Title fix

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Title changed: うわああああああ => uwaaaaaaa
----------

Updated perms note.

Thanks for the notes DZ! I think FR is almost unavoidable with such difficulties; so much to keep track of. I'll make sure to polish everything noted once I'm back home (next week).

Two things I'd like to discuss right away though:

1. For the 1:19 section, would you recommend changing specifically the cameljacks to regular 3-notes minitrills like the rest of the section, OR fully replacing the minitrills altogether? If the latter, what would you suggest?

2. Re: coloring. Unfortunately I strongly disagree with that point. I played each colored section Many many times at various rates, and determined what I felt played better colored than not. On the intro specifically, it was Completely unreadable to me when it was a mess of skittles coloring. Now, I can somewhat keep up at least and it feels more natural. Lets please agree to disagree on that; I hated playtesting the non-colored chart. The only coloring I would be OK changing a bit is the end section, although I feel like the white contrasts the bassy/growly stuff with the clearer sounds.

Finally, what would you say are the bits/sections you found most overcooked aside from the cameljacks stuff? Just tryna get a feel for what you'd prioritize.

I kinda find it very surprising you guys Actually want the file to be a legit skittles colored mess rather than normalized like this where the sounds are more coherently colored. I'm not gonna lie, if that's a dealbreaker for yall, I'd rather you use something else and I'll keep this for some etterna pack eventually.

Also, have you played the non-colored version Mipha? You seem pretty authoritative in saying that this colored version is obviously worse than the non-colored one. Like I said, I ditched the non-colored one pretty early on because That was legit unreadable to me; I'm not gonna change it back to something I personally tested and disliked, sorry. I dont usually go against FR requests, but this one is too odd to me.

EDIT:
I am still open to adding Some colors back to the ending specifically (maybe 4ths here and there to distinguish between some patterns/rhythms) but that's probably about it.

4.851: It's PR. Pitch goes ABBCBB.

6.170: Fixed.

7.251: Although in most cases I would agree, this is a pretty easy triplet trill even at my level. It also gives the intensity to that 48ths roll I'm looking for. I tried alternatives but they all feel underwhelming or lacking representation of that sound. Not changing.

7.551: Yeah it would make sense if 7.251 changed. Although here I'm going for representation of the high pitched sound which becomes dominant.

7.976: Moved.

8.751: Fixed to represent that, and adjusted other iterations accordingly.

9.051: Changed a bit to have the same speed rolly 48ths thing, but kept the more tame transition into the next bit as it differs from 7.251 (less harsh).

15.581, 20.379, 25.178: Would rather keep this consistent with the first half of the intro. Did add in a note though to reflect the added drums and more noticeable repeated synth sound (of the 8th) of this half.

30.060: I actually had something like you describe initially, but playtesting from others revealed it was too jank. Ended up with this which keeps the most dominant sounds/rhythm without causing both hands to do minitrills at the same time.

30.279: Changed PR on 30.060 instead, I believe that reflects what you had in mind or at least what I hear is different between both.

30.428: Eh, the last 24th was one 192nd late. Moved.

31.704: Agreed, changed to a hand flam.

32.098, 33.141: Oh I had all of it layered in on my first version. It was an absolute mess. Many of the interesting bursts make it impossible to keep that pulsing synth relevant without being way too jank and distracting.

32.230: Done.

32.455: Considered it, but I think the PR is just enough distinguishable. I think both approaches work.

45.361: Changed.

1:08.897, 1:13.696: Prefer keeping as is to give some release with the white noise and a bigger impact on the sudden 32nds synth.

1:09.134: Idk how :c Feel free to suggest specifics. Best I could come up with.

1:10.109, 1:10.109, 1:11.309, 1:14.909, 1:16.109: Too subtle; makes the section a bit too continuous to my liking especially with how loud the 16ths minijacks are there.

1:19.108: Yep, this is the big bad section. Reworked it a bit, hopefully that plays better now while keeping the same kind of vibe for those sounds.

1:24.734: Fixed.

1:27.435 - 1:36.885: This is 100% a headset issue or something; the sounds are pretty clear to me (albeit subtle). At as fast as 70% you still hear each sound clearly; at 90-100% it is definitely more blurry though. Please re-listen to it or have another judge double check, since to me they're totally audible and would even feel missing for those playing at 0.7-0.8 rate.

1:36.935: Those are very different sounds though? Bit confused on this one.

1:41.685: I revisited those; looks like I copy pasted that on iterations that dont sound quite the same. I fixed those that are much closer to a regular jumptrill, and kept only 2 iterations with the offset 192nds.

Thanks a lot for the notes. I know this likely isn't the most fun to analyze given the amount of blurry sounds and abstractions that go to them.

If you could please take a look at those again it would be greatly appreciated:

1:19.108 (must rejudge this bit to make sure it's ok)
1:27.435 (check with other judges maybe)

Notes

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 3153 => 3148
AVG NPS changed: 21.58603 => 21.55672
Hand Bias changed: 9 => 24

Yeah, if you have a quick way to spot it lmk. I most likely typo'd a 192nd in a high bpm spot.

0-framer fix?

A new chart file was uploaded.

Fixed recolorizer sync (went back one recolor pass and did the changes manually)

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
AVG NPS changed: 21.55672 => 21.5518

Removed .old

A new chart file was uploaded.

I would assume this had a better chart take the slot, which is fine, but would be nice to resolve that FR either way.
Here's what the intro looked like without coloring:
https://i.imgur.com/Txv9aI4.png

Bit sad this ended up being problematic; not a single person told me the original coloring is any easier to read. I simply cannot agree with these statements:

> this file is already super hard and forcing players to discern small frame gaps instead of colors makes reading the intro for acc purposes absolute hell

> 2. we can agree to disagree, but ultimately while you might find the coloring more comfortable to play, you've submitted this to a bounty batch specifically targeted for procuring files for tournament use. removing standard accessibility for files (via color reading) isn't a good approach for files of this difficulty, since players that want to rely on pattern recognition solely can do so with relative ease with skins/coloring options.

> you're making this file more difficult to read to some extent and color theory is the last thing to expect of this magnitude and it makes readability a lot worse

> the best course of action would just be to normalize the colors back to what it was before, for the sake of readability

No worries and I absolutely don't mind this not being used in the OT. I still am a bit puzzled by some statements, but it's no big deal either. For example when you say this:

"it's quite a bit of detriment due to the file plays extremely flam-heavy and not very ideal for OT selection"

I can't help but wonder how the B7R5 chart is any more skill diverse when it's the most minijack heavy chart I've seen in a long time. Uwaa has handgluts, tricky isolated bursts, techy main section, and a more speed/stam ending.

And obviously it's hard for me to understand the color arguments since what people tell me is not in line with what you say the judges think. And it's not that I care so much for this chart, but rather I'd like to avoid such a conflict on future charts. But if you don't wanna elaborate further on that it's ok. I'd definitely appreciate knowing explicitly if you believe the SS I shared of the original colors appears more readable to you.

For reasons I mentioned in the above comments though, I will not put the original colors on the intro. That being said, is your end of the disagreement so fixed that the chart cannot even be a regular or ST release?