Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- Okay, so... the three parts you mentioned were supposed to be followed? It sounded more like a background music to me, which I wouldn't want to collide the current rhythm just to follow melody. Moreover, the two 00:09:697 - and 00:09:856 - doesn't really sound like "real 1/4" not as hearing the drums there. I mean like, really? Is there some instrument landed there other than drums or chords? Even with a slower playback rate, it's barely audible to make it worth a click. All I could hear the drums streaming are on 00:08:979 (2,3,4) - 00:09:537 (5,6) - and 00:10:175 (8,9,10) -, nothing else.

However, maybe 00:09:457 - seems okay for a triplet since it sounds pretty much imminent. So, no problem. It'll also break that guideline a little bit, but why not?

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- Well, I'll be much obliged being asked for an explanation. You might've been overlooked at this jump visually, while thinking that 00:23:819 (4,5) - is too big in structure or something. Ehmm, you might've forgot to check the spacing right? Alike, 00:23:819 (4,5) - is near the next downbeat which is really something that may need a jump for sure. And 00:24:457 (2,3) - is probably this http://puu.sh/uYTh5/05c0adaa6e.jpg if you haven't seen it before. So it should be doing the same thing for once to be called "very clear distinct".

lol x2

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- To a more simple input, is it like "replace this slider into two circles" or "this slider is too weak to follow vocals"? Neither one of those two options, It's actually going to be moved over 00:33:394 (2,3) - on rhythm timeline than just making it too similar to each other. I understand the differences, there's one on head and tail, the other isn't. But really, just like I've told before. It's better to follow the best and the important ones rather than everything, including the minor vocals hitting low notes and the minor stuffs that's implemented in the song, in the song track which will probably create more confusion over the rhythm. No wonder why you'd say "some rhythms aren't quite understandable" in the first place.

The slider velocity changes here doesn't affect much or barely, even in the field of the gameplay. The intention of it is making some sliders a tiny bit slow as well as this part of the verse is being decelerated as usual. Pretty much slightly, didn't made it way too slow since the song itself is already great enough to calibrate with the circles and sliders.

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- Well, alright. Rather than exponentially increasing the distance spacing larger and larger. Maybe I could do that at least. So... ehh, speaking about remapping this part for that, I nearly didn't have some ideas of a design pattern here so I ended up mapping some back-and-forths and hopefully below >3.0x spacing suffices for this build-up section.

Doyak wrote:

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- Well, I'll be much obliged being asked for an explanation. You might've been overlooked at this jump visually, while thinking that 00:23:819 (4,5) - is too big in structure or something. Ehmm, you might've forgot to check the spacing right? Alike, 00:23:819 (4,5) - is near the next downbeat which is really something that may need a jump for sure. And 00:24:457 (2,3) - is probably this http://puu.sh/uYTh5/05c0adaa6e.jpg if you haven't seen it before. So it should be doing the same thing for once to be called "very clear distinct".

lol x2

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

- To a more simple input, is it like "replace this slider into two circles" or "this slider is too weak to follow vocals"? Neither one of those two options, It's actually going to be moved over 00:33:394 (2,3) - on rhythm timeline than just making it too similar to each other. I understand the differences, there's one on head and tail, the other isn't. But really, just like I've told before. It's better to follow the best and the important ones rather than everything, including the minor vocals hitting low notes and the minor stuffs that's implemented in the song, in the song track which will probably create more confusion over the rhythm. No wonder why you'd say "some rhythms aren't quite understandable" in the first place.

The slider velocity changes here doesn't affect much or barely, even in the field of the gameplay. The intention of it is making some sliders a tiny bit slow as well as this part of the verse is being decelerated as usual. Pretty much slightly, didn't made it way too slow since the song itself is already great enough to calibrate with the circles and sliders.

So I think this is where we can't get to an agreement in general. Your explanation to 00:23:819 (4,5) - is that they're near at the downbeat, but I really cannot agree with that. You make players act for every single notes, so every notes have to have their own meaning by themselves too. By doing this jump you're also emphasizing 00:23:979 - this specific beat, not something nearby that note. Well, of course you can create a general intensity for this part, but that's different from emphasizing 00:24:138 - this specific downbeat, because you cannot emphasize one sound when other sounds have similar jumps.

As your reason to many 'not understandable (by me)' rhythms is that, I think I can't do much about that. Slow sliders are problematic just because they give very weak impact on these specific beats than others, but I guess you don't care much about that, as the whole patterns create enough intensity for the song's overall atmosphere.

And about your argument "It's better to follow the best and the important ones rather than everything, including the minor vocals hitting low notes and the minor stuffs that's implemented in the song, in the song track which will probably create more confusion over the rhythm.", if this was supposed to be some sort of easy difficulty, I would agree with that. But this is an Expert difficulty, isn't it? No matter how complicated the song is within just 1/2 beats, it cannot be any confusing for those players, as long as the map follows the song correctly. Providing easy rhythms is not the goal of mapping anyway. If you can make the map fit the song better, there's no reason to get away from it.

By meaning "near the downbeat", isn't that a linking phase of "accentuate the part/beat"? I just wanted to make things simple so it didn't really worked well for you at least. So about that, I'll briefly explain this. Either the baseline, drums, or melody chances are pretty high that you can add jumps just as how I've done currently to 00:23:819 (4,5) - . As it is possible to say it's already having to get a feeling for this "specific beat", which is making the jump between 00:23:979 (5) - and 00:24:138 (1) - bigger than 00:23:819 (4,5) -. But the point is the (4) and (5) are already incentive to represent the downbeat "nearly". So for something you call "emphasizing"; The more I do that, the repetitive it may become to be overused. Sometimes, inserts in the song track (or maybe the vocals perhaps, dunno...) or transitions between phrases can sometimes be mapped with similar jumps, as I got your thing finally. So as I could still hear through the parts for the intensity of the beats, jumps like these on this top difficulty is purely necessary even with lower-than-average emphasize to follow the song track and dense.

For the rhythm arranged with 1/2; if the song were to be complicated and I put myself to add more than just beats over 1/2 snaps, I thought of people like you would still impel about the difficulty with having rhythms that are "not understandable" or something else of it. So I didn't want to create a riot of it and just move along with the current regulated rhythms for every player to hear much clearer and distinguishable than randomly complicated. As it's their position as the player will be able to expect the 1/2 beat and can focus on playability as they usually do. Lastly, I always remain here, and I would never get away with some issue even if it's subjective... Ehh just to let you know.



I'll leave this to other BNs to judge then. If you need more of my opinions then sure, anytime, but I don't think we can agree to each other on some points as we have quite different perspective on fundamental of mapping I guess.

@F D Flourite: You can rebubble after Cerulean replies and wants to go again, if you still agree with everything in the map.

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Does it always need to be anime

Soul Evans wrote:

It doesn't have to be anime but i believe BGs should be correct representation to the song because you know, it's from an anime

Imagine placing katty perry as a BG in a 30 seconds from mars song

Canadian Baka wrote:

~ Qualified ~

Sinnoh wrote:

General
Soft-hitfinish sounds too loud compared to the other hitsounds Will try to reduce its volume, yeah.

Easy
00:12:649 (2) - 00:15:202 (2) - 00:20:308 (2) - 00:22:862 (2) - etc
I really think all of these should be moved back by 1/2. There are no strong sounds on the downbeat to follow, and it's kind of anti-intuitive to click on places with no music. If you use 1.5/1 enough it should be intuitive.
Considering how dense kiai is, it really shouldn't be an issue to add some more objects.

First off, I applied most of the notes to adjust them to 1/2 snapping. I'm not quite sure if it'd be the best idea for a fast song in easier difficulties. But as long as this difficulty doesn't go up to 2*. I'll probably give it a try, it's not like every easy difficulty should always be 1/1 anyways xd

As for adding more notes or circles in the chorus, I think you've gone too far with scrutinizing note density in this difficulty. A small blank between measures of the structures in each track can be certainly necessary, not all players could handle such density especially when it comes to newbies.
So I don't think more objects would be that imperative.

Pretty much same issue on normal, the things I mentioned above have downbeats prioritised when there's pretty much no sound on them, and there are much clearer sounds 1/2 a beat before.

yes it messes with slider tick hitsounds but why are you using those in the first place lol at least its used in a few parts owo

Normal
As an example fix for the thing above, 00:12:489 (4) - add circle, 00:12:808 (5) - move 1/2 a beat forward. Still follows density and has clearer sounds to follow Alright
00:46:479 (5,6,7,1,2) - Too many triples around here, 00:46:638 (6) - can be deleted and would have better density for normal q
01:17:755 (4,5) - I think rhythm would follow vocal well with this pattern, keeps similar sounds on the same object https://puu.sh/ybvPW/505944462d.png But afterwards, the vocals over 01:18:394 - sounds pretty intense enough to be a clickable object in order to amplify the vocal much better than with a reverse arrow. Skipping that tick out would be pretty much awkward to be honest.
01:25:735 (6) - Change to circle, too dense for normal fine

Rest of the set looks fine to me

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Sinnoh wrote:

Easy
00:12:649 (2) - 00:15:202 (2) - 00:20:308 (2) - 00:22:862 (2) - etc
I really think all of these should be moved back by 1/2. There are no strong sounds on the downbeat to follow, and it's kind of anti-intuitive to click on places with no music. If you use 1.5/1 enough it should be intuitive.
Considering how dense kiai is, it really shouldn't be an issue to add some more objects.

First off, I applied most of the notes to adjust them to 1/2 snapping. I'm not quite sure if it'd be the best idea for a fast song in easier difficulties. But as long as this difficulty doesn't go up to 2*. I'll probably give it a try, it's not like every easy difficulty should always be 1/1 anyways xd

As for adding more notes or circles in the chorus, I think you've gone too far with scrutinizing note density in this difficulty. A small blank between measures of the structures in each track can be certainly necessary, not all players could handle such density especially when it comes to newbies.
So I don't think more objects would be that imperative. woops that's not what I implied. I just mentioned kiai was dense, which was just helping justify to make the section before denser (ie adding 1.5/1 rhythms, which you applied). No problems from me now that you've added the 1.5/1s!

Normal
01:17:755 (4,5) - I think rhythm would follow vocal well with this pattern, keeps similar sounds on the same object https://puu.sh/ybvPW/505944462d.png But afterwards, the vocals over 01:18:394 - sounds pretty intense enough to be a clickable object in order to amplify the vocal much better than with a reverse arrow. Skipping that tick out would be pretty much awkward to be honest. ah didn't really think about 01:18:394 (5) - having a stronger sound, I thought it sounded better to emphasise the change of vocal rather than intensity. Both are valid interpretations

Rest of the set looks fine to me

ok

Surono wrote:

pls dat car arabic was old car qwq

Bergy wrote:

cool top diff:

shouldnt this stream end at 01:21:266 (5) - ? theres no 1/4 after it