Edit: WAIT WHAT NO DON'T TAKE THE ICON FOR THIS MAP AWAY FROM ME NOOOOO I WANNA NOMINATE THIS PLSPLSPLS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I didn't shoot those stars for fun ;_;


Insane (and general timing/NCing stuff)

00:01:874 (1,2) - 00:09:096 (1,2) - 00:55:639 (1,2) - 01:19:833 (1,2) - Those are the only times in the whole map that you stack on non-downbeats which seems rather weird to me bc you stack on downbeats almost all the time which kinda represents the slowdowns at that point but then those four aren't slowdowns so yeah, seems weird to me they're indicating screwy time between objects that i found hard to interpret without staring at approach circles with stacks:( dont make me explain all of them

Now the rest for this diff will be pure NC-modding, bc at some places your NCing completely derails from the song's signature, but before mentioning those points I just wanna say that the few places where you NC'd twice per measure seem rather inconsistent to me most of the times and that I personally dislike them very much, and sometimes they make detecting the song's signature much much harder, like 00:53:798 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) -, nc aesthetics are realbut yeah, I'll just mention the 'big derailments' now and hope that maybe you wanna remove those few double-NC-parts after all eheheheh

ok actually starting with BPM-stuff, 01:24:866 should not be half-BPM bc the note here is actually 1/8 instead of 1/16, as seen here (the very first note) doubled
Now the puush from the previous point already shows a really fun thing: 01:26:441 should actually be half-bpm, because the signature stays 4/4 throughout the whole piece (and doesn't have thrown-in notes like 01:27:789 (5,6) currently suggests) and thus the next upbeat is at 01:26:946 making 01:26:778 (1,4) offbeat-sliders - Just try deleting 01:27:789 (5) and move 01:26:778 (1,2,3,4) by +1/2 and you'll see how the actual emphasis should be. And exactly the same thing happens with the next two measures too, so yeah. halved. if ur telling me to change the rhythm tho thats not happening sounds way too awkward lol
Maybe not delaying the NCing would be better too to make detecting the actualy signature easier, I mean your delayed NCs seem cool but yeah, you don't do that at many other places (or any other places at all?) so dunno about this one
Here's a fun fact: theoretically, from here on everything is off by half a measure too, in the sheets the downbeats are still at 01:32:815 - 01:34:188 - etc which admittedly would look extremely stupid here, and the way you NCd it seems way better, but the thing that concerns me is that you switch to the theoretically correct comboing at 01:38:144 and that makes no sense at all to me, because when you started with the better-sounding one it seems random to jump back to the other one there. My suggestion would be to stay with your NCing until 01:41:953 where you NC to switch to the correct one (there already is a NC there but that's bc you doubled the amount of NCs here but I am basing my suggestion on a constant NC-density so yeah, I hope this makes sense lol) changed them z
And I actually find it misleading that you make 01:47:330 (1) 1/1 either way bc that doesn't fit your NCing nor the theoretically correct one and makes the NCing look rather random imo : \ but not this one smd
I hate this cellist so much, it would again be basic 4/4 from 01:47:022 on but that sounds stupid the way he emphasizes stuff.. So yeah keep it but 01:51:328 (1,2) completely throws me off bc that's neither the correct one nor does it fit with your previous NCing, swapping those and removing the one at 01:52:013 (1) would fit much better imo i tried

ok I think that's it, I didn't look whether all the other BPM-multipliers are correct but yeah, here's the sheets in case you wanna check yourself xd ha no ty 2014 me knows what hes doing def

Hard

00:15:842 (1,2) - seems a bit much spacing imo y
01:02:658 (3,1) too actually, bc the player should already realize that there's a massive slowdown with low spacing at 01:02:171 (2,3) so (3,1) having so much spacing again seems weird to me y
00:53:985 (1,2) - why not swap NC to stay with the signature? cuz increase in intensity >
yeah again the stuff from Insane from 01:24:585 on ofc, but in this diff it seems especially clear to me that the switch at 01:37:509 (3,1) is weird bc 01:38:778 (3,3,3) are still so emphazised in the song so keeping your NCing until the NC at 01:41:318 and then switching with the NC at 01:41:953 just seems waay better to me y
The reverse at 01:46:407 (2) leading to 01:48:101 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) being offbeat-sliders is triggering me pretty hard here lol, and you forgot a NC somewhere in the 5-note-combo anyways patternprioritytbh



Normal

Even though you 5%'d them, some of the cool additional sliderticks are still rather clearly audible imo, so I'd suggest to just add a sampleset with silent slidertick.wav to use in those places ? last time i did that a qat said stop lol. i dont care much about it so ill just stick to the rankable 5%
00:17:365 (1) - 00:53:985 (1) - omg those NC-spams how dare you !!! i like the 1/2 one actually
00:26:647 (1,2) - NC-swap here and removing the one at 00:27:922 (1) would be cool for signature-reasons again rather have ncs on both specialsliders time signature notgoal
01:13:570 (3,1) - suggesting NC-swap here bc 01:13:570 sounds far more like a major major downbeat than 01:15:018 for me but dunno nc everything
stuff from 01:24:585 again, also with the switch and all that again (holy fuck it just seems constantly messed up until the Kiai in this diff lol) you can blame only yourself for what ive done


for some reason my Windows Media Player can't play your sliderslide although it can play those from other maps, dunno what causes that but I just wanted to mention it in case that indicates a bad .wav or w/e o it is. oldness

that piano-hitsound you had in the original version was rad, I miss that sounded too weird with fade in on first notelol
(I actually miss the more recently removed hitsound too xd still better than Fort-hitsounding imo tbh) xzxzxzxz

I'd gladly

This is ranked DAYUM. Congrats.

Well, I did normal, then I almost died. I can’t imagine the work you put into this, and the manual snapping. -_- I’ve mentioned the parts that seem off to me, but for the most part, timing seems acceptable. Maybe if I’m feeling really motivated someday I’ll go through insane. Only thing I really noticed was slider tempos. It feels smoother when you’ve got an increased tempo slider as the cellist is moving faster compared to when you keep the two sliders the same in different tempos. i.e.

GREAT! - 00:23:201 (3,4) -

lil' wacky - 00:11:773 (1,2) - judging slider speeds based on their visual length isn't really a good way to look at intensity on this diff. every timing point with a slider has an sv change calculated so that every slider is the same speed, regardless of bpm. so like the examples here have the same speeds for all four sliders. making it variable would be too wtf for the lowest diff

oh there was one slider that was a different speed though, whcih you pointed out. that one was a mistake so i gotta fix it lol. for the other ones where you mention speed tho, there's not much i can do without breaking concept

[Normal]

00:05:024 (1) - I feel like this slider should match 00:01:874 (1) -
it eliminates the awkward single 00:06:369 (3) - too, if you match earlier pattern, or replace with a long slider then short slider. timeline lengths for these are super different, so woudln't really work. both are 1 beat in the timeline, but the first is twice as long because it's slower lol

00:06:755 (4) - I like the long slider more for that phrase for sure. same

00:12:379 (2) - This slider feels too fast, since 00:13:068 (1) - is slowing down, and tempo is slowing ahead. Slowing slider would prep for next slider.

00:15:842 (1) - Feels like you’re cheating the phrase by giving this a single. @ 00:17:365 (1) - it’s a slider and sounds much better i get what u mean, but the point of a circle is to show how much quieter this section has gotten compared to the previous stuff. wouldn't stand out if it were another slider

00:26:130 (4,5) - This sounds jazzy, not cello prelude. Maybe this?
http://puu.sh/omiPE/1f9fb860b7.png trying to avoid anything too weird for the lowest diff (and 1/2 sliders are that lol)

00:30:783 (2) - I feel like the end of this slider should get it’s own hit, feels weird hitting 3 without a lead in i kinda dont feel the same way about clicking there. if anything, clicking beat 3 would make more sense since it's emphasized more

00:38:740 (1) - This doesn’t feel right. I think its 00:38:740 (1) - needs to be more defined than just a slider. maybe something likehttp://puu.sh/omj3m/b004735941.png (real rough) yea would also be too dense for the lowest diff like that rip

00:53:125 (2) - Feels wacky with a long slider here. Note ends before slider is over. Shorten slider to match note end then transition or turn into single then pick up with next phrase @ 00:53:985 (3) - this one's sort of complicated since i'm avoiding consecutive 1/2 clicks and i want to have an object on 00:53:125 (2) - 's current tail since it's super emphasized. only real way to do that is to have a sliderend there and click again at the downbeat with 00:53:985 (1) -

01:01:613 (1) - ? http://puu.sh/omjd7/34be5c65f8.png timing between 2 and 3 kinda weird, so if doing this i'd want a slider where 3 currently is, but cant since music is stopping so longslider

01:13:239 (3) - Whenever I want to change something it’s in like 3 tempos. -_- 1/2sliders2dense
http://puu.sh/omjFZ/580875cc43.png

01:29:006 (2) - Two hits on the end of slider makes the single end feel really wrong, dunno if you can fix that or not, that’s tough i actually dont know what you mean by 2 hits u m um

01:31:256 (3) - Pretty sure the timing is wrong on the end of this guyyae

01:33:520 (3,4) - Speed these sliders SV up

01:45:791 (4) - This feels perfect , match this ^ (please don’t tell me they’re the same, I don’t wanna check…) this was actually the one that was snapped wrong lol. thanks for pointing it out tho it's fixed (and not the way you want me to lul)

So it's been over two years now, huh. :^) im a big boy!!

I'd just like to raise a few concerns about the accuracy of this map based on the music, as it appears to be mapped this way entirely.

00:53:483 (4,1) - This doesn't need to exist at all, as well as all other instances of sliders that don't end on a specific note. From the beginning you've mapped the notes as pairs of two tones (mapped with a slider), or a run of tones (circle runs), regardless of the length of rubato the instrumentalist has chosen to use. Fix: remove 00:53:798 (1) - , change 00:53:985 (2) - to two circles. musically it may be correct to do this, but it's really not how i'd choose to map it. 1 starts the pitch dropping thing, so i'd want to click there (ruling out your recommendation) and making 4 a circle is also not practical since timing is balls. stacking it could work, but it would also be stopping all movement in a place where that shouldnt really happen.

this and all the extended sliders below follow the same logic

01:22:818 (1,2) - Like above, but use spacing between 01:22:818 (1,3,4) - instead to emphasize the rubato.

01:24:585 (2,1) - 01:26:441 (5,1) - 01:28:009 (6,1) - 01:29:529 (5,1) - like above.

01:05:066 (1,2,3,4) - Downbeat is at 01:05:326 - but you've mapped this with a slider end. Fix: change pattern to circle-slider-slider-slider, or change 01:03:489 (3) - to a slider until 01:05:066 - and then use slider-slider-slider. this is pretty similar to the previous thing. clicking on the start of the pitch change (which happens to be the note before the downbeat) seems necessary and starting with a circle leads to misleading timing between the first and second object

01:29:851 (1,2,3,4) - Sliders start on the wrong beats, and as a result you have a slider end on the downbeat at 01:31:047 - i thought that starting 01:26:778 (1) - i was placing sliders on offbeats. right now im emphasizing 01:25:406 (1,2,3,4) - these sounds here, which are correctly on beat, then the next measure the same emphasized sounds are off beat. so i decided to treat the same sounding things the same regardless of what the sheet music says

01:47:330 (1) - Questionable; you haven't missed or a tone yet, probably shouldn't start here. yeah, ill change this one. it was originally for the sake of showing section was different, but i can do that without leaving out sounds too

im only doing insane because im bad

00:12:679 (4) - not a perfect overlap Xd
00:15:462 (2) - ^^^
00:16:977 (4) - ^ like literally all slider overlaps are like thsi and it triggers me harder than u even know
00:26:975 (2,4) - why are these stacked it looks ugly pls move 4
00:28:080 (1,3) - g
00:53:483 (4) - why isnt this just one slider, would be better and less awkward imo
00:56:165 (2) - you never overlapped sliders like this in this part b4 now u do y
01:03:330 (1,2,3) - better off as a repeat slider imo
01:22:818 (1) - basically same thing as 00:53:483 (4)
02:00:694 (3) - nc cuz slower sliders and bpm