Modded those's taiko-difficulty by request. Hopefully the mod was of any use, and if I sounded moody while modding it, it wasn't intended u_u;
Mod on the taiko00:06:180 (1) - Why use K out of nowhere? You could use [D k k ~] if anything, but this is like.. "well let's randomly use a K here."
00:10:980 (2,1,2) - I suggest not using [dkk] often. It's an accentuating pattern. Instead, you could consider using [ddk kkk] here. In this case, a better followup would probably be [d d k k k ~]
00:14:923 (2,1,2,3,1,1) - I suggest [kkd d k d ~] makes it sound a bit more finishing, which is a good thing if you're using a double in the first half of this or so I think.
00:17:837 (1,2,1,1,2) - Turning this into [d d k k d] would sound more finishing. Personally I'd make it sound a bit less empty by going for a [kkd]-triplet with the d in the triplet being the first note in this segment of 5.
00:19:123 (1,2) - Perhaps kd for consistency? You're using k kd all the time, having k dd doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
00:22:809 (1,1,2,3,4,1,1,2) - Consider changing this to [k d d k d k k d] for better synergy with the [d d k d d k d d] preceding this.
00:36:352 (1,2,3,1,1) - Only in niche cases, [kkkdk] works in my opinion. In most cases, [kkddk] would be better. Please consider this.
00:38:752 (1,1,2) - Same suggestion as before, changing [dkk] into [ddk].
00:40:380 (1) - Perhaps turn this into a k for a better flow / making it sound more finishing?
00:41:495 (1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1) - If you want to emphasize the [d d k d k k d k] pattern going on here, changing [dkk] into [ddk] would be more favourable. If not, try changing this into [d kkdkddk] for a bit of a repetition-breaker.
00:43:895 (2,3,1,2,1) - In the previous part, this sounded like [d d k d k k d k], here you're using [d d k k d d k d]. I suggest applying a bit of structure over here. Personally I'd do that by changing this;
- 00:43:380 (2,1,1,2,3,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - [k d k k ddk d d k k]
00:45:609 (1,1,1,1,2) - Consider [kdkkd] over [kdkdd] in most cases. Better flow, usually sounds better. If not, consider [kkdkd].
00:50:237 (1,1,2,3) - Is this used as a manner of just putting in 1/6ths? It seemed odd to me, there's no particular anywhere in this part. Just using a regular [kkd] would be better. If you plan on keeping the 1/6ths, consider [(dddd)] or [(kkdd)] instead.
00:55:037 (4,5,6,1) - These 1/6ths sound better, as it emphasizes the buildup to the chorus. [(dddk)] is a good pattern to use here as well. However;
- 00:55:380 (1) - I'm not sure if a finish after a short 1/6th burst is a good idea. Consider changing this into a non-finisher, and turning the other two notes following this into finishers instead. (by the way, perhaps consider D K over K D? Not sure.)
00:57:095 (4,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,3,1,1,1,1) - In this part, you use [~ o o ooo o o o ・o o o o o o oo. ~ being the beginning of a bar. This seems rather inconsistent to me. Perhaps consider using the triplets in the same segments in both bars. Also, consider using [dkd] in the first bar and [kkd] in the second bar.
01:00:695 (1,1,2) - This is not the inverse of [kkd]. The inverse of [kkd] would be [ddk], which also sounds better in this case.
01:19:723 (2,1,2,3) - either don't use 1/6ths or use [(kkdd)] or [(dddd)].
01:20:237 (1,2,3,4,1,1,2,3,4) - Perhaps create something more dynamic such as;
-d d k d k d d k
-d d d k k k d k
-d d d d k d k k
-d d d d k k k k
-etc.
01:23:495 (2,1,2) - Consider [kkd], please.
01:26:923 (1) - Consider a [k] here, for the sake of making it sound more finishing.
01:28:980 (2,1,2) - Consider [kkd], please.
01:31:380 (1,2,1,1,1,2,3,4) - Consider something more finishing -usually achieved by using [k]-s near the end-, such as;
-k k d k d d k k D
-d d k d k d k k D
-k k d k d d d k D
-etc.
General suggestions;
-try using a base triplet. For instance, if you use dkd as a base triplet, a regular reoccurring triplet would be [dkd], with the accentuated version being [kkd]. If [ddk], the accentuated version would be [kkk], etc.
-Don't mix up [dkk]/[ddk] irregularly. [dkk] is way more emphasizing, it doesn't work in a lot of cases. [ddk] usually sounds better.
-Don't mix up [kdd]/[kkd] irregularly. It's the same as up here, however, [kdd] tends to work more often than [dkk]. I suggest still not mixing it up too much, and always check if [kkd] is better or not.
Conversation with those regarding the mod14:01 <Pheon> : Yo
14:02 <Pheon> : Did you get to looking into the mod yet?
14:02 <those> : Yup
14:02 <those> : I have it uploaded.
14:02 <those> : or, I gave it to the guy
14:02 <those> : not sure if he uploaded yet
14:02 <those> : But here's a gist of what I took into account:
14:02 <those> : I agreed I should have a set triple
14:02 <those> : Decided to go with ddk
14:03 <those> : The 1/2 parts with k's to be more finishing, I did that too cuz that made sense; d d d d d isn't very finishing at
14:03 <those> : all
14:03 <those> : I followed some of your suggestions for the 5 note patterns
14:03 <those> : but there were some that sounded better (I thought) the way I had them
14:04 <those> : Either way, the mod definitely helped me, so I think you should post int he thread.
14:05 <Pheon> : ..Alright. Glad to hear that it was useful, and glad to hear about using a set triple. It's one of the things that
14:05 <Pheon> : makes maps a lot more structurized (along with timing) and more fun to play in general.
14:06 <Pheon> : I'll post in the thread then, but do you have a list of what you used? Because I only have the full list and we'll
14:06 <Pheon> : need logs :/
14:07 <those> : You can post the full list; it'd be better to do that anyway since what you said did make sense and it's only me
14:07 <those> : that chose not to follow suggestions based on other reasons.
14:07 <those> : You can /savelog this right now though, that might help.
hi ^^
