1. Easy (1.69 stars, 149 notes)
2. Hard (3.17 stars, 360 notes)
3. Insane (3.78 stars, 448 notes)
4. Normal (2.37 stars, 214 notes)

Garven wrote:

1. 01:07:557 (3,1) - 02:15:057 (3,1) - I feel the spacing between these two objects is way too large for a beginner to smoothly move in 2 beats. Removing the reverse of (3) will be a nice solution. If you feel 02:16:463 is empty, then you can consider adding a note where (2) is, but not sure if this suits your style.
2. 01:35:682 (1,2,1) - A questionable distance setting logic. For ordinary mapsets I'd also refrain from using inconsistency of 01:33:338 (4,1) for easy diffs, but it's kinda working nice. Just that the current cursor move feels like a small jump, so I'd be glad if the spacing could be reduced by a very little. Anyways back to the original story; the spacing of 01:35:682 (1,2) due to the symmetry, and is quite a large value. It is a logical setting since the transition between two object is larger than 01:35:213 (4,1). However the transition of 01:36:619 (2,1) is even larger than 01:35:682 (1,2) while having a lower distance value. I don't feel this setting was logical enough, thus suggesting to reduce the spacing between 01:35:682 (1,2) and have a larger spacing than that for 01:36:619 (2,1).

1. 00:23:494 (2) - Symmetry fail. One grid up please.
2. 00:36:619 (2,1) - The spacing was too large than expected imo. Hope you could find a way to reduce somehow.
3. 00:45:057 (1,1) - I don't think this recovery time will be rankable for a normal difficulty.
4. 01:24:432 (1,2) - 01:28:182 (1,2) - Not a big issue, but could be a symmetry. Want to hear your reason for the decision.
5. 01:37:557 (1,2,3) - Personally I thought this spacing was a bit too much. Hope you can gather more opinion from the modders.

1. 00:18:338 - 00:22:088 (5) - Questionable inconsistency, but fine enough if you are intending a variation.
2. 00:27:713 - This strong beat being ignored felt a little distracting. Mind adding a note?
3. 01:29:588 (5) - The music part is similar with 01:25:838 - 01:27:713 and just repeating all over would felt nice too. Variation is enough at 01:30:994 (2,3,4) imo.
4. 01:57:596 (5,6) - Not an issue at all, but having a manual stack felt quite illogical for the hr users.
5. 02:35:682 - True all of your spinners started here, but consider adding a note anyways to complete your symmetry as most other difficulties completed the symmetry pattern before the spinner. Your choice to decide after all what you value more.

1. 00:42:947 (10) - I felt this note redundant from the song.
2. 00:48:338 (6,7,8,9) - 01:55:838 (6,7,8,9) - 02:04:275 (3,4,5,6) - If you ask what I disliked the most of all difficulties, I'd like to point out these linear streams. Definitely not a bad usage since the linear flow goes towards the start of the next slider. My point is "Is the actual flow with the next slider really a lineal flow?" The sharp stream of 00:48:221 (5,6,7) was one thing that damaged the flow, and considering the transition to 01:56:307 (1) especially, a curvy stream would've fit better imo.

D33d wrote:

For artistic reasons, I've decided to go with a familiarly spacey set of combo colours... Or should I stick with my classic iNiS set? Decisions, people!

bbj0920 wrote:

D33d wrote:

For artistic reasons, I've decided to go with a familiarly spacey set of combo colours... Or should I stick with my classic iNiS set? Decisions, people!

It'd be just fine to be iNiS map, this is really great map.

I find diff spread okay to go, but I think diffs should be renamed.
Easy -> Normal, Normal -> Hard, Hard -> Light Insane.
Easy contains many notes. It's fairly easy but still I find it kinda hard to be Easy diff.
Normal contains a few 1/3 and spacing is quite large.
And Hard diff contains spaced 1/4 which is just not appropriate for Hard diff.
Just in my opinion, I hope you consider about diff names once again.

Except this you can really get this bubbled now. Amazing work.

Yuii- wrote:

"With" should be removed from tags since it's already in the title xd

Sonnyc wrote:

[Easy]

1. 01:07:557 (3,1) - 02:15:057 (3,1) - I feel the spacing between these two objects is way too large for a beginner to smoothly move in 2 beats. Removing the reverse of (3) will be a nice solution. If you feel 02:16:463 is empty, then you can consider adding a note where (2) is, but not sure if this suits your style. I think there's ample time, especially with the gigantic circles. However, I added a circle just to be safe.
2. 01:35:682 (1,2,1) - A questionable distance setting logic. For ordinary mapsets I'd also refrain from using inconsistency of 01:33:338 (4,1) for easy diffs, but it's kinda working nice. Just that the current cursor move feels like a small jump, so I'd be glad if the spacing could be reduced by a very little. Anyways back to the original story; the spacing of 01:35:682 (1,2) due to the symmetry, and is quite a large value. It is a logical setting since the transition between two object is larger than 01:35:213 (4,1). However the transition of 01:36:619 (2,1) is even larger than 01:35:682 (1,2) while having a lower distance value. I don't feel this setting was logical enough, thus suggesting to reduce the spacing between 01:35:682 (1,2) and have a larger spacing than that for 01:36:619 (2,1).

The slider jump was sort of accidental, as I was trying to focus on the blanketing. With the massive slider leniency, this doesn't affect playability in practice and the slight jump creates a build. The other jump was also deliberate--it's still very easy to hit, but you get a nice separation between combos and a bit more feel from the jump.
[Normal]

1. 00:23:494 (2) - Symmetry fail. One grid up please. I am really sad that I missed this.
2. 00:36:619 (2,1) - The spacing was too large than expected imo. Hope you could find a way to reduce somehow. I may rearrange objects, even if it means flipping the following combo to give me room to move the wave combo up. I don't think this jump's that bad though, as the wave combo's very easy to focus on. As such, the player may be able to come off 00:36:619 (2) - early and comfortably.
3. 00:45:057 (1,1) - I don't think this recovery time will be rankable for a normal difficulty. If the slider being centred isn't enough, then I'll replace the spinner with objects. I was wary of this though.
4. 01:24:432 (1,2) - 01:28:182 (1,2) - Not a big issue, but could be a symmetry. Want to hear your reason for the decision. I wanted them to descend a little and create more motion.
5. 01:37:557 (1,2,3) - Personally I thought this spacing was a bit too much. Hope you can gather more opinion from the modders. Reducing it won't be a problem, but hopefully this won't be necessary. I wanted the intensity and there should be enough slider leniency.

[Hard]

1. 00:18:338 - 00:22:088 (5) - Questionable inconsistency, but fine enough if you are intending a variation. Yeah, I wanted to end with variation as a flourish.
2. 00:27:713 - This strong beat being ignored felt a little distracting. Mind adding a note? In order to teach the player important rhythms, I'm following the synth line. I also think it just feels more engaging this way.
3. 01:29:588 (5) - The music part is similar with 01:25:838 - 01:27:713 and just repeating all over would felt nice too. Variation is enough at 01:30:994 (2,3,4) imo. I used a triple here to smoothen the flow to 1/2. However, I'll use two doubles instead.
4. 01:57:596 (5,6) - Not an issue at all, but having a manual stack felt quite illogical for the hr users. I'll get back to you on this. Normal stacking overlapped the sliderend.
5. 02:35:682 - True all of your spinners started here, but consider adding a note anyways to complete your symmetry as most other difficulties completed the symmetry pattern before the spinner. Your choice to decide after all what you value more. My priority is more on balanced patterns than outright symmetry. I can't add a note on the downbeat and simply making the current pattern symmetrical would result in a boring straight line.

[Insane]

1. 00:42:947 (10) - I felt this note redundant from the song. I had overmapped on a cymbal to even it out--however, just that extra circle made the stream feel like crap, so thanks for having me remove it.
2. 00:48:338 (6,7,8,9) - 01:55:838 (6,7,8,9) - 02:04:275 (3,4,5,6) - If you ask what I disliked the most of all difficulties, I'd like to point out these linear streams. Definitely not a bad usage since the linear flow goes towards the start of the next slider. My point is "Is the actual flow with the next slider really a lineal flow?" The sharp stream of 00:48:221 (5,6,7) was one thing that damaged the flow, and considering the transition to 01:56:307 (1) especially, a curvy stream would've fit better imo. I'll be honest: the streams are straight because I'd just begun to map and was struggling to get into it. The angles made it possible to make tidy streams with grid3. Grid3! I do like the directional changes, even into the arcs, as they do something a bit different with the flow and visuals. This might be changed in the future, but there's a certain charm that I can't ignore now.

Awesome map. This is what an original beatmap is, and is showing how to use symmetries and copy-pastes.
Would've shoot tons of stars if I got plenty of it, but I'm out of kudosu now haha

1. 00:35:447 (7) - I would suggest to delete this note. You have always emphasized the blue ticks before, for example 00:27:244 (2,3) - , and even afterwards with 00:42:596 (7,8,9) -. I am not sure if the spacing to the next object would be too low when just deleting the circle, so maybe you want to adjust the pattern a bit if you apply it.
2. 00:39:432 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - I get the intension of increasing density here, but it still seems weird to have such a repetetive rhythm suddenly (while the previous rhythms followed the main instrument so well). I think a good compromise would be to Ctrl+G these 00:40:369 (5,6) - rhythm-wise, so you would get this: http://puu.sh/kEct1/cb133b731c.jpg It would keep your intention (if I am not wrong), but follow the instrument better.
3. 00:54:432 (1,2) - I normally wouldn't mention this and I feel kinda stupid for mentioning it too, but since your map is otherwise so clean the overlaps with previous circles kinda bothered me here. Unlike some other patterns, these are noticable ingame, especially the one with 00:54:197 (8) - . Maybe you could stack the tail of (2) with that circle and adjust the symmetry? http://puu.sh/kEcIn/3517cee742.jpg

1. 00:39:432 (1,2,1,2,3) - It feels weird that you are suddenly mapping those blue ticks here, while you simplified the rhythms before (for example 00:36:619 (2) -)

Sieg wrote:

that hitsounding */me faints*

Desperate-kun wrote:

[Insane]

1. 00:35:447 (7) - I would suggest to delete this note. You have always emphasized the blue ticks before, for example 00:27:244 (2,3) - , and even afterwards with 00:42:596 (7,8,9) -. I am not sure if the spacing to the next object would be too low when just deleting the circle, so maybe you want to adjust the pattern a bit if you apply it. I agree and I wanted to change this earlier, but I wasn't too sure what I'd do. As it turns out, I only needed to move the waves down. I might redo the other patterns into something more interesting as well.
2. 00:39:432 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - I get the intension of increasing density here, but it still seems weird to have such a repetetive rhythm suddenly (while the previous rhythms followed the main instrument so well). I think a good compromise would be to Ctrl+G these 00:40:369 (5,6) - rhythm-wise, so you would get this: http://puu.sh/kEct1/cb133b731c.jpg It would keep your intention (if I am not wrong), but follow the instrument better. I've been considering ways to make this section more interesting as well. I don't want to touch it yet, as it currently serves as a functional build, but I'll drop in something different if I get ideas.
3. 00:54:432 (1,2) - I normally wouldn't mention this and I feel kinda stupid for mentioning it too, but since your map is otherwise so clean the overlaps with previous circles kinda bothered me here. Unlike some other patterns, these are noticable ingame, especially the one with 00:54:197 (8) - . Maybe you could stack the tail of (2) with that circle and adjust the symmetry? http://puu.sh/kEcIn/3517cee742.jpg This is an awkward dilemma, as I don't want to lose the pentagon star or the orbital slider blanket. I might just come up with a different jump pattern, but I'm not worrying too much.

[Normal]

1. 00:39:432 (1,2,1,2,3) - It feels weird that you are suddenly mapping those blue ticks here, while you simplified the rhythms before (for example 00:36:619 (2) -) I'm using the variance and suddenness to create a build, so I'm gonna keep this one for now.

Yep, that's all! Amazing job