Mir wrote:

EDIT: Forgot to say this was M4M. lul

[ General]

1. softhitclap3.wav seems unused.

ok

[ Expert]

Isn't HP 8 a bit high? Probably 7 fits more for a diff like this. should be fine and more challenging

1. 00:24:233 (1,2) - This spacing for 1/4 gaps and 00:29:815 (1,2) - this one are very different. 00:24:233 (1,2) - seems to be the outlier here so consider reducing this spacing? reduced a bit
   
2. 01:43:071 (3,4,5,6) - These sounds don't really feel so intense to warrant a square this high spacing. The flow is really harsh too, so imo maybe reduce spacing?i think its fine tbh, since this part is dense
   
3. 02:13:594 (2,3,4,5,6) - I would probably reduce this spacing since it's only a hi-hat. Maybe to 1.0x per note? http://i.imgur.com/Mu4zqOM.png ok
   
4. 02:20:047 (1) - Feels like it's lacking emphasis. It isn't really an antijump like you've been using, and it's preceded by a fairly comfortable set of notes. Maybe stack it on 02:19:175 (3) - head of this? ok
   
5. 02:36:443 (7) - Doesn't really fit the pattern imo, since it's the only sound without a guitar on it but it blends in with the diamond. You can stack it on 02:36:268 (6) - ? Idk, up to you. yeah, need to rebuild this pattern somehow
   
6. 02:44:292 (2,3,4,1) - Might be mistaken for a triple like 02:37:140 (1,2,3) - was since it's very far from 02:44:117 (1). i think its pretty readable
   
7. 02:44:989 (6,7) - Spacing is a bit too high no? At least for 1/4. dont understand uwu
   
8. 02:45:513 (1) - I'd probably extend this to the 1/4 for emphasis on the guitar. Would definitely give more emphasis to the guitar afterwards if you move 02:45:861 (1) - closer. http://i.imgur.com/b4Wqxzh.jpg i think 1/2 fits better
   
9. 02:47:257 (1,2,1,2) - The guitar is increasing in pitch and intensity it seems, but 02:47:431 (2,1) - kinda kills it. rebuilt the whole pattern
   
10. 02:47:954 (1) - I would probably try to emphasize this in a different way than 02:47:606 (1) - because atm it feels the same as the guitar but there's no note on it. It continues the pattern but doesn't need to imo. yeah
    
11. 02:54:059 (2,3,4,5,6) - Why do you go for circles here when you used 02:51:268 (2,3) - before for the same lyrics? variety
    
12. 02:52:838 (1,2,3,4,5,1) - Also really harsh flow for sounds that aren't very strong imo. hmm, fine for me
    
13. 02:55:978 (1,2) - Probably could use a slider here instead since the vocals were all circles and some differentiation would be nice. dont like how slider works here ;w;
    
14. 03:03:478 (2,1) - Is emphasized one way but 03:03:827 (2,1) - is emphasized completely differently and at much higher spacing. I think you should stick with one form because the vocals are pretty much the same as everywhere else you did this. yes
    
15. 03:11:501 (1,3) - These two really need more emphasis imo especially considering 03:03:827 (2,1) - because they're stronger than vocals. ok
    
16. 03:14:466 (1,2,3) - Vocals on this but not on 03:15:164 (1,2,3) - so the same pattern is kind of unfitting imo. following the instuments
    
17. 03:25:629 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - I'm kind of sad you killed your anti-jump + wide angle emphasis and went for back-and-forths here. It would be a lot cooler if you had kept it consistent with the previous iterations of these vocals. xd
    
18. 03:29:292 (4) - Could be two circles to avoid missing the snare on the slider end? u, will think about this
    
19. 03:52:140 (3) - I'm confused as to why you threw this double reverse at the end. It seems very out of place especially since this is the first time it's used like 5 seconds before the map ends. I would remove this just to keep the whole map's feel. guitar

[ Dailykomore's Insane]

1. 00:05:222 (3) - Definitely sounds like you can do two circles here since they're pretty distinct sound and not differentiated due to the surrounding notes also being sliders. You could make a lot more interesting rhythm choices actually, like 00:10:803 (3) - could be two circles or something too.
   
   Rhythms like 00:13:594 (3,4,5) fit a lot better imo. Or just all circles but that's up to you.
   
   I really feel like 00:16:385 (3) - should be two circles though if anything else, there's like no differentiation and it makes me sad. ;-; will think about the rhytm, but imo its fine
   
2. 00:38:187 (1) - Two circles possibly since 00:38:536 (2) - is also a slider but only has one vocal on it. slider is better imo
   
3. 00:44:466 (3,4,5,6,7) - Is it just me or does this stream look a bit weird? o.O Maybe redraw it with slider-to-stream it kinda looks like the DS is so slightly uneven xD fixed a bit i guess
   
4. 00:49:350 (1,2,3,4) - Could tidy this up more, might need to move the slider after to fit though: http://i.imgur.com/KQ1JEmP.png ok
   
5. 01:05:745 (5,1,2) - Actually ctrl+g this rhythm would fit the song a bit better imo. Having 01:05:919 - a very strong beat on a slider end feels very lackluster. hmm, i think the current one works better
   
6. 01:49:873 (2,3) - Swapping this might work too, since the held vocal would get a slider.
   
7. 02:20:047 (1) - More emphasis maybe? Pretty strong finish I'd say.
   
8. 02:29:815 (3,4) - Skips a lot of pretty clickable stuff, like 02:29:989 - and 02:30:164 - on sliderends.
   
9. 02:32:082 (3) - Maybe a reverse? There's a guitar on the blue that I can hear. xD
   
10. 02:38:013 (1,1) - These are way more clickable than 02:36:792 (1,2,1,2) - imo. Maybe replace 02:36:792 (1,2,1,2) - With reverses? So something like this I would do http://i.imgur.com/3weKHJ8.png but you can take whatever you please from that.
    
11. 02:46:036 (4) - Two circles here too?
    
12. 03:52:140 (3) - Same as extra I don't get it, there's nothing that really changes in the song so this feels REALLY out of place. guitar..

not mentioned = daily's

Lama Poluna wrote:

̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶h̶o̶l̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶

[meta check]

1. Artist:フレデリック
2. Title:オドループ
3. Source:山田くんと7人の魔女
4. Tags:Yamada-kun to 7-nin no Majo Koji Mihara odoru to dance oddl∞p

[General]

1. Unused hitsounds:
   soft-hitclap3.wav
2. Make spinners same in all diffs no need imo

[expert]

• 
  00:33:129 (4) - NC, bcz instruments changes will think about it
  00:55:978 (3) - Can be NC, bcz vocal changes, like this 00:58:768 (1) - aa
  03:11:152 (4) - Why NC on end? oops
  10/10 diff thanks<3

My Angel Azusa wrote:

hey, nm from my queue

also ar8.3 for top diff is unreasonable. u mean for the insane? i think its much cooler with low ar tbh xd


standard
Map is pretty good, maybe you can rename it to collab normal and add an easy. patterns like 03:10:978 (4,5,6,7,8) - are very hard.
i fixed and nerfed all, so now it should be acceptable as the easiest difficulty... as you can see the rhythm in the song is kinda complex, so there are lots of sounds on the red ticks that should be mapped, thats why i dont see how can i map an easy with a less dense rhythm, since it will be like a beginner which is kinda senseless lol

advanced
fixed all, tried to sort those mistakes through the map (but didnt find many tbh)

hard
00:54:931 (1,2,3,4,5) - for this kind of pattern what you can do is to make the shape more "circular" by rotating the same angle each time ok i tried
01:01:559 (5,1) - tbh for all parts like this i would expect a bigger spacing than being constant. You even did so 01:00:164 (3,1) - where music isnt intense 01:00:164 (3,1) - i did it here because otherwise the aestethics will suffer, its also not a big deal to do such thing since the movement would be pretty the same cuz these are two sliders.. and i dont like to do hard diffs with jumps on the downbeats because i suck tbh ;w; so i only increase spacing in the jump sections
01:34:786 (3,4) - dont get your rhythm choice here i just mapped those 1/4 sounds in the music xd
02:27:373 (1,1) - remove NC? dont like how it looks like without ncs
02:30:861 (1,2,1,2,3) - placement is weird here with the spacing..also you shouldnt use 1/4 reverse sliders, the music isnt like this ok i tried to rearrange this
03:00:513 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this is way too intense compared with other parts i think its fine, cuz otherwise this kind of patterns 03:22:838 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - 02:27:024 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - will looks odd being too hard
03:22:838 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - 03:25:629 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - remove unnecessary NCs explained earlier

insane
fixed all
Very nice map thanks owo

ex
ok let me explain. i used this low spacing on downbeats on purpose (not on all, obviously, but sometimes), because i think that these patterns are way more fun to play rather than just usual high spacing on the downbeats. since i did that a lot of times through the map, i think my idea should be okay, because a lot of good mappers did that already a lot of times (evilelvis in his maps, for example). if i will make the spacing everywhere obvious, that will just ruin the spirit of the map, so please let me keep those patterns as they are ;w;
I love this song a lot, but i dont think i will nominate this unless there is a proper easy difficulty added and the issue for top diff can be addressed. Good luck!

1. 00:21:792 (3,4,5,6,7) - this might be too uncomfortable to play for a 1/4 gap
2. 00:24:233 (1,2) - might be read as 1/2 because spacing is similar to 00:22:838 (1,2) - . maybe overlap sliderbodies like 00:27:024 (1,2) - to make readable as 1/4
3. that thing happens in a bunch of other places too like 00:35:396 (1,2) - and 00:39:582 (1,2) -
4. 00:49:350 (1,2,1,2) - maybe these would be better as back and forths since the vocals on these sound kinda similar so the jumps should be similar too
5. 00:50:396 (2,3,1) - you didn't pair uncomfy flow with sudden small spacing for emphasis before so your way of emphasizing 1 here is a little inconsistent
6. 00:54:931 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - over here you emphasize each nc with small spacing while over on 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - you emphasize each nc with a jump instead. maybe stick to one for consistency.
7. 01:06:094 (1,2) - maybe extend 1 into 2 for consistency with 01:04:699 (1,2,1,2) -
8. 01:29:815 (1,2) - stack is off
9. 02:27:722 (1) - maybe kickslider + circle instead since i think the red tick is strong enough to warrant clickability
10. 02:44:292 (2,3,4,1) - might be misread as another triple
11. 03:12:024 (2,4) - maybe stack? would still give 3 spacing emphasis

newton- wrote:

hi from q

nice song choice

[ queerish dances]

1. that thing happens in a bunch of other places too like 00:35:396 (1,2) - and 00:39:582 (1,2) - slightly fixed these spacings
   
2. 01:06:094 (1,2) - maybe extend 1 into 2 for consistency with 01:04:699 (1,2,1,2) - no need imo, bcz vocals
3. 02:44:292 (2,3,4,1) - might be misread as another triple i dont think so
4. 03:12:024 (2,4) - maybe stack? would still give 3 spacing emphasis spacing will be too large then

great map, i think you did the song justice

good luck!

My Angel Azusa wrote:

standard
fixed all

advanced
you should also fix the "similar parts" i mentioned in my previous post tbh... hmm, i think i fixed it, please tell me if you will find any
02:22:838 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - inconsistent circle placement but the rhythm is the same, i think some diversity in playability should be fine

insane
fixed

top diff
i looked through your explanation and the map. some parts are ok while others are not. "this plays fun" cannot compensate for a bad spacing issue. there are some places that you did the spacing intentionally but dont really fit. i also testplayed myself, those parts feel confusing to play tbh
00:55:106 (2,1,2,1) - spacing here is too small increased
01:30:338 - i dont know why you ignore this obvious beat... thats done to emphasise the vocals, i did this in all diffs
02:09:931 (3,4) - 02:11:326 (3) - better be consistent the first time it was done for vocals 02:09:931 (3,4) -, and since here 02:11:326 (3) - are no vocals, i just go for 1/2 slider
02:32:082 (2,3,4) - this triangle stream is too abrupt and doesn't fit into this part. it's unique and standing out of the section
02:37:140 (1,2,3) - same here tbh nobody had problems with playing this, so id prefer to keep it.. but i can change it, if its a real problem for you
02:43:943 (3,1,2) - unreasonably big spacing
02:54:757 (6,1) - same nefred both
03:00:513 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this concept is fun but the spacing dont really suit here. i dont think anyone will expect a stack here.. i guess fixed?
03:22:838 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - very weird as well in terms of pattern design and spacing. i rearranged this, but kept 03:23:536 (1,2,3,4) - this one because i used it before 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - so it should be fine i guess?..
03:25:629 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - here as well. hmm, but why? here you can just find 1-2 jumps that increase because the vocals get higher
03:52:140 (3) - you suddenly changed the rhythm choice because guitar appears, so i decided to follow it
i know you are trying to have an interesting concept in this map, but i guess some parts are badly implemented.

also these are just my personal suggestion cuz they are unreasonable for me. you can decide changing or not. and ofc i will only be willing to bubble if you apply those stuff..

1. 00:00:513 - could work with a finish
2. 00:01:559 (4) - needs a clap too
3. 00:23:885 (3,1) - try avoid the slider end overlaps http://puu.sh/wtHjo/9c1cd003ba.jpg
4. 00:25:629 - i dont see the point of the finish here, nothing rly special to emphasise and you dont have it on similar beats 00:28:419 (1) - 00:31:210 (1)
5. 00:26:675 (3) - whistle here is outta place, i assume with whistles you're following vocals
6. 00:32:606 (1,2,3) - spacing here doesnt fit very well in the context of the section. the same effect can we done with less spacing http://puu.sh/wtHLi/850dcdc816.jpg and its much more suitable to have at this intensity
7. 01:05:396 (1,2,3) - i get ur following vocals here, but a lot more is going on with the instruments here. guitar pauses like 01:05:571 - are ignored and 01:05:919 (3) - doesnt get much emphasis cos 01:06:094 (1) - is clicked so soon after it. a rhythm like https://puu.sh/wtHZd/16c258ae8d.jpg is a lot more interesting here imo, also applies to all other chorus parts
8. 01:11:152 (4) - need to be consistent with ur decision on mapping this beat. just cus there's a minor guitar beat on a different track there doesn't mean it needs to be mapped
9. 01:51:094 (3) - think u should nc this so you keep similar patterns to other kiais
10. 02:05:396 - 02:06:094 (1) - doesnt need whistles, and should add a whistle to 02:06:268 - to help identify what ur following. in fact 02:06:094 (1) - should be drum finish
11. 02:13:594 (2,3,4,5,6) - honestly feels a bit sudden for a calmer section, plus the 1/4 sounds arent very prominent either. could probably just simplify it to something like 00:33:129 (4,5) - again, that suits the intensity better
12. 02:17:257 (1,2) - drum finish on 1, whistle on 2
13. 02:27:024 (1,2,1,2) - percussion goes snare-kick-snare-kick, so you should try adding claps to 1 and drum finishes to 2
14. 02:28:245 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - can u try be a bit more reasonable with the spacing? as of now its a pretty big diff spike, spacing like http://puu.sh/wtIzh/9d5a7c509d.jpg would be a lot more suitable
15. 02:32:431 (1,3) - dont think these need to overlap
16. 02:34:175 (1,2) - doesnt fit that well, as you normally kept the 1/4 sliders for consecutive guitar notes. i reckon sticking to 1/2 is more consistent with ur concepts
17. 02:41:326 (1,2,3,4) - if u want to do this u should mute the slider ends
18. 02:44:292 (2,3,4,1) - this is way too confusing tbh, you used this pattern earlier 02:32:082 (2,3,4) - with a different rhythm so makes the following one really unintuitive
19. 03:04:524 (4,1) - http://puu.sh/wtINw/86b53b62a0.jpg e
20. 03:11:501 (1,2,3) - try to have ur visual placements more even http://puu.sh/wtJTT/d5de5a45e6.jpg
21. 03:16:733 (3,4) - rhythm should be ctrl g'ed? rhythms like 03:13:943 (5,6) - make a lot more sense
22. 03:42:024 (2) - clap
23. 03:51:966 (1,2,3) - like the only place u used a custom stack, and is also near the end of the map. should really just autostack this

1. 00:05:222 (3) - not really getting why the rhythms change every measure, the rhythm/placements here dont show that 00:05:222 (3) - is unique in any way if u really feel the need to have so much variation, use similar rhythms to hard
2. 00:44:466 (3,4,5,6,7) - use slider to stream, makes this a whole lot neater http://puu.sh/wtMxi/d322fd1c9c.jpg
3. 00:46:036 (3,4) - 00:51:617 (3,4) - etc. rhythms are quite inconsistent here and dont work that well, sliders like 00:49:001 (3) - follow the snare but on 00:46:036 (3) - it appears on slider ends. ctrl g'ing rhythms work much better with instruments/vocals
4. 02:33:826 (2) - doesnt have much emphasis, could try spacing this more
5. 03:53:536 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - using 1/4 repeats in the extra but triplets here is a bit weird for spread
6. 03:56:152 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - its really strange to have this crazy build up of intensity only to lead into a spinner where all the intensity randomly drops off. should really consider not making this as hard so the drop off isn't as bad, and also cos this part doesnt even deserve to be this difficult -_

1. 00:08:013 (3) - 00:19:175 (3) - should try show these r different
2. 00:13:594 (3,4) - might be better to stack stuff like this, so you dont get as much movement to help differentiate it from the kiai
3. 01:11:152 (4) - 01:16:733 (4) - these dont need to be mapped, the guitar you're following isnt on the same track
4. 01:38:361 (2) - is this really necessary? cant even hear anything worth being emphasised, just use a circle lol
5. 01:40:280 (3,4,5,6) - this shouldnt be in a hard, stick to stuff like 00:44:466 (4,5) - or use a repeat slider then 2 kick sliders
6. 02:13:594 (2,3) - doesnt work as intended, as there isn't any distinctive sound that supports the clicking of 02:13:768 (3) . should really just use 1 repeat slider here
7. 02:17:606 - clap
8. 02:30:164 (3,4) - just use a slider.. the stamina required is kinda too hard here, when taking into account how advanced plays
9. 02:32:780 (2) - circle, or could have a triplet from 02:32:780 - and remove 02:33:216 (4)
10. 02:37:489 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - just take a look at the rhythms in insane, and that should explain enough
11. 02:44:815 (3,1) - should try something similar to 02:33:652 (6,1) - here that emphasises it better
12. 02:49:350 (1,2,3,4) - ctrl g ur rhythm? makes more sense to move from easier to harder rhythms for a nicer build up
13. 02:51:617 (3,4) - 02:59:989 (3,4) - similar to insane, ur rhythms are beginning to get pretty inconsistent

Pentori wrote:

from a certain queue
[queerish dances]
check aimod for unsnaps fixed

1. 00:00:513 - could work with a finish fixed
2. 00:01:559 (4) - needs a clap too fixed
3. 00:23:885 (3,1) - try avoid the slider end overlaps http://puu.sh/wtHjo/9c1cd003ba.jpg fixed
4. 00:25:629 - i dont see the point of the finish here, nothing rly special to emphasise and you dont have it on similar beats 00:28:419 (1) - 00:31:210 (1) fixed
5. 00:26:675 (3) - whistle here is outta place, i assume with whistles you're following vocals fixed
6. 00:32:606 (1,2,3) - spacing here doesnt fit very well in the context of the section. the same effect can we done with less spacing http://puu.sh/wtHLi/850dcdc816.jpg and its much more suitable to have at this intensity fixed
7. 01:05:396 (1,2,3) - i get ur following vocals here, but a lot more is going on with the instruments here. guitar pauses like 01:05:571 - are ignored and 01:05:919 (3) - doesnt get much emphasis cos 01:06:094 (1) - is clicked so soon after it. a rhythm like https://puu.sh/wtHZd/16c258ae8d.jpg is a lot more interesting here imo, also applies to all other chorus parts imo the current way is better since i only follow vocals through the whole map..
   btw i think that 01:05:919 (3) - this is emphasised enough cuz spacings are different between 01:05:745 (2,3) - and 01:05:919 (3,1) -
8. 01:11:152 (4) - need to be consistent with ur decision on mapping this beat. just cus there's a minor guitar beat on a different track there doesn't mean it needs to be mapped fixed
9. 01:51:094 (3) - think u should nc this so you keep similar patterns to other kiais aa 02:54:233 (3,4,5,6) - (this supposed to be a
   rectangle)
10. 02:05:396 - 02:06:094 (1) - doesnt need whistles, and should add a whistle to 02:06:268 - to help identify what ur following. in fact 02:06:094 (1) - should be drum finish fixed
11. 02:13:594 (2,3,4,5,6) - honestly feels a bit sudden for a calmer section, plus the 1/4 sounds arent very prominent either. could probably just simplify it to something like 00:33:129 (4,5) - again, that suits the intensity better fixed
12. 02:17:257 (1,2) - drum finish on 1, whistle on 2 fixed
13. 02:27:024 (1,2,1,2) - percussion goes snare-kick-snare-kick, so you should try adding claps to 1 and drum finishes to 2 fixed
14. 02:28:245 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - can u try be a bit more reasonable with the spacing? as of now its a pretty big diff spike, spacing like http://puu.sh/wtIzh/9d5a7c509d.jpg would be a lot more suitable nerfed this, hope its fine now uwu
15. 02:32:431 (1,3) - dont think these need to overlap fixed
16. 02:34:175 (1,2) - doesnt fit that well, as you normally kept the 1/4 sliders for consecutive guitar notes. i reckon sticking to 1/2 is more consistent with ur concepts fixed
17. 02:41:326 (1,2,3,4) - if u want to do this u should mute the slider ends fixed
18. 02:44:292 (2,3,4,1) - this is way too confusing tbh, you used this pattern earlier 02:32:082 (2,3,4) - with a different rhythm so makes the following one really unintuitive added ncs, so should be better!
19. 03:04:524 (4,1) - http://puu.sh/wtINw/86b53b62a0.jpg e fixed
20. 03:11:501 (1,2,3) - try to have ur visual placements more even http://puu.sh/wtJTT/d5de5a45e6.jpg fixed (i hope)
21. 03:16:733 (3,4) - rhythm should be ctrl g'ed? rhythms like 03:13:943 (5,6) - make a lot more sense the current one is better vocals imo, so id prefer to keep this as it is
22. 03:42:024 (2) - clap fixed
23. 03:51:966 (1,2,3) - like the only place u used a custom stack, and is also near the end of the map. should really just autostack thisguitar appears, so imo its better to show this.. also i got some custom stacks in solo guitar part, eg. 02:42:024 (1,2,3) - 02:36:792 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - so imo it should pretty readable

most of the hitsound stuff probably applies to other diffs too

[insane feat. dailycare]
from my understanding of feat. it implies that dailycare would've done a specific section, but this is much more like a collaboration as it's generally even in terms of parts mapped. pls think of something better hm... hope now its better

points like 00:32:606 (1,2,3) - 01:05:919 - 02:13:594 (2,3,4,5,6) - from extra also apply here fixed all except 01:05:919 - this one, cuz it works better with the vocals

1. 00:05:222 (3) - not really getting why the rhythms change every measure, the rhythm/placements here dont show that 00:05:222 (3) - is unique in any way if u really feel the need to have so much variation, use similar rhythms to hard made it better (i hope)
2. 00:44:466 (3,4,5,6,7) - use slider to stream, makes this a whole lot neater http://puu.sh/wtMxi/d322fd1c9c.jpg tried
3. 00:46:036 (3,4) - 00:51:617 (3,4) - etc. rhythms are quite inconsistent here and dont work that well, sliders like 00:49:001 (3) - follow the snare but on 00:46:036 (3) - it appears on slider ends. ctrl g'ing rhythms work much better with instruments/vocals fixed
4. 02:33:826 (2) - doesnt have much emphasis, could try spacing this more fixed
5. 03:53:536 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - using 1/4 repeats in the extra but triplets here is a bit weird for spread fixed
6. 03:56:152 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - its really strange to have this crazy build up of intensity only to lead into a spinner where all the intensity randomly drops off. should really consider not making this as hard so the drop off isn't as bad, and also cos this part doesnt even deserve to be this difficult -_ nerfed this

[hard]

1. 00:08:013 (3) - 00:19:175 (3) - should try show these r different fixed
2. 00:13:594 (3,4) - might be better to stack stuff like this, so you dont get as much movement to help differentiate it from the kiai fixed
3. 01:11:152 (4) - 01:16:733 (4) - these dont need to be mapped, the guitar you're following isnt on the same track fixed
4. 01:38:361 (2) - is this really necessary? cant even hear anything worth being emphasised, just use a circle lol fixed
5. 01:40:280 (3,4,5,6) - this shouldnt be in a hard, stick to stuff like 00:44:466 (4,5) - or use a repeat slider then 2 kick sliders fixed
6. 02:13:594 (2,3) - doesnt work as intended, as there isn't any distinctive sound that supports the clicking of 02:13:768 (3) . should really just use 1 repeat slider here fixed
7. 02:17:606 - clap fixed
8. 02:30:164 (3,4) - just use a slider.. the stamina required is kinda too hard here, when taking into account how advanced plays fixed
9. 02:32:780 (2) - circle, or could have a triplet from 02:32:780 - and remove 02:33:216 (4) fixed
10. 02:37:489 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - just take a look at the rhythms in insane, and that should explain enough changed this
11. 02:44:815 (3,1) - should try something similar to 02:33:652 (6,1) - here that emphasises it better fixed
12. 02:49:350 (1,2,3,4) - ctrl g ur rhythm? makes more sense to move from easier to harder rhythms for a nicer build up fixed
13. 02:51:617 (3,4) - 02:59:989 (3,4) - similar to insane, ur rhythms are beginning to get pretty inconsistent but they are the same here quq fixed

[advanced]
needs like ar 6.5 at least, right now u have like 5 objects on the screen at a time as well as using patterns that cover previous objects eg. 00:05:919 (1) 6.3 now

this diff is also way too dense. the whole map is almost a train of 1/2 rhythms, and your rhythms barely differ from the hard while being much harder than standard. u need to either increase the frequency of 1/1 gaps in advanced, or buff standard to include more 1/2s and map an easy. though the former is probably more straightforward, eg. simplifying sliders to a circle 00:23:885 (3) - when the chains begin to get long, and removing beats like 00:47:780 (7) - 00:50:571 (8) - from the kiai to allow for more rests tried to make it less dense, but seems like it became worse..

dont really want to be repeating myself, but similar stuff like 00:02:431 (6) - 00:48:826 (3,4) - 03:38:885 (3,4,5) - are concerns here too fixed
also what is this following 03:15:338 (7) fixed

[standard feat. wajinshu]
03:38:885 (2,3) - should use similar rhythms to 03:11:152 (2,3,4,5) - for consistency/reflecting the intensity better changed in another way!!
looks mostly ok (or maybe i'm just tired), but consider changing the diff name ok

[]
i feel like in a lot of cases you try too hard to implement variation, that you sway too far from your main concept. map still needs a bit of work, but i'll be willing to push it forward if u make appropriate changes

Einja wrote:

fun to play when you edit the last diff to ar 7 xd

1. 00:50:396 (2,3,1) - The emphasis is wrong here. What justifies this random antijump just when the new measure starts? 00:50:571 (3,1) - If anything, 00:50:745 (1) - should be the most emphasized here, but instead it's a very weird tiny movement. Same goes for 00:51:966 (4,1) - , 00:56:152 (4,1) - and subsequent similar spots (it happens all over the map)
   
2. 00:54:582 (3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - What's with all these patterns being so completely different from each other even if the vocal (which is what you're mapping to) is always roughly the same in the music? I understand that you want to create variety and that's good, but I think you can refine a lot of your patterns quite a bit. For example, the spacing difference here 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2) - makes very little sense, as you go from antijumps to very big jump to antijumps for no reason. This is very counter-intuitive to play as the music signifies no such change in emphasis.
   
3. The kiai ends after these and all seems well, until we end up in the next kiai...
   
4. 01:50:919 (2,3) - Why is the start of a new vocal now an antijump instead of the reverse as you did before? 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - in this pattern, you emphasized the STARTS of every vocal, whereas here you're emphasizing the second syllable of every vocal, which gives off a completely different effect.
   
5. Not to mention, later on in this pattern you switch around the emphasis AGAIN, emphasizing the start of 01:51:443 (1) - again. Could you pick one type of emphasis and perhaps stick with it for these vocals? Your map will be a lot more cohesive this way.
   
6. 01:57:024 (1,2,3,4) - What's this sudden huge spacing for just instrumental, and then this 01:57:547 (4,1) - antijump here again where the finish would indicate more emphasis instead. Besides, you've never really used this kind of spacing for the background music either way, as your map has been very vocal based up to this point. The same goes for 02:52:838 (1,2,3) -
   
7. 02:29:989 (1,2) - This one is kinda unnecessary since the sounds you mapped these to stop after 02:29:292 (1,2) - already, so this should just be 3 1/2 notes instead.
   
8. 02:52:838 (1,2,3) - Here the patterning gets even more random. Where exactly are you placing these jumps and for what reason? I don't really know why 02:54:233 (3,4) - and 02:54:582 (5,6) - are such big jumps and 02:54:408 (4,5) - is so small
   
9. 03:00:513 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - It pretty much repeats itself, here these patterns are antijumps with every new vocal emphasized again, the pattern itself is fine but why is the rest so incredibly different?
   
10. 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - vs 01:42:373 (1,2) - and 03:20:047 (1,2,3) - hmm... that's quite a huge difference isn't it? These linear patterns are really harsh to play, especially if you don't use the direction change on this vocal 03:14:815 (3) - , and 03:15:164 (1,2,3) - are equally spaced as the notes where the vocals land on (you'd think this would be a lot less intense)
    
11. 03:23:885 (3) - a direction change would benefit this pattern aswell, since this vocal is a lot lower pitched and feels way too harsh to play in such a large spaced linear pattern.

Voli wrote:

[queerish dances]

1. 00:50:396 (2,3,1) - The emphasis is wrong here. What justifies this random antijump just when the new measure starts? 00:50:571 (3,1) - If anything, 00:50:745 (1) - should be the most emphasized here, but instead it's a very weird tiny movement. Same goes for 00:51:966 (4,1) - , 00:56:152 (4,1) - and subsequent similar spots (it happens all over the map) if an antijump comes after a jump, it's still a form of emphasis due to heavy spacing contrast
   
2. 00:54:582 (3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - What's with all these patterns being so completely different from each other even if the vocal (which is what you're mapping to) is always roughly the same in the music? I understand that you want to create variety and that's good, but I think you can refine a lot of your patterns quite a bit. For example, the spacing difference here 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2) - makes very little sense, as you go from antijumps to very big jump to antijumps for no reason. This is very counter-intuitive to play as the music signifies no such change in emphasis. its just each vocal set being paired into 2s based on white tick emphasis. as said in the desc, this map is based on 2013style techniques, and back then there wasnt super heavy scrutiny over ever jump being exactly consistent. and talk to the average modder today it'll be apparent this heavy scrutiny hasnt rly made maps better, i dont see much reason to dq over slight changes for variety
   
3. The kiai ends after these and all seems well, until we end up in the next kiai...
   
4. 01:50:919 (2,3) - Why is the start of a new vocal now an antijump instead of the reverse as you did before? 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - in this pattern, you emphasized the STARTS of every vocal, whereas here you're emphasizing the second syllable of every vocal, which gives off a completely different effect. pretty clearly matches up with 00:54:931 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - spacing concept
   
5. Not to mention, later on in this pattern you switch around the emphasis AGAIN, emphasizing the start of 01:51:443 (1) - again. Could you pick one type of emphasis and perhaps stick with it for these vocals? Your map will be a lot more cohesive this way. same as above, tho slightly changed from a linestyle to a back-forth style
   
6. 01:57:024 (1,2,3,4) - What's this sudden huge spacing for just instrumental, and then this 01:57:547 (4,1) - antijump here again where the finish would indicate more emphasis instead. Besides, you've never really used this kind of spacing for the background music either way, as your map has been very vocal based up to this point. The same goes for 02:52:838 (1,2,3) - somewhat agree the spacing here is a bit large, tho again it's being paired with the antijump for nice contrast to emphasize the downbeat. not enough for dq on its own
   
7. 02:29:989 (1,2) - This one is kinda unnecessary since the sounds you mapped these to stop after 02:29:292 (1,2) - already, so this should just be 3 1/2 notes instead. there's clearly still guitar on that blue tick
   
8. 02:52:838 (1,2,3) - Here the patterning gets even more random. Where exactly are you placing these jumps and for what reason? I don't really know why 02:54:233 (3,4) - and 02:54:582 (5,6) - are such big jumps and 02:54:408 (4,5) - is so small more or less same as before regarding contrast, tho the overall spacing has likely increased due to this being the final kiai for a bigger finish, a common technique
   
9. 03:00:513 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - It pretty much repeats itself, here these patterns are antijumps with every new vocal emphasized again, the pattern itself is fine but why is the rest so incredibly different? same as before
   
10. 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - vs 01:42:373 (1,2) - and 03:20:047 (1,2,3) - hmm... that's quite a huge difference isn't it? These linear patterns are really harsh to play, especially if you don't use the direction change on this vocal 03:14:815 (3) - , and 03:15:164 (1,2,3) - are equally spaced as the notes where the vocals land on (you'd think this would be a lot less intense) introducing the linear patterns at the start of the chorus loop emphasizes how the song is building to a finish while also preparing the player for the crosscreen one at 03:23:536 (1,2,3) - , yes it looks like it awkwardly sticks out but there is some logic to it
    
11. 03:23:885 (3) - a direction change would benefit this pattern aswell, since this vocal is a lot lower pitched and feels way too harsh to play in such a large spaced linear pattern. and as far as what you're saying about the linear motions being too harsh or whatever, this is the most intense point of the song, it makes sense to have its inclusion for emphasis purposes. this map has already had lots of linear motions in it

Well, the things I pointed out pretty much repeat themselves throughout the map, so I encourage you to take a look at it, and see what you think.

Voli wrote:

Hi, I saw this in qualified, i think it's a pretty cool map but it can definitely be improved before pushing it towards ranked.

My main issue is the patterning and huge spacing inconsistencies in the kiai.

[queerish dances]

1. 00:50:396 (2,3,1) - The emphasis is wrong here. What justifies this random antijump just when the new measure starts? 00:50:571 (3,1) - If anything, 00:50:745 (1) - should be the most emphasized here, but instead it's a very weird tiny movement. Same goes for 00:51:966 (4,1) - , 00:56:152 (4,1) - and subsequent similar spots (it happens all over the map) actually this is the way how i sometimes emphasize things. low spacing makes the movement quite uncomfortable, so the slider 00:50:745 (1) - becomes harder to click, which creates some soft of emphasis.
   
2. 00:54:582 (3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - What's with all these patterns being so completely different from each other even if the vocal (which is what you're mapping to) is always roughly the same in the music? I understand that you want to create variety and that's good, but I think you can refine a lot of your patterns quite a bit. For example, the spacing difference here 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2) - makes very little sense, as you go from antijumps to very big jump to antijumps for no reason. This is very counter-intuitive to play as the music signifies no such change in emphasis. "variety is cool but please make your patterns look the same" different ways of emphasis at the same places make this map more interesting to play and personally i dont see any problems with that. if the concept is repeated consistently, why is this a problem at all? and a question for you, have you ever played this map before telling me that those patterns are "counter-intuitive to play"? i got, like, a tonn of testplays and nobody was complaining about them.
   
3. The kiai ends after these and all seems well, until we end up in the next kiai...
   
4. 01:50:919 (2,3) - Why is the start of a new vocal now an antijump instead of the reverse as you did before? 00:57:722 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - in this pattern, you emphasized the STARTS of every vocal, whereas here you're emphasizing the second syllable of every vocal, which gives off a completely different effect. variety/read above
   
5. Not to mention, later on in this pattern you switch around the emphasis AGAIN, emphasizing the start of 01:51:443 (1) - again. Could you pick one type of emphasis and perhaps stick with it for these vocals? Your map will be a lot more cohesive this way.
   
6. 01:57:024 (1,2,3,4) - What's this sudden huge spacing for just instrumental, and then this 01:57:547 (4,1) - antijump here again where the finish would indicate more emphasis instead. Besides, you've never really used this kind of spacing for the background music either way, as your map has been very vocal based up to this point. The same goes for 02:52:838 (1,2,3) - its pretty the same as 01:01:210 (1,2,3,4) -.. and well, check my perly above if you are concerned about emphasis
   
7. 02:29:989 (1,2) - This one is kinda unnecessary since the sounds you mapped these to stop after 02:29:292 (1,2) - already, so this should just be 3 1/2 notes instead. no, in my point of view, 02:29:989 (1,2) - this sound is the last one here. also there is a pretty noticeable sound on the blue tick, so i guess two circles wont be the correct decision.
   
8. 02:52:838 (1,2,3) - Here the patterning gets even more random. Where exactly are you placing these jumps and for what reason? I don't really know why 02:54:233 (3,4) - and 02:54:582 (5,6) - are such big jumps and 02:54:408 (4,5) - is so small is it a really a jump lol? i think this spacing is kinda usual for the kiai times.
   
9. 03:00:513 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - It pretty much repeats itself, here these patterns are antijumps with every new vocal emphasized again, the pattern itself is fine but why is the rest so incredibly different? because i want to create variety, as you stated above.. i dont understand, you want me to use only triangles through the whole map??
   
10. 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - vs 01:42:373 (1,2) - and 03:20:047 (1,2,3) - hmm... that's quite a huge difference isn't it? These linear patterns are really harsh to play, especially if you don't use the direction change on this vocal 03:14:815 (3) - , and 03:15:164 (1,2,3) - are equally spaced as the notes where the vocals land on (you'd think this would be a lot less intense) 03:14:466 - this part is way denser than the other kiais, so thats why 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - such pattern exists there. 01:42:373 (1,2) - 03:20:047 (1,2,3) - those are pretty much the same tho, so i dont really see a problem..
    
11. 03:23:885 (3) - a direction change would benefit this pattern aswell, since this vocal is a lot lower pitched and feels way too harsh to play in such a large spaced linear pattern. well, probably, but then it will destroy the concepts i had though the whole map, since all those low pitch vocals are usually mapped in the same pattern as the others. 00:55:629 (1,2,3,4) - here, for example or 01:51:443 (1,2,3,4) - here

Well, the things I pointed out pretty much repeat themselves throughout the map, so I encourage you to take a look at it, and see what you think.

Naotoshi wrote:

someone said something about my qualified map

i have some concerns about this map!
[queerish dances]
basically everything is about the kiais cuz non kiai parts are fine

00:47:257 (1,2,1,2) - so this pattern seemed weird to me, cuz you clearly divide the 4 1/2 beats into 2 parts with the NC and the patterning, but in the song all 4 notes are actually quite equal with 00:47:780 (2) - having a vocal - so removing the nc makes more sense dont really like the followpoint that will appear if ill delete this nc

00:49:350 (1,2,1,2) - randomly tiny spacing like this is weird cuz its still pretty comfortable, the "emphasis" of having an antijump is lost since you're just sort of hovering around the previous note instead of making a concerted effort not to overshoot well, if you are concerned about emphasis,
read my reply to voli please

00:50:396 (2,3) - and then here your base spacing for when there are vocals is used on a part without vocals ._. 00:50:571 (3) - here you can hear "o" and then here 00:50:745 (1) - the other part of the word, so i guess here are still some vocals lol

00:55:106 (2,1,2) - same thing here about the small spacing; instead of being noticeable, it's just a comfortable movement so there's 0 emphasis. i still believe there is

01:05:396 (1,2) - unrelated to spacing/emphasis stuff but it would have been cool to highlight the change in the guitar here explained before,
in a reply to pentori, this was skipped to emphasize the vocals

01:38:536 (4) - missing nc? does this nc spam really needed?
actually it randomly changes from every beat to every 2 beats >.>

01:43:071 (3,4,5,6) - don't see the purpose of a fairly large jump pattern on a part with no melody that is basically filler rhythm, yet it has same spacing as stuff like 01:45:164 (1,2,3,4) - which has a vocal on it its pretty similar to 01:57:024 (1,2,3,4) - or 00:47:257 (1,2,1,2) -

01:48:652 (4,5,6) - the song obviously changes here, the vocals stop... but the pattern is more or less identical? kinda weird imo but thats the usual patterning concept i use through the whole map, why should i suddenly stick to something different?

01:50:745 (1,2,3,4) - this pattern appears to create a massive distinction between the first beat and the second one that is completely unsupported by the song; the vocals don't change between the parts so having this large of a distinction is really weird to me concept with spacing is pretty similar to 00:54:931 (1,2,1,2) -, only the visual part is different..

01:57:024 (1,2,3,4) - this is gigantic considering how the vocals you've been putting similar sized jumps on aren't here again its pretty similar to 01:43:071 (3,4,5,6) -

02:11:850 (2) - wouldnt it make more sense to nc here i dont think so

02:35:919 (4,5,6,7,8) - having 7 in the same pattern here doesnt make too much sense to me considering that the guitar melody you've been following is notably not on 7 well yeah, but the difference wont be really big.. also 02:36:617 (8) - here that guitar appears again, so i guess it should be pretty fine

02:44:117 (1,2,1,1,1) - how come you abandoned the pattern you used on the last 2 repeats of this phrase a measure before? didnt get this one tbh

02:55:106 (2,1,2) - i think this pattern places significantly more emphasis on 2 than anything else, but 2 doesn't really stick out in the song in any way... wait what? its the same vocals here, and the same pattern i udes here 00:54:931 (1,2,1,2) -, for example

03:14:466 (1,2,3,4,1) - whoa whoa whoa when did this map turn into xanandra? you never use this type of motion before, what changed so much that you decided to introduce it here? intensity of the song increased, so i decided to show it somehow

03:15:164 (1,2,3,4) - it doesn't make sense to make this symmetrical to 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4) - because 03:14:466 (1,2,3,4) - has vocals on it, and 03:15:164 (1,2,3,4) - doesn't have anything, so mapping them the exact same way is not really representing the song too well i think but the instruments are kinda same? also this is not the first time i mapped vocals and instuments in the same way, 02:55:629 (1,2,1,2) - here, for example

03:23:536 (1,2,3) - lol pls enjoy game

03:25:629 (1,1,1,1) - this isnt even lined up cmon y so nazi...

03:38:885 (1,2) - again something that would be pretty cool to highlight same thing as before

03:57:809 - why map the song when you can just stick a spinner over it amirite glad you liked it

MrSergio wrote:

the way emphasis changes, even on similar parts, is kinda random tbh. read the discussion above if you are concerned about emphasis

For example you don't take in consideration the nature of the objects at all when making your jumps, as these timestamps show:
00:02:431 (3,4,5) - vs 00:08:013 (3,4,5) - (sliders alter the emphasis on their head based on the flow, and the second one is way weaker than first one for no apparent reason to me). i cant agree that you can judge the emphasis by the flow.. well, at least here.. this is the usual patterning i use through the whole map, and you cant just say that the emphasis is different because some things are rotated in another way
It's not really a matter of which is more correct here, since we might start the subjectivity war, but more about why is one <this way> and the other pattern <that way>. The intro is repetitive as hell and that's what should be doing the map imo. It's about feedback: songs does something but the map does something else. map your own version then, my point of view is way different

Rhythm choices can also be a bit questionable:
00:28:768 (2,3,4,5) - by seeing this you sort of tell the player that circles match some fast vocals in the song, but then...
00:30:513 (3,4,5,6) - first two circles are on empty audio. Apart from that soft keyboard in the background, nothing really plays such a 1/2 rhythm, so the object choice is ambiguous here imo what? the first circle is on a pretty noticeable drum and the second one is on the vocals.
---------
01:03:652 (1,2,3,4) - becomes 01:59:117 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - which is a bit meh imo since the interpretation changed radically (rhythm- and flow-wise), not just aesthetically probably true, its kinda rhythmically inconsistent, but imo both ways work quite well, so not sure if i really want to change this.

A different sort of emphasis issue related to variation in spacing:
00:50:396 (2,3,1) - vs 00:53:187 (5,6,1) - first one working quite well, but then you decided that was too boring to keep same spacing for two patterns and totally switched it the other way around. Not sure this is intended or just something you do without noticing, but I believe it is the reason why kiai times above all feel so inconsistent with each other. check my thoughts on the previous two pages. maybe for you its inconsistent and not right, but i think its pretty fine
You arbitrarily change spacing (supposedly because you don't like boring things) without noticing you greatly affect your emphasis across different patterns.
--------
02:49:001 (1,2) - here you have a cool way to interpret the finish sound, nothing to say on it, but...
01:05:919 (3,1) - why is this the opposite once again? As in, the jump should be bigger after the unusual finish, not before. 01:05:919 (3,1,2,3) - here i focus more on the vocals, not on the instruments, thats why the spacing isnt that large. (no changes in the vocals -> no huge jumps)
I assumed having a reverse emphasis was what you wanted to do, seeing stuff like 00:40:629 (5,6,1,2,3) - or 00:54:757 (4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , which I can't particularly agree with, but it seems like it's your style so... i can again stick to that its related to vocals. yes, i know, stuff like 00:53:362 (6,1) - contradicts with this, since "why ffs he decides to change the emphasis its inconsistent!!!113123" but i still believe its fine to use different ideas in the same places
The alternation between so opposite styles is kinda strange to me tho. If I were to see one style only throughout the map I wouldn't mind it, whether I like it or not personally, but the current fusion is not that great: by having contrasting interpretation you make your patterns less meaningful and more diluted, because you try to associate different rhythms to similar patterns and viceversa well, i guess we just have different views on the mapping

I believe it was pointed out before, but unusual stuff and variation doesn't really bring much quality, even more when we have seldom triangles like this as triplets 02:32:082 (2,3,4) - . There are just 2 or 3 instances of this pattern in the whole map and after checking it many times I can't seem to agree with how this works, nor can find a possible reason why it is here to begin with. you can find this unusual stuff only in the solo guitar part, since the part itself is different from the whole song and deserves some interesting patterns imo


Anyway, I believe your core concept for the style is "emphasis through sudden small spacings", but the execution is lagging with that idea since you sometimes end up doing emphasis the "normal" way (aka, big spacings = more emphasis)
I would like to go over pattern arrangements too (structure), but I already know I would be arguing for nothing... (and it's not considered that important too apparently)

Monstrata wrote:

Respecting emphasis can also make patterns feel boring because of how predictable they are. 01:53:536 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Are fun to play imo, but part of that is because they don't respect white-tick emphasis. 02:47:257 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - Same idea here . These are good precisely because emphasis isn't respected imo.

It's not good to say "a map that isn't following proper emphasis is not mapping the song correctly". There is no correct way to map the song to begin with. You can advise a mapper to emphasize certain sounds, but a mapper can also tell you their objective was not emphasis control .

Have fun mapping~

Venix wrote:

btw shouldn't be "FREDERIC" instead of "Frederic" in title? official name of site http://frederic-official.com/ is "フレデリック FREDERIC OFFICIAL SITE"
or you've another resource?
nvm yt

Wendy-chan wrote:

Uhh headsup, offset is broken in latest update

Delis wrote:

that's the exception that you may use Frederic as artist since THE ARTIST for this song officially capitalized its first letter.

IamKwaN wrote:

yes, i can try my best to help

Unicode Title: オドループ
Romanised Title: oddloop
Unicode Artist: フレデリック
Romanised Artist: Frederic

References:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCp2iXA1uLE

😅

Komore wrote:

please redl if you got it before 07.20!!