1. 00:09:728 - Weird rhythm selection here. I believe you can found a way to map this out.
2. 01:02:593 (3) - Another weird rhythm selection. Making 01:02:755 clickable insteaed the current spot feels more natural.
3. 01:44:106 (3) - Similar as above. Making 01:44:269 clickable instead the current spot will work more natural.
4. 01:49:133 (4) - This sharp slider didn't felt cool enough compared to your overall slider usage.

1. 00:29:998 (1,3) - Maybe a symmetry in shape would worked more cool?
2. 01:16:052 (5) - Starting 1/2 earlier would fit the song better than now.
3. 00:42:647 (4) - 01:34:539 (4,1) - Inconsistent rhythm setting. Personally I prefer the later, since it gives an emphasize by ending at 01:34:539 and constructs a lower density, making a difference before the kiai start. Oh, also you can start the kiai with a new combo this way.

1. 02:09:728 (1,3) - Not a cool slider overlap if you ask me. I recommend you to at least make the tail of (3) have a higher visibility than the current status. What you've done at 01:59:512 (1,3) will be enough.

1. 01:02:593 (2) - Consider moving 1 grid right to make the follow point invisible, for a higher intuitive readability.

1. 01:21:242 (5,6,7,8) - Personally this spacing felt a little random. Mind adding an NC for (5) and (7) respectfully for random leniency?
2. 01:36:485 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - In my personal feeling, (5,6,7) having a larger spacing than (2,3,4) would be more logical to emphasize the whistle sounds better.
3. 01:38:431 (6,7,8,1,2,3) - Similar opinion here.
4. 01:41:350 (12) - This is similar with the following, 01:36:160 (12) - 01:46:539 (12) - 01:51:728 (12) - but unlike these, since this was appearing after no 1/4 rhythm before, it only makes me feel that you are not following the major beat you were following in the stream. Double true a beat exists in 01:41:350, but I highly doubt if it's something worth mapping even by inserting a big jump. Btw, I'd personally suggest removing all those (12)s to make your rhythm selection more clear ;w;

1. 00:35:836 (3) - use 0,4x ds here since it looks llike it is a bit too far out
2. 00:36:161 (6) - ^
3. 00:43:944 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Could look a bit more polished/better imo
4. 01:34:863 (1) - Could be changed into a better looking shape
   the rest of this diff seems fine, very polished and nearly ready for ranking in my eyes.

1. 00:53:674 (2,3,4,5,6) - You should remake this stream with "Convert slider to stream"
   Other than that this diff seems fine to me, only maybe you should consider using od 7.5 instead

1. 00:52:863 (5,6) - Kinda confusing since it's right after 00:50:269 (4,5) - which is an actual tripple and there is no nc (specially for new players)
2. 01:38:431 (4) - maybe fix this overlapping on 01:39:079 (2) - , looks a bit off
   This is once again a very well made and clean diff, can't really say much else about it

1. All clear!

1. 00:09:890 (2,3,1) - My personal taste, but I don't see how's the flow here is better than something like this(basically following the circular motion), as right now the flow kinda forces beginners to cancel off their motion kept from the previous notes.
2. 01:49:133 (4) - Could be just me that hates these kinds of slider shapes, but it doesn't really 'visually appeal' beginners, as the sharp curve near the tail of this slider may arouse confusion. I don't know, maybe it is fine after all...
3. Going to stop here, mentioning more will be just a pile of Nazi mods ;-;

1. 01:20:917 (4,5,6) - I found this rhythm to be awkward to play as it skips the prominent sound at 01:21:079 - as unclickable, and expressing the hold on the instrument with 01:21:242 (5) - this note, when it actually starts on 01:21:079 - . I would go for this instead, which does both of that.

1. 00:14:431 (1,3) - Damn these 2 notes are really close to each other, kinda confused me for a bit o.o Just a personal taste, considering the distances of other notes, IMO this should be bit more further apart to avoid possible confusion.

1. 02:03:566 (2) - This could potentially have a jump, as it emphasizes the same instrument like 02:03:404 (1) - does, and it goes along with 01:58:215 (1,2) - these 2, leaving this as no jump doesn't feel right.
2. I feel bad to find so less things on every difficulty :/

1. 01:45:566 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - My opinion here, but the stream here plays out bit 'bland' for me, it doesn't really give much 'impact' like with other streams in the difficulty. Well of course, right now it is fine, but I feel it will be bit more intuitive if the curve was bit more harsher on (6,7,8,9), which does go along with other streams in the difficulty.

1. Nothing!

1. 00:09:890 (2) - ここの始点が少し違和感があったので00:09:242 (1,2) - こういった音取りはどうでしょう？
   

1. 00:03:242 - ここの音が他のところと比べて大きい音があるのでここだけでも音とってもいいと思います。

1. Perfect :3

1. 01:02:593 (2,3) - この2つの位置を逆にして、01:02:755 (3,4) - でジャンプさせてみてはどうでしょう！
2. 01:36:485 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - どっちの3連打も同じ配置ですが音がかなり違うので後者の3連打をキックスライダーなどで音を取ってみてはどうでしょう？または、スペーシングを後者だけ空けてみるなどなど・・・
3. 01:41:674 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - ＾・・・以下略
4. 02:03:079 (7) - 形そのままで02:02:431 (3) - の終点にスタックさせてみてはどうでしょう？次の02:03:404 (1,2) - の入りへの流れがよりよくなると思います。
5. 02:25:296 (1) - 個人的に、流れ見やすさを考えるとこのあたりがいいかなって思いました。
   
   SPOILER

   

1. Asphyxiaと同じ意見でOD高いほうが好きです！
2. 00:36:647 (4,5,6,1,2,3) - (6,1)のジャンプがほぼ真横なので上か下に移動するように(1,2,3)を移動してみてはどうでしょう？叩きやすさ/流れも良くなると思います。
3. 01:03:404 (1) - ここはNew comboいらないと思います。
4. 01:39:241 (6) - 音が伸びてるので1/2のスライダーより3/4で音を取ったほうが自然になると思います。
5. 02:04:052 (4,5,1) - (1)に強い音があるので(4,5)の間を狭くして(5,1)の間で大きいジャンプにしてみてはどうでしょう！

Asphyxia wrote:

がんばれ！(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

alacat wrote:

Let's go!! :3

~(‾▿‾~)

Kalibe wrote:

Oh Yeah !(^3^)!

MrSergio wrote:

Soo good

Battle wrote:

gz \o/

Chewin wrote:

noooo i love this! Epic job mate C:

Asahina Momoko wrote:

yay gratz \:D/

Asahina Momoko wrote:

yay gratz \:D/

sukiNathan wrote:

Asahina Momoko wrote:

yay gratz \:D/

Natsu wrote:

gratz gamu :3!

-Nanaka- wrote:

えりーとまっぱー

Sylith wrote:

oh wow
congratulations!

Enjoy wrote:

grats moe Gamumu o3o

ByBy13 wrote:

Omedeto Gamu (~=3=)~

Mao wrote:

Gratz! :3/

Hula wrote:

Can't disqus so,

Map's great 10/10.