Lasse wrote:

nice diff name
my main concern is how you handle a lot of the 1/6, things like 00:05:476 (2,1,2,3) - starting the 1/6 on that tick instead of 00:05:673 - is very ?? the thing about 1/6 is that you get 4 distinct sounds, but you made it simply a faster triple instead of 4 clicks, whereas something like https://i.imgur.com/1sKKaGh.jpg feels much more reflective of the song
(and imo it's also way nicer to play starting from a 1/2 tick)
this applies to a lot of other instances, like 00:55:885 - 01:08:438 - 01:17:461 - etc. (basically all spots where you have 1/6 triples)

At first I wa a bit hesistant to actually change this, but after testing myself and getting some feedback, this way the 1/6 becomes much clearer and plays really like 1/6 instead of just fast 1/4, so I'll change it

you could argue that in there they are similar to 1/4 blue tick doubles (01:23:934 (3,4,5) - etc) but they play out so differently here imo

00:16:755 (4,5) - putting this below (2) would actually look so much cuter https://i.imgur.com/ZLtV4Jq.jpg done for ultimate cuteness
00:29:210 (4,5,6,7) - https://i.imgur.com/iVTVWS7.jpg is actually way nicer to play rhythmtically done
00:51:374 (5) - would make so much sense to nc these NC'ed
01:19:815 (9,10,1) - since melody picks up again here it you could have this different from before or even https://i.imgur.com/Nyhph4c.jpg
01:32:368 (9,10) - ^
01:20:991 (4,5) - triple would be nice here done
01:26:581 - melody is picking up on blue tick so ^ that kind of weird boop sound there feels really out of place, mapping it wouldn't work well with the main melody
01:30:079 (1,2) - this 1/6 feels way less supported by the song (melody) than your others since only that alst 1/6 tick is supported I guess I can put a slider to it and hope people don't get too triggered by the 1/6 and not 1/4
01:34:721 - offbeat melody think https://i.imgur.com/9yOpYOH.jpg would be nice done

like the diff overall, but the mentioned 1/6 stuff seemed a bit tilting to me

novice
00:51:766 (1) - would space or remove nc this looks a bit gross, actually https://i.imgur.com/HPI7CKE.jpg would be even better I think did like you proposed
01:56:101 (1) - ^ spaced out


basic
01:15:303 (3,4,5,1) - could be misleading movement/visual spacing wise. 90° angles or https://i.imgur.com/gvVTO9K.jpg work better
01:20:011 (1,2,3) - similar
your other triangles are more clear due to movement into them, but these can really throw of beginners fixed both

can qualify if you're willing to change the 1/6 things or bring out some convincing reasoning to keep them as triples
though I think actually mapping 1/6 quads would be more intuitive to play and reflect the song better

Dailycare wrote:

01:17:461 (1,2,3,4) - Why did you use 1/6 here? I think a sound is at 01:17:608 - Don't know why this is as 4 1/6 notes, it's indeed wrong, fixed by making the same as 01:29:818 (2) -
01:29:818 (2) - Same The sound here does end on the 1/6 tick, not the 1/8 tick

transcendental wrote:

hey babe is this intentional 00:55:885 (1,2,3,4) - (view without stacking)

Naotoshi wrote:

redl , there is only bg 1 and bg2 for me, not 3