I think silencing normal-sliderslide seems like a nice idea considering most sounds you mapped sliders to don't really work well with the normal slide
if not: 03:32:023 - should probably be N:C2 like 03:47:709 - ?
why is the break snapped so weirdly
x
00:29:671 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - really bothered me on my sightread testplay, even at this ar. you could just make it overlap at least a bit less with the stream before
00:49:278 (1) - felt like it could use more emphasis with how strong it is and movement into it (start of slider) is kinda uncomfortable, how about trying something like
http://i.imgur.com/L2bp5tE.jpg00:55:160 (3) - why no 3/4 slider? fits the guitar thing so well
01:01:435 (8,9) - first is a held sound, second has really loud drums on both ticks, to having them mapped differently would be great
01:07:219 - with what the triples here are mapped to, skipping this seems so wrong lol
01:07:807 - this thing 01:07:513 (2,3,4,5,6) - is like continuous drums, but you do this? how about at least making 01:07:709 (4) - into a 1/4 slider if you want to keep the current clicking and spacing? though I think a full stream would work better
01:18:690 (3) - did you forget to nc this? would make sense with 01:17:513 (1,1) - // 02:21:435 (3,4) - too then
01:45:258 (2,1,2,3,4) - a) 01:45:258 (2,1) - this spacing for active 1/4 here is stupid looking at how you spaced this part overall
b)01:45:356 (1,2,3,4) - is som ephasized in the song, spacing similar to 01:32:807 (1,2,3,4) - and/or maybe a pattern that requires a bit more snapping would be nice
02:13:788 (4,5,1) - why is this like the only spot you don't stack these for this part
02:21:827 (1,2,3,4) - you used way more spacing the first time this happened and that made more sense to me
02:33:200 (3) - movement into this is pretty akwward to play with how it cuts so hard into the rather circular thing from before
http://i.imgur.com/D3tYmSY.jpg at least that is how most people will probably play that (at least how I did lol)
03:00:258 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - idea is nice, but it felt like you didn't fully pull it off, with how you seperate them pattern/combo wise, why not even go for something like
http://i.imgur.com/aV1n57C.jpg so it actually feels outstanding
03:32:023 (1) - stupid without sliderends
http://i.imgur.com/NTPy61Y.jpg, but since that doesn't have to be considered for rankability and it worked okay for me on sightread I'm fine with it personally
04:10:356 (2,4) - spacing seems a bit too much already, even with slider leniency, why not something like
http://i.imgur.com/Ckd8I5w.jpg to reduce it a little
04:25:749 (1) - think this would work better if you manually did some stacking things, so it actually appears under 04:25:356 (3) - instead of under the slidertail
insane
fix ur shit
http://i.imgur.com/1XTngzk.jpgsome rhythm(combo things from x might apply here too
00:51:239 (2,3,4,5) - since it's such low bpm and kinda slow here I'd expect people to not make much use of leniency on the slider before, so curving this stream a bit would make it feel way nicer
http://i.imgur.com/ypN8hk3.jpg02:04:572 (1) - even it leads into a slowdown, the note is still pretty emphasized and all so spacing it more like 02:03:004 (1,2) - (or at least not overlapping) fits better
02:15:455 (4,1) - why the random manual thing?
02:16:729 (3,1) - kinda easy to mistake for different rhythm/less repeats with how 1 is spaced/placed and how you didn't really utilitize 2xrepeats so far. could try something more like
http://i.imgur.com/OTp6Oya.jpg04:10:356 (2,3,4,1) - can you be consistent with how you space the overlaps in the same pattern? would look much better
04:23:003 (5) - small spacing increase to fit increasing pitch?
hard
01:07:709 (6,7) - multiple 1/4 sliders seem a bit much for this part, why not
http://i.imgur.com/X0akv2r.jpg ?
n
02:50:062 (1) - could reduce the self-overlap a bit for clearer path/readability
e
01:12:807 (1) - why the nc?
01:36:337 (1) - seems a bit edgy for eady I think, reduce or even removing the self-overlap would be great // 02:35:945 (1) -- 03:26:141 (1) - 04:06:925 (1,2) -
something like 01:26:925 (1) - or 02:07:709 (1) - works at least a little better I think
nice, though getting like two or so more mods to have some more input before I recheck this wouldn't hurt