zeke didn't "invent dariacore", i did

00:07:661 (7661|1,7714|3) - Actually don't hear 1/6 thing here, it's like just 1/4

00:10:451 (10451|0) - maybe one more normal note here to follow previous logic like 00:08:240 (8240|1,8240|3) - 00:10:135 (10135|3,10135|1) - , to indicated 2 different sounds

00:19:451 - So i can understand this point is not double'd due to you want to keep the same structure as 00:20:082 - , which can't be double'd due to limited space

However, when things in similar case like 00:21:977 - , you literally use double, so i think this needs clarification or fix

Same things in repeated part from 01:30:187 -

00:56:082 - vs 00:15:661 - maybe just nitpick but i notice that how anchors are placed is a bit different between these 2 places, mainly to do with things like 00:56:714 (56714|0,56872|0,57030|0,57187|0,57345|0) -

i think it's a fair expression to emphasize the consecutive kicks, but you literally only put them in the first measure of the burst in early part 00:15:661 (15661|3,15819|3,15977|3,16135|3,16293|3) - , which seems a bit weird as the pitch goes up in the same way between these 2 places

Maybe you can just change those expressions of anchor to the second measure in the part 00:15:661 -, or some other ways to make them more coherent

01:00:582 (60582|2,60661|2,60740|2) - About the minijack here, although i don't think 3-note minijack is that difficult given the overall skill requirement of this diff, it still feels a bit sudden consider it's 190bpm

And another reason to mention this is, when you compare this with next part at similar position like 01:10:608 - , it goes a bit unfair in comparison since the next part is obviously more intense overall but using a simpler expression

i think at least keeping the 2 parts similar in expression is fine, rather making the first part harder, if concerning the second part being too hard using 3-note jack, then just make both part a 2+2 way

02:01:530 - Maybe just me, but i feel a bit weird about how vocal is expressed here, can see that it's now expressed by LN tail

However, while i think the expression at 02:01:214 - is fair because the vocal is short and sounds like the end of a phrase, but it's not the case for 02:01:530 - due to the vocal is still extended a lot, actually only 02:01:924 - is comparable to 02:01:214 -

So personally would suggest to adjust like this http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18171719/6372

00:07:661 (7661|3,7714|0) - Think here is just 1/4 snap

00:15:030 - Personally feel it's a bit unfair to go such dense this early, even you have vocal to support, it's still way weaker than the true clamix from 00:15:661 - , take diff gap into consideration as well, i think just keeping the same density as previous is fine here

00:16:924 - i'd rather suggest to use sth like 1/4 split-trill to make the contrast between previous, mainly due to it's pretty weird to go from 1/4 to 1/6 snap when you don't even follow the 1/6 thing before, when the 1/4 drums go more dominant, they should be emphasized in priority imo

00:57:345 - Same here

00:24:819 (24819|3,24977|0,25135|1,25293|2) - vs 00:19:766 (19766|0,19924|1,20082|3,20240|2) - Well so even if it looks like 'consistent' in LN length, it still looks and plays different due to some release stuff, which is not necessary here

And 00:27:977 (27977|1,27977|0) - vs 00:22:924 (22924|3,22924|2) - might be inconsistent as well

Same things in the repeated part before the ending

00:33:345 (33345|2,33345|1) - 00:35:872 (35872|2,35872|1) - do these doubles done on purpose to emphasize the start somehow? Ask this becasue it's not seen at 00:28:293 - 00:30:819 -

Also check this consistency for the part from 01:39:030 -

01:00:819 (60819|0) - Personally feel here this thing deserve adding one more normal note at least, seeing back it's basically same thing as 00:58:924 (58924|0,58924|3) - 01:00:187 (60187|0,60187|2) -

Also applied for other similar places

01:08:714 - So right from here, it can be heard that the song become more intense in these parts, and in top diff it becomes harder with constant 1/4 flow+frequent use of minijacks, so personally i'm a bit concerned if the diff gap can be justified in current status

Feel like you can probably take reference from hard diff to add some note for most obvious 1/4 sounds like this (basically one 1/4note at every 2 measures) https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18171857/af3f and try to balance and avoid reverse shield as most as you can for better playability if you accept this

01:09:661 (69661|0,69740|1,69819|3) - Maybe make it like this to have a better consistency with the following pattern https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18171861/4876

01:11:082 (71082|0,71161|1) - Do the LN here misplace? i think it's still similar with 01:10:451 (70451|1,70503|0) - , also see 01:13:608 (73608|3,73661|2) -

should be applied for 01:16:135 (76135|0,76214|1) - as well

01:13:924 (73924|1,74082|0,74082|3,74240|3,74293|2) - i'm a bit unsure why you use different expression here with 01:10:135 (70135|2,70187|1,70293|0,70293|3,70451|1,70503|0) - , the song goes nearly the same between these 2 places

And even 01:15:187 (75187|3,75240|2,75345|0,75345|1,75503|2,75661|3,75661|0) - is another different way, so it does look a bit messy

01:25:135 (85135|2,85135|1) - Maybe change this to single if you're meant to only double for clap in this part, see 01:24:503 - 01:25:766 -

01:47:872 (107872|2,107872|3,108187|1,108187|0,108503|2,108503|3) - Personally don't see this 1/8 release can be justified from song and there is no similar expression in other places, which makes it pretty not coherent probably need to just use 1/4 expression for them

Also is 01:48:819 (108819|1,108819|0) - extended on purpose?

01:51:187 (111187|1,111503|2) - Could be removed to keep consistency with 00:04:924 - , unless you're intended to make some difference

01:53:556 - 01:56:082 - 01:58:608 - Similar (for 1/6 stuff)

02:01:214 - don't feel it's good to ignore the vocal here, as well as 02:01:530 - , it feels pretty unatural when the vocal is still pretty clear, also see the comments in top diff for some related things

00:03:030 - This intro might still worth mapping just like 00:05:556 - , since the same thing already appears there, just a bit weaker, but leaving it blank makes the spread pretty unhealthy imo

00:08:714 - is the percussion here ignored on purpose? Think it can be added since it's pretty loud and on 1/1 line

not sure about 00:09:898 - as well, since it's the same as 00:08:556 (8556|0,8635|1) -

00:11:872 (11872|1,12030|1,12187|1,12345|1) - The 4-note anchors here feel a bit outstanding as no much this usage through the whole diff, while the sound here does not seem to warrant such a strong expression, think you can probably reduce it to 2+2 way (the sound is repeated but it's too weak, so don't feel it's justified enough)

00:27:977 (27977|2,27977|1,28135|1) - Might be the same as 00:22:924 (22924|0,22924|2,23082|0) - if no special reason

Same inconsistency happens in the repeated part

00:42:819 (42819|3,42977|2,43135|1,43293|0) - Feel like the LN here is a bit extraggated as there is no such intense sound to support that in this calm part, bascially it's just vocal+pretty weak background, maybe just shorten 00:42:977 (42977|2) - to 1/1 would be better

00:47:872 (47872|1) - Same here

01:12:187 (72187|1) - missing double for clap i think

01:15:977 (75977|0) -

01:19:924 (79924|0,80240|0) - Kinda don't get how these 2 notes work here, basically it feels way too minor compared with other drum notes, also the stack way makes it more confusing as that anchors seem to not be justified from the song

01:21:187 (81187|3) - gives me the same feeling, it has sound but too weak compared with others

01:28:398 (88398|1) - Do you have special reason to end your stream here instead of 1/2 line like previous? Think the sound is still continous

01:28:398 (88398|1) - Do you have special reason to end your stream here instead of 1/2 line like previous? Think the sound is still continous

01:51:187 - to 01:56:714 - Personally feel it's totollay enough to just use single consider overall intensity of sound in this part, even if it can be heard mutiple sound, i don't think they'er enough to be a double when hard diff's chord usage is not that large

Also, when using double, things like 01:51:187 (111187|0,111345|0,111503|1,111661|0,111661|1) - is pretty uncomfortable and confusing to hit especially consider it's a calm part

01:56:714 - the vocal does go a bit weaker here, but is it really wise to change to focus another sound which is even weaker than the vocal? Also end at 01:58:135 - is pretty weird when the same vocal as previous is still much audiable

Just find some RC breaking case, while they're guideline but in 190bpm still worth a fix, and not that difficult to fix i think, somehow it also includes concern about diff gap

1. 00:16:924 - 00:57:345 - to show the intensity change, think that you can actually use a weaker way, like using a more trilly pattern instead of directly violating guideline, e.g. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18172610/ca1a (or even some sort of OH trill would be better than current one i think)

2. 01:01:135 - 01:06:187 - Not only the pattern occupying 4 cols violate guideline, but the coordination and reading requirement is probably over hard level, just shorten some LN length and make the pattern more striaghtforward, e.g. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18172626/cfe2

00:11:872 (11872|1,11872|0) - This double feels a bit unecessary as i don't hear any chord sound worth emphasizing here like previous point

01:00:187 (60187|2) - Might be better to use 1/1 LN here since it's a long vocal, also it seems to be similar case with 01:00:819 (60819|0) -

01:05:240 - Same

01:47:556 - So right from here, i notice that you use different expression with 00:36:819 - , both ways fine to me, but it just feels a bit weird to go inconsistent here while all other places look pretty consistent