Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

6/7/5/8/7/3 -- pretty much got what I expected, and yes, I expected one of two people to bomb me. I want to address Dossar's notes though, because I agree with some and absolutely despise others

- m24, that 32nd transition and single 16th to the hand is just gross. This part really needs a reworking.

alright, alright, alright. this one I'll fix. I've play-tested a number of times and had a few people tell me that it's ridiculously hard to hit. I've AAA'd it multiple times, but it looks pretty nasty so I'm willing to fix.

- m69 to m83 really just does not play right. A 16th stream following PR would work better here.

this is a subjective note, especially considering how it happens, and it really irritates me to see this one. I intentionally stepped it this way because the melody was almost entirely filtered out, so I gave myself room to build up appropriately to streaming without making it horribly repetitive.

- m98 entering m99, this shouldn't create a 16th minijack. Making it a straight roll would've been much more fluent and enjoyable.

really don't see how it's so bad with the jump giving you a clear accent point to change directions, but i'll consider changing it

- The 16th minijacks you have going to the synth really make horrible transitions that are not fun at all to play through. You also have plenty of poorly placed transitions. Places such as the end of m118, end of m54, and end of m50 have terrible minijacks.

yeah, not changing - end of M54 is a split-spin burst and that was intentional. most i'll do is maybe move the up arrow 8th note to a down arrow at m118, but that's it

- This file could avoid a lot of unnecessary minijacks and be much more fluent with some technicality and layering sacrified. Right now, the supposed "jumptrills" have really bad transitions which basically make them useless; I'd love to see this file have more fluent/doable parts rather than anchor transitions with awkward jumptrills. Technicality is being abused here when the file has the potential to be much more fun.

yes, it was. technicality was abused intentionally because I wanted a very extreme file. docking a ridiculous amount of points for fun factor is unfair -- I could understand knocking off a few points for incorrect rhythms or errors in layering and whatnot, but for a file to have proper rhythms, clear intent on what's going on everywhere in the file, and proper layering to get a 3 is not right to me.

EDIT: also, I appreciate the fact that you like the song and would love to see the file be more fluent, but it's simply not what I was aiming for, so I want to make that clear

[Zakvvv666]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

Quick question to the judges who played my file.

If I remove everything between the first and second jumpstream, as well as the really boring parts around there, and the file ends up at around 3 minutes, should that be good enough to pass after I fix PR and everything?

[nois-or-e]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

WHO GIVES A ****: 6/7/8/8/8/9

In the key of delete: 3/4/6/7/7/9
#consistency

I used hands to PR chords for the synth in the middle section as stepping it alternative ways made it seem like the file spiked on either side, several steppers and more than one of the judges had told me it flowed quite nicely pre-batch.
The 16th jacks have already been fixed as a trill. The jumpjacks at the end was a stretch on climax to see what I could get away with and have already been fixed accordingly.

How it was given a 3, 4 and then 7's and a 9 has me stumped...

[Light Reject, 3/10 or 2/10] Not close to acceptance.

#Seems legit.


P.S: [Dracula] is no great loss, it got lower marks this time than when it qualified as a resub, so it'll be scrapped now unless Tristan still wants to rework it as a collab.

[00Razor00]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

Next batch, we'll all get into a chat and talk about every file... so that all of our ratings are consistent enough to people's likings, mmk?
lol not really

on topic:

Syntax: 8/8/8/7/8/8 - accepted!
Glass socks: 8/8/9/9/8/8 - accepted! (thanks for the 9's puppet, and MN :])
azul: 6/5/5/7/8/6 - shit file, made in 30 minz, idc

[benguino]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

notes are eary by a whole 16th note please fix that

Also, the offset was at -.600s, but it looked a ton better with -.700s in my editor.

Steps are early by a fair amount.

Offset is early.

I have no sweet clue what's up with the bpm of this song but it does some weird shit it seems. It seems to get late near the end of every 8 bars (where the first bar is bar 4) and then pick up tempo again? Seriously, no clue what's going on there, but the arrows are definitely off sometimes.

lmfao, I think I probably lost a good amount of points because of this >.< Anyways, I don't know what the deal is, the bpm I have set in Finale and the bpm I get from MixMeister are completely different <_> And I have the worst sense of judgement so finding a good offset is hard for me as well. If worst comes to worse, I'll probably end up having someone help (or do) the syncing for me.

lol layering

I could come up with excuses to try to justify every jump and non-existance of a jump, but I do admit the layering is sloppy and inconsistent now that I look at it.

I would rather you just remove all jumps and make it a file with just single notes so there's no confusion with layering choices. otherwise, the rhythms are fine, and the jacks fit well too. s it stand it needs a lot of rework

This review, although short was helpful. I'll probably delayer this a lot and make this a nice, sweet lvl 7 or so. I paid close attention to the rhythms at least like you said, I made sure I wasn't missing notes in obvious places or adding notes where there isn't sound, I just need to learn how to layer I guess x:

PR is also wildly inconsistent; do a run through on .5 rate or so and
make sure same-column notes aren't going to different pitches (this is
important for a song like this which is basically all melody), and
also check for ascending/descending runs of three which you have
stepped as minitrills.

I think all the unnecessary/inconsistent layering made it hard to focus on the PR. Hopefully I'll be able to focus on the PR a lot more when I delayer a vast majority of the jumps. :3

The 192nds I think some may have been dropped, but there are a couple missing.

the 192nds were going to the chords in the main melody, and there were notes in those sections that were single notes as opposed to chords. Although it might have been hard to notice since I was also stepping the background marimba (bass) line at the same time.

The ending the 8th jumps are dropped in the 16ths but I'm not sure why, it seems to be just to make it easier, but it would fit the file anyway.

that was mostly for the sake of not creating a difficulty spike but I see how it's inconsistent with the layering. I'm hoping I can leave that section alone when I delayer the jumps in the rest of the file

- It's really short... I realize you can't do anything about that, but it is...

I could repeat some sections of the mp3, but I would run out of ideas for variety in the file and it would probably get repetitive. Other than that, I wouldn't know what to do for the length.

[Jake Ferguson]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

Devil's Music Box: 8,4,7,6,8,6

I'm suprised, I'd expected a lot worse as my first file for a song I made in like 5 minutes
Just in case, almost all the judges said something about missing jumps or them being off by a 16th note so that's fixed.
And also fixed the stupid 24ths that should've been a quintuplet.

Noob question, would the 4 rating automatically make it unable to be accepted? I would hate for it to not get through because the judge doesn't like hands or that it seems sloppy because I didn't notice the entire thing was slighty offsync until I opened it up in DDream Studio instead of the SM editor and had to fix every beat by hand...

[Plan_Bsk81127]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

Only read through Who_Cares notes because they were awesome, but did Corporal Jigsaw get rejected? I really hope it did. lol

[who_cares973]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

It is now harder to get a file into ffr than it is to get a file into an sm pack. Everyone so picky on personal shit.

I'll reply to stuff after work

[Reshiram]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

Aerospace 8-8-8-8-7-4 (Niala hating damb) 7.16
Gravity Blast 8-8-8-8-7-8 (Carlos your review was ****ing hilarious) 7.83
Steel Monster 4-5-9-7-8-5 (Subjective as hell whoa, missed the 6.5 by a single point >:C) 6.33

[samurai7694]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

autumn insomnia - 8/7/8/6/8/7 - 7.3
fareast - 4/7/7/7/5/4 - 5.6
ice - 5/5/9/5/7/8 - 6.5
magnum - 8/7/6/9/8/6 - 7.3
shotgun - 6/8/7/7/8/6 - 7.0

my easy file got bashed more than anything rofl. Ice's ratings made me lol though I was expecting it kinda, but I'm glad people liked the collab files and magnum at least

[leonid]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

It is now harder to get a file into ffr than it is to get a file into an sm pack. Everyone so picky on personal shit.

Isn't that the whole point of having multiple judges

BTW If anyone thought I was being unfair to a particular person, just wanna mention that I never even looked up the pack folder so I have no idea who stepped which
PS I wish there was a rule to not mention stepcharter anywhere in the simfile (Looking at you DarkZtar)
PS2 This is my first time to judge an FFR batch.. How did you like it??

[AlexDest]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

7/8/8/8/8/8 - nous (this file was half-assed in certain places, cool it got these ratings though)

6/6/7/7/8/9 - pure ruby (ah, didn't expect this)

- 56.499s I don't see what this is going to. I'd remove it. Idem at other spots where it happens. Those are all ghost notes.

Listen closely between x0.3-0.5, those are actual 24ths but I see what you mean, not really audible on x1.0.

- There are WAY too many jumps at 95.095s. Most of these jumps really don't go to anything at all. This section can easily be toned down while still staying fun. I'm thinking of a "(12)3131" pattern.

Uh, yes they do, I'm layering bass and hi-hats (which is technically correct layering). Seems like everyone has a problem with this part of the file. >_>

- 95.09 what merits the consistent 8th note jumps?

sigh...

Also what's the deal with these "oh hurr hurr copy/paste" comments, honestly for a song like Pure Ruby it's going to be needed.

[leonid]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

If a song forces you to use repetitive patterns, chances are it's not an excellent song choice...

[PrawnSkunk]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

FML.

I somehow managed to send my old version of my [Resubmission] from five months ago. >_>" 4/10's galore. fuuuuuuucccccccccc.
nothing in the file changed from last batch. *groan*

[yo man im awesome]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submission Closed)

1/2/5/5/6/6

avg 4.16 lol

question Razor: what did you mean by the 0.000 syncing/offset?