Kroytz wrote:

hihi

general

gh
I think Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced can have all their CS sizes toned down by .5 just to scale better with the diffs. 2.5->3->3.5->Exhaust at 4 CS cuz Advanced and Exhaust share CS 4 and yeah idk bout you lol.

le Novice

00:00:557 (1) - can just make as 1/2 repeating slider. applies to all diffs. i mean, i guess your following different sound so.
00:05:239 - that beat could also get hit by circle, prolly not though cuz diff part of music but yknow, suggesting an option. applies to all diffs too.
00:05:532 (1) - maybe move the slider more on the left side so that the overlap from the oncoming (2) isnt so 'heavy'. is it overlap? maybe called underlap lol but yeah it like takes up more than half of the slider-trail's space.
00:14:898 (2) - aren't completely mirroring each other if that was the intention.
00:20:166 (2,3) - these overlaps bro
00:23:971 - might rhythmically sound better if there was a circle on this beat.
01:14:537 (4) - i'm not sure of solution but that slider looked kinda funny. im not good at makin sliders tho
01:19:197 (4,5,6,7,1) - i just thought that was pretty neat
01:57:644 - why not add circle at last measure and then spinner :s Applies to all diffs. I feel strong about this one though.

le Intermediate

00:13:727 (3) - why not make parallel slider. this angle so weird to me lol
00:35:386 (5) - I think this should either follow the rhythm that you used here with the repeat slider 00:30:703 (5) -
00:51:776 (4) - maybe split into two parallel sliders. facing the same or facing against each other but having one repeat before a small rhythmic break feels a little eh was replying to this point but lost it zzz, don't want to write shit again, anyway: ok
00:54:703 (4,5) - (5) is too close to the slider edge imo. maybe reposition (3,4) so that (4) is an open slider and (5) can blanket inside like you did over here 00:11:386 (1,2) - just moved whole thing
00:56:459 (3,4) - yo that volume is so soft. I dont think it needs to be that soft honestly cuz player needs feedback and the volume change is too drastic. applies to all diffs I know, gonna fix
01:36:673 - adding a note on that beat and then spinner could be more fitting (Applies to all diffs). or even a slider that starts there and ends here 01:37:474 - (with muted slider end) and then spinner after from here 01:37:838 - to the green line.
The rest of the break seems like it could be mapped too cuz right now it feels undermapped there, but idk.

le Advanced

00:27:776 (1) - feels slightly undermapped there. maybe try a timeline like [ http://puu.sh/hHpoH/f23ed44923.jpg ] same thing
00:35:678 (4) - Clap sounds weird over here. might just be me tho. and all 4 notes could probably be whistled too. there is a snare drum
00:45:337 (1) - could try make bezial slider to blanket the previous slider like [ http://puu.sh/hHpT7/c920d1fd7c.jpg ] not the best mock-up (in fact it barely blankets) but you get the idea.
00:46:508 (1) - angle I think could be straight like the others
00:48:703 - beat could be hit like former rhythm pattern.
00:52:215 (8) - could be slider that ends where (1) starts.
the pause between the end of the measure and the spinner is really weird. feels empty and awkward imo
01:01:430 - probably make 5 notes here instead of 3 the one on white tick is 1/2, it's mapped on harder diffs
01:32:887 (2) - think creating another curve slider like (1) and angling the next (3) by ~3 degrees looks better [ http://puu.sh/hHqg7/3ac28ac753.jpg ]

le Exhaust

00:08:313 (3) - maybe curve slider instead to keep consistent idk me neither, has different length and all so is fine I guess
00:25:727 (2) - to me, I think you could create cool aesthetic with (2). [ http://puu.sh/hHqA2/6944e9c9e5.jpg ] I like stack
00:29:532 (1,2) - since the song gets a little more build up I think the spacing on these two could be increased because having equal spacing on the 6 sliders feels unsettling with the music I think it actually follows the music better if sliders are paired like that
00:30:703 (1,2,3,4) - and maybe just create perfect square or fix (1) to create rhombus that thing has good sharp flow, not always has to be geometry lesson
00:31:874 (1,2) - same reason as before
01:11:333 (2) - moving the middle anchor point so its higher to create open slider might be more fitting. it's fine + curving this way fits next circle better
01:32:887 (1) - yo lol that note so cornered it doesn't overlap with score or anything right? Enough time to hit it
01:57:644 (1,1) - see thats what I think should be done to the other diffs. makes more sense. for rank criteria I think theyll need to be consistent through all diffs too. and its not that big of a change either cuz its at the end of the song.

le Infinite

00:36:557 (1,2) - I think it'd be cool to have this come back to the previous stack (with the aesthetic thing) kind of like this [ http://puu.sh/hHrcr/76ecdf74cc.jpg ] the next (1) slider would be re positioned too. I did that on harder diff, but might as well do it here too
01:01:430 (3) - having this come back to the stream's (5) or (6) could improve flow. did smth else
01:07:256 (9) - could be moved slightly closer to (10) so spacing feels a little more consistent. perceived spacing maybe, playwise this is more consistent
01:14:100 (4,6) - maybe ctrl-g why not, looks more fun
01:42:353 (10) - I think instead of having this, remove it and repeat the triple+slider pattern twice like how you did with (7,8,9). I think itd be way better that way.
01:44:828 (1,2,3,4,5) - repeating this is kinda lame :[ it's cool as fuck

le Gravity

00:20:166 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - yo idk bout you but this looks a little too much lol. maybe different pattern altogether but the music is kind of soft and on the new measure it shifts slightly so I dont think that pattern you have there is good >>; idk fits the strings perfectly for me
00:55:874 (1,2,3,4) - these could be emphasized with a spacing a bit more. or maybe a new pattern to create star with oncoming (1). pressure actually diminishes here, but will think about changing this whole thing anyway
01:30:993 (2) - I like how you had a lot of flow and movement going on but then this repeat totally killed all the momentum imo :s they make more sense in the next measure like how you did it there, but maybe not here. added circle
01:57:644 (1) - yo wtf. but why there lol doesn't really matter where it is, felt like putting it further away as it's last note

kool stuff. i dig.

Artorias wrote:

Great mapping Akali, really hope this gets ranked. For EXHAUST:

00:33:337 (5,6) - this looks and plays much better like a stack on the next slider I want sliders here for emphasising string hits, ctrl+g'd 6 for better flow

like this

00:54:703 (1) - reverse this slider start, flows better with the next 2 sliders.

image

00:55:288 (3,4) - this felt kinda bad on the testplay, try moving the (4) slider down and leftcurved and moved

like this?

01:00:557 (1) - after this slider, go into a burst and then a reverse slider I want ending of the stream to have more pressure

example

01:02:304 (3) - I can see why you're using a single note here, but a slider here is in my opinion better and carries the rhythm more naturally, even if you want the slight gameplay pause to emphasize the music pattern. I want some variety, 1/1 works here

01:11:624 (3) - same thing here as above.

01:22:110 (3,4,5,6) - pattern feels awkward to play, having different spacing feels much better for this this fits music for me, moment has a lot of pressure so can go with more snappy flow

example

01:28:518 (6) - having a slider here feels underwhelming, a small stream would be better, not a burst though, a straight slider goes well into the next diamond pattern you have there ye repeat like that is sort of stupid

example

01:54:149 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - this felt out of place to be honest, use smaller spacing (1.1) for the 4 latter notes, also a small jump from the 8 singles to the next note seems good. this seems ok, idk, symmetry works well for ending like that
This arrangement of notes kinda works but I was just experimenting with the spacing at this point

pic

Really sorry if I did anything wrong and whatnot, this is my first ever modding of a map, and it's a forum post. Please no public lynching!

Fort wrote:

i got some inspiration today i think

GRAVITY:
00:10:215 (1) - probably dont make this jumpstream yet (do the same like 00:14:898 (1) - ) It fits the impact of next downbeat IMO
00:15:337 (3,4,5) - probably this hard to read as triplet, read that as 1/2 pattern, maybe move to left or right a bit (yeah i suggest dont stack like that)
00:20:752 (1,2,3,4) - add more distance spacing for this like this http://puu.sh/ifrWp/e67deeec7e.jpg (so it can be easy to read since i always missread at tat part again and again)
00:39:118 (2,3) - you made this stack on purpose? it looks uncommon i think (maybe do stack distance like 00:43:800 (2,3) - )
00:51:922 (6) - move up a bit, it almost offscreen
01:01:139 (1,2,3,4) - try this http://puu.sh/ifscu/c554ab91c6.jpg
01:06:964 (7) - change to circle stream and new combo it (or maybe just new combo it)
01:08:129 (7) - ^
01:14:537 (1) - move up please (x121y140 better i guess) WHY
01:29:683 (1) - ctrl-H and move to previous coordinate

INFINITE:

00:12:264 (5) - this whistle hitsound on slider tail sounds awkward
01:08:421 (9,10,11) - legit
00:27:191 (1,2) - x320y224
00:46:947 (1) - remove nc i think
01:21:964 - probably you need to add circle pls

yeah this map has much combo spam than gravity diff

okay that's i got, good luck bro!

1. Stack Leniency 0 doesn't really make the map better in my opinion, and it also makes some 1/2 patterns in higher diffs harder to read. Consider moving it back to the normal ratio.
2. Let's talk about stacks, by taking some examples from [EXHAUST] (even if there are some in other diffs as well): 00:39:118 (4,5) - / 00:41:459 (4,5) - / 00:43:800 (4,5) / 00:46:142 (4,5) - (and so on) - What's with these stacks? I'm sure they will look better if you stack them normally with a proper stack leniency. Now, they only look very artificial and doesn't really add any kind of aesthetic to the map, in my opinion. But that's your choice, not mine, and it might only be my point of view.

1. 00:24:410 (2,3) - Due to the strong sound on (2), I would replace these two elements with a single 1/1 slider, that's easier to understand.
2. 01:52:984 (8) - I honestly expected a NC here, but that's a minor thing.
3. 01:54:731 (3,4) - Where's the structure? How about making them similar to the previous two slider for the sake of the wonderful structure?

1. 00:56:459 (5,6) - I totally expected a stack here, that fooled me.

1. 01:20:071 (3) - A NC here would be pretty cool!
2. 01:34:197 (4,5,6,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These are cool anyway, keep them as they are.
3. 01:46:285 (2,1) - You should swap NCs here, that would make more sense, according to the music.
   
   Great job on this, I enjoyed a lot playing this diff.

1. 00:10:142 (11,1) - I wouldn't have a spaced stream here, since the slider velocity already emphasize the crescendo in the music. Not really needed in my opinion.
2. 00:20:752 (1,2,3,4) - Is it just me or this is super-duper-tricky to read and play? It seems so weird even if I tried several times to understand this one...
3. 00:22:069 (2,3) - CTRL+G these notes and you'll have a nice pattern, but I guess this is intended and you probably prefer yours.
4. 00:26:898 (1,1) - They MIGHT be unrankable, as I've told you in irc. However, better ask a QAT who's more updated than me!
5. 00:28:361 (1,1,1) - I honestly dislike the overlap and the fact that it doesn't flow really well with the previous slider, so this is my poor suggestion that you can either accept or not.
   SPOILER

   
6. 00:42:410 (3,4) - Removing the second sliderpoint would help you make better sliders for this pattern, in my opinion.
7. 00:46:508 (1,3) - This overlap is ugly... ;_;
8. 01:18:615 (4,5,6) - How about a simple CTRL+H of the previous pattern?
9. 01:23:129 (6) - A NC would be needed to emphasize the spaced stream and the crescendo of the song.

Leader wrote:

[General]

1. Stack Leniency 0 doesn't really make the map better in my opinion, and it also makes some 1/2 patterns in higher diffs harder to read. Consider moving it back to the normal ratio. Will think about this, I sort of like that 1/2s on that leniency are fully overlapping + one of my sources says it makes reading HD HR easier
2. Let's talk about stacks, by taking some examples from [EXHAUST] (even if there are some in other diffs as well): 00:39:118 (4,5) - / 00:41:459 (4,5) - / 00:43:800 (4,5) / 00:46:142 (4,5) - (and so on) - What's with these stacks? I'm sure they will look better if you stack them normally with a proper stack leniency. Now, they only look very artificial and doesn't really add any kind of aesthetic to the map, in my opinion. But that's your choice, not mine, and it might only be my point of view.

The spacing might be less "consistent" but I prefer doing it this way sometimes so I can chose the direction it goes with having similar effect as normal stacking

[ADVANCED]

1. 00:24:410 (2,3) - Due to the strong sound on (2), I would replace these two elements with a single 1/1 slider, that's easier to understand. accents seems to be paired on white ticks for me
2. 01:52:984 (8) - I honestly expected a NC here, but that's a minor thing.
3. 01:54:731 (3,4) - Where's the structure? How about making them similar to the previous two slider for the sake of the wonderful structure?

[EXHAUST]

1. 00:56:459 (5,6) - I totally expected a stack here, that fooled me. I think next sound is weak enough to have 1/1 here?

[INFINITE]

1. 01:20:071 (3) - A NC here would be pretty cool!
2. 01:34:197 (4,5,6,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These are cool anyway, keep them as they are.
3. 01:46:285 (2,1) - You should swap NCs here, that would make more sense, according to the music.
   
   Great job on this, I enjoyed a lot playing this diff.
   [/ist]
   
   [GRAVITY]
   1. 00:10:142 (11,1) - I wouldn't have a spaced stream here, since the slider velocity already emphasize the crescendo in the music. Not really needed in my opinion. plays well and I think (1) has a lot of impact
   2. 00:20:752 (1,2,3,4) - Is it just me or this is super-duper-tricky to read and play? It seems so weird even if I tried several times to understand this one... was ok on playtests, these are my babies as already mentioned
   3. 00:22:069 (2,3) - CTRL+G these notes and you'll have a nice pattern, but I guess this is intended and you probably prefer yours. Strings are paired with same pitch here, so I like this for sake of the following music
   4. 00:26:898 (1,1) - They MIGHT be unrankable, as I've told you in irc. However, better ask a QAT who's more updated than me!
   5. 00:28:361 (1,1,1) - I honestly dislike the overlap and the fact that it doesn't flow really well with the previous slider, so this is my poor suggestion that you can either accept or not. I think it flows ok, in sort of "bouncy" way
      SPOILER

      
   6. 00:42:410 (3,4) - Removing the second sliderpoint would help you make better sliders for this pattern, in my opinion. hmm but this would make standard crooked sliders, I want something more wiggly here, maybe will think about something better
   7. 00:46:508 (1,3) - This overlap is ugly... ;_;
   8. 01:18:615 (4,5,6) - How about a simple CTRL+H of the previous pattern? I think it would make worse transition into 01:19:197 (1,2) -
   9. 01:23:129 (6) - A NC would be needed to emphasize the spaced stream and the crescendo of the song.

Well, clean map. Good luck!

byfar wrote:

placie HOLdier

from m4m

[NOVICE]

1. 
   looks fine!

[intermediate]

1. 
   00:48:849 (3) - to x:332 y:217 for better blanket? that makes for terrible blanket?
   01:19:780 (4) - blanket can be better

changed slightly
[advanced]

1. 
   00:09:337 (4,6) - shouldn't touch, looks unclean to me lol
2. 00:47:386 (3) - use 2 circle instead? better buildup imo don't want circles on easy diff after 3/4 timing
3. 01:28:518 (1,3) - bleh touch

[Exhaust]

1. 
   seems ok

[INFINITE]

1. 00:12:264 (5) - extended slider felt weird.
   try using 1/2 1/4 1/2 like you did in GRAVITY?
   http://puu.sh/ikZTo/7659bdbc61.jpg
2. 00:25:435 (8,9) - same, i dont think the red tick is worth skipping over. I think it's ok here, strings sort of allow that imo, + this diff is a lot 3/4 sliders anyway
3. 00:26:898 (3) - this slowdown slider needs NC
   
   00:41:825 (1,2,3,4) - cool pattern!

[GRAVITY]

1. 
   00:20:752 (1,2,3,4) - i didnt like these, just personal opinion. They are the only reason I wanted to map this song
2. 00:27:191 (1,2) - maybe place it at x:463 y:110? to make it a bit easier to read makes jump to next slider sort of big + should be fine here
   http://puu.sh/ikYBp/7f0cade8c1.jpg
3. 00:35:971 (1,2,1,2) - although i didn't exactly have too much of a problem here,i think it would be best to separate the 4 into 2 twos, similar to above to increase readability. but song wants me them to be on the same spot
4. 00:33:630 (1,2) - consider using the same sliders for 2 ? even tho it might be intended but it still looks weird idk looks ok, + adds fun movement here I think, don't want exact same sliders going in one direction, and ctrl+g would require changing next patterns
5. 00:42:410 (3) - try SV speed up to emphasize the whoosh? to 1.25x maybe and then keep the sv for this 00:42:703 (4) - .75x it's wubs not whooshes, thus slowdown on all
6. 00:46:215 (3,1) - i thought this flowed quite poorly moved a bit
7. 01:01:576 (2,3,1) - use higher spacing for the triple? argh what would ruin everything after it
   fun diff!

good luck!

Strategas wrote:

[Raikozen]

00:09:483 (3,1) - the way you spaced these is hella inconsistant.. like one is full screen and other thing is right next to it 00:09:776 (2,3) - fix

00:12:337 (6) - well even if you made double here only because of 00:12:483 (7) - it still don't fits imo. http://image.prntscr.com/image/43a09884 ... d7ac3e.png something like this seems more appropriate here

00:15:922 (4,5,1) - looks out of place for me, spacing wise it's really huge, has a weird overlap and doesn't compliment your 00:16:215 (2,3,4) - patern plays fine so

00:17:532 (2,3) - fix blanket fix

00:24:557 (2,3,4,5) - not very comfortable to play. linear movement into a square lol fix

00:30:118 (1,2) - make them evenly rotated? looks a bit off to me fix

00:35:605 - even if you follow the other istrument, mapping the drum here would be cool, like you can make it a 1/4 slider if you don't want a tripple and want to keep the jump added 1/4 slider

00:40:069 (3,1) - sooo close, can almost guess like it's 1/4 gap it plays fine

00:54:410 - no clap fix

00:54:703 (1,2,1,1,2,1) - missing claps fix

01:00:848 (3) - 01:01:722 (3) - fix overlap? made on purpose

01:10:095 (2,3,2) - no claps on these fix

01:18:251 (2,3) - 01:18:833 (2,3) - 01:23:493 (2,3) - 01:26:989 (2,3) - ^ you could try other hitsounds instead i dont feerl like using otehr hitsounds

01:29:756 (2) - 01:30:192 (2) - 01:30:629 (2) - 01:31:066 (2) - overmap fix

01:32:086 (2) - this part same as above fix

unsnapped stuff:
00:45:339 - Slider start
00:45:485 - Slider end
00:54:836 - Slider end fix
01:39:137 - Slider end

1. 00:11:678 (1,2,3) - just wondering, why did you not do a 2/4 note combo here? The song in general is 3/2 if you focus on the heavy synths, and you only NC after it once here, whereas you did it as in a 1/2 rhythm for the priors
2. 00:16:215 (2,4) - Wouldnt you agree that these 2 should be more intense than 00:16:069 (1,3) - ? However, 00:16:215 (2,3) - where you go from intense to less intense has higher spacing. Consider ctrl+g on 00:16:215 (2,3) - and if you want the lower ds on the less intense notes, ctrl+g on the new 00:16:361 (3,4) - as well
3. 01:40:605 (3,4,5) - Consider mapping these drums more intense than the notes after, as the drums are more intense and it would feel weird to have a sudden break on your aim when you could instad make a nice wiggle stream/backandforth.

1. 00:25:142 (6,7) - this is really nazi, but it would make for nice aesthetics if you used a ctrl+h'd 00:24:849 (4,5) - on this one. Also, from my playtesting experience, this feels way more intense on the aim somehow, than for example the earleir patterns, no idea why. maybe make the pattern itself more squareish or something
2. 00:30:996 (3,4) - again, this is only backed by my scrubby playtesting and im a tad bit rusty, but this pattern would be a bit more comfortable if you reduced the angle on 00:30:703 (1,2,3) - , which you could easily accomplish by just moving 00:30:996 (3,4) - a bit up + right - your call in the end
3. 00:42:118 (2) - im gonna assume you messed up your SV here?
4. 01:29:683 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - maybe add a clap on all of these, the hitsounding feels so empty all of the sudden
5. 01:57:644 (1) - yes, i am going to nazi that this isnt perfectly in the middle of 01:55:314 (1,1,1,1) -

1. 00:16:654 (3) - is that repeat ending 2 repeats to early intentional?
2. 00:25:435 (1,2) - consider switching NC here, to better indicate the break (since you do itthe first time and all blablabla)
3. 00:26:898 - maybe make that atleast passive by turning 00:26:752 (2) - into a 1/2 slider to fill the emptyness here, also apply on the one after if you change it
4. 00:42:118 (2) - could it be you straight up missheard these 1/4 as 1/3? because i doubt youd mess up SV 2 times in a row :3 - NVM, straightup isnt snapped at all, so ill still assume you did SV stuff
5. 01:02:595 (4) - highly recommend NCing this one, its really easy to missread that
6. 01:11:916 (4) - similar here

1. 00:18:410 (1,2,3) - sorry to blanketnazi these, but you should fix these, especially 00:18:410 (1,2) -

1. All fine to me.

1. 01:33:760 (3,1) - you know what im gonna say... (blanket)

Akenoi wrote:

Gravity

01:40:459 (2,3,4,5) - 2 może przesunąć bliżej środka, a na 3 4 5 dać większy space minimalnie przesunalem 2

00:09:922 (8) - nowe combo ?

00:14:605 (6) - tu też ok pasuje

01:20:071 (1,2,3,4) - minimalnie większy space to stack xd pasuje mi, wyglada ok a minimalnie wiekszy spacing nic nie zmienia i tak sie trzeba zatrzymac as intended

Infinite

00:25:142 (6,7) - obrócić o -21 stopni nic nie zmienia, jest ok

01:08:129 (7) - nowe combo skoro tu 01:08:129 (7) - to czemu nie tu 01:06:964 (7) - ?

Tyle. Pozdrawiam

1. 00:51:191 (3,1) - The gap between these two sliders imo looks amateur and the diff is definietely not amateur lol. Customize a bit 00:51:191 (3) to make their borders parallel, just like you did in previous exceptions. I mean, look at the picture
   
2. 01:07:547 (2,3) - I reccomend you to avoid that kind of overlapps, especially in this diff. Plz change it somehow
3. 01:14:537 (4) - Nice but it could be perfect! Look
   
   It's really really minor though you could manipulate these slider ticks to make it perfectly, mildly curved
4. 01:25:023 (1,3) - Make them symetrical and turned in the same time (tell me if you know what i mean). Imo it will look better
5. 01:31:430 (3,2) - Overlapp again! Oh please, it messes the whole beautiful diff
6. 01:34:343 (1) - You could little touch this slider too, I mean the second curve, to make it perfectly circling

1. 00:06:703 (2,1,2) - Mógłbyś doprawić ten trójkąt perfekcją, odległość między 00:06:703 (2) a 00:09:044 (2) jest o 0,03 setne za mała. W takich sytuacjach polecam pobawić się bez siatki
2. 00:23:971 (3,4) - Wg mnie nijak ma się ten pattern w porównaniu z całą resztą. Sugeruję np. wyrównać 00:23:971 (3) do wcześniejszej prostej poprzedniego slidera, tak jak tu:
   
3. 00:41:825 (4) - Wiem wiem, dobrze wyrobione, długie slidery są pro elo, ale ten ostry kąt pod koniec trwania tego jednego wg mnie nie wygląda dobrze. Choć to bardziej personalne, może pokuś się na inne zakończenie.
4. 00:44:459 (4,5,1) - Trójkąt aż się prosi do dopracowania, przesuń 00:45:337 (1) na x:130 y:194
5. 00:46:508 (4,1,4) - Znów trójkąt by się przydało poprawić
6. 00:50:020 (1,3) - Nareszcie mogę to napisać w miarę zrozumiale: te dwa slidery są wygięte w jednakowy sposób, może Ctrl + J 00:50:020 (1) , wg mnie wtedy i przepływ jest lepszy
7. 01:07:547 (4) - S-kształtny slider to bardzo dobry pomysł, jednak z reguły używa się do nich czerwonych slider-ticków. Wbij jeden na środek, dostosuj resztę i będzie lepszy, uwierz
8. 01:22:110 (5,6,7,8) - Jak dla mnie, na ten poziom to trochę za ciężkie. Choć to moja może i subiektywna opinia, polecam zmienić
9. 01:45:993 (1) - Tutaj też slider upiększyć poproszę

• 
  Tutaj z kolei sporo overlappów zauważyłem i choć większość z nich jest prawdopodobnie zrobiona umyślnie (i wygląda dobrze) to znajdą się i takie, które moim zdaniem lepiej wyeliminować

1. 00:19:288 (4,1) - Brzydki, niepotrzebny overlapp (00:24:849 (4,5,1,2,3,4) - Tu masz przykład świetnego wybrnięcia z overlappu, podoba mi się)
2. 00:27:776 (1) - To samo co w poprzednim poziomie trudności, pora na slidera i tutaj
3. 00:34:215 (2,1) - Skopiowałeś ten drugi i ustawiłeś, żeby był idealnie symetrycznie, choć całość obrócona? Jeśli nie, to wiesz co robić
4. 00:35:971 (1,2,1) - Może pokusiłbyś się na trójkąt..?
5. 00:46:508 (1,2) - Tak jak ^^
6. 00:54:118 (2,3) - Overlapp całkiem zbyteczny ponownie
7. 01:16:576 (3) - Wg mnie bardziej pasują tutaj dwie pojedyncze kółka, niż slider - wyraźnie słyszalny akcent na końcu slidera, rozumiesz - 01:43:663 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - tu masz idealny przykład doskonałości melodycznej
8. 01:48:323 (1,2) - Troszkę nijakie, polecam zmienić lub po prostu troszkę zmodyfikować, nawet jak w tym przykładzie:
   
9. 01:52:984 (1,2,3,4,1) - Wg mnie tu zbyt przypadkowe ułożenie jest, fajnie gdybyś zrobił z tego jakiś większy wielokąt

1. 00:15:337 (3,4,1) - Oczywiście wszędzie się trójkątów doszukam... jeśli jeszcze nie masz dość, to można by poprawić
2. 00:36:264 (3) , 00:36:849 (3) - Wyraźnie słyszalny beat, dobrze by było gdybyś dodał tam pojedyncze nuty. Np. jakiś duży fajny jump/trzeci stack.
3. 00:38:752 (2,1) - Tutaj też overlapp, którego można by uniknąć
4. 00:41:825 (1) - Przesadzony slider, polecam zmienić lub po prostu zmniejszyć jego rażącą ostrość
5. 01:19:197 (1,4) - Niezbyt to wygląda, znów overlapp, może po prostu zestackuj, overlappów też nie ma sensu wszędzie stosować
6. 01:20:945 (9,1) - Podwójny koszyczek tu mógłby się sprawdzić! Polecam dopracować blankety albo obrócić 01:21:527 (1) żeby wyglądał jak taki daszek nad poprzednim sliderem, ale z tym chyba więcej roboty
7. 01:44:391 (7,7) - Ten tyci overlapp jest zupełnie niepotrzebny, dżizas, jak ja się powtarzam
8. 01:52:256 (2,3,4,5) - Piękny romb poproszę, naprawdę, nic nie zaszkodzi, a tylko wzbogaci w jakość

1. 00:51:191 (3,1) - The gap between these two sliders imo looks amateur and the diff is definietely not amateur lol. Customize a bit 00:51:191 (3) to make their borders parallel, just like you did in previous exceptions. I mean, look at the picture
   
   doesn't look that bad and technically ok
2. 01:07:547 (2,3) - I reccomend you to avoid that kind of overlapps, especially in this diff. Plz change it somehow k
3. 01:14:537 (4) - Nice but it could be perfect! Look
   
   It's really really minor though you could manipulate these slider ticks to make it perfectly, mildly curved whatever made it a bit better I think
4. 01:25:023 (1,3) - Make them symetrical and turned in the same time (tell me if you know what i mean). Imo it will look better too much hassle, barely noticeable during gameplay
5. 01:34:343 (1) - You could little touch this slider too, I mean the second curve, to make it perfectly circling improved second curve

1. 00:06:703 (2,1,2) - Mógłbyś doprawić ten trójkąt perfekcją, odległość między 00:06:703 (2) a 00:09:044 (2) jest o 0,03 setne za mała. W takich sytuacjach polecam pobawić się bez siatki nigdy nie uzywam siatki, jest good enough w czasie gry
2. 00:23:971 (3,4) - Wg mnie nijak ma się ten pattern w porównaniu z całą resztą. Sugeruję np. wyrównać 00:23:971 (3) do wcześniejszej prostej poprzedniego slidera, tak jak tu:
   
   jest wyrównany do drugiej prostej tego slidera
3. 00:41:825 (4) - Wiem wiem, dobrze wyrobione, długie slidery są pro elo, ale ten ostry kąt pod koniec trwania tego jednego wg mnie nie wygląda dobrze. Choć to bardziej personalne, może pokuś się na inne zakończenie. good enough
4. 00:44:459 (4,5,1) - Trójkąt aż się prosi do dopracowania, przesuń 00:45:337 (1) na x:130 y:194 k
5. 00:46:508 (4,1,4) - Znów trójkąt by się przydało poprawić daleko od siebie
6. 00:50:020 (1,3) - Nareszcie mogę to napisać w miarę zrozumiale: te dwa slidery są wygięte w jednakowy sposób, może Ctrl + J 00:50:020 (1) , wg mnie wtedy i przepływ jest lepszy k
7. 01:07:547 (4) - S-kształtny slider to bardzo dobry pomysł, jednak z reguły używa się do nich czerwonych slider-ticków. Wbij jeden na środek, dostosuj resztę i będzie lepszy, uwierz zmienilem ale uzywa sie po prostu dwoch nie czterach
8. 01:22:110 (5,6,7,8) - Jak dla mnie, na ten poziom to trochę za ciężkie. Choć to moja może i subiektywna opinia, polecam zmienić no juz bylo wspomniane zmieniam
9. 01:45:993 (1) - Tutaj też slider upiększyć poproszę

• 
  Tutaj z kolei sporo overlappów zauważyłem i choć większość z nich jest prawdopodobnie zrobiona umyślnie (i wygląda dobrze) to znajdą się i takie, które moim zdaniem lepiej wyeliminować

1. 00:19:288 (4,1) - Brzydki, niepotrzebny overlapp (00:24:849 (4,5,1,2,3,4) - Tu masz przykład świetnego wybrnięcia z overlappu, podoba mi się) k
2. 00:27:776 (1) - To samo co w poprzednim poziomie trudności, pora na slidera i tutaj jest ok
3. 00:34:215 (2,1) - Skopiowałeś ten drugi i ustawiłeś, żeby był idealnie symetrycznie, choć całość obrócona? Jeśli nie, to wiesz co robić w sumie to nie wiem
4. 00:35:971 (1,2,1) - Może pokusiłbyś się na trójkąt..?
5. 00:46:508 (1,2) - Tak jak ^^
6. 00:54:118 (2,3) - Overlapp całkiem zbyteczny ponownie
7. 01:16:576 (3) - Wg mnie bardziej pasują tutaj dwie pojedyncze kółka, niż slider - wyraźnie słyszalny akcent na końcu slidera, rozumiesz - 01:43:663 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - tu masz idealny przykład doskonałości melodycznej k
8. 01:48:323 (1,2) - Troszkę nijakie, polecam zmienić lub po prostu troszkę zmodyfikować, nawet jak w tym przykładzie:
   
9. 01:52:984 (1,2,3,4,1) - Wg mnie tu zbyt przypadkowe ułożenie jest, fajnie gdybyś zrobił z tego jakiś większy wielokąt

1. 00:15:337 (3,4,1) - Oczywiście wszędzie się trójkątów doszukam... jeśli jeszcze nie masz dość, to można by poprawić jest ok
2. 00:36:264 (3) , 00:36:849 (3) - Wyraźnie słyszalny beat, dobrze by było gdybyś dodał tam pojedyncze nuty. Np. jakiś duży fajny jump/trzeci stack. celowe[/color]
3. 00:38:752 (2,1) - Tutaj też overlapp, którego można by uniknąć
4. 00:41:825 (1) - Przesadzony slider, polecam zmienić lub po prostu zmniejszyć jego rażącą ostrość
5. 01:19:197 (1,4) - Niezbyt to wygląda, znów overlapp, może po prostu zestackuj, overlappów też nie ma sensu wszędzie stosować
6. 01:20:945 (9,1) - Podwójny koszyczek tu mógłby się sprawdzić! Polecam dopracować blankety albo obrócić 01:21:527 (1) żeby wyglądał jak taki daszek nad poprzednim sliderem, ale z tym chyba więcej roboty ok
7. 01:44:391 (7,7) - Ten tyci overlapp jest zupełnie niepotrzebny, dżizas, jak ja się powtarzam i dosc niewidoczny w czasie gry
8. 01:52:256 (2,3,4,5) - Piękny romb poproszę, naprawdę, nic nie zaszkodzi, a tylko wzbogaci w jakość