1. POLYCHROME (4.43 stars, 1897 notes)

1. This song is DnB. So basically, I think that I should hear the kick sound in k. However, I do not mind your mapping-style. It's just my opinion.

1. 00:21:203 (113,114,115) - ctrl+g? Maybe you consider vocal sound, but I did not feel that it did fit. So I reached this conclusion in consideration of a vocal sound. Also by play side, it is better too.
2. 01:45:288 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - wow pp pattern lol The vocal sound begins in 01:45:460 (6) - . So I think that here should make k.
3. 03:14:603 (6) - same as above.
4. 03:59:860 (6) - ^
5. 04:21:803 (6) - ^
6. 03:40:660 (28,29,30) - ctrl+g? I think that I do fit by a vocal sound well.

SKSalt wrote:

Hi, Taiko mod request from my queue.

[General]

1. This song is DnB. So basically, I think that I should hear the kick sound in k. However, I do not mind your mapping-style. It's just my opinion. > I do have placed k on every (almost) cymbal SE

[Oni]

1. 00:21:203 (113,114,115) - ctrl+g? Maybe you consider vocal sound, but I did not feel that it did fit. So I reached this conclusion in consideration of a vocal sound. Also by play side, it is better too. > yes, you are right, and I also changed 00:21:631 (117) - to d.
2. 01:45:288 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - wow pp pattern lol The vocal sound begins in 01:45:460 (6) - . So I think that here should make k. > ok ,nice observation! ^_^
3. 03:14:603 (6) - same as above.
4. 03:59:860 (6) - ^
5. 04:21:803 (6) - ^
6. 03:40:660 (28,29,30) - ctrl+g? I think that I do fit by a vocal sound well. > ALL ACCEPTED!!!

That’s all. I am pp map killer sorry > NVM, I do not know how to make PP map actually XD.

good luck

Skeuddy wrote:

Hey

POLYCHROME

1. 00:13:403 (60) - k
2. 00:19:746 (98,99) - ^
3. 01:22:831 (154) - ^, and 01:23:860 (157,158) - Swap
4. 01:27:717 (179,184) - ^
5. 01:40:488 (12) - ^
6. 02:28:489 (6) - ^
7. 02:39:803 (64) - ^
8. 02:42:203 (80) - ^
9. 02:56:516 (175,179) - ^
10. 04:27:117 (13) - ^
11. 01:25:231 (161) - d
12. 00:42:374 (136,139) - Swap, and 00:42:460 (137) - k
13. 02:53:002 (157,158) - ^, and 02:54:373 (161) - d, 02:51:973 (154) - k

Smallwu wrote:

Hi, mod from my queue

General

HP6 pls > oh yes, as skystar also used HP=6, I also do so XP.

POLYCHROME

00:19:397 (96) - d > I do not want to have d d d, which is a bit boring.

00:19:740 (98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106) - kkkkddddk > probably you do not check my notice ( yeah you do not understand it....) , 00:19:568 (97) - 是chi的開始，而00:19:740 (98,99,100,101) - 是-i，由於音調一樣，所以繼續用d；而me ( 00:20:082 (102,103,104,105) - ) 比之前的音要高，所以k。

00:20:597 (107) - d > k is good to go

Remove 00:21:025 (111) and 00:21:197 (112) > no... I want to maintain the 9-plets pattern, as it has been used in the previous bar.

00:21:111 (111) - d - 在這裡沒有任何明顯的音 所以如果要在這個時間點放note的話我覺得放紅比較好 > I follow vocal here and it should be k as there's a very clear vocal voice (nya). ** You really do not read the notice at all... 看不懂去用翻譯啊- -

00:42:882 (141) - D > quite good

Remove [00:43:054 (142,143)] - Because no any highlight vocal > it is my style here, no change.

00:43:397 (144) - Try d, k also good but I think d is more fit > I think k is better because the BGM is plain. ** As you cannot understand my composing idea in the notice, I understand why you will raise this suggestion.

01:00:540 (5,6) - D D > nope. These notes are clear cymbal SEs, so they should be K instead of D. Also, 01:00:368 (4) - should be D because its pitch is lower than 01:00:025 (3) - . This change is also adopted in the later on same pattern.

01:50:082 (7) - D > quite good

Remove 01:50:254 (8,9) - Because no any highlight vocal > style again, rejected

01:53:597 (14) - k > yes, the -e of re is continuing in this timing. This change is adopted in the later on same pattern.

02:29:511 (4,5,6) - D K K > follow my above changes. ** hey you did not follow your consistency? LOL

03:29:340 (21,22) - Ctrl+G > k d is good because I have to consider the later on notes. As 03:29:511 (22,23,24) - are in the same pitch, they should be the same colour. Considering that 03:30:540 (25,26) - are the highest pitches, the previous notes should be d. No change here

04:04:654 - 04:05:682 我聽起來滿符合節拍的 考慮一下吧~ > 不，這裡是兩段融合在一起的，所以應該保持之前的音，維持不變。 由於你看不懂我的notice，這裡有如此提議可以理解。

04:49:911 (1) - D >

哦 老實說我看不懂你用notice框起來的那段 抱歉>_> > 為了省時不打中文版本了，況且基本上只有華人和馬拉玩家才看得懂中文，沒有中文很正常-.-

副歌段大部分都滿不錯的 > 謝謝
GL with Rank！

mintong89 wrote:

Hiii mod request from my queue. > NOOOO!!! Why don't even a big-senpai read the notice.... really tl;df? smh

[POLYCHROME]

00:02:425 - Add a note at here to fit perfectly to umm, sound? Otherwise it kinda feel empty here. > see below
00:03:797 - here and rest of the similar sound. > nope, you can notice that this bar is repeated for 8 times, so I divide it into 2 parts ( 4 bars of each) and make the beginning start with an easier beat. As the patterns are on purpose, there will be no change.
00:14:254 (67) - It would be better that you change this to big note because the drum cymbal at here generally is same as 00:11:511 (50) - at here. (Make sure you delete 00:14:425 (68) - this note too if you apply so it didn't feel weird in gameplay.) > good observation and suggestion here but I beg to differ due to my intention. The situation without vocal should be denser. Also, 00:14:254 (65) - is a notice for music starting without vocal. I do not want to make it like the previous pattern
00:14:940 (71) - Change this to k for variety? So it didn't too same as previous part. > no, it is a mirror notes of 00:15:968 (76,77,78) - .
00:16:997 (84) - Same, the drum cymbal at here is quite loud so I think that big note is better. > that' true! Changed
00:18:368 (92) - ^ > same as above ^
00:22:311 (123) - Delete this note? I feel kinda weird in gameplay because at the previous you're follow the drum and suddenly at here you follow the vocal. > according to the notice, d&b+vocal is the first priority and the part you said that I was following the drum in fact it is also following the vocal. So at this timing pt, it is not weird imo.
00:24:368 - => 00:24:882 - The structure of this pattern is kinda not fitting to song, how about change to ddd k k? > Good change!
00:25:225 (17) - k here, you can hear that background sound tone is fading up. > There are 2 reasons I do not want to make a change here: first, this is actually the same as 00:23:168 (3,4,5) - ; second, I want to emphazise 00:25:568 (19) - .
00:26:597 (25,26,27) - How about change to kkd? To emphasize the piano sound. > quite good, let's try.
00:27:111 - => 00:27:797 - The structure at here is kinda weird too, it's like you're emphasize the note at the wrong way. Beside I think the kdd is kinda anti-flow too. How about change 00:27:368 (31) - this note to 00:27:197 - here for the better result? > really better, changed
00:29:511 - => 00:30:368 - How about change to ddk dkk kkk for better variety? > the BGM is some triplets X3, so the patterns will also times 3. No change here as variety is not needed in this part.
00:36:197 (94) - Again, this should be big note because of drum cymbal. > ok
00:38:940 (117) - ^ > ^
00:40:311 (121) - ^ > ^
00:42:368 (136,137,138,139,140) - I feel dddkk is kinda anti-flow here. Change to ddkkk? > your idea is good but I am also coordinating with sfx. 00:42:540 (138) - is a deciding note which states how the flow goes in terms of sfx. 00:42:368 (136,140) - 136 is d, 140 is k. So 138 should be d because of the flow of the pitches.
00:45:282 (7) - k here, because the tone of the vocal is same as 00:45:454 (9) - here. > nice one!
00:45:625 (10) - ^ > ^
00:46:654 (7,8,9,10) - It's kinda weird that a lot of ddk compare to previous part to this part, so change to kkk k for variety? > No, ddk d is matching the vocal.
00:48:711 (2) - k here, the tone of vocal at here is higher than previous note. > yes, as 00:48:025 (7,8,9) - is also kdk, here it should also be kdk.
00:54:711 - => 00:55:225 - How about change to ddkdkkd for a better flow? > Good! It also matches the sfx.
00:56:340 (8) - k here for variety? so it didn't same as first kdd. > also quite nice here as it is a set of mirror notes of 00:56:940 (2,3,4) - .
00:58:140 (1) - Actually I'd wanna suggest to big note but since you put 1/4 note on it so I guess k is emphasize enough for it. > change to k
01:08:425 (49) - k here for follow the electronic sound? > nope, the pitch of 01:08:768 (52) - is higher than 49.
01:10:311 (61,62) - I suggest you to delete these two note because generally this part of the song is smoother and softer than other part, then it would be kinda messy that if the all dense of the pattern are same. > read my notice.
01:15:625 (99,100) - Same as above reason. And change 01:15:454 (98) - this note to k too. > o shi e are the same pitches, so I do not change 01:15:454 (98) - to k. ** read my notice again for the deletion of notes.
01:22:825 (152) - Should big note too. Acutally nvm because the k is already represent too it. But it still depends to you. > so nothing special here!
01:27:625 - => 01:28:311 - How about change the second part (here) to kkddkkddk for better variety? > quite good.
01:28:311 (184) - Why soft sampleset lol. > This is the resting stage for vocal and it should not be existing a note theoretically. Considering the flow of notes, I add a k here and also changed it to soft sampleset to try to hide its existence.
01:30:540 (7,8,9) - kkk here for emphasize the vocal which is "round do de" that part. > d&b > vocal under any circumstances. READ my notice.
01:31:740 (6) - k here to represent the vocal. > emphasize the later on cymbal instead! my notice ....
01:37:740 (9,10) - kk (as in kkd), same as reason at above. Oh and I notice if you change this suggestion it might be a lot of kkd ddk, so you might have be change some pattern to it. > yes, you are right here. The later on patterns are changed a bit so as to prevent bunches of ddk kkd .
01:40:482 (12) - k here for better flow. > ok, and it is also a deciding note, so it should really be k.
01:50:768 (13) - Same as above. > ^
01:51:625 (1) - D here for drum cymbal too. > alrigt, I am not good at hearing cymbal smh.
01:52:397 - It play really weird that this part didn't contain 1/4 note, so how about add a note at here? > add a k here.
02:03:111 (81) - k here too, as the tone of vocal at here is quite high. > 02:02:768 (79) - is higher than 02:03:111 (82) - , the latter should be d.
02:04:140 (89,90,91) - ddk for variety to not same as previous part. > let's try it.
02:08:082 (118) - D here for drum cymbal. > I do not want to have a finish here because it is not appropriate as the vocal part still continues. (There is no Finish in vocal containing part.)
02:10:825 (141) - ^ > ^
02:15:111 (2,3,4) - kkk, the reason is same as above-above, the more variety is better so the player will not feel the """sameness everywhere/copy paste feeling""" (too much ddk!) > well in fact I really C&P for 3 times XDD slap me for my laziness The changes above will be adopted for the later on the same parts. If you see that some points you made are omitted, that's natural because probably I have fixed them. Moreover, ddk is a need so I do not think I need to reduce the existences of them.
02:16:997 (7) - k here, the tone are same as 02:16:654 (4) - here.
02:25:483 (8) - k, I feel the too much kdd is kinda anti-flow, lol. > ok
02:27:283 (1) - How about k here to emphasize the drum cymbal as if you don't want put big note?
02:31:825 (16) - ^ > this one no, because of the existence of vocal.
02:40:054 (66) - I feel it would be better to move this to 02:39:882 - here, because it can emphasize the note and in my option that it would better that just leave the vocal alone. > nope, please refer to my notice....
02:46:654 (114,115) - Delete these note? I feel dense of this part is too long, should make a break to it. > refer to my notice.
02:48:710 (129,130,131) - Same, I feel that ddk is too much at here, so kkk? > I do not think that kkk is a good way to replace ddk, as the last 'k' is the cymbal SE.
02:57:453 (186) - Why soft lol. > same reason above LOL
03:06:968 (10) - I feel there's no need to add 1/4 at here since there's no drum kick or sound for it. Delete it? > refer to my notice
03:12:540 (1) - D for drum cymbal. > ^
03:15:282 (1) - ^ > ^
03:23:854 (7,8) - Swap these two note for variety. > let's try it.
Since I feel that last part of chorus is same as first part so I guess suggestion are mostly same, lol. > yes, the changes will be adopted in necessary. Hey, I think some parts just let the original ver. be so that I can have some variations!
04:51:282 (2) - Since the tone of piano at here is higher than previous and after, so k? > let's try it.
04:56:768 (8) - Same as above. > ^
05:02:254 (13) - ^ > ^

So that's it, sorry if the mod is feel quite harsh for you, but I hope you can get the idea!
Edit: Oh, I didn't read the notice. But I guess this is really matter in my option so I guess that's why I pointed it up. > IT DOES MATTERS !!!

Good luck!

Prophecy wrote:

You can use custom difficulties name for long maps (1 diff).

Instead of "Oni" > Boring ;w;

Surono wrote:

dub tekdub dub tek~

Skylish wrote:

what-.-? d kd d k?

Surono wrote:

Skylish wrote:

what-.-? d kd d k?

ye

>General
* Like prophecy said, about costume diffname, but why you not put name of level difficulty? eg: Polychrome Oni
just think for adding for identic is level as Oni, bcus is taiko.. or its fine?

> using just 'POLYCHROME' is fine. (Check this one: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/311483)

* //Background and Video events
0,0,"BG.jpg",0,25 < change on your .osu file for BG position, all character face should can to be see when playing
> Hey, this is so GOOD!!!! >_<

>Mod
* 00:00:540 - cymbal, why not fill finisher? or you forget filling this? > I did not put any Finishes at the beginning since it is a BEGINNING. I did not forget to do so, it is on purpose.
* 00:10:997 - add don on this dub beat? its clearly to hear and also fit with vocal flow imo > 00:10:482 (45,46,47,48) - are following vocals. With reference of my composing idea above, I want to keep solo vocal clear and clean, so I have to reject this suggestion.
* 00:13:825 - why this ddk on here? are you follow 00:12:454 - this similar flow? maybe its better if you move to 00:13:654 - here and make 00:13:568 - kkd, so not akward at end of pattern with ddk > good observation! Now it is 00:13:568 (61,62,63,64) - = kkd k
* 00:14:254 - its cymbal, forget fill finisher? > oh, this one I really forget to do so=.=
* 00:21:282 - to overemphasize and its blocked flow.. change to don? bcus its emphasizing beat and vocal imo > 00:21:111 (112,114,116,117) - is a group of notes matching the vocal. I want to emphasize 00:21:625 (117) - , so I marked the others as k. In terms of flow, let it be because the matching of notes is my biggest concern.
* 00:24:454 - change to kat? for more emphasize this flow as variety, 00:24:368 (10,11,12,13,14) - sounds good to hear imo > no need to have variation here because the sfx (doo,doo,doo) are repeated for 3 times, which are ddd.
* 00:30:711 (53,54,55) - ddd look bit boring for this flow, nice if you change to dkd for flow > I can see your point here, but I would like to reject it because, firstly, there are three consequent triplets of ddk; secondly, 00:30:711 (53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61) - are matching the sfx fitly. ddd are matching the long sfx.
* 00:42:368 (136,137,138,139,140) - nice pattern flow, but I might feels good if this dkddk bcus main instrument more emphasize imo > well, this point has been spotted by mintong and I think most of the players/modders really think that at here the flow is not that smooth, right? However, I do think it is fine to go because it is my style XD. 00:42:540 (138) and 00:42:625 (139) - - are leading notes for noticing the player the current trend of notes flow. I want to keep them as d & k because the flow is just like that.... d _ _ _ k. The blanks should also display a flow of pitches! No change here, sorry for that.
* 00:46:997 (10,1,2) - need emphasize with vocal? to monotone imo. 00:46:997 - change to kat for better emphasize on 00:47:168 - here? > 00:46:825 (9) - 00:47:168 (1) - 00:47:511 (3) - is a group of k d k noticing the sfx which I want to emphasize instead of the vocal. Also, 00:46:997 (10,1,2) - are in the same pitch, there are no critical need to change them from the monochrome pattern.
* 00:48:368 - same above, still high vocal to follow with 00:48:025 (7,9) - > exact the same reason as above one.
* 00:49:654 - this don needed? its unnessecarry.. you would delete this? > Yes it is needed. 00:49:568 (9) - is a very high sfx sound and 00:49:740 (11) - is a k for emphasizing 00:49:911 (1) - . So, between these two k, there should be sth separating them properly to prevent k k mixing up, so d is needed here 00:49:654 - .
* 00:54:025 (1,5) - how about kat for this main instrument? should emphasized imo > 00:54:025 (1,2,4,5) - has been already emphasizing on the pitches. d d k d is exactly the flow of the pitches.
* 01:03:711 - kat for "iwaa"? and nice variety on this part > nice suggestion, but you may notice that 01:03:625 (23,24,25) - is a set of reflex notes of 01:03:111 (19,20,21) - .
* 01:07:911 (45,46) - ctrl g this? 01:08:082 - no reason if this to be kat, bcus nice emphasize on 01:07:911 - this vocal > The pitch of 01:07:911 (45) - is lower than that of 01:07:397 (41) - , so the former should be d. For that coming up k, it is for prevent a lot of d accumulated. You can see that your suggestion will form a bunch of ddd d ddd, that's not good.
* 01:16:140 - same above, no reason for kat. change to don to follow 01:16:482 (106,107,108) - this, its consistent > alright, you are right here.
* 01:28:311 (186) - lol please this soft sampleset, I think is not needed. Taiko just need normal hitsound > This is point was mentioned by mintong. I have to explain here once again probably. 01:28:311 (186) - , in terms of structure, it is needed to be a k for maintaining a proper stream and emphasizing 01:28:654 (1) - . But why do I use soft sampleset? It is because at this timing point, the BGM stops and there is only a resting stage for vocal inhaling. The inhaling voice is EXTREMELY CLEARLY heard. Somehow using k(normal sampleset) is too strong, so it is not appropriate to do so. Using soft sampleset can adversely spot out that inhaling vocal and it does not violate Taiko mapping rules.
* 01:40:054 - kat? that like have vibration flow (like updownupdown sounds) and its fit imo > The previous groups of triplets are already some waves of notes. It is time to bring back the players from waves to plain waters XD.
* 02:57:454 - samplesoft.. you trying make new inovation? xd > again, same reason as above one.
* 03:53:597 - this unnessecarry.. delete bcus vocal not support this and also for minirest after hitting spam 3plet > XDDD it is just a direct copy of the previous one and there are just minor variations in the last part. Your suggestion should have been raised in the previous pattern but you did not do so. That means that this point is unnecessary to change.
* 03:54:454 - you can keep this. 01:40:054 - bcus its more stronk than 03:54:454 - this > just keep that, it is good to go.
* 04:04:654 - yea its nice dkddk, also like suggestion for dddkk. if you think is that fit dddkk its fine.. but you should consindering for consistent like this > I beg to differ (a way to disagree in a better tone, not a direct way to refuse the others idea) for this suggestion because it leads to a huge change of music. This ver. is fixed by Skystar. He extended the music by adding one more chorus to it. Therefore, atm, the notes have to be changed to tell the players that, 'this is yet to finish!!!'. I changed the last part of this 5-plets back into dddkk due to the consistency, as you have mentioned.
* 04:16:397 - kat? for variety from kkddddk. yea like varies at every part ( kkdkddk > kkddddk > kkdkddk again, its fun to play and not feels boring to meet same patterns again > nope, as the reason as above one. But I will bear it in mind that there may be potential variations for this pattern.

well next.... and its nice diff, I like u did kdd pattern for varies and that fits! I just point some suggestion with I feels needed emphasize.. and about finisher I think you mostly fill on stronk pitch like for starting/end kiai or stronk vocal. but consindering to fill cymbal pitch if there is clearly stronk to hear ( I hear its starting Ignored some cymbal pitch on begining 2nd kiai).
and I dont know with samplesoft things.. I not really think thats nice for emphasize soft sounds..

> For the ignorance of those cymbal crush, it is on purpose actually because I want to emphasize the flow of d&b+vocal. It is quite strange to add Finishes under the circumstance of the existence of vocal. In daily cases, we will not add an accent while we are singing, right? (except special cases)

> For that hilarious soft sampleset, this is important to keep it soft as I have explained above. The note SHOULD NOT MASK the inhaling sound.

Well... I like to bam bam a stars for ur map :3 cuz its good, I never seen mostly like kdd pattern on taiko map espesially for DnB song
and sorry for my engrish, I did Offline modding and not connected with translte.gagel.kom lolollol. and sorry if theres have typo words

> Thanks for the star!! >_<. kdd pattern in d&b is weird? idk since this is my 1st time to map a d&b.

> For improving your language, you should develop a good habit to type correct English words and grammar in the upcoming future as English is a really important lang. in the globe. It is good to have chances to chat with other people via a HUGE community like osu!. My mother language is not English as well (which is Cantonese, a dialect of Chinese), but I have to use English so as to communicate well with the others, and also improve my English. You cannot just simply say that, "arh, my English has been sucking since my birth." This is not responsible for yourself actually. I am not here to told you off (scolding you). It is just a nice reminder for you and your future. If you do not understand some words, you have to check the dictionary to get sth clear.

GLUCK!! > Thanks!!!

EDIT:

(-/\- )

and sorry about reply ur mod on my map.. actually I just trying friendly reply ( not to think your mod is bad or what, bcus is my bad typing english. and some bad reply or shit symbol/letter.. forgive me.. )
Imo if there have mod and mapper respone.. u just get enough feels if them reply with "reason".. not about accept or denied or u feel disappointed on them word.. like my reply on ur mod lololol XD dont think seriously with my respone is like "rude" or what. people must to be good with others people if them not familiar or not friendly... ah idk more with my word. aa btw ur map its nice :U kdd kdd hehe3he3hhe3

> I also have to apologize for saying that your response on my mod is crappy because it is not your intention. Perhaps I do not have much humour, sorry.
English is really important! Start improving yourself right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Method? I have told you in the above text.)

PatZar wrote:

dont be like that, we dont know your humour style, probably he upseted about your text

Backfire wrote:

POLYCHROME
01:00:882 - Possibly change to a don. As kat, I think it's ok, but with Don it flows a little better, aesthetically better too maybe? > That's a kick there and it should be k.
01:17:340 - Finisher? For obvious reasons, I guess.
01:20:082 - ^
01:22:825 (154,158,162,166) - ^? I mean you probably did not choose all these for finisher but I really think it works fine.
01:40:654 - Here too. > Had you checked my notes?
I can see a trend of ignoring cymbal crashes because you create a stream with it later. You don't have to do that, and I won't point them out anymore. I am sure someone told you to take them out or you did it yourself, but I think they should be there.

> I match vocal+d&b for the main body and accent of d&b should be omitted because of existence of vocal. It is strange to add Finish to the parts which contain vocal+d&b. That's the reason why I did not add so many Finishes in the music. Finishes are added in the d&b part.

> In fact, some modders also said that "there should be some Finishes, and also here and there...". Well, just think about how I want to express the music itself with the notes. The original music itself is relaxing and I want to keep that although this is a D&B remix. You can see that when there's vocal, I did not put any Finish, and vice versa. It is a very obvious way to show how I divide the music into parts and the dynamic of the music.

You are overusing 1/4 in parts which don't need it. Very overmapped, I will say, in many parts. (Example 01:37:054 - ) It makes this map very hard to mod. Sorry. > It is not OVERMAPPED if you had taken a look of my notice. The point you mentioned is matching the vocal. I cannot see what's wrong here. 1/4 densely put is used for leading the music to a new layer / new start.

I won't mod the rest, because you copy pasted. I will notice when mapper copy-pastes, and I will not mod anymore when it is like this. Please never do it. The map becomes repetitive,and thus, mods become repetitive, and to boot, the song is not always the same in every part. This is lazy mapping. People will notice. I have nothing more to say. Work on your mapping in the future harder, please don't copy paste.

> I have to say that I did not be lazy while I was mapping, and the part repeated is NOT A REPLICA. Mintong had pointed out that C&P is not so ideal and he advised to make some variations in the repeated part in his mod, and I HAD DONE SOME VARIATIONS. The music (this is a remix, there must be repeated parts, cmon dude...) just repeats itself once or twice, and it does not make sense to change the structure of notes completely or in a large extent. Base on musical sense and theoretically speaking, the notes should exactly the SAME, but as we are taiko players, we hate boring stuff and the mappers have to do sth to fine-tune the map.

My mind while mapping:

Structure= should be C&P, no doubt here.
Notes distribution and variation= yes, to prevent boring/repetitive patterns

Actually, I must say, I don't want to be so harsh. The map is good ok? But maybe, make small changes to make it better. In the future try not to copy paste. <3

I am here, and I am ready to get mods. It is not harsh, but just expressing your idea on the map itself neglecting my own composing idea, I am sorry to say so. However, that's what I observed. I DID MAKE VARIATIONS in the REPEATED PARTS except some IMPORTANT/ KEY PHRASES. I don't care how you are familiar yourself with taiko mapping, you are not meticulous enough to see how I mapped, no matter what.

18:28 Chocola_2287: hm...
18:29 Chocola_2287: the BG quality seems bad
18:29 Chocola_2287: blurry
18:29 Chocola_2287: or is that normal?
18:29 Skylish: that's normal dont worry
18:29 Chocola_2287: ok
18:29 Chocola_2287: 1st thing, delete all SV change
18:30 Chocola_2287: except the last one
18:30 Skylish: why?
18:30 Chocola_2287: don't see a point reducing SV
18:30 Chocola_2287: cancel SV change, but change volume
18:31 Chocola_2287: I know why u put SV, but does not make sense
18:31 Chocola_2287: change volume = make sense
18:31 Skylish: hmm..... I disagree with that...
18:32 Skylish: lower SV = less hyper
18:32 Chocola_2287: >_>
18:32 Skylish: that's the visible effect I want to create
18:32 Chocola_2287: oh ok, but u can change volume
18:32 Skylish: SV chnage can exist in the absence of BPM changes, for creating a better atmosphere
18:32 Skylish: umm I will check the vol.
18:33 Chocola_2287: the whole song is 95%
18:33 Chocola_2287: the place u reduced SV can lower volume to <60%
18:33 Chocola_2287: but need to be audible
18:34 Skylish: the current places where I have put vol. changes are fine. The remainers should be all 95% due to existence of d&b
18:35 Chocola_2287: I think u overuse kiai time...
18:35 Skylish: I do think so... but they are so important >_<
18:35 Chocola_2287: 00:22:482 you sure?
18:36 Skylish: that's an obvious change of mood in the music
18:36 Skylish: it can be deleted of coz...
18:37 Skylish: it is out of phase when it is compared with the other Kiai sessions
18:37 Chocola_2287: http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4812380
18:37 Chocola_2287: 00:33:968 note here plz
18:38 Chocola_2287: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4812388
18:40 Skylish: nope for all :
18:40 Chocola_2287: 01:07:397 (41) - 01:14:597 (91)  this area should be a break time... mood is mild
18:41 Chocola_2287: actually to 01:17:340 (113) 
18:41 Chocola_2287: -> reduce some notes in that area
18:42 Chocola_2287: 01:45:282 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - kkddkkd or kkddkdd , prefer kkddkdd because pitch flow from high to low
18:42 Chocola_2287: 01:47:254 (6) - del
18:43 Skylish: that mild session is reasonable enough for less notes. I will fix it
18:43 Chocola_2287: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4812404
18:44 Skylish: 01:45:282 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) -  my ver. is ok, no change and quite match the d&B + vocal
18:44 Chocola_2287: mild session from 02:36:025 (39) - 02:46:482 (113)  as well
18:45 Skylish: mild session will be nerfed
18:45 Chocola_2287: ok
18:45 Chocola_2287: 02:57:797 reduce volume here
18:45 Chocola_2287: 75%
18:46 Chocola_2287: 03:04:997 (6) -  change to dkddk k d
18:46 Skylish: the stream over 02:11:168 (144,166) -  will not be changed
18:46 Skylish: they are 10 notes + 10 notes patterns
18:47 Skylish: all vol. of the introduction part change into 75%
18:47 Chocola_2287: 03:06:968 (10) - k ? higher pitch...
18:48 Chocola_2287: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4812421
18:49 Skylish: 03:04:997 (6) -  the part behind the main body remains kkd
18:49 Skylish: 03:06:968 (10) -  k , yes
18:49 Chocola_2287: 03:20:768 80% is very loud, 65% ok?
18:50 Chocola_2287: 03:31:740 u can further reduce volume from here
18:50 Chocola_2287: but increase volume slowly after  that
18:51 Skylish: 65 % is good
18:51 Chocola_2287: 04:27:968 why kiai
18:52 Skylish: just remain the whole part as 65% is ok, no more decresc. need
18:53 Chocola_2287: 04:47:168 (142,143) - Isolated rip
18:53 Skylish: due to 01:51:625 (1) -
18:53 Chocola_2287: ok
18:53 Skylish: that's the problem of C&P
18:54 Chocola_2287: C&P?
18:54 Skylish: 04:47:254 - d added
18:54 Skylish: Copy & Paste (Only the main part)
18:54 Chocola_2287: if u a d there then I suppose ddk ddk ddk ddk
18:54 Chocola_2287: ddk ddkkddkkddk feels really weird
18:55 Chocola_2287: since the SE repeat 4 times (and no change to SE)
18:55 Skylish: yes, you are right
18:55 Chocola_2287: if u apply that, fix that in 02:10:482 (139) - as well for consistency

Aloda wrote:

I love this song Really good map too, I found very few issues and even then, they're minor ones.

POLYCHROME

00:20:768 (108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116) - I'm not sure whether you're trying to map this to the vocals or the d&b. I think this would match the d&b better, but if you're mapping to the vocals it's okay as is. > The vocal part is quite outstanding and that's why I put kkk at 00:21:111 - to make attention on the vocal part.

00:38:082 (109,110,111,112,113,114,115) - I think this matches the beat a little better than what you had.
> I change the order a little bit: kdkdddk. Nice idea though to prevent too boring patterns made.
00:47:168 (1) - I think this would be better as a normal k rather than a finisher D, particularly if you're mapping to the vocals. > ummm... I try to make the every first beat as D, despite the presence of high-pitch vocal.

01:39:797 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - Same as 00:38:082, although this one isn't too bad due to the presence of the vocals. > I modify the stream a bit: kkdkddk now

02:21:797 (1) - Same as 00:47:168 (1) > same effect which I would like to make.

03:54:197 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - Same as 01:39:797 >

04:16:140 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - ^

> ^ Fix all used-to-be boring streams with some minor variations.

As I said above, these are all very minor things. Great beatmap, I hope to see it ranked soon

• 
  
  Parts b4 the 1st kiai was kept to be a certain densely built pattern.
  Some patterns' flow are re-arranged according to all feedback.
  Variations are done among all chorus, while the 1st Kiai is slight less dense then others (without 7-plets).
  Remove severe over-mapping elements.

1. I think your hitsounds are generally a bit loud. Except the 5% ones, I think you should decrease them as 10%. (95% --> 85% for example)
2. 00:27:968 (37) - I don't really understand what these kinds of finishers represent. If it's keyboard, I think it's a bit overemphasized. Making it simple don will provide a good effect for it.
3. 00:47:168 (1) - Same issue as above. If you want to keep the finishers, 00:52:654 (1) - add also this one to make them consistent (a don finisher on every 2 stanza) on the verse part.
4. 01:13:911 - Add a don here because of these reasons: The gap between 01:13:740 (76,77) - these two feels weird if you compare to the rest of the map which is way intense, and, there is a prominent kick sound.
5. 01:28:311 - Instead of putting a 5% volume with a kat here, how about just deleting the note? If you do that, players won't struggle (I struggled because I was expecting a loud kat sound like a snare) that they missed or something. This goes on 02:57:453 (172) - here too.
6. 03:04:140 (10) - I think you need to delete this note in order to keep the density on the kiai part. You can keep the 2nd kiai version though, it'll provide some variation, but I think making first kiai with one more break is a good opinion.
7. 03:21:968 - From here to the spinner, I think you should remove the finishers. You've followed the keyboard change but I don't think they're strong enough to put finishers on them, especially 03:26:254 (14) - this one since it contains a crash cymbal sound, it doesn't fit with a lonely keyboard change.
8. 05:10:397 - Personal preference, but I'd lower the volume on the last spinner.

frukoyurdakul wrote:

Hello.

[POLYCHROME]

1. I think your hitsounds are generally a bit loud. Except the 5% ones, I think you should decrease them as 10%. (95% --> 85% for example)
   
   > take 90% as the compromised option
   
2. 00:27:968 (37) - I don't really understand what these kinds of finishers represent. If it's keyboard, I think it's a bit overemphasized. Making it simple don will provide a good effect for it.
   
   > this is a re-call of 00:22:482 - , both sections share a similar rhythms and melodies.
   
3. 00:47:168 (1) - Same issue as above. If you want to keep the finishers, 00:52:654 (1) - add also this one to make them consistent (a don finisher on every 2 stanza) on the verse part.
   
   > removed the Finisher, it seemed I mis-added it.
   
4. 01:13:911 - Add a don here because of these reasons: The gap between 01:13:740 (76,77) - these two feels weird if you compare to the rest of the map which is way intense, and, there is a prominent kick sound.
   
   > a clear cut for both vocal and instrumental part, check 01:13:225 - / 01:13:740 - for instruments.
   
5. 01:28:311 - Instead of putting a 5% volume with a kat here, how about just deleting the note? If you do that, players won't struggle (I struggled because I was expecting a loud kat sound like a snare) that they missed or something. This goes on 02:57:453 (172) - here too.
   
   > a completion of common 16 notes stream is more natural, so I would keep those 5% notes. The barely noticeable 5% vol. is for the breathing in sound in the vocal.
   
6. 03:04:140 (10) - I think you need to delete this note in order to keep the density on the kiai part. You can keep the 2nd kiai version though, it'll provide some variation, but I think making first kiai with one more break is a good opinion.
   
   > removed, same as 01:34:997 -
   
7. 03:21:968 - From here to the spinner, I think you should remove the finishers. You've followed the keyboard change but I don't think they're strong enough to put finishers on them, especially 03:26:254 (14) - this one since it contains a crash cymbal sound, it doesn't fit with a lonely keyboard change.
   
   > Finishers are for the base, they fit the base chords.
8. 05:10:397 - Personal preference, but I'd lower the volume on the last spinner.
   
   > No change

Pattern-wise suggestions are related to these. There might be related ones that I didn't mention, so if you accept any of these suggestions, apply those parts as well in order to keep the map consistent.

> checked.

Now, 2nd issue that caught in my eye: You used finishers way too much. Most of them don't even emphasize any particular sound, which makes the finisher feel empty, hence I recommend you to look upon the finishers you've put. My recommendation will be putting on only where crash cymbal exists or, on your way, strong keyboard sound changes, but most of them should be removed in my opinion.

> Fixed the consistent usages of Finishers

Call me back when you're done about it

1. 00:27:968 (37) - I understand consistency is important, hence you put the finisher. But, sound-wise (drums) 00:25:225 - 00:27:968 - these two are pretty similiar. Either add finisher on the first one I mentioned (which won't be my suggestion) or delete the 2nd one (this would be better).
2. 00:49:054 (5) - Same goes on with this one as well.
3. 01:13:911 - Upon your keyboard hit argument, there is also a hit on that spot, if you mute the samples, it is hearable. Hence, I still recommend you to add a don here.
4. 01:15:968 (88) - This finisher also feels empty, and I don't know what it supports.
5. 01:35:168 (1) - Same as above. You need only one finisher on the first part of the kiai, which you already used.
6. 02:19:054 (1) - Finisher issue again ;w;
7. 02:43:054 - There is also a keyboard hit here. (In fact the keyboard is 1/4 here but that's not the case )
8. 03:26:254 (14) - If you want to keep the finisher on this keyboard sound, at least turn it to don in order to keep it consistent with other keyboard sounds.
9. 03:28:997 (20) - Same as above.
10. 04:49:911 - Keep the volume as 90% on this, after that decrease the volume to 55%. The sound on it is still pretty high.

frukoyurdakul wrote:

Recheck.

[POLYCHROME]

1. 00:27:968 (37) - I understand consistency is important, hence you put the finisher. But, sound-wise (drums) 00:25:225 - 00:27:968 - these two are pretty similiar. Either add finisher on the first one I mentioned (which won't be my suggestion) or delete the 2nd one (this would be better).
   
   > Normally we consider a non-specified section in a dnb song is 4 bars, i.e. 00:22:482 - / 00:27:968 - has 4 bars. They are not similar to 00:25:225 - because of the comprehensive pattern usages of ddk ddk ddk, the most prominent one.
   
2. 00:49:054 (5) - Same goes on with this one as well.
   
   > umm? what's wrong with this little don? Perhaps you are refering to 00:47:168 - ? With the vocal part joining in, the emphases putting on the drum set will be diminished, so as the usages of Finishers.
   
3. 01:13:911 - Upon your keyboard hit argument, there is also a hit on that spot, if you mute the samples, it is hearable. Hence, I still recommend you to add a don here.
   
   > (what is keyboard referring to actually? do you mean Piano, I am a bit confused) 01:11:168 (63,64,65) - those beep beep sfx have stronger dynamic then 01:13:911 - , meanwhile as said, extra focus is put on the instrumental halt at 01:13:225 - / 01:13:740 - . The break there shows a nice breaking in both terms (instrumental melody and sfx remix)
   .
4. 01:15:968 (88) - This finisher also feels empty, and I don't know what it supports.
   
   > It is for re-engagement of base chord part and the upcoming bar of drum set solo. The rationale is that: Finisher will be most likely put in instrumental solo part, or in transition part. Here it is.
   
5. 01:35:168 (1) - Same as above. You need only one finisher on the first part of the kiai, which you already used.
   
   > 4 bars one section principle again, it is not about consistency and similarity now, but it is more like personal interpretation on the musical expression with the usage of extra Finisher. Imo 'wa te ku~u~' at 01:35:168 - is a highlight-worthy part, hence Finisher.
   
6. 02:19:054 (1) - Finisher issue again ;w;
   
   > 00:49:911 - / 02:19:054 - they are the same, represent the transitions of rhythm in terms of breaks at 00:50:082 - / 02:19:225 -
   
7. 02:43:054 - There is also a keyboard hit here. (In fact the keyboard is 1/4 here but that's not the case )
   
   > same principle as explained above
   
8. 03:26:254 (14) - If you want to keep the finisher on this keyboard sound, at least turn it to don in order to keep it consistent with other keyboard sounds.
   
9. 03:28:997 (20) - Same as above.
   
   > 03:26:254 (14,20) - they belong to high-pitch bass chords among the calm section, so they are Kat.
   
10. 04:49:911 - Keep the volume as 90% on this, after that decrease the volume to 55%. The sound on it is still pretty high.
    
    > yup, fixed.

I can accept the kiai finishers though. Call me back when you're done.

Chromoxx wrote:

sorry, but i'll have to pop/veto this map for awkward flow, emphasis and pattern placement.

- first a quick thing about the start, when comparing the pitch of 00:00:540 - 00:01:911 - to 00:03:282 - 00:04:654 - (goes for the second repetition too) the second stamps are kinda lower pitch so mapping them both the same becomes unneccesarily repetitive and doesn't emphasize the music to the full extent

> within a section, the pitch flow is presented as concrete d k / d k. This is made very obviously I believe.

- 00:10:997 - missing a drum here

> 00:10:482 (45,46,47) - extreme distinct vocal 1/1 notes expression for their first-joining, later on after 00:11:511 - , density is increased again. This is a nice progression, and clear mapping concept is shown.


- 00:19:740 - the transition to d here is pretty awkward since people would be expecting a color swap on the main ticks, following the rhythm you had before, also not having one here kinda underemphasizes it

> vocal pitch following, with very easy ddddkkkk pattern matching previous engagements from 00:16:997 - .

- 00:20:425 - then we have the general pattern starting from here which is kinda awkward and doesn't really emphasize anything well.. you said in your description that you were going for vocal emphasis, but this kinda gets completely lost with this pattern. 00:20:597 - having this as k, for instance destroys any difference in emphasis between the vocal and non-vocal sounds. the best option here would be to group the vocals, i.e. having them all be either d or k in order to make emphasis clearer. The general d k d/k d k rhythm you have going on here, doesn't really bring this across well, the same goes for 00:21:282 - being d

> I did not say I only do for vocal emphasis, I map to all musical elements if possible. Sfx is put at the bottom of preference. 00:20:425 - d k d k in 1/1 = vocal pitch emphases. 00:21:282 - same, even an extra focus is put on the drum kick at 00:21:454 - .


- 00:24:025 - then we have triplets like these, the music is very clear 1/2 sounds of the same pitch yet you decide to emphasize them as d k d k (k d k d later)? triplets in general don't really give the feel of equal emphasis that these notes would deserve, but not even having the 1/2 hits be the same color destroys any emphasis on the song here, if you want to keep the triplets i would highly suggest at least having them be kdk/dkd.

> simple and typical ddk usages here are for natural and expected introduction of the main melody. Emphasis here is for the kat's position and timing, which is consistent.

- 00:32:425 - then we have unwarranted awkward/strain points like this, where there is nothing particular strong to emphasize, yet you decide to go with an awkwardly flowing pattern such as having 3 1/2 ks in a row, which breaks the previous rhythm.

> 00:32:425 (68,69,70) - is around the highest sfx pitch, k k k for sure is to represent the pitch flow in terms of colour.

- then we have the general overuse of kdddk in points like 00:38:254 - and over the entire map in general, this pattern doesn't flow particularly well and is more suited for drum emphasis, such as 01:26:940 - , using it everywhere else also kinda makes it lose emphasis in points like this, especisally when more interesting/better flowing patterns could be used instead.

> high density right b4 Finisher, this is a very basic mapping rationale thorough the whole map.

- 01:00:882 - this stretch also flows pretty awkwardly, first the overuse of kdd as a pattern, then having stuff like k k k 1/2 (01:01:054 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - 01:01:911 (9,10,11,12,13,14) - ) makes the entire emphasis here kinda messy, especially when the k k k stuff is at the start where individual emphasis shouldn't even be that strong

> 01:01:740 - first transition, 3 consecutive triplets to replace the uses of Finisher at 01:02:254 - ; 01:02:940 - second transition, n nnn repeat another 3 times. A very clear '3 3 3' concept is shown.


anyway, this is just about up to 1/5th of the map and should already give enough examples as to what the problems here are, good luck!

Chromoxx wrote:

sorry, but i'll have to pop/veto this map for awkward flow, emphasis and pattern placement.

- first a quick thing about the start, when comparing the pitch of 00:00:540 - 00:01:911 - to 00:03:282 - 00:04:654 - (goes for the second repetition too) the second stamps are kinda lower pitch so mapping them both the same becomes unneccesarily repetitive and doesn't emphasize the music to the full extent

In the song, it is various, hence the patterns can be various too. The pitch change on the music could be represented with the density of kats, which, in your case, the densities are the same.

- 00:10:997 - missing a drum here

No need to map it, since he is clearly following the vocals.

- 00:19:740 - the transition to d here is pretty awkward since people would be expecting a color swap on the main ticks, following the rhythm you had before, also not having one here kinda underemphasizes it

Vocal pitch change could be an argument for it, but 00:16:997 - starting from here you emphasized the prominent kick sounds with kats, so I think you should keep continuing following drums on 00:19:740 - this stream (Also there is a fact that it's somehow overmapped too much) like kdkdkdkkd or something.

- 00:20:425 - then we have the general pattern starting from here which is kinda awkward and doesn't really emphasize anything well.. you said in your description that you were going for vocal emphasis, but this kinda gets completely lost with this pattern. 00:20:597 - having this as k, for instance destroys any difference in emphasis between the vocal and non-vocal sounds. the best option here would be to group the vocals, i.e. having them all be either d or k in order to make emphasis clearer. The general d k d/k d k rhythm you have going on here, doesn't really bring this across well, the same goes for 00:21:282 - being d

No need to change the first one I think, he don't have to emphasize the lower vocal with don, he just emphasized it with kat. But, I agree on 2nd point.

- 00:24:025 - then we have triplets like these, the music is very clear 1/2 sounds of the same pitch yet you decide to emphasize them as d k d k (k d k d later)? triplets in general don't really give the feel of equal emphasis that these notes would deserve, but not even having the 1/2 hits be the same color destroys any emphasis on the song here, if you want to keep the triplets i would highly suggest at least having them be kdk/dkd.

Could be done on some patterns, since the music is repetitive in itself, some patterns could be varied to kdk dkd and some can be left as kkd ddk in my opinion.

- 00:32:425 - then we have unwarranted awkward/strain points like this, where there is nothing particular strong to emphasize, yet you decide to go with an awkwardly flowing pattern such as having 3 1/2 ks in a row, which breaks the previous rhythm.

00:32:254 (66,69) - These two could be changed to dons, since there are no prominent sounds on them. Having the 5-plets is obviously a build-up pattern to the DON finisher which contains strong drum and some kind of dizzle sound (idk what it is) but the kat density on the patterns should be decreased as well. So, I agree on this too.

- then we have the general overuse of kdddk in points like 00:38:254 - and over the entire map in general, this pattern doesn't flow particularly well and is more suited for drum emphasis, such as 01:26:940 - , using it everywhere else also kinda makes it lose emphasis in points like this, especisally when more interesting/better flowing patterns could be used instead.

I disagree on this. Even though it does not emphasize any particular drum sound, it flows well, so this can be keeped. If all of the patterns meant to be emphasize any particular sound, this map would be boring as hell since there is nothing really a 1/4 sound except the drum attacks.

- 01:00:882 - this stretch also flows pretty awkwardly, first the overuse of kdd as a pattern, then having stuff like k k k 1/2 (01:01:054 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - 01:01:911 (9,10,11,12,13,14) - ) makes the entire emphasis here kinda messy, especially when the k k k stuff is at the start where individual emphasis shouldn't even be that strong

Those patterns could be changed to emphasize vocals with kats as well, since the main point of your map is to map which is more prominent (in this case, vocals), and they are various in themselves. While some of them snapped on white ticks (such as 01:00:882 - or 01:01:225 - ), some of them are snapped on red ticks (01:01:397 - or 01:01:740 - ). On longer vocal sounds, you can use kkd, since you didn't use any of them on this section.

anyway, this is just about up to 1/5th of the map and should already give enough examples as to what the problems here are, good luck!