[GRAVITY]
So let's talk about the older GRAVITY chart (the one that was ranked before) first, just to understand where I'm coming from. The main complaint that I had is the fact that it's just not very ambitious as a chart. Sure, it's a jumptrilling test - but it's a very clean and straight-forward jumptrilling test, to the point where the chart is a bit of a disservice to how chaotic and noisy the track is. Most of the patterns in the old GRAVITY chart were made to be as easy as possible - when it could have been a lot more interesting.
Your newer chart for GRAVITY is better, there are some interesting patterning that I'm fond of but there are some patterning that could be a tiny bit more polished.
Side note, HP9/OD9 is quite applicable here. It's the hardest difficulty, having a relatively low OD (or at least OD that's comparable to a lower difficulty) is quite odd.
00:08:787 - I've always liked the 1/8 triplet rolls which you've put in beforehand - it gives the harsher buzz sounds a strong differentiation compared to the rest of the sounds in this section, without making the patterning too difficult. I do want to see those patterns back, something like
this would be nice to see (I Ctrl-H'd the part after the burst). As it is, the harsher buzz sounds are just not captured strongly enough in my opinion. If you want to keep the double at 00:08:962 - , you can do something like
this instead.
Basically, I think you should change the 12341234 (or 43214321) rolls to 12312312 or 43243243 instead - it makes the harsher buzz sounds very noticeable, it's more than justifiable and sets up the mood for the chart quite nicely. If you want to keep the double (that replaces 34 or 21 at the end), you can do something similar with
this.
00:09:724 - ^ - though you can probably keep it as 43214321 because the buzz sounds are a bit lighter compared to the burst above.
00:10:662 - Refer to 00:08:787 - .
00:11:248 - This should be 1/8s up to 00:11:365 - I think? The buzzes stop at 00:11:365 - .
ummm I'm not sure about this snapping, I may ask to someone00:11:365 - You can afford to have a [124] here if you want to be a bit mean, there's a kick that justifies a triple. -
Used 1.4 instead00:12:537 - , 00:13:474 - , 00:14:412 - Refer to 00:08:787 - .
00:14:646 - You can place a LN (on 1) up to 00:15:115 - , if you like. -
hmm maybe my mind says not, I want to finish it clean00:18:279 - Maybe shift this to [13]? It creates a minijack yes, but you also create a lot of minijacks later on which I think is a nice touch to the chart overall.
00:19:334 - Seems weird to break away from the jack patterning here. If you don't want to make the patterning too repetitive, you can follow the synth (which is rising in pitch), so I'd do [13][23][34] instead of [13][24][13]. It helps to keep the jack patterning consistent, while also not making it seem
too repetitive.
00:21:912 - haha, this is mean. I think this pattern might be a bit too overkill (in terms of difficulty) given how light the buzz sounds are, I think a 43214321 would suffice for
the first half of the burst, and then a 431431431 for the second half. It would look something like [url=http://i.imgur.com/R4uOEbW.png]. The reason for this is because the second half's buzz sounds are harsher (or at least, louder) than the first half. You can use a split roll like 4231 instead, but I personally think a triplet roll is the way to go. Up to you for that one. - Changed first buzz but second one is may I need to consider
00:26:013 - Really like the patterning here. It's a nice way to step away from the conventional/easy jumptrill, while not making it too difficult (something too difficult would be something like [12][23][34] (which has two hidden minijacks) or [13][23][34] (one long jack) - the ideal pattern for this would be one minijack per set I feel). I think it would be a good idea to use this pattern more often if viable. You can use it in 00:25:076 - for example - something like
this would be a nice touch. -
Thanks for praise! Also applied! 00:28:240 - You can do the minijack patterning you did earlier here if you want. I used [23][12][34].
00:28:709 - ^ - only for the first three doubles however. The last two doubles should be singles, the sounds in 00:28:884 (and the note after) is far too soft to justify doubles. I did something like
this, but it's up to you as how you want to approach it.
00:31:287 - I don't think this is loud enough to be a triple. There's definitely sounds going on that justify a triple, but considering your use of triples as it is I think this is better suited as a [34]. The kick just isn't strong enough. -
hmm Sorry but I'd like to keep here, seems not loud sounds but the louder of sound is kinda big also it has some difference with other sections so I want to keep here00:33:396 - Preferably a single here? The main sound is a vocal sample (which isn't too loud), which is arguably too soft for a double. I used a 3 here.
00:35:037 (35037|0,35095|1,35154|2) - You can probably be a little bit mean and have a 121 instead of a 123. There's a synth rhythm going on that sounds like a minitrill, so you can capture that here.
00:37:146 - Refer to 00:33:396 - but I used 4 here instead.
00:39:021 - Another section which you can use minijacks. You can do something like
this for this section (I missed out a [12][24][13] at 00:40:076 - , but you get the idea), and something similar like [23][13][24] and [23][24][13] for 00:41:013 - as well.
00:42:888 - ^
00:44:099 - Maybe you can shift this to [24] to differentiate the pattern from 00:44:255 (44255|3,44255|0,44334|2,44334|1,44412|3,44412|0) - .
00:44:568 - You can be a little mean and place this at 3 instead of 1, it's not a bad transition by any means but it certainly will startle the player a little bit.
00:46:052 - Rhythm here is a bit more distorted than 00:45:701 - , so I think a more rigid (or at least less smooth) pattern here would be justified. Something like 4231[234] would be nice? It's a slight differentiation but the player would definitely feel the difference in patterning.
00:58:650 - Should be the same chord as 00:58:474 - , as it is the same sound.
hmm? They're same already owo01:31:990 - You can do something like a minijack in the second/third chord here and a minijack in the first/second chord in
01:32:341 - instead of what you have. An example would be something like
this (notice the hidden minijacks). It would create good difficulty consistency.
01:33:865 - You can do something similar to the above. Something like
this would be nice. (This is taken at 1:33.865).
01:35:740 - Pattern is fine as it is (more minijacks because it's a harsher set of sounds), but [12][24][34] is generally the easier pattern and I'd prefer you use that instead. Your current pattern is a bit mindblockable. You can still do the minijack thing in 01:36:091 - , similar to what you would do in the previous two points. An example would be something like
this.
01:39:490 - ^
01:41:013 - Minijack, you get the idea.
01:43:240 - ^ -
hmm Sorry but I want to keep here (Only here)01:57:771 - Have to change this triple, since it creates a 1/2 minijack, and it's not consistent with the layering scheme in the intro. You have to either redo the layering scheme in the intro or change this triple (and a few others), up to you.
02:01:521 - ^
02:02:634 - Move this to 1 to differentiate this pattern from 02:02:459 (122459|2,122459|1,122517|3,122517|0,122576|2) - .
02:04:128 - Now this point will only be relevant if you want to change the ending [14][23] jumptrill or not. I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the jumptrill and use [43][21] instead, but it's up to you. You can turn this to a triplet roll burst, just like what you would do in the intro. If you do this however, you have to change the jumptrill afterwards to [43][21]. It would look something like
this, basically. I think this would be good, but again it's up to you as to whether or not you want to keep the split jumptrill.