1. Extra (4,69 stars, 780 notes)
2. Hard (2,62 stars, 370 notes)
3. Insane (3,76 stars, 645 notes)
4. Normal (1,85 stars, 255 notes)

feat. meesh彡☆

If you're playing without video, make sure to deactivate the storyboard too, otherwise you're gonna have a black screen for half of the map!

also check out this great remix by Shirobon!

Vell wrote:

free wifi!

Irreversible wrote:

I thought this was ranked lol

1. 00:44:680 (5) - you usually have all vocals clickable untill here, so i'd just turn this into two singles. also i assume it's supposed to be in the same position as 00:45:985 (1,2) - or am i wrong there? because it's a bit off
2. 01:02:159 (3) - 01:10:507 (3) - 01:12:594 (4) - these notes lack the emphasis that you give the claps with vocals on all other occasions in the chorus through spacing. two of them because of slider leniency, those two might be worth concidering making a slider plus single out of for the reason of not having the vocal on their ends as well.
3. 01:08:811 (1) - might also want to ctrl g this one for similar reasons, just with the intrument this time
4. 01:09:985 (1) - 01:14:159 (1) - also that one is especially heavy but doesn't get any increase in spacing at all like the sounds does in many other places like 01:01:637 (1) - 01:02:680 (1) -
5. 02:32:259 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - you mainly follow the voices in this part if i get that right. so using a rhythm like http://puu.sh/vKDRU/30658a634e.jpg would be more representative of it. epsecially the switched 1 and 2 in the image i would recommend even if you don't want to keep vocal focus for the pattern as it also covers the drums better. the shape of the pattern could really be kept the same except for maybe the last part with the 1/8 tripple, but that can be kept as a slider for convenience too if needed.
6. 03:18:530 (4) - i don't think this one is quite correct. i assume since the slider doesn't go untill the new meassure, you want to have it on the four sounds that start on the blue tick after the white you have it on now, which are in 1/12. so this could work maybe http://puu.sh/vKEiI/0ed32616ea.jpg
7. 03:26:666 (4) - and then this one i don't understand at all. there is a 1/8 startig from the blue tick that goes untill the next meassure. i suppose one can cut that short and end it on the vocal on red instead, but starting it early is questionable to me.

1. 01:16:767 (3,4) - since you didn't map this one instrument but on the voice instead 01:18:333 (1,2,3) - this is a bit confusing as it does it the other way around in the same few seconds. these chance occur several times and it's a bit of a guessing game on which will be used each time

1. 00:56:420 (1) - maybe move this to the blue tick before instead to have it on the more prominent sound that you mapped on a lot in the preceeding part
2. 02:27:810 (7) - since you go out of your way to start this on the blue with a double to catch the vocal, ending it on the next blue rather than on white would be more appropriate as that is where the next vocal comes up. you did it that way on 02:31:878 (6) - too
3. 02:29:590 (5) - also here i'd shorten the slider and add another note on red instead. both the vocals and the instrument you mapped on with 02:28:954 (2,3,4) - would imply it. there's other similar "issues" like this and the above point in this specific part. those just make it unclear what to follow imo
4. 03:06:835 (1) - i'd decrease the spacing and/or the sv in general in this part since it just sounds less intense than the previosu kiai with it's duller nature. seems off to map it in the same intensity.

Irreversible wrote:

[Normal]

Delete all the green lines at the begin, they're unnecessary ECKS DEE more work for you. sorry those are a key element of the map as they represent the strings of the balloons flying up in the air in the video there.
00:29:289 (1,2,3) - This is a bit off DS-wise, you'll see what I mean. whoopsie, fixed
00:47:941 (3) - Hmm, somehow this overlap bothers me. If it was intentional though, keep it lol. ye it's intentional (and thus centered in an attempt to keep it somewhat clean lol), if I move it somewhere else I'd run out of place for what I wanted to do there :c
01:52:767 (1,2,3) - This seems way too over the top for this difficulty. Try to unstack it and make it more readable. holy shit idk why I did that, changed lol
02:48:530 (1) - Please don't use double repeaters in the lowest diff, again, I feel like your difficulty suffers from having technical spikes.
Tried discussing this in irc but on your wish I'll end that and move my reasoning here: This difficulty is not made to please Beginner-players just because it is the lowest difficulty of the set. Not every song can be made into a meaningful Easy-diff, and this song in particular consists mainly of a mixture of a shitton of offbeat-rhythm-layers that all have 3/4-gaps and all sorts of other stuff that simply doesn't make this difficulty enjoyable for beginners. I am fully aware that this has once been in the RC, but maybe you aren't aware that it has been removed for a reason, because you insisting on keeping it easy just bc it's the lowest diff contradicts the purpose of removing it in the first place. Also, the draft confirming this kinda thing has just been announced, so I guess it would be more meaningful to raise your concerns there instead of here if you want to force lowest diffs to be easier than others.
This difficulty is a Normal in every way, and the pure rhythmic structure of it is already demanding a certain skill-level from the player. I believe that if a player can handle/enjoy the rest of the map so far, they will not struggle with slow 1/1 double-reverses at all. I have formed that belief from most of my mapsets featuring patterns in lower diffs that the nominating people had problems with, which caused me to get a shitton of testplays for various maps by players of the respective skill-level. This applied for example to this map which features the exact same pattern in a lower (lowest) diff at higher BPM, where I already discussed this with other QATs and came to the conclusion that keeping it was fine. That diff was actually aimed at much worse players than this one is, and even there we've reached the consensus of it fitting, so why not here? You stated that my diff already had too many advanced techniques, but I don't see how that's a reason to compensate that by leaving relatively easier techniques out; It's simply forming a coherent and consistent difficulty.

Note: The difficulty is excellently done. But I can't push it in it's state, because of the technical spikes it has sometimes, namely the double repeater, the weirdly stacked pattern, and to be honest, as well those stacks: 02:12:072 (2,3,1) - . There was another one earlier in this map. You should get rid off those, to ensure rankability.As discussed in irc I raised Stack Leniency so that all those 1/1-stacks autostack now and thus ensure rankability, I really want to keep them as stacks though as that's a gimmick(?) that occurs very often in this diff and also in more complex ways in the higher diffs of this set, so I wanted to introduce them right away

[Hard]

Really like it, good job. Thanks owo

[Insane]

00:44:811 (4,1) - Normally, there is a lot of emphasis when you have a spaced doublet like this. I think here this is not the case, so I suggest stacking this to make it play smoother here. This is emphasizing that beat that starts there and stays held until 00:45:985 though, it is spaced out at every other instance of that too (00:11:420 (4,1) - 00:15:463 (1,2) - 00:19:767 (4,1) - 00:28:115 (6,1) - 00:32:289 (5,1) - 00:36:463 (4,1) - and also directly after the one you've poointed out 00:48:985 (1,2) -
01:01:637 (1) - Hmm, can you elaborate on why you've used a multi reverse here? I don't really see an opportunity to. I'd follow the vocals, like you usually did. It's to emphasize the sound that the last point was about too, the vocals would only be one 1/2 after that beat so mapping those wouldn't make it possible to specifially emphasize that holding sound anymore
01:09:985 (1) - ^

Plays kind of bad at first, but turns into an interesting challenge. >summary of my mapping in general

[Extra]

00:09:854 (3) - Having the slider end on such an intense beat plays really off.. I suggest an alternative rhythm here, where you don't ignore that important beat. I mean, you can still follow the vocals without ignoring the beat like this - if you extended the slider by 1/4, then you would be clearly following the vocals while maintaining the experience of the map. Following the vocals at the start and letting the slider end on a beat just appears to be really off. I'd really advise you to fix that - it occurs multiple times. I'm kinda confused by you advising not to ignore that beat first but then suggesting to extend the slider so it's even more ignored lol, anyways - I don't find that beat particularly important, it's just the regular snare that occurs all the time, while my map in general focuses on the vocals and the abundance of individual sounds that occur all the time - Both vocals and one of those special sounds have notes at 00:09:724 and 00:09:854 which is why I emphasized, and the slidertail is there exactly because I don't wanna completely ignore the snare and maintaining the hitsounding-structure of the map.
00:26:550 (3,4) - I'm not quite happy with how you handled this kind of rhythm any way, here it is completely different (better than above, tho) That's because that's a different section than before - Starting from 00:25:115 the song constantly has those snycopations on pmuch every red tick that gives the song a much more steady and and continuous flow, which is why I initially kept the map a bit more on-beat to incorporate that and build a contrast to the previous section.
01:01:637 (1,2) - Similar to Insane: 1) Why the repeater 2) Why having it end on a vocal, if you started it on one? You could unreverse it once and add a circle. 1) as in Insane, 2) because on 01:02:159 there are even stronger vocals that wouldn't get their deserved emphasis if the previous note would already be emphasized more.
01:06:333 (4) - ??? As already mentioned. !!! As already explained.

Good map design wise, but please make sure to take care of the rhythm; i've only mentioned it once, but it occurs all over again - and I feel like you're capable of fixing stuff over the whole map, if you decide to do something against it. If you disagree, then please give proper reasoning as to why you feel it's okay, and I'll see further.
Welp, I'm always in for explaining my reasoning even more detailed, but please tell me if you honestly want it in the first place or if you just wanna push your own views.

Bonsai wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

[Normal]

Delete all the green lines at the begin, they're unnecessary ECKS DEE more work for you. sorry those are a key element of the map as they represent the strings of the balloons flying up in the air in the video there.
00:29:289 (1,2,3) - This is a bit off DS-wise, you'll see what I mean. whoopsie, fixed
00:47:941 (3) - Hmm, somehow this overlap bothers me. If it was intentional though, keep it lol. ye it's intentional (and thus centered in an attempt to keep it somewhat clean lol), if I move it somewhere else I'd run out of place for what I wanted to do there :c
01:52:767 (1,2,3) - This seems way too over the top for this difficulty. Try to unstack it and make it more readable. holy shit idk why I did that, changed lol
02:48:530 (1) - Please don't use double repeaters in the lowest diff, again, I feel like your difficulty suffers from having technical spikes.
Tried discussing this in irc but on your wish I'll end that and move my reasoning here: This difficulty is not made to please Beginner-players just because it is the lowest difficulty of the set. Not every song can be made into a meaningful Easy-diff, and this song in particular consists mainly of a mixture of a shitton of offbeat-rhythm-layers that all have 3/4-gaps and all sorts of other stuff that simply doesn't make this difficulty enjoyable for beginners. I am fully aware that this has once been in the RC, but maybe you aren't aware that it has been removed for a reason, because you insisting on keeping it easy just bc it's the lowest diff contradicts the purpose of removing it in the first place. Also, the draft confirming this kinda thing has just been announced, so I guess it would be more meaningful to raise your concerns there instead of here if you want to force lowest diffs to be easier than others.
This difficulty is a Normal in every way, and the pure rhythmic structure of it is already demanding a certain skill-level from the player. I believe that if a player can handle/enjoy the rest of the map so far, they will not struggle with slow 1/1 double-reverses at all. I have formed that belief from most of my mapsets featuring patterns in lower diffs that the nominating people had problems with, which caused me to get a shitton of testplays for various maps by players of the respective skill-level. This applied for example to this map which features the exact same pattern in a lower (lowest) diff at higher BPM, where I already discussed this with other QATs and came to the conclusion that keeping it was fine. That diff was actually aimed at much worse players than this one is, and even there we've reached the consensus of it fitting, so why not here? You stated that my diff already had too many advanced techniques, but I don't see how that's a reason to compensate that by leaving relatively easier techniques out; It's simply forming a coherent and consistent difficulty.

Note: The difficulty is excellently done. But I can't push it in it's state, because of the technical spikes it has sometimes, namely the double repeater, the weirdly stacked pattern, and to be honest, as well those stacks: 02:12:072 (2,3,1) - . There was another one earlier in this map. You should get rid off those, to ensure rankability.As discussed in irc I raised Stack Leniency so that all those 1/1-stacks autostack now and thus ensure rankability, I really want to keep them as stacks though as that's a gimmick(?) that occurs very often in this diff and also in more complex ways in the higher diffs of this set, so I wanted to introduce them right away This is fine, but I will not push it if it stays like this - I like your attempt of involving this idea throughout your mapset, but then I think it's not suitable for the lowest diff, as it shows up too many technically difficult patterns.

[Hard]

Really like it, good job. Thanks owo

[Insane]

00:44:811 (4,1) - Normally, there is a lot of emphasis when you have a spaced doublet like this. I think here this is not the case, so I suggest stacking this to make it play smoother here. This is emphasizing that beat that starts there and stays held until 00:45:985 though, it is spaced out at every other instance of that too (00:11:420 (4,1) - 00:15:463 (1,2) - 00:19:767 (4,1) - 00:28:115 (6,1) - 00:32:289 (5,1) - 00:36:463 (4,1) - and also directly after the one you've poointed out 00:48:985 (1,2) -
01:01:637 (1) - Hmm, can you elaborate on why you've used a multi reverse here? I don't really see an opportunity to. I'd follow the vocals, like you usually did. It's to emphasize the sound that the last point was about too, the vocals would only be one 1/2 after that beat so mapping those wouldn't make it possible to specifially emphasize that holding sound anymore
01:09:985 (1) - ^

Plays kind of bad at first, but turns into an interesting challenge. >summary of my mapping in general

[Extra]

00:09:854 (3) - Having the slider end on such an intense beat plays really off.. I suggest an alternative rhythm here, where you don't ignore that important beat. I mean, you can still follow the vocals without ignoring the beat like this - if you extended the slider by 1/4, then you would be clearly following the vocals while maintaining the experience of the map. Following the vocals at the start and letting the slider end on a beat just appears to be really off. I'd really advise you to fix that - it occurs multiple times. I'm kinda confused by you advising not to ignore that beat first but then suggesting to extend the slider so it's even more ignored lol, anyways - I don't find that beat particularly important, it's just the regular snare that occurs all the time, while my map in general focuses on the vocals and the abundance of individual sounds that occur all the time - Both vocals and one of those special sounds have notes at 00:09:724 and 00:09:854 which is why I emphasized, and the slidertail is there exactly because I don't wanna completely ignore the snare and maintaining the hitsounding-structure of the map. I see why you're confused by that, but I think there's a difference between following two different sounds and one sound especially (vocals in this case), hence why I suggested this. If you were to follow the vocals like you say, then you'd not end this slider there - because it extends to the next 1/4. However, not that tragic if you want to keep it - in my opinion it's a rather poor decision though.
00:26:550 (3,4) - I'm not quite happy with how you handled this kind of rhythm any way, here it is completely different (better than above, tho) That's because that's a different section than before - Starting from 00:25:115 the song constantly has those snycopations on pmuch every red tick that gives the song a much more steady and and continuous flow, which is why I initially kept the map a bit more on-beat to incorporate that and build a contrast to the previous section.
01:01:637 (1,2) - Similar to Insane: 1) Why the repeater 2) Why having it end on a vocal, if you started it on one? You could unreverse it once and add a circle. 1) as in Insane, 2) because on 01:02:159 there are even stronger vocals that wouldn't get their deserved emphasis if the previous note would already be emphasized more.
01:06:333 (4) - ??? As already mentioned. !!! As already explained.

Good map design wise, but please make sure to take care of the rhythm; i've only mentioned it once, but it occurs all over again - and I feel like you're capable of fixing stuff over the whole map, if you decide to do something against it. If you disagree, then please give proper reasoning as to why you feel it's okay, and I'll see further.
Welp, I'm always in for explaining my reasoning even more detailed, but please tell me if you honestly want it in the first place or if you just wanna push your own views.

It hasn't anything to do with me wanting to push my own views (basically what you're saying is that if I don't bubble your map after you give arguments, no matter if i agree or not, I'm pushing my own views) - it's just that I disagree with your arguments, based on the ones I have given. You are free to find someone else, but it won't be me who pushes this map, because of said reasons.
submission ain't working rn aaa nvm

Bonsai wrote:

Don't be that guy and interpret into my words that I'm only satisfied if you agree with me I'm solely reading what you've written, then you might want to take better care of how you word things., all I want from you is to actually respond to one of the abundance of arguments I've stated in some way other than repeating your original argument without any further reasoning. It's quite frustrating when I try my best to explain why I don't think that that's a reasonable argument here, only to be met with "well we both know our positions now, let's stop the discussion" But again, I have my point of view, you have yours - basically what you once again intend is that if you don't understand my point of view,
I will have to find my way to your side? I simply disagree with this kind of logic. I have read your arguments, I understand them, but they conflict too much with my way of thinking as I could ultimatively push this map forward. I have explained my point of view as well, but the way you are describing the whole situation is a one-way street which will only be in your favor..

One last attempt, this time with an analogy: Say you've got a map that is completely DS-bound and has like 129-note-deathstreams in it. And then at some point of the map there are some teeny tiny jumps bc the music supports it there. Has the map gotten any harder just because a new sort of gameplay-element has been added to it, even though that element is much easier than basically the whole rest of the map? Is that suddenly too much? I don't think so, because I believe that players who can play deathstream can also play tiny jumps, as that requires a far lower skill-level than deathstreaming. And that's the same case here with my Normal requiring a certain skill-level to played in general, and double-1/1-reverses falling into that skill-level. There's nothing more difficult about them than all those other elements used throughout the map, it's just different. And I believe that a four-minute-song like this, where most of the sections differ vastly from each other and never repeat themselves, it is justified to use more than just a very limited amount of gameplay-elements as long as it stays in one difficulty-range. I disagree that this analogy can be applied to your map. What you are describing is that people who can play the stream will be able to play the tiny jumps - yeah, I agree. What I disagree with is that the people who can play the tiny jumps will be able to play the stream - and now please be careful, this should not be mistaken with this Normal difficulty. What you are describing is definitely not a Normal, hence why you can't really apply this analogy to this case.. In your map, you have the double reverse, and different kind of stacks. Sure, if someone can play them, the player won't have trouble to play the rest of the map. However, now the problem: He can play the whole map except those patterns, and this is the keypoint of my arguments. I think that you should not use such techniques in the lowest difficulty - yeah, I've seen the new proposals and all but I can't agree with it in this constellation, because of said reasons. If you use some stacks this is okay as an introduction, but you said you used "few" such gimmicks, but I disagree, you use a lot of them, and a lot of different ones on top of that.

I don't actually care that much about a potential nomination as I do about having a meaningful discussion, so if you can actually respond to my arguments in some way I'll gladly leave you be afterwards. Well, not meaning to offend you, but so far your meaningful discussion is not agreeing with me disagreeing and asking me for X different wordings of my argument, even though there aren't an infinite amount of different wordings..

1. i'm personally okay with the varying distance snaps cause they aren't super extreme/varied in most cases but some people might get triggered by it so yeah
2. just my opinion but a lot of the 2/1 sliders you use don't really feel appropriate given the rhythm density of the rest of the map. for example, 00:19:898 (6) - , 00:24:072 (6) - , 00:44:941 (5) - , 00:53:289 (6) - , 01:18:333 (5) - , etc. feel really undermapped compared to the rest of the rhythms used in the same combo
3. 00:24:072 (6) - is the third red pivot really necessary lol
4. 00:31:898 (5) - 1.5x distance snap might be a bit extreme though, coming off of a 1.2x distance snap
5. 00:59:550 (3,1) - not sure about patterns like this for beginner difficulties; at low ARs like this, beginners are likely going to see 01:00:463 (1) - show up and try to click on it only for them to break combo. i'd try to avoid misleading beginners like this
6. 01:12:985 (1,2) - something something blanket these two because aesthetics something something
7. 01:22:507 (5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - this is a pretty long section of 1/2 rhythm density, though i suppose it should be all right given the low bpm of the song
8. 02:06:202 (2) - 02:08:420 (2) - 02:10:376 (2) - i think it might be better to move these forward to the white tick instead of having these land on the blue tick. the white tick has a louder brass instrument sound that beginners are more likely going to follow the rhythm of. you might have to shorten 02:08:420 (2) - to a 1/2 slider though

1. 00:44:811 (3,4) - 00:48:985 (4,5) - i don't think combining vocals and drum rhythms here together are the best idea; these doubles feel a bit awkward imo
2. 00:57:463 (3) - i don't believe there's a sound on this white tick; there's a much more distinct kick on the 00:57:333 (3) - so the rhythm used for 00:56:550 (2,3) - doesn't really feel right with the music. why not try a rhythm like this?
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 01:30:854 (3) - what i said in the Normal about some sections feeling undermapped could technically also apply to this diff as well, such as this slider
4. 01:33:985 (2) - really going to ignore the snare at 01:34:507 - ? :c
5. 01:35:550 - missing snare here as well :c actually i think shortening 01:34:898 (3) - so that it doesn't repeat and introducing either a triple or a 1/4 repeat slider at this spot would be better for rhythm
   
   SPOILER

   
6. 02:43:954 (5) - 03:08:360 (5) - why a double repeat slider for these but then every other part of the kiai uses two 1/4 sliders instead? it feels a bit inconsistent

1. 00:44:811 (4,1) - 00:48:985 (1,2) - the point i mentioned in the Hard about combining vocal/drum rhythms feeling awkward could also apply for this diff as well
2. 00:57:463 (1,1) - the off rhythm i mentioned in the Hard about how there's no sound on this white tick could apply to this diff as well
3. 01:31:507 (3) - 01:39:854 (8) - these should be different slider shapes imo; they're not the same sound so using the same slider shape to associate these more unique sounds in the song doesn't really feel right
4. 02:06:724 (5) - 02:10:898 (5) - 02:15:072 (5) - 02:19:246 (5,6) - one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong (consistently, that is)
5. 03:13:191 - sounds like there's a sound here that i don't think you should ignore here

1. 00:46:833 (1) - sounds a bit early to me; imo it should go on the blue tick at 00:46:898 - like how you mapped it in your lower diffs

Krfawy wrote:

Stop throwin shade at each other and indulge yourselves in relevancy by qualifying my brilliant set for Krzysztof Krawczyk's song.

Ayways, Bonsayayayayayetti: Is there any chance that you could make this pattern (in Insane) 03:30:606 (7,8) - less cluttered? Now the pattern is quite hard to read because of the overlaps and stacks so I would like to ask you to make it easier in terms of reading like this pattern right there: 03:25:903 (4,5) - like, you know, some unstacking if possible. xD well the difference here is that 03:30:098 isn't mapped at any of the other spots bc that sound occurs only here, but I turned (4,5) into a slider which should make this a bit easier ^^
And don't you mind putting 03:38:361 (1) - this circle on X103 Y281? That would be neater and that would flow easier if you ask me. ;-; I don't see how 90° don't flow well, and doing your thing would break DS and also just not fit the musical pattern here imo xd

OMFG fix the blanket in Normal 00:44:941 (5) - My eyes are bleeding. I don't see anything wrong with that Also how about a blanket here so it's more readable for noobs you-know-less-overlaps-there 00:47:941 (3) - ? making that curved in order to blanket would destroy the flow bc it continues downwards, and how would such a small overlap be hard to read anyways And OMFG x2 02:13:637 (1) - move this one one pixel to the right to achieve the perfect stack (that quality...). can't get much more irrelevant than this lol And OMFG x3 02:26:158 (1) - I know you can make the blanketing somehow more perfect but this time I can forgive you because that would require a bit too much work on redoing the slow slider instead of placing the slider selected for that long until the blanket is 690% perfect. I don't really get what you're talking about but I moved it one pixel to the left so idk 03:12:938 (1) - Another blanket to be improved. I won't change the slider I copied everywhere just bc it looks sligthly (if at all) off in the editor at one spot lol And personally I'd use AR5.5-6.0 for easier rhythm reading - those odds might be problematic with just plain AR5 if you ask me. Nah, 5.5 would already make objects that are 2/1 away not noticably visible which I heavily dislike, if someone can't read them with DS then I don't think slightly raising the AR will make any difference, it's just a matter of getting that rhythm or not

Nice song and set. o/

Doormat wrote:

from my queue, what is this video LOL ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Normal]

1. i'm personally okay with the varying distance snaps cause they aren't super extreme/varied in most cases but some people might get triggered by it so yeah
2. just my opinion but a lot of the 2/1 sliders you use don't really feel appropriate given the rhythm density of the rest of the map. for example, 00:19:898 (6) - , 00:24:072 (6) - , 00:44:941 (5) - , 00:53:289 (6) - , 01:18:333 (5) - , etc. feel really undermapped compared to the rest of the rhythms used in the same combo welp, I just really want to emphasize that strong long sound that occurs there, also if I wouldn't do that then in almost every of those instances the same rhythm would pmuch repeat itself four times in a row which doesn't seem cool either
3. 00:24:072 (6) - is the third red pivot really necessary lol turns it into a penis instead
4. 00:31:898 (5) - 1.5x distance snap might be a bit extreme though, coming off of a 1.2x distance snap oh true, lowered it so that it's x1.2 when you ctrlg (4) too, I think that's what I originally intended to do there lol
5. 00:59:550 (3,1) - not sure about patterns like this for beginner difficulties; at low ARs like this, beginners are likely going to see 01:00:463 (1) - show up and try to click on it only for them to break combo. i'd try to avoid misleading beginners like this true, mirrored (3) vertically
6. 01:12:985 (1,2) - something something blanket these two because aesthetics something something nyegh, I guess xd
7. 01:22:507 (5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - this is a pretty long section of 1/2 rhythm density, though i suppose it should be all right given the low bpm of the song yeah, I think considering that it's a very simple constant rhythm it's not too hard at all
8. 02:06:202 (2) - 02:08:420 (2) - 02:10:376 (2) - i think it might be better to move these forward to the white tick instead of having these land on the blue tick. the white tick has a louder brass instrument sound that beginners are more likely going to follow the rhythm of. you might have to shorten 02:08:420 (2) - to a 1/2 slider though but I completely ignore that brass instrument everywhere, starting with 02:05:550 and 02:05:941 -, and the notes that you say they'd follow only come up after what is mapped, so I don't really see that happening o: and following the brass here would also make it much harder to transition to the next section xd

[Hard]

1. 00:44:811 (3,4) - 00:48:985 (4,5) - i don't think combining vocals and drum rhythms here together are the best idea; these doubles feel a bit awkward imo I mean I could easily leave out 00:44:811 (3) and that would be that, but at the second spot I don't see any other way of mapping that without feeling weird, and the doubles don't feel weird to me anyways
2. 00:57:463 (3) - i don't believe there's a sound on this white tick; there's a much more distinct kick on the 00:57:333 (3) - so the rhythm used for 00:56:550 (2,3) - doesn't really feel right with the music. why not try a rhythm like this? but there is a very strong sound there, basically the same as at 00:24:072 - but stronger o:
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 01:30:854 (3) - what i said in the Normal about some sections feeling undermapped could technically also apply to this diff as well, such as this slider I realized I forgot to put a sliderwhistle on that, but other than that see my response in Normal xd less is more
4. 01:33:985 (2) - really going to ignore the snare at 01:34:507 - ? :c yeppers c:
5. 01:35:550 - missing snare here as well :c actually i think shortening 01:34:898 (3) - so that it doesn't repeat and introducing either a triple or a 1/4 repeat slider at this spot would be better for rhythm but I don't get why that's so problematic lol, I simply focus on something completely different than the kicks or snares, mapping them too would make this section much denser than it would fit as it's much quieter and calmer than everything else xd
   
   SPOILER

   
6. 02:43:954 (5) - 03:08:360 (5) - why a double repeat slider for these but then every other part of the kiai uses two 1/4 sliders instead? it feels a bit inconsistent tbh they just don't feel that significant to me at the first one, hard to put into words but I guess it's bc 02:43:954 and 02:44:208 and 02:44:463 - stay on the same tone which is also the tone of the other synthesizer-layer so it doesn't stick out much, compared to that 02:46:242 and 02:46:496 are different tones, and for 02:52:089 (5,6) I can't really say why it seems like it sticks out so much more to me but it does lol xd
   for the second timestamp I guess it's the same plus it enables better differentiation for 03:10:648 (6) -, I hope this makes sense xd

[Insane]

1. 00:44:811 (4,1) - 00:48:985 (1,2) - the point i mentioned in the Hard about combining vocal/drum rhythms feeling awkward could also apply for this diff as well same response xd
2. 00:57:463 (1,1) - the off rhythm i mentioned in the Hard about how there's no sound on this white tick could apply to this diff as well zzz
3. 01:31:507 (3) - 01:39:854 (8) - these should be different slider shapes imo; they're not the same sound so using the same slider shape to associate these more unique sounds in the song doesn't really feel right but they are the same sounds lol, idk what to say lol, uh maybe you're focusing too much on that descending low sound at the second timestamp but those.. rattling(?) sounds from the first one are there too and stand out more to me xd
4. 02:06:724 (5) - 02:10:898 (5) - 02:15:072 (5) - 02:19:246 (5,6) - one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong (consistently, that is)
5. 03:13:191 - sounds like there's a sound here that i don't think you should ignore here the only distinct sound I hear here is the one that is on every other red tick that I left out too, if you mean the synth that is kinda 'starting up' again then I didn't map that there yet bc I think it reaches its strongest point at the blue tick and mapping the red too would also take away the rhythmic emptiness of the synth disappearing between 03:12:556 (2,1) -

[Extra]

1. 00:46:833 (1) - sounds a bit early to me; imo it should go on the blue tick at 00:46:898 - like how you mapped it in your lower diffs well the vocals there would more accurately be on the 1/16 between those lol, but the thing is that the early 1/8-vocal at 00:46:702 is smth that I really wanted to follow, and mapping any other rhythm following that up would make it weird af to play

higher diffs are kind of uniquel, but i think the lower diffs could be more beginner-friendly with the rhythms there's not much room for compromise between using-3/4s and not-using-3/4s lol, I originally got a Normal-GD that just mapped 1/2 everywhere which obv was easier but didn't relate to the song's actual rhythms at all so rip that