror that, how about making 00:08:220 (4) - into a 1/2 slider and removing 00:08:420 (5) - ? like
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 00:10:820 (1,1,1,2) - same as 00:05:020 (3,4,5) - where i feel it would feel better if it had pairing rather than somewhat equal distances. itll also better accentuate the DS changes in your sliders. something like this?
   SPOILER

   
4. 00:18:820 (1,2) - space these out? the way it plays compared to the violin in the music seems unfitting, as its rather intensive here.
5. 00:35:220 (3,4,1) - i think itd play a bit better if theres some disconnect between 4 and 1. right now, in gameplay, slider 3 rotates in to 4 and then into 1 rather quickly and too smoothly, so the player needs to slow down ontop of a 1/2 spacing and then that really removes the emphasis from 00:35:620 (1) -. uhhh so try something like this to capture the instant drums at 00:35:620 (1) - more and get a BAANGGG in your 00:35:220 (3,4,1) - (im assuming you want bang since thats the same as the spaced 00:35:820 (2,3,4,5) -)
   SPOILER
   nice photo, regardless, changed.
6. 00:37:520 (2) - this seems very unnecessary :c the music is still slowing down here. a lot more here too. raising the density would have the opposite effect soo... remove?
7. 00:45:620 (2,3) - space this a bit? doesnt evne need to be a lot. just enough so that it doesnt feel like youre matching with 00:47:220 (3,4) - with the same stacking. b/c these are 2 very different parts in the song. Those stacks are completely different tho.. Each one for itself and it's fine.
8. 00:58:620 (8,1,2) - uhhh i think you know the problem lol this stacking can be hard to read too and it doesnt match the style that youve mapped for this rhythm in the rest of the song
9. 01:04:020 (2,3,4,1) - i get that youre trying to use a style that youve mapped earlier in this diff but it doesnt fit well with the music here and is different from 00:49:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:51:420 (1,2,3,4,5) - . those two are constant buildups while 01:04:020 (2,3,4,1) - has emphasis on 01:04:220 (3) - right in the middle of the pattern. the flute is misleading as thats the only thing ramping up. so id suggest doing a different rhythm for 01:04:020 (2,3,4) - altogether, something that reflects the emphasis on 01:04:020 (2,3) - these two notes Vocals ramp up, it fits pretty well and there's nothing in the middle.
10. 01:15:220 (1,2,3,4,1) - this is ridiculously difficult compared to the rest of the map but its not pressing i guess. more importantly, if you want to keep this pattern, could you please at least maintain the rotation that you had before so that its a lot easier to hit and smoother? hard jumps dont feel fitting here, relative to the rest of the map. so like thisss
    SPOILER

    
    As many people want it changed, I've made some different 1/4 sliders pattern.
11. 01:21:820 (4,1) - increase the distance between these? right now its soooo underwhelming. at 01:20:420 (4,5,6) - i was like yes yes!! jump jump! and then i get to 01:21:820 (4,1) - with loud cymbals and staccato guitar notes and the distance is just like. oh. huh. so to match that pls increase distance to like this or osmething
    SPOILER

    

N0thingSpecial wrote:

AYY from my q

Normal

00:04:220 (3) - not sure that whistle was worth putting a slider end for since you're following the vocals. For that erm.. instrument.

00:08:220 (1,2,3) - This is still acceptable cause you have a best rest in between, but starting sliders on red ticks is not ideal here cause despite you're following the vocals, you're still starting and ending on the main beats for the past 8 seconds, so you now suddenly started on an off beat which will throw people off. I see but there are constant shifts in the song, and mapping the background instruments with the vocals like that is meh..

00:09:920 (1) - I think this spinner is a bit too short for new players to spin to despite low OD, replace it with a long slider?

00:13:420 (3,1,2) - sliders on red tick. The first one was still acceptable but this you need to fix cause there's not indication that it is going to start on red tick or a rest in between 1 beat gap, the indication is enough, the strong drums land on the red ticks.

00:17:220 (1) - not perfect blanket?

00:18:820 (4,1) - not sure why you suddenly stop following the violins Idk it feels wrong here.

00:20:220 (2,3,1) - might cause rage for different spacing

00:24:020 (5) - oh my, this part is tricky I don't how you can correctly represent the drum at this difficulty, cause the slider end feels really empty, and people will click 00:24:820 (6) - early cause of that Added a clap, it helps.

00:40:020 (2) - you suddenly stop here, I thought you're following the vocals ;-; I thought 00:40:420 (3) - this is going to be on the red tick and miss clicked it 2 early every time, use a 4/4 slider if you want Why would you think that with such spacing? The halt is to emphasize the vocals nicely.

01:14:520 (1) - make this spinner longer

Advance looks fine to me, and Hard is pretty good

Insane

00:19:220 (4,5,1,2) - being hard to read is fine but this is so clustered I thought they were 1/4 apart, until I open up editor and realize it is actual 1/2, space them out a bit more, especially when you have this before: 00:17:220 (1,2,3) - which kinda suggest that those four are 1/4 apart.

00:22:620 (4) - I would move this closer to 00:22:820 (1) - to represent the sharp pitch change in the violin

00:24:020 (4) - 2 reverse arrows are not recommended since you've never hinted it before hand

00:33:220 (1,2) - this is confusing, maybe space them out or NC 00:33:420 (2) -

00:52:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - firstly 00:52:420 (1) - people will expect fast pace cursor movement, or at the least movement, and the you have these two which is really unexpected and forces players to stop completely, and it is not a drastic change in direction of flow it's not really that justified, on the contrary 01:00:120 (6,7,1,2,3,4) - this is done well cause the music suggested there is a pause

01:04:420 (4,1) - space these two out, again confusing to read, I'm not the best at these types of map but this plays better? (not necessarily looks better but hey rough representation.) not really confusing, it's jsut fine..

01:11:020 (5,6) - same problem with forcing people to stop

01:11:420 (7) - this slider in of itself is stopping the motion of the cursor which really disrupt the flow, at least I can't hear anything that would suggest having to stop here, additionally the shape and size of it strongly suggest that it is a 1/4 slider so consider changing the shape also.

01:22:620 (1) - this looks great but there is this slight bump before the square which may mislead people to go clockwise instead of anti clockwise in the square

I'm too noob to mod DiFf_(k)NAME but I will say that it feels like it has the same problem with Insane in the chorus, it is mostly inconsistent spacing, try to have more repeating patterns so that players get to adjust to the tapping pattern before moving on to a different tapping pattern. ALSO 01:15:220 (1,2,3,4,1) - YOU WANT TO KILL MOUSE PLAYERS ;-; STOP REMINDING ME I'M A BAD PLAYER

KuranteMelodii wrote:

From your M4M queue, fuck the homeworks

[General]

1. tbh, i think that you should remove some finishes, I hear some finishes that is put on somewhere that isn't too strong (ex. 00:15:620 - 00:17:220 - , I think some is fine, if you're using them for splitting parts, ex. 00:12:420 - 00:18:820 - , Which doesn't have cymbal sounds, but it's sounds more better for splitting long parts) , claps are quite messy, too, especially on easier diff, usually claps is for following the jumps, for this map, the claps are on almost every red ticks, yet isn't audible on the third white tick (example: 00:15:220 - , 00:16:820 - , 00:18:420 - )

[Normal]

1. 00:09:820 (4) - I know you're mapping to the buildup at the background, but isn't it too odd to switch from following vocals too suddenly?
   
   :::

   
2. 00:33:020 (4) - I think a 1/1 repeating slider - circle or 1/1 slider - 1/1 slider, making a repeating slider that repeats 2 times in a row might make it hard to read for newbies since they mainly focus on the slider ball and does not notice the return arrow that appears after clicking the head As too many people mention those, I will change these sliders.
   
   :::

   
3. 00:38:020 (1) - I think this should curve upwards or make it points up, otherwise it will make it to crowded together and doesn't look great visually with 00:37:820 (3) - It's just fine, I don't think it looks too crowded.
   
   :::

   
4. 01:02:620 (2) - I know this is mainly following the vocals, but this is poorly ignored the heavy beats at the background Exactly, I follow vocals, I can't really follow the drums.
5. 01:08:220 (1) - same thing i mentioned at 00:33:020 (4) -
6. 01:09:620 (2) - IDK does it unrankable, but i think that slider shouldn't end on downbeat, usually downbeat can be ignore if there's sudden stop in the music, or the previous red tick is stronger then the downbeat Vocals.
7. 01:13:020 (4) - same thing i mentioned at 00:33:020 (4) -
8. 01:20:620 (5,6,7) - Isn't that is too much 1/2 notes for normal? Not really..
9. 01:22:620 (1) - NC
   One thing that i noticed for this is way too focused on the vocals and ignore almost all the heavy beats, especially at the chorus part, the major example is 01:02:620 (2) - , which is poorly ignored the drum beats, which doesn't fits well I follow the vocals because I want to, especially in the lowest diff where I can't follow the instruments properly.

[Hard]

1. 00:07:820 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Double triples might be too hard to hard diff, is 2 1/4 repeating slider okay? It's not really hard, however, I want to differentiate between the first triplet which has no vocal to the second one which has.
   
   :::

   
2. 00:11:020 (1,2,3) - Remove, i feel better if you ignore the vocals there But there's nothing wrong with following vocals..
3. 00:35:620 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - Please, nerf the streams, the maximum notes of streams in hard is 5, you can choose either turn 00:35:620 (3,4,5) - into repeating slider or turn them into 2 repeating sliders Where is that written exactly? 150 bpm 7 note when the last one is a slider is not anything bad, especially with the slider in the end.
4. 00:40:020 (3,4,5,6) - Not recommended to do back and fourth on hard, it is quite confusing for players I'll change it if it's mentioned again.
5. 00:48:020 (2,3) - The maximum distance of jumps in Hard is 1.8 (?) , despite this is for symmetry patterns, the jumps is too large Why exactly are you saying that? There's no rules that say something like that, it's reasonable and it plays well.
6. 00:50:620 (7,8) - ^ ^

[Insane]

1. 00:02:820 (1) - put further for emphasizing the finish? Could do, but not a necessity.
2. 00:11:020 (1,1,2) - Same as Hard, remove nah..
3. 00:13:820 (4,5) - I really love the symmetry pattern beforehand, but i feel it's way too forced to turn the flow there, I think 00:14:020 (1) - is more a fitting place to turn the flow Could you please explain how the flow is forced to turn?
4. 00:28:720 (2) - This slider is kinda burai, it's not crossing the path, but it almost act as the same function, yet this is agreed by someone (?)
   I can't really understand..
   
   :::

   
5. 01:04:020 (2,3,4) - Srsly? Is it really recognizable for 1/2 since you the same distance for 1/4 before? Object density, SV, NC changes help.
6. 01:11:420 (7) - burai I like it :3

[DiFf_(k)NAME]

1. Why not name it into AvIshaY's UlTra ImPosiible eskotgsejngesr I can xd
2. 00:11:020 (1,1,2) - Same as hard, even you don't wanna remove them, at least make 00:11:020 (1) - into different SV, this slider has different SV than 00:10:820 (1) - , but has almost the same length, which can be confusing But this is the whole gimmick and fun!
3. 00:12:320 (6) - A little bit Nazi, but it is not the same spacing as 00:12:220 (5,1) -
   
   :::

   

tbh, your slider art is better then me Thanks

Good luck~

1. 00:04:220 (3) - Wouldn't it sound better if you extend it until 00:04:820 - to go along with the vocal?
2. 00:19:020 (2) - The stack might be confusing here cause you didn't do it here 00:18:620 (3) -
3. 00:32:620 (2,3,4) - ^ (You know it's still a bit taboo to stack on normal so changing ds like this might be way too confusing).
4. 00:47:620 (1) - ^ Same here, the fact that the note is actually hidden might be really confusing for a beginner.
5. 00:59:420 (1,2,3) - ^
6. 01:20:620 (5,6,7,1) - ^
7. 00:14:220 (2) - I'm not sure that put a slider on a red tick feels that catchy especially for a normal diff.
8. 00:19:020 (2) - ^ (it would sound way better if you put it instead of 00:18:820 (1) -
9. 00:22:020 (1) - Your comboing starts to be really inconsistant here (honnestly I find the part before has too many NC, it's a bit confusing).
10. 00:37:220 (2,3,1,2,3) - I don't find your pattern that neat because the angle is too sharp 00:37:820 (3,1) - and 00:38:820 (3) - overlaps a bit randomly with 00:37:220 (2) - I mean it feels a bit too packed.
11. 00:50:820 (4) - Add NC maybe, it's a strong note.
12. 01:14:620 (1) - Put it on red tick to mind the gap. It's not as confusing as the end of a spinner but it's still lots of infromation at the same time.
13. 01:19:420 (3) - Make it properly stack with the head of 01:19:420 (3) - so it will look better

1. 00:23:620 (4) - I'd rather stacked properly or put it around x288y368 to make it more neat.
2. 01:22:620 (3) - NC! It's total different rhythm. Nice shape btw

1. 00:09:020 (7) - I'd add NC to make a clear difference with 00:07:820 (1) -
2. 00:10:620 (3,1,2) - It would sound way more natural if you would shift those slider to the next white tick
3. 01:08:620 (1) - This pattern combo is way too big compared to the previous/next ones. First off, I think NC goes here 01:08:220 (6) - instead of 01:08:620 (1) - then you could add one here 01:09:620 (4) - and you'll be good.
4. 01:22:620 (3) - NC

1. I'd rather see this rhythm instead: http://puu.sh/nEker/f29e413811.jpg Would be more accurate to the music.
2. 00:33:220 (1) - Spacing makes it confusing x.x but well why not
3. 01:10:920 (4,5,6) - ^
4. 00:50:820 (8) - NC?
5. 01:04:620 (1) - I'd actually remove NC here to add one here 01:04:820 (3) - to prevent new spacing. I think it would improve reading tbh.

1. 00:43:520 - I'd add a note here, I don;t know it feels pretty strong.
2. 01:01:320 (5,6,7) - Ye, I'm really not sure for those spacing I mean it's playable but it kills the movement..

Yales wrote:

Hello! M4M (2) https://osu.ppy.sh/s/342030
[Normal]

1. 00:04:220 (3) - Wouldn't it sound better if you extend it until 00:04:820 - to go along with the vocal? I don't really want to ignore that instrument either..
2. 00:19:020 (2) - The stack might be confusing here cause you didn't do it here 00:18:620 (3) -
3. 00:32:620 (2,3,4) - ^ (You know it's still a bit taboo to stack on normal so changing ds like this might be way too confusing).
4. 00:47:620 (1) - ^ Same here, the fact that the note is actually hidden might be really confusing for a beginner.
5. 00:59:420 (1,2,3) - ^
6. 01:20:620 (5,6,7,1) - ^ Fixed all of those weird spacings.
7. 00:14:220 (2) - I'm not sure that put a slider on a red tick feels that catchy especially for a normal diff. That's the song, the strong claps land on the red ticks.
8. 00:19:020 (2) - ^ (it would sound way better if you put it instead of 00:18:820 (1) - Not really.. nothing supports a 1/1 slider on the white tick.
9. 00:22:020 (1) - Your comboing starts to be really inconsistant here (honnestly I find the part before has too many NC, it's a bit confusing).
10. 00:37:220 (2,3,1,2,3) - I don't find your pattern that neat because the angle is too sharp 00:37:820 (3,1) - and 00:38:820 (3) - overlaps a bit randomly with 00:37:220 (2) - I mean it feels a bit too packed.
11. 00:50:820 (4) - Add NC maybe, it's a strong note.
12. 01:14:620 (1) - Put it on red tick to mind the gap. It's not as confusing as the end of a spinner but it's still lots of infromation at the same time. Blame the song, nothing I can really do.
13. 01:19:420 (3) - Make it properly stack with the head of 01:19:420 (3) - so it will look better You probably meant 01:18:220 (1) - , but it's intentional.

Diff feels really really dense..
[Advanced]

1. 00:23:620 (4) - I'd rather stacked properly or put it around x288y368 to make it more neat. Spacing tho..
2. 01:22:620 (3) - NC! It's total different rhythm. Nice shape btw

[Hard]

1. 00:09:020 (7) - I'd add NC to make a clear difference with 00:07:820 (1) -
2. 00:10:620 (3,1,2) - It would sound way more natural if you would shift those slider to the next white tick I follow vocals >.>
3. 01:08:620 (1) - This pattern combo is way too big compared to the previous/next ones. First off, I think NC goes here 01:08:220 (6) - instead of 01:08:620 (1) - then you could add one here 01:09:620 (4) - and you'll be good.
4. 01:22:620 (3) - NC

[Insane]

1. I'd rather see this rhythm instead: http://puu.sh/nEker/f29e413811.jpg Would be more accurate to the music. but where ._.
2. 00:33:220 (1) - Spacing makes it confusing x.x but well why not
3. 01:10:920 (4,5,6) - ^
4. 00:50:820 (8) - NC?
5. 01:04:620 (1) - I'd actually remove NC here to add one here 01:04:820 (3) - to prevent new spacing. I think it would improve reading tbh.

[DiFf_(k)NAME]

1. 00:43:520 - I'd add a note here, I don;t know it feels pretty strong. I do use this note in the Insane but the rhythm and pattern in this is slightly different, I picked to not map that note here.
2. 01:01:320 (5,6,7) - Ye, I'm really not sure for those spacing I mean it's playable but it kills the movement.. That's the purpose! It goes well with the song.

Fun diff!

-Tochi wrote:

Hello o/
m4m

• 
  

  DiFf_(k)NAME

1. 00:04:020 (4) - I guess this isn't overmapped, but the sounds on the blue ticks are really low. It felt awkward a bit I know, turned out there isn't a note on the red tick, should be much better now.
2. 00:07:220 (5,1) - This jump is way to big for such a slow part. - 00:09:820 (1,2) - you didn't do it with other objects, so i really recommend you to make it more consistent with all the other objects by reducing the spacing.
3. 00:11:020 (1,1) - I'm not sure about this one, it's not THAT spaced, but you could stick adjust it a bit. - Since it's a bit more intense part, you could let it be tbh.
4. 00:12:320 (6) - NC? Would make it a bit more expected. On that note? It looks awful, the song gets intenser with the stream and peaks at the slider, it's fine.
5. 00:36:820 (1) - Ctrl+G would make a better flow.
6. 00:40:620 (4,1) - Stack properly.
7. 00:43:520 - Map to this sound? - since you mapped to this 00:43:820 (2,3) - Nah for the same reasons in the mod above.
8. 00:45:820 (3) - The repeat slider is out of place, and doesn't emphasize in the right way. You should make 00:46:020 - clickable, maybe do something like this: http://puu.sh/nEmuu/17e95b87f3.jpg
9. 00:49:820 (3,5,7) - NC these to make the pattern more obvious.
10. 01:04:020 (2,3) - This can be confusing for many players which leads to a misread, use NCs to make it more obvious, should work.
11. 01:17:620 (1,1) - The spacing here is way too low if you still kept the earlier part like this, because since this part is more intense than the other it should be increased.

• 
  

  Insane

1. 00:10:420 (4,5) - This is really confusing, please either don't stack them, or do something like: http://puu.sh/nEmRa/17eff82606.jpg
2. 00:33:220 (1,2) - Opposite from the above, you should stack these to make it more obvious, people with think that it's a 1/4 double like 00:35:320 (3,4) -
3. 00:45:820 (5) - I still think that you should make 00:46:020 - clickable since it's the strongest beat in this slider.
4. 01:02:920 (5) - NC?
5. 01:04:020 (2,3,4) - I kinda sense that it's intentional that you made the spacing here lower like the previous stream, but it would be easier to read if you added NCs on them.... actually maybe not.
6. 01:04:820 (3) - this one should be NCed, same reason as the above, it will make it more easy to be expected.
7. 01:12:520 (5,6) - Please stack them properly.
8. 01:22:220 (1) - Try to curve it a little, but first do ctrl+g, and after the curve you should do ctrl+g again like: http://puu.sh/nEnjC/52ac76162d.jpg

• 
  

  Hard

1. 00:12:820 (2,3,4) - Stack these properly.
2. 00:45:220 (4) - You forgot to NC this. No.. it's fine..
3. 01:05:820 (3) - Ctrl+g would also fit here. Ruins movement into next pattern.
4. 01:13:020 (6,1) - Swap NCs, since the strong part of the vocal starts here 01:13:020 -

• 
  

  Advanced

1. 00:37:020 (2,3) - Maybe blanket them properly? It would look better.
2. I personally think that there's a bit too many triplets for an Advanced, trying to keep it more simple would work better. I mean, the easiest diff doesn't have any 1/4's at all, so reducing the triplets would be a better spread. naaah, this is the point of difficulty shift.

• 
  

  Normal

1. 00:32:820 (3) - Stack this under this 00:32:620 (2) - instead? The way you did it is kinda too confusing for this diff.

• 
  

  Feedback

  
  Nice map, good luck!

Spaghetti wrote:

ye

DiFf_(k)NAMEpoihj KJsbsjdl'[
00:08:820 (8) - this is 1/8 fixed in other diffs too, tbh feels like mixture of both 1/12 and 1/8, but 1/8 definitely feels much better.
00:08:220 (4,5,6) - youre skipping beats on these blue ticks, but im only pointing it out cuz you complimented these quiet sounds at 00:04:120 (5) - so i guess consistency applies mapping all of the 1/4s makes the vocals feel lame.
00:09:820 (1) - maybe speed up to compliment the woosh buildup sound? there's no really buildup noticeable there, 00:09:820 (1) - is the beginning of it and I did increase the SV there.
00:10:820 (1,1,1) - yeee i love this yey♥
00:35:420 (4,1) - since this section is so fast paced an continuous i think this rhythm gap is kinda awkward, a kickslider would fix it
00:37:620 (1,1) - spacing these closer together would reduce the drastic drop in spacing from this to 00:38:420 (2,1,2) - . I dont really see why the spacing drops so suddenly, especially in the middle of the section the section is just mapped differently, the spacing increase at the beginning is to support the vocals.
01:04:020 (2,1) - this can be really easily misread as a double, id space it out a bit more
01:04:620 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - more gradual spacing would suit this better, i dont get why the stream spacing is constant till the last 3 notes
01:20:820 (6,7,8,1) - space the triple away from the circle a bit more for better emphasis?
01:22:620 (1) - DAMN SON

Insane:
00:02:620 (5,1) - I see the pattern ya got going here but i think itd be cooler if you spaced out this to give more emphasis to the vocals
00:04:020 (3,4) - ^ revised previous pattern but this is fine as there's nothing significant in the instruments
00:05:420 (3) - kickslider to circle would fit better to emphasize the vocals
00:19:420 (5,1) - ehh this rhythm gap sounds really weird but do what you want everything else feels like a bad tasted overmap
00:21:020 (4,1) - ^
im not a big fan of the spacing you used for the extended sliders (example: 00:28:420 (1,2,3) - ) since it makes for a dull map, wouldnt you think it wouldve been better if you spaced them out a bit more? it's kinda supposed to be like that, if someone else finds it a problem I'll most likely change it.
00:37:620 (1) - ctrl g'ing this would add better emphasis to 00:38:020 (1) -
this section is very calm and full of motion from the 1/4 sliders, so i think itd be better if you spaced out 00:40:420 (3,4) - instead of making it a stack. the next one is fine tho cuz it adds a nice touch as a pickup note
00:51:420 (1,2,3,4,5) - I like the emphasis from 4 to 5, but i dont get why you decide to add a spacing increase pattern to build up to the kiai, when you lower the spacing at 00:52:020 (4,5) - arbitrarily, spacing this out would make much more sense
01:01:020 (4,5,6) - deadly spacing, this looks just like 01:00:520 (1,2,3,4) -
01:14:420 (6) - this would flow better ctrl g'd
01:17:020 (4) - this would play much better spaced out considering you spaced out 01:16:220 (2,3) - much more
01:22:620 (1) - DAMN SON

Hard:
00:02:420 (2,3) - space this out more for better emphasis?
00:44:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - i wouldnt do stacks like this on hards, theyre not readable to newer players :p naaa it's fine, it's the whole pattern and it's repetitive
01:22:620 (1) - DAMN SON

Advanced:
01:22:620 (1) - DAMN SON

Normal:
00:08:220 (1) - starting a new section on an offbeat is very weird for newer players, id stack a circle over this sliderhead at the white tick before it to make this easier to play having a circle before is even more awkward, let's accept the song and move on
00:40:020 (2,3) - weird rhythm gap, may cause some confusion but its your call intentional :s
01:22:619 (1) - DAMN SON

GL~

Avishay wrote:

KuranteMelodii wrote:

tbh, your slider art is better then me Thanks

Fookiezi wrote:

ehm ehm