1. 00:05:441 - since there are drum sounds, you could be use hitsounds to represent those
2. 00:28:494 (2,3) - i think you could reduce distance just a bit, mainly because of consistency with previous patterns and also seems to flow better that way
3. 00:42:705 (6,7,8) - i think it's much better if you stack 00:43:021 (7) - with 00:42:705 (6) -, making a movement on a 1/1 gap kinda outshines the jump from 7 → 8 ...that's just my opinion, though
4. 00:47:600 (6,7) - could use higher spacing here, because 00:47:915 (7) - is a snare, which is a strong sound.
5. 01:34:020 - uhmm... i think this should be mapped... it's the last strong snare of this section so how about this?
6. 02:08:757 (6,1,2,3) - i think the spacing is too low, although the music is less intense in this section i think you could space it a bit more, because it could be misread as an 1/4 gap
7. 02:12:862 (1,2,3,4) - similar to previous, just a bit more of spacing wouldn't hurt i think
8. 02:36:231 (2,3) - the 1/4 gap being overlapped doesn't make much sense when you already used a pattern like this 02:35:600 (6,7,1) - ... i think it's better if you increase the spacing between 02:36:231 (2,3) - in order to keep consistency on this section
9. 03:11:600 (2,3,4,5,6) - spacing is too much in my opinion... this pattern consist in almost full screen jumps which looks a bit out of place if you compare it with your previous 01:46:968 (2,3,4,5,6) - pattern
10. 03:27:231 (4,5) - the distance between those two notes doesn't really represent the music because the sounds on the 03:27:389 (5,6,7,8) - stream are really intense, so distance should be higher... maybe you could try something like this?
11. 04:24:863 (2,3,4,5,6) - i personally think that this type of stacked stream doesn't really represent the music... it plays really plain when it's supposed to be some sort of "progressive" guitar riff maybe 1/4 sliders would work better
12. 04:52:178 - similar to previous triples, they could be spaced just a bit more
13. 04:54:073 (6,7,8) - 04:52:178 (1,2,3) - why are these stacks and also the slider parallel to the y axis? looks out of place considering the map design. i believe something like this would fit your map much better

Kagetsu wrote:

[Brilliance]

1. 00:42:705 (6,7,8) - i think it's much better if you stack 00:43:021 (7) - with 00:42:705 (6) -, making a movement on a 1/1 gap kinda outshines the jump from 7 → 8 ...that's just my opinion, though 00:43:178 (8,1) - also have not stacked 1/1. this placement makes variation of placement imo.
2. 00:47:600 (6,7) - could use higher spacing here, because 00:47:915 (7) - is a snare, which is a strong sound. true. ctrl+g-ed 00:47:599 (6) -
3. 01:34:020 - uhmm... i think this should be mapped... it's the last strong snare of this section so how about this? plz allow me to say nope strongly about this. atmosphere of the song changes much clearly here, then just putting one spinner is the best way to express this feeling. also, since 01:34:020 - doesn't has any strong sound, there's no reason to put circle.
4. 04:24:863 (2,3,4,5,6) - i personally think that this type of stacked stream doesn't really represent the music... it plays really plain when it's supposed to be some sort of "progressive" guitar riff maybe 1/4 sliders would work better emphasize the strings sound making aim stop. also i don't think all strings part should be same placing (not stacked stream). we need variation imo.
5. 04:52:178 - similar to previous triples, they could be spaced just a bit more since here is silent part, i think i don't have to do so. also this is same distance as 04:52:968 (5,6) -
6. 04:54:073 (6,7,8) - 04:52:178 (1,2,3) - why are these stacks and also the slider parallel to the y axis? looks out of place considering the map design. i believe something like this would fit your map much better stacked them

that's all!

1. 01:12:389 - why ignore this beat? it's very clear qq
2. 02:16:494 - and this one too? add clap if you add a circle here
3. 02:22:021 (1,2,3,4) - i don't think the flow is good here, maybe try something else http://puu.sh/te2dp/7c6f7ef29e.jpg
4. 02:29:205 (2) - use drum-clap too? pretty weird that it's the only one without any hitsound in the stream
5. 03:07:021 (1) - unnecessary NC i guess
6. 03:15:626 (4,5) - stack /hides

Karen wrote:

Brilliance

1. 01:12:389 - why ignore this beat? it's very clear qq that's right
2. 02:16:494 - and this one too? add clap if you add a circle here i wanna emphasize 02:16:652 (1) - very strongly.
3. 02:22:021 (1,2,3,4) - i don't think the flow is good here, maybe try something else http://puu.sh/te2dp/7c6f7ef29e.jpg okay
4. 02:29:205 (2) - use drum-clap too? pretty weird that it's the only one without any hitsound in the stream changed hitsound through this stream. same way as the song.
5. 03:07:021 (1) - unnecessary NC i guess i specially take 3 times 1/1 stacking here. this NC expresses that.
6. 03:15:626 (4,5) - stack /hides fix

call me back

Battle wrote:

cute song