Bergy wrote:

at least this map is actually weird like the song lol *cough* nozhomo

02:33:368 (1) - why dont u make this 1/2 like the other ones like 02:32:682 (1) - , 02:31:997 (1) - lo

fukin HECK ill think of smth

02:50:511 (1,1,1,1) - do u really need all these ncs lo

considering I NC'ed with each pitch change so far, ye

03:06:282 (1,1,1) - same lo

fine u fukin sponge

03:10:140 (1,2,3,1) - i dont like streams starting on blue ticks cause theyre usually harder to read

ur fault for bein illiterate don't want this to be full burst like 03:18:282 (1,2,3,4,1) - since sound's fainter

03:14:168 (1) - this probably isnt rankable cause it looks like u might be able to go really any direction from the slider head

ur a fukin nazi that cant appreciate my aRT

u've got some really high spacings in some places, like at 00:37:140 (1,2) - , where its really f'n high spacing but theres not really much to be emphasized there. watch out cuh

was meant to be more intense as this section went on and numerically it's not that much higher spacing from prev measures just cause slider goes directly against jump soOo

nerfed a bit and will look for other I guess

when did u get so much better at mapping tho holy CRAPOli/...,.,

hired people to map most of it tbh

Celektus wrote:

[

Brilliance

]

this mod was made for a assignment by my Mentor in the Mentorship program on mapping analysis. I'm mentioning this since I might also point out concepts just for the sake of me noticing them and not improving the map, but most suggestion will try to improve the map.

ok big boi let's see what u got

there are 3 main aspects I noticed were problematic as a whole Spacing, NC structure and the way you utilize slider leniency.

• 
  [Slider Leniency]
  
  [list:1337]there are a few patterns in the map I think that don't play as intended, as some require the player to not actually move. You mostly handle basic jumps out of 1/2 and longer sliders or stuff with 1/4 out of sliders well like 00:17:940 (1,1,2,3,4) - , but you treat a lot of 1/4 sliders more like people would treat 1/2 which is assuming that players will go through the whole shape, while most 1/4 actually plays more like circle jumps because of slider leniency. I'll go a bit into detail
  
  

1. 00:01:140 - for example the sliders you use in the intro need no movement, you can just stay with your cursor on the slider head, click and snap to the next object. I think you rather intended the player to fully move through the slider rather than staying on the head as it contrast badly with the movement needed here 00:03:368 (1,2,3) - and the sliders in the outro 05:52:225 (1,2) - since these actually need at least some movement to not miss a slider end. I'd suggest either higher SV in the intro or even better something like CTRL + G for the sliders since that would encourage the player to move to the next object through the slider body. *edit you could also move the circles spaced away from the head which isn't really straining because of leniency.
   
   honestly think it's about implied movement, not about what "could" be done, but rather "should," for example HW's Notch Hell is often cheesed by players using just slidernodes and ignoring the intended movement entirely. This is on a much less extreme scale though, so I'll change it to higher SV so players can't cheese
   
   
2. 00:24:968 (1,2,3,1) - this pattern has 2 issues. First of all 1/4 sliders actually play more like hitcircles spacing wise because of slider leniency so your jump into 2 feels really small almost like DS so treating the two 1/4 sliders as jumps between the heads would work better.
   
   that's fair, I didn't like it either so changed these to better emphasize the sounds
   
   
3. 00:25:311 (3,1) - a similar problem happens here as above since players can just ignore the slider body of 3 and snap to 00:25:482 (1) - in this case it would also be better to treat 3 into 1 more like a normal circle jump, maybe even bigger now since 1 is a really strong sound
   
   yeeeee
   
4. 00:28:225 (2) - this shape actually uses leniency very well since it's just far enough so you can't treat it like a hold note
5. 00:30:111 (1,1,2) - these kinda work in a sense that the play like circle jumps, but I think compared to a lot of your jumps in this section they are actually spaced fairly weirdly. If you imagine the pattern more like this 00:30:111 (1,1) - is a really small jump compared to let's say 00:23:597 (4,1,2) - which all have way weaker sounds. I'd suggest spacing the sliders out more or nerving the others and try to keep the spacing between 00:30:111 (1,1) - more more similar to 00:30:282 (1,2) - since the 2nd one is like twice the size. I think you might also wanna unstack 00:29:940 (1,1) - since there isn't that much emphasis on 00:30:111 (1) -
   
   will do to take snare into account like you said and reflect emphasis with spacing ye
   
6. 00:33:711 (1,2,1) - this plays like DS because of the 1/4 slider and the overall low spacing into the downbeat 00:33:882 (2,1) - this doesn't add any emphasis to this really strong sound as really small spacing into even smaller spacing doesn't add any emphasis. It would be more appropriate to either spacing out all of these like jumps or have a big jump into 00:33:882 (2) - stacked on top of 00:34:054 (1) - to add emphasis by suddenly going from less motion through the stack to lots of motion from the slider into the next object
   
   you're right, also fixed with a different rhythm as well!
   
7. 00:34:740 (1,2) - these aren't really fitting since the low spacing makes them play almost like anit-jumps which I don't is fitting as you only mapped this sound with big jumps so far
   
   I actually disagree here because I want these to be clickable, yet not as weak as regular circle jumps or as dense as 1/4 sliders; it's also almost the first time this sound occurs in the vocals, so I can set a consistent precedent for how I map this.
   
8. 00:39:540 (1,2,3) - these have not much movement since you can just snap between the heads. I think something like this would work better as snapping between the heads needs a bigger motion (might even be still not enough) and the jump here 00:39:882 (3,1) - actually doesn't unnecessarily force the player to play the last shape in a way more uncomfortable way than the rest of these. You might wanna change it to fit your aesthetic better though
   
   the rhythmic density with consecutive 1/4 sliders in a row and still high SV reflecting intensity implies faster movement, and the following triple going against the motion of the jump (slightly, so mostly just stopping motion to still emphasize)
   
9. 00:40:911 (1,2,3) - the player can also just snap between the heads here so 1 into 2 is a far bigger jump than 2 into 3. 2 into 3 actually needs to follow the shape a bit, but I think that's more unpredictable than anything and still makes 1 into 2 bigger. I think something like this would work better
   
   definitely agree about unequal motion here, thanks for pointing it out
   
10. 00:41:940 (1) - kinda meh use of this shape since it doesn't require any movement, but could require some if you'd use a more simple curve. It makes more sense to have little than no movement here^
    
    having no movement here is the point to emphasize this sound along with a e s t h e t i c
    
11. 00:44:682 (1) - players can abuse this shape by just moving slightly upwards and staying in the slider tail area. I'd suggest to use a more simple or rather wider shape to encourage the player more to play the shape as intended.
    
    mm, I disagree again here; this argument can be made for many sliders that are supposed to encourage tight circular flow, and theoretically by that line of thinking even common shapes like circle sliders can be considered inherently bad due to its technically low minimum movement; I think this still emphasizes this sound as well visually even if the player chooses to cheese SL abuse, which isn't encouraged in anyway by the map at this point.
    
12. 00:45:711 - pretty much all the 1/2 sliders in this section are actually so small that instead of following the shape players will just snap as I stated before in other suggestion, but in this section specifically I think more implied movement would represent the calmness of the section better than having to snap between slider heads.
    
    lack of movement in each slider, low click density, and spacing ensures this is perfectly fine to play for a calm section imo
    
13. 00:53:254 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I guess it's intentional that you can stay here in just one spot, think this kinda fits in this case even if I personally would prefer more movement.
    
    yeah I changed it up a bit since people can't appreciate my art angery
    
14. 00:54:968 (2,1) - this jump is stronger than this one 00:55:825 (4,1) - but the 2nd one has the stronger sound
    
    woops u rite
    
15. 01:08:340 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - I kinda like how you emphasize the strong sounds with wide angles here, but you didn't really use them anywhere else besides the intro and outro
    
    01:14:168 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - 02:50:168 (1,2,1,1,1,1) - 02:52:911 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - all encourage wide angle movement, should be consistent enough
    
16. 01:16:225 (1) - good shape, slider ticks also force movement through it well
17. 01:17:597 (1) - suboptimal slider plays just like a hold note
    
    wait wat teh fUk why's it ONLY 1.5X SFDDSIFSD
    
18. 01:18:968 (1) - good shape same as the other good one above
19. 01:25:825 (1) - not sure if the speed here is intentional since it could have even more movement with a simpler shape, but I guess it works
    
    designed the slider so it wouldn't be TOO fast, and the visual design better reflects the sound ye
    
20. 01:36:797 (1) - bad shape it's fast enough for players to not want to play it fully so they'll just go down a bit and don't move much even though the sounds is really strong and more movement would reflect it better like 01:25:825 (1) -
    
    I think you're on the wrong track of mind with assuming that the player will deliberately cheese to make playing something easier; many sliders' "minimum movement" are far lower than they are actually implied to be, and slider leniency isn't inherently abused unless the map is built to do so. Furthermore, the previous slider would be much more uncomfortable to play and read due to the more active rhythm and density in this section.
    
    I think I could go on with shapes, but I guess you get how you might wanna change a lot of those
21. 02:34:054 (1,1,1) - kinda funny as this is the most intense shape to play in the entire song almost
    
    In theory, perhaps, but again, you're thinking in terms of bare minimum movement...
    
22. 02:54:454 (3,1) - this is one of the only 1/1 jumps in the map and spacing it like just a normal 1/2 jump is really unimaginative and doesn't really add any emphasis in this case as the jump before isn't big enough to justify it as a anti-jump please space that one out about twice as much
    
    PLS
    01:07:482 (3,1) -
    01:10:225 (2,1) -
    01:12:968 (3,1) -
    01:15:710 (3,1) -
    02:46:225 (3,1) -
    02:48:968 (3,1) -
    02:51:711 (3,1) -
    
    They're not supposed to have uniform intensity considering it's already rather calm so would rather be ineffective, they're supposed to be uniform visually to show they're the same sound.
    
    
23. 03:14:168 (1) - it's really hard to interpret in which direction to move here since both slider end and head are both on the crossing into 4 directions, players might break combo on this without actually being at fault as this isn't introduced in the map at all

yeah changed feels bad

Overall a lot of this applies to other places and is one of the central issues I see your map having so you'll need to look through a lof of the map with this more in mind I think

[Spacing]

• Your spacing overall varies a lot in section and some really calm parts have less spacing then more intense parts like compare 04:39:197 (4,5) - to 00:03:368 (1,2,3) - or 05:34:568 (2,1) - to 02:04:397 (6,1) - it's really hard to actually compare your spacing in relation to each other between sections you start using jumps 3/4 of the screen size almost in the first 30 seconds 00:30:625 (1,2) - or fullscreen 00:36:968 (2,1) -.
  
  In contrast, object density also plays a huge part in the map's intensity, which you seem to ignore, largely because you seem to consider many sliders as hitcircles under the assumption of constantly abusing slider leniency. By comparing spacing like this, you're also ignoring said spacing within the section's context; it shouldn't be on an "absolute" scale.
  
  Another aspect would be your 1/4 jumps, you introduce them early on which is nice and actually fitting the song 00:27:454 (4,1) - but the don't really appear into the last drop and there they are used on inconsistent ways. The most notable would be that the kick drum often revives the same spacing as all the other sounds even when it's technically the strongest instrument in the section. for example it even lands on a slider end here 03:52:568 - . There's also these overlapping 1/4 notes occasionally which don't make much sense as they aren't consistently expressing the same thing, compare 03:51:968 (1,2,1,2) - to 03:54:025 (1,2) - the interval repeats, but you didn't repeat the small spacing.
  
  Again, you seem to largely ignore the context of the section itself. I'll take a moment to discuss this particular section with you; in terms of playability AND musically, spacing is consistent. The regular doubles on blue ticks such as 03:51:968 (1,2) - , 03:52:654 (1,2) - , 03:53:340 (1,2) - , etc are always partially stacked (if not, almost) due to how much more obscenely difficult and unpleasant this section would be to play with the spacing of 03:51:711 (3,4) - in the map, and is thus using lower spacing for weaker doubles for the sake of gameplay, while stronger doubles such as 03:52:225 (1,2) - are given larger and harsher angles due to the discrepancy between the base and the synth melody, or making exceptions with higher pitches and volume such as 04:00:882 (1,2) - 03:55:397 (2,3) - with smoother flow.
  
  Furthermore, I'm deliberately not making the drums clickable for 1/4 jumps as you say in this section because I'm mapping to the melodic synth instead (which is arguably the highlight of the song here), and this section in the song is entirely unique and unprecedented for such a change in what I map to; again, taken out of context, it would definitely be awkward but inconsistent, but it's often not the case if not so.
  

[NC]

• Your NC structure is not really emphasizing anything in particular, most NC happen more than once in on measure. I can't really see a clear structure to them other than splitting small patterns aesthetically like the first section uses them every 2 objects which takes away emphasis from other possible elements of the song like Downbeats 00:02:511 (1) - , changes or switching between instruments 00:03:368 (1,2,3) - , transitions 00:28:054 (1,2,3) - etc.
  I'll point out some is specifically disagree with
  
  NC's sole purpose is not for the sake of emphasis, visual clarity and aesthetic is fine should it not ignore any preset structure/rule for no reason, and ye like I discussed with you its consistency is developed in the map
  
  also since we did discuss it im goin to meme ur ass
  
  

1. 00:01:825 (1) - the NC here is unnecessary as it just removed emphasis on the downbeat.
   
   ALL
   
   
2. 000:13:140 (1,1) - I don't even understand why you used NCs here
   
   since this is understandable it's cause I broke the back and forth motion and a follow line may cause a misread to 1/2 cause of the larger spacing here
   
3. 00:15:882 (1) - takes away emphasis from the downbeat
   
   NO
   
4. 00:17:082 (1,1,1,1,1) - emphasizes nothing
   
   CHANGE
   
5. 00:19:311 (1) - it would make more sense to NC 00:19:482 (2) - since that one could be justified as emphasizing a different instrument
   
   NC'ed both actually since I still want the 12341 combo on the partially split streams to prepare the player for actual ones
   
6. 00:22:740 (1) - takes away emphasis from he downbeat and using NC to hint at SV changes in case you tried to do that wouldn't be needed as going from low to lower isn't that noticable.
   
   
   
7. 00:23:768 (1,1) - 00:24:968 (1) - these are unnecessary as there's no 1 2 pattern in the song and they take away emphasis from the downbeat and instrument change here 00:25:482 (1) - same for the rest of the section except for 00:28:054 (1,2,3) - for example
8. 00:30:282 (1) - I actually wouldn't NC this once as grouping the 3 basses together would make more sense I'd then only NC here again 00:30:797 (1) - to signal another change in instrumentation
9. 00:32:682 (1) - SV signaling takes away emphasis from the pattern here 00:33:025 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) -
10. 00:33:025 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - also the NC spam here is unnecessary too
11. 00:57:711 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - there's no 1 2 pattern in the song and neither does the section build up in intensity, the pattern itself should be enough to emphasize the Lead. honestly there's no need for any specific NC structure in this section 00:45:025 - besides downbeat emphasis
12. 01:39:882 - 1 2 NC would actually fit here to represent the build up
13. 01:45:368 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - NC makes sense here
14. 01:50:854 - you could group a few instrument more together here like 01:50:854 (1,1,2) - 01:52:225 (1,2,1,2) - 01:59:597 (3,1,2,3,4,5) -
15. 02:00:625 (1,1,1) - the NC spam here is unnecessary, if you tried to hint at SV then I think it isn't needed as players can interpret the gradual increase in spacing
16. 02:50:511 (1,1,1,1,1) - really unnecessary NC spam
    
    not really, considering I NC'ed with each pitch change for these sections so it fits since it changes pitch on each 1/2 for the first time
    
    pretty much anything above repeats the whole map so I'll stop here and suggest to re-do your NC structure as right now it often doesn't emphasize any stanza or instrumentation in the song.
    
    My NC's are mainly designed for visual clarity and readability rather than a strict 4/4 structure; as we've discussed, my opinion is that NC structure is developed in the context of the map, not as an absolute ruleset that needs to be explained by the song itself rather than the map, so I think a lot of the ones you listed are fine from my perspective, hope you understand
    
    I'll still look over for inconsistencies though, I'm pretty sure some are still there

[Praise and overall concept section]

• overall the playfield usage is nice and you also use it evenly not just on a makro scale, but try to fill the screen at all times and the visual design is obviously 10/10 and has even some really creative shapes that often even work really well some patterns even have some more complex geometry I can appreciate like 01:08:340 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - also good use of slider art even looking good over longer periods of time example
  
  

1. 00:03:368 (1,2,3) - nice use of linear jump emphasizing the strongest note on 00:03:711 (3) -
   
2. 00:20:340 (1) - nice reference to the lyrics xd
3. 00:27:454 (4,1) - already said this is a nice introduction into 1/4 jumps, but I'll do it again
4. 01:28:911 - you actually handled the movement in this section very well in my opinion gj
   
   much thank appreciate mate

gl with the set, I hope you can actually use this to look through the map and try to find similar issues I didn't mention because it being redundant, if you'd want to I could do some irc mod with you too in case you want me to adress literally everything... I hope I got the fundamental flaws apparently

NeilPerry wrote:

Hello!

General stuff:

1. Your meta is wrong for now. かめりあ - real title. Camellia - just romanised title. Best way to take meta from nozhomi's ranked version.
   
   wjpioafpfsof fixed
   
2. Will be cool idea to structurise combocolours for intensity of map or u can go for another way
   
   ye going to colorhax once I get my lazy ass moving

Map:

Overall looks well polished. So i will point nazi a bit xd

ffs god fukin daMN it neil:b:erry

1. 00:20:168 (3,1) - not perfectly stacked in angle of sliderbody
   
   I wish death upon ur descendants
   
2. 01:16:225 (1) - what abt make it more even and symmetrical?
   
   dfdsfsDFsdfsa
   
3. 01:58:825 (1) - nc this for more intuatively playability
   
   ok u rite
   
4. 02:00:197 (3,4,5,1) - make it more straight linear
   
   nah fuk I'm mapping this in a different way
   
5. 02:17:940 (1) - this shape should be more polished
   
   ur head should be more polished
   
6. 02:21:711 (1,2) - that spaced too high with no reason. 02:21:797 (2) - this beat not giving sense to be emphazed with big spacing. (for example this
7. 01:57:111 (2) - has reason)
   
   that's fair, originally wanted to just have same spacing as the second one but should still be readable
   
8. 03:29:254 (1,4) - what about to stack them>?
   
   jokes on u u nazi I stack to 5 instead
   
9. 03:32:168 (1) - unnecessary nc
   
   woopsies
   
10. 03:34:397 (6) - should be nced for consistency
    
    actually don't want this to be NC'ed since it shows that double rhythm is continued unlike the previous half measure combos
    
11. 03:44:597 (4,1) - that super hard to read. 03:44:340 (1,1) - what about stack them to make flow more linear?
    
    don't think it's that hard tbh, and stacking would remove the current emphasis
    
12. 04:11:254 (1,3) - stack
    
    dIE
    
13. 04:14:425 (3,4) - try to avoid that kind of pixel overlaps
    
    moved slightly up but I don't think the player is going to focus on non-simultaneous overlaps when they're playing this spaghetti
    
14. 05:09:711 (3,4,5) - angle looks weird. try smthing like this https://puu.sh/yEz5C/e3582837b5.jpg
    
    it's fuckin straight what more do you wANt
    
15. 05:18:111 (2) - what abt to nc this? like it starts another kind of sound
    
    nah kicksliders should be enough to show that, and I'm worried excessive NC might screw up reading
    
16. 05:26:511 (1) - unnecessary nc
    
    wanted to say assthics but have to agre
    
17. 05:54:968 (1) - this is unsnapped
    
    fUKc

Good map. Kiai spacing looks a bit randomly for me. I think u can structurise spacing more better on kiai parts.
I wish u find ur nominator on this. best of luck o/

aight will do, thanks

[Colours]
Combo1 : 128,255,204
Combo2 : 254,101,154
Combo3 : 255,64,69
Combo4 : 254,226,160
Combo5 : 47,244,255
Combo6 : 163,70,255
Combo7 : 255,124,81
Combo8 : 244,200,108

Xilver wrote:

Mod from PMs.

[General]

1. Unsnaps:
   05:37:391 - Slider end
   05:37:478 - Slider start
   05:37:558 - Slider end
   
   woops fixed all
   
2. HP could be a bit to low in my opinion, maybe 5.6/6.6? (Considering you went for x.6 in all other diff settings)

map's hard as balls already for its rating and the drain actually feels higher than 4.6 (perhaps due to frequent NC's even if there are some drain points with no rhythm density like 03:50:168 (1) -

[Brilliance]

1. 00:09:368 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Slidertail overlaps are a bit off here.
   
   wait wat the
   
2. 00:25:311 (3,1) - Spacing here feels weak considering the sound you were mapping, it's also weird when you have higher spacing for quieter notes like at 00:24:282 (2,1) -
   
   agreed, probably going to use wider angle as well
   
3. 00:27:197 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Having a long stream here felt out of place for me, I'd personally do something weaker like triple kick sliders or something similar to 00:26:511 (1,2,1,2,3) -, it makes that part feel unnecessarily strong.
   
   simplified a bit to same rhythm as 00:29:254 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - , hope that's better
   
4. 01:17:597 (1) - Would personally stack this at 01:16:225 (1) - 's tail to make it feel stronger, it feels pretty weak with how fast the SV is here.
   
   should feel properly strong now ye
   
5. 01:20:425 (1,2,3,1) - Don't rly understand why you'd start the stream from the blue tick and not from the white, either way if you wanna keep it I wouldn't NC 01:20:425 (1) - to make it a bit less confusing.
   
   didn't want this to be a full burst since it's not as intense as the next one, but you're right tried nerfing a bit and un-NC'ed
   
6. 01:24:454 (1) - Would CtrlH this to keep the same movement effect you have with 01:17:940 (1,2,1) - .
   
   wutface it still goes back and forth rn, ctrl+h would screw that up
   
7. 01:39:540 (1) - Would CtrlG this, spacing here feels a bit odd bc 01:39:197 (1,2) - is spaced larger than 01:39:368 (2,1) - .
   
   eh it's already emphasized enough with harsher flow into a fast slider in exchange for technically lower spacing, also ctrl+g would be way too much xd
   
8. 01:57:025 (1,2) - I would make this have a blanket like all the other ones you did before, the angle here is a lot less snappier which makes this feel rly weak
   
   u RITE
   
9. 02:00:111 - You could probably map this note here instead of making a blue tick stream
   
   kept forgetting this woops
   
10. 02:05:254 (1,2) - On the contrary, this movement is very snappy compared to all the other ones, I'd make it more leninent to fit more with the others, something like this maybe? https://i.imgur.com/EqJePL1.png
    
    kinda wanted this to be the snappiest as the final iteration of this pattern, but you're right that it's inconsistent so I tried lowering spacing and making it flow into 02:05:511 (3) - better
    
11. 02:12:797 (1) - IMO if you CtrlG+CtrlH'd this slider it would feel as strong as you probably intended it to be, considering the high SV contrast you used https://i.imgur.com/OXUizip.png
    
    I actually had something like this originally, but consecutive 1/4 gaps with that high spacing already proved to be difficult to properly play even without the SV change taken into account, and I believe it's still emphasized through the increase of SV and the sudden reverse in circular direction.
    
12. Personal choice, would make the rhythm here 02:21:711 (1,2,1,2,3) - be the same as 02:23:082 (1,2,1) -, considering both sounds are the same
    
    have to map the wubs for consistency tho rip
    
13. 03:10:140 (1,2,3,1) - Same as 01:20:425 (1,2,3,1) -
    
    ye
    
14. 03:28:225 (1,2) - I'd CtrlG them individually, implied slidermovement feels unecessary here imo and would lead better into 03:28:568 (1) -
    
    ctrl+g'ed but also reversed position, think that works better
    
15. 03:37:311 (2,3,4,1) - This rhythm choice seems weird, I think you should stick to mapping the synths like you did before
    
    I need to break consistency here like I did at 03:31:654 (1,2,3,4) - and I want to move to 1/2 from 3/4 since the vocals are significantly loud from here, but changed it a bit up since triple was uncalled for
    
16. 03:59:511 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I don't rly like this pattern personally.. movement is way too snappy at 03:59:682 (3,1) - , movement at 04:00:111 (5,1) - makes the slider feel pretty weak and NCing 04:00:197 (1) - ends up pretty confusing. I think doing snappy movement where the slider is at would represent the sound/song better and I'd get rid of the NC at 04:00:197 (1) - and NC 04:00:111 (5) - instead. I think something like https://i.imgur.com/IHi1CoU.jpg would represent sounds better and be less confusing, but other similar variations could work too if you don't like this. (either way I would still remove NC on 04:00:197 (1) - )
    
    I think it still fits the song because 03:59:768 (1) - does need to be snappy to show it's the downbeat and snaps instead of being a continuation with the previous 3 notes, and the sharp circular movement required combined with the high SV and still high spacing still makes the slider very strong while continuing the circular flow, IMO. I may change it if its playability has particular issue, but I think it works well mapping-wise at the moment.
    
    Agree with the NC though fixed
    
17. 04:03:197 (1,2,3) - Movement here is kinda out of place for no reason, I'd do smth like https://i.imgur.com/I0tJZqW.png to make it fit with the rest.
    
    holy you're right (changed to something else slightly)
    
18. 04:16:911 (1,2,1) - Same here, in my opinion. Something like https://i.imgur.com/tTyvimM.jpg would fit bette
    
    it really does, thanks
    
19. 04:24:454 (1) - I think you could extend this to the blue tick, would create more suspension to the stream buildup.
    
    o wait wut it was 1/2
    
20. 04:29:254 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1) - I understand what you were doing but I think keeping it at 4/4 stream jumps would be a lot more intuitive to the player. Either way I would still get rid of the NCing on blue ticks bc they can be very confusing
    
    don't think readability will be an issue even if the 3/4 rhythm is relatively new due to how frequent split stream elements are in this section
    
21. 04:34:054 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - The angles here are unnecessarily uncomfortable in this part imo, especially because the music gets weaker. I would CtrlG 04:34:054 (1,2,2,2,2) - individually to make it fit better with the stream, since the stream you did has very comfortable movement to it
    
    I think angles aren't that much of an issue here as the player can snap to these angles at a 3/4 rhythm, and are designed to generally play as regular doubles by abusing slider leniency here, but I'm mainly worried about readability if anything due to a complex rhythm after a difficult stream, so might change something
    
22. 04:51:025 (3) - I would CtrlG this slider, it would fit better with the circular motion you have at 04:50:511 (1,2) - and is more intuitive to play imo
    
    you have a point, fixed
    
23. 06:01:825 (1) - I'd make this a straight slider personally, I think rrtyui did a similar thing on atomosphere and having a circle makes this unnecessarily stand out imo.
    
    yeah that seems better, .1x sv ftw