Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[Lambdadelta]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

6,6,6.5,7.5 isn't bad for my first submission, i was honestly expecting something more like 4,5,6,6.

[tosh]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Posting mostly for my own use.The National Anthem of Japan 5/6.5/3/7
Dat 3... I submitted this file after seeing a new player that I showed the game to struggle with Free Space. I don't think many of the judges have a grasp of how hard getting into this game can be to some people.

My very first game of FFR was a fail of either Trip to the Moon or Falling Into You.

Within the first 30 notes.

[XelNya]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

I said I'd post this when I got home. I've tried my best to not sound like I am mocking the judges, however I will say I might have failed.

Anyways onto the point:

We're gonna talk about a file, that has 44 notes, a non-static BPM, is easier than Power, and for some reason, it failed harder than the [standard] which has grace notes literally everywhere.

All of the "notes" (I will note this is used so loosely here it hurts) consist of three things.

1. The file is too easy.
2. Oh no you synced it by hand, such a shame.
3. Personal opinion of what a newer player will think, that is entirely irrelevant, and honestly has no place here.

These are the "notes" I got:

Alex Dest:

Our Final Mourning [Beginner] (XelNya) - [?] 3/10
- This chart weighs in at approximately .49 NPS.
- I highly doubt that any novice players will want to play something that consists of 4th notes at 30~ BPM.

Dossar:

Our Final Mourning
4/10
- That ending gallop has to go. A 4th jump would have been great to accent the guitar.
- Any file with a lower TPS than Power is pushing it. If you want users to listen to a relaxing song, just let them listen to it -- don't have all that empty space.
- The sync felt a bit weird in some spots too

Halogen:

Our Final Mourning (XelNya)
Rating: [+?] [4/10]
- because this file generalizes a very slow pace, it’s hard to imply that the chart follows anything notable within the song, it just has a really low pace for the sake of being incredibly easy
- beginner charts are one thing, but balancing playability is another – at 91 seconds, a 44-step chart averages under a note every two seconds; being introductory and easy is one thing, but this is just… too easy, even for the most beginner of players.
- I would be more than accepting for an appeal of this rating if my rating is the one keeping it from being accepted.

Fission:

Our Final Mourning - 3/10
@ this is way too easy even for a brand new player. free space or power are perfectly fine for a player first starting out and there doesn't need to be anything easier, especially when it's this understepped. it's 1 note every two seconds for most of the chart.

I would like to ask one simple question, to each of you. It's going to get very repetitive.

1. Alex, how is this actually "notes?" These are just idle commentary, that even myself could provide, and even then, more reasonably. The fact you think I am unaware how slow it is NPS wise, is insulting. Also to add, your only other point is that it is "not interesting" when in reality, this is merely an opinion that has no actual place here.

So I ask you kindly, explain why this chart is not a 6/10? I am not asking you to give more than that because to be fair I am biased as the file is mine.

2. Dossar, I actually understand your first point. I will concede that. I left it in because it's a bit of a personal touch. The rest of your "notes" however, are again idle commentary and an opinion that is out of place for you to give. I personally find your files repulsive, and I think no one actually wants to play them. And to be honest, look how inaccurate a statement that actually is. The final note, while I guess valid, without confirmation is not dock worthy. Either be specific or don't mention it. A suspicion is of no use to anyone.

So again I ask you the same question, what warranted less than 6 points?

Also to chime in my personal two cents on the sync, I hand placed every single marker. It might be off by not even half a millisecond at most.

3. Halogen, if you actually paid any deviation of attention, the quarters, save for the gallop at the end, are all to the bass. Which is what the file is synced to. Ideally, playability isn't relevant here. It is strictly meant for practicing the most basic part of the game. Hitting notes.

So I ask you as everyone else, what drops this from a 6 to a 4? Surely the gallop is a possible point dock at best, and even if you started from 8/10 like you do, it'd still be a 7 by that standard. Maybe you docked a point for playability? Still a 6/10.

4. Fission, your opinion of what is easy, is highly irrelevant here. We're judging a simfile, and not the difficulty. You cannot argue it is wrong as the chart is done again, to the bass, which is even PRed (Might have 1 misnote maybe?) You "notes" offer literally nothing of value.

This is the fourth time I've asked this, but one more time I suppose to get the point across overall, What warrants a less than 6/10?

Let's take a moment now, to go over the FFR judgement scale. (I have left out 1/10 and lower because those are irrelevant to my point.)

[Main Ratings]

[++] [Supreme, 10/10] Reserved for real masterpieces or flawless files, rare rating. Same as [+] for the purposes of acceptance, but you will get bonus points if your file gets this rating from 2 or more judges.
[+] [Excellent/Great, 9/10 or 8/10] Highest rating, file is strongly accepted by the judge, maybe with minor suggestions.
[+.] [Good/Okay, 7/10 or 6/10] File is either weakly accepted due to being somewhat generic/uninteresting or is good enough for FFR but could use significant improvement.
[+?] [Mediocre/Almost, 5/10 or 4/10] The file is decent overall but needs some important tweaks in certain areas, or has many small technical errors, or doesn't have enough replay value. Not accepted without changes.
[?] [Sub-par/Bad, 3/10 or 2/10] The file has potential, but needs significant reworking in order to be good enough for FFR. Not close to acceptance.

I will agree, this is not a 10/10. There is not any "masterpiece" parts of this chart.

I agree again that a 9/8 out of 10 is not a good score for this file, because there's not too much to note about it. It's not a file that deserves to generate SAP.

7/10 and 6/10 however, is where we will be touching base. This is why. As it reads, the file would be "weakly accepted" because arguably, there is one error in the file. The sync on two markers can be adjusted by maybe half a millisecond at most. This would be a point dock, because honestly more than that is overkill for a miniscule error. Is it uninteresting? To a degree, I will concede, yes. It is not meant for entertainment alone. It is meant as a teaching tool. However, it is a very accurate teaching tool. It has an extremely high amount of PR (especially for a file from me.) It has extremely good sync.

So I ask this one more time.

Why is it fair to give this file less than a 6/10 at least?

A 3 - 5 is meant for a file with an venomous amount of errors, or overall problems with the basic structure of the file. This file has a good structure, the bass. Which may I add, is pretty notable. It's an easy going song, so it suits the song very well because the chart is very easy going. It fits the mood of the song.

Now I would like to touch on one simple thing, that really should be addressed to drive this point home.

At what point does it matter what BPM I use? We have charts in the game that use color gimmicks, to name one even by one of these four judges, Fast Rap Battle, from Halogen himself. This shows that to a degree, you have less ground to stand on that it has to be precisely what it's written at. Even then, understand a simple thing, you can get the same sound from a song if you cut the BPM in half, or double it even.

Also food for thought, do you really think I'd be bothered to hand sync it if I hadn't spent over two hours trying to sync it statically? Would it make sense to do that? No. It doesn't.

I will however concede these things:

1. The file is easy. That was sort of the point. It's meant to be a Power / Free Space chart. I feel as if that was kind of missed or blatantly ignored even.
2. I could easily go in and hand insert BPM markers to mark the BPM as double what it is. I however, at least in this instance of the file (there's a [standard] version) see no reason to do so. It's all quarters, and it would look the same regardless. In a file like this, so long as it is accurate, it's fine. And for the most part, it's perfect.
3. This file is not worthy of SAP. I didn't expect to get any from it. I don't want any for this file. I just want it in game, because arguably there's only one legitimate error, which takes 20 seconds to fix. (And most of that is loading the darn thing.)
4. Dossar does have a valid note. Which is backwards from my personal expectation. I expected the only good notes from Aj honestly.

So I ask this one more time.

But with as much emphasis as I can possibly manage.

Would someone please explain in extremely noted detail, how a file with 44 notes, no non-subjective structure errors, no major sync issues, one legitimate error, and is so easy you could almost play it with one finger should you feel the need....

How does a chart like this fail, and in extreme detail, why?

I am earnestly at a loss of how this is acceptable. You lumped this with a file that has a completely wrong BPM, numerous errors riddled throughout the file, and according to the notes, wasn't even labeled right: Treasure Trove Cove. That is the amount of mistake you all made. You'd ban me for describing how wrong that is.

I won't even ask for a rejudge because it'll just go ignored because all the judges were at least mostly on the same page. But let it be known I will be sending this file with ONE change in about 5 minutes to the current batch.

But I still want an answer of how this is actually a thing.

Edit: Sent it.

[AlexDest]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

The fact you think I am unaware how slow it is NPS wise, is insulting.

Sheesh, defensive much? Nowhere did I say that you weren't aware of the NPS. But hey, my apologies, I guess I was too subtle with the message I was trying to go for there, what I'm actually saying there is:

"Are you serious? Put effort into this chart, you can do so much better than .49 NPS."

Also to add, your only other point is that it is "not interesting" when in reality, this is merely an opinion that has no actual place here.

If you can find a good majority of people that would actually label this as "interesting" then let me know.

1. Alex, how is this actually "notes?" These are just idle commentary, that even myself could provide, and even then, more reasonably.

So I ask you kindly, explain why this chart is not a 6/10? I am not asking you to give more than that because to be fair I am biased as the file is mine.

I'm not sure why you're getting pissy at ratings for a chart of yours that you believe should still be on the grounds of rejection. Now, your reaction would be justified if you received 1/10s, but you didn't, so what's the problem? If you believe this chart should be a 6/10 or 7/10 because it fits the criteria of what is said about those ratings on the front post, then you're mistaken.

This isn't a 6/10 because your chart is just incredibly lackluster and credibility-begging, nothing more should be said. Just because there is pitch relevancy, doesn't make it better. Anyone with little to no knowledge of simfile charting could do what you did within 5-10 minutes, even with massive pitch relevancy mistakes, it'd play the same exact way.

You have the knowledge and creativity to create a much better chart than this, so why throw those qualities away for something like Our Final Mourning? Even if it's to cater towards novice players, do you honestly think they would want to play something THIS easy?

[Nullifidian]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

rant

Say you draw a technically perfect straight line. Well, whoopdefuckingdoo there are no technical errors but it's just a boring ass drawing for 99.99999% of the viewers. Having no technical errors doesn't make you exempt of other criticism. You don't get a free pass for acceptance just because you have no technical errors. Subjective factors and opinion definitely do weigh in, so don't go saying "it has no place here". If not for opinion, shitty repetetive songs with technically perfect but stupid to play charts would get accepted too.

no technical errors =/= a good chart

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[Nullifidian]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

perfect :')

[DefTeaMachine]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2



brb quitting stepmania forever

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Quitting FlashFlashRevolution

[Charu]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Thinking of submitting a t+pazolite chart I made about 2 months or so ago alongside the revised song.

Who wants more buzz stuff, yo?

EDIT: Unless hi19 wants a shot at it, I recall you said you stepped Gruntilda's Final Battle or rather had interest.

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Who wants more buzz stuff, yo?.

[ItsOnlyDanO]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

everybody* loves buzz noise

*maybe not everybody

[GammaBlaster]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

everybody was kung fu fighting

[hi19hi19]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

EDIT: Unless hi19 wants a shot at it, I recall you said you stepped Gruntilda's Final Battle or rather had interest.

I stepped it, but my chart was a 270 bpm JS dump.

I could go make a good chart out of it eventually (fun song!) but if anyone else wants to step it, it's all theirs.

[MarioNintendo]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

Didn't mean to imply anything of the sort, just that you should describe why you gave some of the charts certain ratings. Sorry if that's what you though I meant.

No worries, man. Still done.