Sorry for being blunt. It came off as a lot more rude than I wanted to. Let me explain how I feel about it.
04:46:175 (3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) – This section of the map is extremely challenging since it uses very high spaced ¼ rhythms. The player needs a high level of skill in order to be expected to come close to play it. This means that the target audience has to have somewhere around this level of skill. If this is not the target audience, then this section needs to be significantly nerfed.
Now compare this to first kiai at 01:40:827 (1) - . This kiai takes a heck of a lot less skill to play. I'd expect that the assumed target audience finds these to be quite low intensity. They don't offer nearly enough challenge for these players, and so the kiai is lacking a level of intensity for fun play.
Even in more restful places like 02:40:827 (1) - , you drop the SV, note density, and spacing so low that this is offering minimal play experience to the player. For the target audience, there are stronger rhythms that offer more interaction with the music and the osu objects that still feel restful enough to convey the low energy in the song.
The above can be summarized by saying that the pacing of the map does not create a fun experience for any target audience. The beginning is too weak for experienced players and 04:46:175 (3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) – is too strong for less skilled players. Take a look at
the graph produced by modding assistant. This huge spike in the intensity of the map shows an inconsistency in your interpretation of the music's intensity.
I don't disagree with how you grouped different sections. Your intent behind the changes in intensity make sense at every step. What I'm disagreeing with is the extent to how far these differences are between the sections.
The guideline suggested above by D-kun is an attempt to describe 'quality.' Pacing is a crucial aspect of every map, and I believe the above guideline was introduced to basically say 'maps should have good pacing.' Whether this guideline is ultimately accepted or not, it doesn't change the fact that pacing can be an issue for a map, as I believe it is for this one.
All this is of course subjective, but I'd be pretty surprised if this issue doesn't get pointed out in the future. Anyway, I apologize for the harsh way I put it before. Good luck with the map wherever you go with it.
Edit: Formatting
