Fenza wrote:

00:36:708 (1,1,1,1) - these sliders should get some whistles on the sliderheads since the pithces here are so high
00:40:308 (1,1,1,1) - ^
00:43:908 (1,1,1,1) - ^

• [Grand Etude]

1. 03:59:206 (1,2,3,4) - There's a change in tone here, maybe a new visual pattern instead?
2. 00:19:308 (1,2,3,4) - I think the gap in pitch between this and 00:19:908 (1,2,3,4) - this is equal so they should have the same spacing scaling, might be a good idea to copy paste it and shrink the whole pattern by x0.50 .
3. 03:03:800 (5,1) - This is quite a huge anti-flow, that's a big jump too (which is fine if there wasn't such a huge anti-flow), maybe that's a bit overdone. How about ctrl+g each of the sets?
   [Fabulous]
4. 00:37:008 (2,3,4) - Not sure about what the actual rule is but I've been told to NC the slider if it changes velocity. It might be the case here as well.
5. 00:40:008 (5) - The structure you've built from the previous notes (00:39:108 (5) - and 00:38:208 (5) - ) has a mapped note on the red tick (00:40:158 - here) so I think it makes sense to map this a 1/2 slider. If you think that's a fair point then don't forget to change 00:43:608 (5) - too.
6. 01:28:908 (1,2,3,4,5) - the change from 1/2 to 1/3 rhythm isn't obvious to the player here so does https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6162943 this makes sense to you?
   [Tough]
7. 00:20:658 (2) - starting sliders on red ticks is a bit off-putting for players at this level so maybe something like this might be better? http://i.imgur.com/dk4gAzf.jpg .
8. 01:48:558 (2,3,4,5) - I think the white ticks are stronger than the red ticks so personally I would shift all of these to the white tick and add a circle on the red tick and stack it on what is now 2 . https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6163045 just in case my wording confuses you.
9. 01:52:158 (2,3,4) - same here too.

LMT1996 wrote:

Hi, from #modreqs!

• [Grand Etude]

1. 03:03:800 (5,1) - This is quite a huge anti-flow, that's a big jump too (which is fine if there wasn't such a huge anti-flow), maybe that's a bit overdone. How about ctrl+g each of the sets? I'll think about it, thanks for pointing out
   
   [Fabulous]
2. 00:37:008 (2,3,4) - Not sure about what the actual rule is but I've been told to NC the slider if it changes velocity. It might be the case here as well. fixed
3. 00:40:008 (5) - The structure you've built from the previous notes (00:39:108 (5) - and 00:38:208 (5) - ) has a mapped note on the red tick (00:40:158 - here) so I think it makes sense to map this a 1/2 slider. If you think that's a fair point then don't forget to change 00:43:608 (5) - too. fixed
   
   [Tough]
4. 01:48:558 (2,3,4,5) - I think the white ticks are stronger than the red ticks so personally I would shift all of these to the white tick and add a circle on the red tick and stack it on what is now 2 . https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6163045 just in case my wording confuses you.
5. 01:52:158 (2,3,4) - same here too.
   Hmm, actually you're right. I'll remake this entire section, thanks for pointing out

This is so good , classical mapping for a classical piece! How fitting.

Darcsol wrote:

The mod went faster than I thought. Anyway,

M4M request

[General]

1. The song is a remix of the original La campanella by Franz Liszt. Unfortunately I can't find who did it. If you know who remixed it, please edit the title. That's a secret for me too. But, only sound samples were used, there are no additional stuff in music, that's why i named it exactly like that.
2. Add Étude No. 3 in G-sharp minor to tags added
3. (Optional) The colors on the notes should reflect the BG. Seeing a very green and deep blue notes in front of a moody BG is jarring. will fix this later

[Soft]

I

1. 01:40:908 (1) - The spinner should end at 01:46:233 fixed
2. 01:58:008 (2) - New combo? added

Not much to find. Good map

Shurelia wrote:

louis are you for real!?

Glad to have you back!

viptwo wrote:

Spread is completely fucked, this set needs two more diffs between Fabulous and Grand Etude as it stands now.
I really dont understand why noone has mentioned this yet.

Louis Cyphre wrote:

viptwo wrote:

Spread is completely fucked, this set needs two more diffs between Fabulous and Grand Etude as it stands now.
I really dont understand why noone has mentioned this yet.

I'd answer your question politely, but since your way to show personal opinion sucks, i don't really want.

viptwo wrote:

Spread is completely fucked, this set needs two more diffs between Fabulous and Grand Etude as it stands now.

F1r3tar wrote:

viptwo wrote:

Spread is completely fucked, this set needs two more diffs between Fabulous and Grand Etude as it stands now.

Routing had a 2.04* gap, and that got ranked. Sure, it's not a great spread, but it's not unrankable.

Stop comparing maps.

In Routing it was possible since the only difference between Extra and Comfort (or whatever the last diff is called) was spacing. And in this case there are huge differences in spacing, density etc. So yeah, not really rankable.

Louis Cyphre wrote:

Stop comparing maps.

In Routing it was possible since the only difference between Extra and Comfort (or whatever the last diff is called) was spacing. And in this case there are huge differences in spacing, density etc. So yeah, not really rankable.

Huge difference/density between what exact difficulties? Grand Etude and Fabulous? If those two, then yea, i totally agree. The gap between them is great, but a bold however:

Grand Etude difficulty has about 95% proximity to the way it should be implemented. This difficulty was named Grand Etude not because i love the name so i set it. No. It was named like this because i've done a port from piano composition. To understand what kind of piano piece is this follow these links: wiki, Synthesia play, Yundi Li's play. And this difficulty is considered as EXTRA and not Extreme and there are great difference between these names. I hope i don't need to tell what kind exactly. So what i wanted to say: this mapset contains 4 standard usual difficulties and an Extra difficulty. I've already a map with such unusual set.

I really don't want to make an Extreme or something similar to 6*, that would be just wrong, just not correct. It's not like i'm lazy or so. The problem is that i'd had to map Extreme away of music proximity by using different ways of feeling the rhythm (like E N H I). So i want to keep everything as it is now. Thanks for attention.

viptwo wrote:

I mean it's up to you if you want to leave it as it is but dont expect it to be ranked then.

1. 01:00:408 (1,2) - 01:04:008 (2,1) - Im not sure what was you following here, but, I want to do a suggestion, I think it feels better
   
2. 01:40:908 (1,1) - I felt this spacing a bit.. annoying... since 01:40:908 (1) - was too long, my mind got used to the slider velocity, so this spacing was like.. very away.
3. 02:09:708 (4) - 02:13:308 (1) - I like those n.n
4. I not understood the rhythms you chose in 03:28:906 (1,2,1) -
5. nazi blankets in 00:04:008 (1,1) -

1. 02:50:208 (1,2,1) - is not flow a bit strange for a low diff like this?
2. 04:13:606 (4,1) - 03:44:956 (1,2,1) - Spacing is very different.

1. That was really cool. I like this diff a lot, but I cant pass it xDDD
2. I tried it like 20 times, but I failed after 03:28:756 - EVER, and died in 03:34:006 - each time u.u
3. 01:09:858 (2,1) - pls, dont stack those >_< That was really difficult to read.

ugg, sad you need to add more difficults bc system

DaxMasterix wrote:

Will you keep this chiptune remix above the original? I cannot find another source than Youtube

One of the most impresive maps in years IMO

1. 00:04:008 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Why did you stop changing the direction the 2,3 is tilted? Based on previous patterns 2,3 would be CTRL+H'd. Also, 2,3 should be NC'd in both parts to continue NC consistency.
2. 00:06:108 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Conceptually this entire pattern is a mess. Musically speaking: there is an octave been 1,2 - 2,3 are the same note, and there are two octaves between 3,4. The first issue here is spacing, as if you base this on pitch at all, (which you should considering you put same-pitched notes stacking on top of each other), then 3,4 should have approximately twice the spacing that 1,2 does. Additionally, 5 is the same note as 2,3, but 7 is not the same note at all! However, with 7, you gave it a placement which is similar to the 2,3,5 patterning, making it seem as if 7 has the same pitch, which it does not. Overall I think that this pattern doesn't accurately reflect the music.
3. That point basically thoroughly repeats itself through the rest of the map with incorrect spacing in relation to pitch shift and not observing your own stacking policies.
4. 00:21:558 (8) - Places like here are the exact same note, so they'd be better represented as a triple probably.
5. 00:22:458 (6) - This pattern doesn't work like in did in the other places. See, at the beginning you were able to play the kick as something that works due to both notes falling on the slider head, whereas here only one note falls on the head, making this sound very dissonant. I'd find something that better represents the music, because this is definitely not equivalent to 00:08:058 (6,1) - there and the other places prior to this seciton.
6. 00:23:358 (6,1) - You're missing an entire note by using this pattern on the 1/8th tick which once again, really leaves this feeling empty. When you first requested this mod from me about a month ago you said that you thought we viewed music in similar ways. I disagree, as you're not really changing your patterns as the music changes. I think your interpretation is only halfway complete to what I would consider a proper interpretation of a song as complex as this.
7. Repeat those points a lot again.
8. 00:37:908 (1,2,3,4,1) - I think not having any additional spacing on the 00:38:208 (1) - really underplays the music here. A chord hits on that 1 and the beat is definitely stronger than the previous, yet you give it the same spacing consistently throughout this section. I think a more accurate representation would be a very condensed acceleration and decceleration stream, as if you listen to the music, its essentially just a simple up and down, walking motion. (But its definitely not a constant as your streams seem to convey.)
9. 00:41:508 (1,2,3,4,1) - Suddenly straight streams! You basically stick with these for no apparent reason which is kind of bland, as the consistency is lacking.
10. 00:47:133 - this is super easy to represent with a kick or something and yet you ignore these, I'm not quit sure why but it ends up making the rhythm feel empty.
11. 00:51:708 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - I like how these are essentially the same pattern except with different spacing. Once again, you aren't properly adhering to the polices established earlier in the map with pitch stacking and DS changes. In fact, its weird because 00:51:708 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - is basically the exact opposite of what it should be whereas 00:52:608 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - is correct for the most part.
12. I don't know, I think I'm done here. My current mod tells you the consistency/conceptual issues I saw throughout the map using a few places as reference. Me only modding this much saves me a lot of time, especially since I get the feeling most of this will end up being denied (as my points require you to majorly overhaul most of your map).

Cryptic wrote:

As promised, I'm here.

00:04:008 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Why did you stop changing the direction the 2,3 is tilted? Based on previous patterns 2,3 would be CTRL+H'd. Also, 2,3 should be NC'd in both parts to continue NC consistency. Fixed.

00:06:108 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Conceptually this entire pattern is a mess. Musically speaking: there is an octave been 1,2 - 2,3 are the same note, and there are two octaves between 3,4. I don't really get where did you find a 2 octave length, since the sheet music says like this:

SPOILER

Do you see these 2 red circles? They are 3 and 4. And the length between them is 1 octave.

00:21:558 (8) - Places like here are the exact same note, so they'd be better represented as a triple probably.
No. Because a note on a blue tick is Grace Note. I can't allow myself to set a grace note as a solo note, because technically (as a piano player) it matches better with a slider.

SPOILER

00:22:458 (6) - This pattern doesn't work like in did in the other places. See, at the beginning you were able to play the kick as something that works due to both notes falling on the slider head, whereas here only one note falls on the head, making this sound very dissonant. I'd find something that better represents the music, because this is definitely not equivalent to 00:08:058 (6,1) - there and the other places prior to this seciton. I don't really get what you meant. Since even at 00:08:058 - the note doesn't land on the slider head. A difference in spacing between first and second part you have mentioned isn't that critical and plays flawlessly (i have tested this map with many players)

00:23:358 (6,1) - You're missing an entire note by using this pattern on the 1/8th tick which once again, really leaves this feeling empty. When you first requested this mod from me about a month ago you said that you thought we viewed music in similar ways. I disagree, as you're not really changing your patterns as the music changes. I think your interpretation is only halfway complete to what I would consider a proper interpretation of a song as complex as this. I know about this and i skipped this on purpose because it affects in a dramatic way on gameplay, which gives much more useless hardness as it should has. Long story short - it's not that hard to play it on piano, but it would be quiet weird in osu!game.

00:37:908 (1,2,3,4,1) - I think not having any additional spacing on the 00:38:208 (1) - really underplays the music here. A chord hits on that 1 and the beat is definitely stronger than the previous, yet you give it the same spacing consistently throughout this section. I think a more accurate representation would be a very condensed acceleration and decceleration stream, as if you listen to the music, its essentially just a simple up and down, walking motion. (But its definitely not a constant as your streams seem to convey.) You should not forget, that a FULL interpritaion of this etude may cause full of unrankable/unplayable stuff, as you know. Sometimes i've needed to switch from one logic (interpritation) to another (my style). But however, that part is a hybrid of one and second, since i tried to follow the etude interpritation and to let it work according to my style.

00:41:508 (1,2,3,4,1) - Suddenly straight streams! You basically stick with these for no apparent reason which is kind of bland, as the consistency is lacking. Dude, you're paying too much attention on "consistency" It's way too nazi.
00:47:133 - this is super easy to represent with a kick or something and yet you ignore these, I'm not quit sure why but it ends up making the rhythm feel empty. Probably we have a different feel about this etude. There is a difference between how it listens and how it FEELS exactly, right? Try to play it, for me this goes flawless.

00:51:708 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - I like how these are essentially the same pattern except with different spacing. Once again, you aren't properly adhering to the polices established earlier in the map with pitch stacking and DS changes. In fact, its weird because 00:51:708 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - is basically the exact opposite of what it should be whereas 00:52:608 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - is correct for the most part. Can you give any images with more detalied information about this, since i don't really get what is wrong with 00:51:708, since it doesn't really differ from other similar patterns.

I don't know, I think I'm done here. My current mod tells you the consistency/conceptual issues I saw throughout the map using a few places as reference. Me only modding this much saves me a lot of time, especially since I get the feeling most of this will end up being denied (as my points require you to majorly overhaul most of your map). This probably ends up with different view on this piece. Before mapping this i spent many months to learn it

Good luck. Thanks ~ <3

F1r3tar wrote:

Can you blanket 02:17:808 (1) better in Fabulous?

Louis Cyphre wrote:

blanket how? There are no blanket to blanket.

Grand Etude

00:07:158 (8) - I'm not really a fan of how you're using kicksliders here. You play them just like you would a circle... click and release. Play-wise it just feels so similar to all the other circle jumps you already use here. I would use triplets instead for some rhythmic diversity. Applies to other sliders in this section too.
I can't use triplets, because those notes are grace notes which are suppose to hit easy and smooth.
00:18:408 (1,2,3,4) - This is good. Spacing increase for pitch. Match this with a lower spacing on 00:19:008 (1,2) - though, otherwise you lose the effect completely due to how large these two jumps are. Agreed, fixed.
00:19:908 (1,2,3,4) - How about flipping 00:19:308 (1,2,3,4) - and using the same spacing design here? It fits the melody anyways. Just an idea. Well, why not. Fixed
00:35:508 (1) - Not going to position it lower like 480||242 and complete the pattern? I don't know why did you set exactly 480/242 while 492/252 goes in a perfect way. So yea, changed position to 492/252
00:51:708 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - I don't see why the spacing increases going into the second pattern. If anything, it should decrease due to the lack of instruments on the second iteration.. It increases because notes are going one by one in a lower octave, same in the next combo set which goes down in a higher octave.
00:55:308 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - ^ Same here
01:00:408 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2) - Can't really explain your intention for using different patterns and spacings here. Hmm, easy. Because notes are going down and they are no jumps inbetween them
01:01:308 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - The spacing here is quite inconsistent too. Here i agree, it's too much as it should be. Fixed
01:02:058 (2) - No emphasis onto this note? fox example? :0
01:05:808 (5,6) - Jumping from sliderhead to sliderhead doesnt seem like a good idea imo. It creates too big of a jump difference. Slider > Slider jumps are far easier than circle > circle jumps. It supposed to be like that, since each slider represents the left hand notes, while higher notes, which has a great gap goes on the right hand. That's why each set of 2 cirles supposed to be a great jumps.
01:07:008 (1,2,3,4) - Carrying on from the previous point, the spacing you use for 3>4 becomes so large that it overshadows your jumps from 01:07:908 - onward... 01:07:908 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - These make a lot of sense, and play really well, but following 01:07:608 (3,4) - they lose their importance. The section which starts from 01:07:908 (1) - is a section with different logic. Probably you didn't like how it goes from Heavy to Light, but it supposed like that, since once again it's another section with different usage of notes. I had an idea to completely remove sliders from these 2 sections, but it would give way too much hardness for players. So yeah.
01:11:208 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - These are just way too big for no reason . 2 octave jumps. They are not hard, really.
01:21:858 (6,1) - Continuing on about the kicksliders from my first point, you can see how emphasis is really lost onto 1 because you use kicksliders isntead of triplets. Once again, it's a grace note again, they should go light and smooth.
02:00:108 (2) - Going by your NC pattern, you should be NC"ing here. 02:00:408 (1) - Remove NC and NC 02:00:708 (4) - instead. Agreed, Fixed
02:27:108 (6,7,1,2,3,4) - These felt really cluttered together, Can you spread the pattern out more? Sure, fixed

Magnificent

00:16:233 (5) - Spacing is inconsistent here. Oops, fixed
00:22:458 (4) - You were doing so well ;c. I really think triplets are better. You introduced the sectio with a triplet too, with 00:21:558 (1,2,1) - . Replaced ALL sliders with triplets. I did so
00:57:408 (2,1,2) - I think these overlaps are too close. They were hard to read for me. Hmm, i don't really get what meant. There are no overlaps here... :/
00:58:608 (1,2) - I would swap NC's and maybe consider NC spam on 00:58:908 - etc... every 2 notes so players are more aware of the spacing increase pattern. Yea, that's cool, done in that way.
01:51:708 (1,2,3) - Somehow, this curve just looks really irregular to me, like you didnt use a slider conversion tool here or something xP. Fixed
01:57:333 (4,1) - Spacing appears irregular compared to the stream. Fixed
02:23:208 (1,2,3) - Uneven spacing. The spacing goes just more and more greater.
02:23:808 (2) - ^ I guess since you scaled the pattern up, all of them end up being slightly off xP. I didn't really get what you mean :/
02:28:608 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - This felt really lame. How about going back to 1/4 repeats again or something? You built up to this part with a lot of jumps with increasing spacing so I think people are expecting something a bit more dense. It's just a continues repeating pattern, it should be mapped like something really special imo.
02:33:858 - Was this break intentional? Yea.
03:01:083 (2) - Remove this and begin the stream when the piano begins (on 03:01:158 - ). Shame on me, yea, fixed.
03:02:733 (12,1) - This jsut isn't good imo. Putting a 1/4 jump like this really messes up players. decreased the distance
03:04:526 (6,1) - ^ Fixed


00:18:858 - How about mapping this? Maybe put the circle in the center of the triangle? Hmm it seems like you neglect this note later too, I don't think this is a good choice though xP. Maybe you have a reason tho. I just wanted to follow main theme without additional melisms like Liszt really like to include
00:22:308 (5,1) - Good. Do the same for 00:23:208 (3,1) - with the overlap? fixed
00:31:308 (3,1) - Overlap here can be better too. I see no problem with this
00:51:258 (4,6) - This is quite close together. It's closer than 00:50:958 (2,5) - so you might want to space them farther for that symmetriy pattern, Fixed
01:21:708 (3,1) - ^ fixed
02:17:808 (1) - This can be a lot better honestly. The slider-borders are so uneven. Fixed


Intense
01:04:908 (1,2) - It's really easy to mistake this for a 1/2 jump because a note on 01:05:058 - definitely exists, and the spacing really resembles a 1/2 jump like 01:03:708 (3,1) - added a circle at 01:05:058 (2) -
01:06:558 (2,1) - I think this jump is way too big. Make it smaller because the pitch continues to go up and up, yet the spacings you use later aren't as large.
fixed
03:08:806 (1) - Can you rotate the slider a bit more, or make the head more visible? It's hard to tell whether you should go clockwise or counterclockwise because the head and tail are really close together and theyre obstructed. fixed

-Nya- wrote:

Heya~ M4M here. First off, I won't be able to mod the last two diffs since their star ratings are extremely high and I can't even map diffs that are that difficult and I can't even play them without failing. But don't worry, my song for M4M won't be more than 4 diffs. I absolutely don't care about the difficulty amount and length

General:

1. The timing in the “magnificent” diff is inconsistent with the other diffs. Oops, fixed
2. Your current filesize is quite big. I suggest trying to lower the size of your BG’s or just convert them to jpeg format. Currently their sizes are quite large, ranging from 1mb. converted to jpg
3. You can uncheck widescreen support in all diffs, if necessary, since you don’t have a SB.

yup

Fabulous:

1. 00:04:308 (2,2) –Perhaps add new combo’s here to emphasize the change in the sound, like you did here: 00:01:308 (1,1) – actually nope, since it's a waltz pattern
2. 00:07:233 –You can place a note here to emphasize that beat. Feels a bit weird to leave it empty since the beat/sound sounds strong. That note is considered as melism
3. 00:08:133 - ^, etc. Perhaps you don’t have to place them everywhere. done
4. 00:15:108 (3) –With this current shape of the slider, flow can be a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps try something like this instead: I don't really see any issues with this
   
   Picture

   
5. 00:17:208 (5) –Add a combo here to be consistent with the previous combo patterns. done
6. 00:27:258 (4,5) –Check the flow again. Will be better if you place the slider like this: ^
   
   Picture

   
7. 01:39:408 (2,1) –Perfect the stack on the tail? Will look neater imo. I don't like perfect stacks of tail (yea, probably i'm strage )
8. 01:49:608 (1) –I don’t really understand this new combo since there’s nothing different in the music that will suggest a new combo here. Because it changes to 1/3
9. 01:52:908 (5) –Add new combo here to be consistent with 01:49:308 (1) – yea
10. 02:29:208 (1,1,1,1,1) –All the new combo’s here are being overused imo. If there’s nothing that changes in the music that will support a new combo, then rather don’t add new combo’s. It's just a combo spam, it's cool and fits for me really nice
11. 03:29:506 (1) –To be consistent with 03:25:306 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) – I think it would be better to add a new combo there. I don't get it
12. 03:31:306 (5) –Same thing here. To be consistent with 03:27:706 (1,2) – rather add a new combo there.

^

Intense:

1. 00:04:308 (2,2) –Same as in the previous diff. Add new combo’s like you did in the previous part for that same similar beat. ^
2. 00:28:608 (3,1,3,1,3,1,3,1) – I’m not sure if it’s just me, but the spacings here look different each time. Since the beat is the same for these patterns rather keep the spacing consistent. Especially 00:31:308 (3,1) – looks much different than the rest. hm?
3. 00:37:908 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) – Same here. Some of them look much differently spaced than the others. Use the same distance spacing for these patterns. ^
4. 00:50:658 –It really feels/sounds as if a note is needed here. You also mapped that similar note here: 00:54:858 – melism
5. 02:29:208 (1,1,1,1,1) –Same as in the “fabulous” diff. Not all these combo’s are needed imo. ^
6. 03:37:006 (1,1,1,1,1,1) –Unnecessary combo’s. ^
7. 04:17:806 (2,2,2,2) –I think there should be new combo’s here to be consistent with 04:16:006 (1) – or just remove the new combo here 04:16:006 (1) –

removed new combo from 04:16:006.

Tough:

1. 1. 00:46:908 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) –All of these circles in a row can get a bit tiring even for a Hard player. I suggest changing some of them into short sliders, just for variety. Perhaps 00:47:808 (3,4,3,4,3,4) – just those few. I don't know, but even such an intermediate player like me gets it perfectly
   2. 01:09:858 (1,1,1,1,1) –In the previous two diffs that I had modded, you didn’t place this many new combo’s after one another in this section of the song, so rather remove some of the new combo’s since there is nothing in the music that changes to support these new combo’s. removed
   3. 01:57:108 (1) –Perhaps remove new combo here so 01:57:408 (2) – is a combo on its own. yup
   4. 02:09:108 (2) –Shouldn’t there be a new combo here to be consistent with the other similar patterns. yea
   5. 02:29:208 (1,1,1,1,1) –Same argument as in other two diffs. ^
   6. 02:36:258 (2,1) –Perhaps stack here on the tail to make the pattern look neater. i don't like stacks on the tail
   7. 02:37:458 (1,2) –Why is the distance between these two objects so small? Seems a bit odd. fixed
   8. 03:29:656 (1) –The rhythm that this slider is following sounds a bit weird to me. Maybe something like this instead: fixed
      
      Picture

      
   9. 03:59:206 (1) –Nazi, but just move this slider a bit to the left for better flow from 03:59:056 (3) –

fixed

Average:

1. 00:18:408 (2) –Just move this tail a teensy bit upwards to have better flow from 00:18:108 (1) – Same with 00:19:308 (2) – Just move the tail a bit to the left. It’ll look something like this: fixed
   
   Picture

   
2. 01:36:408 (3,4) –These two circles on their own might make it a bit difficult for beginners to read the rhythm. Perhaps change (3) into a slider to make the pattern more readable: fixed
   
   Picture

   
3. 03:54:706 (1) –I don’t really understand why this slider is a combo on its own. Either remove new combo here or remove new combo here 03:55:606 (1) –

done in another way

Soft:

1. 00:06:108 (1) –Since it’s possible to snap this circle normally, I highly suggest you do since the spacing must be consistent throughout the entire diff. Beginners might get confused with the current spacing. fixed
2. 00:13:608 (1) –I think you are missing a soft-whistle hitsound on the tail of this slider. yea
3. 00:19:008 (1,1) –Unnecessary comboing imo. fixed
4. 01:40:908 (1) –This spinner end is not snapped properly. corrected
5. 03:10:606 (1) –I think this slider can also be spaced normally. 1.0X I believe it's well enough ok, i'll consider your suggestion

The diffs that I had modded looks really nice. Just a few combo’s and placements that can still be improved I guess, but other than that this set looks good~
Good Luck~