SPOILER
ailv wrote:
insane
i notice in quite a few places their are issues with spacing emphasis. Notably, these patterns, 00:40:438 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - while aesthietically really pleasing, don't really make sense to me, a) i don't feel like the song is really waning in intensity, and you use higher spacing for the same sounds later on. other areas include 00:47:510 (6,7) -, 01:51:153 (2,1) - , 02:13:224 (6,7) - where spacing is really low, even though the song doesn't really justify it. vocal emphasis lol, the rotating triangles are meant to accentuate the vocals while gradually drowning them out so that 2 claps that follow have a more impactful feeling
imo 00:38:724 (3,4) - this pattern, and the othertimes its used, the note following the slider tail is kind of weak and unaccentuated. but the way it currently is looks a lot like a 1/4 gap like 00:58:438 (1,2) - instead. i'd recommend either stacking or increasing the spacing of all of these patterns. it feels fine, i disagree that this looks like a 1/4 gap it being only 140bpm and all 1/4 notes up until this point appear overlapped with other objects
00:35:295 (3,4) - stack 4 under the slider or over 1 for more emphasis? nah I don't feel it needs more emphasis
01:25:653 (7) - stack under 01:24:581 (2) - instead? no thanks
hard
stack 00:25:867 (1) - under the tail of 00:25:010 (3) - ? sharper angles are nicer ok
00:27:581 (1) - this jump is kinda big not really
00:40:438 (5,1) - this overlap is kind of unsightly yeah i meant to fix these eventually
00:51:581 (1,2,3) - this reads like a 1/4 instead of a 1/2, same here 00:58:438 (1,2,3) - and you do use this pattern again. The misleading spacing is really difficult and unifitting. well it is 1/4 so I don't think there's an issue here
01:22:438 (1,3) - imo this stack is kinda ugly esp with 01:23:295 (3,4) - after it's just an editor overlap, this is barely noticeable in gameplay
thanks!