Eleharmonica remixed by kors k - Der Wald (kors k Remix) [Ca

posted
Total Posts
125
show more
Ascendance
xD
Fii

Ascendance wrote:

xD
Ascendance

-wwwww wrote:

Ascendance wrote:

xD
Topic Starter
Cheesecake

Kurai wrote:

Even if エレハモニカ is read as Erehamonika, the Modified Hepburn Romanisation guidelines (the one we use for osu!) clearly state that if a word is written in katakana, its roman transcription should be the spelling of the original word (e.g. https://osu.ppy.sh/s/621776 オルゴール -> Orgel (german iirc)). So yeah, unless you have an official reference saying it should be Erehamonika, you have to change the Romanisation :'(
If that's how it's done then I have no problem changing it

-wwwww wrote:

Hey, some stuff on the metadata:

I got into contact with the artist via email, which I got from his website, which I got from his twitter.



Hopefully this can move forward again with the correct metadata.
This is also a good way of finding out haha

Fixed metadata and the snaps, should be good now. Thanks everyone
Mechanizen
Rename RLC's Extra into RLC's Insane yo
Topic Starter
Cheesecake
no
Kurai
Dam my guess was correct lmao
Ascendance
mayb changing lasse's diff to expert or something for diff name increase aesthetics lo o l o l ll l plz requalify
SangKrazF1nal3
Since there is no problem, pls rank it asap lul.

Spoilers, dang I love this song. A Star from ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:lol:
xChorse
celerih
(:

Rechecked all the diffs, everything should be good once again. Only change is removed the osb file for the old metadata stuff
-Aerith-
yes finally !!!!
Deif
Haha yes
Topic Starter
Cheesecake
Ascendance

Deif wrote:

Haha yes
Sulfur
Namki
hello, something I've noticed in mithew's diff~

mithew's light insane
  1. What about volume level throughout the diff? It is 60% all over the place but the song isn't like that. Song is calmer at the beginning, like, till 00:23:486 - and then gets intensier and louder. The same volume from the entire diff doesn't look good to be honest, it gives not that good feedback as it may give if you were altering your volume.
  2. 00:34:074 (10) - givinig more spacing makes little sense as there's literally no prominent sounds in music to be emphasized like that. Lower spacing fits better.
  3. 01:55:603 (4,5,1,2,1) - this whole section lacks some emphasis. Let's take 01:54:545 (3) - and 01:55:250 (3) - , and 01:57:368 (3) - , and 01:58:074 (3) - , and 01:58:780 (3) - they all are more or less equal and you do not stack them unlike this one 01:55:956 (1) - . Why is that special? It does sound the same for me as well as the others. Also, 01:55:956 (1,2,1) - it sounds as a complete stanza and giving 01:56:662 (1) - extra emphasis by placing away and NCing looks senseless to me even though it's the new measure.
mithew

Namki wrote:

hello, something I've noticed in mithew's diff~

mithew's light insane
  1. What about volume level throughout the diff? It is 60% all over the place but the song isn't like that. Song is calmer at the beginning, like, till 00:23:486 - and then gets intensier and louder. The same volume from the entire diff doesn't look good to be honest, it gives not that good feedback as it may give if you were altering your volume. volume control isn't necessary, the difference in feedback isn't significant with how little objects there are in the intro (the only place that would really warrant any volume control)
  2. 00:34:074 (10) - givinig more spacing makes little sense as there's literally no prominent sounds in music to be emphasized like that. Lower spacing fits better. what do you mean? the reason for this spacing is pretty distinguishable especially when you consider the spacing on 00:28:250 (2,3) -
  3. 01:55:603 (4,5,1,2,1) - this whole section lacks some emphasis. Let's take 01:54:545 (3) - and 01:55:250 (3) - , and 01:57:368 (3) - , and 01:58:074 (3) - , and 01:58:780 (3) - they all are more or less equal and you do not stack them unlike this one 01:55:956 (1) - . Why is that special? It does sound the same for me as well as the others. Also, 01:55:956 (1,2,1) - it sounds as a complete stanza and giving 01:56:662 (1) - extra emphasis by placing away and NCing looks senseless to me even though it's the new measure. 01:55:956 (1,2) - these two are very much distinct when comparing them to 01:54:545 (3) - and 01:55:250 (3) - (the added symbols + the fact that this is the end of the pattern lol) for that reason i mapped it in a way that was unique when comparing them. i didn't like showing the differences between 01:55:956 (1) - and 01:54:545 (3,3) - with higher spacing so i decided to show it with stacking.

    01:56:662 (1) - the extra emphasis on this doesn't really take away from the stanza, it still feels complete when playing as the change in flow isn't significant and like you said, it is a new measure so it's fine to show that through the slight change in emphasis here
Myxo

mithew wrote:

volume control isn't necessary, the difference in feedback isn't significant with how little objects there are in the intro (the only place that would really warrant any volume control)
This sounds like you just want to avoid getting the map disqualified. The intro is significantly calmer than the rest of the song, it's also mapped with significantly lower volume in the other diffs of the spread, so please make that consistent.

I would recommend raising up the overall volume for the whole spread by like 10-20% though, since 30% and 60% seem a little low for their respective sections.
Ascendance
obb
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply