My shitty first try testplay

HP 6 testplay

Holy shit this is intense I'm not sure if this was meant to be overmapped (not talking about spacing, just clearly about rythyms used), if not consider fixing those mistakes, and if it was you can just ignore some of points below.
00:13:061 - very ham SV change, consider nerfing it a little bit to 1,3x or smth
00:14:907 - aaand why those are accelerated? i cant hear any significant sounds in song to emphasize with increasing SV
00:15:138 (1,2) - these dont fit the music, you can definitely hear a snare on red tick
00:19:753 (5,6,7) - no 1/4 rythyms in song
00:32:676 - 00:33:600 - you can use 1/3 rythym here (this very high sound goes 1/3 here) it may bring some nice variety in map
00:34:984 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - once you fuck flow completly, and then you make this 00:37:292 (1,2,3), itd be nice if whole part follows same concept imo, in whole map theres a lot of inconsistency derivering from flow in your map but ill guess its meant to be like this
00:42:830 - 00:46:984 - its a very long NC dont you think?
00:58:864 (1,2) - you can stack these properly (with sliderend ofc)
01:01:086 (1,2,3) - very weird tbh
01:25:752 (5,1) - bad blanket
01:37:825 (7) - this one doesnt work here imo, i hear that whole part from 01:37:101 (1) to 01:37:928 (1) is 1/3 but im not 100% sure tbh, its really weird
02:53:037 - you can clearly hear a snare here (you mapped it in other places with same rythm id like to point out, here 03:05:037 for example)
03:07:475 (2,2) - looks better when stacked, same here 03:09:256 (5,4) and here 03:10:006 (5,3)

- 00:16:061 (1,1) - you mapped these with circles everywhere else, even the 320bpm sections, why sliders here?
- 00:47:907 (1,2) - you mapped the 1/3 streams with circles on the stream before ( 00:33:138 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ), and since this one is more intense, wouldn't it be better to map it with circles as well?
- 00:52:061 (1,2,1,2) - two different combos 00:52:984 (1,2,3,4) - all one combo? they're all zutto zutto zutto zutto so I can't understand why, since they seem to be mapped to the vocals
- 00:54:253 (4,1) - this overlap is eh..
- 01:06:419 (1,2,3,4) - 1/2 slider> circle>2/1 slider, flowy pattern 01:07:308 (1,2,3,4) - circle>circle>circle>2/1 slider, snappy pattern. since you're an experienced mapper, I wouldn't imagine these are unintentional inconsistencies, is it maybe a theme based off doppelgangers, how they're similar but different? anyway, I'll stop mentioning things like that ^^;

- 00:47:446 (1) - mapped the 1/3 with circles on the stream before this, so same as the diff before, wouldn't it be better to map this one with circles for better emphasis?
- 00:54:600 (1,2) - m, I guess it sorta makes sense to make these stacked if you're following the vocals, but... by that logic, wouldn't it make sense to stack them under 00:54:484 (2) - ? I personally would make them a continuation of this pattern 00:53:907 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - based on intensity, but eh. doesn't make a major difference in play
- 02:18:218 (1) - this sorta... is really ugly. I guess it fits the guitar, but it still hurts... I guess there's no objective reason to change it tho
- 03:30:062 (5,6) - this pattern is sorta ignoring the double thing that happens even tho that's been a theme through the whole song feelsbadman

- the diffname, I like it, but it doesn't fit with the rest of the set. I personally would recommend having a unique thing like that for all the diffnames (it's fine as long as you have a clear indicator like 'easy' or 'extra,' right?), but that might be a bit more work then it's worth for the set, idk.
- 00:09:830 (2,3) - having these stacked like that, that's a bit easy for a diff of this level, isn't it? especially when it's not stacked in even the easier diffs
- 00:33:139 (3,4,5) - maybe I'm too noob, but this is a bit tough to read. (not that that means you should change it, but it's something worth mentioning)
- 00:43:061 (2,3,4,5) - same^
- through the whole diff, your use of sv and overlaps are pretty hard to read, so I imagine that was probably intentional. I'll avoid mentioning reading things from now on
- 01:06:419 (1,2,3,4) - hm, I would think it would make sense to space these more than 01:05:530 (1,2,3) - , but meh.
- overall, your diff doesn't really fit in like the previous two did, but it's a very nice map. I guess it doesn't fit it because you didn't have this set in mind when you mapped? xd cool set btw but ye, ngl it may be my favorite map in the set as a mapper

- 00:09:599 (1,2,3) - the slider here sorta flows... awfully, maybe rotate it to the right 80 degrees or so?
- 00:10:753 (7,8,9) - I would nerf this a bit, at least enough so that it'd be smaller than 00:11:215 (1,2,3) - since that's on a higher pitch and something something emphasis
- 00:13:753 (3,4) - why stacked here?
- 00:16:061 (1,1) - would probably be better to make each of these sliders a pair of circles, since both the head and the tail are strong beats
- 00:16:984 (1,2) - is this... interpreting the same rhythm as 00:09:599 (1,2,3) - differently? that's... not bad, but, why?
- 00:51:830 (3) - this plays fine in a realistic setting, but idk how picky bns are about sliderpaths. I wouldn't change it unless a bn mentions it, but just putting it out there :p
- 00:53:792 (3,1) - I would space this out more, since the patterns leading up to it are gradually increasing spacing the whole time.
- 00:53:907 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - you can't very well move 00:53:907 (1) - without it affecting this pattern, so, yeah. maybe just move the whole thing down and rotate it to the left a bit, so that 00:54:600 (1,2,1) - don't end up going offscreen lol
- 00:55:753 (1,2,3,4,5) - this rhythm pattern is pretty much just repeated for the first half of the chorus, but you only used this rhythm pattern in terms of sliders+circles for this one time? imo it would be better to repeat this, since you tend to put sliderends on strong beats with the other patterns :/ ( 00:57:197 - , 00:58:086 - , 00:59:864 - , etc.)
- 01:03:419 (2,3) - these are a bit close, I'd suggest you make it /at least/ as large as 01:03:530 (3,4) - , tho I'd personally make it larger, since imo the snare is the more intense beat in snare>kick patterns like this one
- why is 01:05:641 (2,3) - so much larger than 01:06:086 (2,3) - ? it sounds to me like they should be the same spacing, the only reason I can see is for aesthetics lol
- 01:06:419 (1,2,3,4) - plz buff, a lot.
- 01:16:197 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - I would say buff these, but I'd also say it's no big deal if you don't. I personally wouldn't map to them, but if you do choose to map them, I would want to make them stand out, as a strong way to end the chorus. it's like one of those things where they're not necessarily strong beats, but their place in the song means they could be interpreted as strong beats. makes sense, right? :p
- 01:23:308 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - this pattern doesn't really emphasize the beats even tho I'd say they're objectively stronger than the ones I mentioned above. this shape, you could maybe make it a bit more highly spaced and go for antiflow for emphasis, which I think would be a reasonable interpretation of the song, but the tones imply a more comfortable shape, so maybe change the shape to be more comfortable but more spacing? maybe I'm explaining too much? idk
- 01:58:618 (1,2,3) - same thing as 00:55:753 (1,2,3,4,5) - above
- 02:00:218 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - I'm not really sure what you're trying to emphasize here, I don't hear anything that warrants emphasizing that wasn't in the first chorus.
- 02:05:018 (1,2,3,4,5) - ok, so, in the second half of the first chorus, you followed drums more it seems, but now you're following vocals more? uh.. why? is this part of the using inconsistency consistently them thing? am confuse
- 02:13:018 (1,2) - woah, those are some pretty fancy shapes.. not sure that the music really calls for anything like that, but I guess it's not bad? it looks good anyway, and it follows the ideas you've used previously, it's just... fancy shapes when nothing new is happening I guess
- 02:18:218 (1) - this one, this one doesn't look so good. same as with the slider in yf's, an ugly shape sorta fits the solo, since it's not really a pretty part of the song, so, yeah.
- 02:29:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - maybe space this out a bit more, or smth. it's just a 150bpm sliderstream as is, which isn't really fitting for what's probably the most intense part of the instrumental solo.
- 03:04:944 (1,2) - randomly tiny spacing lol