Ayy, couldn't do the whole set in one sitting bc I still gotta rest my hands, but here is the first almost-half \:D/
General
General
- Just so nobody else complains in the future, this does not break the using-80%-of-the-mp3-rule as breaks are ofc counted as used mp3 (and I did the math for the rest )
- Check AiMod bc there are some timing- and tags-conflicts
- The gap between Normal and Hard is way too big for me, to make it more even I would have to suggest Leader to get rid of all the jumps and also the extremely tricky 1/2-back-and-forths, but that would probably ruin the diff as a whole so I'm recommending to get another diff in-between there :/
- 01:15:255 (1,2) - switching NCs here would be more fitting since the notes on (1) are still part of that previous melody-line, and the notes at the downbeat (tail of (1)) are so low that they are barely recognizable whereas those at the head of (2) seem really strong
- 01:45:098 - I lack differentiation to other sections here, this section is 100% equal to the one at 00:33:161 in terms of spacing, SV and note-density even though it is clearly far less intense.. I strongly recommend either simplifying rhythm more (this is an Easy after all) or using lower SV, I don't understand why people don't do that in lower diffs anyways, a change of -x0,1 will not throw off players at all while still making a notable difference in how the section feels
- 02:06:145 (1) - The sound that this spinner is mapped to ends pretty accurately one 1/8 earlier at 02:09:876 so I recommend shortening the spinner to there
Also, why did you make the volume-changes differently than all other diffs? To me it seems like a very steady increase in the song, so I find it much more fitting in the other diffs - 02:18:082 (2,3) - Are you not stacking here on purpose? Looks rather odd for this diff, it doesn't have to be that way ^^
- 02:19:653 (5,2) - Forcing symmetry is not a good thing when it suddenly makes you overlap things that you didn't do previously, but I mean you could just make 02:14:941 (1,2,3) go more vertical instead of horizontal in order to be able to make it like this
- 02:23:737 (3,4) - This looks extremely uneven visually, in cases like this you can always just space it out some more bc nobody cares about sticking to DS 100%, but it plays rather weird too so I'd just suggest placing it in a 90°-angle (and move (3) more up so you don't run out of space for the upcoming (1))
- 00:32:218 (1,2,3,1) - I kinda dislike how (1,2,3) flows directly into the next slider bc it loses the differentiation between the quiet build-up and the intense following section, why not just make them go up in a straight line parallel to 00:31:590 (3) -? (this would fit the DS perfectly, almost seems like you did that originally and changed it for some reason? o:)
This would also make me suggest to swap 02:11:485 (1,2,3) horizontally for the same reason - 00:42:428 (4,5) - ofc just my opinion but imo this makes (5) stick out a lot even though it's the same sort of beat as the tail of (4), and it also plays a bit unintuitive as the switch to this 'minor' rhythm-layer is not really expected, making (4) reverse once would make it better in both of these aspects for me
Similar to that, the switch to this rhythm-layer is just as unexpected at 00:52:637 (4,5) and I feel like making that one 3/2-slider would represent the swoosh-sound better and also build a better contrast to the following section which has a lot of gaps as opposed to the previous section which had rather few gaps
Both obviously repeat later on
- 01:45:098 - I lack differentiation to other sections here, this section is 100% equal to the one at 00:33:161 in terms of spacing, SV and note-density even though it is clearly far less intense.. I strongly recommend either simplifying rhythm or using lower SV, I don't understand why people don't do that in lower diffs anyways, a change of -x0,1 will not throw off players at all while still making a notable difference in how the section feels
- 02:06:145 (1) - The sound that this spinner is mapped to ends pretty accurately one 1/8 earlier at 02:09:876 so I recommend shortening the spinner to there
- 02:50:752 (1,2,3,4,5) - The Claps seem inappropriate here, there are no more kicks in the song which is represented well by the gap between 02:49:810 (6,1) but starting the Claps again ruins that feeling for me
- 02:52:323 (5) - This being a reverse-1/2-slider doesn't seem ideal to me bc it's always being used for representing the melody notes, like at 02:51:381 (3) -, so using the exact same thing here but for a different purpose doesn't really work for me - My suggestion would be to simply make it a 1/1-slider, iirc you've never used a slider ending on a major downbeat anywhere else so that would make for a real special effect and represent the shortly increasing strong sounds here better than the 1/2-reverse
- I have a big issue about spread here as the jump from Normal to this diff is way too big
- Do me a favor and check your hitsounding again, there are quite a few Claps either missing or at least once misplaced by one 1/4, I don't wanna list all of them
- Also enable View / Stacking in the editor and manually adjust stacks below slidertails by 3x3 pixels, since all other 1/1-sacks are autostacked too but slidertails behave differently for some reason (example: 01:03:317 (1,2) -)
- 01:22:244 (1,1) - This is not enough recovery-time for a Hard, and the swoosh-sound ends at 01:23:108 anyways so I strongly recommend shortening the spinner
- 00:35:359 (5,6) - Beware of autostacking making this spacing way smaller than all others, also causing the followpoints to not appear on default-skin
also at 00:54:835 (2,3) - - 00:55:778 (1,3,5,7) - (1) is not properly stack with the rest (also, in case there won't be an Advanced added, this seems way too hard to read and play, but let's wait and see)
- 00:57:978 (4,1) - aesthetics yey, but this being less spaced than all the previous objects feels really inappropriate since (1) is a major downbeat that you even supported with a Finish, so I highly recommend emphasizing it more by placement too
- 00:58:919 (4) - Why don't you use the same rhythm as at 01:00:176 (3,4) here? Feels randomly undermapped / 'empty'
- 01:12:113 (1,2,3) - (again in case of no Advanced, I'd recommend spacing the heads at least so much apart that the combo-number is slightly visible, might be very confusing otherwise)
- 01:13:369 (1,2,3,4) - iirc you didn't use fully clickable triplets anywhere else, and the previous object is a circle too which makes this harder to click than the rest by quite a lot; also it's overmapped anyways whereas you generally undermapped a lot in this section so I don't see much sense in that
- 01:21:223 (2,3,4,5) - 1. differentiaion between (2) and (3) is ded and 2. making (5) an offbeat-slider but then hitsounding its tail is basically contradicting itself, so I'm just suggesting this
- 01:47:924 (3,4) - Why do you put the jump to (4)? I don't see how that's special in any way and would understand a jump to (3) much more bc of natural beat priority and bc it's the highest note, so basically I'm suggesting smth like this
- 01:56:092 - Why jump from x0,5 to x1,0 here all of a sudden? The notes are barely getting any more intense, it's just a continuous increase of intensity from here until the spinner, so increasing SV smoothly until there would make much more sense
- 02:21:851 (3,4) - Here I'd actually recommend replacing it with a 1/1-slider since the tail of (3) is overmapped and it doesn't represent the intensity of the song at all like this
- 02:22:479 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,1,2) - I'd recommend removing all of the few Claps here since there are less of them mapped than ignored, feels really weird when suddenly there are suddenly three Claps in a row after they have been left out for just as long and then they are being left out again
- 02:52:008 (3,4,1) - autostack makes (3,4) not be vertical xd Also, why isn't it spaced more like the previous three objects?
- 02:51:380 (1,2,3,4,1) - I feel like (1,2) don't fit the rest of the map aesthetically at all tbh, additionally with the sudden symmetry it seems like the last combo is from an entirely different map than the rest
- 00:28:135 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I suggest slowly increasing the spacing of these objects, the song's intensity is significantly increasing and at first it seemed like your map is doing that too as you started using more circled than sliders, but then it went back to even reverse-sliders so that felt weird to me
- 00:33:475 (4,7) - autostacking at its finest lol (makes 00:33:318 (2,3,4) uneven)
- 00:36:459 (6,7,8) and 00:38:972 (6,7,8) - Why are only those two stacked? It would make sense to me if you spaced all of the 1/4s out in this section, and then (as you already did) only stack in the next section in order to differentiate between sections, but those two stacks break that concept
I actually recommend doing that for 02:12:428 too, especially the very first triplet there being stacked feels really underwhelming, after a very quiet build-up the music suddenly goes berserk, but the player barely moves at all, that feels off
And if you don't wanna use that concept, then I'd like to suggest not stacking the 5-note-streams as this is the first diff that uses more than 1/4-doublets, so I feel like the streams could be made easier to smoothen the spread in this aspect - 00:41:957 (1,2) - This looks extremely uneven visually, nobody cares about the exact DS here so I recommend simply moving (2) a bit more upwards to make the spacing between the sliderbodies
Also, differentiation between 00:41:957 (1,2,3,4) would be nice as (1,2) are mapped to melody-notes but (3,4) are just filler-notes, but currently (4) actually gets the most emphasis here so that seems wrong
Maybe also more emphasis for 00:43:213 (1) - 01:07:088 (1,2,3,4) - This seems really uneven visually too, (1,2) are so far apart but (2,4) so close, I'd suggest smth like this
- 01:13:370 (1) - 01:18:396 (1) - I can see why you decreased spacing in this section, but I'd still emphasize these two notes more as they've got Finishes and all that stuff, feems really underwhelming to play
Actually I don't really see why the spacing of the 1/2-circle-triplets increases, 01:15:883 (1,2) are way deeper and less present in the song than the others, and at 01:20:910 (1,2,3,4,5) the kicks in the music stop completely so increasing intensity there seems weird too - 01:46:040 - Finally someone who undermaps this section accordingly to its intensity, thank you <3
- 01:49:810 (3,1) - Again the visual thing, imo spacing it like this would be completely justified and look much better
also why is 01:54:836 (3,1) spaced so low, like the upcoming 1/2s? - 02:06:145 (1) - This sound actually ends one 1/8 earlier
- 02:09:993 (1) - Suggesting to silence the spinner-end bc there's no active beat there in the song, just a passive ending
- 02:13:684 (1,2,3,4) - This plays really underwhelming considering slider-leniency, the player is basically just moving from head to head which is not very much compared to the rest of the section
- 02:24:365 (3,4,5) and 02:29:391 (3,4,5) - Feels weird to play too since it never occurred anywhere else in the map, would suggest to map those with a few triplets for variety instead, like you did at 00:43:213 -
- 02:49:182 (2,3) - tbh I'm not a big fan of suddenly stacking 1/2s under slidertail, can't recall any other place where you did that and it might be confusing after those were always 1/4-stacks in the previous section; It doesn't give (3) the emphasis it deserves anyways imo