sdafsf wrote:

[ rever:b:]

1. 00:17:999 (3) - this would work better as 2 circles i think - disagree cute piano thing there
2. 00:24:978 (2) - i know its a strong drum beat but having this continous rhythm kinda undermines the melody. and emphesiesed slider end like 00:23:207 (3) - or just a 1/1 break would fit better imo. similarly i think making the drum rhythm clickable in other parts like 00:31:645 (2) - - feels off to me. http://puu.sh/xscA6.jpg this ryhtm would work very nicely imo. these are just examples so if you decide to implement it check for other clickable drums without melody
3. 00:31:332 (3) - again 2 circles would fit
4. 00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - im guessing this is supposed to look chaotic? - yeh
5. 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) - this is too spaced in comparison to the previous 1/4 jumps in the kiai i think

fucking cute

[ Another]

1. 00:12:478 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is too little contrast imo
2. 00:17:999 (3) - i dont get why you never map this 1/4 it stands out to me so much 00:31:332 (3) - I don't hear it at all

gl! uwu

Halfslashed wrote:

[Reverb]
00:02:374 (3) - The sound this is representing isn't particularly held and actually sharply cuts off. I see that you want to represent the held part of this that starts on 00:02:478 - so I recommend you use a 1/4 reverse here instead. - it is actually held and a 1/4 reverse would overmap the reverse and i don't want that so this is fine as is imo
00:02:895 (1,2,3) - Contrast here is off due to the large spacing between 1,2. I recommend either lowering the spacing between 1 and 2 or increasing the spacing between 2 and 3, since right now there is actually less emphasis to 3. If you lower spacing between 1 and 2 make sure to also lower the spacing between 00:02:061 (1,2) - so that this spacing stands out relatively. - this was a mistake
00:10:082 (1) - I never thought I'd see the day...
00:10:707 (4) - At 00:04:040 (4) - you had an angle change to emphasize the sharp piano sound but here you don't have any such angle change, so I recommend using the same slider arrangement that you had before. - removed angle change
00:35:325 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - I have a dream that one day you will stop NC spamming for 1/3. - it's not necessarily for the 1/3 more for just the overall feel of the section, idk how to explain it tbh but it feels just weird to have it all nc'd and that represents it perfectly to me
00:36:228 (1,1) - On a more serious note, I recommend you use a slider instead of a circle here to fit the low held sound as well as using a higher SV for the second slider, since right now due to the lack of motion and the rhythm gap the contrast into the second make these beats feel weaker than necessary. Ending the second slider on 00:36:540 (1) - also lets you represent that "AAAAH" sound and should provide contrast should you increase the SV of the second slider. - i adjusted things here so we'll see how this plays out
00:46:332 (1,1) - Due to the spacing here, the transition into the next section feels really weak. I recommend overlapping the head of this with the tail of 00:46:020 (1) - and raising the SV of the second slider. You could also add a nice swinging motion by ctrl+g on the first slider. - emphasis is more on 00:46:645 - though so i think this is fine?
00:46:853 (1,2,3) - 00:50:186 (1,2,3) - Wrongly snapped, this should be 1/6 and there are 4 notes here.
00:56:645 - Since you're using extended sliders, the sliders in this section and similar sections are very underwhelming in play and don't fit the synth very well I suggest drastically increasing the SV here. - i'm gonna pull the subjective card and say I quite like how these are since the synth doesn't feel like it's decreasing in intensity it's fairly constant so i didn't change the sv
01:16:436 (6,7) - It'd be cool if you made the spacing decrease more obvious here to match the pitch of the synth better and provide more contrast to the next beat.
01:30:915 (2,3) - I think stacking these would work better, since the equal spacing blends these together a bit too much to make it clear on whether or not you're prioritizing synth or piano. - always vocals here so no stack for meh
01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't think blending together the various instruments for an end stream works too well here since you finish it off with 1/4 jumps, creating an artificial difficulty spike. I would recommend having 01:52:374 (4,3) - as 1/4 sliders to prioritize the piano, switching to drums for the final jumps instead. - whaaaaaaaa they're all just mapped to the drums, no instrument blending involved and the way i made this flow sets up the 1/4 jumps quite intuitively (if you can possibly pass with decent combo i don't think this is that hard to hit since there are harder patterns in the kiai)

[Another]
00:35:395 (1,1,1,1) - It doesn't make sense that you're using more misleading 1/3 in this difficulty than your top difficulty. The combination of NCing and relatively even visual distance makes this a reading difficulty spike. Musically it also makes sense to pair these 1/3 together and make them both repeats, and you can show the intensity decrease with SV and motion. Something like this could work.
00:40:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - I recommend making this an actual buildup by changing 00:41:020 (1,1) - into 1/4 slider + circle patterns and 00:41:853 (1,1) - into stacked circles. You can also make 00:42:686 (1,2,1) - more spaced to have contrast there as well.
01:28:415 (2,3) - Yes.

[Hyper]
00:18:103 - I think you should map this note since its part of the melody that you're following, since right now skipping this seems like unnecessary simplification. - i legit don't hear anything there lmfao
00:34:145 (4,5,1) - I know you wanted to make the kick clickable but this is actually a less intuitive rhythm than what you probably intended, since you have a melody focus. I recommend a rhythm to follow the melody while keeping the kick clickable. - i'm actually focusing more on the kicks than the melody here

[Advanced]
The amount of 1/4 you use makes this feel relatively dense on AR6, so I recommend using AR7 here.
00:17:061 (4) - I think a 1/1 gap would fit the stop in the synth here, so I recommend using a circle here. - there's a wubwub sound i wanted to catch tho
00:27:895 (2,1) - I think a stack would fit really well here to create a stronger lead in to the next section. - stack is ew, so did slider instead
00:33:207 (5,1) - I think you're better off making this a 3/4 reverse since players will likely hear the skipped kick and get really confused, especially while they're interpreting the 3/4. Would also fit your melody focus better I think. - this is a rhythmical error, fixed it in a different way
00:46:020 (1,2) - I recommend using circles here to provide contrast from the verses, since there are less instruments playing here.
01:06:228 (2,3) - 3 is a fairly weak beat and this is a relatively straining pattern, so I recommend using a 1/2 slider here instead.

[Normal]
The main issue with this difficulty is its long note chains. At this BPM you can be more lenient in note chains than normal, but that still only allows about 10 objects connected with 1/2 gaps unless you have stuff like 3/4 repeats in the mix (in which this is more lenient). Most of the difficulty has lots of long chains so break those up with some 3/4 or larger gaps. I pointed out a few that I found particularly problematic.
00:04:978 (1) - The way the end of this slider overlaps itself is misleading for players at this level due to the way it obscures the slider border. I recommend just straightening out the end here.
00:35:395 (1) - Similar to the above, except you're probably better off using a completely different shape.
00:46:020 (1,1) - I recommend using a more straightforward placement here, since the player will likely have issue interpreting the 3/4 gap due to the visual distance between these two sliders and possibly let go of the slider early. Try this.
00:59:561 (4,5) - These circles seem really out of place due to the faint drums they follow, as well as their high intensity, to the point where I think you're better off starting a slider on 00:59:145 - and ending it on 00:59:665 - I think the drums are fairly audible here so I won't apply this
01:18:207 (1) - I recommend using circles here to break up the massive chain of 1/2 you have.
01:29:978 (1) - Skipping the 1/3 here is probably a good idea since right now you have a massive chain of 1/2 and the player will probably misread this with how its placed in the middle of a long beat chain. I recommend using a circle here.

[Beginner]
I don't think the spread between this and the normal is good, since the normal has stuff like passive 1/4, and active 1/2, while this difficulty is mapped with strictly enforced 1/1 (occasional 5/4). You'll probably need to go back and incorporate more passive 1/2 into this difficulty.
00:18:728 (2,3,4) - This even visual distance creates a readability issue in that the player may want to click 4 before 3, so I recommend spacing this out a bit more like you did with 00:14:978 (1,2,3) -
00:52:061 (2,3) - I recommend placing this circle more in the path of the slider like this(you'll need to adjust some following objects to preserve DS) since right now the player may let go of 2 early to hit 3 due to the tight placement.

Good luck!

• 
  [General]
  

1. soft-hitnormal4.wav is unused because you're not using the hitnormal anywhere. 01:37:270 - has a S:C4 line, but all the notes there have Drum samplesets on them. So either incorporate this somewhere in the map or remove the file.
   
2. So both drum-hitwhistle as well as soft-hitclap2.wav has some delay you might want to get rid of.
   
   [Normal]
3. 00:14:978 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - 00:22:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - So it kinda looks like you were trying to have these consistent, but the latter one is one beat ahead of where the former is. Listen to 00:23:520 - and compare it to 00:16:853 - , for instance. Would probably be more consistent if the pauses in rhythm were on the same places in the song, right? In my opinion it'd be cool if the pause was after 00:17:061 - , like it is on 00:23:728 - , but both ways work. Depending on what you choose to emphasize, 00:16:853 - is analogous to the former.
   
4. 00:17:061 (2,3) - are both similar to 00:18:103 (5,1) - in the map, but not in the song (also it feels like a bit too many circles but maybe that's just me). The above would solve that if you'd emphasize the wub drum instead of the vocal, although if the other way around, 00:17:061 - could be turned into a 1/2 slider to solve this instead. But ye depending on what you did on the previous point, 00:30:395 (2,3) - may also be of interest.
   
5. 00:18:311 (1,2,3) - So (1) has NC here but not (4) at 00:24:978 (4,5,6) - ? Similarly comparing 00:20:811 - with 00:34:145 - .
   
6. 00:26:540 - This part could probably be less ambiguous to 00:19:874 - and allow the cymbal to stand out if you did something like this. Alternatively arranging it like this, or simply ending the slider there instead of repeating.
   
7. 00:54:874 (3) - Considering that you usually NC every measure, this could be a new combo to visually emphasize the difference between surrounding sections here.
   
8. 01:31:228 (4,1) - Seems strange to have such a large gap when the beat is still going. Especially when 01:32:061 - is already similar to 01:31:853 - , so could place a circle there.
   
9. 01:48:311 (1,2) - nice ds, tbh I'd have stacked these to indicate a larger time gap. While you're at it you can apply that to 01:46:228 (2,3) - as well for consistency. Current does work, but it might be easier to interpret if it stood out more visually, and wasn't the exact same as other types of time gaps.
   
   This kiai feels so barren density wise in comparison to the song lol, especially with gaps like 01:13:311 (1,2) - 01:14:040 (3,4) - constantly. Not much we can do about that though unless you want to change the density of other stuff to compensate, although wouldn't think it's worth.
   
   [Advanced]
10. 00:58:520 (1) - Should probably not have this offscreen.
    
11. 01:23:311 - Compare NCing with 01:16:645 - , might want to make that consistent.
    
12. 01:29:978 (7,1) - Would swap their combos, both of these sound like they're part of the same pattern in the song, after all.
    
13. 01:50:395 (1) - Isn't your combo concept to only place new combos on the 01:44:978 - 01:48:311 - 01:51:645 - sounds like in Normal? Otherwise 01:43:624 (3) - would have an NC as well.
    
14. 01:53:311 - Was expecting the spinner to start from here like in Normal. Makes more sense in my opinion considering the sounds that are heard.
    
    [Hyper]
15. 00:14:978 (1,2) - 00:28:311 (1,2) - Feels pretty off compared to other similar spots in the map like 00:15:707 (3,4) - 00:17:478 (2,3) - 00:18:207 (1,2) - or in the song like 00:16:228 (1,2) - 00:18:728 (3,4) - 00:19:561 (3,4) - . Replacing these with doubles would fit much better from what I can tell.
    
16. 00:18:207 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Compare your combos here and 00:31:540 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - . 00:33:311 (1) - may be excused by it's different drum structure, but 00:32:374 (5,1) - might want to be made consistent. Or other way around, you do you.
    
17. 00:20:811 (1) - Would say this makes more sense than 00:34:145 (4,5,1) - in terms of NCing. Applies to 00:59:353 (1) - 01:06:020 - as well. damit mir get your ncs right
    
18. 00:38:207 (1,2) - Would have done this like 00:24:561 (2,3,4,5) - or like this instead, in order to bring more contrast to and from 00:33:207 (3,1,2,3) - .
    
19. 00:55:603 (3,4,5) - Similarly to above, you could bring more contrast to the kind of concept you've got at 00:56:645 (1,2) - 01:02:686 (2,3,1,2) - etc, if this weren't of similar rhythm and visuals. Could potentially just replace (4) with a circle to solve this.
    
20. 01:31:540 (5,1) - Former seems more distinct, so would've switched ncs.
    
    [Reverb]
21. 00:37:061 (1) - btw there's an offscreen slider here as well.

Naxess wrote:

Greetings,

• 
  [General]
  

1. soft-hitnormal4.wav is unused because you're not using the hitnormal anywhere. 01:37:270 - has a S:C4 line, but all the notes there have Drum samplesets on them. So either incorporate this somewhere in the map or remove the file.
   
2. So both drum-hitwhistle as well as soft-hitclap2.wav has some delay you might want to get rid of.
   
   [Normal]
3. 00:14:978 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - 00:22:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - So it kinda looks like you were trying to have these consistent, but the latter one is one beat ahead of where the former is. Listen to 00:23:520 - and compare it to 00:16:853 - , for instance. Would probably be more consistent if the pauses in rhythm were on the same places in the song, right? In my opinion it'd be cool if the pause was after 00:17:061 - , like it is on 00:23:728 - , but both ways work. Depending on what you choose to emphasize, 00:16:853 - is analogous to the former.
   
4. 00:17:061 (2,3) - are both similar to 00:18:103 (5,1) - in the map, but not in the song (also it feels like a bit too many circles but maybe that's just me). The above would solve that if you'd emphasize the wub drum instead of the vocal, although if the other way around, 00:17:061 - could be turned into a 1/2 slider to solve this instead. But ye depending on what you did on the previous point, 00:30:395 (2,3) - may also be of interest.
   
5. 00:18:311 (1,2,3) - So (1) has NC here but not (4) at 00:24:978 (4,5,6) - ? Similarly comparing 00:20:811 - with 00:34:145 - .
   
6. 00:26:540 - This part could probably be less ambiguous to 00:19:874 - and allow the cymbal to stand out if you did something like this. Alternatively arranging it like this, or simply ending the slider there instead of repeating.
   
7. 00:54:874 (3) - Considering that you usually NC every measure, this could be a new combo to visually emphasize the difference between surrounding sections here. - yes but i feel like the note afterwards deserves the NC more
   
8. 01:31:228 (4,1) - Seems strange to have such a large gap when the beat is still going. Especially when 01:32:061 - is already similar to 01:31:853 - , so could place a circle there.
   
9. 01:48:311 (1,2) - nice ds, tbh I'd have stacked these to indicate a larger time gap. While you're at it you can apply that to 01:46:228 (2,3) - as well for consistency. Current does work, but it might be easier to interpret if it stood out more visually, and wasn't the exact same as other types of time gaps.
   
   This kiai feels so barren density wise in comparison to the song lol, especially with gaps like 01:13:311 (1,2) - 01:14:040 (3,4) - constantly. Not much we can do about that though unless you want to change the density of other stuff to compensate, although wouldn't think it's worth. - acknowledged but I think the more complicated rhythm choices I went for here offset that density drop.
   
   [Advanced]
10. 00:58:520 (1) - Should probably not have this offscreen.
    
11. 01:23:311 - Compare NCing with 01:16:645 - , might want to make that consistent.
    
12. 01:29:978 (7,1) - Would swap their combos, both of these sound like they're part of the same pattern in the song, after all.
    
13. 01:50:395 (1) - Isn't your combo concept to only place new combos on the 01:44:978 - 01:48:311 - 01:51:645 - sounds like in Normal? Otherwise 01:43:624 (3) - would have an NC as well.
    
14. 01:53:311 - Was expecting the spinner to start from here like in Normal. Makes more sense in my opinion considering the sounds that are heard.
    
    [Hyper]
15. 00:14:978 (1,2) - 00:28:311 (1,2) - Feels pretty off compared to other similar spots in the map like 00:15:707 (3,4) - 00:17:478 (2,3) - 00:18:207 (1,2) - or in the song like 00:16:228 (1,2) - 00:18:728 (3,4) - 00:19:561 (3,4) - . Replacing these with doubles would fit much better from what I can tell.
    
16. 00:18:207 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Compare your combos here and 00:31:540 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - . 00:33:311 (1) - may be excused by it's different drum structure, but 00:32:374 (5,1) - might want to be made consistent. Or other way around, you do you.
    
17. 00:20:811 (1) - Would say this makes more sense than 00:34:145 (4,5,1) - in terms of NCing. Applies to 00:59:353 (1) - 01:06:020 - as well. damit mir get your ncs right
    
18. 00:38:207 (1,2) - Would have done this like 00:24:561 (2,3,4,5) - or like this instead, in order to bring more contrast to and from 00:33:207 (3,1,2,3) - . - the rhythm is different here cuz a drum intersects the melody so i had to opt for another double, otherwise they'd be the same
    
19. 00:55:603 (3,4,5) - Similarly to above, you could bring more contrast to the kind of concept you've got at 00:56:645 (1,2) - 01:02:686 (2,3,1,2) - etc, if this weren't of similar rhythm and visuals. Could potentially just replace (4) with a circle to solve this.
    
20. 01:31:540 (5,1) - Former seems more distinct, so would've switched ncs.
    
    [Reverb]
21. 00:37:061 (1) - btw there's an offscreen slider here as well.

1. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4) - spacing is monotonous while the music clearly indicates a different pitch on every note (down>up)
   
2. 00:39:179 - ^
   
3. 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - spacing gets larger every time but the actual sound that differentiates from the rest (00:40:811 (3) - ) isn't expressed in any way
   
4. 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5) - vs 00:53:936 (3,4) - why do these patterns have the same spacing? Also 00:54:457 (2,3,1) - isn't really a good idea since the player has to make a VERY jerky right/left movement when nothing in the music supports this (as the melodic sound actually fades here)
   
5. 01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same issue again, monotonous spacing even though the pitch ups?
   
6. 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ^
   
7. 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - not only does this completely ignore any spacing concept that would relate to the music before in favor of some wide angled symmetric pattern, the transition to 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - also feels super clunky because the song's bpm wasn't taken into account while creating this pattern
   
8. There are a lot of other examples of patterns with similar issues throughout the map.

Voli wrote:

The implementation of the spacing concept on the top diff can use a lot of work imo

General spacing concerns / lack of contrast

I feel like the spacing concept of this map wasn't thought out thoroughly enough. Considering the high-bpm nature of the song, note-to-object jumps should be mapped with a lot of care because they can very easily disrupt the movement in your patterns and generally feel very clunky.

An example of this is just when the map starts out at 00:01:957 (2,1) - . While 00:02:061 (1) - is indeed a high pitched sound and could be emphasized over the rest of the pattern, the angle and immense amount of spacing (for this bpm) just make the pattern feel overspaced in its entirety. What doesn't help is that the player has to make yet another jumpy movement towards 00:02:165 (2) - with a very sharp/harsh angle, while the pitch only lowers here.

Another example would be 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) -. The spacing is the same over the entire pattern making the entire thing feel clunky and lacking in contrast. The sounds in the music aren't properly distinguished because you use the same huge spacing everywhere. Patterns with similar issues include:

1. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4) - spacing is monotonous while the music clearly indicates a different pitch on every note (down>up)
   
2. 00:39:179 - ^
   
3. 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - spacing gets larger every time but the actual sound that differentiates from the rest (00:40:811 (3) - ) isn't expressed in any way
   
4. 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5) - vs 00:53:936 (3,4) - why do these patterns have the same spacing? Also 00:54:457 (2,3,1) - isn't really a good idea since the player has to make a VERY jerky right/left movement when nothing in the music supports this (as the melodic sound actually fades here)
   
5. 01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same issue again, monotonous spacing even though the pitch ups?
   
6. 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ^
   
7. 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - not only does this completely ignore any spacing concept that would relate to the music before in favor of some wide angled symmetric pattern, the transition to 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - also feels super clunky because the song's bpm wasn't taken into account while creating this pattern
   
8. There are a lot of other examples of patterns with similar issues throughout the map.

Another reason I feel the spacing concept wasn't thought through enough is the amount of spacing you use on the ''transitioning'' notes (e.g. 00:01:957 (2) - 00:05:915 (4) - 00:12:582 (5) - ) is consistently high enough that they feel like jumps on their own considering the bpm. Some more extreme examples of this are 00:23:415 (4) - 00:29:249 (5) - 00:49:353 (2) - and a lot of others throughout the latter part of the map. These notes often don't really ''belong'' to any special sound in the music and their general purpose is keeping the rhythm natural and constant. However, the way you placed these combined with the song's bpm makes them stand out in an uncanny way contributing to my problem with the spacing concept.

Lastly, patterns like 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - and, as i said before, 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - feel too bluntly executed. The harshness of these angles is immensely contrasting with the slider patterns surrounding them.

tl;dr - I feel you should respect the song's extremely fast nature a lot more when creating patterns with super sharp angles/high spacing. As a result, I deem the difficulty unsatisfactory as of now.

If you wanna discuss, feel free to pm in game too of course.