1. Hard (2,96 stars, 224 notes)
2. Insane (3,56 stars, 275 notes)
3. Normal (1,95 stars, 143 notes)

1. 00:14:386 (7) - First of all I'm missing another note before this one, and the current spacing makes me feel the rhythm is different, which makes me think this is a bit confusing. I would try another kind of pattern even if you are not willing to make a different rhythm.
2. 00:29:152 (1) - I don't think a NC is necessary here, the intensity is not changing and both patterns are more or less the same. The same goes here 00:36:652 (1) - although it's just a personal suggestion.
3. 00:45:441 (2,3) - Although I don't dislike using higher spacing in these rhythms, symmetry and flow feel a bit forced here, at least for me. I would add Ctrl+G the second slider - keeping the stack with (2), in order to make a better flow and triples with higher spacing are kept.
4. 00:54:933 (2) - Something similar happens here, even without triples. Flow looks a bit unclean for me, I would add Ctrl+G too, but would still feel a bit weird for me since 00:55:402 (3) - will be even further. Everything related to this is up to you, I guess.

1. 00:10:402 (6) - Shouldn't spacing be a bit further here?
2. 00:21:183 (5) - Missing NC.
3. 00:29:152 (1) - Same about the NCs I mentioned before, anyways I won't say it again, looks more fitting to your style.
4. 01:20:715 (3) - Missing NC?

1. Looks good for me.

Nyukai wrote:

~Insane~

1. 00:14:386 (7) - First of all I'm missing another note before this one, and the current spacing makes me feel the rhythm is different, which makes me think this is a bit confusing. I would try another kind of pattern even if you are not willing to make a different rhythm. - Just a note missing who ruin everything here lol.
2. 00:29:152 (1) - I don't think a NC is necessary here, the intensity is not changing and both patterns are more or less the same. The same goes here 00:36:652 (1) - although it's just a personal suggestion. - It's to emphasis the redundancy of the vocal pattern.
3. 00:45:441 (2,3) - Although I don't dislike using higher spacing in these rhythms, symmetry and flow feel a bit forced here, at least for me. I would add Ctrl+G the second slider - keeping the stack with (2), in order to make a better flow and triples with higher spacing are kept. - No one from testplay I had issues here, will keep that in mind in case of more complain here.
4. 00:54:933 (2) - Something similar happens here, even without triples. Flow looks a bit unclean for me, I would add Ctrl+G too, but would still feel a bit weird for me since 00:55:402 (3) - will be even further. Everything related to this is up to you, I guess. - Flow is not an issue here.

~Hard~

1. 00:10:402 (6) - Shouldn't spacing be a bit further here? - Nah it's same vocal note so stack is k, and no need to be spced further,
   the song don't need any special emphasis here.
2. 00:21:183 (5) - Missing NC. - K
3. 00:29:152 (1) - Same about the NCs I mentioned before, anyways I won't say it again, looks more fitting to your style. - Same as Insane.
4. 01:20:715 (3) - Missing NC? - K

~Normal~

1. Looks good for me.

If you don't mind doing M4M you can go for this, I'm ok with anything

1. Imo the hitsounds outside of the kiais are way too loud generally and on top of that you mapped objects to quiet hihats but they are really hard to even notice because they blend so much with the hitnormal then
2. Personally I think a drum-hitfinish on the first downbeat of both kiais would feel really good because with only a normal finish they lack feedback, or rather just feels way weaker then all the hitsounding afterwards which is odd imo

1. 00:10:402 (6,7) - I think having a repeatslider here for the 3 k's would be cooler. Using 3 circles and then a slider would work as well but then you don't have emphasis on the downbeat which is meh
2. 00:33:840 (1) - Not sure if it's just me but this slider feels a bit out of place with its curve / angle, like there's no other slider with a similar placement. Obviously not a huge thing but who doesn't like consistency :^)
3. 01:26:808 (2,3,4) - Could do a triangle there like you did with 01:23:058 (2,3,4) -

1. 00:17:199 (1,3,4) - I don't think this stack is necessarily a big problem but it may confuse players still, you could avoid it by rotating the slider 90° clockwise and adjusting the other objects. Even adds little visual gimmicks too
2. 00:45:090 (1,2,3,4) - Looks a bit offputting with placement you never used anywhere else, something like this looks pretty neat and fits the style of the map
3. 00:46:847 (6) - Unsure if a "random" 1/4 object is a good idea, I think it's better if you are completely consistent with it because a lot of other blue ticks have hihats too that are at least as noticable. Also the 1/4 patterns before weren't as spaced so having a really spaced 1/4 is pretty harsh here
4. 00:55:636 (4,5) - Is really close to (2) which doesn't look good imo. You can easily space them more if you blanket 00:54:933 (2,3) - properly. And breaking the DS is not that much of a problem in a Hard if it's really necessary for clean placement too
5. 01:11:340 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Weird that you have something as a "difficulty spike" here with a sudden stack that comes all of a sudden. Moving 01:12:277 (1,2,3) - to the left of the other pattern with a blanket looks pretty good as well and doesn't break the consistency, also doesn't make you need to NC the pattern then

1. 00:08:879 (4,5) - Could be misread with that low spacing you don't have anywhere else, maybe flipping it vertically and adjusting the placement could help there
2. 00:39:230 (4,1,4,1) - A noticable jump wouldn't hurt since you did that in the Hard diff already
3. 01:00:090 (1,2,3) - Is less comfortable to play and also sort of has more spacing than the pattern on other similar parts, ctrl + g'ing (2) should fix that

1. How about adding "TVsize" "tv size" to the tags? I think this is a tv size ver, so it'll make sense to add it tbh ><

1. 00:06:183 (5) - I think a nc here would look much better and it'll play better as well, since this normal after all. Long combos isn't needed for lower diffs tbh
2. 00:09:933 (1) - ^ it's also gonna follow the music better, I think if you done this to the similar parts of the map it would look a lot better imo o.o/
3. 00:15:090 (1) - I think finish would follow the music better than just whistle in the head, there's a strong sound in the background, so yeah =3=/
4. 01:11:574 (2,4) - these two sliders can be shaped better tbh, they look kinda odd compared to the all blankets you've done through this diff, maybe make it something like this instead? o.o/
   
   

1. 00:37:121 (3) - I think a whistle on this slider's end would sound fitting with song o.o/
2. 01:11:692 (3,2,3) - I seriously didn't like the stacking here, it looks kinda weird imo, maybe you wanna fix it a bit? ></
   
   

1. 00:32:433 (3,4) - how about ctrl+g these two? making it like this instead? it'll follow your patterns pretty well imo o.o/
   
   
2. 01:00:558 (2) - ^ I think if you ctrl+g it would play a lot better and it'll also be more fun to play as well :3
3. 01:15:558 (2) - ^ same suggestion tbh

Anxient wrote:

ugoku~
00:42:277 (3,4,5) - i honestly think that this pattern plays better when the cursor curves clockwise https://puu.sh/zrLWO/ff55d82c53.jpg my reasoning being since the song's vocal's pitch is like that also the emphasis for [3] is a bit wimpy as is so it fits it better imo - I don't really think emphasis on slow part would be nice, also it's fine as it is imo.

00:44:621 - methinks you need to make this clickable! - Reverse works nice with vocal here, and snare is fine in that case not being clicked.

hard00:48:840 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - disappointed you didnt make a hexagrid with the last note :c - rip you

00:55:636 (4,5) - due to this, 00:56:574 (2,3) - lower end players might misread this as a 1/2 note. try doing this http://puu.sh/zrMgI/b3185607ce.jpg - Imo with that BPM, it's easy to read 1/2 and 1/4 stack correctly without any problem. So it goes for all other suggestions related to this one.

normal

not the prettiest diff i have ever looked at, but nothing is wrong with it playwise. maybe just apply the same things i mentioned for the NCs.

wew

Hobbes2 wrote:

top diff -

00:29:152 (1,2,3) - could lower spacing since the volume / intensity lower - That's the same musical phase, and intensity don't go really lower than before, so keeping the symmetry here is better imo.
00:36:652 (1,2,3) - here maybe you could map that chiptune with repeating 1/4 sliders, it's kind of interesting and feels lame to ignore -
It's 1/6 tho, and I'll try your suggestion even if I think followin vocal is not a bad idea either.
00:58:683 (2,3) - ctrl+g is better rhythm imo, lets 00:59:386 (4,5,6) - be emphasized through rhythm (happens a few times here) - Did all of them.

middle diff-

00:06:652 (6) - upping the DS to 1.2 like you do for the circles helps his feel less cramped. also applies to things like 00:09:933 (5,6) - and 00:13:683 (1,2) - so if you change it here or smth see if there's other spots you can look to do this on. ur call tho - Seems fair enough, done for all similar one on intro.
same rhythm thing in the kiai as the top diff - For the Hard, I prefer how the sliders keep together to match the vocal and keeping the rhythm as smth simple and going for circles when it stops for drums, instead of Insane where it offer a different feeling. Also don't want to destroy entirely the map so I hope you understand :c

normal -

00:01:379 (3,4) - ehh..slider is probably better, since ur doing a 1/1 and 3/4 gap which is really hard to read for a normal diff. i guess its okay since the rhythm repeats a lot giving a lot of chances to learn it, and the player can restart since its the start of the map. still, i would think about it a bit - Meh k
00:06:652 (2,3,2) - consistent visual spacing? makes the pattern look a lot neater - Ye
00:31:965 (4,5) - i dont like this placement in a normal, kinda hard to read because of close together the objects are, it misleads the player to the actual distance between them. - Reworked that.
00:36:652 (5,1) - would prefer 5 leads into 1 instead of having the player have to go backwards from the reverse slider to land 1. kinda hard for a normal diff like this since the visual spacing isn't indicative of the actual DS - Sad that was a cute pattern.
00:48:840 (1,2,3,4,1) - this assumes the player understands slider leniency, which they likely do not considering this is the easiest diff in the set. I would make the sliders lead into each other more. - Bye moe pattern :c

Hobbes2 wrote:

top - 00:36:652 (4,5) - u dont need to buffer, its only 1/6! should be easy enough to play

rest is good!

FoxyGrandpa wrote:

Wheres the dabbing anime girl bg

Uta wrote:

feelsbad that i cant rank my set first

Gabe wrote:

Aucun problème de mon côté. Envoi-moi un PM quand tu seras prêt à qualify!

_Meep_ wrote:

why* da hell is the preview point in the middle
feelsbad i cant rank my set either yet