Monstrata wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5861348

I had the same conversation with Lanturn about metadata, and we felt that using Camellia in Artist was fine. Also the space between the slashes (/) were cuz of the fullwidth character.

If anything, the official youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRoYo5OClM4 has Camellia listed, so there are alternative official metadata sources. I don't think one approach is definitely the correct one, but we can discuss it further. (In any case, imo the goal of metadata should be to properly credit the artist etc... but nowadays it's mostly about finding spaces and capitals that shouldn't be spaces etc...)

neonat wrote:

All of that was being considered. Both still showed the separation of the vocalist and composer, and the artist should be placed with the singer.

SPOILER

The / in alfakyun is inclusive, it might be causing confusion to you here. The other / is separating the two fields, they are not including each other. It's the same way and format used elsewhere as well like here

SPOILER

1. ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。x かめりあ
2. ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。／かめりあ
3. ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。
4. ＋α／あるふぁきゅん。feat. かめりあ

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Lasse wrote:

some issues I have with the top diff Let's hear them!

03:04:082 (1) - clicking this seems so strange with what's going on the song, deleting this and making 03:03:920 (1) - a 1/2 or 3/4 slider seems nicer This current patterning is a way of emphasizing the complete stop that the music has between 03:03:839 - 03:03:920 - by a large spacing from a slow slider going to a fast kickslider. The reason it is a kickslider is because it immediately shoots the cursor movement back into the large and fast slider velocity that the part before it had and the part after it has in order to make the increase in overall spacing feel natural right from the start. Anytyhing else but a kickslider would feel lackluster in my opinion. the issue is not the kickslider itself, but how you put a click on 03:04:082 -
which makes no sense at all as I stated before. also the kickslider doesn't have such an effect as nobody willl follow it, thus no "shooting the movement
back" or anything. things that would make more sense: higher sv + 1/2 or 3/4 slider, a gap on rhythm, ...
03:05:866 (3) - all important sounds are on the red tick, but you put a pretty pointless seeming extended slider over that? // 01:33:110 (6) - I talked about my usage of these 3/4 sliders when I replied to Pentori but basically I use them to emphasize the melody on the backgroun as it has a climax here and I don't want to ignore it. where? the blue tick? I don't think so

I also have no idea why things like 03:05:379 (3) - 03:06:352 (2) - etc. have to be fullscreen jumps, it's such a weak sound The fact that it is fullscreen doesn't really hold any extra value here as the whole part has relatively high spacing to follow the transpose the music has and the increase in intensity that the music brings with it because of that. So compared to rest of the spacing in this part this is normal spacing and consistent. it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats

overall rhythm choice overall often seems like you just throw multiple layers together losing pretty much all emphasis, like 03:07:974 (2,2) - are emphasizing vocals, but 03:07:487 (1) - ignores vocals, despite 03:07:487 (1,1,2,1,2) - being a rather repetitive thing, so using the same rhythm for all 3 parts of this would make more sense I think This is just my opinion and I can understand why this would cause some controversy but the reason I mix in all these rhythm choices is so that I wouldn't commit myself into following a single aspect in the song too much. If I commit myself into following just a single thing in music then the player starts to expect that in all parts of the song and it makes my mapping much more limited. If I mix all these elements in I can emphasize the parts that I find worth emphasizing much more naturally as the player isn't made to think that oh since this part comes up it must follow the vocals now or the melody now etc. The whole map is a proof of this way of thinking, I mix up the following of vocals and instruments a lot but I do it in a way that feels natural for me. I know it's a cliché thing to say that it's my way of mapping but it truly is and it's present in all of my maps that give me the option to do this (songs that have so many elements mixed in them that allow for this kind of change of things I follow instead of being so forcefully linear that they make me follow a certain aspect of a song from start to finish like vocals for example). Now to say why I do this precisely in this part is so that I can naturally add the piano sounds at 03:08:460 (1,2,3,4,1) - into the map because the player isn't expecting me to blindly follow the vocals and this makes for a much more interesting and fun to play part because of the piano being here. Apologies for the long explanation but I thought it was necessary to make you understand my perspective a bit more as you might find the reasoning behind my responses a bit lacking at times. doesn't make any sense to me but whatever

01:39:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - this completely ignores the song with the pretty outstanding 3/4 rhythm of the drums, emphasis would be on http://lasse.s-ul.eu/RohA0gx2.jpg When I started to map this I chose to simplify all of these into streams that are a mix of the drums and the piano as I find it natural being a stream instead of a triplet into kickslider jumpspam. doesn't change the fact that it fails at representing the song properly
same goes for 00:22:731 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - and wherever else this happens
01:40:893 (1) - I have no idea what this is supposed to do. just leaving this empty would make it fit so much better // 00:24:353 (2) - This was intended to be like a built in "countdown" but since it isn't necessary and works without it I'll remove it.

02:26:785 (2) - things like this make no sense at all emphasis wise, you put a click on nothing and end it on snare+vocal which seem to be what you usally focus on 02:26:299 (1,2,1,2) - These being the opposites of eachother rhythmwise is intended to emphasize the switch from vocal follow into following drums for the duration that vocals aren't present how does that justify mapping 1/2 sliders that randomly start on nothing but end on important beats. this could probably work as some overall concept of the map, but not like you did it
02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - completely ignores 3/4 emphasis again, when http://lasse.s-ul.eu/QIRZ6L19.jpg stand out so much more#
this is so distinctively different from 02:55:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - yet you just continue the spacing increasing stream. As mentioned above I chose to simplify all these rhythms in the song and here the obvious increase in intensity is presented by increasing the spacing of the stream (the most important kicks have an increase in spacing between them to take these really important kicks into addition even if the rhythm is simplified 02:57:028 (4,1) - 02:57:677 (4,1) - )

03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - think a rhythm like http://lasse.s-ul.eu/ARIYEh0W.jpg would be nice as that would let you emphasize the snares with 1/4 sliders and the melody with jumps/starting to click again, the current is alright on melody with (5) but seems a bit weird with the very outstanding snares on the white ticks Here the emphasizing in the simplified version happens with the turning point being the strong kick 03:44:622 (5) - simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all

another thing would be overall usage of spacing between sections, mainly in the "calmer" parts like the intro, making for a lack of contrast between them and the more intense parts
examples would be 00:06:028 (2,3) - 00:05:704 (5,1) - 00:11:218 (6,1) - and a lot more similar stuff in this part. it's only background noise and vocals, yet very similar to the first chorus intensity wise Hmm I like the idea of distincting these more so I'll adjust them to what might seem a little to you but noticeable for me but still I will lower the spacing on these!
00:46:974 (1) - 00:56:461 - this part is executed better in that regard I agree.


00:57:272 (2,3) - what are these even following? big spacing jumps on nothing? I agree these do land on nothingness but this is the kind of reasonable "overmapping" that exists as I went over this with Monstrata and got opinions from players such as Xilver for this aswell. While you are playing this clicking at these part feels only natural opposed to having nothing there. And the argument for these being big jumps refer to my response below. similar to earlier points, devalues the actual strong sounds in the song
02:14:461 (2) - can you at least not put huge spacing on these things lol clicking is already barely makes any sense here But this isn't huge? compare to 02:15:272 (2,3) - 02:16:083 (3,1) - 02:16:893 (3,4) - This is normal spacing I use for this part. maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then

Thank you for the mods !

Lasse wrote:

that is pretty much what I did, there is a clear explanation I see these points as issues and suggestions what to do about them

Lasse wrote:

sing: that's not even remotely comparable. and calling 185bpm 3/4 rhythms "conplex" when looking at the difficulty of the whole map has to be a joke. when you have streams on 1/4, streams on nothing, streams on 1/2 and streams on 3/4 you are most likely not representing obvious differences in the song. iirc fucchos diff was an alright example for rhythm that would make sense for 02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - but I'm not at home right now to actually open editor and confirm

Lasse wrote:

ProfessionalBox wrote:

some issues I have with the top diff Let's hear them!

03:04:082 (1) - clicking this seems so strange with what's going on the song, deleting this and making 03:03:920 (1) - a 1/2 or 3/4 slider seems nicer This current patterning is a way of emphasizing the complete stop that the music has between 03:03:839 - 03:03:920 - by a large spacing from a slow slider going to a fast kickslider. The reason it is a kickslider is because it immediately shoots the cursor movement back into the large and fast slider velocity that the part before it had and the part after it has in order to make the increase in overall spacing feel natural right from the start. Anytyhing else but a kickslider would feel lackluster in my opinion. the issue is not the kickslider itself, but how you put a click on 03:04:082 -
which makes no sense at all as I stated before. also the kickslider doesn't have such an effect as nobody willl follow it, thus no "shooting the movement
back" or anything. things that would make more sense: higher sv + 1/2 or 3/4 slider, a gap on rhythm, ...
03:05:866 (3) - all important sounds are on the red tick, but you put a pretty pointless seeming extended slider over that? // 01:33:110 (6) - I talked about my usage of these 3/4 sliders when I replied to Pentori but basically I use them to emphasize the melody on the backgroun as it has a climax here and I don't want to ignore it. where? the blue tick? I don't think so

I also have no idea why things like 03:05:379 (3) - 03:06:352 (2) - etc. have to be fullscreen jumps, it's such a weak sound The fact that it is fullscreen doesn't really hold any extra value here as the whole part has relatively high spacing to follow the transpose the music has and the increase in intensity that the music brings with it because of that. So compared to rest of the spacing in this part this is normal spacing and consistent. it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats

Can agree with this.

overall rhythm choice overall often seems like you just throw multiple layers together losing pretty much all emphasis, like 03:07:974 (2,2) - are emphasizing vocals, but 03:07:487 (1) - ignores vocals, despite 03:07:487 (1,1,2,1,2) - being a rather repetitive thing, so using the same rhythm for all 3 parts of this would make more sense I think This is just my opinion and I can understand why this would cause some controversy but the reason I mix in all these rhythm choices is so that I wouldn't commit myself into following a single aspect in the song too much. If I commit myself into following just a single thing in music then the player starts to expect that in all parts of the song and it makes my mapping much more limited. If I mix all these elements in I can emphasize the parts that I find worth emphasizing much more naturally as the player isn't made to think that oh since this part comes up it must follow the vocals now or the melody now etc. The whole map is a proof of this way of thinking, I mix up the following of vocals and instruments a lot but I do it in a way that feels natural for me. I know it's a cliché thing to say that it's my way of mapping but it truly is and it's present in all of my maps that give me the option to do this (songs that have so many elements mixed in them that allow for this kind of change of things I follow instead of being so forcefully linear that they make me follow a certain aspect of a song from start to finish like vocals for example). Now to say why I do this precisely in this part is so that I can naturally add the piano sounds at 03:08:460 (1,2,3,4,1) - into the map because the player isn't expecting me to blindly follow the vocals and this makes for a much more interesting and fun to play part because of the piano being here. Apologies for the long explanation but I thought it was necessary to make you understand my perspective a bit more as you might find the reasoning behind my responses a bit lacking at times. doesn't make any sense to me but whatever

01:39:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - this completely ignores the song with the pretty outstanding 3/4 rhythm of the drums, emphasis would be on http://lasse.s-ul.eu/RohA0gx2.jpg When I started to map this I chose to simplify all of these into streams that are a mix of the drums and the piano as I find it natural being a stream instead of a triplet into kickslider jumpspam. doesn't change the fact that it fails at representing the song properly

It's worth replacing this with kicksliders or something. The stream is a bit overmapped, though in the context of the difficulty, it doesn't seem too out of place. (I don't think that's fair justification though, just a comment).

same goes for 00:22:731 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - and wherever else this happens
01:40:893 (1) - I have no idea what this is supposed to do. just leaving this empty would make it fit so much better // 00:24:353 (2) - This was intended to be like a built in "countdown" but since it isn't necessary and works without it I'll remove it.

02:26:785 (2) - things like this make no sense at all emphasis wise, you put a click on nothing and end it on snare+vocal which seem to be what you usally focus on 02:26:299 (1,2,1,2) - These being the opposites of eachother rhythmwise is intended to emphasize the switch from vocal follow into following drums for the duration that vocals aren't present how does that justify mapping 1/2 sliders that randomly start on nothing but end on important beats. this could probably work as some overall concept of the map, but not like you did it

I think here, using an off-beat rhythm is fine, but switching the rhythm around is also fine. This doesn't seem that glaring of an issue, but it's still something ProBox can definitely address better.

02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - completely ignores 3/4 emphasis again, when http://lasse.s-ul.eu/QIRZ6L19.jpg stand out so much more#
this is so distinctively different from 02:55:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - yet you just continue the spacing increasing stream. As mentioned above I chose to simplify all these rhythms in the song and here the obvious increase in intensity is presented by increasing the spacing of the stream (the most important kicks have an increase in spacing between them to take these really important kicks into addition even if the rhythm is simplified 02:57:028 (4,1) - 02:57:677 (4,1) - )

03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - think a rhythm like http://lasse.s-ul.eu/ARIYEh0W.jpg would be nice as that would let you emphasize the snares with 1/4 sliders and the melody with jumps/starting to click again, the current is alright on melody with (5) but seems a bit weird with the very outstanding snares on the white ticks Here the emphasizing in the simplified version happens with the turning point being the strong kick 03:44:622 (5) - simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all

Actually, I think there's justification for streams here... and 03:44:622 (5) - is a reasonable note to map a turning point too. Still could be better explained.

another thing would be overall usage of spacing between sections, mainly in the "calmer" parts like the intro, making for a lack of contrast between them and the more intense parts
examples would be 00:06:028 (2,3) - 00:05:704 (5,1) - 00:11:218 (6,1) - and a lot more similar stuff in this part. it's only background noise and vocals, yet very similar to the first chorus intensity wise Hmm I like the idea of distincting these more so I'll adjust them to what might seem a little to you but noticeable for me but still I will lower the spacing on these!
00:46:974 (1) - 00:56:461 - this part is executed better in that regard I agree.


00:57:272 (2,3) - what are these even following? big spacing jumps on nothing? I agree these do land on nothingness but this is the kind of reasonable "overmapping" that exists as I went over this with Monstrata and got opinions from players such as Xilver for this aswell. While you are playing this clicking at these part feels only natural opposed to having nothing there. And the argument for these being big jumps refer to my response below. similar to earlier points, devalues the actual strong sounds in the song
02:14:461 (2) - can you at least not put huge spacing on these things lol clicking is already barely makes any sense here But this isn't huge? compare to 02:15:272 (2,3) - 02:16:083 (3,1) - 02:16:893 (3,4) - This is normal spacing I use for this part. maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then

Agree.

Thank you for the mods !

popping since I think these issues weren't properly addressed and the difficulty fails to represent the song properly
and this without even going into how extremely overdone putting a 7* map jump spam map on simple 180bpm anime music fels
bold stuff are my main concerns

parts like 00:03:272 - still feel extremely overspaced if you compare the relationship between intensity/spacing to other parts

Fuccho wrote:

when??

AlphaKerudio wrote:

Fuccho wrote:

when??

AlphaKerudio wrote:

Fuccho wrote:

when??

AlphaKerudio wrote:

Fuccho wrote:

when??

ProfessionalBox wrote:

lets see if its time now, I let this sat for good 7 months to see if my opinions would change over time as they were challenged many times but as I see there is no reason to change the top diff fundamentally so I'm going to try to rank it in its current state

Lasse and ProBox wrote:

(Blue is ProBox, and pink is Lasse. Green is my agreement and Red is my disagreement
some issues I have with the top diff Let's hear them!

03:04:082 (1) - clicking this seems so strange with what's going on the song, deleting this and making 03:03:920 (1) - a 1/2 or 3/4 slider seems nicer This current patterning is a way of emphasizing the complete stop that the music has between 03:03:839 - 03:03:920 - by a large spacing from a slow slider going to a fast kickslider. The reason it is a kickslider is because it immediately shoots the cursor movement back into the large and fast slider velocity that the part before it had and the part after it has in order to make the increase in overall spacing feel natural right from the start. Anytyhing else but a kickslider would feel lackluster in my opinion. the issue is not the kickslider itself, but how you put a click on 03:04:082 -
which makes no sense at all as I stated before. also the kickslider doesn't have such an effect as nobody willl follow it, thus no "shooting the movement
back" or anything. things that would make more sense: higher sv + 1/2 or 3/4 slider, a gap on rhythm, ... I disagree with the rhythm choice suggested here. While you're suggestion to change 03:03:920 (1) - into 1/2 or 3/4 rhythm works, that's not what fits with the map contextually.
While there is a click here, that doesn't mean the rhythm is inaccurate. The emphasis of the kick slider is greater than the circle, so that contrast between two points in rhythm is equal to that of a 1/2 slider.
Even if a click is 'strange' (I assume you mean unexpected, hard, unplayable, etc) the player has a second finger primed to hit the second key, so rhythm with more clicks than conventional like this aren't that unintuitive (or incorrect) to use.

03:05:866 (3) - all important sounds are on the red tick, but you put a pretty pointless seeming extended slider over that? // 01:33:110 (6) - I talked about my usage of these 3/4 sliders when I replied to Pentori but basically I use them to emphasize the melody on the backgroun as it has a climax here and I don't want to ignore it. where? the blue tick? I don't think so
It looks like ProBox fixed this sometime afterwards, so I'll leave this point alone for now xp

I also have no idea why things like 03:05:379 (3) - 03:06:352 (2) - etc. have to be fullscreen jumps, it's such a weak sound The fact that it is fullscreen doesn't really hold any extra value here as the whole part has relatively high spacing to follow the transpose the music has and the increase in intensity that the music brings with it because of that. So compared to rest of the spacing in this part this is normal spacing and consistent. it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats I think ProBox is right for this part, as the jump visually looks similar to it's surrounding jumps so consistency wise it should be okay.
However, your point on how it 'devalues other bigger jumps' I feel is incorrect, as if you compare it to the next part where the tension builds up slightly 03:07:812 (1,2,1,2) - the spacing is larger to compliment that, so I don't feel it 'devalues' the larger jumps.

overall rhythm choice overall often seems like you just throw multiple layers together losing pretty much all emphasis, like 03:07:974 (2,2) - are emphasizing vocals, but 03:07:487 (1) - ignores vocals, despite 03:07:487 (1,1,2,1,2) - being a rather repetitive thing, so using the same rhythm for all 3 parts of this would make more sense I think This is just my opinion and I can understand why this would cause some controversy but the reason I mix in all these rhythm choices is so that I wouldn't commit myself into following a single aspect in the song too much. If I commit myself into following just a single thing in music then the player starts to expect that in all parts of the song and it makes my mapping much more limited. If I mix all these elements in I can emphasize the parts that I find worth emphasizing much more naturally as the player isn't made to think that oh since this part comes up it must follow the vocals now or the melody now etc. The whole map is a proof of this way of thinking, I mix up the following of vocals and instruments a lot but I do it in a way that feels natural for me. I know it's a cliché thing to say that it's my way of mapping but it truly is and it's present in all of my maps that give me the option to do this (songs that have so many elements mixed in them that allow for this kind of change of things I follow instead of being so forcefully linear that they make me follow a certain aspect of a song from start to finish like vocals for example). Now to say why I do this precisely in this part is so that I can naturally add the piano sounds at 03:08:460 (1,2,3,4,1) - into the map because the player isn't expecting me to blindly follow the vocals and this makes for a much more interesting and fun to play part because of the piano being here. Apologies for the long explanation but I thought it was necessary to make you understand my perspective a bit more as you might find the reasoning behind my responses a bit lacking at times. doesn't make any sense to me but whatever For this particular section you gave in the example I agree with you. While 03:07:487 (6) - shares similar emphasis to 03:07:812 (1,2,1,2) - because they vary so quickly / suddenly when they're so similar in sound could feel surprising to play.
I can discuss with ProBox how we could potentially improve this when we talk ingame.

01:39:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - this completely ignores the song with the pretty outstanding 3/4 rhythm of the drums, emphasis would be on http://lasse.s-ul.eu/RohA0gx2.jpg When I started to map this I chose to simplify all of these into streams that are a mix of the drums and the piano as I find it natural being a stream instead of a triplet into kickslider jumpspam. doesn't change the fact that it fails at representing the song properly The rhythm choice ProBox uses here works to compliment the subtlety, however it might come as a shock when playing because the spacing is similar to that of 01:29:704 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - which has more powerful beats.
I feel this rhythm would work if the spacing and / or pattern complimented the subtlety of the mapped sounds. (maybe bunch up / shorten the spacing / pattern so as to contrast the difference in intensity)
Simplification of this rhythm works because it captures the important beats while capturing the more subtle ones without really throwing anything too shocking at the player.
same goes for 00:22:731 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - and wherever else this happens ^
01:40:893 (1) - I have no idea what this is supposed to do. just leaving this empty would make it fit so much better // 00:24:353 (2) - This was intended to be like a built in "countdown" but since it isn't necessary and works without it I'll remove it. This got fixed xp

02:26:785 (2) - things like this make no sense at all emphasis wise, you put a click on nothing and end it on snare+vocal which seem to be what you usally focus on 02:26:299 (1,2,1,2) - These being the opposites of eachother rhythmwise is intended to emphasize the switch from vocal follow into following drums for the duration that vocals aren't present how does that justify mapping 1/2 sliders that randomly start on nothing but end on important beats. this could probably work as some overall concept of the map, but not like you did it It looks like ProBox patched this one too, as the rhythm now doesn't match up with what Lasse's describing.
02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - completely ignores 3/4 emphasis again, when http://lasse.s-ul.eu/QIRZ6L19.jpg stand out so much more#
this is so distinctively different from 02:55:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - yet you just continue the spacing increasing stream. As mentioned above I chose to simplify all these rhythms in the song and here the obvious increase in intensity is presented by increasing the spacing of the stream (the most important kicks have an increase in spacing between them to take these really important kicks into addition even if the rhythm is simplified 02:57:028 (4,1) - 02:57:677 (4,1) - ) The stream I feel compliments the intensity really well as it still covers the important sounds mentioned in your post without using any surprising rhythm.

03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - think a rhythm like http://lasse.s-ul.eu/ARIYEh0W.jpg would be nice as that would let you emphasize the snares with 1/4 sliders and the melody with jumps/starting to click again, the current is alright on melody with (5) but seems a bit weird with the very outstanding snares on the white ticks Here the emphasizing in the simplified version happens with the turning point being the strong kick 03:44:622 (5) - simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all I think I'll address this in a general point since this comes up a lot, but to say this 'doesn't represent the song at all' is incorrect, as there is logic behind the simplification. There's more to rhythm than just what's clickable and what isn't. There's also emphasis, intensity, vibe, and maybe even other factors to consider when it comes to rhythm. I think Probox avoid the style of rhythm you're suggesting because it would actually provide less engaging gameplay than a stream.

another thing would be overall usage of spacing between sections, mainly in the "calmer" parts like the intro, making for a lack of contrast between them and the more intense parts
examples would be 00:06:028 (2,3) - 00:05:704 (5,1) - 00:11:218 (6,1) - and a lot more similar stuff in this part. it's only background noise and vocals, yet very similar to the first chorus intensity wise Hmm I like the idea of distincting these more so I'll adjust them to what might seem a little to you but noticeable for me but still I will lower the spacing on these!
00:46:974 (1) - 00:56:461 - this part is executed better in that regard. I agree.
Looks like ProBox fixed these too


00:57:272 (2,3) - what are these even following? big spacing jumps on nothing? I agree these do land on nothingness but this is the kind of reasonable "overmapping" that exists as I went over this with Monstrata and got opinions from players such as Xilver for this aswell. While you are playing this clicking at these part feels only natural opposed to having nothing there. And the argument for these being big jumps refer to my response below. similar to earlier points, devalues the actual strong sounds in the song Just because there's nothing there doesn't mean the rhythm is incorrect. The way ProBox seems to map his rhythm is through emphasis > what's clickable / isn't clickable.
He could've mapped it as a reverse slider or a stack, but the problem with that option is the object density would slow down tremendously, which might come as more of a shock to the player than the rhythm mapped right now.
Maybe if ProBox placed a clap on 00:57:272 (3) - it'd play more intuitively as it would "blend in", but alone this rhythm isn't unpredictable and still compliments the emphasis of the song.
02:14:461 (2) - can you at least not put huge spacing on these things lol clicking is already barely makes any sense here But this isn't huge? compare to 02:15:272 (2,3) - 02:16:083 (3,1) - 02:16:893 (3,4) - This is normal spacing I use for this part. maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then I kind of agree yet disagree with this point.
WHile the jumps are slightly larger at the point mentioned than expected, you could argue the difference isn't great enough to suggest it isn't mapped to the same sound as 02:13:974 (2,3) - because of that, I feel the jumps could be shortened, but I don't think that would make a huge improvement.

MaridiuS wrote:

03:14:298 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Just asking but I fail to understand what is being followed here. The vocals 03:14:298 (2,4,5) - which are like the only thing remotely intense in this pattern are not emphasized by either spacing or rhythm. 03:14:460 (3) - this note is too quiet to the point that I'm unsure if it's even a hihat.

MaridiuS wrote:

03:15:271 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - same concern here.