1. Oni (5,17 stars, 1707 notes)

• 
  00:26:400 - This kat seems kind of unnecessary. Maybe change to don or add some kats around it like at 00:24:000 - and 00:28:800 - . It seems to throw off the don pattern-base you're using here.
  
  00:50:100 (3,4) - Maybe change these two notes to kats? There is a prominent hi-hat sound you use to emphasize with kats elsewhere.
  
  02:06:600 - Maybe change to kat? I feel it adds to the "completion" feeling of the segment with the kats at 02:05:400 - and 02:06:000 - .

IRC Stuff

14:50 DarkDunskin: Die an sich ist mal wieder so typisch wie du sowas eben mapst, aber mir persönlich ist das noch zu viel SV gehopse das müsste man noch ein wenig fließender bekommen.
14:53 DarkDunskin: Sind dir am Anfang die dons ausgegangen oder warum seh ich nur blau?
14:53 DarkDunskin: 00:21:600 (1) - Ono nein, du weißt das da ein finish drauf gehört
14:55 DarkDunskin: 00:26:100 (19) - Und hier eben nicht 00:23:700 (9) - weil du da auch keinen hingesetzt hast
14:56 DarkDunskin: 00:28:500 (8,9) - und hier machste mal lieber wieder ein d dd draus

• 1. OD 6.5 wtf?
  2. 00:31:200 (1) - d -> D.
  3. 00:40:725 (2,3) - Delete (2), finish on (3). Like you did later 00:50:400 (5) -
  4. 01:18:000 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2) - This feels weird somehow in combination with that ddkkk before it, maybe use a simplier pattern like kdkdkdk.
  5. 01:59:700 (5,6) - , 02:02:100 (17,18) - , ... D D -> d D. Accent should be on the second note imo, gives it more swing.
  6. 02:38:025 (2) - Delete. A triplett doesn't fit to the melodie here imo.
  7. 02:38:250 (2) - Delete too to give (1) more attention. It gives a nice break too .
  8. 02:43:050 (2) - ^
  9. 02:45:600 - Unnecessary greenline.
  10. 02:47:850 (2) - ^ and so on, I like the idea.
  11. 02:54:000 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2) - dkkkdkk -> kdddkdd I'm just no fan of dkkkd anymore ^^"
  12. 03:00:000 (7) - d -> D. For consistency.
  13. 03:04:800 (1) - ^
  14. 03:18:000 (1) - Maybe K for some variation?
  15. 03:22:800 (1) - ^
  16. 04:13:200 - Unnecessary greenline.
  17. 04:14:400 (3) - d -> D.
  That's all I found.
  Yeah technically fine, patterns are good and you don't need to worry about diff spread lol.
  Just work a bit more on the SV changes they seem kind of sudden at some spots, make it smoother somehow~
  Alright good luck!

DarkDunskin wrote:

Hi, modrequest via ingame chat~

"d" = Note
"k" = Note + Clap
"D" = Note + Finish
"K" = Note + Clap + Finisch
"->" = change to
"^" = see before

IRC Stuff

14:50 DarkDunskin: Die an sich ist mal wieder so typisch wie du sowas eben mapst, aber mir persönlich ist das noch zu viel SV gehopse das müsste man noch ein wenig fließender bekommen.
14:53 DarkDunskin: Sind dir am Anfang die dons ausgegangen oder warum seh ich nur blau?
14:53 DarkDunskin: 00:21:600 (1) - Ono nein, du weißt das da ein finish drauf gehört
14:55 DarkDunskin: 00:26:100 (19) - Und hier eben nicht 00:23:700 (9) - weil du da auch keinen hingesetzt hast
14:56 DarkDunskin: 00:28:500 (8,9) - und hier machste mal lieber wieder ein d dd draus

Frome the on:
[Oni]

• 1. OD 6.5 wtf?
  2. 00:31:200 (1) - d -> D. okay
  3. 00:40:725 (2,3) - Delete (2), finish on (3). Like you did later 00:50:400 (5) - okay
  4. 01:18:000 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2) - This feels weird somehow in combination with that ddkkk before it, maybe use a simplier pattern like kdkdkdk. need to think about this.
  5. 01:59:700 (5,6) - , 02:02:100 (17,18) - , ... D D -> d D. Accent should be on the second note imo, gives it more swing. need to think about this.
  6. 02:38:025 (2) - Delete. A triplett doesn't fit to the melodie here imo. Dunno why, but I agree. lol
  7. 02:38:250 (2) - Delete too to give (1) more attention. It gives a nice break too . This is not bad. Yet, I'm not sure. Sounds good, but I actually followed the beat.
  8. 02:43:050 (2) - ^ ^
  9. 02:45:600 - Unnecessary greenline. since SV isn't done yet, I will do that once it is not in use for real.
  10. 02:47:850 (2) - ^ and so on, I like the idea. ^
  11. 02:54:000 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2) - dkkkdkk -> kdddkdd I'm just no fan of dkkkd anymore ^^"
  12. 03:00:000 (7) - d -> D. For consistency. left it intentionaly since I mostly use finishers for realy clash sounds.
  13. 03:04:800 (1) - ^ ^
  14. 03:18:000 (1) - Maybe K for some variation? Tried it, but some how don't like.
  15. 03:22:800 (1) - ^
  16. 04:13:200 - Unnecessary greenline.
  17. 04:14:400 (3) - d -> D. as so often, I try to prevent having finishers at the beginning of stanzas / sections.
  That's all I found.
  Yeah technically fine, patterns are good and you don't need to worry about diff spread lol.
  Just work a bit more on the SV changes they seem kind of sudden at some spots, make it smoother somehow~
  Alright good luck!

• [General]

1. 00:00:000 - try to lower the hitsound volume by about 20% as the current one is too loud.
2. 01:48:000 - same as ^
3. From 03:33:600 to 03:43:200 - similar to ^ , this part should be softer.

• [Oni]
  
  Disable widescreen support.

1. 00:50:100 (3) - consider changing this note to k to follow the snare ?
2. 01:17:400 (1) - I think you may have missed the finish here ?
3. 01:19:200 (4) - maybe K as you did at 01:24:000 (1) - ? The high-pitched sounds are pretty similar that deserve an equal emphasis imo.
4. 02:43:200 (3) - you may add finish here so that it would be consistent with 02:38:400 (3) -
5. 02:52:800 (3) - same as ^
6. 03:14:400 (4,5,6,1) - consider using 1/4 ddk instead of 1/6 dddk ? The background sounds are only snapped as 1/4 that could not support the 1/6 notes well.
7. 03:16:800 (1,2,3,1) - 03:19:200 (1,2,3,1) - 03:21:600 (1,2,3,1) - 03:24:000 (1,1,2,1) - 03:26:400 (1,1,2,1) - 03:28:800 (1,1,2,1) - 03:31:200 (1,1,2,1) - same as ^
8. 04:17:550 (2) - k would fit the relatively high-pitched music there imo.
9. 04:22:350 (2) - 04:27:150 (1) - same as ^
10. 04:34:500 (2,1,1) - changing these notes to k d k would help accompany the pitch changes there in contrast to 04:36:900 (2,1,1) - . Then you may change 04:35:250 (1) - to k as well for coherence .
11. 04:39:300 (2,1,1) and 04:40:050 (1) - same as ^
12. 04:41:700 (1) - maybe d here to cohere with 04:36:900 (2) - ?

Nwolf wrote:

SPOILER

TNA is weff

[General]

00:00:000 - why is this so loud omg you evil raven ---- tbh 75% should be enough for this part because it's significantly quieter than other parts changed for now, I don't know. Doesn't feel so emphasized anymore.
01:38:400 - 01:48:000 - Both parts could be more quiet as well ^
03:33:600 - until 04:13:200 - ^ ^

[ONiOn]

00:21:600 - vs 00:00:000 - SV: I just want an explanation for why the drum part is low SV while the kat intro isn't. To make 1/3 look like 1/4 only??? While I must be honest and say that I also wanted to make it look less spread, the main idea was still to have a high impact for the upcoming part by making the dons slower. But beside that, in my own opinion and preference, that's how I would put the SV according to the song's pace. Yes, this can be argued about. But for me it gives a bigger impact for this section by lowering down the SV and make player feeling that something is coming ahead (Ruhe vor dem Sturm).
01:08:400 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - I can imagine that this is supposed to be the extension of the last note of this phrase, but the flute kinda goes crazy 01:08:700 (6,7,8,9) - here so maybe you can make it less monocolor cause of that. After all the melody is flute. Yeah, it wasn't a mono colored stream before, but I wasn't sure. Change it to dkkkdkdkd instead.
01:26:400 (1) - Not a big kat because of 01:24:000 (1) - ? Because if it's not because of that, I think this can be a big kat again because 00:38:400 (1) - this sound was big kats before Yeah, because of the previous (and upcoming) finisher.
01:31:200 (1) - ^ ^
01:36:000 (1) - ^ ^
01:44:500 (4) - This sounds off to me, the gong sounds like it's a little bit earlier, but it seems to be later than the blue tick. Hm, you might be right about this being off. I used 1/8 and it seems to fit now better.
I also think that from 01:38:400 - onwards you can slowly decrease the SV until it's 01:48:000 - 0.5 here. Would make the transition look nicer, since you can see 01:46:800 - this bar line being very fast compared to 0.5 SV. While I find the idea not bad, it looks worse on the 1/8 note than current SV. Since the last line doesn't overlap upcoming notes, it should be fine. But I will think one more time about it.
02:16:800 - 02:35:400 - You don't know how much I wish it wasn't like this, but all 1/3 notes between those two time lines are not 1/3. You don't even have to listen closely to find out that they are snapped wrong : ( Have to check it.
02:55:500 (1,1,1,1) - (GDI WHY ARE YOU NEW COMBOING EVERYTIHNGAS DIAOSDI atsc o8dtbOA) Reconsider these big kats because, in my honest opinion as somebody who is known to use finishers on every occasion possible *cough*, these feel quite random. This feeling is supported by their lack on 02:57:900 - 02:58:500 - etc. which means you only mapped 50% of the notes that "should" be big kats. Can't blame it on melody cause then I'd see 1/2 big notes here. I will check that now a few times for a few days before I give an answer. But I can't guarantee that I will really change it. You are right, I used half of the finisher in these sections. But the reason why I'm fine with it is that they are appearing in an even way; appearing every second part.
03:14:400 (4,5,6,1) - 03:16:800 (1,2,3,1) - Really? The first one I kinda get, but the 2nd one seems... unfitting. Every 1/6 after this too, it forces difficulty. We've also had DQs recently for mapping 1/6 that just does not exist at all. I was prepared for people saying something against this and it's like the only pattern in the map I know I won't change(at least easily). As we both know, I never map for difficulty nowadays, so I guess we can strike that. But what I do pretty often is improvising from time to time with 1/6. Did the same here, and considering that I used the same distance between every 1/6 which are also the most common one we have in Taiko withou bounded together with other 1/4, it is at least from the technical side alright. To come to the more subjective part, I chose these 1/6 because I like it how the trill sound weakens into 1/1 patterns which at least for me, sounds and place in a very appealing way. Yes, a BPM of 200 isn't that slow, but considering how overall structure is, it should really suffice well enough, especially considering that there are harder patterns the map shows up.
03:16:350 (2,1) - While we're in this part, mind explaining why these are finishers - or why 03:15:600 (1,1,1) - are not? (03:32:400 (1,1,1,2,1) - ) Improvised a bit as well. Since we only have two colours, sometimes I try to make a contrast between certain patterns by using finishers. On every second part I rise the effect by having OX XO instead of xo OX.
03:35:700 - might as well move this SV line to 03:34:800 - this spot so this bar line is slowed down too. Sure.
03:42:600 - to 03:42:000 - ^ (even more recommended) Sure.
03:51:750 - SV increase is kinda cruel and pretty sudden. Veeeery sudden even. Try to smoothen this change at least, having 1/2 time to understand the new SV isn't great imo. 0.56 -> 0.62 -> 0.68 on the 1/2 notes before for example You are probably right. Will change that soon.
last kiai is gud

Nardoxyribonucleic wrote:

SPOILER

Hi, here comes a taiko mod as requested in TNA queue.

• [General]

1. 00:00:000 - try to lower the hitsound volume by about 20% as the current one is too loud. changed for now, I don't know. Doesn't feel so emphasized anymore.
2. 01:48:000 - same as ^ ^
3. From 03:33:600 to 03:43:200 - similar to ^ , this part should be softer. changed, but ^

• [Oni]
  
  Disable widescreen support.

1. 00:50:100 (3) - consider changing this note to k to follow the snare ? Ah, that was intentional since the beat is very strong here.
2. 01:17:400 (1) - I think you may have missed the finish here ? I don't know how this could happen. Changed.
3. 01:19:200 (4) - maybe K as you did at 01:24:000 (1) - ? The high-pitched sounds are pretty similar that deserve an equal emphasis imo. Changed.
4. 02:43:200 (3) - you may add finish here so that it would be consistent with 02:38:400 (3) - Wanted to do this previously, but since I followed the bells I kept it untouched.
5. 02:52:800 (3) - same as ^ ^
6. 03:14:400 (4,5,6,1) - consider using 1/4 ddk instead of 1/6 dddk ? The background sounds are only snapped as 1/4 that could not support the 1/6 notes well. If you don't mind, please check what I wrote in Nwolf's post.
7. 03:16:800 (1,2,3,1) - 03:19:200 (1,2,3,1) - 03:21:600 (1,2,3,1) - 03:24:000 (1,1,2,1) - 03:26:400 (1,1,2,1) - 03:28:800 (1,1,2,1) - 03:31:200 (1,1,2,1) - same as ^ ^
8. 04:17:550 (2) - k would fit the relatively high-pitched music there imo. Give me a little time to think about this!
9. 04:22:350 (2) - 04:27:150 (1) - same as ^ ^
10. 04:34:500 (2,1,1) - changing these notes to k d k would help accompany the pitch changes there in contrast to 04:36:900 (2,1,1) - . Then you may change 04:35:250 (1) - to k as well for coherence . Need to think about this as well. I like the idea. But I think I would need to change the patterns a bit.
11. 04:39:300 (2,1,1) and 04:40:050 (1) - same as ^ ^
12. 04:41:700 (1) - maybe d here to cohere with 04:36:900 (2) - ? Seems reasonable.

You may call me back after that~

Nwolf wrote:

SPOILER

[ONiOn]

02:16:800 - 02:35:400 - You don't know how much I wish it wasn't like this, but all 1/3 notes between those two time lines are not 1/3. You don't even have to listen closely to find out that they are snapped wrong : (

Oh, the background is still on 1/3. Forground on 1/1+1/2. Since I find it an abrupt change in snapping, I tried to follow for- and background here by mixing 1/1 with 1/3. To be honest, I find it a too abrupt change and also weird having suddenly 1/1+1/2 snapping. Keeping it 1/3 feels more natural to me.

02:55:500 (1,1,1,1) - (GDI WHY ARE YOU NEW COMBOING EVERYTIHNGAS DIAOSDI atsc o8dtbOA) Reconsider these big kats because, in my honest opinion as somebody who is known to use finishers on every occasion possible *cough*, these feel quite random. This feeling is supported by their lack on 02:57:900 - 02:58:500 - etc. which means you only mapped 50% of the notes that "should" be big kats. Can't blame it on melody cause then I'd see 1/2 big notes here.

I checked this point one more time and I do like to keep this since I didn't done it random. As I said before, the notes are stanza wise evenly placed, so their constellation should be fine. Additional to this, the finisher compensate the difference in the upcoming 1/4 parts. I don't know, I really like it in that way. But lolcubes has something to say about this, too. It's not like I decide over such things within a few hours. Maybe I change my mind later. But for now, it will stay as it is.

03:51:750 - SV increase is kinda cruel and pretty sudden. Veeeery sudden even. Try to smoothen this change at least, having 1/2 time to understand the new SV isn't great imo. 0.56 -> 0.62 -> 0.68 on the 1/2 notes before for example

Did something else instead: Deleted note at 03:51:300 and added the x0.75 multiplier at 03:51:450 - . Should be better.

JUDYDANNY wrote:

[Oni]

SPOILER

• 
  00:00:000 – Drums , and all the back sounds parts are no sounded. Empty-playing on there sounds too noisy so consider to reduce the volume under 55%, at minimum. Recommend to change to 50~30% imo. It was 100% before. I changed it after Nardo and Nwolf's mod to 80%. It should be okay, since I follow the xylophone here.

1. 01:17:550 (2,3,1,2,3) – ddkkk change to kkddk ? 1/2 colors are not consistency with before similar main part(01:07:950 (1,2,1,1) - ). Changed it in a similar way.
   
   01:11:850 (1) – It seems better to make the slow SV from here. It fits to emphasize for stopping the Instrumental. 01:38:400 (1,2,3,4) – change to .. 0.9>0.8>0.7>0.6? Nwolf suggested this as well, but doesn't look good for 01:44:512 (4) - since barline is too close to it.
   
   02:10:100 (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) – lack of kat sounds, change to more kat?
   E.g 02:10:200 - 02:10:800 - , 02:11:400 -. plays questionable to me… feels… build … down lol. Instead of adding kats, I just removed one at 02:13:200 (3) - since it was wrong anymore. In this way it should feel less like a build down and be more accurate to song.
   
2. 02:52:200 (1,2,1,1,2) – consider to change to ddkkd-k , or ddddk-k? abekobe same as 02:42:450 (1,2,1,2,1,1,2) –
   And, plays a bit weird from 02:53:250 (2,1,1,2,1,2,1) – cuz of sudden followed to melody (imo). So, making a little followed to main part. It can make the flow ( Drums>>>Melody). Changed everything you mentioned here.
   
3. 03:03:600 – big? Would fit with 03:13:200 -. Okay.
   
4. 03:16:350 (2,1) -, 03:18:750 - , 03:21:150 (2,1) - , 03:23:550 (2) - 03:30:750 (2) - , 03:33:150 – no finisher? , Not sound noisy , confusing to me for playing accent. I would like to keep it in this way. I find it without too quite.
   
   
   03:35:700 (1) - , 03:37:800 (1,2) - , 03:40:500 (1) - , 03:42:600 (1,2) –
   ( or only “03:35:700 (1) – and 03:40:500 (1) – “ *-1 ) .
   consider to change to d.
   You didnt follow the main part on the calm. This is same as usual , I guess it sounds better to follow the bass drums sounds for emphasized to after climax & build part.
   *-1 but making a lower frequency is not bad, sounds better imo. To be honest, I would rather like to keep it since I followed the electric keyboard with those single notes.
   
   
5. 04:45:300 (2) – d and 04:45:300 (2) - k instead? For my feelings lol. Oh, I know why. But since I used k k or k k k every second stanza, I will keep it this way for consistency. lol
   
   

Good Luck (ˊ● ω ●ˋ)/

• [Oni]

1. Disable widescreen support.

JUDYDANNY wrote:

When 3rd BN appeared ;_;.

Bubbled #2