00:16:471 (1,1)
Basically the same sound as 00:14:488 (1,1) yet 00:16:843 (1) is a tick longer.
[Also 00:17:339 (1)]
Not an issue or really noticable but IMO kinda inconsistent
I dunno, the it sounds more stretched out than previous instances like 00:14:488 (1,1) hence why they're a tick longer. I also feel like it works better for buildup.
00:22:793 (1,1)
00:22:793 (1) - makes you think that the song is going to play like 00:20:810 (1,2) and then slows down to 00:18:826 (1)'s speed.
IMO you should follow the rhythm you started 00:18:826 (1) and make 00:23:041 (1) start 00:22:793
Honestly just made 00:22:793 (1) slower idfk why I decided to make it faster- should fit better now
00:34:446 (1,2) - as far as I listen , this sound should not be emphasized more than 00:34:694 (1,2) - .
i think its important to think of an arrangement that doesn't impair the individuality of music :)
00:52:022 (1,1) - I wonder if this is the best rhythm choice sinse there are really strong sounds at 00:52:146 - (snare) and 00:52:394 - (melodic)
I very much wanted to keep the map hard but it's 6 minutes. Decided to make sections like this and 01:50:066 (1) to 02:17:835 (2) to break the map up a bit.
00:59:336 (2,1) - avoid such minor overlaps to give a cleaner visual. just space them out a little bit.
01:10:245 (2) - Don't just change sv to a half since that might cause rhymical confusion. change to somewhere near 0.7x
01:12:972 (3,1,2,1) - 3-1 is 1/1, 2-1 is 1/1, 1-2 is 1/2, while they have quite similar gaps between each other, causing confusion. make 01:13:220 (1,2) - further away from 3.
01:47:559 (1) - reposition this slider, tilt about 55 degree and place starting point of the slider at x:171 y:131
02:25:893 (2)
Center
https://imgur.com/a/pKD7Ea3
Might want to also place it so that it moves into the curve of 02:26:141 (4)
https://imgur.com/a/WJVJCQ9
I also rotated the triangle in my pic a bit but more as an experiment
02:31:719 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - IMO should follow the longer stretched sounds with sliders here maybe
https://imgur.com/a/DQnRtOo ?
02:36:678 (1,2)
is inconsistent with the rhythm choise you made at 01:17:339 (1,2,3,4)
I highly prefer 01:17:339 (1,2,3,4) over 02:36:678 (1,2)
02:41:636 (1,2,3,4) Moving 02:41:636 (1) here: https://imgur.com/a/qBe0b8i might make this pattern align more with the repeating sound it represents [x,y] [196,100] may worsen flow
02:51:650 (1,2,3) - rhythm inconsistent with 01:16:443 (1,2,3,4,5) - 01:32:311 (1,2,3,4,5) - 02:35:782 (1,2,3,4,5) - .For consistency I'd recommend giving up that pattern even though it's cool.
Ah right, I remember changing 01:16:443 (1,2,3,4,5) later on for flow related reasons and missed this one, thanks. Fixed
03:19:418 (1,2) - and 03:20:658 (1,2) - have so similar gaps, people might wrongly read 03:20:658 (1,2) - as 1/1s. Also the jump at 03:20:658 (1,2) - is too huge compared to 03:20:906 (1,2) - .So put 03:20:658 (1,2) -closer.
03:36:526 (1,2) - less so because it doesn't have the same contrast, plus the section before already established the rhythm.
Decreased spacing of 03:20:658 (1,2) and buffed 03:19:418 (1,2) hope that helps
03:20:658 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - I know this is a intense part in the song but in my opinion this is way too overmapped. Maybe try less sliders in there. Yea it looks cool, but I don't think it plays well. 03:36:526 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - Same here. Maybe its an unpopular opinion but just wanted to let you know. Try and get some circles in there.
Personally I'd say keep the sliders because surviving this section- at least I feel- depends on slider leniency. I can't yet say whether or not I'd want to change it because of the current lack of playtesting.
I'll keep this post open for other people to give their opinions
I don't know what your definition of overmapping is but IMO every slider has a corresponding sound in both sections you mentioned.
Your selections are also not very specific and include sliders like 03:40:741 (1) and 03:24:873 (1).
I do however feel like the flow is something that could be done better in both sections.
For example: 03:22:765 (3,1) - where 03:22:889 (1) isn't exactly in the most comfortable angle post 03:22:765 (3)'s circular movement.
About playability? I don't know. I'm not good enough to play any of this at that speed. As long as reasonable flow and or repeating patterns of well placed "different" (i.e. bad but fitting) flow are present one shouldn't disregard a map because of it's speed.
Honestly like I know it's a BS way to deflect the arguement but the song's going way too fast to realistically look at where a slider's pointing and process the fact your cursor must follow the slider perfectly. Overall I just treat the sliders as eyecandy and it's meant to play like the sliders are just hit circles
03:23:137 (3,1) - Feels so incomfortable since everything else like this have lenient 1/2 gaps. (03:22:146 (3,1) - 03:24:129 (3,1) - ). (I fail here everytime)
making it land on a 1/8 snap might be better, and won't affect much how it sounds.
03:48:083 (1,1) - why you made a pause in such a cool moment? map this please http://prntscr.com/q58zdy
03:49:082 (1) I like the new thing but make this in line with either https://imgur.com/a/ZdF4MyD or https://imgur.com/a/nXXnmHW
05:59:708 (1,2,3) - 2-3 is so small compared to 1-2, but at 3 there's a much stronger sound to emphasize. nerf 1-2 and buff 2-3.