35
28
21
14
7
Roy :: FFR Batch Submission
XtraFestive -
Roy -
Terminal 11 [7.25 / 10]
Winter 2023 Seasonal Batch
PublicEvents
Released
Terminal 11 blanket perms
~113-114; maybe intended for next OT but would like to be told if it's going to be used for anything else in particular.
✔️ This chart has been marked as final and shouldn't receive any more changes.
Simfile Folder Name
Roy (XtraFestive)Note Count
2660Chart Length
2:37Average NPS
17.1798Estimated Difficulty
103.53
First Note
0:02Ending Note Delay
0:01Hand Bias
x -14
Framers
0 - 0 1 - 14 2 - 38 3 - 701 4 - 260Jumps
x 616
Hands
x 153
Quads
x 10
Color Jumps
x 8
Color Hands
x 4
Color Quads
x 0
Most notes in:
1/3 of a Second14 - 42.00 nps 0.5 Seconds
17 - 34.00 nps 1 Second
32 - 32.00 nps 2 Seconds
59 - 29.50 nps 5 Seconds
136 - 27.20 nps 10 Seconds
263 - 26.30 nps 30 Seconds
707 - 23.57 nps 1 Minute
1285 - 21.42 nps
Color Count
x 1258 (47.29%)
x 729 (27.41%)
x 62 (2.33%)
x 341 (12.82%)
x 57 (2.14%)
x 34 (1.28%)
x 5 (0.19%)
x 50 (1.88%)
x 124 (4.66%)
Posted at 2:55pm on April 9th, 2024
Roy (XtraFestive) [7/10] -FR-
PERMS OK
SYNC OK
6.766: This is unnecessarily tough on the left hand.
16.942: Why is this omitted but 17.142 layered? Feels like it should be the opposite.
37.642-38.042: Technically incorrect quantizations here. Should be some arangement of 12ths polys.
38.142: Missing note, kick.
46.042: 16th here, not 24ths. Same at 49.242 and possibly more iterations.
50.142: Maybe try to avoid (34)(23)(12)'s outside of the main motif for better representation.
50.992: Ghost note?
52.042-52.842: The patterning in this bit is pretty awkward.
57.283: The 20ths abstraction here doesn't really work; there are very clear 16th sounds that get ignored due to it such as 57.392 and 57.492. Same applies to the next iterations.
1:04.362: Such an abstraction for a slide is not great, especially at this difficulty where it just ends up as a (12)34 because of it. Almost always better to use regular 24ths but recolorized for effect. Same for 1:07.362 and maybe other similar occurrences.
1:07.842 [FR]: Can't not point this out lol. This fast iteration also occurs at 7.042, although with less layering. It's really tough to suggest anything here due to how this chart is structured but an idea would be to underlayer these fast ones to singles but apply color theory to all iterations of this motif (both the slower and the faster ones). As is, this is extremely tight of a window to hit once, let alone a few times in the chart.
1:20.392: Missing note.
1:20.492 & 1:20.692: Ghost notes?
1:24.192: Should be a 12th.
1:25.742: Should also be a 12th.
1:30.542 & 1:30.592: These are one note, a 12th.
1:55.475: At this point, there have been quite a good amount of 24ths that really dont feel intuitive at all.
This chart has a solid foundation and some fun motifs. The 3-ish main sections have their own appeal too. However, there is a pretty good amount of non-trivial concerns here and there that affect playability, such as the 24ths usage which is really brutally patterned in many spots despite the unclear sounds they go to for the most part. The fast (34)(23)(12) motif is also a concern; the (12)(34)(12)(34)(124) stuff somewhat helps to justify them a bit, but 2(12) as a motion in (34)(23)(12) is harder than (34)4 in general. Yes it's a chaotic and loud song that justifies a high difficulty, but the difficult elements should still feel intuitive and coherent/consistent. So, FR on the main motif and a decent cleanup of smaller stuff here and there.
Posted at 4:07pm on April 9th, 2024
Roy (XtraFestive)
- Offset's fine.
**6.667 - goodness me that's a way to start off a file. If anything this is probably too much of a sound to use 32nds on this. Change this up to something else that doesn't involve the column 2 anchor please.
51.242 - This section gave me a good chuckle.
*1:07.892 - 300bpm 3-note jumpgluts is too rough for me. Consider being less rude. (applies to 1:11.042 and other exact same instances as well)
**1:27.092 - This applies as well from 6.667.
I'm usually not too much of a fan of drawn-out long ending like this, but I think it's fine. Still worth some cutting regardless though.
The thing is, this file almost feels very backloaded. The good 110 portion mostly comes on the quarter back of the file, and nothing else comes close. I wouldn't say this is like a 110 either, because I can play this semi-consistently on a good day, if the portions of the * and **'d points are fixed.
Difficulty-aside, this chart is pretty solid. There might be some of the minor technical flaws, but I feel like the * and **'d points really did drag this down, and I don't think high-end players are going to enjoy doing these transitions very much. FR on the **'d points, but please consider the *'d point as well. [7.5*/10, Fixes Required]
Posted at 11:16am on July 18th, 2024
Possibly ~110-112 difficulty now. Made some stuff more comfortable, some other stuff is still impossible!!
A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 2674 => 2660
AVG NPS changed: 17.27018 => 17.17976
Hand Bias changed: -12 => -14
Posted at 11:44am on July 19th, 2024
Changes are sufficient enough to remove the FR. In hindsight, patterns around the 1:07 mark are still relatively gross - so much it's heavily reliant on the jumptrill to hand transitioning and the bursts that takes up the bulk of the difficulty.
Setting this to Accepted, looks alright to be put on the DC engine for assessing its difficulty.