Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[AlexDest]

Originally Posted by MarioNintendo

Why didn't you people tell me I lacked skill before giving me the job?

...you've given more detailed notes in previous batches. Not sure why you have to be told this.

[TC_Halogen]

Silvuh found a mistake in the calculations of the spreadsheet, which caused a few SAP values to be off (file averages went up a tiny bit). Those changes are denoted by bold/green.

Simfile Artist Points
NORMALIZED SCORE THRESHOLD: 6.7

PASSED FILES:
Get Squirrely (1), Holy Winter (1), Lawn Wake III (1), Sincerity (1), Visitor (1)

MISSING RATING: Aventyr (1)

SAP +4 -- 9.0 <= x => 9.5
A Yodeler In Texas (gameboy42690)

SAP +3 -- 8.3 <= x => 9.0
Autumn Breeze (Silvuh)
Fill Me Up with Snacky Happiness (gameboy42690)
It’s Over (SKG_Scintill)

SAP +2 -- 7.5 <= x => 8.3
Arianrhod (hi19hi19)
Artemis (DarkZtar)
Axel Man (hi19hi19)
Chaos (SKG_Scintill)
Clockwork Gearman (YoshL)
Day’s End (Silvuh)
Daybreak (Fission)
Direct Advance (MrPopadopalis25)
EOS (ilikexd)
Electric Butterfly (ilikexd)
FUSE!! (SKG_Scintill)
Gee [Areia Remix] (DarkZtar)
Gonna Take You Down! (Reshiram)
Kirlian Isles I (yo man im awesome)
Laplace (DarkZtar)
Live and Learn (Zen Death Squad Remix) (DossarLX ODI)
Malicious Fingers (Silvuh)
Neurotoxin (Reshiram)
Run Away (bmah)
Scrambooch (Silvuh)
Senorita Bonita (hi19hi19)
Sneakman (Silvuh)
T&J (ilikexd)
Tsumeawase Pt. 3 (bmah)
Twirling Star (Wayward Vagabond)
warm sea (Silvuh)
We Are The Vampires (gameboy42690)

SAP +1 - 6.7 <= x => 7.5
Accelerator (MarioNintendo)
Artificial Rose (hi19hi19)
Black (YoshL)
Eirin’s Clinic that People Queue Up (MrPopadopalis25)
Euphoria v2 (DossarLX ODI)
Fading Star (VisD)
Indignant Divinity (Kyuji Sayomi)
Lawn Wake IX (ilikexd)
Monkey Island (PrawnSkunk)
NO MONEY DOWN LOW MONTHLY PAYMENTS (DossarLX ODI)
Once Upon a December (DarkZtar)
Play It Loud (gameboy42690)
Premium Pine (MrTea)
Prismatic Lollipops (Elite Ninja)
Ray of Moonlight (DarkZtar)
Still Blastin’ (SKG_Scintill)
Strength (bmah)
Timepiece phase II (High-transparency Mix) (bmah)
VALEDICT (VisD)
WANDERLUST (Gradiant)
Zanzibar Green (DossarLX ODI)

ACCEPTED FILES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SAP
Touhou Judgment in the Sixtieth Year – Fate of Sixty Years (FFR Pro 21 + Silvuh)
Euphoric Field (Final Shaft Remix) (Coolboyrulez0 + bmah)
lifework (Niala + bmah)

EXCEEDING CUTOFF BUT NOT ACCEPTED
Lawn Wake XI (MrPopadopalis25) – above accepted threshold, but lower than other Lawn Wake XI after scoring is normalized

My Fxxkin Desire For You v2 (gameboy42690) – too similar to in-game chart structurally, unfortunately

RESUBMISSION PRIVILEGES
To be determined when passed files have been judged and have finalized ratings (because the top 10 non-accepted files fall into this category, I want to make sure that the data is finalized).

I'll calculate the respective SAPs and add them into the OP tomorrow.

[yo man im awesome]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

SAP +2 -- 7.5 <= x => 8.3
Kirlian Isles I (yo man im awesome)

siiiicckk

[XelNya]

I don't think I've ever seen a file failed for being too easy. I have comments on Our Final Mourning but I'll type them when I get home. I'm earnestly confused about the notes, and how those scores are warented. I feel it is pretty bull shit. But I'll elaborate later.

[hi19hi19]

Posting mostly for my own use.

Glad to see the notes finally come out.
The only file I really tryharded on in this batch was Arianrhod, and I am pleased with the reviews it got.
The next batch, though, should be interesting

Arianrhod 8.5/8.5/7.5/7.5
Really just a standard FMO tryhard artfile, but it's cool that this was reviewed favorably. Good suggestions, too. There are definitely a few minor things for me to clean up but overall I am glad to see this get an 8.

63.785s: since the pitch is higher here i think you should use different patterns than the previous 24ths
69.035s: given how intense this section is, i think you can layer in the sound in the background which is faster than 12ths
115.10s: this is begging to be a quad imo


- personally i thing you could use more hands throughout the file for accenting the crash cymbals, but it's ok either way as i see you've used them for other sounds
- file is just really well done, very similar to what i had in my head listening to this song a while ago


X Don't send your files with CD titles; let anonymity weaken bias.
// Good layering and climax theory, just has a couple odd bursts.
3.78s: I don't hear the 64ths here.
26.97s and after the 4th, there aren't kicks here, so all these jumps are unnecessary.
30.84s: Another odd burst thing that doesn't have audible notes at 1.0x.
57.87s: Ghost 16th.
75.03s: Trill doesn't start until here. There are some ghost notes before this.
100.53s: Feels more emphasized than the last time, so the jumps here work.
3.787 - random weird burst unnecessary
33.035 - take a look at what you're stepping here, it feels really off
35.285 - places like these leave me wondering exactly what you're layering
48.972 - feels better with the 8th notes as not jumps
83.097 - jumpjacks may be a bit excessive here
a bit quirky, interesting layering choices, sometimes i disagree w/ what you're leaving out, but it works well I think. a little of clutter in that polyrhythm section to watch out for, but good job


- 4.72s,etc.: the minijacks get a bit tiring after a while, so honestly just normal 16th triplet patterns would do IMO
- 6.78s,7.16s,etc.: jump to piano chord?
- 45.22s,45.97s: two of the 24th groups are [13][24], which is a bit nasty; maybe change at least one of them to a less splittable pattern
- 49.16s: color theory maybe?
- 53.38s,88.63s,112.44s: missing 16th to drum
- 53.94s: I'm guessing you're just deliberately ignoring the 16ths here, which is fine since they could be dismissed as echoes
- 66.04-70.41s: oh darn, why didn't you add the small bursts that pop up throughout this section (the drums)?
- 82.16s: the piano is more dominant, which should be 16ths
- 111.22s,111.60s,111.97s: these could be jumps to accent the choppiness
- Summary: Pretty fun file, a few hiccups here and there, but nothing major.

Artificial Rose 8/7/7/7.5
Way higher ratings than I was expecting. A pretty generic file in my opinion, but apparently others enjoy it more than I do. I'll definitely be working on the repetition in the beginning, 3 reps followed by a short break then 3 more is probably too much even though the pattern is fun as hell.

too many seconds of silence in the beginning

23.088s: missing note
25.831s: missing note
81.881s: ghost note, it's just a gallop, remove the 1st note
92.852s: ^


X Don't send your files with CD titles; let anonymity weaken bias.
X Remove the path for graphics from the .sm file; it inconveniently triggers pop-ups before playing.
// Plays well and is consistent, but the climax theory is wonky.
// You could cut nearly three seconds of silence from the start of the .mp3.
33.20-42.97 and 44.17-53.94s are exact step copies, but the second repeat should be filled in more because another instrument comes in.
54.97-64.57s: Stepping the strings would make for better climax theory.
65.94-71.43s: This section could be filled in with more singles, because the next section has more jumps.
134.51-142.74s: Maybe break up the 4th anchor into fours or eights.
135.37s: Ghost 8th?
135.88-136.40s: The instrument these go to continues until 137.25s and has a lot more notes that you're not stepping, so maybe just don't step these. You don't step them at 141.54s.


22.059 - probably could have upped the layering even more here, since it's a climactic intro, not a de-climactic
just careful (a tiny bit, you're fine i think for the most part) with 1 hand trill usage, too much and it gets a bit....annoying i guess? (lack of better word)
76.916 - smiled at kick drum layering at 1
79.145 - smiled even harder well done
90.288 - kinda wish you added in some stuff for the bg drums (all these little white note sections), to add in a little flavor and to seperate it from the prev. iteration
109.831 - ideally, you could have put something for the woodwind melody in jumps or something, but w/e
134.516 - ???? the layering just dropped? what?
that end part confused me alot lol


- first of all, the artist is not "BoF 2012", but "8284"
- 0.00s,etc.: I sort of wish the chords had jumps in them, but I understand the need to use single arrows to highlight the cymbal crashes later on
- 25.83s: arrow to melody
- 33.03-54.80s: copypaste much? Same melody, but you have the opportunity to change it up!
- 54.97s: jump
- 60.33s: this 32nd is a ghost arrow
- 72.63-72.80s,75.20-75.54s: acknowledge the melody here. The first instance is a 16th and the second instance are a few 12ths.
- 79.14s: good usage of color theory
- 86.69s: ghost 8th
- 89.94s,etc.: in the second round, there are some interesting drum rhythms that I think you should try to add in for interest
- 114.29-114.37s: jumps to accented drums? Maybe check over other areas for accented sounds too.
- 139.66s: I hear it, but the 32nds just seem pretty quiet and is probably best ignored
- 144.63s,144.97s,145.32s: jumps to cymbal crashes. There are cymbal crashes after this, but I'd say those could be optional considering how your jumps change focus to accented percussions.
- Summary: Minor errors, some suggestions here and there. The beginning has some notable repetition that I would suggest you change though. Song and file is pretty dandy.

Axel Man 7.5/7/8/7.5
wtf high ratings. Glad to see people enjoy it though, I'm kind of fond of this ^_^
I'll look over the decision on when I step the bass vs. main melody again. It wasn't quite 100% clear, I agree.

-steps feel like they cut off a little sharp, i'd try an earlier fade out or something


X Don't send your files with CD titles; let anonymity weaken bias.
X Remove the path for graphics from the .sm file; it inconveniently triggers pop-ups before playing.
// It's not wrong, it's just not interesting. It's short and doesn't have much variation between the two repeats.


omg axel man
simple file, nothing too special, decent PR


- I never thought I'd see the theme song from Beverly Hill Cops on FFR, but here is a neat rendition of it in lieu of the 8-bit genre like Megaman games.
- 13.86s,22.50s,24.40s,etc.: could use better PR
- 18.72s,27.37s: might make more sense to start off with a 1234 roll here; although the up arrow has a slight emphasis, it doesn't make as much rhythmical sense (similarly, add an arrow at 59.80s)
- 25.88s: questionable arrow, considering your previous stepping
- 33.86s,74.94s: not part of the main melody, omit
- 37.10s,78.18s: a tough call if you had to choose between the interesting 16ths and just following the main melody which is more straightforward; I personally would lean towards the latter for sake of novice players
- 44.80s: missed arrow according to your previous layering
- Summary: Pretty simple file and mostly very straightforward. A few areas with minor issues, but I'm just nitpicking. Try to follow all of the main melody.

Endless Maze 5/6/5.5/8
Old file, interesting responses. Was interested to see the responses a 2008 era file would get... I'll keep working on it. The song is great.

62.043s: early note
63.889s: why are these not stepped as jumps like they were before?
67.582s: layering doesn't make sense in this section
74.966s: a lot of the minijacks don't make sense here, they go to ascending and descending sounds, but some of them are correct


-i didn't see much appeal in this at all. the first half is really empty compared to the second.
-layering wasn't very intuitive


intro silence
X Don't send your files with CD titles; let anonymity weaken bias.
X Remove the path for graphics from the .sm file; it inconveniently triggers pop-ups before playing.
From the beginning, you use the same pattern for the same instrument, but it could use a little variation: The first instance of the sound is very watery, the second less so, until the third, and from then on it's more than less the same. If you don't want to change the first two, at least alter 30.65s, because the kicks make it unique.
Also, the first pitches and repeats go ABCB, so something like 4131 would be more accurate.
43.58-44.38s: This one doesn't have percussion in it, so it shouldn't be the same pattern as the two before it.
44.96s: The sound the trill goes to has a frequency shift here.
45.42-58.35: The percussion doesn't sound like it's doing constant triples, so the steps feel like filler that ignores the two synth rhythms. Also, there's no musical reason for any three-note 8th anchors here. Can't tell how you decided between ABC and ABA 16th patterns; there's no pattern.
58.46s: This has all the same sounds on it and should be a jump, too. I would suggest pitching the 16th jumps to the synth that the 8th at 59.04s goes to.
60.88, 61.58d have no other instrument layered on it and should be a singles. The music doesn't emphasize this note more than 64.58s. It's actually 62.04s that has instruments layered, but you have a single there.
62.73s: Missed a low note here.
62.96-63.88s: This sounds like three 4ths to me rather than three 3/16ths.
66.65s: This arrow should be an 8th earlier.
67.58-74.96s: The layering here needs a total rework. There are two percussion and two synth instruments here, and the jumps follow none of them nor their layered sum.
73.58s: This one doesn't have any of the four instruments on it and shouldn't be a jump.
74.96-77.85s: These steps are over-simplified, and using 1 and 4 is the least fun choice of arrows.
75.52 is a noticeably different pitch and should not be on the same arrow as the 8th before it. Also, from here, the pitches go ABCA: there shouldn't be a minijack at 75.65s. Same goes for the other right-hand minijacks here.
78.77s: This jack should be on 2; it's not as low as 81.08s. Also, you just had a minijack on 1.
80.85s: This arrow can be moved out of the jack; it's a little lower it pitch than the others.
84.54, 84.65s: These should be a minijack.
87.53s: Similar to 78.77s.
89.04, 89.15s: These pitches are different.
89.73-s: The half-layering of the melody feels incomplete.
116.04-119.27s: The empty ending here subverts climax theory.


- 30.658: even with the introduction of newer musical elements, the chart remains unchanged; not very fond of this
- 58.466: jump would be appropriate here for the cymbal crash
- 62.043 to 67.582: make this a jump, it’s still a low-end synth accent similar to the ones you use jumps for immediately before this; there are missing notes/jumps for that same synth a bit more on, so add them in (or change them to singles, the choice is yours)
- 63.197: mis-rhythm; it’s just three 4th notes starting at 62.966
- 67.582 to 74.966: ambiguous jump usage; very unclear as to what takes precedence
- 74.966 to 89.735: not sure how I feel about this
- 89.735 to 119.332: while I understand syncopating the melody to add appropriate jump usage, it feels really awkward because there are some pretty prevalent notes missed; pitch relevance scheme is a bit convoluted because there is pitch relevance in the single taps that accent the same synth, but the jumps seem out of place
- file seems quite dated; doesn’t play nicely in some parts – structure could use some polishing


73.582+73.812 - singles please
74.966 - jump for emphasis
really liked what you did to make the song less boring w/ the jacks
101.158 - note for the melody
Felt a tiny bit empty, but there wasn't anything really wrong

Senorita Bonita 8/8/9/6
Cool. Nothing more to say, simple but fun chart, simple but positive reviews.

- s26.326: you could make this a jump to acknowledge the kick that is there.
- Chart stays simple and to the point, nothing more.


- 11.62, 13.80, 15.98: Missing jump
- 13.60: Careful of the patterning here, there's basically a hidden one handed minitrill here
- 18.16: The hands don't add any extra emphasis, they're more annoying than jumps that would do the job here
- 46.53, 48.71, 50.89: Missing jump
- 48.50: Same problem as 13.60
- 53.07: Same problem as 18.16
- 81.44, 83.62, 85.80: Missing jump
- 83.41: Same problem as 13.60
- If the missing jumps I mentioned above were to "prevent difficulty spikes", then the 32nd one handed 4-note trills and the 32nd-to-48th burst one handed transitions need to go.


- 13.576, (other instances with this rhythmic pattern): this creates a rather fast mini-trill, you might want to change this to be a bit smoother of a flourish
- I’ve got nothing else; this file is great!


19.099s: this 16th should be moved up by a 32nd, same goes for every other instance of that sound


- song drags a bit, and i don't think the jumptrills were the best way to step the sounsd at 26.871s etc, would be better to use hands for the guitar everywhere and jumps on the bass drum imo

The National Anthem of Japan 5/6.5/3/7
Dat 3... I submitted this file after seeing a new player that I showed the game to struggle with Free Space. I don't think many of the judges have a grasp of how hard getting into this game can be to some people. Not everyone is a teenage or 20something person with a decent sense of rhythm and hand-eye coordination. I want a file with no more than one arrow on the screen at any time at sub-1x rates, so that a player has maximum time to prepare and time each hit.
Every good game has that one level that seems, to most people, to be "condescendingly easy" but to someone, it's a lifesaver for getting them to understand the basics of the game and really get into it.
Of course, in all honesty I didn't expect this to go over huge with the judges. That's fine. In the future I will probably try submitting more sub 1 NPS files. Maybe a different song or different style will change opinions.

- Beginning sync is weird, it needs some adjusting.
- This shares the same problem with Our Final Mourning except without the gallop at the end.
- Any file with a lower TPS than Power is pushing it. If you want users to listen to a relaxing song, just let them listen to it -- don't have all that empty space.
- The file was easy to follow.


pros:

- It's pretty good technically, I guess! There wasn't much difficulty involved in stepping this chart, though.

cons:

- Feels like we're waiting for something that never happens in the song...


- I really don't know about accepting charts that have a very low NPS, this one weighing in at approximately .67.
- It just really becomes questionable at this point to what novice players will enjoy, I certainly don't believe they should be limited to just slow music and 4th notes.


- looks fine as an easy file

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Treasure Trove Cove - 3/3/3/4

I agree with most of the notes here, but honestly it's very difficult for me to discern the underlying rhythm of the song. I had no idea whether certain parts of Treasure Trove Cove were 48th notes or 32nd notes, and it's hard to tell the exact placement of the grace notes. Overall though, I need to work on listening to the underlying music carefully and matching the jumps to the song's rhythm.

Thank you to all the judges; I really appreciate all of the notes!

P.S. MarioNintendo, I thought your notes were very helpful. I agree with your comment that the jumpstream should continue and the pauses in the stepfile didn't fit. No one else mentioned this, so I think it will help me out a lot.

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by MarioNintendo

Well, if that's the case, you just convinced me never to judge again. Why didn't you people tell me I lacked skill before giving me the job? That would've saved me the trouble of playing all of those songs. I'm not even going to defend myself. I'm out. I'll get better at something else.

Didn't mean to imply anything of the sort, just that you should describe why you gave some of the charts certain ratings. Sorry if that's what you though I meant.

[GammaBlaster]

k I'll step another IBMR file instead (fear love and the endless suffering)

too lazy to cut + fix the minijack/layering problems with why did you have to make it hurt so I'mma give that file a rest for now

gonna send in fixed crab nicholson at one point

also plopadop y u no send not so fast you're hurting me > : |

oh ye I asked CBR if I could edit/collab his Autoprocess by Reizoko Cj and he said yes so I'm gonna send that in at one point too

[SKG_Scintill]

Well, I think I guessed !/5/7/8, I was wrong.
Also, I should stop making easy files.

7.5 / 7 / 7 / 8

Makes me wish you stepped a harder version as well, though!

Well there is a harder version in game
Also, this was from a stepping tournament where I decided to make an easier file.

- List the artist properly please (shows up as unknown artist)

Dunno

7.5 / 8 / 8 / 7.5
Was expecting this to be the highest. I suppose indexable 8th stream isn't... new
Comments about cymbal layering: the file's indexable (difficulty consistency)

8.5 / 8 / 8 / 7.5
Oh, ok. Yeah, alright. This was my expected score of 5. Guess people want harder files? I went really mental with the solos, bordering dump.

9 / 8.5 / 8 / 8.5
Oh... minijacks r kewl

[ItsOnlyDanO]

seems likes my pr lets me down again

at least i know what in particular I have to fix mind, j219 may be eligble for resubmission, maybe (EDIT: No it won't)

[Lambdadelta]

6,6,6.5,7.5 isn't bad for my first submission, i was honestly expecting something more like 4,5,6,6.

[tosh]

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

Posting mostly for my own use.The National Anthem of Japan 5/6.5/3/7
Dat 3... I submitted this file after seeing a new player that I showed the game to struggle with Free Space. I don't think many of the judges have a grasp of how hard getting into this game can be to some people.

My very first game of FFR was a fail of either Trip to the Moon or Falling Into You.

Within the first 30 notes.

[XelNya]

I said I'd post this when I got home. I've tried my best to not sound like I am mocking the judges, however I will say I might have failed.

Anyways onto the point:

We're gonna talk about a file, that has 44 notes, a non-static BPM, is easier than Power, and for some reason, it failed harder than the [standard] which has grace notes literally everywhere.

All of the "notes" (I will note this is used so loosely here it hurts) consist of three things.

1. The file is too easy.
2. Oh no you synced it by hand, such a shame.
3. Personal opinion of what a newer player will think, that is entirely irrelevant, and honestly has no place here.

These are the "notes" I got:

Alex Dest:

Our Final Mourning [Beginner] (XelNya) - [?] 3/10
- This chart weighs in at approximately .49 NPS.
- I highly doubt that any novice players will want to play something that consists of 4th notes at 30~ BPM.

Dossar:

Our Final Mourning
4/10
- That ending gallop has to go. A 4th jump would have been great to accent the guitar.
- Any file with a lower TPS than Power is pushing it. If you want users to listen to a relaxing song, just let them listen to it -- don't have all that empty space.
- The sync felt a bit weird in some spots too

Halogen:

Our Final Mourning (XelNya)
Rating: [+?] [4/10]
- because this file generalizes a very slow pace, it’s hard to imply that the chart follows anything notable within the song, it just has a really low pace for the sake of being incredibly easy
- beginner charts are one thing, but balancing playability is another – at 91 seconds, a 44-step chart averages under a note every two seconds; being introductory and easy is one thing, but this is just… too easy, even for the most beginner of players.
- I would be more than accepting for an appeal of this rating if my rating is the one keeping it from being accepted.

Fission:

Our Final Mourning - 3/10
@ this is way too easy even for a brand new player. free space or power are perfectly fine for a player first starting out and there doesn't need to be anything easier, especially when it's this understepped. it's 1 note every two seconds for most of the chart.

I would like to ask one simple question, to each of you. It's going to get very repetitive.

1. Alex, how is this actually "notes?" These are just idle commentary, that even myself could provide, and even then, more reasonably. The fact you think I am unaware how slow it is NPS wise, is insulting. Also to add, your only other point is that it is "not interesting" when in reality, this is merely an opinion that has no actual place here.

So I ask you kindly, explain why this chart is not a 6/10? I am not asking you to give more than that because to be fair I am biased as the file is mine.

2. Dossar, I actually understand your first point. I will concede that. I left it in because it's a bit of a personal touch. The rest of your "notes" however, are again idle commentary and an opinion that is out of place for you to give. I personally find your files repulsive, and I think no one actually wants to play them. And to be honest, look how inaccurate a statement that actually is. The final note, while I guess valid, without confirmation is not dock worthy. Either be specific or don't mention it. A suspicion is of no use to anyone.

So again I ask you the same question, what warranted less than 6 points?

Also to chime in my personal two cents on the sync, I hand placed every single marker. It might be off by not even half a millisecond at most.

3. Halogen, if you actually paid any deviation of attention, the quarters, save for the gallop at the end, are all to the bass. Which is what the file is synced to. Ideally, playability isn't relevant here. It is strictly meant for practicing the most basic part of the game. Hitting notes.

So I ask you as everyone else, what drops this from a 6 to a 4? Surely the gallop is a possible point dock at best, and even if you started from 8/10 like you do, it'd still be a 7 by that standard. Maybe you docked a point for playability? Still a 6/10.

4. Fission, your opinion of what is easy, is highly irrelevant here. We're judging a simfile, and not the difficulty. You cannot argue it is wrong as the chart is done again, to the bass, which is even PRed (Might have 1 misnote maybe?) You "notes" offer literally nothing of value.

This is the fourth time I've asked this, but one more time I suppose to get the point across overall, What warrants a less than 6/10?

Let's take a moment now, to go over the FFR judgement scale. (I have left out 1/10 and lower because those are irrelevant to my point.)

[Main Ratings]

[++] [Supreme, 10/10] Reserved for real masterpieces or flawless files, rare rating. Same as [+] for the purposes of acceptance, but you will get bonus points if your file gets this rating from 2 or more judges.
[+] [Excellent/Great, 9/10 or 8/10] Highest rating, file is strongly accepted by the judge, maybe with minor suggestions.
[+.] [Good/Okay, 7/10 or 6/10] File is either weakly accepted due to being somewhat generic/uninteresting or is good enough for FFR but could use significant improvement.
[+?] [Mediocre/Almost, 5/10 or 4/10] The file is decent overall but needs some important tweaks in certain areas, or has many small technical errors, or doesn't have enough replay value. Not accepted without changes.
[?] [Sub-par/Bad, 3/10 or 2/10] The file has potential, but needs significant reworking in order to be good enough for FFR. Not close to acceptance.

I will agree, this is not a 10/10. There is not any "masterpiece" parts of this chart.

I agree again that a 9/8 out of 10 is not a good score for this file, because there's not too much to note about it. It's not a file that deserves to generate SAP.

7/10 and 6/10 however, is where we will be touching base. This is why. As it reads, the file would be "weakly accepted" because arguably, there is one error in the file. The sync on two markers can be adjusted by maybe half a millisecond at most. This would be a point dock, because honestly more than that is overkill for a miniscule error. Is it uninteresting? To a degree, I will concede, yes. It is not meant for entertainment alone. It is meant as a teaching tool. However, it is a very accurate teaching tool. It has an extremely high amount of PR (especially for a file from me.) It has extremely good sync.

So I ask this one more time.

Why is it fair to give this file less than a 6/10 at least?

A 3 - 5 is meant for a file with an venomous amount of errors, or overall problems with the basic structure of the file. This file has a good structure, the bass. Which may I add, is pretty notable. It's an easy going song, so it suits the song very well because the chart is very easy going. It fits the mood of the song.

Now I would like to touch on one simple thing, that really should be addressed to drive this point home.

At what point does it matter what BPM I use? We have charts in the game that use color gimmicks, to name one even by one of these four judges, Fast Rap Battle, from Halogen himself. This shows that to a degree, you have less ground to stand on that it has to be precisely what it's written at. Even then, understand a simple thing, you can get the same sound from a song if you cut the BPM in half, or double it even.

Also food for thought, do you really think I'd be bothered to hand sync it if I hadn't spent over two hours trying to sync it statically? Would it make sense to do that? No. It doesn't.

I will however concede these things:

1. The file is easy. That was sort of the point. It's meant to be a Power / Free Space chart. I feel as if that was kind of missed or blatantly ignored even.
2. I could easily go in and hand insert BPM markers to mark the BPM as double what it is. I however, at least in this instance of the file (there's a [standard] version) see no reason to do so. It's all quarters, and it would look the same regardless. In a file like this, so long as it is accurate, it's fine. And for the most part, it's perfect.
3. This file is not worthy of SAP. I didn't expect to get any from it. I don't want any for this file. I just want it in game, because arguably there's only one legitimate error, which takes 20 seconds to fix. (And most of that is loading the darn thing.)
4. Dossar does have a valid note. Which is backwards from my personal expectation. I expected the only good notes from Aj honestly.

So I ask this one more time.

But with as much emphasis as I can possibly manage.

Would someone please explain in extremely noted detail, how a file with 44 notes, no non-subjective structure errors, no major sync issues, one legitimate error, and is so easy you could almost play it with one finger should you feel the need....

How does a chart like this fail, and in extreme detail, why?

I am earnestly at a loss of how this is acceptable. You lumped this with a file that has a completely wrong BPM, numerous errors riddled throughout the file, and according to the notes, wasn't even labeled right: Treasure Trove Cove. That is the amount of mistake you all made. You'd ban me for describing how wrong that is.

I won't even ask for a rejudge because it'll just go ignored because all the judges were at least mostly on the same page. But let it be known I will be sending this file with ONE change in about 5 minutes to the current batch.

But I still want an answer of how this is actually a thing.

Edit: Sent it.

[AlexDest]

Originally Posted by XelNya

The fact you think I am unaware how slow it is NPS wise, is insulting.

Sheesh, defensive much? Nowhere did I say that you weren't aware of the NPS. But hey, my apologies, I guess I was too subtle with the message I was trying to go for there, what I'm actually saying there is:

"Are you serious? Put effort into this chart, you can do so much better than .49 NPS."

Originally Posted by XelNya

Also to add, your only other point is that it is "not interesting" when in reality, this is merely an opinion that has no actual place here.

If you can find a good majority of people that would actually label this as "interesting" then let me know.

Originally Posted by XelNya

1. Alex, how is this actually "notes?" These are just idle commentary, that even myself could provide, and even then, more reasonably.

So I ask you kindly, explain why this chart is not a 6/10? I am not asking you to give more than that because to be fair I am biased as the file is mine.

I'm not sure why you're getting pissy at ratings for a chart of yours that you believe should still be on the grounds of rejection. Now, your reaction would be justified if you received 1/10s, but you didn't, so what's the problem? If you believe this chart should be a 6/10 or 7/10 because it fits the criteria of what is said about those ratings on the front post, then you're mistaken.

This isn't a 6/10 because your chart is just incredibly lackluster and credibility-begging, nothing more should be said. Just because there is pitch relevancy, doesn't make it better. Anyone with little to no knowledge of simfile charting could do what you did within 5-10 minutes, even with massive pitch relevancy mistakes, it'd play the same exact way.

You have the knowledge and creativity to create a much better chart than this, so why throw those qualities away for something like Our Final Mourning? Even if it's to cater towards novice players, do you honestly think they would want to play something THIS easy?

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by XelNya

rant

Say you draw a technically perfect straight line. Well, whoopdefuckingdoo there are no technical errors but it's just a boring ass drawing for 99.99999% of the viewers. Having no technical errors doesn't make you exempt of other criticism. You don't get a free pass for acceptance just because you have no technical errors. Subjective factors and opinion definitely do weigh in, so don't go saying "it has no place here". If not for opinion, shitty repetetive songs with technically perfect but stupid to play charts would get accepted too.

no technical errors =/= a good chart

[GammaBlaster]

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by GammaBlaster

perfect :')

[DefTeaMachine]

brb quitting stepmania forever

[GammaBlaster]

Quitting FlashFlashRevolution

[Charu]

Thinking of submitting a t+pazolite chart I made about 2 months or so ago alongside the revised song.

Who wants more buzz stuff, yo?

EDIT: Unless hi19 wants a shot at it, I recall you said you stepped Gruntilda's Final Battle or rather had interest.