This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on 22 февраля 2018 г. at 20:32:18

Artist: Florence + The Machine
Title: Cosmic Love (Seven Lions Remix)
Tags: La Cataline lc Mirash collab collaboration chillout dubstep
BPM: 140
Filesize: 9933kb
Play Time: 04:30
Difficulties Available:

1. Collab Hard (2,98 stars, 429 notes)
2. Insane (3,81 stars, 569 notes)
3. LC's Insane (3,9 stars, 561 notes)
4. Normal (1,71 stars, 266 notes)

Download: Florence + The Machine - Cosmic Love (Seven Lions Remix)
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------
LC's Insane, hitsounds and storyboard - by La Cataline

Insane and Normal - by me
Collab Hard - with Mirash (he was first again)

hello!

[General]

1. normal-sliderwhistle2.wav is unused so there's no point in having it in the directory. So delete it?

[LC's Insane]

1. 00:27:428 (1,2,3,4,5) - this lacks pretty all kind of emphasis so far. If you were mappin to this sound on background then 00:27:642 (2,3) - should be unstacked. If mapped according to snares and kicks 00:28:285 (5) - should be spaced more.
2. Compare 00:32:785 - with 00:32:999 - . Stack gives less feedback from this prominent sound, so consider unstack them.
3. 00:35:999 (1) - only one slider with prominent sound on sliderend, kinda inconsistent and also doesn't give much feedback.
4. 00:41:142 (1,2) - what's the point having them curved as old beziere sliders? Do you really think this is some kind of "gimmick", new editor has decent two anchor algorithm which allows you to make neat slider easily. Weird thing to me.
5. This slider is 00:41:142 (1) - snapped on this "steamy" continious sound and it's fine as to me but how about this one 00:41:999 (2) - ? 00:42:642 - I can clearly hear an undermapped sound if you placed this slider according to this.
6. 00:53:142 (5) - honestly, this sounds pretty strange, 00:53:356 - sound has huge impact here and having it mapped as sliderend makes little sense.
7. Well, I don't really understand your rhythm choices. For instance, 00:55:499 (3) - is mapped according to these background sounds (00:58:071 (1) - this as well) but at the same time this 00:58:928 (3,4) - is mapped according to snares, and again 01:03:642 (6,7) - . It would be nice if it wasn't introduced only twice per section. Consider changing some pattern for variety.
8. 01:31:071 (2,3) - makes little sense to me, 01:31:285 - isn't that prominent to emphasis it. And vice-versa here 01:32:356 (6,1) - , this sound 01:32:571 - is quitre strong to have it with lacking emphasis.
9. 01:32:999 (2) - I can defenitely hear 1/4 there, why did you decide to undermap it suddenly? The same 01:34:713 (6) - is sorta shame you changed your rhythm according on nothing.
10. 01:33:856 (3,4) - spacing gone too insane here, this sound is sorta inaudible 01:34:071 - so it makes zero sense at all having this huge spacing.
11. 01:38:142 (6,7) - bigger spacing here should realate to more prominent sound or some kind of acceleration, or density change in music but music does not change at all.
12. 01:38:571 (1) - decide it into two sliders? 01:38:999 - this sound gives huge impact but right now it feels empty because of undermap.
13. 02:14:785 (4) - unstack it to emphasis better? It's arguable, though.
14. 02:21:213 (5,1) - you even make emphasis with NC on 02:21:428 (1) - so why smaller spacing? Music is changing so it would be logical to have a jump.
15. 02:27:428 (1,2,3) - I've pointed taht out already, stack doesn't express music well in this case due to its prominency.
16. 02:36:856 (8,9,1) - don't like the pattern overall. If you place clickable object here 02:37:499 - but 02:37:285 - this isn't clickble doesn't it seem sort of illogical as sounds are pretty equal so hacing them both equally emphasized is the best option. Also, 02:37:499 (9,1) - stack again but this time it's covering new measure and that's not really a right thing to do if we talk about emphasis.
17. 02:54:214 (5) - spacing to this circle make little sense as nothing outstanding to emphasis were not introduced and both vocals and instrumentals are pretty calm.
18. 02:57:428 (7) - like come on, you can make it with two anchors only, just try!
19. 03:08:572 (5) - this sound here is like the peak of the section so having the same spacing is quite lacking spacing emphasis, consider making acceleration?
20. 03:23:785 (6,1) - why so small spacing? New measure and you are doing jump so this anti-jump is kinda out of the context.
    
    So, yea, main concern is spacing and rhythm emphasis and these beziere sliders, from my side it's really better to get rid of them.

[Insane]

1. 00:46:714 (4) - it's quite prominent so consider unstack? I'll tell you my point of view and my concern. So the stack gives more emphasis and impact on the first clickable object and the second one is kind of covered and generally it should be less prominent than the first one, so consider rearranging stuff as this diff doesn't looks something that would express music in a weird "non-generic" way. For instance, 00:46:499 (3,4) - lacks emphasis and 00:49:928 (5,6) - this does not because they're quite equal so it's one of the way to express music. I hope you've got my idea.
2. The full part from 01:41:142 - till 01:59:785 - . They way you emphasis jumps for the similar music is too way different. For instance, 01:41:142 (1,2,3,4) - bigger spacing, 01:42:856 (1,2,1,2) - bigger spacing and inconsistent NC, 01:47:999 (1,2,3,4) - smaller spacing, 01:49:714 (1,2,3,4) - smaller spacing, 01:53:142 (1,2,3) - stacks, 01:56:571 (6) - unclickable strong sounds. My suggestion here is to normalize patterns and make spacing a bit more consistent.
3. 02:09:428 (4,5,6) - too easy pattern for such dense part. Maybe replace with two 1/2 slider as you did here 02:23:142 (5,6) - .
4. 02:46:285 (1) - the same as for LC's one. You even emphasized it with NC so maybe emphasis it with some bigger spacing as well?
5. Okay, the second section I've mentioned before has pretty the same problem. 03:03:428 (1,2,3) - FC jumps, 03:05:142 (1,2,3) - pretty common mid spacing jumps and 03:08:571 (1,2,3) - low spacing jumps but music doesn't change at all, it is the same all the time. Consider rearrange spacing.
6. 03:25:714 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - each of the sound has the same impact so having them all stacked isn't really a good idea, it gives exactly zero feedback. Furthermore, this section just before kiai part is sort of a peak of the entire part so less dense patterns make little sense.
7. 03:32:571 (1,1) - this goes kinda inconsistent. It was good if something like this went consistently throughout the wub parts but this is too sudden.
8. 03:46:285 (1,1) - the same as above.
9. 03:48:856 (3,4,5,6) - each of the sound under these circles give the same feedback to the player but have different spacing, make no sense at all.

[Collab Hard]

1. 00:32:785 (6,7) - smaller spacing does not make much sense as 00:32:999 - is pretty prominent. Also, 00:34:285 (1,2) - these two are too way spacing comparing the overall spacing and due to is weakness it's quite senseless to make spacing bigger.
2. 01:43:714 (1) - maybe devide it into some objects? Holding just a reverse is kinda boring.
3. 01:53:142 - sound here is kind of peak and new measure is meant to be clickable in this case.
4. 01:57:428 (5) - think about it.
5. 02:09:856 (2) - he is so lonely standing here. This sound 02:09:856 - and this 02:09:642 - seems a bit similar so why not to place circle here as well 02:09:642 - . The same 02:23:356 - .
6. 02:12:856 (2,3,4,5) - yup, they sound pretty the same but doesn't it looks boring? Consider unstacking them.
7. 02:24:856 (3) - NC?
8. 02:27:428 (3,4,5) - unstack due to prominency of the each circle.
9. Basically, these issues repeat so consider fix them.

[Normal]

1. 00:34:285 - if this is something someone would agree in the highest diff it's not the same in normals, it just sounds a bit confusing. A new measure is introduced but it is unclickable and undermapped. Consider making it clickable. 00:35:999 - this is though pretty good as sound isn't that prominent. 00:53:999 (9) - the same and the others as well.
2. Also, NC up to 8 or even 9 isn't something good to have in normals, try reducing this number?
3. 01:46:285 (1) - seems like you messed it a bit up.
4. 02:24:856 (2) - reverses more than one isn't welcome but you have a sudden one so that's defenitely what you should get rid of.

good luck

не знаю что там намки наговорил но все же напишу своё
LC
00:52:874 - я думаю это лишний репит т.к там нету звука и лучше следовать эмпфазис к этом 00:51:856 (2) -
01:08:571 (9) - нк т.к ты делала каждый сильный бит
02:36:214 (6,7,8) - стак слетел
02:30:214 (2) - тут же почти тихо, почему ты увеличила спейсинг?
02:30:856 (1) - попробуй CTRL+G по моему так лучше.
02:31:714 (2) - здесь тоже
03:27:428 (5) - реально в ухо давит, лучше уменьшить громкость имхо.
04:00:428 (3) - оверлап, можно запутаться при игре, можно анстакать и ставить чуть чуть подальше от этого места.
04:12:428 (3) - сэйм
04:23:999 (6) - нк.
Insane
00:27:428 (1) - 7/4? в начале подходило бы имхо
02:29:142 (1,2) - слишком близкий спейсинг
02:46:928 (4) - 1/4 ритм лучше подходило бы т.к 1/8 игроку сложно проходило бы.
Hard
02:07:928 (1) - лучше этот слайдер поставить на 02:08:142 - т.к вообще не слышно 02:07:928 - здесь звуков

Namki wrote:

hello!

[General]

1. normal-sliderwhistle2.wav is unused so there's no point in having it in the directory. So delete it?
   02:30:428 (3) - isn't it this sliderwhistle on this slider?

[Insane]

1. 00:46:714 (4) - it's quite prominent so consider unstack? I'll tell you my point of view and my concern. So the stack gives more emphasis and impact on the first clickable object and the second one is kind of covered and generally it should be less prominent than the first one, so consider rearranging stuff as this diff doesn't looks something that would express music in a weird "non-generic" way. For instance, 00:46:499 (3,4) - lacks emphasis and 00:49:928 (5,6) - this does not because they're quite equal so it's one of the way to express music. I hope you've got my idea.
   I think my kind of emphasize is more suitable for this calm part
2. The full part from 01:41:142 - till 01:59:785 - . They way you emphasis jumps for the similar music is too way different. For instance, 01:41:142 (1,2,3,4) - bigger spacing, 01:42:856 (1,2,1,2) - bigger spacing and inconsistent NC, 01:47:999 (1,2,3,4) - smaller spacing, 01:49:714 (1,2,3,4) - smaller spacing, 01:53:142 (1,2,3) - stacks, 01:56:571 (6) - unclickable strong sounds. My suggestion here is to normalize patterns and make spacing a bit more consistent.
   I think that the music here is not similar, so thats why I have different spacing here
3. 02:09:428 (4,5,6) - too easy pattern for such dense part. Maybe replace with two 1/2 slider as you did here 02:23:142 (5,6) - .
   I did a stack for creating contrast between bright wub and calm parts
4. 02:46:285 (1) - the same as for LC's one. You even emphasized it with NC so maybe emphasis it with some bigger spacing as well?
   okie
5. Okay, the second section I've mentioned before has pretty the same problem. 03:03:428 (1,2,3) - FC jumps, 03:05:142 (1,2,3) - pretty common mid spacing jumps and 03:08:571 (1,2,3) - low spacing jumps but music doesn't change at all, it is the same all the time. Consider rearrange spacing.
   Same as I said before
6. 03:25:714 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - each of the sound has the same impact so having them all stacked isn't really a good idea, it gives exactly zero feedback. Furthermore, this section just before kiai part is sort of a peak of the entire part so less dense patterns make little sense.
   Don't touch best place in my diff, okay? I just mapped similar sounds with these stacks
7. 03:32:571 (1,1) - this goes kinda inconsistent. It was good if something like this went consistently throughout the wub parts but this is too sudden.
   I think it's a good idea to have some variation in last kiai
8. 03:46:285 (1,1) - the same as above.
   ^
9. 03:48:856 (3,4,5,6) - each of the sound under these circles give the same feedback to the player but have different spacing, make no sense at all.
   I agree with you here

[Collab Hard]

1. 01:57:428 (5) - think about it.
   One slider for one phrase, I think it's nice idea
2. 02:24:856 (3) - NC?
   For what?
3. 02:27:428 (3,4,5) - unstack due to prominency of the each circle.
   Stacks can into emphasize too
4. Basically, these issues repeat so consider fix them.

[Normal]

1. 00:34:285 - if this is something someone would agree in the highest diff it's not the same in normals, it just sounds a bit confusing. A new measure is introduced but it is unclickable and undermapped. Consider making it clickable. 00:35:999 - this is though pretty good as sound isn't that prominent.
   00:53:999 (9) - the same and the others as well.
   I think it's also fine
2. Also, NC up to 8 or even 9 isn't something good to have in normals, try reducing this number?
   oke
3. 01:46:285 (1) - seems like you messed it a bit up.
   Why do you think so?
4. 02:24:856 (2) - reverses more than one isn't welcome but you have a sudden one so that's defenitely what you should get rid of.
   Replaced it with a 1/1 slider

good luck

zhu wrote:

Normal

01:32:571 (1,2) - use same sliders looks weird this way
Ok, I'll ctrl+j it
01:57:428 (3,4) - make them paralel
For what? It looks fine imo
02:24:856 (2) - what are you trying emphasize here 02:25:071 - wuf sound starts from here
Made a 1/2 reverse here
03:25:714 (1) - i
I like spinners
nothing much to point from my prespective nice dif

Insane

Nothing much to point out but i think problem here is that this is kinda electronic genre song with amyn sudden sv changes you can make this map better by adding some cool edgy slider arts.This sliders - they look a bit... disconnected with any concept to me. I mean, I usually try to give a meaning to my objects but nowadays people tend to just draw something with slider arts for the sake of doing it, instead of making something cool. This sudden sv changes are perfect with cool slider arts.

I don't like edgy slider arts, you know.

Djulus wrote:

не знаю что там намки наговорил но все же напишу своё

Insane
00:27:428 (1) - 7/4? в начале подходило бы имхо
Не понимаю, что ты имеешь в виду
02:29:142 (1,2) - слишком близкий спейсинг
Это потому что звук тихий под нотой
02:46:928 (4) - 1/4 ритм лучше подходило бы т.к 1/8 игроку сложно проходило бы.
Но там 1/8 по музыке. Алсо не понимаю, что сложного в 1/8 ревёрсе

@m3gB3g, спейсинг норм, бланкет не нужен, ну я поправила там чуть-чуть, спасибо

[General]
03:50:517 - I think this green line is meant for 03:50:571, similar to 02:28:285

[Normal]
00:48:856 (3) - I think because you always covered sounds like 00:49:928 and 00:50:142 in this section, this slider is especially awkward to play since it glides over all those sounds. Consider breaking it up and mapping out the rhythm
02:39:642 (3,4) - I think according to the rhythm here the slider should be first followed by a circle for the drum at 02:40:071
03:33:428 (3,4,1,2,3,1) - section feels a bit dense for this sv, you can skip covering 03:34:071 since there is no significant sound there

[Collab Hard]
00:35:142 (3,4) - I'd avoid very substantial overlaps like this in a hard difficulty
00:47:999 (4) - should have a NC here
02:47:035 - feels like there should be a note especially since the music uses 1/8 here
03:33:642 (3) - use the same repeat overlap trick as 02:11:356 (3)? I really liked it
04:18:749 - missed a 1/4 here

[Insane]
00:40:714 (7) - should have the same snapping as LC diff 00:40:660 (5)
00:44:571 (1) - gonna have to be louder, try 20%
02:29:142 (1,2) - this is a little too deceiving, at least have spacing as big as 02:22:285 (3,4)
03:41:999 (5,6,7,8,1) - not sure about this flow, the position of 8 is a bit awkward, maybe midway between 03:42:428 (7,1)?
03:55:714 (7,8,9,1) - an unintuitive rhythm introduced at the very end of a map, a lot of people are gonna mess up here since it is difficult to tell if the spacing is 1/2 or 1/4. A good workaround is swapping 03:56:356 (8,9) for a 1/4 slider, this way it implies 1/4 for the rhythm gap

[LC]
00:37:285 (4,1) - this jump was a bit hard to hit especially on a sight read, maybe bring them a bit closer?
00:41:999 (2) - not sure if 10% volume can cut it, try 20%
01:11:999 - break is unsnapped (likely due to timing change), should be snapped here
03:52:714 (3,1) - really easy to misread these as 1/2 spaced, doing something like this helps a lot: 03:58:071 - I wouldn't skip this beat here for the purpose of consistency with other triples
Good old LC mapping mmmm

Yeah call me back after you check how audible those low volume sliders are (I think there are more in the map that might raise eyebrows, but I'm ok with most of them).

fixed everything from mods, except some blankets, thanks!

@jonathan, fixed all, thank you

LC allowed me to reply on mods, so here we go

Namki wrote:

hello!

[LC's Insane]

1. 00:27:428 (1,2,3,4,5) - this lacks pretty all kind of emphasis so far. If you were mappin to this sound on background then 00:27:642 (2,3) - should be unstacked. If mapped according to snares and kicks 00:28:285 (5) - should be spaced more.
   Obviously 2 and 3 connected in music, so this stack is reasonable here
2. Compare 00:32:785 - with 00:32:999 - . Stack gives less feedback from this prominent sound, so consider unstack them.
   Same here
3. 00:35:999 (1) - only one slider with prominent sound on sliderend, kinda inconsistent and also doesn't give much feedback.
   This slider fit the background melody, so I think it's fine
4. 00:41:142 (1,2) - what's the point having them curved as old beziere sliders? Do you really think this is some kind of "gimmick", new editor has decent two anchor algorithm which allows you to make neat slider easily. Weird thing to me.
   I guess it was mapped in old editor..
5. This slider is 00:41:142 (1) - snapped on this "steamy" continious sound and it's fine as to me but how about this one 00:41:999 (2) - ? 00:42:642 - I can clearly hear an undermapped sound if you placed this slider according to this.
   Can't hear anything on red tick btw
6. 00:53:142 (5) - honestly, this sounds pretty strange, 00:53:356 - sound has huge impact here and having it mapped as sliderend makes little sense.
   I think it fit background melody again
7. Well, I don't really understand your rhythm choices. For instance, 00:55:499 (3) - is mapped according to these background sounds (00:58:071 (1) - this as well) but at the same time this 00:58:928 (3,4) - is mapped according to snares, and again 01:03:642 (6,7) - . It would be nice if it wasn't introduced only twice per section. Consider changing some pattern for variety.
   All things that you linked were mapped on background sounds, so I think it's okay
8. 01:31:071 (2,3) - makes little sense to me, 01:31:285 - isn't that prominent to emphasis it. And vice-versa here 01:32:356 (6,1) - , this sound 01:32:571 - is quitre strong to have it with lacking emphasis.
   It's slow part so I totally understand that spacing choices
9. 01:32:999 (2) - I can defenitely hear 1/4 there, why did you decide to undermap it suddenly? The same 01:34:713 (6) - is sorta shame you changed your rhythm according on nothing.
   But LC repeated this rhythm across the part and it's pretty calm, so it's reasonable rhythm choices
10. 01:33:856 (3,4) - spacing gone too insane here, this sound is sorta inaudible 01:34:071 - so it makes zero sense at all having this huge spacing.
    yeah
11. 01:38:142 (6,7) - bigger spacing here should realate to more prominent sound or some kind of acceleration, or density change in music but music does not change at all.
    I agree
12. 01:38:571 (1) - decide it into two sliders? 01:38:999 - this sound gives huge impact but right now it feels empty because of undermap.
    I think this slider give a cool effect for this place
13. 02:14:785 (4) - unstack it to emphasis better? It's arguable, though.
    Stacks also can into emphasize!
14. 02:21:213 (5,1) - you even make emphasis with NC on 02:21:428 (1) - so why smaller spacing? Music is changing so it would be logical to have a jump.
    Moved it a little bit right
15. 02:27:428 (1,2,3) - I've pointed taht out already, stack doesn't express music well in this case due to its prominency.
    Stacks can into emphasize again
16. 02:36:856 (8,9,1) - don't like the pattern overall. If you place clickable object here 02:37:499 - but 02:37:285 - this isn't clickble doesn't it seem sort of illogical as sounds are pretty equal so hacing them both equally emphasized is the best option. Also, 02:37:499 (9,1) - stack again but this time it's covering new measure and that's not really a right thing to do if we talk about emphasis.
    I guess LC didn't plan to map that sounds at all. And yes, stacks can into emphasize
17. 02:54:214 (5) - spacing to this circle make little sense as nothing outstanding to emphasis were not introduced and both vocals and instrumentals are pretty calm.
    I think it represent that mapper switched to another instrument
18. 02:57:428 (7) - like come on, you can make it with two anchors only, just try!
    You don't understand force of bezier sliders!
19. 03:08:572 (5) - this sound here is like the peak of the section so having the same spacing is quite lacking spacing emphasis, consider making acceleration?
    I don't want to ruin this god-like star pattern
20. 03:23:785 (6,1) - why so small spacing? New measure and you are doing jump so this anti-jump is kinda out of the context.
    Anti-jumps is good for new measures
    So, yea, main concern is spacing and rhythm emphasis and these beziere sliders, from my side it's really better to get rid of them.

good luck

Djulus wrote:

не знаю что там намки наговорил но все же напишу своё
LC
00:52:874 - я думаю это лишний репит т.к там нету звука и лучше следовать эмпфазис к этом 00:51:856 (2) -
Там есть эхо от звуков, которые маппнуты, поэтому ещё один репит
01:08:571 (9) - нк т.к ты делала каждый сильный бит
Лично я не фанат нк на конце стрима, думаю что лк тоже
02:36:214 (6,7,8) - стак слетел
да
02:30:214 (2) - тут же почти тихо, почему ты увеличила спейсинг?
Для того чтобы эмфазис на 3 был круче
02:30:856 (1) - попробуй CTRL+G по моему так лучше.
02:31:714 (2) - здесь тоже
Ну не, мне тут флоу нравится, прикольно
03:27:428 (5) - реально в ухо давит, лучше уменьшить громкость имхо.
Сделала так, чтобы она постепенно увеличивалась
04:00:428 (3) - оверлап, можно запутаться при игре, можно анстакать и ставить чуть чуть подальше от этого места.
А по-моему всё читается
04:12:428 (3) - сэйм
сейм
04:23:999 (6) - нк.
да ну не, зачем оно там

@jonathanlfj fixed all for LC's diff too

Net0 wrote:

Minor suggestions, sorry delay x.x

LC

1. 00:37:821 (1,3,5,7,9) - You could mirror the square pattern, space is kinda big indeed on 00:37:285 (4,1) -
   I think this spacing is suitable for the end of the section
2. 00:51:428 (1,2,3,4) - Shouldn't this be a repetition? 00:51:428 (1,2) - and 00:52:285 (3,4) - follow the same idea but 00:52:660 (4) - has an extra reverse.
   nope, it sounds different, so I guess it was intended
3. Ctrol+g each of this slider individually 02:51:428 (1) - 02:51:856 (2) - 02:52:285 (3) - , it's a good flow change for the sound at 02:52:285 -
   yeah, I'll ctrl+g 1 and 2
4. 03:27:428 (5) - I believe the hitsound volume for this buzz slider could be lower, is really standing out too much in comparision to the song.
   sure

Insane

1. There is an extra repeat here 00:40:660 (7) - , it should be only two repeats there.
   true
2. I think this is one repeat only, at least it would be consistent with LC rhythm
   I didn't get what slider you want me to change, there is no timecode
3. Try ctrol+h this pattern 03:28:285 (1,2) - , it's a cool repetition of moviment for the drop at 03:29:142 (1) - get more strengh.
   Uhh, I tried and still prefer my placement, it looks better than thing that you suggested

Hard

1. Blanket 00:32:785 (6,7) - <3
   <3
2. 01:43:714 (1) - How about 3 1/1 sliders instead? It's hard level, I don't see much of a point in undermapping like this x.x
   we decided that it's cool idea to map this phrase as a one slider

Something that could be added in my opinion is a deep kick hitsound in replacement of the current default hitnormal for the main beats that you're currently using crashes, 02:06:856 - /02:08:571 - etc.
I think that kick sound is more suitable for 2 and 4 downbeat

Great song and mapset ^^

thanks

Minor suggestions, sorry delay x.x

LC

1. 00:37:821 (1,3,5,7,9) - You could mirror the square pattern, space is kinda big indeed on 00:37:285 (4,1) -
2. 00:51:428 (1,2,3,4) - Shouldn't this be a repetition? 00:51:428 (1,2) - and 00:52:285 (3,4) - follow the same idea but 00:52:660 (4) - has an extra reverse.
3. Ctrol+g each of this slider individually 02:51:428 (1) - 02:51:856 (2) - 02:52:285 (3) - , it's a good flow change for the sound at 02:52:285 -
4. 03:27:428 (5) - I believe the hitsound volume for this buzz slider could be lower, is really standing out too much in comparision to the song.

Insane

1. There is an extra repeat here 00:40:660 (7) - , it should be only two repeats there.
2. I think this is one repeat only, at least it would be consistent with LC rhythm
3. Try ctrol+h this pattern 03:28:285 (1,2) - , it's a cool repetition of moviment for the drop at 03:29:142 (1) - get more strengh.

Hard

1. Blanket 00:32:785 (6,7) - <3
2. 01:43:714 (1) - How about 3 1/1 sliders instead? It's hard level, I don't see much of a point in undermapping like this x.x

Something that could be added in my opinion is a deep kick hitsound in replacement of the current default hitnormal for the main beats that you're currently using crashes, 02:06:856 - /02:08:571 - etc.

Great song and mapset ^^

shitposting so our post counter is same

fixed few things, good to go!

LC

LC