Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[ichliebekase]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I know either dore or bmah said this before, but I think that the conditional queue grading number should be a little more lenient. One reason is there are only 4 songs to say yes/no to, and to be honest, what's a couple more songs going to do? Okay, they can get no's, it's not like it would be forcing the judges to say yes on the ones that got 15's. Also, as dore/bmah [I know it was one of you with a 4 letter name] said, subjectivity seemed to be pretty eminent in this review session and it wouldn't be fair to those that got 15's because of preference.

No, I'm not only saying this because my file got a 15. I had been thinking about it for a while, ever since [dore/bmah] had mentioned it before. And then I thought I had only a 14.

I just think this thought got ignored and should be considered.

[bmah]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

(I said that)

And you're probably right, since I doubt jx actually went over any specific song within only a few hours. The foremost important thing right now is to get an initial tallying of files that should definitely be accepted, so that's what jx was doing.

I think if you want an appeal, now's the time to ask.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I know either dore or bmah said this before, but I think that the conditional queue grading number should be a little more lenient. One reason is there are only 4 songs to say yes/no to, and to be honest, what's a couple more songs going to do? Okay, they can get no's, it's not like it would be forcing the judges to say yes on the ones that got 15's. Also, as dore/bmah [I know it was one of you with a 4 letter name] said, subjectivity seemed to be pretty eminent in this review session and it wouldn't be fair to those that got 15's because of preference.

No, I'm not only saying this because my file got a 15. I had been thinking about it for a while, ever since [dore/bmah] had mentioned it before. And then I thought I had only a 14.

I just think this thought got ignored and should be considered.

This should definitely be considered - fishy ratings should also be looked into.

Personal preference can really screw over a file's rating. I've seen this happen way too many times (and no it's not just because of my Metro file although it is pretty funny that one rating screwed it over from a 17 haha). Some borderline files don't even have legit suggestions - I looked at a few from other files in this batch and was a bit disappointed.

[ichliebekase]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I think if you want an appeal, now's the time to ask.

How exactly would you go about an appeal? Because I considered saying something to the judges who gave me 3's and see if what I would say would change their grades.

And yea, I agree that the main focus should be to get the definite ones fully accounted for and then we can see what happens from there.

[bmah]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I posted this before when I was making some rules on resubmissions, but jx has yet to emphasize this part. Generally, this is how it goes:

1) Resubmissions should be labelled in the song folder.
2) If you have an issue with judging on a resubmit, you must let us know.
3) We will not consider complaints on judging with the point equivalent BELOW +.,+.,+?,+?
4) We will not look at any file if you do not let us know you have an issue.

So basically, you can appeal if a file is 14/20 or higher. However, two grades must be at least [+.]. That's the only catch.

[jimerax]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

The N in mysterious desert is a 5 .

Source: here

ok then it's an accept.

fixed.

[Borderline Files] (4)
Famicom Selecta (D) - 12+N (4/4/4/N)
Gotta Catch 'em All (SKG_Scintill) - 16 (5/4/2/5)
Scavenger (Plan_Bsk81127) - 16+ (4/5/2/5+)
Metro (DossarLX ODI) - 16 (5/5/1/5)

For Judges: Let's vote for borderline files (Yes/Yes with fix/No).

ps should we expand the borderline zone?
we already have decent percentage of accepted files.

[ichliebekase]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

So basically, you can appeal if a file is 14/20 or higher. However, two grades must be at least [+.]. That's the only catch.

Doesn't sound too bad. [Sorry I'm asking so many questions] With the appeal, who will be looking at the file? And am I allowed to say reasons for why I stepped it the way I did for a better understanding?

And jx, it's mainly because of subjectivity. Plan got a [++] on his file but also got a [?] on Scavenger. Granted, I have not read the notes on the file, but it seems like there are some extremes in that. Also with Dossar's 3 [+]'s and 1 [-]. Maybe the notes should be read more in depth in choosing what could be considered conditional.

[dore]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

appeal for (you guessed it) White Walls!:

[+] White Walls / Between the Buried and Me / dore
b159: Should these trills be double-speed like the other ones like this?
b525: Decided to keep these as one-handed trills, huh? Eep.

for the first part, not a bad suggestion. for the second, I mainly want the two hands to be disjointed, because the snare drum is almost like a background metronome for the impact points of the rest of the band, so I was going for left hand=guitars/bass/bass drum and right hand = snare drum. but I could also switch left and up or something to make it less one-handed.

[Resubmission] White Walls (dore) - [+?]
Playtest: Considering this is a 14 minute long file, and this is FFR (i.e. combo scoring), the patterns you chose in some places were really awful. There were a surprisingly large number of really rough jack/trill sections, including some blazingly fast one-handed trills. A partial list (some worse than others): m23-24; m47-48; m52-55 and 58-61 and 68-71 and 74-77; m81-90; m91-94; m102-105 (what is that jump-onehandedtrill in 104); m110; m138; m145; m176-177; m318; m340-360 and 361-365; m483-494; m517-522. The 192nd section from 382-385 is also questionable. It's cool that you made a wall of white notes to "WHITE WAAAAALL", but it felt kind of dumpy and out of place in a serious file, especially since you didn't use color for effect anywhere else. Overall this file is an impressive work of simfile art, but I just don't think it belongs in FFR with the current selection of patterns.
Editor: Technically, this file is pretty much perfect - it was easy to follow the patterns as I played, and the layering all made sense.

fair points all around, there's hard enough stuff throughout that I figure the difficult patterns aren't too much, especially since it would break consistency with some other places where it's slower and more manageable to play, but I usually don't like to base my patterns around what's considered to be comfortable

White Walls [+]

-very fun, fantastic file.

ty

White Walls [-]

If this had been shorter (I know, I know) I would have given it a [+.]. Your patterns were okay. But -- and I know you probably expected to hear this -- a 14-minute file is not appropriate for a combo-based game like FFR where the slightest hint of lag in the middle of the song can mean your entire score. If FFR were more lag-free like Stepmania and had a Dance Point system that ensured you would get a relatively good score regardless, I might accept White Walls. But for now, I can't. Its a matter of the game's mechanics.

I kinda feel like since the file will have to be broken up anyway, it's not going to be unmanageable to play for score (at least no more than all the other long files in ffr). but I really don't think "the game might lag" is a good reason to reject a file. yeah it may be tough to hold a combo, so what? if your computer sucks (like mine) and you want to get a good score, get a better computer. if you break your combo in one particular spot, get better at that kind of pattern. I just don't see why people having difficulty comboing a song is a legitimate means for rejection, especially since "If this had been shorter (I know, I know) I would have given it a [+.]", which would have gotten it into the accept range.

TLDR version:
Why I feel I should have gotten 17 points: I lost three points for the file being long.
Why I feel that is not legitimate: I am going to have to break up the file anyway, which it will still be long, but more manageable to play for score, which was a large reason for losing points.

For my other two files, I didn't really expect either of them to go through cuz they're kinda weird, but I'm glad half the judges enjoyed them at least

[qqwref]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

- Weird song cut

- started out good but seems like the song is cut/faded out too early. if it's the actual song then oh well

-random-ass cut lol?

-not really worth the v2 IMO

-random ass ending? lol

I seem to be getting a pattern of song choice complaints (above are from 3 different submissions). Probably just bad luck, but it is getting pretty annoying at this point. If anyone's wondering I didn't cut any of them myself, and the "not really worth the v2" was a song with clear 180bpm stream that had a difficulty 4 ingame. Subjectivemanias ?_? Not saying all these songs should have made it in and didn't because of the song, just pointing out some weirdness.

[jimerax]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

5/5/5/1 could be in accepted zone, I'll look at it anyway.
And borderline files aren't conditional queue'd, they are moved into second vote system.

[Grades of potential borderline zone]

(A)
16 (5/5/4/2)
16 (5/4/4/3)

(B)
16 (5/5/3/3)
15 (5/5/4/1)
15 (5/4/4/2)

(C)
15 (4/4/4/3)
14 (5/4/4/1)

(D)
14 (4/4/4/2)
14 (5/4/3/2)
14 (4/4/3/3)

[bmah]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

O.O Is this something completely new, jx? I've never heard of this one before.
4/4/3/3 would be what I was describing earlier as the minimum for an appeal (14/20).

[jimerax]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

ok fixed.

Grade C-D will hardly be considered, compared to files in higher grades though.

[ichliebekase]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Not sure what my 5/4/3/3 would be considered as XD looks to be potentially a B.

Writing up my appeal now though based off of dore's. Will probably finish in the morning so I can actually look/listen and see some of the points that were made.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

In that case, I'll just mention why Metro is a bit fishy:

Original note fixes

- "The long trills at the very end should be broken up, but otherwise it's fine for an FSO." < Fixed
- I hear some small technical errors (e.g. the first and last 16ths in m28 should be moved to be a grace note, or else removed) < Fixed

- I'm not liking that 1324324 24th notes pattern at measure 58. < fixed
- Measure 91-92, 99-100, those 48ths are too much in my opinion, cut those out. < Toned it down.
- Measures 136, 144. 152, and 160, that 24th notes pattern is just evil, lol. < Changed for better pattern fluency.
- The file gets real repetitive, change the patterns up a bit. < Kept the same step-type scheme while making alternative patterns.

-the streams at the start are really broken and don't flow very well A bit too vague. I made the patterns a little less minijack-heavy and fixed some other patterns.
-perhaps a little too difficult while sacrificing better patterns Again, too vague

Resubmission:

Really good patterns. You fixed all the judges' comments good. Definitely kept me entertained through the file.

Playtest: Really tough file (obviously) but the patterns were diverse and friendly enough to be fun anyway. You seem to be avoiding long jacks a little more than before, which is nice to see at this BPM.
Editor: I played through the song and the patterns all make sense on a lower rate. Nothing to complain about.

Metro [+]

This file does something that I have not seen in any other file from this batch: it uses motifs, and it uses them well. Classic files have memorable moments. The jacks in DDR's Paranoia Evolution, for example, *made* that song. In your case, the staircases you used were extremely memorable. I'm not going to forget your file.

-these 16th patterns are absolutely awful to hit, 32nds are even worse < no suggestions?
-File could use a bit of pattern cleaning, since right now it just looks like a dump < A little too vague again
-those rolls get repetitive really fast maybe some suggestions?

After seeing the -, I relooked at this post:

Note to judges who are reviewing resubmissions: please try to take into account the notes from the previous judges who reviewed those files. None of you so far are likely doing this. They're resubmissions for a reason - otherwise, might as well submit these as a regular file. We're trying to reduce the tossing of files back and forth due to differing opinions. When you read the notes from other judges - they may reveal certain aspects that you may not have understood or noticed.

Not sure if there was a certain misunderstanding with the resubmission but this doesn't look right. Judges said the patterns were fine, then "bad patterns" came up again. It's contradictory and doesn't make sense.

[potter_rocks_out_loud]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I plan on submitting my file in here eventually once i finish it.