why people request m4m for short af songs I have no idea but w/e
[General]
Just saying, if you need to add another timing point on a song like this, which really doesn't sound like multibpm, then the offset is probs wrong lol, I got 247 for the offset but it seems like you're kinda conflicted over that stuff so yeah lol regardless the offset is early
[Easy]
00:07:469 (2) - Tbh this should be the one having a unique slider shape, not 00:10:432 (2) - , 00:07:469 (2) - has a unique winding sound, and feels a lot more intense than 00:10:432 (2) - but is only represented by a simple slider
00:10:422 (2) - Ending 2 on the red tick it currently ends at is pretty questionable, considering the adjacent white ticks, 00:11:348 - and 00:11:718 - , both have stronger beats that would feel better to end on. You can't just have it consistent with 00:07:459 (2) - , they are two entirely different sounds
00:22:475 (4,1) - The cut off in flow here kinda just feels random, it's an easy yeah, but just having a seemingly random (at least random to me x.x) gap in the music feels pretty odd
00:23:956 - to 00:29:327 - lol this song is really short, but that's literally even more reason to keep things consistent, you can just have sliders that go over all these beats then map them out a few seconds later. People, especially easy players, won't be expecting this
[Normal]
tbh I would honestly suggest making the 1/2 things like 00:22:845 (1,2,3) - 1.3x DS so it looks a lot neater, and it's completely acceptable since the change doesn't affect too much besides aethetics
00:06:903 (3,1) - I guess you doing this is kinda to represent the whole "quieter" part of the music and you do it consistently, but honestly it feels weird since the music has quite a drastic change, making the change emphasized with lower spacing kinda seems counterintuitive
00:07:459 (1,2,3) - all of this stuff is really close together lmao, having 2,3 literally touch doesn't look aesthetically pleasing at all
00:09:866 (3,1) - Why 1.0x DS when you have 1.2x DS 00:15:792 (3,1) - ?
00:21:919 (2,3,1) - This is really sharp, it's probably best if you don't have it as basically a straight line
[Hard]
Why are 00:00:237 (1) - and 00:03:199 (1) - bezier sliders lmao?
00:05:236 - 00:05:329 - Why did you choose to map the other 1/4, but not the 1/4 here?
00:16:358 (1,2,3,4,1) - Stuff like this ends up being quite hard to read, adjusting the pattern so it's less cluttered helps a lot
00:22:845 (1,2,3) - There's no 1/4 rhythms here though
[Insane]
00:05:051 (2,3,1,2) - It'd be nice if the ds for 2,3 and 3,1 were consistent
00:18:586 (2,3,4) - Kinda the same thing, things end up being harder to read if you overlap them, and can confuse players, it's best to make things clear
00:18:031 (1,2,3,4) - While I'm still talking about this, it's strange you choose to put so much emphasis on 2, which isn't a strong beat at all, and you have literally no emphasis for 3,4. Granted, 3 is really weak, but 4 is a unique sound that really doesn't feel unique due to the fact that it's overshadowed by 2 for no reason
d