[General]
HP+1?
[Irregular]
00:03:708 (1,2) - I think making 2 move the same direction as 1 would fit better since both sounds are the same. https://i.imgur.com/dKcvaO7.png
00:19:053 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - How about shaping these to fit more with the triples at 00:13:536 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ? esp. since movement in the first set of triples is rly sharp
00:33:363 (1,2,3,4) - Maybe increase spacing gradually? the snares go up in pitch and from playing they feel like they have the same distance
00:45:260 (1) - CtrlG? imo the shorter DS would add nice contrast to the slider from 00:44:915 (2,1) -
01:06:467 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Don't the synths gradually lower in pitch here?
I think the fact 01:26:467 (1,1) - are rly close to 01:27:156 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - make the pattern feel much weaker than 01:25:432 (1,2,1,2,1) - when playing, I'd move them slightly to the left? https://i.imgur.com/cquogC1.jpg
01:29:225 (1) - Maybe stack its tail on 01:29:915 (1) - 's tail to give the drop more initial emphasis?
01:33:622 (2,3) - DS could be confusing here, most people would probably see it as 1/4 apart which they're not
01:36:294 (1,2) - Space these apart a bit more to fit the same intensity as the other patterns?
02:23:881 (1,2) - This is a lot easier compared to other instances of the pattern, consider increasing?
03:25:950 (2) - 03:27:329 (2) - CtrlG to fit with previous instance?
03:38:536 (1,2,1) - I feel like you should map this section to the snare like at 03:33:018 (1) -, because of how fast the sliders are and how much you have to click them, 03:38:881 (1) - feels very weak as a result.
03:56:122 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - 04:07:156 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1) - Despite it being the strongest part of the song I still think the spacing on these can be very confusing, a lot of the time I saw it as triples or quads and not a full stream, you don't have to reduce it but I would either NC or change the spacing to make it more clear it's a stream.
04:35:347 (4,1) - Maybe space 1 out a bit more for emphasis?
04:59:743 (2) - It feels like this shape doesn't feel as...jagged as all the other instances of this pattern, like at 01:52:156 (2) -
05:03:018 (1,2,3) - Maybe change this into a stream? This feels pretty much the same as 05:01:639 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - because of how you have to click the same way.
HP+1?
[Irregular]
00:03:708 (1,2) - I think making 2 move the same direction as 1 would fit better since both sounds are the same. https://i.imgur.com/dKcvaO7.png
00:19:053 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - How about shaping these to fit more with the triples at 00:13:536 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ? esp. since movement in the first set of triples is rly sharp
00:33:363 (1,2,3,4) - Maybe increase spacing gradually? the snares go up in pitch and from playing they feel like they have the same distance
00:45:260 (1) - CtrlG? imo the shorter DS would add nice contrast to the slider from 00:44:915 (2,1) -
01:06:467 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Don't the synths gradually lower in pitch here?
I think the fact 01:26:467 (1,1) - are rly close to 01:27:156 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - make the pattern feel much weaker than 01:25:432 (1,2,1,2,1) - when playing, I'd move them slightly to the left? https://i.imgur.com/cquogC1.jpg
01:29:225 (1) - Maybe stack its tail on 01:29:915 (1) - 's tail to give the drop more initial emphasis?
01:33:622 (2,3) - DS could be confusing here, most people would probably see it as 1/4 apart which they're not
01:36:294 (1,2) - Space these apart a bit more to fit the same intensity as the other patterns?
02:23:881 (1,2) - This is a lot easier compared to other instances of the pattern, consider increasing?
03:25:950 (2) - 03:27:329 (2) - CtrlG to fit with previous instance?
03:38:536 (1,2,1) - I feel like you should map this section to the snare like at 03:33:018 (1) -, because of how fast the sliders are and how much you have to click them, 03:38:881 (1) - feels very weak as a result.
03:56:122 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - 04:07:156 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1) - Despite it being the strongest part of the song I still think the spacing on these can be very confusing, a lot of the time I saw it as triples or quads and not a full stream, you don't have to reduce it but I would either NC or change the spacing to make it more clear it's a stream.
04:35:347 (4,1) - Maybe space 1 out a bit more for emphasis?
04:59:743 (2) - It feels like this shape doesn't feel as...jagged as all the other instances of this pattern, like at 01:52:156 (2) -
05:03:018 (1,2,3) - Maybe change this into a stream? This feels pretty much the same as 05:01:639 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - because of how you have to click the same way.