00:02:730 (2730|2,2880|1,3030|0) - personally I wouldn't make those lns that long, keeping them as 1/8 seems more right to me.
00:02:880 - probably missing a note here?
00:14:730 - subjective, but you can add a 1/2 ln here for a more fluid transition.
00:19:305 or somewhere around here has another "wawww" vocal so maybe ass a ln here as well.
00:02:730 (2730|2,2880|1,3030|0) - Continuously melody so I think it would fit the instrument better if I make it as 1/4 LN
00:02:880 - 1/4 Continuously LN and trill side [00:02:730 (2730|0,2880|1,3030|0)] on right hand would create a dynamic feeling in my opinion
00:14:730 - I think otherwise. As the intensity of the instrument fade out, I think putting a LN there would ruin the atmosphere of that part, as holding 3 LN at once rather feel heavier.
00:19:305 - I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible to provide a smooth and dynamic experience for players. Add one more LN would result in the would ambience part rather feel too forced, compared to the last part so far.
00:02:880 - don't quite understand that
00:02:730 (2730|0,2880|1,3030|0) - the flow is good enough imo
00:14:730 - doesn't necessary ruin the atmosphere, but alternatively you can end one of the lns here since the melody sort of fades out in this particular timing point.
00:23:586 (23586|1,23661|2,23736|0,23736|3) - should be lns (personally i'd flip this part)
00:25:236 (25236|3) - probably move this to col 3 since having a triple there seems off
00:27:036 (27036|0,27186|2,27261|0,27336|2,27336|3) - it does seem a little fainter than the previous parts, but for the sake of gameplay and consistency you should just do it like 00:24:336 (24336|0,24486|1,24486|2,24561|3,24636|1,24636|0)
00:28:536 - subjective but just add a note here.
00:29:436 (29436|2) - PERSONALLY, I'd extend this to a 1/1 ln and add a 1/2 ln at 00:29:586 for a more fluid transition obviously haha.
00:23:586 (23586|1,23661|2,23736|0,23736|3) - Resolved
00:25:236 (25236|3) - Trying to do a running-man to emphasize the increasing pitch of the melody, but I guess there could be an alternative. Resolved
00:27:036 (27036|0,27186|2,27261|0,27336|2,27336|3) - Resolved
00:28:536 - It kind of break my intention of using LN trills if add a note here
00:29:436 (29436|2) - Interesting, but I keep my way on this one as my intention on this specific part is using the release of a LN to create a fade out effect.
00:28:536 - I did realized that it is indeed more audible, but putting a double mean their loudness have to match 00:28:236 (28236|2,28236|3,28836|2,28836|3). So I guess I will resolve here
00:30:186, 00:30:486, 00:30:786 - Intentionally reducing the density.
00:31:236, 00:31:536 - The double should do its job on these parts I believe.
00:31:986, 00:34:386 - Intentionally, didn't put notes there to keep (00:31:236 - 00:31:836) and (00:32:136 - 00:33:636) (similar at latter) separate. I want to create more feel and emphasize on 00:32:136 so I didn't place notes there.
00:30:186, 00:30:486, 00:30:786 - I understand, but the execution is sort of counter-intuitive and feels like it's lacking (since the music itself is building up.)
00:31:236, 00:31:536 - if that's the case then you have to tell me what the lns at 00:33:786 (33786|0), 00:34:086 (34086|2), etc. represent, since it sorta feels the same (one with a little more intensity)
00:31:986, 00:34:386 - don't quite understand the concept, leaving the space empty makes the chart loses a lot of the buildup and feels empty (single notes serves as a filler so the chart doesn't lose its intensity, doing this won't hurt since the mentioned parts are still distinct from each other)
00:33:786 (33786|0), 00:34:086 (34086|2) - Here I'm trying to not make them doubles, so instead I use a long (1/2) LN to replace it
00:30:186, 00:30:486, 00:30:786 - I'll just assume I'm mapping with the vocal effects and loud ahh sound (coping)
00:31:986, 00:34:386 - That's thing I'm trying to avoid here, I'm trying to separate between 2 buildups
00:35:736 - do it like this or something like this
00:37:236 (37236|3) - remove this since the beats are equally strong
00:44:236 (44236|2) - 1/8 is more accurate (according to me)
00:44:386 (44386|2) - use a tighter snap (1/16)
ya could agree with the burst, but keep 00:35:736 - a double would still fine for me
00:37:236 - seems like the starter of a beat so would be fine, up to the mapper Ig
00:44:211 (44211|3,44236|2,44361|1,44386|2) - seems like its mapper intention to use 1/12 for the fast synth so I think no problem in this