Insane
00:02:386 (3) - Stack this with 00:02:533 (4) - . It won't create a "jump" or "emphasis" and helps improve the flow from slider 2. Right now you're forcing a stop at the end of a slider, but allowing the player to keep moving past the slider is better for flow. People prefer to "stop" when they click, rather than when they release. Same idea with 00:04:739 (3) - . (Stack it on 00:04:886 (4) - ).
00:09:298 (3,4) - For this, I recommend just using two 1/2 sliders and continuing the 1/2 rhythm since it also follows the drum rhythm pretty well (both vocal + percussion are white tick rhythms). The main issue is that 00:09:739 (4) - is not really strong compared to the white ticks and shouldn't really be clicked.
00:23:122 (2,3,4) - This is the one pattern that doesn't fit your aesthetic. 00:18:710 (3,4,5) - and 00:20:769 (2,3,4) - Are both structured so the back/forth is linear. Could say the same for 00:26:063 (4,5,1) - too, but for this one, you just have to move the slider a bit more to the right.
00:20:769 (2,3,4) - Stuff like this should be swapped tho. The rhythm you used first was correct, but then you deviated for some reason and stopped being consistent xP. See how you did: 00:18:416 (2,3,4) - The rhythms are suddenly different. Should be Slider > circle > circle since the drum hits on 00:21:063 - 00:21:210 -
00:23:122 (2,3,4) - Apply it here too, and 00:25:769 (3,4,5) - .
00:27:827 (2) - A bit too far from 1 and 3. It causes spacing issues with 2>3 being a lot bigger than the other jumps. Rotate slider 2, 90 degrees, and stack with 00:26:945 (3) -
00:35:180 (3,4) - 1/2 slider instead? Red tick isn't really strong so imo it doesn't need a click.
00:36:210 (2,3) - Stack instead? For the same reason as earlier. Also kinda weird that 3 is a slider instead of 2 circles, but it's fine. It just means I really recommend the change above, otherwise it just sounds weird clicking weak beats and not clicking on audible ones.
00:37:680 (4) - Try an arrangement like below. Still has aesthetic value, but without the weird overlap. It's fine to have overlaps but here I didn't really see any value from it.
00:40:327 (1) - You're over-curving it a bit imo. Just copy 00:39:151 (1) - And Ctrl+H it and maybe try rotating it a bit? Better to reuse a slider you just used earlier so the visuals look more coherent with each other.
00:43:857 (1,2,3) - Try and make them more visually similar. You can see the space between 1+2 and 2+3 is sliiightly off. Consistent visual spacing helps keep the map neat.
00:42:680 (1,2,3) - Same idea here^. You seem to be setting up a pattern with 00:43:269 (3,1) - so try and die that visual spacing better with 00:42:680 (1) - . Right now its a bit too far away from slider 3. And see if you can reposition 00:43:122 (2) - to make it a bit more even.
01:00:327 (1,3) - Is it possible not to overlap? Doesn't look that nice imo, but eh up to you.
01:01:945 (2) - Stacking the tail with 01:01:357 (4) - gives a more consistent movement. Right now the jump from 1>2 is a lot bigger than 2>3. Players are going to make a really big jump from 1>2 cuz of the distance from tail>head, but they will cut the corner on slider 2 due to slider-leniency.
01:11:798 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - I recommend kickslider > 5 note stream. There's a clear note on 01:12:019 - that you are msising.
01:14:886 (2) - The overlap looks really bad since you can still see the remnant of 01:14:004 (2) - fading out. Recommend putting this elsewhere so it doesn't clutter the map needlessly.
01:26:945 (3,1) - Maybe this is just personal preference, but I think it's better to just use a 1/2 slider and create a jump onto 1. Generally when you use 3/4 sliders, you lose the ability to map a jump to something and give it that emphasis. 3/4's usually emphasize a held note, but since it sounds the same to 01:26:651 (2) - it feels a bit unneeded.
[]
The overlaps work pretty well when you're using them for back/forth movements. Other than that, they usually are harmless. I mentioned the ones that cluttered up your patterns though. Good luck~
00:02:386 (3) - Stack this with 00:02:533 (4) - . It won't create a "jump" or "emphasis" and helps improve the flow from slider 2. Right now you're forcing a stop at the end of a slider, but allowing the player to keep moving past the slider is better for flow. People prefer to "stop" when they click, rather than when they release. Same idea with 00:04:739 (3) - . (Stack it on 00:04:886 (4) - ).
00:09:298 (3,4) - For this, I recommend just using two 1/2 sliders and continuing the 1/2 rhythm since it also follows the drum rhythm pretty well (both vocal + percussion are white tick rhythms). The main issue is that 00:09:739 (4) - is not really strong compared to the white ticks and shouldn't really be clicked.
00:23:122 (2,3,4) - This is the one pattern that doesn't fit your aesthetic. 00:18:710 (3,4,5) - and 00:20:769 (2,3,4) - Are both structured so the back/forth is linear. Could say the same for 00:26:063 (4,5,1) - too, but for this one, you just have to move the slider a bit more to the right.
00:20:769 (2,3,4) - Stuff like this should be swapped tho. The rhythm you used first was correct, but then you deviated for some reason and stopped being consistent xP. See how you did: 00:18:416 (2,3,4) - The rhythms are suddenly different. Should be Slider > circle > circle since the drum hits on 00:21:063 - 00:21:210 -
00:23:122 (2,3,4) - Apply it here too, and 00:25:769 (3,4,5) - .
00:27:827 (2) - A bit too far from 1 and 3. It causes spacing issues with 2>3 being a lot bigger than the other jumps. Rotate slider 2, 90 degrees, and stack with 00:26:945 (3) -
00:35:180 (3,4) - 1/2 slider instead? Red tick isn't really strong so imo it doesn't need a click.
00:36:210 (2,3) - Stack instead? For the same reason as earlier. Also kinda weird that 3 is a slider instead of 2 circles, but it's fine. It just means I really recommend the change above, otherwise it just sounds weird clicking weak beats and not clicking on audible ones.
00:37:680 (4) - Try an arrangement like below. Still has aesthetic value, but without the weird overlap. It's fine to have overlaps but here I didn't really see any value from it.
00:40:327 (1) - You're over-curving it a bit imo. Just copy 00:39:151 (1) - And Ctrl+H it and maybe try rotating it a bit? Better to reuse a slider you just used earlier so the visuals look more coherent with each other.
00:43:857 (1,2,3) - Try and make them more visually similar. You can see the space between 1+2 and 2+3 is sliiightly off. Consistent visual spacing helps keep the map neat.
00:42:680 (1,2,3) - Same idea here^. You seem to be setting up a pattern with 00:43:269 (3,1) - so try and die that visual spacing better with 00:42:680 (1) - . Right now its a bit too far away from slider 3. And see if you can reposition 00:43:122 (2) - to make it a bit more even.
01:00:327 (1,3) - Is it possible not to overlap? Doesn't look that nice imo, but eh up to you.
01:01:945 (2) - Stacking the tail with 01:01:357 (4) - gives a more consistent movement. Right now the jump from 1>2 is a lot bigger than 2>3. Players are going to make a really big jump from 1>2 cuz of the distance from tail>head, but they will cut the corner on slider 2 due to slider-leniency.
01:11:798 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - I recommend kickslider > 5 note stream. There's a clear note on 01:12:019 - that you are msising.
01:14:886 (2) - The overlap looks really bad since you can still see the remnant of 01:14:004 (2) - fading out. Recommend putting this elsewhere so it doesn't clutter the map needlessly.
01:26:945 (3,1) - Maybe this is just personal preference, but I think it's better to just use a 1/2 slider and create a jump onto 1. Generally when you use 3/4 sliders, you lose the ability to map a jump to something and give it that emphasis. 3/4's usually emphasize a held note, but since it sounds the same to 01:26:651 (2) - it feels a bit unneeded.
[]
The overlaps work pretty well when you're using them for back/forth movements. Other than that, they usually are harmless. I mentioned the ones that cluttered up your patterns though. Good luck~