00:05:538 (1,2) - could have a smoother lead-in http://puu.sh/zohlb/730a4265da.jpg
also, mute the slider-end
00:08:281 (1,2) - these two don't really flow into each other, the direction going downwards from 1->2 is a bit odd (ik its low bpm and its intro but yknow)
00:24:738 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - there's actually a really creative way to reflect this by lowering the volumes per 1/3 and then raising the volumes on the latter 1/1's. I think it would be neat~
01:08:624 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - maybe this one too etc
00:48:052 (3,4,5,6) - NC (3) and maybe reposition the objects so that they don't look like they're randomly placed? The DS's are quite odd. Could be square? http://puu.sh/zohwQ/966680da56.jpg
overall section could use some more NCs to better destinquish patterns apart, also keeps the pressure a bit lower on the reading part and more fair gameplay with HP. notes like 00:54:224 (5) - 00:56:281 (4) - could really benefit from a NC
00:58:681 (3) - normally i wouldn't complain about your choice in representing this rhythm but it leads to items like this, where there's a major two-note buildup to the click at 00:59:195 - that is represented by a previous slider's kick and ending - this is not the proper way to really follow the instrument line you seem to be trying to follow but rather clumsily.
it would cause a major change in the map rythm as i do a really similar thing consistently at 01:15:138 (3,4,1,2) - 01:20:624 (3,4,1,2) - etc
dont like the alternatives either so i guess im fine with this
01:04:338 (3) - How about stacking this on the sliderend of 01:03:652 (2) - ? Removes that awkward wide angle between that and the next object
01:09:652 (4,5,6) - barely audible, would make more sense to make this a slider too but then maybe make the shape different so its obvious that the timing is different
01:09:652 (4,5,6) - Having a triple stack here is weird since it goes through different sounds whilst being represented completely the same through three stacked circles. How about moving 01:09:995 (6) - somewhere else (stacked on 01:10:166 (1) - ?) so it's correctly emphasized
01:11:881 (3) - This ignores the little beat at 01:11:966 - . It's up to you whether if you want to follow it because you seem to take the other weird blue tick stuff into account prior
well the structure is that if i have a snare after the double thing, ex 01:11:881 (2,3) - i avoided doing a double into 1/2 slider into 1/4 again by just making the slider notch. otherwise its mapped 01:17:366 (2,3) - like this one
01:15:138 (3,4,1) - might be me but having all these notes stacked doesn't make much sense to me as all 3 sounds are vastly different from each other so having them all emphasised the same way seems pretty wrong
i think they are fine for the late downbeat on red ticks as they create a halt before a jump
01:23:366 (4,5,1) - changed this
by late downbeats i meant 01:20:966 - these dont have the kicks and the main beat comes on the red tick at 01:21:138 -
same for 01:15:481 (1,2) - 01:26:452 (1,2) - etc
i used reverses in this section to have some antiflow for the squeaky things and i want to keep using the reverse, so if i map the 1/4 it would create an awkward rythm
blue ticks are mapped in circle + slider double so it wouldnt fit here anyways
btw same blue tick is at here 01:27:052 - so i suppose i can change the structure but id like to keep it this way
01:26:624 (2,3) - strong beat on white tick gets overlooked by the slider-end and there is a beat missed on 01:27:052 -
01:32:624 (5) - i feel the volume here is a little too inaudible for feedback, in understand u want to represent the song but even with a soft whistle its pretty hard to hear. with consecutive 1/2 circles in a row, feedback is pretty important for players to know if they are hitting too early or late
why is 01:33:138 (2,1) - spaced less than 01:32:966 (1,2) - when 01:33:309 (1) - is obviously the strongest sound??
01:37:252 (5,1) - pointing out it again since different mapper at this part: 01:37:424 (1) - is way different than 01:37:081 (4,5) - and deserves its own emphasis in that way, putting it under a stack makes for a really unimpactful and boring experience
01:37:252 (5) - maybe stack this onto 4 so that you make some cool emphasis on 01:37:424 (1) - through movement because rn the wide angle makes 01:37:252 (5) - feel like what you are emphasizing and the stack makes it a bit awk?
That's what I thought at first but right now I have little to no motivation to revert it back...
01:38:109 (3,4) - you could use two different slider shapes here since 01:38:109 - is different sounding
01:40:681 (2,3) - because this manual is stacked in the same direction that regular stacks, this can be interpretted for a 1/2 instead of 1/4 stack > like compare to 01:28:338 (2,3) - which is obviously not a stack because it intuitively looks like a 1/4 because of its orientation > maybe try something like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10293164
01:42:909 (1,2,3,4) - The spacing of this is tilting since there isn't a drastic change to support the sudden spacing
01:49:766 (1) - I think if you angle this slider more like this https://puu.sh/zsXKs/66e1e3eb00.png it has better flow leading into it
I can't do the same to 01:51:138 (1) - and 01:52:509 (1) - without messing up 01:50:281 (2) - 's position and direction, so nope.
01:53:881 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - more could be done with the spacing here since it's a buildup and having that visible would be cool
01:53:881 (1,2,3,4) - would nerf this just so the spacing difference between the two sets of four is more obvious
01:53:881 (1,3) - is the base for the square side length. Changing it means changing the previous part too, so no. After all, just a slight difference won't really hurt
01:54:566 (1,2,3,4) - something is off about this square :? I would just take 01:53:881 (1,2,3,4) - and copy/paste expand by 1.2 or 1.3, should look fine
02:00:738 (1) - maybe a change in movement over here would be nice, there's a really strong note on this beat and having it flow exactly like before makes it lose its impact majorly :(
02:00:738 (1) - when you overlap this with 02:00:052 (3) - it doesnt stack which is literally unrankable omg nukE https://puu.sh/zsXQy/2e2d311702.png jk love you
I stack it manually to begin with?https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/409253929990357005/416255674184630285/unknown.png
02:22:681 (1,2,3,4) - Subjective but I'm not a big fan of how the visuals and flow work here. So ok, you overlap these perfectly 02:21:309 (1,1) - but right after, the sliders' flow is really awkward with no cohesion at all. They may look structurally well placed 02:22:681 (1,2,3,4) - but their motion is really awkward, like the way you handle the degrees of sliders in a non natural circular way. I would simply recommend you to rotate these by 180 degrees 02:22:681 (1,3) - in order to do a less complicated motion.
i dont think it feels that bad to play :( they're based around the echo in the vocal chop (or w/e it actually is) so i wanted to make the pattern emphasise that, and rotating 180 or ctrl+g'ing kinda takes away from that and makes the movement much sharper than i want it to be
02:30:566 (5,6) - reee why is this spaced differently to 02:30:224 (3,4) - when it's the same (btw reeee)
02:39:138 (1) - The song supports so much more here, i dont know why the choice for circle spam was made here, its not even too much of an intensity change from before
disagree here, the amount of movement required for this and the style of movement is different compared to the previous section, and i think the constant clicking is cool to match the consistent rhythm in the bells whilst patterns are based on other instruments
02:40:337 (2) - maybe move this to ~(132,186) so that you can show better emphasis 02:40:509 (1) - because right now it feels like its not being given any spacing at all compared to 02:40:337 (2) -
don't want to give much emphasis on the (1) here because this pattern is following the echo thats created by the clap which explains the larger emphasis on (2) and the fact that the top point of the triangle is based around where the sound was played on the map (if that makes sense)
02:42:909 (1,2,1,2,3) - not a fan of the hitburst overlaps but if you like it i guess its fine, but with stacking enabled 02:43:766 (1,2,3) - appears relatively far from the pattern D: -> https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/10293236 moving it in a bit would make this pattern cuter
i don't really understand what you mean/what you want me to do here lol, don't rly wanna move this because the circles would have a visible overlap in game
02:45:309 (1) - shouldn't this be emphasised as the echo pitch keeps going up before this note?
02:47:366 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - NCing seems to be off here, shouldn't this be NCd like 1 - 2 as well?
1/2 nc's are following the melody, but since the melody drops out for this bar it's nc'd based on drum patterning instead
02:47:881 (1,2,3,1,2) - you should add some more spacing change to emphasize that rising sound
i don't really think that would come across well in gameplay because the rising sound isn't staggered or echoy like all the other sounds i put emphasis on in this section
02:57:481 (3) - feeling like ctrl+g fits better here to keep the same circular movement as before
03:25:766 (3) - remove NC? it's grouped with the other two circles despite the downbeat. you did it here 03:31:251 (3) -
03:27:824 (1,2) - from this section to the bookmark, i think all the finishes should be claps maybe? they don't sound as strong to make as a finish imo
the echo sound can only be achieved by either finish from soft or normal. using normal doesn't give the impact I need, and soft hitfinish does its job fine enough. Using clap from normal is too crunchy, soft is too linear, and drum doesn't give stronger flavor compared to soft hitclap
03:33:309 (1,2) - and 03:33:652 (3,4) - is intentionally grouped that way (drum and no hs).
04:03:824 (3) - angle inconsistency with 04:02:795 (1,2) - , really messes with the looks of the pattern
04:26:109 (1) - movement change please the song changes here so there's no real point in continuing the same flow as before, it only encourages mouse drift and worse emphasis
04:32:109 (2,3,4,5) - What about something like this? http://puu.sh/zonUt/edf5b301e3.png The current spacing between 04:32:452 (4,5) - seems off
04:47:709 (7) - nc this to kinda keep the every other set of circles end nc thing you had going (basically how 04:42:566 (1) - is ncd then 04:43:595 (5) - isnt then 04:45:309 (1) - is then 04:46:338 (5) - isnt and so on xd)
04:51:652 (2) - perhaps stack with 04:50:966 (2) - since 04:50:109 (1,2) - is spaced out and 04:51:481 (1,2) - is basically a repeat
The anti jump is to show the echo of the foreground melody, and stacking it with 04:50:966 (2) - looks weird
04:53:881 (2,3,1,2,3) - a pentagon is used here which consists of a 5 note pattern while the music consists of a 2 and a 3 doesnt fit well imo, perhaps using a 2 pattern and a 3 instead of trying to mix the 2 as if they are the same thing
04:53:881 (2,1) - i think swapping ncs here is better to signify the 1/1 gap also i think it looks weird to have a nc half way through a shape like this
05:12:738 (1,2) - ehm, you should consider changing those to two 1/2 sliders because later on you map this sound 05:13:081 - actively like 05:14:452 (2) - , 05:15:824 (2) - etc etc.
05:13:424 (3) - I would recommend you splitting this to 3 circles, slider doesn't say much anything
coz imo a circle/clickable note would give a better feedback for this clap 05:13:766 like you do at 05:15:138 (4) - , 05:16:509 (4) - , 05:17:881 (3) - etc
the clap isnt followed closely in this section as its the outro and mapped relatively simply, having occasional lower density verses are suitable for this stuff, and this verses lowest density makes a good transition from the previous 1/2 heavy section
so yea i think it is fine but will wait for alphabets answer