- 00:00:368 - Remove this greenline of diff you don't change SV with. And if you use SV change put same volume on both timing and inherited point.okay
- 00:23:816 (3) - NC is not necessary if you want to keep like how you did them before.
- 00:57:609 (2,3) - I would avoid the stack to make sure arrow is readable. Right now it's too hidden behind the circle.
moved a bit so that the arrow isnt hidden
- 01:04:333 (2,3,4) - Use simple stack pls, that's not an Insane and could be a bit disturbing.
- 01:07:781 (1,1) - Spacing is too low and don't give the good visual rhythm from it. Also once again, reverse arrow is not much visible with 01:08:385 (6,7) - .
Made a change that should be acceptable
- 01:31:402 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This kind of pattern is a big no. Clearly a pattern you would see more on an Insane or above, but the reading is not the best and playability too edgy for that diff. Also nothing on the song call for 01:31:402 (1,2) - being stacked. Simple stack or small burst like https://puu.sh/xpYvO/44cc236e40.png would definitly be better.
I would disagree that the song doesnt call for it as the first two sounds are higher(and the same) pitch, but then again I guess this kind of thing might be a bit too much for a hard diff.. even tho I'd really like to keep it.
- 00:57:781 (3,4,5) - Unstack them, the 1st of them is really hard to catch correctly due to it and lead to a easy unwanted break. Just space them a bit is enough.
- 00:35:540 (2) - / 01:08:471 (7) - / 01:18:988 (1,2) - / 01:52:954 (3) - and more if I forgot some -> Buzz sliders should have appropriate delay before the next note. 1/8 and 1/16 sliders should be followed by a 1/4 gap, whereas 1/12 sliders should be followed by a 1/6 gap. This ensures that the hit-window between hit objects is playable.
I get your point but on 01:18:988 (1,2) - I'll only make the second one have a 1/4 gap as the distance between the first and the second is basically nothing. Having it repeat fully shouldnt be a gameplay issue at all.
- 00:01:919 (1,2,3) - I would stack them to create a similar effect like 00:02:436 (1,2,3) - who share the same kind of sound, also represent more the rhythm you used here -> https://puu.sh/xq0Nk/a3f88d0ea3.png .
First off, I'd say those two triples dont share similar sound at all. the first has one distinct sound with for each hit, kind of a high pitch tap(idk),
while the other is nothing like it at all, so spacing them out would make more sense to me. also the pattern as a whole kind of foreshadows these: 00:52:436 (2,1,2,1) - 00:56:574 (5,1,2,3) - . Even so I think I'm gonna change to your suggestion just cause it plays a lot better and doesnt catch the player off guard as much as the inital pattern does.
00:05:195 (1,2,1,2) - If I believe what you answered to Natsu, then why spacing is different from stuff like 00:10:712 (1,2,3,4) - who share exactly the same rhythm and music ? They should yes.
If you take into account how you actually play those patterns, they don't play much differently at all. very minor movement with a jump to the last note.
- 00:32:264 (1,2,3,4) - Natsu means the curve could be a bit better, the angle you did with 00:32:436 (3,4) - is a bit broken and could be more smooth.
clarified in pm. changed it a tiny bit
- 01:31:057 (1,2,3) - Imo that's a bit overkill for a 1/4. The back and forth create a non intuitive pattern to follow unlike stuff like 01:42:092 (1,2,3) - .
I feel like a back and forth movement really fits the music here, but I changed up the pattern a bit so that the spacing isn't as crazy. generally the first 2 notes in a 1/4 jump like this is much easier to hit than the 3rd, so I feel like this should be a decent compromise