[RELEASE] FFR Community Pack 2025

[Lights]

Hey! woah! wow! Delayed no longer, the 2025 FFR Community Pack is here! Featuring 61 banger files from stepartists new and (very) old and spanning the full spectrum of difficulty, there should be something here for everyone to enjoy. Files are best played on the most recent version of Etterna, however most entries should also be able to be enjoyed through FFR's file browser as well.

I want to give a big thank you to everyone involved with making this possible as well as everyone that waited patiently while i twiddled my thumbs for an entire year.

Credits

Graphics:
Velocity & Zyxel

Simfile QA:
goldstinger, Velocity, Storn42, and like half a dozen others who gave me feedback along the way

Stepartists:
Elite Ninja, M0nkeyz, Xelnya, Storn42, gold stinger, Tru, Ambi, Velocity, Deamerai, Pizza69, basicdrummerman, Misrule, Zyxel, Lambdadelta, jh05013, TheTrueXfish, samurai7694, ositzxz369, Wind0ze, jacobvl39, Devonin, Creosm, EppuJoloZ, Jade5, choof, nobody_serenity, Kairon, and everyone else who submitted a file- even if it didn't end up making the cut

[Jade5_]

pack

[UnityBoi]

pack

[NotSpiralingEnough]

paq

[RenaPlatinak2]

Pacote

[EppuJoloZ]

paq

[storn42]

paq

[Zyxel]

PAQ YAYYYYYY

[jh05013]

peak

[loftyb]

FFR 2025

[Zeta]

tl;dr: This release doesn't carry the spirit or quality of prior FFR Community Packs. The name promises a continuation of a highly respected series -- the restrictions, communication, QA, and presentation don't come close to earning it.

Calling this "FFR Community Pack 2025" insinuates continuity with a series known for tight curation, polished graphics, clean organization, and thoughtful presentation. That name sets a high bar, it tells people what kind of experience to expect. This feels disconnected from that legacy. The curation is scattered to absolute fuck, the visuals feel like placeholders, and the overall pack doesn't feel even in the slightest like a proper successor. If the intent was to do something different (lighter process, looser standards, quicker turnaround) then own that and pick a different name. This leaned on the reptuation of the earlier packs and delivered something that doesn't match what that label has historically meant.

The pack's organization is entirely unacceptable by any standard. Not just by the standard set by past FFRCPs, but by literally any other pack's baseline. There was no coherent structure, no clear ownership, and communication was ad-hoc at best. There have been shitpost packs in recent years that managed tighter coordination and clearer expectations. If these packs can keep a clean flow of information and files, a flagship "FFR Community Pack 2025" has absolutely no excuse.

That disorganization had real consequences. At least one chart that was intended to be pulled stayed in the release, and some charts that were meant to be included were accidentally omitted. This is not only an extraordinarily bad mistake, but I can't think of a single pack that has made either of those mistakes before. Worse, even after these issues were raised, no corrective patch with the proper songlist has been issued.

From the announcement: "Holds, Mines, etc. are allowed… [but] the pack is meant to be playable in its entirety through the FFR file loader."
For an Etterna release, doesn't it feel quite limited to narrow the creative space that usually makes these kinds of packs more interesting? Things like minedodge, x-mod, hold tech, fun gimmicks. The strange-but-fun stuff earlier FFRCPs didn't shy away from. If the target is FFR compatibility, then run a normal FFR batch and let an Etterna pack breathe. You can't claim "most fiffertastic pack in years" and then clip the wings that make packs like this interesting.

Similarly: "Only one difficulty per file is allowed."
Past community packs often had multiple difficulties because that's how you serve a broad playerbase and showcase multiple interpretations. The response I received when voicing this concern: "are you volunteering to go through the additional submissions?" misses the forest for the trees. If the scope is too big, scale it down, recruit more judges (which was done), or phase the release. Don't remove the parts that make community packs rich just to make shit easier for yourself.

Originally planned for January 1, 2025. There was a June update that moved the target to September 1, and then... nothing. No announcement that it would actually drop on October 20. If you hype something as "the most fiffertastic pack in years," you owe the community basic visibility: what changed, what you're doing about it. Radio silence disappoints, erodes trust and kills momentum. Even a short monthly post would've gone a long way toward keeping expectations calibrated.

Beyond the silence, the drop itself was out of literal nowhere -- no lead-up, no hype, nothing. It just appeared. That kind of release can maybe work for some concepts, but not for a pack that's meant to carry this label and rally the community.

Some chart inclusions are genuinely puzzling given the stated standards. Files that feel under-reviewed, or that plainly shipped with fixes still not addressed. That’s a quality control problem, not a taste disagreement. On presentation, templated per-file graphics read as "no graphics," and the overall look lands more like a WIP folder than a release.

There are good charts in here -- some people clearly put work in. But they're very unfortunately boxed into a rushed, undercooked release wearing a legacy title it doesn't match. As a successor to the earlier community packs, this is a complete letdown. As a proof of concept for "community energy," it undersells what the community can actually do.

What would have helped:
- Rename if it's not actually continuing the series.
- Allow multiple difficulties (or use some sort of pipeline that can handle it, unlike FFR).
- Regular, honest status updates during delays.
- Enforcing QA instead of lowering standards to get more charts accepted.
- Actual effort in presentation so charts feel finished, not like placeholders.

I wanted this pack to land. The concept was solid, the execution was not.

[Wind0ze]

I'll drop my quick two cents here too.

Quality of the pack compared to previous FFR pack releases aside, the pack's organization/communication was poor by any pack standard and resulted in some severe mistakes that could have been easily avoided. As Zeta said, there was no updates in the past 4+ months. Not even a release date. I had already released an updated version of my "Kono Hoshi de..." chart in another pack because I assumed this one was dead after all of the radio silence and constant delays, and would have formally pulled it if I knew it was going to actually release.

When I let Lights know about this, all I got in response was a skull emoji. I think it's reasonable to interpret that as an indicator that this wasn't taken seriously as an issue, even though it's an unprecedented mistake for a pack as Zeta said. I can only imagine that the charts missing from the pack that I've heard about have been treated with the same apathy. Hopefully there's a change in perspective and the pack gets a post-release fix with the proper charts.

[Coolboyrulez0]

You guys bring up serious concerns, and I think they come across as empathetic and sincere.
Unfortunately, I will skull emoji react you. Good day.

[Lights]

Originally Posted by Zeta

tl;dr: This release doesn't carry the spirit or quality of prior FFR Community Packs. The name promises a continuation of a highly respected series -- the restrictions, communication, QA, and presentation don't come close to earning it.

Calling this "FFR Community Pack 2025" insinuates continuity with a series known for tight curation, polished graphics, clean organization, and thoughtful presentation. That name sets a high bar, it tells people what kind of experience to expect. This feels disconnected from that legacy. The curation is scattered to absolute fuck, the visuals feel like placeholders, and the overall pack doesn't feel even in the slightest like a proper successor. If the intent was to do something different (lighter process, looser standards, quicker turnaround) then own that and pick a different name. This leaned on the reptuation of the earlier packs and delivered something that doesn't match what that label has historically meant.

The pack's organization is entirely unacceptable by any standard. Not just by the standard set by past FFRCPs, but by literally any other pack's baseline. There was no coherent structure, no clear ownership, and communication was ad-hoc at best. There have been shitpost packs in recent years that managed tighter coordination and clearer expectations. If these packs can keep a clean flow of information and files, a flagship "FFR Community Pack 2025" has absolutely no excuse.

That disorganization had real consequences. At least one chart that was intended to be pulled stayed in the release, and some charts that were meant to be included were accidentally omitted. This is not only an extraordinarily bad mistake, but I can't think of a single pack that has made either of those mistakes before. Worse, even after these issues were raised, no corrective patch with the proper songlist has been issued.

From the announcement: "Holds, Mines, etc. are allowed… [but] the pack is meant to be playable in its entirety through the FFR file loader."
For an Etterna release, doesn't it feel quite limited to narrow the creative space that usually makes these kinds of packs more interesting? Things like minedodge, x-mod, hold tech, fun gimmicks. The strange-but-fun stuff earlier FFRCPs didn't shy away from. If the target is FFR compatibility, then run a normal FFR batch and let an Etterna pack breathe. You can't claim "most fiffertastic pack in years" and then clip the wings that make packs like this interesting.

Similarly: "Only one difficulty per file is allowed."
Past community packs often had multiple difficulties because that's how you serve a broad playerbase and showcase multiple interpretations. The response I received when voicing this concern: "are you volunteering to go through the additional submissions?" misses the forest for the trees. If the scope is too big, scale it down, recruit more judges (which was done), or phase the release. Don't remove the parts that make community packs rich just to make shit easier for yourself.

Originally planned for January 1, 2025. There was a June update that moved the target to September 1, and then... nothing. No announcement that it would actually drop on October 20. If you hype something as "the most fiffertastic pack in years," you owe the community basic visibility: what changed, what you're doing about it. Radio silence disappoints, erodes trust and kills momentum. Even a short monthly post would've gone a long way toward keeping expectations calibrated.

Beyond the silence, the drop itself was out of literal nowhere -- no lead-up, no hype, nothing. It just appeared. That kind of release can maybe work for some concepts, but not for a pack that's meant to carry this label and rally the community.

Some chart inclusions are genuinely puzzling given the stated standards. Files that feel under-reviewed, or that plainly shipped with fixes still not addressed. That’s a quality control problem, not a taste disagreement. On presentation, templated per-file graphics read as "no graphics," and the overall look lands more like a WIP folder than a release.

There are good charts in here -- some people clearly put work in. But they're very unfortunately boxed into a rushed, undercooked release wearing a legacy title it doesn't match. As a successor to the earlier community packs, this is a complete letdown. As a proof of concept for "community energy," it undersells what the community can actually do.

What would have helped:
- Rename if it's not actually continuing the series.
- Allow multiple difficulties (or use some sort of pipeline that can handle it, unlike FFR).
- Regular, honest status updates during delays.
- Enforcing QA instead of lowering standards to get more charts accepted.
- Actual effort in presentation so charts feel finished, not like placeholders.

I wanted this pack to land. The concept was solid, the execution was not.

Your feedback has been read, noted, and will be taken into account for future, sorry you're left feeling disappointed with the finished product.

Originally Posted by Wind0ze

I'll drop my quick two cents here too.

Quality of the pack compared to previous FFR pack releases aside, the pack's organization/communication was poor by any pack standard and resulted in some severe mistakes that could have been easily avoided. As Zeta said, there was no updates in the past 4+ months. Not even a release date. I had already released an updated version of my "Kono Hoshi de..." chart in another pack because I assumed this one was dead after all of the radio silence and constant delays, and would have formally pulled it if I knew it was going to actually release.

When I let Lights know about this, all I got in response was a skull emoji. I think it's reasonable to interpret that as an indicator that this wasn't taken seriously as an issue, even though it's an unprecedented mistake for a pack as Zeta said. I can only imagine that the charts missing from the pack that I've heard about have been treated with the same apathy. Hopefully there's a change in perspective and the pack gets a post-release fix with the proper charts.

You, at no point, communicated to me that you wished to pull your file. Communication goes both ways. A revision is being done for the pack within the next few days, your chart will be pulled.

[Wind0ze]

Originally Posted by Lights

You, at no point, communicated to me that you wished to pull your file. Communication goes both ways. A revision is being done for the pack within the next few days, your chart will be pulled.

This is true, though I didn't communicate this because I thought it was unnecessary to officially pull a file from a pack that was, as far as I could tell, dead. If I knew the pack was going to release I would have communicated this. I'm glad a revision is being done though.

[XelNya]

Is Zeta's post what I sound like to all of you?

[AutotelicBrown]

Originally Posted by Wind0ze

This is true, though I didn't communicate this because I thought it was unnecessary to officially pull a file from a pack that was, as far as I could tell, dead. If I knew the pack was going to release I would have communicated this. I'm glad a revision is being done though.

Man, aside from some cryptids in this community it takes 5s to find and message anyone on discord or even through ffr itself. While your reasons to assume the pack was dead are more than fair and the skull emoji response was disrespectful to say the least, it's just basic courtesy to explicitly let the pack organizer know you are pulling your file if the pack isn't officially cancelled yet, especially if you are releasing it elsewhere.

(to be clear I know nothing of this pack's organization nor the end result beyond what was mentioned in this thread)

[Wind0ze]

Originally Posted by AutotelicBrown

Man, aside from some cryptids in this community it takes 5s to find and message anyone on discord or even through ffr itself. While your reasons to assume the pack was dead are more than fair and the skull emoji response was disrespectful to say the least, it's just basic courtesy to explicitly let the pack organizer know you are pulling your file if the pack isn't officially cancelled yet, especially if you are releasing it elsewhere.

(to be clear I know nothing of this pack's organization nor the end result beyond what was mentioned in this thread)

I didn't think that reaching out was necessary at the time. My expectation was that the pack organizer would communicate before release as most do, and then I would inform them that the chart's been pulled. You (and Lights) are right that in hindsight the best action on my end would have been to take initiative, but I think the assumption I had that there would be some notice before the pack released was reasonable.

[M0nkeyz]

Paq

[tosh]

pack