hey, m4m
easy
00:03:851 (2,1) - this blanket looks a bit off
00:11:432 (2,3) - so does this
00:17:967 (1) - I'd move this a bit higher for the better flow
00:22:719 (1) - curving it down like this would work much better imo
00:43:511 (4) - not a fan of such patterns but I guess it's acceptable since 00:44:402 - is emphasized much more than 00:44:105 -
01:14:996 (3,1,2) - uhh is it just me or it's broken a bit
01:28:066 (1) - wouldn't it be more logical to put the first anchor point at 01:28:511 - when the music has a strong beat? smth like this (or you can do the same thing and put the anchor point at 01:28:660 - depends on what you want to emphasize more, I prefer the former)
nice
normal
OD4 to fit the spread better (2-4-6)
00:09:798 - y u no map this
00:10:689 (1) - I'd curve this a bit more for teh flow
00:23:313 (2,3) - uuhhhh something like this looks much better IMO
00:24:947 (1,2,3,4,5) - this follows the music perfectly but I feel like it's more dense than the rest of this part which is not really that good but w/e
00:36:977 (1,2) - same as 00:23:313 (2,3) -
00:47:670 (3) - doesn't really fit in there, an 1/1 slider starting at 00:47:521 - would be better cause you won't miss a vocal and at the same time would have an object at 00:47:818 - which is a drum hit
00:49:897 (3,4) - kinda same as above, (4) being an 1/2 slider sounds really meh (and 00:50:343 - is stronger than 00:50:194 - so having it as a sliderend when there's a possibility to not do that doesn't help) so I'd suggest changing (3) to a 1/1 slider and putting a circle at 00:50:343 -
01:09:650 (2,3) - mentioned this already
01:10:838 (4) - this sounds out of place yet again, the only place where such a slider could fit in this part is 01:10:392 - but you already mapped it. smth like this is better
01:14:254 (2,3) - same as 00:49:897 (3,4) -
01:28:066 (1,2) - idk I'd do something like this instead
hard
00:00:614 (1,2,3) - the distance between those three objects looks uneven, mind fixing that?
00:10:392 (3,2) - I'd make those two parallel, looks better imo
00:19:303 (4) - moving this a bit to the right would help the flow
00:24:650 (3,4) - those aren't making a perfect triangle with 00:23:462 (2) - , fix plx
00:31:779 (6,7,8,9) - rip stacks idk move the stack a bit further from (6) cause this looks sad
00:37:868 (3,4,5,1,2) - same
00:39:650 (2,3,4) - uneven distance yet again
00:42:323 (3,1) - those two should blanket each other pls
01:06:383 (3,4,5,1) - ^^^
01:11:878 (2,3) - the transition between those two is weird somehow, idk maybe it's because of the blanket
01:14:699 (3,4,5,1) - y'know
fun diff
lgv
00:01:902 (4) - any reason for a jump this big? the sound on this one is pretty much weak
00:07:125 (4) - ^
00:08:313 (4) - you got the idea
00:11:284 (3) - why is it a slider? you basically ignore 00:11:432 - with this and if you want to follow that noise in the background (I think you understand what I mean) 00:11:432 is still stronger
00:16:185 (3,4,5) - y u make the distance between those equal? cause they're not similar lol
00:17:076 (2,3) - I get the idea behind those but can you make (2) a bit more spaced from (1)? cause having such low spacing on a strong beat is literally triggering me
00:23:462 (2,3) - ok I don't get this, why do you space (2) more than (3)? cause (3) is stronger as it's a clap and it also has a new vocal line on it. this applies to the whole section - I have no idea why would you do that
00:26:284 (1) - mind curving it a bit more and making (2) the same so it'd flow nicer?
00:28:363 (4) - again, why is it spaced the same as (2) and (3)?
00:32:967 (3) - ok this one's spacing can be justified as 'it's having a new vocal line' but anyway 3x DS is an overkill
00:36:680 (3) - ctrl-g this. would help the flow a bit, increase the emphasis on this object and reduce the jump between this and (1) a bit - now it's a bit too much
00:39:798 (2) - uuuuhhhh why, this has almost no sound at all
00:39:947 (3) - and then you do 1.2x DS on both a vocal line and a beat.
00:42:175 (2) - ^^
00:44:848 (2) - you got the idea, mentioned this already
00:49:600 (2) - and for some reason you don't use that gigantic DS here, this is much better!
00:53:462 (7) - please no
00:58:957 (1,2,3) - idk this is fine but I'd rather make 2-3-4 a triangle since they're all vocals
01:00:442 (2,3) - aaand those two could use bigger DS since they're more emphasized in the music
01:05:491 (5) - y u no NC?
01:05:788 (7) - y u the same spacing pls
01:10:838 (4) - this has almost no sound but you still space it
01:11:358 (6,1) - this transition looks bad but I'll let it pass lol
01:11:729 (2) - this could use a bit more spacing
01:13:066 (1) - same, no idea why didn't you space it more
01:13:511 (2) - uh. IMO this vocal is much stronger than 01:13:660 (3) - and thus should have more spacing
01:14:699 (5) - y'know
beom
00:02:800 (5,6,7,8) - I get this kind of pattern but why'd you do that if you always space them in groups of 4 or 2?
00:11:432 (3,4,5) - uh I already mentioned this in the previous diff. first of all, why won't you space (3)? and then, why do you have the same spacing between those? I can get it if it was a hard diff or lower, where having the same DS is pretty much fine, but you're mapping an insane and have the same DS between different beats. that's no good
00:12:472 (2,3,4,5) - idk if you're following that noise in the background, why won't you space (2) out cause it has the same sound and (5) doesn't; if you're following the beats and decide to not space (2) that much, why does (5) have such low spacing?
00:16:630 (4,1) - I don't get those, (1) is clearly overmapped and the NCs are switched ((4) is much stronger than (1) and you've NCd such things correctly before)
00:27:472 (1) - I remember how you told me in your mod for my Setsuna that I can create good slidershapes using only basic sliders and then you use those by yourself. хDDD oh and yes the flow between this one and (2) is meh, mind changing it somehow?
00:32:521 (3) - ok I like big spacing on claps but this is a bit overkill
00:36:680 (3) - using two circles instead of a slider would put more emphasis on vocals, it'd fit better I think
00:37:571 (3) - rotating it like that would improve the flow
00:38:016 (4,1) - uuuuhh make this one bigger please! (1) and (2) are both strong notes but for some reason (1) has such low spacing
00:41:729 (1,3) - those two are not parallel enough, fix pls
00:42:769 (1,2) - uhhhh
00:46:927 (2,3) - I'd rotate those two to improve the flow but it's fine already I guess
00:47:224 (4,5,6) - meh, same spacing :< (5) and (6) could use higher spacing cause they're vocals y'know
00:47:521 (6,1) - swap NCs
00:50:343 (3) - nice pattern y'got there but this particular note needs more emphasis :>
00:52:719 (4) - pretty much same
01:07:125 (2,3,4,5) - you've been following the vocals until now (or at least I suppose you've been cause that's the most logical explanation for your object placement) and then you're overmapping everything. in the next part, which is basically the same, you go back to the vocals.
01:10:838 (4) - I've mentioned this in the previous diff that this object shouldn't have such high spacing cause it's almost silent
david
00:01:902 (5) - y u do this, it's not a strong beat nor a strong vocal so putting a 2.5x DS jump there when you've used 1.2x before is just meh
00:04:525 (5) - and if we're talking about changing the spacing, e.g. this one can be spaced a bit more, but w/e - it's fine as it is
00:19:303 (1,2,3,4,5) - 'o' is for 'overmapping', plsno
00:23:610 (5) - y u no space this, it's both a clap and a new vocal line
00:29:551 (4,5,6,7,1) - ^^ meh
00:55:986 (1,2,3) - for this whole part - why won't you map this? it's a buildup, one of the strongest parts of the song and you just spam 1/1 sliders. at least throw in some circles!
01:04:006 (5,6) - I don't really think that (6) deserves higher spacing than (5) since (5) is a stronger vocal
01:08:759 (7) - space this more pls, both a strong vocal and a clap
01:09:947 (5) - ^
01:10:838 (4) - mentioned it two times already, why is it spaced like that if it's almost silent?
01:13:363 (4) - moving it to smth like 478 202 would both improve the flow a bit and emphasize (4) and (5) more
01:18:561 (1) - I'd end this a bit earlier and put a circle on 01:20:937 -
01:27:175 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - PLEASE NO. this is hella overmapped, at least use sliders and not circles there, cause right now it's literally mapped to nothing
nice diff overall
karia
I'd bump the OD to smth like 8.5, 8.2 feels a bit low for a 5.6* map
00:02:264 - I can understand why don't you map 00:05:015 - but this has a clear sound
00:15:887 (2,3) - this is actually misleading cause you only used such things for 3/4 + circle type of patterns before, spacing (3) out would fix this
00:56:432 (3) - this one needs more spacing huh, it's a strong beat
00:56:581 (4,5,6) - don't use this kind of a flow plx, cause that's the only place in this section where you do that and it doesn't really fit. also I'd suggest to split (6,7) using the same reasoning
01:07:274 (3) - splitting this into two circles is better IMO, it's not really the same as (1) and (2) so I don't see much reason for it to be a slider but I get your idea
01:20:343 (5,6,7,8) - meh, boring stack. you can do smth better than this! even back-and-forths would fit more
01:21:977 - uh why didn't you map this? it's a strong beat and not mapping it kinda ruins the NC structure cause the new section starts here
nice! enjoyed this one
lasse
applies to the whole diff: ugh, those sliders. I know that you use those in literally every map but I still don't get it - why'd you use such sliders in tv size jump maps LOL
OD 8.2 is kinda low for a 5.8* map
00:01:718 (4,5) - I can see the reasoning behind this one but it'd be much more logical to map 00:02:264 - then which you didn't (though you did it on 00:03:335 (4,1) - )
00:06:086 (1,2,3,4) - I have no idea why those have decreasing spacing tbh, mind explaining it? cause as for me it'd be better to keep increasing the DS
00:08:462 (7) - spacing this out would be a good idea cause a new section starts here. otherwise it's pretty much hard to read
00:28:066 (4,5) - those are the same yet you have much bigger distance between 4 and 5 rather than 3 and 4, fix pls
01:04:006 (5,6) - why is (6) spaced more? (5) is both a strong beat and a strong vocal and (6) is just a strong vocal
01:07:274 (3) - same as karia's diff, I think that splitting those into two would be better cause this slider differs from the previous two
01:13:511 (5,6) - ^^
01:16:482 (1) - when testplaying this was pretty much hard to hit cause the most convenient way to go after (2) would be in the direction of 01:16:630 (2,3,4) - and having (1) covered by a slider doesn't help at all. so I'd do something like this instead
01:20:046 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - PLEASE NO I'M TRIGGERED this is like the most retarded thing you could ever do in that place. you probably want to do this cause all of those notes are somehow similar so they should form some kind of a polygon shape - nope, doesn't work. first of all, it plays bad, second, they're not that similar, something like back-and-forth motion like you did before the kiai would be much better.
01:28:066 (1,2,3,4,1) - ok I'm triggered again. first of all, 1-2-3-4 being a square doesn't make any sense for me - if in the previous case I could've said that they're somehow similar to each other, those four beats are completely different - there's zero reason to arrange them like that. then, this 1/2 slider - using it is perfectly fine cause 01:28:808 - is somehow weaker than the other beats, but why the low SV? completely unsightreadable, looks like 1/4 or even 1/8. also what is this hitsound LOL
perfect world
OD 8.5 is sure too low, 9 or even smth like 9.2 would work better
00:28:660 (1,2,3) - why the low spacing? those three beats are more emphasized in the music than the previous three
01:01:482 (1,2) - this plays weird as hell cause you have to go back to where (2) was and I personally was expecting (1) to be under (3)
01:10:838 (4) - mentioned this, idk, three times - there's no reason to space this one that much cause it's almost silent
neat diff, can't find much there or maybe i'm just tired already orz
good luck~
easy
00:03:851 (2,1) - this blanket looks a bit off
00:11:432 (2,3) - so does this
00:17:967 (1) - I'd move this a bit higher for the better flow
00:22:719 (1) - curving it down like this would work much better imo
00:43:511 (4) - not a fan of such patterns but I guess it's acceptable since 00:44:402 - is emphasized much more than 00:44:105 -
01:14:996 (3,1,2) - uhh is it just me or it's broken a bit
01:28:066 (1) - wouldn't it be more logical to put the first anchor point at 01:28:511 - when the music has a strong beat? smth like this (or you can do the same thing and put the anchor point at 01:28:660 - depends on what you want to emphasize more, I prefer the former)
nice
normal
OD4 to fit the spread better (2-4-6)
00:09:798 - y u no map this
00:10:689 (1) - I'd curve this a bit more for teh flow
00:23:313 (2,3) - uuhhhh something like this looks much better IMO
00:24:947 (1,2,3,4,5) - this follows the music perfectly but I feel like it's more dense than the rest of this part which is not really that good but w/e
00:36:977 (1,2) - same as 00:23:313 (2,3) -
00:47:670 (3) - doesn't really fit in there, an 1/1 slider starting at 00:47:521 - would be better cause you won't miss a vocal and at the same time would have an object at 00:47:818 - which is a drum hit
00:49:897 (3,4) - kinda same as above, (4) being an 1/2 slider sounds really meh (and 00:50:343 - is stronger than 00:50:194 - so having it as a sliderend when there's a possibility to not do that doesn't help) so I'd suggest changing (3) to a 1/1 slider and putting a circle at 00:50:343 -
01:09:650 (2,3) - mentioned this already
01:10:838 (4) - this sounds out of place yet again, the only place where such a slider could fit in this part is 01:10:392 - but you already mapped it. smth like this is better
01:14:254 (2,3) - same as 00:49:897 (3,4) -
01:28:066 (1,2) - idk I'd do something like this instead
hard
00:00:614 (1,2,3) - the distance between those three objects looks uneven, mind fixing that?
00:10:392 (3,2) - I'd make those two parallel, looks better imo
00:19:303 (4) - moving this a bit to the right would help the flow
00:24:650 (3,4) - those aren't making a perfect triangle with 00:23:462 (2) - , fix plx
00:31:779 (6,7,8,9) - rip stacks idk move the stack a bit further from (6) cause this looks sad
00:37:868 (3,4,5,1,2) - same
00:39:650 (2,3,4) - uneven distance yet again
00:42:323 (3,1) - those two should blanket each other pls
01:06:383 (3,4,5,1) - ^^^
01:11:878 (2,3) - the transition between those two is weird somehow, idk maybe it's because of the blanket
01:14:699 (3,4,5,1) - y'know
fun diff
lgv
00:01:902 (4) - any reason for a jump this big? the sound on this one is pretty much weak
00:07:125 (4) - ^
00:08:313 (4) - you got the idea
00:11:284 (3) - why is it a slider? you basically ignore 00:11:432 - with this and if you want to follow that noise in the background (I think you understand what I mean) 00:11:432 is still stronger
00:16:185 (3,4,5) - y u make the distance between those equal? cause they're not similar lol
00:17:076 (2,3) - I get the idea behind those but can you make (2) a bit more spaced from (1)? cause having such low spacing on a strong beat is literally triggering me
00:23:462 (2,3) - ok I don't get this, why do you space (2) more than (3)? cause (3) is stronger as it's a clap and it also has a new vocal line on it. this applies to the whole section - I have no idea why would you do that
00:26:284 (1) - mind curving it a bit more and making (2) the same so it'd flow nicer?
00:28:363 (4) - again, why is it spaced the same as (2) and (3)?
00:32:967 (3) - ok this one's spacing can be justified as 'it's having a new vocal line' but anyway 3x DS is an overkill
00:36:680 (3) - ctrl-g this. would help the flow a bit, increase the emphasis on this object and reduce the jump between this and (1) a bit - now it's a bit too much
00:39:798 (2) - uuuuhhhh why, this has almost no sound at all
00:39:947 (3) - and then you do 1.2x DS on both a vocal line and a beat.
00:42:175 (2) - ^^
00:44:848 (2) - you got the idea, mentioned this already
00:49:600 (2) - and for some reason you don't use that gigantic DS here, this is much better!
00:53:462 (7) - please no
00:58:957 (1,2,3) - idk this is fine but I'd rather make 2-3-4 a triangle since they're all vocals
01:00:442 (2,3) - aaand those two could use bigger DS since they're more emphasized in the music
01:05:491 (5) - y u no NC?
01:05:788 (7) - y u the same spacing pls
01:10:838 (4) - this has almost no sound but you still space it
01:11:358 (6,1) - this transition looks bad but I'll let it pass lol
01:11:729 (2) - this could use a bit more spacing
01:13:066 (1) - same, no idea why didn't you space it more
01:13:511 (2) - uh. IMO this vocal is much stronger than 01:13:660 (3) - and thus should have more spacing
01:14:699 (5) - y'know
beom
00:02:800 (5,6,7,8) - I get this kind of pattern but why'd you do that if you always space them in groups of 4 or 2?
00:11:432 (3,4,5) - uh I already mentioned this in the previous diff. first of all, why won't you space (3)? and then, why do you have the same spacing between those? I can get it if it was a hard diff or lower, where having the same DS is pretty much fine, but you're mapping an insane and have the same DS between different beats. that's no good
00:12:472 (2,3,4,5) - idk if you're following that noise in the background, why won't you space (2) out cause it has the same sound and (5) doesn't; if you're following the beats and decide to not space (2) that much, why does (5) have such low spacing?
00:16:630 (4,1) - I don't get those, (1) is clearly overmapped and the NCs are switched ((4) is much stronger than (1) and you've NCd such things correctly before)
00:27:472 (1) - I remember how you told me in your mod for my Setsuna that I can create good slidershapes using only basic sliders and then you use those by yourself. хDDD oh and yes the flow between this one and (2) is meh, mind changing it somehow?
00:32:521 (3) - ok I like big spacing on claps but this is a bit overkill
00:36:680 (3) - using two circles instead of a slider would put more emphasis on vocals, it'd fit better I think
00:37:571 (3) - rotating it like that would improve the flow
00:38:016 (4,1) - uuuuhh make this one bigger please! (1) and (2) are both strong notes but for some reason (1) has such low spacing
00:41:729 (1,3) - those two are not parallel enough, fix pls
00:42:769 (1,2) - uhhhh
00:46:927 (2,3) - I'd rotate those two to improve the flow but it's fine already I guess
00:47:224 (4,5,6) - meh, same spacing :< (5) and (6) could use higher spacing cause they're vocals y'know
00:47:521 (6,1) - swap NCs
00:50:343 (3) - nice pattern y'got there but this particular note needs more emphasis :>
00:52:719 (4) - pretty much same
01:07:125 (2,3,4,5) - you've been following the vocals until now (or at least I suppose you've been cause that's the most logical explanation for your object placement) and then you're overmapping everything. in the next part, which is basically the same, you go back to the vocals.
01:10:838 (4) - I've mentioned this in the previous diff that this object shouldn't have such high spacing cause it's almost silent
david
00:01:902 (5) - y u do this, it's not a strong beat nor a strong vocal so putting a 2.5x DS jump there when you've used 1.2x before is just meh
00:04:525 (5) - and if we're talking about changing the spacing, e.g. this one can be spaced a bit more, but w/e - it's fine as it is
00:19:303 (1,2,3,4,5) - 'o' is for 'overmapping', plsno
00:23:610 (5) - y u no space this, it's both a clap and a new vocal line
00:29:551 (4,5,6,7,1) - ^^ meh
00:55:986 (1,2,3) - for this whole part - why won't you map this? it's a buildup, one of the strongest parts of the song and you just spam 1/1 sliders. at least throw in some circles!
01:04:006 (5,6) - I don't really think that (6) deserves higher spacing than (5) since (5) is a stronger vocal
01:08:759 (7) - space this more pls, both a strong vocal and a clap
01:09:947 (5) - ^
01:10:838 (4) - mentioned it two times already, why is it spaced like that if it's almost silent?
01:13:363 (4) - moving it to smth like 478 202 would both improve the flow a bit and emphasize (4) and (5) more
01:18:561 (1) - I'd end this a bit earlier and put a circle on 01:20:937 -
01:27:175 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - PLEASE NO. this is hella overmapped, at least use sliders and not circles there, cause right now it's literally mapped to nothing
nice diff overall
karia
I'd bump the OD to smth like 8.5, 8.2 feels a bit low for a 5.6* map
00:02:264 - I can understand why don't you map 00:05:015 - but this has a clear sound
00:15:887 (2,3) - this is actually misleading cause you only used such things for 3/4 + circle type of patterns before, spacing (3) out would fix this
00:56:432 (3) - this one needs more spacing huh, it's a strong beat
00:56:581 (4,5,6) - don't use this kind of a flow plx, cause that's the only place in this section where you do that and it doesn't really fit. also I'd suggest to split (6,7) using the same reasoning
01:07:274 (3) - splitting this into two circles is better IMO, it's not really the same as (1) and (2) so I don't see much reason for it to be a slider but I get your idea
01:20:343 (5,6,7,8) - meh, boring stack. you can do smth better than this! even back-and-forths would fit more
01:21:977 - uh why didn't you map this? it's a strong beat and not mapping it kinda ruins the NC structure cause the new section starts here
nice! enjoyed this one
lasse
applies to the whole diff: ugh, those sliders. I know that you use those in literally every map but I still don't get it - why'd you use such sliders in tv size jump maps LOL
OD 8.2 is kinda low for a 5.8* map
00:01:718 (4,5) - I can see the reasoning behind this one but it'd be much more logical to map 00:02:264 - then which you didn't (though you did it on 00:03:335 (4,1) - )
00:06:086 (1,2,3,4) - I have no idea why those have decreasing spacing tbh, mind explaining it? cause as for me it'd be better to keep increasing the DS
00:08:462 (7) - spacing this out would be a good idea cause a new section starts here. otherwise it's pretty much hard to read
00:28:066 (4,5) - those are the same yet you have much bigger distance between 4 and 5 rather than 3 and 4, fix pls
01:04:006 (5,6) - why is (6) spaced more? (5) is both a strong beat and a strong vocal and (6) is just a strong vocal
01:07:274 (3) - same as karia's diff, I think that splitting those into two would be better cause this slider differs from the previous two
01:13:511 (5,6) - ^^
01:16:482 (1) - when testplaying this was pretty much hard to hit cause the most convenient way to go after (2) would be in the direction of 01:16:630 (2,3,4) - and having (1) covered by a slider doesn't help at all. so I'd do something like this instead
01:20:046 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - PLEASE NO I'M TRIGGERED this is like the most retarded thing you could ever do in that place. you probably want to do this cause all of those notes are somehow similar so they should form some kind of a polygon shape - nope, doesn't work. first of all, it plays bad, second, they're not that similar, something like back-and-forth motion like you did before the kiai would be much better.
01:28:066 (1,2,3,4,1) - ok I'm triggered again. first of all, 1-2-3-4 being a square doesn't make any sense for me - if in the previous case I could've said that they're somehow similar to each other, those four beats are completely different - there's zero reason to arrange them like that. then, this 1/2 slider - using it is perfectly fine cause 01:28:808 - is somehow weaker than the other beats, but why the low SV? completely unsightreadable, looks like 1/4 or even 1/8. also what is this hitsound LOL
perfect world
OD 8.5 is sure too low, 9 or even smth like 9.2 would work better
00:28:660 (1,2,3) - why the low spacing? those three beats are more emphasized in the music than the previous three
01:01:482 (1,2) - this plays weird as hell cause you have to go back to where (2) was and I personally was expecting (1) to be under (3)
01:10:838 (4) - mentioned this, idk, three times - there's no reason to space this one that much cause it's almost silent
neat diff, can't find much there or maybe i'm just tired already orz
good luck~