1. AriLights' Oni (6.1 stars, 2632 notes)

Noffy wrote:

if we count ahri's post you're actually second

third

Stefan wrote:

drop da base wub wub wuuub

[Collab Oni]

Weird, weird... anyways, fix the SV here. Changed.

02:37:082 (1155,1156) - to swap them might be better, it sounds better at least. Changed.
02:42:416 (1215,1216) - ^ Changed.

Well, the last points applies for the 2nd half as well. Good map! shit mod by me ;w; Thank you for the mod!

Stefan wrote:

drop da base

[Collab Oni]

Weird, weird... anyways, fix the SV here.

00:10:998 (55) - I'd say, just consistency-wise to remove this note, it'd be with 00:11:082 (56,57,58,59) - the same as 00:12:082 (65,66,67,68,69,70,71) - or 00:05:415 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - . Honestly this is fine imo, since the stream before this makes it a little bit awkward if I try to make it consistent. It doesn't sound bad and it is not weird to play imo.
00:16:665 (109) - I see that the vocal has high priority at the begin but I find this note doesn't really fits here if you ask me. It does fit with the background rhythm, so I'll keep it.
00:48:582 (425) - , 00:48:998 (428) - and 00:48:915 - Make (425) as k, (428) as d and add on 00:48:915 - a k note. I find some emphasis with the doubles are missing and the addition of the dkkdk pattern makes it way better imo. Same for the following parts. This was made on purpose, simply because I didn't want to abuse the use of dk, and adding a note there is not really appealing with how I'm mapping this part. I tried to make it easy so the next part (which gets more intense) can have a better emphasis.
02:12:999 (945,947,948) - You could make (945) as k, remove (947) and make (948) as k. So you get kkkkddkkd k D which has a better emphasis for the vocals (on 02:13:248 - and 02:13:082 - ). Instead I'll change 02:13:082 - to k and remove 02:13:165 - , because it sounds awkward if 02:13:082 - is not a k, and also, if I change 02:13:415 - to K, it would ruin the consistency with the next patterns, making it awkward and not fitting with that rhythm.

Well, the last points applies for the 2nd half as well. Good map! shit mod by me ;w;

Lost The Lights wrote:

Ari, can you apply this for me? Thanks.

JessiChan wrote:

Hello~ M4M req.

Note: My english is very bad but i try. c:

d Little Don
k Little Kat
D Big Don
K Big Kat

AriLight's Oni

00:09:748 (41,42) - ctrl + g y 00:09:998 (44,45) - ctrl + g Es para que haga juego con lo que viene sonando anteriormente a este patrón. Esto está siguiendo las vocales, no sigo los ritmos anteriores, por eso es como está.
00:20:832 (149) - d Creo que quedaría mejor así ya que para mi se oye como un sonido grave (si no sabes qué es, quiere decir bajo o... algo así)(? Me gusta, lo cambio.

Cute map, GL.

Lost The Lights wrote:

Ari, apply this for me, thx.

JessiChan wrote:

AriLight's Oni

00:27:582 (216,217,218) - ctrl + g Para que haga juego con lo que viene sonando, recuerda siempre seguir lo que se oye de fondo, ya que gracias a este seguimiento que se oye desde el inicio, es que se da la canción completa, digamos que es su característica principal. Changed.
00:30:082 (240,241,242,243,244,245,246) - ^ El mismo patrón, por favor, para que tenga consistencia. Changed.
00:40:249 (340) - and this 00:40:582 (344) - d Creo que suena mejor Changed the first one, but not the second one.
01:24:748 (641) - d Lo mismo^ The piano is clearly higher than the note before it.
01:29:415 (655) - d 01:30:082 (657,658) - ctrl + g Lo mismo, suena mejor ya que sigue con lo que está sonando. ^
01:33:415 (681) - 01:36:082 (703) - 01:38:748 (725) - d As well as you started here 01:30:748 (659) - The k's are emphasizing the repeat of the rhythm, and the more prominent piano tone.
01:46:082 (762) - d Refer to what I said about this before.
02:37:915 (1163) - ^ That would be ignoring the melody. ;__;
02:40:582 (1193) - ^ ^
02:43:248 (1223) - ^ ^
02:44:748 (1239) - 02:45:082 (1243) - d dkkd doesn't really sound right, and plays relatively badly.
02:48:582 (1282) - d Refer to what I said about this before.
02:51:249 (1312) - ^ ^
02:53:915 (1342) - ^ ^
02:55:748 (1354) - ^ ^
04:13:915 (2065) - 04:16:582 (2095) - 04:19:248 (2125) - 04:20:748 (2141) - 04:21:082 (2145) - 04:24:582 (2184) - 04:27:249 (2214) - 04:29:915 (2244) - 04:31:415 (2259) - 04:31:748 (2263) - d Generalmente lo que resta es lo mismo, son partes en que me parece que hay sonidos más graves, además de que como ya comenté hay un verso constante en la canción que viene ya desde el inicio, si seguimos esto (no quiere decir que todos los patrones sean iguales, pueden variar, solo que tengan la misma continuidad de la canción) puede darnos un buen resultado. :3 Sorry that I didn't really agree with most of these things, since they were mainly the same things over and over again. ;__;

Bubblun wrote:

Short Mod.

00:07:832 - While your triples are okay, I think you could mix it up a bit because this part seems a little boring. If you place a note here, you create a 5-note stream, which to me makes it more interesting. LTL nor I agreed with this suggestion, it doesn't really seem fitting if there's no real change in the music here to support this. And it would also ruin the overall consistency through this part. :v
00:46:498 - Nothing wrong with keeping it, but removing this note here will add some arrangement to the stream. This stream is already different than all of the other ones within this part, because it's leading into the next section. It has enough buildup in the background to warrant the longer pattern.
01:12:082 (621,622,623,624) - Why do these 4 notes have finishes on them? This part doesn't sound very intense. These are the 4 notes that are leading into the calm part. It seems very plain to just have them as d's if they're all by themselves.
02:45:193 (1244) - Sounds better if this note is a don instead of a kat. The sound in this 1/6 is literally the same as 02:44:748 - . I don't see why they should be different if they're exactly the same.

Nwolf wrote:

weff

[Diff]

Would recommend HP5/5.5 instead because marathon length and stuff.

00:25:832 (201) - kd(dddk) is not beautiful make this a kat for my sanity please thanks i love you and this is exactly why I'm keeping it :^) no but seriously, I don't think this is THAT bad, I can play it just fine and it sounds nice as it is right now.

02:01:915 - meanwhile I expect here and there's nothing *leaves* Not the same mapper, of course it won't be the same thing :^)


02:59:582 (1382,1383,1384) - vs. 02:56:998 (1361,1362) - is inconsistent make it consistent pls Eh, sure.


03:00:970 (1393) - please let me keep my sanity and change this to a don, ~no one~ likes snap changes on the same color

aka me This was made on purpose. I would've made it (k k d)kdkkd but I wanted to have 03:06:082 - which has a finisher at the end, and having all kats before makes it easier to fit the finisher.

> 02:58:193 (1370) - could be changed to don too then for ~variety~ I'm keeping this. This sounds fine as it is, since 02:58:304 - sounds lower than 02:58:193 - imo.

rinse and repeat if not denied Too bad, it was DENIED.


03:16:082 (1523,1524,1525,1526,1527,1528) - song sounds more like kdkdkd to me
03:16:582 (1529,1530,1531,1532) - logic dictates this becomes kkkd then
unless you do dkdkdkd Honestly, having kkkkkk(dddk) has a better feeling, since the kats give the vocal a better feeling of continuation, and I'm keeping the dddk because it's the same sound as 00:25:915 - (even if it's a different part)

nice map tbh



05:14:582 - did LTL map this part Maybe.

Nwolf wrote:

weff

[Diff]

Would recommend HP5/5.5 instead because marathon length and stuff. Easy marathon, let's go fam.

00:45:832 (397) - Removing this might help splitting the stream and emphasizing stuff nicer Alright, removed.

01:33:082 (677,678,679,680) - why do you hate me Changed it to kkd.
on a more serious note: I would really recommend making this non-1/6. There is no sound suggesting 1/6 here - it's the same as the bar before, and the bar after. 01:35:749 (699,700,701,702) - On the other hand has louder (and longer??) snare so there 1/6 makes 1% sense.
> 01:38:415 - same
01:41:082 (743,744,745,746) - such variation much weff I tried super hard for this magnificent pattern right here.

02:44:748 (1239,1240,1241,1242,1243,1244,1245,1246) - I will suffer in silence I know this is will stay ):< Don't hate on the few times that I use 1/6, please and thank you!

04:00:082 - I don't actually understand the finisher pattern here. Drums would be 2/1, the melody would be d K D. Currently I think the finishers lose emphasis Changed.

nice map tbh Thanks fam.

05:14:582 - did LTL map this part Maybe.

Nwolf wrote:

looks fine tbh, #1

Lost The Lights wrote:

HYPE