300 [70 or 67]
 

Keeping thngs relatively concise

-Everything up to the 550-600 mark here is only 63 or 64 worthy. Some smooth jumpstream at 180BPM and some mildly awkward JS bursts below and above that speed, nothing really hard
-Past that mark we have the speed up bursts, which can be mildly nerve-wracking but overall, there's nothing worse than a few fast triplets here and there and some sub-300BPM 8th jacks which are very cheatable due to the Xenon-esque rhythm (there needs to be an actual musical term for that)
-And then there's the ending jumpstream which is a bit dense but extremely smooth

For a comparison point of everything (I don't feel like looking at statistics), the bursts are a joke compared to Romance In The Club (which I also doubt is a 70 but that's for another time) and Face In The Gutter, and jacks are nothing compared to Starry Sky. And if you really wanna bring up any jumpstream points, Hey Hey Monkey.

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

It could very well be that the nerve-wracking effect has affected the file's difficulty rating. If songs were rated based on one's ability to AAA it (I'm not 100% sure what the measure of rating is), then it would possibly increase the difficulty slightly due to the hardest parts being at the end of the file.
On a completely technical point of view, it really isn't too difficult other than some tight framers iirc.

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

mfw K8107 isn't a 69

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

I think 70 is fine for 300. Those gluts at the end are a challenge for even the most experienced players. They're fast to the point that people need to cheat them with a quad, not to mention the difficult ones involve hand-split patterns: [13][24] or [24][13]. While the beginning and ending are probably around the 63 range the midsection is hard enough to bump to 70, IMO.

And I know this doesn't hold any value to my argument but I still don't have it AAAd when I have a couple 80s under my belt.

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

Idk about that. I still cant aaa it due to the ending, the rest i agree is about a 63ish but that ending is extremely hard to screw up on. If a file is rated by how hard it is to Fc then sure, maybe. If its rated on how consistent you have to be then 70 is definitely fine. Sure its not as fast or as hard as the other files in that range but it still is very very hard to perfect and in some cases even PA.

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

Bad frames for some of the 16th jumpjack sections and overall difficulty of the mid-section makes me think it's fine at 70.

This factor, albeit quite small, does have a moderating effect on difficulty ratings. Something like RWoB for instance would probably be a point or two less in difficulty if the spike which occurs close to six minutes into the file was shifted to the very beginning, and I can guarantee scores would drastically improve as a result of that shift. Some may disagree with incorporating that as a metric when determining file difficulties, but anything that would otherwise impact the leaderboards for a given file should be taken into account imo, as current statistics provide the strongest argument for whether or not a file should be moved up or down.

Re: 300 [70 or 67]
 

This file is worse (in terms of speed needed and nerves) than Posers, the closest file that can be compared to 300. The 3-3-2 rhythms are very easy to rush as the song speeds up, and the triplet patterns like 4[13][24] are split-heavy, particularly when going into a quad. Leave it at 70.