woooo hello! since ive modded the last diff like a year ago, this time ill focus on the rest of the set!
Posthumous00:12:421 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - i think these ones shud be a bit harder, since they are using 3x DS, when 00:11:190 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - these ones are using 7x DS on the similar sound phrase. more over, the thing is that the melody intensity is increasing, but the DS is going from 3x > 7x > 3x
00:18:575 (1) - shud be parallel i think
00:33:344 (1) - i dont agree with it ending on the new sound measure. 00:34:575 - i think this one shud be a separated note.
00:39:959 (2,5) - fix blanket?
01:17:652 (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1) - nice
01:25:036 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - feels like it lacks scaling in SV, since the sound intensity is increasing
02:19:652 (3) - i think its a mistake in rhythm, the slider end is on strong beat, while 02:19:190 (1) - 02:19:498 - 02:20:113 - are clickable
i think it solves the problem
02:27:498 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - i think this is the only place im completely against. its a huge diff spike that feels really out of place.
would like to nerf it.
03:12:422 (1,2,1) - i think that the jump between 03:12:575 (2,1) - is too low especially considering everything before that place in the same section.
03:36:882 (1) - can be improved (the slider end doesnt fit to the slider body gap)
03:42:729 (4,1) - isnt this too much? maybe put it in the center of that square? 03:42:267 (1,2,3,4) -
03:56:421 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - same issue i mentioned above this place 00:12:421 (1) -
03:31:805 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - feels like a wrong patter, since its made up in a single thing, while there are 2 music phrases 03:31:805 (1,2,1,2) - and 03:32:421 (1,2,1,2) -
03:34:575 (2) - ctrl+g for better pattern?
04:02:575 (1) - shud be parallel i guess?
Regou's Extra00:01:344 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - i think this thing is overcomplicated rhythm wise, its the start of the map and i feel like putting 1/4 kickslider is really unnecessary and hard to read. i personally had issues reading that place. would suggest this:
00:18:498 (1,1) - feels like this jump is way too hard considering that its 1/8 (or to be precise 1/4 of slider tail)
00:18:575 (1) - this "tear" on the loop of the slider feels underdone. i would suggest this:
code:
192,192,18575,6,0,B|244:192|297:131|302:31|302:31|280:140|323:206|323:206|382:152|414:49|414:49|406:146|360:231|371:308|427:336|524:323|549:262|551:186|443:82|350:201|323:237|317:290|335:353|431:372,1,1241.99996209717,4|0,0:0|0:0,0:0:0:0:
01:09:344 (3) - maybe stuck this with 01:08:575 (5) - to avoid sharp jump on 01:09:344 (3,1) - ?
01:15:190 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - i would disagree with such placement since the music intensity is increasing and its really strange that these pairs are so close to each other. would add some distance between not+slider.
01:42:729 (2,3,4) - are you sure it shud be a tripple? similar to 01:41:652 (1,2,3) - ? its a different sound and i feel like making it a reverse slider would solve the problem. since it doesnt feel like triple there. 01:42:805 - has no sound in it. and here is the same issue 01:44:036 - 01:44:959 - 01:47:729 - 01:49:267 -
01:52:421 (5,1) - this jump felt really out of place, since 01:52:421 (5) - a strong beat, 01:52:575 (1) - weak beat, the distance is abnormal
02:02:575 - probably a mistake? its a unmapped strong beat
02:04:959 - 02:07:729 - 02:08:652 - 02:10:190 - 02:01:882 - 02:11:729 - 02:12:344 - 03:13:882 - 03:11:575 - overmapped triplet. maybe reconsider these places. there are lots of them and i feel like its unnecessary to keep them since its going to rank.
02:47:652 (2) - unrankable since you dont know which way you go, right or left?
Kloyd's Extra00:14:267 (1,2,3,4,5) - consider nerfing the distance here since its a huge diffspke from 0.1x to 1.8x (same place 03:58:190 (8,1,2,3,4,5) - here)
00:14:883 (1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1) - maybe add some structure in the placement you've used here? feels like 00:15:190 (2,1) - too far from each other.00:16:114 (1,2,1,1,1) - same with this. so if youre arguing that 00:16:729 (1) - this one is a strong beat, then why didnt you use the same distance in 00:17:037 (1) - 00:15:806 (1) - ? ( same 03:58:882 (1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1) - )
00:18:575 (1) - maybe change the slider shape? it doesnt right or pretty at all. my suggestion:
code:
104,240,18575,6,0,B|161:162|126:25|-5:-19|-26:94|-14:159|119:137|119:137|173:123|217:99|259:103|336:183|311:291|243:288|186:271|172:183|211:126|211:126|251:45|393:44|431:160|323:172|324:123,1,1106.99996621704,4|0,0:0|0:0,0:0:0:0:
00:31:344 (4,1) - i think they are too close to each other, maybe consider setting the Stacking leniency to 0 or space them out a bit so it would not ruin the aesthetics of the pattern.
01:15:036 (3,1) - distance is too small for that strong beat i think. 01:14:575 (3) - 01:15:190 (1) - consider stacking them, that would solve the issue.
01:34:575 (1,1) - distance is too small for emphasis of 01:34:882 (1) - strong beat i think? maybe add some spacing there.
02:19:036 (7,1) - maybe change the flow direction on the 02:19:190 (1) - since its a new sound phrase?
Drop's Extra01:36:882 (3,4) - maybe put more distance between them to emphasize strong beat of 4?
01:43:344 (7,1) - same suggestion
02:50:421 (3,4,5) - hitsound problem? 02:50:497 (4) - this note is hitsounded for some reason in a strange way.
02:52:882 (3,4,5) - well now i see its intended but i would suggest to reconsider hitsounding of these triplets since it sounds too loud on a place with no sound at all. 02:52:959 - check this. same comes for other places: 02:54:190 - etc
03:30:882 (2,3,4) - 03:29:652 (2,3,4) - the hitsounding of these two triplets are different despite they are emphasizing similar sounds.
03:38:267 (2,3,4) - and 03:37:036 (2,3,4) - and 03:41:959 (2,3,4) - same thing
To BN who gonna nominate this: please check
yf's insane.