00:00:003 (1,2,3,4) - mind checking the offset of these notes?
feels like the current one hits early based on the sounds you're trying to follow, try moving the red line to 00:00:015 - and add another one on 00:01:406 - to not screw your timing on this section, it might sound more accurated atleast for me
00:00:015 (1,2,3,4) - may be nitpicky but the movement here feels kind of random, not quite zigzag not quite a curve, not sure what you were going for. a curve, straight line, or zigzag would all work here but this is just what
00:00:015 (1,2,3,4) - This pattern is really ugly to play I know in other posts people have talked about the pattern and you said you were going for awkward but this pattern isn't it. Try something different. It just isn't the best pattern
00:09:321 (1,2) - i reckon that 00:10:718 (2) - should be stacked under sliderhead of 00:09:321 (1) - because of 00:06:526 (1,2,3) - indicating thats how you show 4/4 rhythm
00:12:580 (1) - remove nc tbh, spamming nc doesnt seem worth since this still is 1/2 snapping and not a weird snapping like 00:05:286 (1,1) -
00:16:538 (2) - I think it can be placed a bit upwards so visual spacing looks better: https://i.imgur.com/DaTaWlb.png
00:16:771 (1) - not a fan of this since theres a drum beat on 00:17:104, maybe have the slider end there and add a circle on 00:17:215?
00:20:101 (2) - blanket the 2 better, x.297 y.283ish seems to fit nicely.
with that being said, move 00:20:323 (1) - up a bit so it doesn't touch 00:19:435 (1) -, just looks nicer.
also when i mean "offscreen" in my mods i dont mean on the timeline, i mean off your monitors vision
00:28:315 (1,2) - you can do sth like https://prnt.sc/zzhRwOov2v5p cause of 3/4 rhythm which might be confused with 1/2 rhythm and ctrl+g 00:27:427 (5) for better flow
00:29:203 (1) - I'd suggest turning this slider into something like this https://i.imgur.com/ynTCsLL.png since there are drums in the background
00:37:639 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - i personally think this would play better https://prnt.sc/IPEZ26aZApMi
00:43:412 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - a pure hexagon would look a bit more clean, maybe like this https://prnt.sc/8-L-6zVY3E8L and move it in such a way u make a triangle with the incoming burst
00:44:300 (1,2,1,2,3,4) - this section is incorrectly mapped. if u listen to the bass in the background it plays on these notes
nothing seems to be playing on the blue ticks of the stream. https://imgur.com/a/GDDbCCG
you could probably do something like this https://imgur.com/a/rdols2w to fix
00:46:298 (5) - End of this sound is on the blue tick, maybe extend the slider upward so it's closer to 00:46:742 (6,7,1) - to adjust for the 3/4 length of the slider.
00:52:292 (1,2,1,2,3) - i understand what ur doing, i see 00:52:292 (1,2) is a pattern used through-out the map but maybe sth like my idea would play better? https://prnt.sc/IPXba4fwEsrB
00:57:620 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - doing sth like this ( https://prnt.sc/cRMDxKSAMARm ) would emphasise the song cause the first 3 set of jumps (numbered in the photo 1-2 , 3-4 and 5-6) emphasise the 3 loud sounds and break the pattern by changing the way the jump goes because the song changes a bit
I agree with this, the way 00:58:961 (1,2) - meshes in with the rest of 00:57:620 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - isn't ideal. Some contrast here would be nice.
00:59:408 (1) - posistioning feels akward but this may be to reflect the music (because your downbeat occurs there) do consider spacing slightly from 00:58:514 (1) - though because the overlap feels kinda messy
01:05:411 (4) - this will get misread and players will click too early, change spacing and maybe nc it so that its easier to read, if you do decide to nc it then remove the nc from 01:05:633 (1)
01:08:080 (1) - it's better if you turn this into a 1/4 slider
this note still follows the chain of vocals you are mapping before plus you are skipping a percussion sound on 01:08:191 - so could be nicer
01:08:302 (1) - why skip the loud sounds? i understand u follow the vocals but it's underwhelming. if you don't want to make more 1/4 slider jumps you can use sth like 01:09:192 (4) (here's an example https://prnt.sc/V-b-7-5EOc58 ). same goes for the 01:10:971 (4)
01:12:751 (5,6,7,8) - is there aany reason you stopped placing 1/4 sliders?
I mean it's fine if all of this part will be mapped with 1/4 sliders
01:12:751 (5,6,7,8) - shouldnt this be 1-2 1-2 because of 00:57:176 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - ? consider adding nc
01:21:204 (2,3,4) - this could be easily misreadable since the spacing between the previous two notes is roughly same as the spacing between the notes highlighted despite being 1/4. stacking the notes or decreasing the spacing would be better
01:23:428 (4) - i think you can swap this repeat slider to some 1/4 sliders or even jumps because this feels underwhelming cus you are skipping some prominent sounds on 01:23:650 - and 01:23:873 -
01:24:317 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - ehh this buildup feels kinda meh imo would personally opt for something more climatic here like streams or something. like considering right after this buildup you use a lot of spaced streams it feels appropriate to introduce that in the buildup as well imo
02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - same thing here for the buildup if you think of it functionally these 1/4 sliders just feel like small 1/2 jumps kinda and tbh feels less intense that 02:49:627 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - imo. so like personally would suggest you make 02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - more intense, (especially relative to 02:49:627 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - imo) probably would have to change the rhythm imo
01:24:317 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - reasons why this is kinda average:
Consider changing to jumps or buffing the second stream bc atm it just dosent really work with the song
01:29:651 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I think this should just be a stream instead of (circle,circle,slider). Doesn't make much sense to make it the same pattern as the intense part previously.
01:29:651 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this should be linear deceleration, not accelerate, then decelerate then accelerate bc the song just declines., it dosent decline then rise ig. Consider making your stream start spaced then at the end non-spaced, not start fast, slow down then speed up again
01:31:427 (1,1,2,3) - u followed a weird rhythm if u followed one at all. maybe this pattern would work out https://prnt.sc/Bi5d1oBh7iNB
01:34:756 (6) - you can space this out abit because the music gradually gets higher in pitch and works good as a progressive spacing
01:41:193 (1,2,1,2) - i think it would be better if you follow the same idea i mentioned on #3083803 aka. progressive spacing because this jump is WAY spaced compared to the other similar section
yyou can decrease the spacing on 01:41:193 (1,2) - and either reduce the spacing abit on 01:41:637 (1,2) - or leave it as it is because right now there's no much spacing emphasis on these
if someone responds with slightly off stack its probably not intuitive, try https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/569769502246699028/999584677088202842/unknown.png bc atm i also thought it was a slightly off stack lol
01:57:083 (5,1) - kinda hard to read to have a 1/2 gap after a 1/4 slider since you haven't really done that throughout the map + 01:57:194 which is a very strong sound gets no emphasis at all. might make more sense to do something like https://imgur.com/kAp0hZv
01:57:972 (4,1) - will decrease spacing and put (4) closer to (1) because the spacing and the nc usage in this is kinda missreadable to your 1/2 jumps used on 01:57:416 (1,2,3) -
01:59:862 (1,1) - should have less overlap than they do atm because it still looks like a perfect stack which indicates 2/4 to the player, consider this: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/569769502246699028/999584440265228289/unknown.png
02:05:422 (1,2,3,4,5,1) - why are these stacks so spread out when 02:06:756 (3,4,1) - is perfect stacked? Consider making them all the same for consistency (like either spread them like 02:05:422 (1,2,3) or stack them like 02:06:756 (3,4,1))
02:11:648 (6,7,8) - this spacing is kinda high specially when the song isn't doing something that strong in sounds
decreasing it could be nice
02:47:407 (5,6) - I don't these two notes are close enough sounding to warrant a stack. I would just make this a jump. https://imgur.com/KlcJhgU, maybe something like this would work better.
02:49:405 (3,4,1) - the spacing and burst of these is kind of sudden imo
think you can move 02:49:516 (4) - close to 02:49:627 (1) - ti make it abit more fair since its kinda unexpected after such previous slow section
02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - the song reaches a REALLY high peak yet the way is mapped is really passive making it super underhwhelming
i strongly believe you can map the entire percussion notes 02:51:739 - 02:52:184 - and 02:52:406 - and also increase by alot the spacing of 02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - since the song is calling for it
02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This seems extremely overdone compared to the rest of the map the rhythm i guess is somewhat justifiable but I feel like the spacing alone is way overdone I would probably do something like this https://gyazo.com/f8ac0c00a12ff265775db21347b2b808, https://gyazo.com/da77770fac58d63a1cfbb5429875b25e if you want to incorporate the movement from before 02:50:071 (3,4,1,2,3,4,1)
02:52:518 (6,7,8) - spacing here should be bigger than 02:50:738 (3,4,1) - since it's closer to the buildup
02:53:185 (1) - https://ibb.co/F53n9xJ this might be an idea to show the strain + pitch shift around 02:53:741
02:56:298 (7) - for this, and similar parts, i suggest changing spacing to represent the change in rhythm, something similar to 02:57:632 (6,7) would be good
I'd suggest changing 03:01:413 (1,2,3) and 03:15:646 (1,2,3) into streams https://i.imgur.com/GS4yQ35.png
03:03:414 (7,8,9) - this should be 2 1/4 sliders to better follow the synth or whatever, 03:03:526 (8) - is just overmapped
ahem, there are two similar piano parts: 03:41:210 to 03:41:543 and 03:41:654 to 03:41:987
second of them starts with a sliderend of 03:41:543 (4)
also i noticed that here 03:42:432 (4) is the same thing and piano starts at 03:42:543
I can suggest moving sliders just 1/4 earlier if you want to use them here but well, the current one is probably fine (maybe(imo it isn't))
03:43:431 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - piano pitches varies alot here but the spacing of each note literally stays the same
from here 03:43:876 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - you can start decreasing the spacing of the circles to match the correct pitch
03:47:875 (1,2,3,4) - idk if this pattern works for the rest of the section. this places a lot of emphasis on (1,2), which works for 03:47:431 (1,2,3,4) - because of the pitch, but idk about the rest. since by default (1,3) is emphasized by the instrumental.
worst case imo is 03:58:540 (1,2,3,4) - where nothing in the song would support emphasizing (2), but 03:47:875 (1,2,3,4) - , 03:50:097 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - are all not ideal
listening to the song, i was able to decipher the harder hits of the piano from the softer ones, someone who isn't a musician might not be able to hear it that well but i can, so instead of following just the pitch, i decided to follow both the pitch changes and the strength of each keypress
03:48:320 (1,2,3,4) - think you can spam some 1/4 slider to follow the percussion and pianos that land every 1/2 beat
03:52:319 (3,4) - i guess this technically works with how you have clear spacing contrast between 03:52:319 (3,4) - and 03:52:541 (1,2) - but tbh since 03:52:319 (3,4) - and 03:52:541 (1,2) - feels pretty different in terms of intensity and rhythm i think it would feel a lot better to do some rhythm change like it would make 03:52:319 (3,4,1,2) - feel a lot less jarring than how it is rn imo. would suggest making 03:52:430 (4) - passive or just ignore that like have a gap or something
also this snapping here 03:52:097 (2) - sounds like hella off seems like the song is doing some 1/6 snapping on 03:52:097 (2) - or something so you might want to change the rhythm around a bit especially with reference to the first paragraph
03:55:874 (3,4,5) - kinda scuffed rhythm choice here since the strong pianos lands on 03:56:096 - and 03:56:429 -
you can tweak the rhythm to properly match it
03:56:207 (3) - is still not following the piano, the slider should start on 03:56:096 since there is a strong sound there. There is also a strong sound on 03:56:541.
03:56:541 (5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - rhythm feels kinda odd here feels like you should just make 03:56:429 (4,5,6) - into a reverse slider like 03:56:096 (3) - then actively map both of the strong piano sounds here 03:56:763 (7) - and here 03:56:985 - imo
also 03:56:985 - this is like hella tame imo like the song is doing doubles here so kinda lame to simplify this into 1/2 sliders with 1/4 gaps imo. should just embrace the doubles and actually map active doubles imo
03:57:207 (1,2,3,4) - again here the pianos pitches increases but spacing stays relatively the same
think you can increase gradually the sv's or the spacing of the slider
03:58:207 (7,1) - spacing here is same as 03:58:874 (4,1) - i think you should probably move 03:58:540 (1) - above the burst like this maybe https://imgur.com/a/kcgtE1l so its a bit clearer on when to hit the notes
04:00:762 (1,2,3,1) - dissonant piano keys here stand out a lot from the rest of this section, maybe add some sharper movement here?
04:11:092 - 04:11:314 - 04:11:758 - 04:12:203 - 04:13:979 - 04:15:756 - 04:27:305 - rather see these gaps mapped because the whole section is intense and also there's alot of percussion notes happening in the bg so might be cooler if you fill them with a circle or 1/4slider, depending on what fits better for you
04:11:092 (2,3,4,1) - spacing between these notes should be way bigger imo, it'll be consistent with similar patterns in the kiai like 04:18:088 (1,2,3,4) -
04:12:980 (3) - 04:14:534 (1) - I personally don't like how reverse slider ends here land on down beat, is there a reason for this?
04:23:862 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't think this pattern fits there... You can do something similar like 04:19:087 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3)
04:35:855 (1,1,1,1) - Stack is very difficult to read. I think you should just make this nc 1-2-3-4 as well as move 04:36:299 (1) - out of the stack so players can identify when the hardest alt-stream happens.
04:46:737 (5) - sounds better if you turn into a circle and make 04:46:959 - clickable since slidertail is landing in a strong snare