1. 00:14:793 (1,2) - Why a gap? It doesn't seem to be emphasizing anything in particular and feels a bit out of place. If it's purely for SR, consider changing it, it doesn't add that much density to the section methinks, and having a blank space there feels odd when 00:13:263 (2) - is mapped. Unlike 00:46:630 (1,2) - this gap doesn't add emphasis to anything
   
2. 00:25:814 (3,4) - Consider making these pair with 00:23:365 (3,4) - , they follow much of the same sounds and I think if they looked similar in shape to those straight sliders it would seem more logical than the current pattern. I also dislike the current movement of 00:25:814 (3,4) - from 3 to 4
   
3. 00:39:589 (2) - Looks awkwardly bent, try having red anchor point moved to 216,180 and the next sliderpoint (aka the fourth total) at 267,276. Currently the mountain in the middle of the slider looks tilted to the right for some reason
   
4. 00:41:732 (1,2,3) - Why the rhythm change from long slider like 00:39:589 (2) -? Song is the same here I'm pretty sure. I know there's a lot of drums and stuff that can be missed by using that type of pattern but you did it before, and I think in a lowest diff it is not a bad idea to follow the simplest of the melodies, as that is the most prominent to the untrained ears of newbies. Sort of similar thing at 00:44:181 (1,2) -
   
5. 01:08:671 (1,1) - As much as I appreciate the rainbow explosion, especially with the color of the BG, is it not a bit much to NC this way? YMMV though I suppose.
   
6. 01:13:875 (1) - Inconsistency is not a good thing generally, I know. But the music here is not the same as 01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - any of these three other areas. The notes there are held sounds, but here that melody is different. Even if it is the lowest diff, where simplicity is key, to emphasize the melody so well with long sliders like that and then to not differentiate the change in the music, well, I cannot agree with this.

1. 00:43:263 (5,1) - Ehhh, instead of it being above slider 5, it's to the side of it? The expected movement here is upwards both in pattern terms and pitch, recommend changing the location of he next few patterns, even if it's a big hassle (which it is)
   
2. 01:00:100 (4,5,6) - Minor thing maybe, but consider positioning the sliderend of 4 more in the middle of the slider 6, something like this perhaps. Can be done without ruining DS 1.3
   
3. 01:01:936 (2,3) - What's with the movement between these two, you haven't followed a smooth flow for the rest of the section so sure why not, but it's a little odd, the flow from the sliderend of 2 into the sliderbody of 3, isn't it? Don't have a suggestion that can be easily implemented without having to adjust ten different objects though.
   
4. 01:08:365 (6,1) - Dislike angle. Consider moving 1 more to the left and upwards
   
5. 01:08:977 (1,4) - Unlike overlaps such as 00:12:038 (6,1) - , this example here doesn't look very nice, at least to me personally. Simply moving the slider 4 a bit to the right and down prevents it.
   
6. 01:11:732 (2) - Optional, might be a bit smoother movement if 2 was under 1 and 3 instead of being above them. All other instances of this 3 sliders patterning is pretty smooth slider to slider. Overlap with previous 4 slider is irrelevant.
   
7. 01:20:916 (1) - How mean to do such a thing :c

1. 00:07:140 (5) - Consider pointing the slidertail outwards to the left, so the movement of the slider after the reverse goes towards the sliderhead of "1" instead of towards the sliderend of "4". Something like this perhaps. Similar thing at 01:01:936 (3) -
   
2. 00:17:702 (2,3,4) - Sounds better to me rhythmically if it's circle then triple instead of 1/2 tick red to white slider into double 1/4. Wouldn't make it that much denser imo, and you could always use a 1/4 repeat slider instead of a triple as well
   
3. 00:18:926 (3,4,5) - Similarly here, note that 00:18:773 and 00:18:926 - in the song together form a prominent sound, making the second note of that a held slider doesn't seem like the best choice to make here. In the case of 00:17:242 (1,1) - there's that low pitched baritone string noise in the background that fits to the longer held slider, but here there isn't a long 1/1 slider.
   
4. 00:29:028 (2,3) - Consider mapping the 1/4 between these
   
5. 01:15:713 (6) - Move it more upwards to make a more symmetrical pattern?

1. 00:46:324 (1) - Bit random, difficult to read, and I don't know what the SV change is following to be perfectly honest.
   
   Can't mod this very well due to the stylistic choices used, interesting mix of old and new. Not a fan of 00:58:263 (1,1,1,1) - or 01:08:059 (1,2,3,4) - as the spacing crunch doesn't make much sense to me. Nice difficulty in general however.

1. 01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:13:875 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - I know why you add these nc, but these
   nc won't help beginners to read, they will just make beginners confused. Cancel these nc (01:08:671 (1) - 01:11:120 (1) - 01:13:569 (1) - 01:16:018 (1) - ) or (01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:13:875 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - ), both are fine imo

1. 00:23:977 (7) - touch the hp bar
   
2. 00:57:651 (1) - ^
   
3. 01:08:671 (1,1) - ……same as easy diff

1. Fine

1. 00:26:426 (1,2,3,4) - a bit too hard to read in insane diff imo
   
2. 00:27:038 (1,2,3,4) - i do agree about changing sv here, but 0.1-0.4 is too low for this diff
   
3. 01:08:671 (1) - 01:11:120 (1) - 01:16:018 (1) - ^ (0.75 is flow enough)
   
4. 00:46:324 (1) - idk why you changed sv here. And you didn't do it at 00:40:202 (6) - 00:41:426 (6) - ……too
   
5. 00:58:263 (1,1,1,1) - I don't think these pattern can work in insane diff (though it's cool in expert diff)
   
6. 01:08:059 (1,2,3,4,1) - ^

1. 01:16:018 (1,2,3,1,2) - I think music here is more similar as 01:11:120 (1,1) - than 01:13:569 (1,2,3,1,2) - , so you can use the same rhythm as 01:11:120 (1,1) -

00:02:855 (2,3,4,5) - Could help by moving this slightly more toward the left just for better flow here (Minor) not sure how this helps the flow
00:33:773 (3,4,5) - I felt in this area the triples like this one shouldn't be the same spaced like this 00:24:742 (2,3,4) - because this is a more calmer section so maybe reduce all of them to reflect that? considering the triplets are part of the intense parts of this slow section, it should be okay

Arf wrote:

Hello, M4M from your queue. Apologies for the delay. My map: this thing

Goomba
Easy difficulties are a pain in the glutes.

1. 00:14:793 (1,2) - Why a gap? It doesn't seem to be emphasizing anything in particular and feels a bit out of place. If it's purely for SR, consider changing it, it doesn't add that much density to the section methinks, and having a blank space there feels odd when 00:13:263 (2) - is mapped. Unlike 00:46:630 (1,2) - this gap doesn't add emphasis to anything This gap is pretty much entirely because I think the player needs a gap here. It's a situation where I'm going to focus on playability.
   
2. 00:25:814 (3,4) - Consider making these pair with 00:23:365 (3,4) - , they follow much of the same sounds and I think if they looked similar in shape to those straight sliders it would seem more logical than the current pattern. I also dislike the current movement of 00:25:814 (3,4) - from 3 to 4 Implemented
   
3. 00:39:589 (2) - Looks awkwardly bent, try having red anchor point moved to 216,180 and the next sliderpoint (aka the fourth total) at 267,276. Currently the mountain in the middle of the slider looks tilted to the right for some reason
   
4. 00:41:732 (1,2,3) - Why the rhythm change from long slider like 00:39:589 (2) -? Song is the same here I'm pretty sure. I know there's a lot of drums and stuff that can be missed by using that type of pattern but you did it before, and I think in a lowest diff it is not a bad idea to follow the simplest of the melodies, as that is the most prominent to the untrained ears of newbies. Sort of similar thing at 00:44:181 (1,2) - Implemented
   
5. 01:08:671 (1,1) - As much as I appreciate the rainbow explosion, especially with the color of the BG, is it not a bit much to NC this way? YMMV though I suppose. I think this NC thing is a cute gimmick since it shows up in all of my difficulties.
   
6. 01:13:875 (1) - Inconsistency is not a good thing generally, I know. But the music here is not the same as 01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - any of these three other areas. The notes there are held sounds, but here that melody is different. Even if it is the lowest diff, where simplicity is key, to emphasize the melody so well with long sliders like that and then to not differentiate the change in the music, well, I cannot agree with this. I'm very hesitant to change this because while i totally understand your point, I dont think theres a great way I can express the difference in an Easy diff due to my limitation on rhythm.

Koopa Troopa
Didn't expect that spacing, my goodness. You're the BN and all, but isn't this a bit too high? The spacing itself is fine. Its also needed for the spread.

1. 00:43:263 (5,1) - Ehhh, instead of it being above slider 5, it's to the side of it? The expected movement here is upwards both in pattern terms and pitch, recommend changing the location of he next few patterns, even if it's a big hassle (which it is) I think you're looking at the movement too literally, as in you exit the slider and the cursor must go in the exit direction within a certain angle. I agree to an extent but this should definitely be fine for the player.
   
2. 01:00:100 (4,5,6) - Minor thing maybe, but consider positioning the sliderend of 4 more in the middle of the slider 6, something like this perhaps. Can be done without ruining DS 1.3
   
3. 01:01:936 (2,3) - What's with the movement between these two, you haven't followed a smooth flow for the rest of the section so sure why not, but it's a little odd, the flow from the sliderend of 2 into the sliderbody of 3, isn't it? Don't have a suggestion that can be easily implemented without having to adjust ten different objects though. Similar response to before. Should be fine.
   
4. 01:08:365 (6,1) - Dislike angle. Consider moving 1 more to the left and upwards this makes almost no notable change in the movement though
   
5. 01:08:977 (1,4) - Unlike overlaps such as 00:12:038 (6,1) - , this example here doesn't look very nice, at least to me personally. Simply moving the slider 4 a bit to the right and down prevents it. may consider this but imo this looks fine
   
6. 01:11:732 (2) - Optional, might be a bit smoother movement if 2 was under 1 and 3 instead of being above them. All other instances of this 3 sliders patterning is pretty smooth slider to slider. Overlap with previous 4 slider is irrelevant. done
   
7. 01:20:916 (1) - How mean to do such a thing :c training them for the future

Thwomp

1. 00:07:140 (5) - Consider pointing the slidertail outwards to the left, so the movement of the slider after the reverse goes towards the sliderhead of "1" instead of towards the sliderend of "4". Something like this perhaps. Similar thing at 01:01:936 (3) - sure
   
2. 00:17:702 (2,3,4) - Sounds better to me rhythmically if it's circle then triple instead of 1/2 tick red to white slider into double 1/4. Wouldn't make it that much denser imo, and you could always use a 1/4 repeat slider instead of a triple as well disagree, i prefer to save triplets for the chorus esp for this bpm where it can be considered a bit of a challenge
   
3. 00:18:926 (3,4,5) - Similarly here, note that 00:18:773 and 00:18:926 - in the song together form a prominent sound, making the second note of that a held slider doesn't seem like the best choice to make here. In the case of 00:17:242 (1,1) - there's that low pitched baritone string noise in the background that fits to the longer held slider, but here there isn't a long 1/1 slider. I think you're looking at as ones a circle ones a slider where I'm looking at it like both are clickables.
   
4. 00:29:028 (2,3) - Consider mapping the 1/4 between these i left this unmapped in all the relevant difficulties. I prefer to follow this important piano sound over the background drum things considering how climactic that instrument is here.
   
5. 01:15:713 (6) - Move it more upwards to make a more symmetrical pattern? considering this, but it breaks some visual spacing stuff and i dont think its that much of an improvement. good catch tho

Pata-Mon wrote:

M4M https://osu.ppy.sh/s/692559/

[Easy]

1. 01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:13:875 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - I know why you add these nc, but these
   nc won't help beginners to read, they will just make beginners confused. Cancel these nc (01:08:671 (1) - 01:11:120 (1) - 01:13:569 (1) - 01:16:018 (1) - ) or (01:08:977 (1) - 01:11:426 (1) - 01:13:875 (1) - 01:16:324 (1) - ), both are fine imo

these arent to help or hurt with reading, but to for my little nc gimmick i have going through all of my diffs. I think it's cute.

[Normal]

1. 00:23:977 (7) - touch the hp bar
   
2. 00:57:651 (1) - ^ i dont consider these issues unless it overlaps a lot of the hp bar.
   
3. 01:08:671 (1,1) - ……same as easy diff same

[Hard]

1. Fine

[Expert]

1. 01:16:018 (1,2,3,1,2) - I think music here is more similar as 01:11:120 (1,1) - than 01:13:569 (1,2,3,1,2) - , so you can use the same rhythm as 01:11:120 (1,1) - Applied

Cool map, not too much to say
GL

sahuang wrote:

Voli
00:46:324 (1) - i dont see any reason of using a slow slider for this it was for contrast with the next part, tho yea i agree its a bit random cuz its nowhere else in the diff
00:58:263 (1,2,3,4) - this is too tricky for game play, i dont think it is ok. It would be better if you do sth like 01:08:059 (1,2,3,4) - no,
i dont agree, its actaully very easy to play (since you can get 300s just holding your cursor in one place) and it fits the pitch escalation really well imo. i don't want to change this to be dull/boring because imo it fits the part well
01:08:671 (1) - slider is too short, same for the other 2. Simply raise SV a bit i asked in the other mod reply too, why is it too short? i think it's good because it makes the contrast stand out the best
Top diff seems ok, tho i feel it is a bit messy

sahuang wrote:

Hi

Please check aimod/modding assistant, there are some conflicts

Easy
00:01:324 (2,3) - 2 1/1 sliders here seem better imo i like having this much less dense lead in as the intro tbh, hard to create contrast in easy so i have to make a drastic change in the rhythm
00:15:712 - no idea why this beat is empty gives the player rest for a beat, its only an easy so i think its helpful.

Normal
00:44:181 (1,2,3) - 00:45:406 (4,5,6) - due to stack leniency, although you use the same DS there will be visual differences first one is okay but the second one i fixed, thanks

Hard
00:57:268 - 00:57:880 - add circles to be consistent with 00:56:426 (1,2,3) - i think 00:56:426 (1,2,3) - is more consistent with 00:55:202 (1,2,3), 00:57:651 (1,2) - doesnt have it since i think the triplet takes away from the piano
01:13:569 (1) - inconsistent with other circles intentional since there is no stopping effect in the music, unlike the other instances which use the circle and stack.

Top diff seems ok, tho i feel it is a bit messy

Naotoshi wrote:

why is audio so quiet =(

squirrelpascals wrote:

never gonna give you up!

• 00:07:140 (8,9,10) - to me, this doesn't really sound like it should be a triple, the blue tick in the song seems really faint wut? its super audible to me O_o there's a really obvious drum noise (but I do agree its not coming from the main audio channel or smth cause it kinda sounds like its coming from one ear and not the other)

• 00:17:242 (1,2) - space these larger so it's not confused as a 1/4 beat gap. maybe you should use smaller spacing here 00:17:702 (3,4) - as well buffed the thing, should be fine i guess

• 00:20:610 - dont you usually have a circle or something clickable here? considering 00:19:079 (6,7) - 00:12:957 (5,6) - these timestamps this would feel better clickable for consistency's sake not rly, see 00:18:008 (6) - its more of those being rhythm changes for the sake of variety

• 00:28:875 (1,2,1,2) - it feels weird skipping over this strong snare pattern with the 1/2 jumps here. maybe use kicksliders here or do something to recognize that? did

• 00:43:569 (5,6) - again, consider using larger spacing here so it looks more like a 1/2 beat gap. these 00:43:875 (6,7,1) - have large spacing and they have 1/4 beat gaps. same for 00:50:610 (3,1) - 00:53:059 (3,4) - ctrl+gd 6 and 7 think it should be obvious enough now

• 01:06:222 (1,2,3,4) - these 1/4 beat circles feel a little overmapped. when removing them it sounds better because the song here has more stress on the 1/2 beats. eh i disagree, im kinda switching away from the earlier rhythm in the section (which has the 1/2 circles) to lead into the chorus better

• 01:20:610 (1) - do something special to emphasize this cymbal? i dont really think of this cymbal as somth to emphasis beyond a hitsound,
just doesn't have the impact that the one right after has on it

hard

try ar 7.5, works better in the spread and the map is still just as readable I think the idea of AR for spread is silly, AR should match the map. this map is dense enough for ar 8 imo. I tried 7.5 and it feels really meh

• 00:01:936 (2) - i would advise against using another repeat slider here because of the unique drum pattern that starts here i dont get this,
if the drum pattern is unique why wouldnt i use another kickslider for it?

• 01:00:712 (3) - maybe use something different from a 1/1 slider here, there are a lot of 1/4 beats that you skip over with this slider as opposed to 01:00:100 (1) - . (not that you should map a stream here but its more intense with rhythm in the song) ok

• 01:04:997 (1,2) - i would recommend putting something in between these sliders because the intensity of the song stays the same in between them so then 1/1 gap feels uncalled for. somewhat similar to what i pointed out above k

normal

• 01:08:671 (1) - 01:11:120 (1) -01:13:569 (1) - 01:16:018 (1) - i'd suggest removing this single note combo because normal players still rely on using numbers and followpoints to read patterns

easy

• 01:08:671 (1) - 01:11:120 (1) - 01:13:569 (1) - 01:16:018 (1) - 01:18:467 (1) - same as normal diff. even though it's more readable in this case it still really messes with hp drain if an easy player were to miss this note, which would be surprising.

I always mod maro
call me back

squirrelpascals wrote:

• 00:20:916 (1,2,3,4) - i love these slider shapes and stuuff but i dont like how you stop mapping the triples and that xylophone instrument and use the 1/1 rhythm all the sudden, feels kind of random made the thing a triple

• 00:26:426 (1,2,3,4) - kind of a confusing pattern to introduce because youre introducing 2 concepts at once, which are the slow sliders and the perfect overlaps. I don't think this pattern will read well at all because one could mistaken the sliders for 1/8 sliders and because of the way these are stacked they can read as a quadruplet. also the small sliders kind of come from nowhere so thats confusing by itself. Try only using one of these concepts instead of both well i dont really know what else to say than, the pattern just isnt difficult? i mean those kind of slider stacks are quite a common concept and the sv doesn't really matter that much since you'll be holding your cursor in one place either way. i'd argue that if anything its harder if the sliders are longer since its easier to slip out that way. making them longer would make them the same as 01:08:059 (1,2,3,4) - while the parts arent the same (since this part is in the middle of a section while the part you mentioned is a transition

• 00:28:875 (1,2,3,4,1) - the snare pattern here is pretty loud and goes ignored. maybe d something to recognize that? very weird beatsnaps there, i fiddled around with it a bit but i prefer keeping it straight forward

• 00:58:263 (1,1,1,1) - because of the way you used overlaps here this looks like it can also read as 4 slow sliders with each sliderhead sstacked on the previous tail. again because this pattern is a bit confusing i'd recommend using an offset stack here also played around with various things but i like the current one the best, and again it isnt really hard to read since you just have to hold your cursor in one spot and you will hit them all perfectly,
it's more of a ''flair'' than a mechanic in this case so i made sure that it doesn't hinder playability

• 01:08:671 (1) - ddd this looks like a circle. i dont mind the slow slider here but make it look less like a circle and increase sv a little lol. i guess same thing for 01:11:120 (1) - and etc i think thats boring, i mean you can see the tail still and i prefer more contrast on those

• 01:13:263 (2,1,2) - would flow better with ctrl+g or some sort of angle between these three notes yea done