Unpredictable wrote:

alright sorry for delaying this for god knows how long, let me see how much i could get done here.

first off, let me just say that i believe Leniane is right here. unsure how noticable it is at lower scroll speeds, but you can tell its a bit faster when playing at higher scroll speed like 30. would fix this as soon as possible.

General

Looks pretty good, i would just add "konami bemani" to the tags since they are affiliated with the game itself.

BASIC

- 01:06:728 - how about adding a note on column 2 here since that fade-in sound is pretty noticeable as well. i'm not really favoring 5 consecutive notes in basic so uhh i think its pretty okay to leave a break

- 01:46:785 (106785|0,106785|3) - how about deleting a note and then from 01:46:253 - to 01:46:785 - adding a LN between the two points i mentioned. I think there should be some sort of build up that leads up to 01:46:785 (106785|0,106785|3) - , preferably nothing too big but I think an LN from 01:46:253 - to 01:46:785 - should be ok. i guess i'll pass this to keep consistent with the higher diffs.

- how about just ctrl + h 01:54:935 (114935|2,115108|3) - these notes. i think it looks better aestehetically (lol) but i find the 1/1 stack you have to be a bit unnecessary imo did things here

- 01:00:769 (60769|3,60975|2) - and 01:01:180 (61180|0,61386|1) - it would be cool if you made each of them a 1/2 stack since they're same sound. i dont think that would fit this diff in particular.

- 01:30:926 (90926|1,91091|2,91256|0,91421|1,91751|3,91915|2,92080|1,92245|0,92382|3,92383|2,92705|1) - hmm how about https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11367630 ? I basically ctrl + h most of it with some exception of moving some notes. I just felt like the LNs were a bit too left hand oriented and so with this pattern im offering, it can offer LN usage to columns 3 and 4 as well. did my own fix

- 01:40:770 (100770|3,101092|0,101253|1,101415|3,102060|0) - instead of this, how about https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11367708 ? i thought it could kinda mimic 01:29:773 (89773|1,90102|3,90267|2,90432|0,90762|3,90926|1,91091|2) - where the LNs are on columns 1 and 2 and the ones mentioned could be on 3 and 4. also the rhythm between the two are quite similar. decided to do it similarly like - 01:30:936 - for consistency. i forget this one xd

MEDIUM

- 01:21:201 (81201|1) - i would just honestly just delete this because I don't think you need two LNs for a drumroll, 1 is just fine. But I think you could add notes here 01:21:696 - and 01:21:531 - since the sounds on these notes are a bit more accentuated. fixed in my way. also i just realized the spread gap is kinda big so did that too

other than that, this diff looks good yo

HARD

- this is a tad bit weird but the difficulty name in the song setup box is "Hard" but the diff name shown on the website and in-game is "HARD"..? unsure whats the deal but maybe you might want to recapitalize the diff name in the song setup box so there isn't any complications osu is a weirdo because everytime i type HARD it decapitilize it lol. so to alter it I add a space after HARD so its "HARD "

- 02:12:160 (132160|1,132218|0) - i think it would be better if you got rid of these. these sounds here are extremely subtle to the point you can them out of a diff like this. it would just be better if they were just in the top diff imo.

pretty clean and simple for the most part.

SPECIAL

nothing yet

haven't finished check yet since i have some stuff irl to finish up (sorry), ill be looking at the special and hitsounds a bit more in detail for the next time. although on first glance, the patterns in special seem fine.

ill either edit this post or make a new one, depending on when you respond

Unpredictable wrote:

Ok let me fully finish this :3 (no kudos for this post ofc)

SPECIAL

So overall, the patterning is pretty solid imo.

If I had to say anything on the patterning, it would be:

- 01:27:135 (87135|3,87135|1,87135|0,87135|2) - i would honestly just make this a triple because I think a quad is a bit overdoing it on this tick. idk i think its kinda fit to emphasize those

- 02:12:160 (132160|2,132218|3) - so these notes, im not to sure in tbh and if it were me, i would personally get rid of them. For one, 02:12:160 (132160|2) - im pretty sure this on the 1/8 tick but 02:12:218 (132218|3) - im sure this doesn't even have a sound correlated with this note. i think you're ok just leaving them out imo because they are quite unnoticeable (even if there is sound there) to the point I would just ignore it. i think i just realized that they are 1/4th piano similar to others so yeah i fix to that. (completely rid them in HARD tho)

01:59:964 - add a note here? you have a LN and a note on the hard diff so i think its appropraiate to add one here on this diff as well. also if you add it, make sure to add a kick hitsound w/ 60% volume

Now my main concerns would be the SVs on this diff, not too many but theres two SV parts I felt like that are a bit... aggressive (wasn't sure how to describe it lol).

- 00:32:978 - to 00:33:526 - i felt like the SVs were a bit overwhelming here, i kept playing this part over and over and its not like its impossible to hit, but i feel like you can make some values a bit more comfortable to where it doesn't feel like the SV isn't totally jumping out at the player idk it feels like it is just normal. its a 1,5 0,5 thing (with normalization ofc) so i assume no one will have an issue. maybe the pattern is a bit tricky but the SVs is totally common

- 01:00:769 - to 01:01:488 - same deal here. the sv values here i felt like can be lowered a tad bit. this is 2x ->1x which is kinda intended to give the "repeating" feeling since the song sounds like that.

Hitsounds

- To starts things off, I know you had set your kick hitsound to a certain volume level on each note, but would it be possible to amplify it in audacity maybe..? I feel like it has a ton of potential making the map even more awesome than it is :3, but it really does get drowned out by just your regular hitnormal. (for ex. 00:32:650 - to 00:33:416 - ) the only times i actually hear the kick when there are two kicks or more on one tick, but even then, its still a bit hard to hear imo. is when i think if you could fix this, then I think your hitsounds could all be on some equal volume level. amplified 2 db.

SPECIAL: 00:06:456 (6456|0) - pretty sure you would want another kick here, you have two kick hitsounds here on other diffs too woops :u

feel free to pm me when you're done looking at this

Maxus wrote:

the one at 00:23:891 - need another +10 offset here, as the kick is noticeably early at all the section with the same BPM.

Maxus wrote:

01:15:539 - should be +15ms

01:16:360 - Should be -14ms

01:17:130 - Should be -18ms

01:17:849 - Should be -10ms

01:18:208 - Should be -10ms too

01:18:567 - Should be -20ms

01:18:875 - Should be +10ms

Maxus wrote:

01:19:223 - I don't know if you take this BPM from game / you time it yourself, but either way, i still think the BPM for this should be 180 BPM. Because you can notice the chord at 01:19:734 (79734|0,79734|3,79734|2) - suddenly becoming too late even when the initial chord of BPM changes actually already fit, it is usually a firm indication that the BPM is wrong. I tested 180 BPM and it actually far more fits.

Maxus wrote:

01:32:383 - The offset is actually too early by around 20ms, it should be started at 01:32:403 - . The most noticeable way to hear that is to listen towards the kick sound in the entire jumpstream section, which is very early to the point it's really noticeable to play.

Maxus wrote:

Hmm, I'm not sure about the offset and timing of this map, seems a lot going wrong somehow.

the one at 00:23:891 - need another +10 offset here, as the kick is noticeably early at all the section with the same BPM. +10 seems to be placed in almost at the tail end of the kicks somehow. practically my current one is rather more accurate since its placed in where the kick starts to get in. covering the whole sequence rather than taking only its peak. probably more accurate for acc players but i dont mind having this fixed anyway since its like small differences

From 01:15:539 - until 01:18:875 - There's quite a lot of offset being wrong from what i listen. I will list it one by one.

01:15:539 - should be +15ms similar reason ^

01:16:360 - Should be -14ms I think of -25 on this. likewise to above

01:17:130 - Should be -18ms

01:17:849 - Should be -10ms

01:18:208 - Should be -10ms too

01:18:567 - Should be -20ms

01:18:875 - Should be +10ms likewise to above

01:19:223 - I don't know if you take this BPM from game / you time it yourself, but either way, i still think the BPM for this should be 180 BPM. Because you can notice the chord at 01:19:734 (79734|0,79734|3,79734|2) - suddenly becoming too late even when the initial chord of BPM changes actually already fit, it is usually a firm indication that the BPM is wrong. I tested 180 BPM and it actually far more fits. the more i heard it i feels its more to 182 instead ok psure it is indeed 182. original Quaver only had 182-186 on their version so i assume there shouldnt be any 180 on this

01:32:383 - The offset is actually too early by around 20ms, it should be started at 01:32:403 - . The most noticeable way to hear that is to listen towards the kick sound in the entire jumpstream section, which is very early to the point it's really noticeable to play. i cant tell so i tend to actually agree lol

Feel free to discussed about it if you think it's already fit, but i'm really sure about the mis-timing here, as it's noticeable even in gameplay.

Rivals_7 wrote:

the one at 00:23:891 - need another +10 offset here, as the kick is noticeably early at all the section with the same BPM. +10 seems to be placed in almost at the tail end of the kicks somehow. practically my current one is rather more accurate since its placed in where the kick starts to get in. covering the whole sequence rather than taking only its peak. probably more accurate for acc players but i dont mind having this fixed anyway since its like small differences
From what i heard, the sound doesn't even started when it's 10ms earlier. Usually when you tried to do offset and also hear the other sound at one section within the same BPM, you need to try stop the sound at exact point and hear whether there's sound on the beginning point or not, which doesn't happened here. so i'm really concerned about this. I still really recommend to fix this one.

From 01:15:539 - until 01:18:875 - There's quite a lot of offset being wrong from what i listen. I will list it one by one.

01:15:539 - should be +15ms similar reason ^ ^same

01:16:360 - Should be -14ms I think of -25 on this. likewise to above t's around -15 / 20ms at best imo , but yeah, i recommend around that range.

01:17:130 - Should be -18ms

01:17:849 - Should be -10ms

01:18:208 - Should be -10ms too

01:18:567 - Should be -20ms

01:18:875 - Should be +10ms likewise to above ^same.

01:19:223 - I don't know if you take this BPM from game / you time it yourself, but either way, i still think the BPM for this should be 180 BPM. Because you can notice the chord at 01:19:734 (79734|0,79734|3,79734|2) - suddenly becoming too late even when the initial chord of BPM changes actually already fit, it is usually a firm indication that the BPM is wrong. I tested 180 BPM and it actually far more fits. the more i heard it i feels its more to 182 instead ok psure it is indeed 182. original Quaver only had 182-186 on their version so i assume there shouldnt be any 180 on this fair enough, i'm fine with 182.

01:32:383 - The offset is actually too early by around 20ms, it should be started at 01:32:403 - . The most noticeable way to hear that is to listen towards the kick sound in the entire jumpstream section, which is very early to the point it's really noticeable to play. i cant tell so i tend to actually agree lol

Feel free to discussed about it if you think it's already fit, but i'm really sure about the mis-timing here, as it's noticeable even in gameplay.

else is yeah.... i dont think i have anything to against that so woosh

Maxus wrote:

Before qualify i wanna make a post regarding the couple SV in the map which i think too spiky and unfair to play when compared it with your other SVs which flow much better and have better gradient linear curve difficulty. I will list them here.

[Special]
01:00:769 - In response with unpredictable, i actually agree with him about the usage of this SV, this one is a major spike of the map that ramped up the difficulty in an unfair way because the bump you used here are equals with 2,00x and 1,00x which is similar way with sudden teleport out of nowhere. other part of SV you use before using strong number but actually still equidistant with the overall map difficulty which is still fine, but for this one is simply not the case here. I recommend you to use the same SV as 01:00:358 - as it actually giving much reaction time and much controllable in the way player needs to hit the pattern in correct timing. i personally just thinking both are equal but w/e 1,5 0,5 works for me

01:07:139 - Actually, this part is very misleading for player to hit (because there's no expectancy for them to suddenly having such a massive slowjam and then got hit by very strong bump later) , and also in musicality aspect these doesn't fit just hearing the instrument that's being presented. its a melody, just like every other instance in this section. the only difference is this melody is heavily muffled. still, worthy to be highlighted here for consistency sake

Let me give example at 01:07:345 - here, you can hear the instrument is still actually fading so deep and low without any strong emphasizement has been built upon it, and yet you put 1,42x and 0,71x which is equal to 1,2x and 0,6x and it's supposed to emphasize a more cheerful and strong tone of instrument, and yeah, i think you get my point regarding the SVs isn't only misleading and unfair, but also doesn't fit the music in logical manner. i cant see where it is misleading in any way. yes it is going deeply muffled and then goes 1,2 but it is because there is stutter in the song. and the whole stutter is designed to get faster and faster towards normalization. 1,2->0,6->1,3->0,65 and so on until 1,9->0,95 and finally 1,00x. and yeah thats the idea as a whole

thats also why the pattern is jump jacks instead of jumptrill. in a sense, when they see the jump jacks, they will quickly expect that the song will goes faster. in a jumptrill form, most people will likely cannot timing it perfectly because it creates a visual tricks. That tricks is minimalized with the jumpjacks form. If they could sightreading it in a first try (in which i think the top 3 people Fc-ed this in quallified yesterday does) then i dont see this unfair

Why don't try to use the similar calculation SV as you did in Curtain call memories at 02:02:045 - though? this one you did is absolutely splendid and perfect in terms of gameplay and musical relevancy, and both parts are actually very similar in the way it slowing down and build up. The only differences are that you made both of them in very different manner which i couldn't understand.

1. both are different songs: if i representing SVs (and pattern) in a different way because of different songs, thats logical. we're not limited to do such things.
2. stutter is placed in a polar opposite: if you thinking i would put another jumpjacks here, i wouldnt. because its less impactful since the stutter goes muffled and muffled more, contrary to the 1st occasion. and doing jumpjacks and stutters toward slowjam is kinda a nuisance to manage and can quickly thrown off player.


01:31:585 - While i get this one is probably more fit from fading music to suddenly being intense, but 0,58x slowjam leading to 1,44x is still questionable in terms of gameplay aspect as the pattern you build doesn't really support the SV to be played in a huge differences calculation. try nerfing the slowjam to be more minorly decreasing and adjusting the bump to make the transition number between slowjam to the bump much closer should do the trick to having this one play in much more fair and hold a better nuances.

well its not like we jumping to a static speed and this occasion is pmuch normal. The speed is still within their grasp of sense and pmuch everyone else will get the same sense while reading it.

best i can offer is doing gradual slowjam from 0,95 0,9 0,85 0,8 0,75 0,7 (on 1/3 snap) if that convincing enough. having its value nearer to the normalization would lose the impact of surprise in which the song actually offer.

01:41:435 - This one is the same as above, probably this one is even more unfair because player need to hit diagonal LN wall with that massive sudden slowdown before hitting the diagonal jumptrill alongside with big bump which is even more difficult. ^

Yeah these are the only part which makes for the sudden huge difficulty spike, other SV you did already well done enough to play so kudosu for them.

01:07:139 - Actually, this part is very misleading for player to hit (because there's no expectancy for them to suddenly having such a massive slowjam and then got hit by very strong bump later) , and also in musicality aspect these doesn't fit just hearing the instrument that's being presented. its a melody, just like every other instance in this section. the only difference is this melody is heavily muffled. still, worthy to be highlighted here for consistency sake My question here isn't whether the sound is worth to be highlighted with SV or not, but whether the calculation you use to emphasize the light muffle sound here being too strong for both in gameplay / musicality aspect , which i will explain much more below.

Let me give example at 01:07:345 - here, you can hear the instrument is still actually fading so deep and low without any strong emphasizement has been built upon it, and yet you put 1,42x and 0,71x which is equal to 1,2x and 0,6x and it's supposed to emphasize a more cheerful and strong tone of instrument, and yeah, i think you get my point regarding the SVs isn't only misleading and unfair, but also doesn't fit the music in logical manner. i cant see where it is misleading in any way. yes it is going deeply muffled and then goes 1,2 but it is because there is stutter in the song. and the whole stutter is designed to get faster and faster towards normalization. 1,2->0,6->1,3->0,65 and so on until 1,9->0,95 and finally 1,00x. and yeah thats the idea as a whole

thats also why the pattern is jump jacks instead of jumptrill. in a sense, when they see the jump jacks, they will quickly expect that the song will goes faster. in a jumptrill form, most people will likely cannot timing it perfectly because it creates a visual tricks. That tricks is minimalized with the jumpjacks form. If they could sightreading it in a first try (in which i think the top 3 people Fc-ed this in quallified yesterday does) then i dont see this unfair

Having the slowjam at 01:06:934 - being 0,83x and then suddenly making the player get slam suddenly by 1,42x SV at 01:07:345 - while the music intensity doesn't change much is not fair. Quaver can get away with it because there is an immediate music atmosphere change to suddenly being strong intensity towards the chord pattern, which justify your SV, but it isn't the case for this one. Because the music transition from the slowjam to the jumpjack pattern isn't change that much at 01:07:345 - .

Which brings me to the point, if you are in the player shoes and hearing low intensity music at 01:07:345 - that doesn't actually change much from 01:07:139 - , do you expect suddenly getting slammed from 0,83x to 1,42x? i won't believe it logically, and i believe neither will do. they won't expect that at all based on the evidence i provide in advance, which brings my point about this being unfair. Bringing the top player that can FC is also unfair, because the insane diff is mainly for 4* player (unless if you said it's for 6* player somehow) , having them blasted by one short diff spike (that is out of the music context) when other section pattern are smoothly being done is no good.

Why don't try to use the similar calculation SV as you did in Curtain call memories at 02:02:045 - though? this one you did is absolutely splendid and perfect in terms of gameplay and musical relevancy, and both parts are actually very similar in the way it slowing down and build up. The only differences are that you made both of them in very different manner which i couldn't understand.

1. both are different songs: if i representing SVs (and pattern) in a different way because of different songs, thats logical. we're not limited to do such things.
2. stutter is placed in a polar opposite: if you thinking i would put another jumpjacks here, i wouldnt. because its less impactful since the stutter goes muffled and muffled more, contrary to the 1st occasion. and doing jumpjacks and stutters toward slowjam is kinda a nuisance to manage and can quickly thrown off player.

1. This statement doesn't really makes sense, because you actually use very similar calculation as the one you did at Quaver, which condonely already null your point. Because you would use more specific differentiation of calculation type compared with the next song if you believe towards what you said.
2. I'm not sure why you implying the small stutter at 01:07:345 - being strong to the point any other approach will be not impactful, because with the intensity of music at that timestamp being that low, i believe even low calculation interpretation already enough to accenting that.

Anyway, the reason why i brought up Curtain Call Memories are because you actually use the quaver SV too much imo, and the SV at CCM fits better with this particular section when considering both part are really similar.

Or you can actually just use any approach that doesn't make transition from 01:06:934 - to 01:07:345 - differ too much and work out the faster and faster SV concept from that particular point. That's literally the only main thing i'm really concern should be changed, everything else other than this already good for me.