By the way, this would be more of an applicable official BG source, compared to the current link in the description.
Really nice mod, thank you so much! It helped me a lot and made me reconsider some things
Skylish wrote:From my modding queue.
> 01:04:585 (225,226) - how about d _ to make the structure looks better? I feel like no more than 7-plets should be used in this section since there's no vocal. Meanwhile, 01:04:414 - / 01:04:585 - k k will be too clumsy imo. Removing 01:04:670 - and changing 01:04:585 - to kat can enhance the flow as well.
My intention with this 9-plet was to underline the end of this stanza with the longest pattern mapped right before the finish which introduces the new one, but I do agree with you that it might be too dense, especially considering it appears pretty early in the song. Did something here.
! 01:49:073 - The kiai itself is quite good, but the overall density flow considering with the 2nd Kiai is expected to be better/ with slightly differences: try to reduce the density of the 1st Kiai a bit, and avoid simple copy&paste work in the 2nd Kiai which is extremely noticeable.
I'm actually not sure about how I want to arrange that, since nerfing the 1st Kiai would make the way I'm seeing this song as a map feel unnatural to me. I agree with splitting up the 7-plets and doing some density changes here and there, but I don't want to touch what I've mapped too much due to personal preferences. Will do something on my own.
> 01:50:267 (67,68,69,70,71,72,73) - I do think this 7-plets are too heavy for the first Kiai, 1+_+5 would be better, so as to create a better spreading coming up.
> 01:52:994 - ^ same case as above Both fixed.
> 02:10:892 - reduce the coming up density as well, they are too heavy, way too heavy. For example you may try these patterns and spacing effects:
- 02:10:892 (219) -
- 02:12:255 (226) -
(Then you can see that the densities before Kiais are already so high relatively, you should consider reduce the overall density in the whole map too, if needed)
Did something here, I hope this is better now.
> 02:31:687 - this stream looks boring, at least you can change 02:32:369 - / 02:32:454 - to dd to prevent monotonous spamming of dons and kats over here and there. I know that you try to use kat to fit the vocal sound at 02:32:028 - , but it's definitely not so good to 100% follow it without any variation as it will affect the gameplay effect.
! 02:54:528 - This section is completely a copy&paste work with the one at 01:05:437 - , please do make some VARIATIONS.
aaaaa exactly the same rhythm and melodyOkay, I'll change some stuff here, but I'm not gonna touch the echo in its coloring because it is apparently the same except for 03:04:073 (559) - which I can make stand out by CTRL+G'ing 558 and 559, other than that special thing it feels awkward to me to have this sound different than the first one.
! 04:10:892 - another C&P work... In the 2nd Kiai, you may keep those 7-plets (a higher density can be used, and it is more comfortable for its existence at the climax of the music). However, some parts are overdone:
> 04:16:346 - these consecutive 5-plets are so zipped, players can't breathe X_X. Despite poor spacing problem (break/pause), the emphases on vocal/instruments are really blurred.
Hm yeah, this is indeed pretty draining
Let's try some amendments from 04:16:346 - to 04:19:073 - (also apply to any other applicable situations later on):
- Remove 04:16:943 - / 04:17:965 -
Removed 04:16:431 - and 04:17:454 - instead, feels way more natural to me. Applied your suggestion to the 2nd one where this applies to,
though, to make it more consistent with the first Kiai.
- Change 04:18:051 - to kat (prevent repetition)
Nope, having repetition on this was totally intended. It may look lazy but I believe that it is the best way to express the repeating vocals/lyrics.
^ Some spacing is provided, better note spread comparing with the 1st Kiai, very clear vocal and instrumental emphases stated simultaneously.
> 04:53:505 - similar case with 02:31:687 - , but you may use more complicated patterns put in the stream actually.
Yep, changed it, but no unnecessary complex patterns, as they'd sound bad.
> 04:59:471 - / 05:10:380 - another monotonous and too simple stream which triggers the players a lot, poor emphases for showing the melody.
Some recommendation for you to polish: 04:58:789 (536) -
- 04:59:556 - remove a note here to provide some spacing. Spacing can be used as supporting focusing work!
- If I remove ^ this note, then the whole structure looks a bit porous, then a note added at 04:59:045 - would be nice to maintain the overall density
- 04:59:471 - more colours are used, matching the melody pitch and enhance the note flow to a large extent
* Of course you can have your own modifications, these are just examples only.
Did some adjustments to this part.
> 05:16:346 - This time, the density drops down even the BGM is not so calm as 03:49:073 - . I dont really understand why you would adopt an easy mapping style right here. This section should be much denser than 03:49:073 - , fix it on your own too! (I guess you have some idea already :> ) Well, I agree with you that this is not nearly as calm as 03:49:073 -, but I do believe that this is still much calmer than the previous part so I decided to make this part as calm as I believe it is. I increased the density here to give a contrast, though.
That's all for now, the general consistency and patterns are concrete, but they are too rigid. Try variating the patterns and enhancing the note spread, I wish you good luck from now on! Cheers
Thank you for the mod!
_yu68 wrote:Hello. mod via PMGood luck~ :3[Oni]
- 00:26:914 (12) - change to k? I heard pitch is higher than 00:26:573 - .
Piano pitch is higher here indeed, but I'm focusing on synth pitch only and it'd lose the impact on 13 of I changed this to kat.
- 00:31:517 (22,23) - change to dd? It can emphasis 00:32:710 (25) - .
Same reason as above, the beginning is fine to me as it is.
- 00:47:880 (107) - change to k? It will shows the difference of sounds from 00:47:198 (102,103,104) - . I think it will also make ease of hitting.sure
Same as above.
- 00:56:062 (165) - I prefer don here to vary between don and kat each 2nd measure
- 01:01:517 (203) - did kkk here
- 02:34:244 (360) - same as above, I like starting the stanza with ddk here and vary later on.
- 02:39:698 (399) -
- 02:45:153 (438) - did something different here.
- 02:50:608 (479) -
- 02:53:335 (499) -
- 04:34:244 (370) - nah
- 04:39:698 (411) -
no comment = fixed
- 01:15:153 - add 1/4 dd? I think the next 1/6 will be easier to hit by changing flow with triplet.
I like the current spacing as it gives more impact on vocals. I'll reconsider this is mentioned by other people.
- 03:04:244 - Same as above.
- 01:25:721 (336) - change to d? It will shows the difference of vocals from 01:24:017 (328,329,330,331) - .
- 03:14:812 (614) - Same as above.
CTRL+G'd this with the next note.
- 01:27:255 - ~ 01:36:801 - Consider changing spinners to sliders. Spinner-effects conceal the map so it hard to read the map.
- 03:16:346 - ~ 03:25:892 - Same as above.
Fuk this, I'll gather some opinions on it.
- 01:39:358 - or 01:39:698 - or 01:40:039 - add d? In order to match the atmosphere of vocals and make diversity.
Same as above.
- 01:42:085 - or 01:42:426 - or 01:42:767 -
- 02:22:994 - or 02:23:335 - or 02:23:676 -
- 02:25:721 - or 02:26:062 - or 02:26:403 -
- 03:28:448 - or 03:28:789 - or 03:29:130 -
- 03:31:176 - or 03:31:517 - or 03:31:858 -
- 04:44:812 - or 04:45:153 - or 04:45:494 -
- 04:47:539 - or 04:47:880 - or 04:48:221 -
I had that in mind before, but I'm still unsure whether this breaks up the consistency of the map regarding buildup or not. I'll ask some people again. No change for now.
Danke für den Mod!
octagonal wrote:Moin, von meiner Queueueueue quehuehuehuehuehue
00:35:778 (34,36,38,40) - =>d? Nope, die Noten habe ich als kat mapped weil der Synth dort höher ist.
00:38:164 (41) - bis 00:40:722 (56) - und folgende - finde ich persönlich ziemlich unangenehm Was schlägst du da vor?
00:43:619 (80) - bis 01:05:437 (235) - und alle ähnlichen Abschnitte: Hin und wieder mal die Hihat-16tel mit Fünfer-Mustern betonen Sorry, ich versteh nicht wirklich was du damit meinst.
00:46:943 (101) - Hier auf jeden Fall eine Note hinsetzen Das war intended für Variation in den Combos, vor allem will ich nicht am Anfang der Combo 5-plets mappen.
01:06:801 (242) -, 01:09:528 (256) -, 01:17:710 (297) -, usw. würde ich 1/2 nach rechts auf 1-und verschieben. Das war auch intended,
da hab ich mich am Vocal Pitch und an dem Bass auf dem Downbeat orientiert.
01:27:255 (345) -, 01:29:812 (2) -, 01:32:710 (3) - usw. löschen und den Spinner an dieser Stelle starten. Hat mich beim Spielen ziemlich verwirrt Ansichtssache, ich finde es besser die Vocals an sich zu mappen und die langen Noten mit Spinners in die Länge zu ziehen.
02:55:892 (524) - usw.: wie oben same
03:12:255 (609) - =>d Behalte ich im Hinterkopf, ich seh was du meinst.
03:16:346 (627) - usw.: wie oben eeee
03:41:403 (68,69,70,71,72,73) - =>kddkkd Hmm, ich finde beide Varianten klingen gut, werde das erstmal so lassen für etwas Variation.
03:46:005 (82) - =>k Nope, damit würde die nächste Note ihren Impact verlieren.
03:59:130 (125,126,127,128) - => kddk Die Kats sind auf die Noten mapped, wo die Vocals am stärksten sind.
Thanks a lot for the mod!
Kin wrote:Hi there!
I've already overlooked the map month ago. It's now a way better.
- 00:53:335 (144,145,146) - I don't think connecting your triplet to the 7plet pattern is a good idea. Consider using triplet in another spot ?
Changed to k and moved to 00:53:079 -. Like this, it keeps consistency with 01:03:903 -.
- 00:58:789 (184) - Maybe change this one as d ? You'll get a nice mirror pattern. I actually like how it flow with the kkddk.
hm, I'm not 100% sure if that'd be inconsistent in its emphasis on similar sounds. But I agree on the flow aspect, I'll try it out.
- 01:05:437 - 01:16:346 - careful about your triplet usage on this section! There's only 2 triplets on this section. Using few triplet on this section is okay. But I think using a triplet here 01:12:767 - & deleting this note : 01:13:448 (274) - will make the triplet usage on this section more consistent.
Nope, I don't like using similar patterning for something that feels different to me. As you can see, up until 01:13:448 (274) -, more notes are sung by the vocals. Now, from mentioned timestamp onwards until the 1/6, vocals are mostly repeating and have an echo effect to it. With the rather repeptitive usage of 1/2 patterns, I want to catch this effect. Because of that, I'd like to remain this unchanged.
- 01:24:528 - 01:27:255 - I'd suggest you to use at least 1 triplet on this pattern. I can understand you're using only 1/2 & 1/1 to follow the vocal here. But it'd be more consistent with this section : 01:16:687 - 01:21:801 - . using only 1/1 & 1/2 here 01:22:142 (322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333) - is actually ok, since the vocal is like reverb. But the vocal do start a new sentence on the lyrics here 01:24:187 (331) - . tldr: 01:24:528 - 01:27:255 - using triplet somewhere in this section to make difference with background vocal from 01:22:142 (322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331) - could be cool.
Alright, that does make sense to me. And aside from that, I believe it brings up a nice contrast to the previous part, since this one is more intense due to the higher amount of instrument played here. Applied.
btw, if you fix it, don't forget on the other similar part.
- 01:57:085 (116) - I'd highly suggest you to delete this note to make a 1/1 break. It does also follow the vocal better. (if you fix it, don't forget about other similar part)
hm, I see the point, but I'm not sure about the spike to the second Kiai if I apply this. The reason for this is that I'd like to keep the note density in this special part in the second one as it is, and since you mentioned the spike being too big, that'd be quite troublesome. If totally necessary,
I can figure out a way to rearrange that to fit the map's structure and overall density. But I won't change this for now.
- 01:57:255 - 01:59:983 - btw, I can understand the structure of the 1st part of the pattern, but for this part, the k density
? I don't really get what you mean
Edit: Clarified this via IRC, remain unchanged.
- 03:37:142 (51,52,53,54,55,56,57) - it's not detected by AImod. But resnap everynote. I'm pretty sure the pattern was copy paste. There's some note which is 1ms off. It's not a major problem when it's not detected by AImod. But it's actually a problem here, since note are 1ms before the SV change.
don't do copy and paste kids, even if you're sure you didn'tfixed.
- If you deleted the note here : 01:57:085 - ; might be more consistent to also delete it here 01:59:812 (137) -
Same deal with what I mentioned above.
- I can understand you want to make the 2nd kiai harder than the 1st one. But the gap between those 2 kiai, is actually quite huge. I'd highly suggest you to slightly nerf the 2nd kiai, or slighly buff the 1st one.
I don't really think that the second Kiai is much harder than the first Kiai, except for the 'back-and-forth'-ish k ddd k dkd k (I think you know what I mean) pattern, and even that looks fine from my point of view. I added some notes in the first Kiai to match with the structure of the second one, though. I hope it is better now.
That's a unique way to follow vocal! But I find it kinda interesting.
You may ask me to re-check in 2~3 mods, or if a bubble is set.
Danke für den Mod!
Yumyum- wrote:Also, ich versuche es dann einfach mal!
Erwarte nicht zu viel D:
Achja, ich bin echt schlecht im erklären, hoffe du verstehst was ich meine!
OniDie drei Streams:
• 01:47:113 (45) - d ? - (Auch) Wenn man nach Vocals geht (wie du es ja auch machst), hört man 'nen starken Ton raus, welchen du als k gemappt hast (46:346; 46:687; 47:028) - den genannten Punkt empfinde ich zumindest eher als d -> Also 3x kddd ab 01:46:346 + Rest des Streams passt imo, da es zu den Vocals passt
• 04:08:164 (161) Im Grunde same, hier würde ich es aber 4x kddd + k, da der Vocal Aspekt wegfällt imo
• 05:35:437 (751) - Klingt basically gleich, also einfach angleichen imo
Die Streams lass ich nach wie vor so, in ihrer jetzigen Form sind sie imo consistent und variierend genug.
Theoretisch als Vorschlag:
Man hört 'nen 'Glockenton', welchen man mitmappen könnte als k
Ist eher ungewöhnlich imo, aber wollte es nur grundsätzlich als Option aufbringen
1. - 4. sind eben die Töne, der Stream trifft aber nur auf den 3. zu (imo)
Bei dem 2. Stream fällt imo 1. und 4. weg also d
(Kannst es dir bei Zeit ja ansehen, persönlich ist es aber auch angenehmer ohne diese Glockentöne)
Hmm, ich finde das 1/2 spacing zwischen den jeweiligen kats in deinem Vorschlag zu viel des Guten und nimmt die eigentliche Emphasis +
+ Consistency weg.
• 05:03:733 (570) - k ? Klingt an sich same wie 05:00:835 (550,551,552) - Also halt kdk
Das kdk ist dafür gedacht, dass es die Melodie aufrechterhält, bis der Pitch schließlich beim kdddk deutlich runtergeht. Beim kkd kdd ist das ähnlich, allerdings geht da der Pitch schon bei dem kdd runter, weswegen ein kdk den Effekt nehmen würde.
• 05:05:437 (584,585,586) - Finde persönlich dkd würde imo besser passen
Das widerspräche der Struktur der Map im gesamten. Und für mich klingt es so, wie es jetzt ist, auch besser.
• 05:06:971 (594,595) - Würde tauschen -> kd - ab 06:630 langer hoher ton (k), der dann aber tiefer ist bei 06:971 (k) - (Bin mir da aber etwas unsicher)
Klar, warum nicht.
Werde posten sofern ich noch mehr finde, Green-chan!
Hoffe das hat eeeetwas gebracht