Flash Flash Revolution - Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Flash Flash Revolution (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)

- FFR Batch Forum (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=100)

- - Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=116884)

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonid (Post 3409429)

Just sent minor fixes for AcidAce-Alliance and Ark

AcidAce-Alliance should have 859 notes, and Ark should have 747 notes.

PLEASE USE THE FIXED VERSIONS INSTEAD OF THE ONES I SENT BEFORE.

In case you didn't see this

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Three of these were in the chunk I judged, so I guess those ratings are expected, looking at my notes...

Gotta Catch 'em All (SKG_Scintill) - Yes. I'm totally fine with this going in-game as-is, though a few minor fixes would be nice.
Scavenger (Plan_Bsk81127) - Yes with fixes. Needs some PR tweaking before happy face.
Metro (DossarLX ODI) - Very yes.

Famicom Selecta (MrPopadopalis25) - Yes with fixes.
Offset: -0.024
The PR in the intro should be better.
b197.25: Missed a 16th.
b255: I would have jumped to a melody so it's not always going to the percussion here, but that's my pref.
b348: The 24ths should have some swing in them.

Famicom Selecta (Dark Chrysalis) (I looked at the one from the previous batch because I didn't see this in the most recent one?)
Would rather see the other file in game, I think. But as said, a collab would be nice.
Sync is off.
Missed a few 16ths in there.
b230: I like how the eighths keep with the background trilling noise thing.
The jumps get iffy at b295. May be better to concentrate on one sound.
Same thing about the last notes having swing.

Customstuff:

Pretty sure that changing what I mentioned as "errors" won't make the file any less fun.
The 44433322 pattern is fine, just needs to be rotated for the different pitches.
For this note: "b143, b151 ... don't need a jump with b147 not being a jump," you don't need to change that. I just noticed the other sound there that makes the way you layered that work.
The other "errors" are too minor to make a difference in "fun"ness.

I'm cool with giving this a +. and letting it in the conditional queue, though.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Appeal for -Glorious Morning-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvuh

Grade: +?
The sync gets a 48th to a whole 24th off. May have minor BPM changes, within like a .05 difference.
"some of the jumps at the start could be single notes instead of all jumps" Some of the jumps you removed, though, were emphasized enough to be jumps, like b16, b24, b27, b48
If you decided to ignore the melody here, may as well take out the 12ths at b158–159
I don't hear the 24ths at b190–192 or at b220–222
"imo 24ths shouldn't start or end in jumps" instances: b96, b199, b207, b215, b240, b247.
b96 is just too emphasized to not be a jump. But perhaps now that you've added 24ths in 12th stream, the difficulty is great enough that this isn't important.
Now that you're consistently putting jumps to the sound every two fourths later, that's fine, and you missed one at b225.
You don't put the jump at b231, which is inconsistent with the jumps near the 24ths I mentioned at b199, b207, b215 (so remove those or add the other one.)

You were actually the only one this time to point out sync so I don't know what to do for that. No one else commented on it and I've been tampering with that sync since last summer [ask Halogen]. The missed jumps in the beginning I was fishy about myself so I will add those in, as well as in the one jump I missed at b231. “If you decided to ignore the melody here, may as well take out the 12ths at b158–159” Didn’t understand what you were talking about here, looked all over that section for significant 24ths and there was only one to the drum. “Now that you're consistently putting jumps to the sound every two fourths later, that's fine, and you missed one at b225.” There was no snare tap here. That’s why it’s not a jump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref

Grade: +?
Playtest: There were some tricky 24th patterns here, which was nice to see, but many of them felt random (like you threw in notes in random columns wherever they wouldn't intersect) and that does make them kind of awkward.
Editor: If you have 24ths in stream sections in some places, you should do that in other places too (earliest is m26/28/30) - be consistent. Use climax theory in similar sections by adding jumps or making harder patterns, not by dropping rhythms. If you listen closely you can hear that some 24th bursts (like those in m50-54) are actually only 5 notes instead of 7, so be careful. In places like m33-39, you should step all 12ths in the drums and the melody, because given the difficulty the file feels incomplete without those notes.

You tell me to use climax theory, yet you didn't understand that not putting the 24ths in the stream in the beginning IS climax theory. Felt that was an oxymoron. The stream in the beginning is to emphasize the melody, the slow part in the middle is to emphasize the drums, and the stream at the end is to bring out both aspects of the song at the end in one big fun part [climax theory].

Quote:

Originally Posted by kommisar

Grade: +.
-starting at m37 following the melody would be nice. it adds to progressive layering and prevents repetitiveness
-you follow lots of percussion, but if you want to step the song, sometimes it would be good to follow the melody.

Funny thing about your first comment is in my last submit, I did partially step the melody in that section, then [I believe] I was asked to take it out, saying to follow the snare by itself. If it’s a super big problem I’d put it back in because I liked it the other way as well. And the entire beginning is melody XD the ending too with the snare as well to add to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

Grade: +
Great file. There was a distinct buildup, and you used the drama of the song well. I'd love to play this on FFR. What's holding you back from a ++ from me is that this song has a *lot* of potential and you didn't utilize that. There were so many opportunities where you could have hit players in the face with big notes, forcing them to slam down on their keyboards to mimic the energy of the song. I didn't feel that here.

Must say I appreciate the positive feedback. Main thing I can say to you is that I didn't want to push the difficulty too much, but I see your point.

So short version: fixed missed jumps and explained why things were the way they were.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I just meant like this:

b187: The 4th jumps should be AAB, not ABB.

I changing that results in having to change the 16ths around it, which make it FEEL less pitch relevant and not as fun IMO.

But most other things, I agree are minor. I changed the jumps with grace notes to normal notes with grace notes and it didn't make it less fun.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I got metro and played it and that is one of the most unfortunate charts I've ever walked into.

It doesn't flow with the song. The patterns are garbage. Please completely rework that thing I'm going to cry if it gets accepted. Is everyone passing it because they have trouble playing it so they can't judge it accurately? That's the only reason I can figure that it didn't just get - - - -

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I'm glad silvuh gave me some constructive critique xd

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

ichliebekase:

62.836s:

The two 12ths there only go to the melody you aren't stepping.
Cool with the other stuff.

And as for the sync, here; this will work much better:
#OFFSET:-0.072585;
#BPMS:0=152,94=158.405,95=147.656,96=156.023,97=152,119=160.247,120=151.442,121=153.125,122=150.89,123=148.719,124=150.89,125=154.574,125.667=126.815,126=162.132,127=152.56,128=148.719,129=152,157=145.577,158=152,159=158.107,159.667=141.097,160=158.405,161=152,176=159.628,177=152,185=151.165,186=152.842,187=148.719,188=158.405,189=152,255=143.555,256=150.341,257=152,264=157.801,265=146.609,266=159.014,267=152.56,268=150.89,269=151.729,269.667=136.006,270=152;

customstuff:

You don't have to move the 16ths.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quote:

Originally Posted by aperson (Post 3409870)

Idk, I couldn't evaluate the file properly because of it's difficulty. All I can say is that the song only has replay value for the small number of people who can play at that level. At my own skill level, I wouldn't take it.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

woop my files didnt get crushed and got some useful feedback

ill fix coloris right up and resubmit it next batch 8-)

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvuh (Post 3409874)

customstuff:

You don't have to move the 16ths.

I went back after saying that and came up with the same pattern, ahaha.
I also missed a kick where there wasn't any other sounds so I added that in xD

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

First off, a file shouldn't be thrown out just because one judge gave a very low score. Considering that some judges are harsh enough to give an occasional ? or - because they don't like the style of the file or song, I think instead of 17/20 points out of the 4 judges we would be better off asking for 14/15 points out of 3 judges, with the worst grade being removed. Files which get 13 could be considered borderline.

My votes:
Famicom Selecta (D) - yes
Gotta Catch 'em All (SKG_Scintill) - yes w/ changes
Scavenger (Plan_Bsk81127) - yes
Metro (DossarLX ODI) - yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmah (Post 3409876)

All I can say is that the song only has replay value for the small number of people who can play at that level. At my own skill level, I wouldn't take it.

Right, isn't this true for ALL songs? At your skill level a playable 13 would be too hard; for more casual players anything 8+ might be impossibly fast, and only get played for mashed passes. On the other side, of course, I'm sure not going to play a very slow file (say, 1-6 difficulty) over and over, because even if I love the song it's just not physically interesting to play for me. And even a 7-9 would only get replayed after I AAA it if it's an awesome file (++ worthy or nearly). But I'm not going to throw a 3 out of the game just for being a 3, and I think you should do the same for a 13. Don't just think of yourself, think of the file and how the community would think of it.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

ap if i judged all the files like you did as i would like, everyone would be butthurt and question my judgment.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I agree with qqwref. The criteria for admission here is pointlessly and often problematically strict. It reminds me of poorly structured group assignments. As of right now, most of the files in the batch were made competently enough that disagreements will come from stylistic differences and not objective issues like sync or pattern contradiction. I judged based on how I liked the files from my style's perspective, because that's all you can do, but it's frustrating to know that one bad rating from me might mean that someone's file didn't get in the game. Throwing a bunch of people at a batch doesn't make an accepted file somehow objectively better -- it makes it lucky that it didn't get conflicting judges.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quote:

Which is why I stated that I couldn't fairly make a proper evaluation and didn't provide an official judgment on Metro. In addition, there are a lot less people at a higher skill level than a lower one, so while you can surely apply the generalization you've illustrated to any situation, there are surely more people who can play and enjoy a 9 than a 13, and more that may enjoy a 7 than a 9.

If anything qq, I'm constantly trying to think of how the community may react to these things, which is why I've made an attempt in this batch to make easier songs (failed attempt I must say). I try to diversify my files and make various considerations when reviewing files of varying patterns, styles, and difficulties. Sometimes awkward patterns might be a welcome change for instance, than a typical spread pattern. Or perhaps this sort of file would appeal to xx audience. So far, I won't give a specific grade for Metro. Selfishness is the last thing on my mind, got it?

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

rough.

btw if i sent multiple charts (two separate songs) does it count as 1 file or 2

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Two.

Arch sent two difficulties of XP Sounds last batch, and that also would be considered 2 files.

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

screw it then, nobody would play mathsma attack shd

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch0wl (Post 3409936)

I agree with qqwref. The criteria for admission here is pointlessly and often problematically strict.

Are you kidding look at some of the stuff that gets accepted

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I wouldnt mind Metro being in, FFR needs more like hard hard songs like high FGO+, there are a nice chunk of players that are narrowing down to only having like 2ish difficulties left to play from because they have AAA'd everything else. If you dont bring in more real hard file people are just going to end up being bored with FFR due to getting sick of playing the same 2 difficutlties over and over.