Thank you! I will do some own changes as self-mod, just in case if there's anything left (also gonna log that):Kin wrote:
so many reference. RIP tags
[D I F F I C U L T Y N A M E]call me back later, when you think it's ready ôwô
- fix your SV via notepad kek I am a boon.
- 00:32:223 (128) - might be just me, but I think changing this one into d, would emphasize this kat better 00:32:301 (1) - mmmmmmh.. after some precise checking I agree with that point.
- 00:41:301 (80,81,82,83,84) - don't you think it'll be better to map this pattern with this one 00:41:617 (82) - as kat ? In this part, you're using kat to follow the guitare on the background. But this pattern break it. You could maybe change it into d d kkd ? or in another way. Jap, changed that.
- 01:23:301 (136,137,138,139,140) - I feel like using full kat on this pattern to represent this melody here 01:23:301 (136) - ruin a bit this one : 01:22:828 (131) - . Maybe go for ddddk or something like kkddd ? Went with kkddd, reasoning is plausible.
- 02:05:775 - 02:10:828 - this part isn't using kat to map the strange vocal sound (EEEEEW) ; 02:10:828 - 02:15:880 - but this one is. I'm kinda confuse about what you try to really follow on the 1st part. Ah right. It used to follow different things but meanwhile I neither like it so.. changed to something more consistent.
- 02:50:459 (103) - I'd say, this one as don flow a bit better, and follow the guitare better. If you're following the vocal with this full kat ; i'd say ; it's quite strange to change the focus on the same stream. Noticed what you mean, changed that part.
- 02:58:828 (211,212,213) - here is a personal opinion : I'd say, those 3 as don flow & sounds better (dunno why). That's might be just me tho. ddk sounds reasonable, (213) sounds higher to me.
- 03:29:144 - 03:49:354 - almost the same thing is going on here. (about the kat usage on melody). 2nd part is clearly following the 8bit melody, while idk for the 1st one. Phew.. Actually the whole part has as main focus the vocals of the Never Gonna Give You Up part, I will do an inspection of this part to improve that.
- 04:19:828 (51,54) - swap those note ? I'd say the pitch start to get high here 04:19:828 - while it start to get down here 04:20:065 - Yap.
- 04:20:933 (65,66) - how about changing those 2 into don ? I think it goes way better to follow the melody, with those 2 04:20:775 (63,65) - as don. Changed 04:20:696 (62,63,64,65) - to dkkd, that should it be.
edit: wat is those sounds at the veri end
a, adjusted tags too.Surono wrote:
00:22:275 - you could kat this since 00:22:196 (1,2) - the impact sounds are high, example you did 01:08:933 (1,2) - here I rather felt that the first two loops of the stream are simple and easy (kdddddkdddddk.. and so on).
00:26:380 - 00:26:459 - had better if swap these for 00:26:301 (53,54) - vocal flow Okay.
00:31:907 - kat this for better with flat/similarrange of vocal? It's not really about the vocals, it's about the kdk rhythm I previously used for 00:30:565 (107,108,109) - or 00:28:038 (75,76,77) - .
01:19:038 - no finish? I didn't feel it fits for my setup so I skipped that.
01:22:907 - don to have contrast with "some" pitch here If you compare 01:21:565 (117,118,119,120,121) - with 01:22:038 (122,123,124,125,126) - and with 01:22:828 (131,132,133,134,135) - they're quite the same and goes well with kkkkd.
01:28:591 - don to represent differ emphasize with 01:28:512 - single voice and 01:28:828 (193,194) - dem flow Hmm, okay.
01:59:459 - yeah just understandable with this stream, my concern are voice is "clearly" 1/4 but instead you want strong emphasized as 1/6. parable when you heard sound of bzzzzzz you would 1/6 and idk lmao, bcus this is taiko. I would like that too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (´_J`)... I don't find that a clear 1/4 sound is to indicate but.. I mean many users didn't like 1/6 here so I will put it back on 1/4.
02:30:170 - kat for high vocal The stream pattern sounds better with kdddkddd, the sounds on 02:30:091 - and 02:29:775 - are imo short and fits better with one kat instead of two (kk).
02:42:407 - ~ 03:02:617 - GOsh btw, 03:02:223 (254,255,256) - kdd it. i heard some alteration sounds here and the current pattern 03:02:144 (253,254,255,256,257,258,259) - monotone. sounds pretty tbh.
04:07:038 - just finish this? but the sounds are more higher is 04:08:301 - here since had cymbal.. lol so what you think in this part? okey my thought is 04:14:617 - until here, follow cymbal as finisher, follow drum/mainsounds and thats suddenly weird if you 04:11:459 - just started follow from here. added for 04:08:301 - , 04:10:828 - and 04:13:354 - and removed for 04:07:038 -.
04:33:328 - don, 04:32:933 (217,220,223) - clearly single sounds. Good catch.
people have different views of that. It's natural, and I understand that people find it stupid. But I care for the map, not for the difficulty name and I rather go with a somewhat simple change than having weird fights about some letters.So in short I decided to change it to Oni - having it simple and slim - after the feedback was rather negative.
same tbh, are you sick sir?Sinnoh wrote:
wtf why is that coherent english
what did you do with surono
Ah.. seems like I failed miserably with the source. I really have put the previous game (Super Smash Bros. Brawl - 大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズX) instead of the next game. 大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズ for Wii U is the actual source, rip me.alacat wrote:
Source should be 大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズX ?
http://www.pokemon.co.jp/game/wii/smashbrosdx/
http://www.smashbros.com/wii/jp/index.html
Then, Is this song from 大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズX or 大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズ for Wii U?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uBlbzXTUQ
It is correct that the 3DS version is different from the Brawl version or the Wii U version.Sinnoh wrote:
Mute City Ver. 2 was originally released in ssb brawl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN36CetQw6I - video uploaded 7 years ago, way before ssb4
This was the version released for 3ds/wii u. It's easiest to tell the difference in the opening couple of seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5B_uEt-g0
It was correct before. The song is in ssb4, but that's not where it came from.