Holoaz wrote:

Lunet's crisis
00:09:449 (6,7,8,9) - 見にくいって言われるかも
00:17:202 (7,1,2) - ^ Fixed.

Verdisphena wrote:

Can make a taiko diff?

1. .Opinions: (Just some thoughts, I'd personally like if you follow them)
   Nice rhythm for an easier difficulty, good job!
2. .Suggestions: (Fixing this should make gameplay/aesthetics a bit better)
   This difficulty feels like a Normal: Many times i had the impression that the playfiled has too much stuff going on due to the low Approach Rate, so I suggest HP Drain +1, AR+2, OD+2 and renaming to Normal

1. .Opinions: (Just some thoughts, I'd personally like if you follow them)
   Nothing to say, but i think there's too much use of 1/1. Most of the times it goes correctly with the voice (which is what you're following, it seems), but sometimes it feels forced.
   Just some examples of what i mean: 00:54:786 (3) - expecting it to end at 00:55:292 due to the voice; 01:18:382 (1) - expecting it to be 1/2 shorter, that way the repetitions would go right on the voice; 01:49:224 - a beat here would go well;

1. .Suggestions: (Fixing this should make gameplay/aesthetics a bit better)
   00:04:899 (1,2,3,4) - i found this really unintuitive because it's exactly the same as 00:00:180 (1,2,3). I suggest making them slightly differently to give some kind of hint, also because you didn't use this pattern anywhere else in the map.
   00:17:539 (1,2) - new combo inconsistency. Remove new combo to (1), add new combo to (2).
   01:04:899 (5,1) - kinda cruel anti-jump. Again, you didn't use this anywhere else in the map, so moving it a bit more farther whould help to give a hint.

1. .Opinions: (Just some thoughts, I'd personally like if you follow them)
   00:03:045 (2,4,6) - these sound a bit weird to me, actually. Why did you use 1/8 here?
2. .Suggestions: (Fixing this should make gameplay/aesthetics a bit better)
   00:20:910 (11) - it would be good to end it at 00:21:247 then add another beat at 00:21:415
   00:29:842 (6) - new combo and move 00:29:842 (6,7,8) a bit down-left; 00:30:348 (1) - remove new combo. Something like this:
   
   SPOILER

   
   00:40:966 (2,3) - 01:26:977 (4,5) - why the single jump? Something like 00:24:449 (1,2,3,4,5,6) works quite good, but a single mid-combo jump looks sloppy D:
   00:52:764 (7) - new combo; 00:53:775 (1) - remove new combo
   01:07:427 (8) - kinda sudden and not fitting how 01:06:247 (5,6) are made. Maybe something like this would work better (stack 9 correctly as well):
   
   SPOILER

   
   01:22:764 (5) - stack correctly.
   01:37:258 (4) - new combo