Rumia

00:08:631 (2) - share the same shape as 00:08:230 (1) - ? no



01:09:286 (1) - possibly undermapped vocal mapping is fine...



01:19:063 (2,3) - this is like REALLY undermapped compared to 01:21:072 (1,2,3,4) - which holds the same rhythm and vocal lengths. i dont think following vocal at first is considered undermapped , i want the transition be smooth so its really FiNE.



01:22:679 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - I also don't know how I feel about this overmapping. If anything, it sounds way way better starting the 5 note stream at 01:22:947 - changed



01:50:000 (1,2) - seems a bit out of nowhere because you don't use this 3/4 slider anywhere else. you'd have to repeat it here 01:51:072 (1,2) - and that makes the intensity drop where it shouldn't drop since the music picks up to 1/2 drumming near the end of the chorus. i dont think you understand how i expressed vocal



01:52:143 (1,2,3,4) - and this overlap too feels very awkward since the drums are strong in 1/2 rhythm. probably better to do as 1/2 jumps. no..



02:10:358 (5) - NC and remove NC from 1/1 slider



02:21:474 (3,4,5) - this feels out of place completely from the measure, and 02:22:143 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - is even moreso against the rhythm ;__; it's mapped way too intensely for weak vocals and there aren't any supporting beats for the kick sliders imo. i dont know how to explain this.. but i want to keep it i think its good



03:09:286 (1) - I really love this slider <333 thanks~~!



03:22:143 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - While I think this is a clever idea, I feel like it doesn't give enough emphasis to the kick sliders. It's a good idea but maybe not executed to its full potential I feel. Only because the player can't feel a bigger intensity with the kicks since the spacing gets smaller. for me i think it is fine , i gave a lot of thoughts in my own tests, in previous parts i put a lot of streams so i dont want to tense up player's stamina for too much and just focus on their aim on this part and this stuff really works fine



03:57:902 (3,4) - maybe not this triple either idk. but those ^ above probably best removed >>; this triple is fine for me , removed the above