Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

[Arch0wl]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

Lack of pitch relevancy doesn't bother me at all because I often think the types of charts it creates are quite mundane on a 4-arrow setup, especially on spread. The index version of it is tolerable though because you're more mimicking the motion used to play that pattern than mapping the pattern to its pitch. However, I've played an enormous number of charts that ignore this that I still find very fun.

[devonin]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

I'm a musician, I like the patterns to have as much to do with the music as possible.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

(I think we're getting into IRC territory here so I'm predicting a lock from Tass in T-10 and counting.)

I somewhat agree that having a lot to do with the music is fine. However, there's only so much you can do with 4 arrows, and your setup really determines how relevant your steps can be to the music. As far as spread is concerned there's very little movement as it is, so the charts that heavily involve the music still seem pretty empty to me in that respect.

[Tasselfoot]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

a lot of times people feel that pitch relevant files are not fun. that files can't be both fun and pitch relevant. and, a lot of times... they're right. the technical nature of the file reduces the potential "funness" of the file. while that is still subjective, the majority of people tend to have similar tastes, overall.

In recent batches, I'd say that we've queue'd about 30-35% of the files submitted. This is an increase from early batches, which was more like 15-20% (and less files were being submitted). Reasoning? Our strict judging has made people better simfile authors. Over the course of a year+, they've learned how to make better charts... and thus are submitting a higher percentage of quality files.

So the options... let less files into the batches and still take 30-35%. Or less the same number of files in, but take less than 30%... which means even stricter judgments. I'd rather go the 2nd route. It's a lot easier to reject someone's file after playing it than it is to outright not test it in the first place.

And... I'm a harsher critic of files because I'm far less technical in my critiquing. jx, shash, rebirth, etc are the baseline judges to test things for accuracy... pitch, sync, layering, difficulty, etc etc. They are the simfile authors themselves... they UNDERSTAND simfile creation. Me... I don't make files. I have much less knowledge about that stuff than they do. Which is why I do not test every file. I only test the files that the other guys approve of in the first place. Which means, I only test the quality files. Then, it's up to me to find reasons not to accept the top 50% of the files, and turn that into only 20-30%. Often times, my reasonings are subjective... but I try to be objective in my subjectivity. Meaning... I try to test all my files from a "funness" factor of the general FFR user. Not the elite and not the n00b. The middle of the road guy. To make sure that the majority of users will like the majority of files. If I find something in a file that I don't think they'll enjoy, then I'll make note of it and ask for the file to be fixed up.

Oh... another reason the acceptance rate is so high. Re-submits. After a year+, we've had some files submitted 5-8 times... after that many times of being judged and told what to fix, you'd expect the end result to be pretty decent. So tons and tons of files that had previously been rejected and told what to fix then go and resubmit after making the changes, and then get accepted.

As I said... it's complicated and complex. And I'll be hard pressed to find a better solution than what we have in place. For the most part, it works how we're doing it. It is a long process and a slow turnaround... but it's better than where we were 2 years ago.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

I try to test all my files from a "funness" factor of the general FFR user. Not the elite and not the n00b. The middle of the road guy. To make sure that the majority of users will like the majority of files.

That's actually a really good way to go about it.

[Izzy]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

I don't think every file needs to be the same kind of stepping. It gets way to generic and boring. The files can use some more "style" instead of the same old stuff. Judges shouldn't reject something just because its not how they would step it.

[Tasselfoot]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

they don't. and, i try to be very open about files being stepped in different ways. i'm all for new and unique stepcharts, so long as it still fits the music, is appropriate in difficulty to the music, and is "fun".

to me, stuff like Club is garbage... but there really is only 1 other file in the game that is similar. it fits the music and is sorta "fun" to some people. but it's different and it fits. so that's good enough for me. or MAMA.... i had to fight with shash and jx both about that file. none of them wanted to accept it because it only had 3 arrows. i LOVE that file because it only has 3 arrows. completely unique, bit of a joke, yet still seems to fit for the song.

[Arch0wl]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

I actually love Club and really like playing it. O_o

[Tasselfoot]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

silly indexer.

edit: but that's my point. i try not to be personally biased... just because I don't like Club doesn't mean that we shouldn't have files that are like that from time to time.

[jimerax]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

Yeah simfile judgement is more or less subjective, and this is why we have multiple judges.
However we're mostly objective when we judge technical materials (sync, rhythm, pattern,
consistency, layering, etc) of simfiles.

As for PR, since requirements for desired stream pattern are "index friendly" or "pitch relevant",
patterns don't have to be pitch relevant. Basically if the pattern has some ordinality or consistency
I think it's ok even if it's not IF or PR. Plus if a file is rejected, it most likely has issues
besides patterns(PR).

But in some music (especially instrumental ones) there're parts that should be pitch relevant.
For example, beginning of Unknown Girl would be really weird if it's not pitch relevant, or in
Legendary Etude or PE Gymnastics their pitch relevancy makes the file a lot better.

ps I kept rejecting M.A.M.A. because it always made me quit out for some reason.
club is gay for spreaders but it's quite technically accurate.

[Izzy]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

I hate club even when i do it index. Probably because 2x is still to slow for it. Jumps are to clustered in ffr at that speed.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

We can have more songs of that unique style then. More 3 arrow files, etc.

[jimerax]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

You can't use the same idea more than once, it should always be innovative.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

1-arrow FGO's

Imo, the majority of FFR files are of high quality but aren't terribly enjoyable.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Expanding FFR's file library: Judging?

IMO the majority of FFR files are of decent quality but limited originality and skill, and low enjoyment in general.

However, I enjoy fast and challenging files beyond the scope of FFR's hardest files, so I'm not a good judge. Even most FMOs and FGOs are too easy or boring for me to enjoy, and anything Difficult or lower is just out of the question.