1. Are you sure you want to enable the countdown

1. 00:00:850 (1) - would be a good idea to progressively raise the hitsound volume here to better reflect what's happening in the music, also you could make the slider repeat until 00:01:225 - since the sound stops here
2. 00:05:650 (1) - ^
3. 00:08:500 (9) - NC so it's easier to read that the stream stops here, i often find myself continuing to stream until 00:08:725 (1) -
4. 00:22:900 (5,1) - i don't really understand why you'd NC like that here, i believe it'd be better to switch NC, kinda confusing to read otherwise and all the other patterns of this type are NCd by group of 4
5. 00:32:500 (5) - NC
6. 00:32:500 (5,1,1,1,1,1) - this is more of a personal suggestion but considering the difficulty of the map this in comparison seems quite underwhelming, are you sure you don't wanna use a harder pattern for this?
7. 01:06:100 (9) - NC like earlier
8. 01:07:450 (7,8) - NCs on each
9. 01:21:550 (4,1) - overlap
10. 01:25:450 (8) - NC
11. 01:27:700 (8) - NC
12. 01:28:150 (1) - i don't understand why you didn't map a long slider here like usual
13. 01:34:450 (1) - ^
14. 01:39:700 (5,1,1,1,1,1) - like ealier, NC on the first and possibly a harder pattern maybe :3

1. 00:19:900 (11,12) - NCs on each, also hiding the repeat arrow is unrankable
2. 00:20:950 (2) - like Expert, why did you stop using a long slow slider here
3. 00:58:300 (11,12) - NCs on each
4. 01:28:150 (1) - long slider?

1. like Expert and Insane, i'd suggest to be consistent with your long slow sliders
2. 00:49:300 - feels kinda weird to not have this beat actively playable, especially considering how strong it is
3. 01:22:900 - ^
4. 01:08:500 - no kiai?

1. I think the lack of a constant distance spacing is a bit inappropriate for a normal diff, and overall the difficulty is quite a jump from Easy
2. same long slow sliders issue
3. 00:49:300 - like Hard
4. 01:22:900 - ^

1. 00:22:600 (1) - the pause after the spinner is too short for an easy diff, especially at this BPM, i'd suggest ending it on 00:22:600 (1) -
2. 00:32:200 (1) - ^

Kaifin wrote:

helo frostings

Metadata/Difficulty Settings

1. your difficulty settings are super fucked so i made this little section to give suggestions for them
2. generally you want Easy/Normal to have a MUCH lower AR than you have at the moment
3. at the minimum, i'd recommend AR 5/AR 7 spread, but for this SR i'd go with AR 4/AR 6 for Easy/Normal respectively
4. the OD for each difficulty is also incredibly high for the SR/diff level, i'd go with OD 3/OD 5 for Easy Normal respectively, at least somewhere around there to be reasonable for this star rating/contents of each diff

high AR best AR

i'm going to skip the lower diffs because i dont know what the fuck is going on down there with ur variable spacing and cross screen ez jumps and like i dont know so hopefully the metadata suggestions are enough, i'm sure you already know that the easy and normal are incredibly non standard and i'm in no position to judge them so i wont, but it certainly is an interesting approach to lower difficulties, be sure to fix stuff like spinner recovery time that has been suggested previously as your current spinner recovery times are 100% unrankable I will look into it, but spinner recovery time isn't unrankable

Hard

1. 00:19:150 (1,2,3,4) - seems like quite high spacing for this 1/4, especially comparing it to 00:18:250 (2,3,4) - which came just before which would make 00:19:900 (2,3,4) - difficult to read as 1/4 initially for the hard level player, based on the patterns that are upcoming i think the answer is to buff the spacing of 00:18:250 (2,3,4) - to make it discernable from the upcoming patterns for the rest of the map
2. 00:45:100 (3,4,5) - see how the spacing between these two 1/4 repeats with 1/2 of distance between them is the same as the spacing between your completely normal 1/4 repeats with 1/4 between them earlier? i think this could get very confusing to read
3. 00:45:100 (3,4,5) - also the shaping of this object implies the distance between these three objects would be even, so i'd either make this even or space out 00:45:700 (5) - more/make it more distinct from this pattern so it doesn't look off like it does right now
4. 00:48:850 (7) - isn't a rhythm using multiple clickable 1/8 repeats here better then just having a giant 1/8 repeat that doesn't really follow anything specifically for a long time? multiple 1/8 sliders is unintuitive in a Hard diff
5. 00:56:650 (2,3,4,2,3) - another example of the similar 1/2 ---> 1/4 spacing right next to each other
6. 01:15:700 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - try this rhythm here instead to follow the music quite a bit better, your current rhythm in this pattern seems quite random and switches instruments halfway through which is super confusing to play and listen to in the context of the song I did something here
   SPOILER

   
7. 01:17:650 (4) - why isn't this a repeat like this other ones?
8. 01:19:450 (1) - the sound you're trying to follow here actually starts on 01:19:300 - definitely find a way to alter this rhythm to make 01:19:300 - clickable as it's the most important note of the section I did this intentionally, but I guess a click there is better
9. 01:22:900 - surprised this isn't clickable as well This one is intentional and isn't better or worse being clicked
10. 01:25:300 (1,2) - hidden repeat due to the stack, unrankable, unstack or increase the sv to avoid This one should be rankable

Insane

1. 00:19:825 (10,11) - hidden repeat, unrankable as said above, also shouldn't this one be NCd if you're going to NC these two 00:20:200 (1,1) - Yeah this one is unrankable
2. 01:02:800 (3,4) - these two are 1/6 buzzes Actually...these should be 1/4 buzzes. Ugh. I might change it to get the snapping right, but I might choose to keep it because 1/3 is much more intuitive
3. 01:07:750 - since you make 01:07:450 - clickable i find it super weird that this isn't clickable as well
4. 01:09:400 (5,2) - i'm not sure if this is intentional but it's close enough to do this so
   SPOILER

   
   
   this diff is a LOT better than the 3 lower diffs

Expert

1. 00:19:225 - it doesn't make much sense to ignore this note if you're going to map 00:19:075 (1,2) - you could make this a repeat or add it into the stream shape of 00:19:300 (1,2,3,4) - like this or something
   SPOILER

   
2. 00:19:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - COOL as fuck
3. 00:34:900 - make this clickable its the note of most emphasis in the rhythm you are following!1!11!! >:9 ehh
4. 00:40:900 (1,2) - hey why do you only use this repeat slider rhythm once in this entire section? i think its a decent lead in i just don't see how it consistently fits with the sound/other rhythms later in the segment so if theres some sort of reason please explain 2 me Sorry I don't understand
5. 01:32:350 - see you make the rhythm at 00:34:900 clickable here and it works so much better!
6. 01:26:575 (1) - This spinner is too short! Auto must be able to score 1000 points etc et c etc It does score 1000
7. 01:37:750 (1) - why is this a repeat and not a long slider/spinner? seems weird that this one is a repeat to me i don't hear any difference in the sound
   
   wow that diff was really cool

i hope you're able to get whatever's going on with your lower 3 diffs sorted out because that extra is super cool!

good luck with your set sorry i couldn't be of more help

1. 01:46:300 - Could add a green line with 30% volume in all diffs since you already did that in Expert.

1. 01:06:325 (2) - NC I guess, since you did so with 00:08:725 (1) .
2. 00:27:100 (1) - 00:36:700 (5) - Inconsistent NCs?
3. 00:44:500 (1) - Is there any reason for not using a 4/1 slider like 00:39:700 (1) ? Just curious, is it for variety?
4. 00:54:100 (1,2) - Quite overdone imo, this one is in a total different scale from other spacings you used and it's not really predictable since time-distance equality thing is still be relied on in Easy.
5. 01:16:900 (2,1,1) - Not sure if the stacks are intentionally off but I guess I'll mention just in case.
6. 01:32:950 (2,3,1) - I would prefer sth else cuz most of the things you did don't really cause things to overlap apart from this one so it looks inconsistently stand out.

1. 00:08:725 - Would be better to use 0.5 SV here because 00:10:900 would be a better spot to introduce a different SV since the rhythm changes there, atm 00:08:725 (4,5,1) - have a different SV from 00:01:300 (1,2) - 00:06:100 (1,2) despite being mapped in the same section.
2. 00:45:700 - Normal sampleset missing.

1. 00:08:725 - Same as Normal.
2. 00:10:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - The idea is ok, but this is so stand out in comparison with 00:13:300 (1,2,3,4,5) which isn't really musically different, so would be better if the second measure 00:13:300 is something more interesting to keep up with the first measure 00:10:900 since both of these measures are in the same section so the way these measures are mapped shouldn’t be too different.
3. 00:32:200 (1) - Quite misleading cuz the way this is patterned is the same as 00:32:500 (2,3,4,5,6,7) but they have different snaps. Same applies to 01:39:400 (1) .
4. 01:16:600 (7,1) - Not really readable as 1/4 since the way you spaced this is pretty much the same you did with 1/2, probably need an indication for a change in rhythm gap or something.
5. 01:25:300 (1,2) - Yeah this is probably not rankable with that reverse arrow lol

1. 00:10:750 (7) - Tbh I didn't really notice the SV change on this lol, it's like if you're emphasizing this by an SV change then there should be something more obvious to indicate the change as well, I tried a few times and I read 00:10:750 (7,1) as 1/2 so maybe ask for more testplays on this I guess?

1. 00:35:050 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Is this intentional for comboing these musically different from these measures 00:25:300 - 01:32:500 - 01:42:100 ?
2. 01:31:487 - Actually there's a sound here too, maybe start 01:31:525 (4) at 01:31:450 instead? Or starting it at 01:31:600 like other diffs would still simplify better than the current one which comes on a blue tick.

Electoz wrote:

Hi, from my modding queue~

[General]

1. 01:46:300 - Could add a green line with 30% volume in all diffs since you already did that in Expert. fixed ty

[Easy]

1. 01:06:325 (2) - NC I guess, since you did so with 00:08:725 (1) . I changed the other one
2. 00:27:100 (1) - 00:36:700 (5) - Inconsistent NCs? um I like to NC based on pattern. The NC is in the first one because it stands out from the pattern but the second one doesn't
3. 00:44:500 (1) - Is there any reason for not using a 4/1 slider like 00:39:700 (1) ? Just curious, is it for variety? yeah variety
4. 00:54:100 (1,2) - Quite overdone imo, this one is in a total different scale from other spacings you used and it's not really predictable since time-distance equality thing is still be relied on in Easy. I think it's fine
5. 01:16:900 (2,1,1) - Not sure if the stacks are intentionally off but I guess I'll mention just in case. Not noticeable
6. 01:32:950 (2,3,1) - I would prefer sth else cuz most of the things you did don't really cause things to overlap apart from this one so it looks inconsistently stand out. I don't really see a reason to change it, but I'll consider it

[Normal]

1. 00:08:725 - Would be better to use 0.5 SV here because 00:10:900 would be a better spot to introduce a different SV since the rhythm changes there, atm 00:08:725 (4,5,1) - have a different SV from 00:01:300 (1,2) - 00:06:100 (1,2) despite being mapped in the same section. probably, but I like to use SV changes for patterning, the way I've done
2. 00:45:700 - Normal sampleset missing. ty

[Hard]

1. 00:08:725 - Same as Normal.
2. 00:10:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - The idea is ok, but this is so stand out in comparison with 00:13:300 (1,2,3,4,5) which isn't really musically different, so would be better if the second measure 00:13:300 is something more interesting to keep up with the first measure 00:10:900 since both of these measures are in the same section so the way these measures are mapped shouldn’t be too different.
3. 00:32:200 (1) - Quite misleading cuz the way this is patterned is the same as 00:32:500 (2,3,4,5,6,7) but they have different snaps. Same applies to 01:39:400 (1) . I think it's fine since they all start on white ticks and last almost equally long
4. 01:16:600 (7,1) - Not really readable as 1/4 since the way you spaced this is pretty much the same you did with 1/2, probably need an indication for a change in rhythm gap or something.
5. 01:25:300 (1,2) - Yeah this is probably not rankable with that reverse arrow lol I fixed it, thanks

[Insane]

1. 00:10:750 (7) - Tbh I didn't really notice the SV change on this lol, it's like if you're emphasizing this by an SV change then there should be something more obvious to indicate the change as well, I tried a few times and I read 00:10:750 (7,1) as 1/2 so maybe ask for more testplays on this I guess?

[Expert]

1. 00:35:050 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Is this intentional for comboing these musically different from these measures 00:25:300 - 01:32:500 - 01:42:100 ?
2. 01:31:487 - Actually there's a sound here too, maybe start 01:31:525 (4) at 01:31:450 instead? Or starting it at 01:31:600 like other diffs would still simplify better than the current one which comes on a blue tick.

uhh I guess the spread is fine? The rhythm density is pretty low for a 200 BPM so hopefully it can compensate the rest of things you did. Though this probably needs a lot of modding for opinions on stuff in lower diffs lol
Hope that helped, good luck~

Kocari wrote:

Hello from modding queue



[Expert]

You can make HP 6 or 6.5 It'll fit the natural balance of the difficulty without forcing you to push yourself to make sure you hit every note. plus it seems so weird to have an entire difficulty gap of 1.0 SR to only adjust to insane by only .4 considering how things are mapped in this diff. So it's either you bust while playing or HR is a nuisance. I purposely made the HP pretty high ... I can't really give a good reason for it other than say it's experimental
00:01:450 (1) - I think an NC can work here. Just to give a visual to players that this slider is the start of something possibly new. Considering 00:00:850 (1,2) - is already a fast hit most people would see that long slider as a fast slider. Should be fine
00:08:500 (9) - What's the reasoning behind not having an NC here. It follows along with 00:08:725 (1,1,1) - I don't put NC there because it's also part of the stream ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
00:11:725 (5) - Does this Normal Sampleset need to be set here? It seems like it stands out so much and ruins the already implement whistles and claps already going on. Doesn't seem like such an important beat to want to have its own thing here I guess not, yeah
00:16:450 (1,2,3,4,5) - I'm curious as to why you made this a 5 note stream while the music is practically identical to 00:15:850 (2,3,4) - The key beats on that stream or on (1)(3)(5) and it's just being bypassed. I can definitely see it at 00:17:650 (1,2,3,4,5) - since the beats are a lot less mellow and it feels that you can bypass it this way It's there because ... it looks cool
00:32:500 (5) - Same with NC here it seems like such a rhythm that is could be NC because considering how the stream plays most people would hit that repeat the exact same way the stream is.
00:34:600 (3,4,1) - I think spacing here can be toned a little. It feels so forced to play this and I'm not even concerning the slider ending on a strong beat. I'd move (4) closer and leave the rest as be since I want to have what you already do 00:35:050 (1,2) - have more sense to them instead of just mashing jumps to hit those right after the jump previously mentioned. Just like this or do it your own way http://puu.sh/vQ9qL/a21137bd66.jpg I will evaluate it further
00:37:900 (2) - Why that pause here instead of continuing the triple pattern. Could even make that a triple but I'll leave it at your idea Yeah idk I can't really explain it
00:42:100 (1) - Could this rhythm also work? http://puu.sh/vQ9Cd/71ebcfbb96.jpg Just so it's consistent with 00:43:300 (3) - 00:44:500 (1) - Piano chords I'm expressing the whistle in this section
00:56:650 (3,4) - combo killers why you do this to the noobies I don't know if THAT's the combo killer
01:07:000 (1,2) - Wait this was a stream, didn't even know. yeah
01:15:850 (2) - normal sampleset on the sliderend? Seems confusing to play without that proper feedback yeah I messed up the hitsounds here
Really not much to say definitely a lot going on but I'm pretty sure your mind is already set with how you wanted things. You can't not just make a map like this without realizing the feedback you'll get. So I'll leave it at this is how you wanted it.

[Insane]

00:15:100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Hmm the whole entire stream is mapped out compared to the extra. Definitely can see why but you could NC 00:15:700 (9) - Since extra's NC was on this particular beat as well
00:19:900 (11) - I'd be careful inb4 BNs and QAT says this hides the repeat slider making it unrankable feelsbadman Should be fine
00:32:500 (1) - Same thing I mentioned in extra to NC these 1/3 sliders or just make NC consistent like in the extra 00:32:800 (6,7,8,9,10) - These were in the extra's but here it's not. I don't see what the problem would be with having them identical and matching one another
00:48:850 (5,6) - This feels much nicer played here than on the extra since there is so much more spacing in between them.
00:57:250 (4,1) - Could be really confusing for just an insane diff
Nice Insane

[Hard]

00:09:700 (1,1) - Spacing here might be relatively too close. Like 1.4 spacing seems like a much nicer thing to DS here
Compare it to how 00:07:900 (3,4,5) - are spaced it might be better to give such a strong beat a little more leniency in spacing as well. Really not a concern though
00:18:100 (1,2) - Could be stackable for an easier time, but it's fine either way Yeah maybe if I were a good mapper I would stack them
00:57:250 (4) - Couldn't it be like this as well for rhythm please do explain http://puu.sh/vQaPG/b7650e6ecd.jpg Since it'll work corresponding to 01:07:000 (4,5,6,7) - Kinda awkward like that since then you'd think the entire stream would be mapped out, instead of just the lead-in to the stream
Not much more to say

[Normal]

Hmm 2.6 stars might be pushing it for a normal especially with implemented spacing like 00:42:700 (2,3,4,5) - Really nothing wrong with the diff but I do think that's what is pushing your SR really high Yeah I might need higher AR

Sinnoh wrote:

Expert
00:00:850 (1) - there's no sound until the white tick I know, but this has better lead-in to the downbeat. Having a shorter buzz slider is more unexpected imo
00:05:650 (1) - For sounds like this I think it would be better to either use use 1/4 snap to map the ticking noise, or use the default soft-hitnormal, since that's better for buzz sliders and sounds more like the sound you're mapping I want to make it similar to the first buzz slider
00:25:300 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This section doesn't follow sounds well. Circles have strong sounds, but the spacing to them is small. Sliders have weak sounds but have large spacing. Reducing the distances of circle -> slider would help this. I feel this way is more interesting to play
00:35:050 (1) - Same issue as above, but now NCs changed pattern too 🤔 I like to NC for the pattern, I'm not really worried about consistency
01:42:100 (1) - This is what I'd consider good, change the other patterns so they're like this one. I thought this was the worst of the patterns and was considering on changing it actually :p

00:49:150 (7,1) - Nerf this a bit, way too much contrast with previous pattern It feels fine to play
00:53:800 (1) - There's no sound to emphasise with this stream break / nc, use a normal stream. 2edgy
(Since you're emphasising sounds with stream breaks, stuff like 00:41:725 (6) - could use it too)
00:58:900 (9) - NC, since this has no emphasis currently NCing for pattern
01:02:800 (3,4) - Shouldn't these be 1/6 snap They should be 1/4 snap. Someone else mentioned this in previous mod, forgot to change it. Fixed now
01:20:950 (2,3,4) - This part felt pretty weak, would have higher spacing here since it's the climax I'm not really going for high intensity on this part. Otherwise I would have made the rhythm harder. I think just the style change, which is what I had in mind, is fine.
01:28:150 (1) - no spinner but 01:34:450 (1) - does, both should have or none since it's pretty much the same The way I see it, the first of these is a "wind-down" to one of the peaks of the song, so I undermapped it by leaving it empty. The second doesn't require the same wind-down, so I put a spinner there for pretty good movement. The third one at 01:37:750 - I feel needs the same wind-down after the stream, so it's undermapped with a slider. The fourth one at 01:43:900 - is just whatever, I made a pattern out of it
01:36:700 (1,2,3,4) - Don't really agree with using 1/8 sliders since there's no sound to support, just using a different stream shape could emphasise this too I didn't agree either, but I decided to make it anyways to make it a little interesting at least, and maintain the theme of crappy sliderstreams
01:39:700 (5) - Considering this is an expert diff, you could have easily mapped some of the 1/3s as streams after 1-2 sliders. Would be more fun to play active rather than passive. Applies to other sections I'm not a fan of 1/3 streams
01:45:175 (1) - mapping the ending section like this is a bit zzz, could have done something more interesting with the finale I was never really one for epic endings

Nice map but could use a couple more mods first 👍

1. 00:07:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Okay so essentially these all sound the same yet the spacing is changing. That doesn't happen to 00:03:100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - . I'd really like to discuss this with you as I don't see the logic here. Especially goes to stuff like 00:19:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - where you drop the spacing by half even though the music is kinda the same throughout.
2. 00:25:300 - I don't understand the logic here for spacing since 00:25:750 (1,2) - is noticeably easier than the other 3 counterparts. Unlike 00:35:050 - this section with the same sounds you're not reducing the spacing progressively which makes for a chaotic structure.
3. 00:35:350 (2,1) - You'd really have to tone down the spacing here because unlike this part 00:25:300 - this one is utilizing one of the uncomfortable movements which makes it that much harder. When the slider is oriented towards the cursor entry direction it forces a hardest snap which breaks all momentum and just plays tediously. Such uncomfortness in movement is smoothened out a lot with lower spacing. Alternatively you can nerf the movement by doing ctrl+g on 00:35:500 (1,1,1) - sliders individually.
4. 00:50:800 (5,6,1) - The angle is quite obtuse like 120 degrees backed up by large spacing and flowbreak. This overemphasizes the note by a large margin making it a chore to play. This kind of placement will be quite comfortable https://i.imgur.com/7Hwlo8S.png or you could do something like this (inversing the stream) so that https://i.imgur.com/9RGkM8y.png at least the stream orientation will be comfortable relative to the entry angle.
5. 00:55:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - One of the things i'm really against of is using this concept when you've used it on completely different sounds the heavy kicks like 00:07:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -
6. 01:27:175 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - I don't hear this any particularly louder than lets say 00:22:600 - these sounds for such large spacing to be warranted on this bpm.
7. 01:36:100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - The sounds are quite different than 01:27:175 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - yet mapped about the same :-/. I don't think that's a good option to represent the song tbh.

MaridiuS wrote:

Greetings.

[Expert]

Main concern is that you're using variable spacing on same sounds (the loud streamy stuff).

1. 00:07:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Okay so essentially these all sound the same yet the spacing is changing. That doesn't happen to 00:03:100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - . I'd really like to discuss this with you as I don't see the logic here. Especially goes to stuff like 00:19:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - where you drop the spacing by half even though the music is kinda the same throughout. I'm more interested in the visual patterns, rather than the differences in intensity. I'm of the opinion that descending DS streams aren't much different than DSd streams, so I use them interchangeably for their different visual appeal.
2. 00:25:300 - I don't understand the logic here for spacing since 00:25:750 (1,2) - is noticeably easier than the other 3 counterparts. Unlike 00:35:050 - this section with the same sounds you're not reducing the spacing progressively which makes for a chaotic structure. I don't notice that your timestamp is significantly easier than the rest. Here I tried to map an unorthodox emphasis pattern, with very strong downbeats on easier spacing and their followup on much larger spacing, which remains consistent and tries to serve as the highlight of this pattern... I think small DS deviations aren't really that noticeable compared to this
3. 00:35:350 (2,1) - You'd really have to tone down the spacing here because unlike this part 00:25:300 - this one is utilizing one of the uncomfortable movements which makes it that much harder. When the slider is oriented towards the cursor entry direction it forces a hardest snap which breaks all momentum and just plays tediously. Such uncomfortness in movement is smoothened out a lot with lower spacing. Alternatively you can nerf the movement by doing ctrl+g on 00:35:500 (1,1,1) - sliders individually. The pattern is similar to before, and I honestly think horizontal movement is easier than vertical movement
4. 00:50:800 (5,6,1) - The angle is quite obtuse like 120 degrees backed up by large spacing and flowbreak. This overemphasizes the note by a large margin making it a chore to play. This kind of placement will be quite comfortable https://i.imgur.com/7Hwlo8S.png or you could do something like this (inversing the stream) so that https://i.imgur.com/9RGkM8y.png at least the stream orientation will be comfortable relative to the entry angle. I don't really understand what you mean. There are a lot of weird/uncomfortable parts in this whole map (since that's the way I designed it) and this part in particular is much more comfortable in comparison. The only real issue I can think of is the spacing, but I think resetting the flow drastically here is fine to emphasize the melody
5. 00:55:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - One of the things i'm really against of is using this concept when you've used it on completely different sounds the heavy kicks like 00:07:900 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - Same as first suggestion
6. 01:27:175 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - I don't hear this any particularly louder than lets say 00:22:600 - these sounds for such large spacing to be warranted on this bpm. This is the crux of the map Buildup into the fast spinner and widest stream in the map. Pretty cool right?
7. 01:36:100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - The sounds are quite different than 01:27:175 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - yet mapped about the same :-/. I don't think that's a good option to represent the song tbh. And now that the widest stream has gotten out of the way, any lesser stream pales in comparison

MaridiuS wrote:

No major concerns for lower diffs

Frostings wrote:

also about Easy/Normal, they're really just labels and don't fundamentally change the spread if I change the diff names so I'd like to keep them the same

pishifat wrote:

Frostings wrote:

also about Easy/Normal, they're really just labels and don't fundamentally change the spread if I change the diff names so I'd like to keep them the same

diffnames are labels but e/n are standardized names that have a general meaning for osu. would be better to label diffs closer to their osu definitions (so easy being normal and normal being advanced or some other in between thing). similar situation to https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/690222/d ... ll#/130697 though not nearly as severe
Renamed Easy -> Normal; Normal -> Advanced. RIP the dream
ez
00:07:900 (1,2,3) - 01:05:500 (1,2,3) - should be making irregular rhythm a bit more obvious to read through spacing. 1/1 and 3/2 stuff are easy enough to figure out with inconsistent spacing because they're more repetitive, but 3/4 feels too weird to be interpreted naturally I changed it, don't know if they're actually closer though lol. It did remove the horrid 5x jump, so that's good
00:46:300 (2) - would use 1/1 like 00:41:500 (2) - . 2/1 blends with the surrounding 2/1 sliders that aren't mapped over 1/1 rhythms nice
00:52:900 (1) - would cover beat 3 rather than skip over it for the same reason My nice long wave slider ;_; Fixed anyways
00:28:600 (1,1) - 01:35:800 (1,2) - same comboing would make sense. not seeing any pattern specific thing that supports different combo s wtf nice catch

normal
00:27:100 (1) - forgot a hitsound i assume Yes
00:42:700 (2,3) - while being aware of weird spacing i still misread this one lol. consider shrinking to something like 00:44:500 (1,2) - which was easier to interpret for some reason. generic triangle works ok Alright
00:56:650 (2) - would go with a different rhythm. continuous 1/4 sounds kinda weird when song has really distinct gaps. personally would go with something like this and leave the cool 1/4 for 01:00:700 (1) - Changed along those lines. Re-positioned 00:57:700 (1) - in return
01:23:800 (2) - feels a little too sudden with only 1 repeat and object 1/2 after. moving it 1/2 earlier is easier to react to Changed. I also moved 01:23:200 (1) - away from the previous object, because wtf was that spacing

hard
00:11:200 (2) - seems better to leave out 1/2 until 00:16:000 (1) - . this part with the 1/1 violin things feels better to focus on 1/1 and not have as much filler, like 00:12:400 (5) - . I thought the rhythm on this part was more on the plain side, especially at 00:13:300 (1,2,3,4) - . Making this change would make it more so. I don't feel too strongly about it to buff the rhythm either though
00:19:150 (1,2,3) - switching to 1/4 like this feels pretty weird, like there's nothing in the song making a rhythm change feel right. would go with 100% long slider or 100% 1/4, not in between I feel ok about it. Going from less dense to more dense with the buildup is intuitive enough
00:57:550 (1,2,3) - same applies to this same as before
00:45:100 (3,4) - would increase spacing after each of these. with low spacing it seems more likely they'd have 2 repeats. 01:16:000 (3,4,5,6,7,1) - this does it well MORE spacing? Say no more
00:48:100 (5,6) - misread this as 1/2 cuz it's pretty low for 1/1 in this section. would lower it a decent amount
Yeah I just noticed that too. Lowered it. Also adjusted 00:50:050 (2,3) - to compensate

insane
00:34:300 - should be ending the 1/3 stuff with a circle like 01:41:500 (1) - . Yes
00:57:250 (4,1,2,3) - should be starting the stream on the first or second white tick. (or the same way as top diff). really offputting to have a stream start on the one sound here that's not prominent This sounds so weird for some reason. Probably because I got used to the way it was. I changed it regardless
00:59:050 (2) - comboign should be like 01:03:700 (1,1) - and all the other slow sliders like this Yep
00:48:850 (7) - similar to 56s on normal, would separate this because the song has an obvious stop in the buzzing. 2 of these 00:18:250 (2,3) - would work fine I don't understand. I think you got the wrong timestamp..?
01:29:800 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 00:22:600 (1,2,3,4,5,1) - should be using the same 1/4 1/8 switch point. first one does it a beat earlier than second (which id say is more fitting) It's unclear if you think the first or second one is better. Lucky for you I'm a great mapper and can decide that the second one is better
(Fixed the first one)

ex
00:05:650 (1) - 00:00:850 (1) - im sure everyone else has pointed it out already, but starting buildup hold thing before the song has audible stuff is pretty gross. later start > Yeah, later start
00:18:850 (1,2,1,2) - previous combos make it seem like this is gonna be the same rhythm cuz spacing is gradually decreasing. would make the 1/4 vs 1/2 gap more obvious in some way Moved them further away
00:19:300 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:22:600 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - should coordinate comboing stuff. same patterns Honestly have no idea how any sane person can notice this
01:26:575 (1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - starting stream from a spinner's end uhhhhhh nobody's gonna play that correctly I'M gonna play that correctly
01:37:750 (1) - reverse seems kinda arbitrary. makes the slider end later than the sound does and it's not snapped to any sound that's important Probably not the fix you hoped, but I shortend the slider so it actually lands on the beat properly

Cool