Star priority looks like a fair system and works real good.
Thanks a lot for modding!
Emonal wrote:hi from m4m o/[Kantan]
00:00:330 (1) - this sounds higher than 00:03:912 (2) - so I suggest u chaange 00:00:330 (1) - to k and change 00:03:912 (2) - to d I guess you're right but I really do prefer the way it is, I think it works fine
00:08:837 (4,5) - u follow the piano in this part so removing the two notes which reflect the vocals is better I like to mix the two and I don't think that's a problem - I modified this part a bit but kept the same mapping scheme
00:15:553 (9,10) - ^
00:19:135 (12,13) - ^
00:23:165 (15,16) - ^
00:17:792 - add note cuz piano The piano already is mapped with 00:17:568 (12) - I think that would be too dense for a Kantan
00:33:464 (24,25) - 25 sounds heavier than 24, so u can change 24 to k and change 25 to d or only change 25 to d I agree but here I'm following the pitch so I don't think a change is necessary
00:40:628 (30,31) - ^
00:46:001 (35) - remove this to make 00:46:449 (36,37) - and 00:44:658 (33,34) - more consistent Good suggestion but I think I'll keep that note to avoid being too repetitive
00:47:792 (38,39) - change 38 to k and change 39 to d cuz there's a big white on 39 cuz sounds on big white are usually bigger than sounds on small white Following the pitch here
00:54:061 (47) - change to d Changed to D
01:34:807 (99,100) - suddenly follow the vocal?:s Doesn't it work fine to you? :3
02:57:419 (200) - ^ and move to big white It's an option yes, it can throw new players off, but here I think it's important to the beat
03:04:583 (207) - ^
03:40:628 (26,27,28,29,30,31,32) - rhythem here is the same with 03:37:046 (21,22,23,24,25) - I think the second pattern is better for newbie player I might consider unifying these parts, I actually like these variations
00:28:538 (28,29) - change 29 to d The guitar strum is way too high pitched and proeminent to be ignored in my opinion
00:29:882 - add a note cuz u follow the vocal and piano in this part I'm not sure about this actually, 00:29:434 (30) - is already here to highlight the vocals and I don't want to overcharge that part
00:35:703 (38,39) - change 38 to k and change 39 to d Guitar strum again
00:54:061 (73) - d changed to a D
01:19:135 (116) - d This note changed multiple times but I think I'm now confident that it should follow the guitar / be k
00:32:568 (35,36,37) - these three piano sounds gradually become heavier, so at least the 37 should be d It actually goes "High - Low - High" (At least that's what my poorly trained ear hears)
01:51:822 (175) - remove cuz u follow the instrument here Hm?
02:51:822 (275,276) - the two notes are instrument sounds. u follow instrument before the two notes and then u change to follow vocal after the two notes, so I suggest u to remove the two I don't see why I should change that part actually
02:59:434 (285) - ^ This drum sound is really important in my opinion
03:04:583 (293) - move to big white in order to following the vocal Great suggestion, conflicting as well because that's something that changed many time - I'll leave it as so for the moment but heh.
"Priority" - The only priority is circle-jerking with your BN friends.
-Tenshi- wrote:Star priority looks like a fair system and works real good.
I can't thank you enough for modding. I really hope I'll have the chance to obtain your help once again in the future
snowball112 wrote:Heya, random mod, only looking at oni for now.General
One of the main things that bothers me is the vocal mapping in the beginning, mainly that before 00:28:986 - . This makes the note density too high, even though the part before 00:28:986 - is calmer, I'd suggest you just stick to the instruments before this point because I feel like this would be more beneficial for the intro. For example:
- in the Kantan: 00:15:553 (9,10) - remove, and remove 00:08:837 (4,5) - as well. What's the point of following vocals only when you combine vocal+instrument really nicely later like after 00:30:330 - ? I agree, removed
- Oni especially the density contrast feels strange to me with patterns like at 00:15:330 - , why is this mapped more intensely than 00:45:553 - for example? Fixed by modifying the beginning parts
I'd suggest you just use 00:28:986 - as a marker from where to increase the density. I previously got the same suggestion but didn't make a single change for some reasons, I completely agree with your suggestion of focusing on the instrumentals before 00:28:986 - and so I applied changes to each difficulties.Oni
- Any specific reason why 00:46:897 - is a finish and stuff like 00:44:658 (90,91) - isn't? (They previously were finisher but I felt the need to remove some after I got the suggestion to - They were too many finishers) I'd suggest you also change 00:47:792 (99,103) - to D and maybe also remove the notes from both 00:48:016 - and 00:49:807, (Which one?) I think this looks neater. Applied your suggestions, it works great after all - And the finisher placement isn't overwhelming as it was before I remove many of them
- You can also add a k on 00:46:225 - , would be neat to have 2 5-note patterns followed by 2 3-note patterns if you applied the above suggestion. Added, very neat indeed
- The part from 00:52:270 - to 00:53:837 - feels strange to me because it is mapped opposite to what the music suggests. The intensity goes up, so either move 00:52:382 - to 00:53:277 - or add a k on 00:53:277 - to represent this, a 5-note towards the end of this section would make more sense imo. Adding a k on 00:53:277 - without removing 00:52:382 (84) - would feel too heavy / Your suggestion of moving 00:52:382 (84) - to 00:53:277 - makes then perfect sense to me - Moved it
- You can remove the note from 00:59:434 - , or move it to 00:59:658, makes more sense to follow the vocal like this because the instrument sound on 00:59:434 - is nowhere near as strong as on 01:01:225. Agreed, it flows way better that way Personally, I find you could also remove 01:00:330 - Removing this note sounds very weird to me, there is a very loud drum sound that I think can't be ignored and makes more sense mapped the way it is and fill out 01:01:897 - like this], cursor on 01:00:777 - . I feel like this would fit the tempo of the song nicely. I completely agree with your suggestion. Similarly applies to other kiai sections. Done!
- I think you can add a k on 01:09:509 - and change 01:09:956 - to d, I think it would be better if you emphasise the stronger piano on 01:09:509 - with a k and then leave 01:09:956 - as d for contrast to the high sound on 01:10:180 - I think it works really great - Changed .
- Pretty optional, but I think 01:10:628 - could be d as the pitch in that pattern goes from high to low. Not sure why but I like it as a k, I think it creates a contrast of some sort
- K on 01:26:300 - would be nice to differentiate in cymbal pitch to the 2 finishers before this one. Really great suggestion - applied
- It would be nice if you move 01:13:762 - to 01:13:986 - and perhaps delete 01:14:098 - , the 1/1 break fitting to the strong piano would sound much better imo. Your suggestion works fine but I think that emphasizing the drums and vocals works better - No change here
- I think you can change 01:36:822 - to d and remove 01:37:046 - , the continuous pattern doesn't really emphasize anything. The pause highlights the vocals and piano so well - I agree
- 01:29:882 - I think this should not be a finish when you emphasize this kind of piano using a triple before. Same with 01:33:464 - . They already are finishers, Did I don't get your suggestion..?
- 02:00:776 (28,29,30,31) - shouldn't this be kd dk? Better combination of vocal+instrument that way imo. In my opinion it works great as it is : 02:00:776 (28) - Strong drum - 02:01:000 (29) - Higher pitch vocal than 02:00:777 - I guess that's one of these very subjective points
- Similar to the intro, I feel like the calm part from 01:40:628 - could lose a few notes. I broke long patterns into smaller triples and removed unnecessary notes
- I'm not convinced that 01:55:404 - d ddk d k d k is the best option here, I think you can try this, cursor on 01:55:852 - . Otherwise you use too much k that messes up the emphasis, eg. if you space 01:57:195 - as 1/1 for the clap, 01:56:747 - should be d to actually contrast the sound. Similar with the pattern at 02:02:568 - . I completely agree - This part was a mess, Thanks for fixing it then! Edit : Added a 1/4 triplet instead of a double as suggested
- I think using 1/4 in the calm part at 02:52:941 - and 03:00:106 - is not good, the song is relatively calm. The buildup would be much better if you save the 1/4 for after 03:06:598 - when the 1/4 guitar starts from 03:06:598 - . Modified these parts to : kkddk d
The other thing you may want to look over again is the part from 01:12:419 - until 01:40:628 - especially, the way you switch to and from vocals feels kind of sudden at times in my opinion.. I changed some minor details, I don't think these shifts are proplematic
Thank you so much for your constant and amazing support once again!! ♥
zigizigiefe wrote:Little suggestions for Oni,no kd
01:27:979 - Try to add don for emphasizing vocal,why not? :3 I love it! I'm all for these kind of emphasize!
01:44:882 - 1/2 triplet would be better emphasis for here,try it and make your choice Since it's a calm part I'll keep it as a 1/2 double
01:52:046 - Same above
02:06:150 (46,47) - Delete these notes imo because there isn't music sound,no need to follow vocal for here Hum I get your point but the primary reason why there is notes following the vocals here is for the spread - So I'll keep them for now
03:03:352 - A doublet is better according to vocal,you may follow "dk-d-k" flow I agree, it creates a nice flow and fits the vocals well
03:11:747 (209) - Vocal sound is here:03:11:635 -.Also 03:12:307 (211) - 03:12:195 - I don't think that following the vocals here is the best way to go
03:21:374 (250,251) - Following vocal might be unnecessary for here,but you may keep it if you want :3 Same reason as previously - For the spread"
Welp,looks good.Just wait for BNs ^^ Fingers crossed!
Here you go.
-Tenshi- wrote:At least go for 64 star priority
Arrival wrote:Remind me to check it by the end of next week if I forgot
Thank you guys so much oh my god.
Surono wrote:hello kazezeze, I remem it. dem Jakarta.
I will check
Your dream is being real :^)
Arrival wrote:Remind me to check it by the end of next week if I forgotThank you guys so much oh my god.
Surono wrote:hello kazezeze, I remem it. dem Jakarta.
I will check
Yes! I'm so happy I can't believe it :3
zigizigiefe wrote:Your dream is being real :^)
Thanks a lot!!
Surono wrote:* 00:46:893 (15,16) - on muzukashii, these is finisher but other diffs are not filled finisher. would remove it or apply for other diffs? Removed
* 00:50:699 - delete this on muzukashii, 00:53:273 - 00:53:385 - add dons, 00:53:833 - 00:53:945 - delete these. 00:54:057 - finish Applied, I love it
* 00:52:042 - kat this on futsuu? Works great, changed
* 00:59:878 - 01:07:042 - kat for muzukashii Fixed
* 01:39:728 - why not finish for all diff? have high impact like 01:40:624 - this Fixed
* 02:11:520 - 02:18:684 - 02:51:818 - kat all, 3rd point for all diff Not sure about 02:51:818 - being a kat ; In my opinion it works better as a don since it enphasizes the following finisher kat
* 03:14:206 - 03:14:430 - swap for muzukashii, 03:15:997 - 03:16:221 - these Changed to kdk just like in the Oni
* 03:24:952 - ~
03:55:624 - jekartaaaa c:
Surono wrote:00:00:336 - unsnapped green lines on Oni
Is this for real?
Surono wrote:overall for lower diffs good enough with spread, kantan seems applied easier strucutre. few density is close with futsuu but overall I checkd them is balance in some places, next BN can check them.
let's give it try