2019 September/October Set 8

[psychoangel691]

Judge: TC_Halogen

anqad [Heavy] (bmah)
anqad [Light] (bmah)
Apocalypse (bmah)
Big Tree (Home Alone Remix) (LeKrispyKreme)
Choprite (ositzxz369)
Cruel Whole (Abelcain Remix) (ositzxz369)
Edible Flower Monologue (bmah)
Epstein-Horsharck Lids (ositzxz369)
Floating Point (Drumcorps Remix) [EzExZeRo7497]
Landscape (bmah)

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

If my Choprite v2 and Cruel Whole v3 gets accepted, then I'd prefer if the token requirement was to "FC Choprite v1, and FC Cruel Whole v2" respectively. I think AAA'ing stuff is unfun, and hopefully FC'ing them will prove to be much easier than SDG'ing them (if u get something dumb like a missflag, then that's unfortunate lol)

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

On second thought, is it possible to make the token requirement something like "Have a score that's equal or better than ositzxz369's score on Choprite v1 & Cruel Whole v2" ? I don't plan on beating my personal best for these two songs anytime soon. And can I write the message for when ppl unlock the token?

[psychoangel691]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

On second thought, is it possible to make the token requirement something like "Have a score that's equal or better than ositzxz369's score on Choprite v1 & Cruel Whole v2" ? I don't plan on beating my personal best for these two songs anytime soon. And can I write the message for when ppl unlock the token?

I think we'd probably avoid anything like this for token unlocks. It should be something static that can't change.

[Dinglesberry]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

On second thought, is it possible to make the token requirement something like "Have a score that's equal or better than ositzxz369's score on Choprite v1 & Cruel Whole v2" ? I don't plan on beating my personal best for these two songs anytime soon. And can I write the message for when ppl unlock the token?

You have 11 misses on cruel whole so just have the req be "get 10 or less misses" or something, that makes more sense to me, and on choprite its 25 goods, so "get 25 or less goods", both are more definite numbers

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

I think we'd probably avoid anything like this for token unlocks. It should be something static that can't change.

Oh I wouldn't expect a code to be made that actively looks at my score and updates the token requirement according to it. I guess I'll say that for Choprite v2's token unlock, I want it to be "Beat ositzxz369's Choprite v1 PB as indicated on November 10, 2019 - which was 25-0-0-7 (AKA unlock this by getting 26.4 raw goods or better). Same idea for unlocking Cruel Whole v3.

You have 11 misses on cruel whole so just have the req be "get 10 or less misses" or something, that makes more sense to me, and on choprite its 25 goods, so "get 25 or less goods", both are more definite numbers

If the token can't be coded to be based off raw goods (where players' score accuracy ratios can vary, yet can still be able to unlock it), then your idea of using flat amount of misses/goods sounds good to me.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Just as a heads up; I was assigned this set on the 20th but I hadn't really gotten started on it until today. I've completed 4 out of the 9 files in this set - one or two more sessions at most should get this set done.

[TC_Halogen]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Accepted
anqad [Light] (bmah) [9/10]
Landscape (bmah) [9/10]
Apocalypse (bmah) [8.5/10]
Edible Flower Monologue (bmah) [8.5/10]
anqad [Heavy] (bmah) [7.5/10]

Conditional Queue
Epstein-Horshark Lids (ositzxz369) [8.5*/10] - resolve 32nd bursts creating implicit minijacks
Cruel Whole (Abelcain Remix) (ositzxz369) [8*/10] - add missing jacks to structure

Fixes Required
Choprite (ositzxz369) [6/10]
Big Tree (LeKrispyKreme) (Home Alone Remix) [2/10]

[TC_Halogen]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

anqad [Heavy] {onoken feat. b} (bmah)
Rating: 7.5/10 [+.]
- offset is a touch off (changed from -3.232 to -3.241)
- second triple right from the start feels a bit strange...
- 11.991: this seems like it could be a jump for a missing bass note, but it’s not a major deal
- 18.598: missing note hi-hat just after this note, make sure you’re catching all of them
- 46.008: missing note for melody
- 50.919: hi-hats extend beyond this point, to 51.455
- 1:02.526: ^, similar deal, though not quite as necessary given that it builds up through an increasing cymbal crash
- 1:14.669: not a fan of this jumpstream; the song is actually lightening up a bit yet this is the most dense part of the chart itself
- first half of final chorus is copy/pasted from an earlier section which kinda brings on the drag a bit
- solid file overall; wouldn’t say there’s anything notably good or bad about it, just a textbook acceptable file.

anqad [Light] {onoken feat. b} (bmah)
Rating: 9/10 [+]
- offset is off similarly to Heavy counterpart (changed from -3.232 to -3.241)
- very tasteful reduction for an easier chart; absolutely love the approach taken in the chorus areas
- nice pitch relevance in the guitar solo
- great easier chart; I prefer this approach more than the Heavy by a mile

Apocalypse {Morrigan feat. Lily} (bmah)
Rating: 8.5/10 [+]
- artist was not provided in .sm file; please send updated .sm file with proper metadata
- offset changed from -1.130 to -1.143
- my only real criticism for this chart is that a lot of the jumps feel like they could be removed due to not clearly accenting either differentiated notes or separated syllables (as an example that recurs: 7.143, 7.506, 8.597, etc), giving the chart a somewhat overlayered presentation
- 1:10.779: this could be a color accent as a continuation from the flams; not a requirement, just an idea
- 1:14.506/(etc): with there being multiple instruments that land on here this particular piano note and it being represented as jumps a bit ago, it feels a bit strange for them to be omitted the way they are; it feels like there’s missing jumps but I’m honestly not 100% sure what’s being concretely followed beyond the percussion and the piano here. borderline insignificant in the grand scheme of things; structure still feels solid here overall as well.
- 1:25.506: jumps are presented inside of the fastest streams, so layering them in should be fine when the section concludes as well
- good chart

Big Tree (Home Alone Remix) {Pogo} (LeKrispyKreme)
Rating: 2/10 [-]
- chart should be quantized such that the structure is using 12th notes as opposed to 8th notes, as the downbeats should fall at 110 BPM as opposed to the 165 BPM you have now. If you’re uncertain how to do this, I can assist you 1-on-1 on this - it’ll be pretty fast (or I can just do it for you).
- tempo change aside, the offset is actually reasonably accurate, though it could be shifted slightly earlier (-0.345 to -0.340).
- with that tempo change aside, your chart’s structure needs a lot of work. The triples used for following the primary accented note in the bass-line are much too strong of an accent for the rest of the chart, which is mostly 8th note streaming at 165.
- in general, with the exception of those occasional triples, the music is generally ignored. There are some good things paid attention to, like the repeated vocals at 45.067 (the earlier instance was inaccurate because it only had three repeated taps)
- when you approach this chart a second time, try to concretely determine what you would like to be followed in your chart. If you have situations where you’re following 2 or more instruments, utilize your best judgment to determine which delivers the best distribution of notes for the song.
- when trying to follow lyrics, only keep a simple rhythm if the notes actually are reasonably close to the vocals. Your 16th notes for the lyrics are fairly far off compared to the actual rhythms.
- be a bit more mindful of your pattern usage; try to make it more meaningful.

Choprite {Venetian Snares} (ositzxz369)
Rating: 6/10 [?]
- offset of -0.034 keeps the BPM at 200 flat (the first sample of the song is a bit chopped off for some reason but subsequent beats are fine). There’s no need to change the BPM beyond that for the sync structure.
- numerous missing notes for samples (8.810, 10.685, 13.610, 14.060, 43.382, 43.682, 1:19.836, etc.)
- 14.135/14.435: might be suited as single notes since you represent the fuller kicks with doubles
- 36.035: if you’re going to follow the melody here, then fill out the notes earlier in the phrase at 34.085/34.385
- 41.587: the BPM changes that were done here are completely unnecessary and actually cause a very brief blue-note syndrome (that is: the downbeat of the song is temporarily on a blue note) which is why you require a 400+ BPM change to fix things back to red again.
- 42.932: the kicks keep going past here at a pretty audible volume, so them being missing in the notes to follow feels a bit strange, I suppose
- 50.432: similar situation with the BPM changes
- 1:00.335: likely also worth being a jump given that the kicks are there on 8ths as well
- 1:00.939: should be 64th swing like earlier
- 1:09.870: ^, etc - this keeps happening and has additional locations where this can be applied
- 1:10.239: this is a very nasty burst, oof
- 1:34.384: pattern should be shifted to put this particular note on something that’s not a [D]
- 1:50.134: can definitely have a kick here
- 1:58.534/etc: missing 16th notes for some kicks
- 2:03.184: this particular kick is quite punchy and likely should be represented as a jump - if not, then the jump at 2:03.634 should be shifted to something to include a [R] in it, for better relevance
- 2:06.934: some missing kicks here
- 2:27.557: ghost note
- 2:48.409: missing note, etc
- 3:07.535: these jumps stand out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the section
- 3:26.133: missing jump
- 3:34.522: ^
- 3:45.406: missing note, etc
- lots of stuff in here to be fixed; sync can also be readjusted to not have the crazy fluctuations in it
- chart has a solid structure and clear intent at points
- burst difficulty is a bit inconsistent; some of the bursts particularly from 3 minutes and on are quite a bit harder than earlier counterparts

Cruel Whole (Abelcain Remix) {Venetian Snares} (ositzxz369)
Rating: 8*/10 [+.*]
- 33.333/etc: should be jacks here as well according to your structure (happens a ton)
- 1:12.322: previous kicks actually collide into the stronger one - this is the only time in the song this happens so it should be accented accordingly
- conditional queue on addition of jacks in instances like 33.333; I understand this may have been deliberate, but it is glaringly incorrect to ignore it half the time when there’s no legitimate reason to
(- this is a perfect opportunity to seek an appeal if you don’t want to change the structure)

Edible Flower Monologue {OSTER Project feat. Yu Tokiwa} (bmah)
Rating: 8.5/10 [+]
- 8.226: instrument actually plays 24ths here (it’s quite hard to hear at 100% speed, admittedly)
- 8.976: missing note for same instrument here, should be five 16ths
- 39.726 to 55.726: structure here feels a bit off because of following the accordion-like instrument for layering purposes here, as it’s a bit tougher to hear - it’s not -wrong-, just tough to follow at times
- 48.726: assuming the previous point - missing a note for it here
- polys at the end are quite rough
- chart’s very good overall

Epstein-Horsharck Lids {Venetian Snares} (ositzxz369)
Rating: 8.5*/10 [+*]
- the whole repeating pattern motif that happens throughout the file is executed pretty nicely, I dig it
- a few weird jumps earlier on (2.100, 14.356, 22.588, 49.843)
- 41.977: change this burst, doesn’t need a mini-jack like this
- 1:06.444: another burst to clean up
- conditional queue on adjustment of bursts to remove mini-jacks; they detract from an otherwise cool structure/concept
- very good chart, feels both old school and new school at the same time

Landscape {Tsukasa} (bmah)
Rating: 9/10 [+]
- missing piano notes at 29.118, 35.975
- 44.654: optional - there’s actually a nice little flourish here that could be accented if you’re in the mood to make that triple really forceful (since a player’s basically gonna have to burst into it)
- this layering structure… I’m used to aggressive from you, but this doesn’t feel like a chart coming from you at all
- that’s not a bad thing at all in this case; I literally had “excuse me?” written as the first note when I hit the mini-jack + colliding jumps and whatnot
- excellent chart; despite how heavily layered this is, there’s a lot of detail in it

[bmah]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Sent minor fixes for all of my files, from offset changes to arrow changes. anqad [Heavy] has the most changes.

Apocalypse {Morrigan feat. Lily} (bmah)
Rating: 8.5/10 [+]
- artist was not provided in .sm file; please send updated .sm file with proper metadata

Are you sure? I've checked on my end and seems like the artist information is included.

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

I updated Epstein-Horsharck Lids and Cruel Whole (Abelcain Remix). I'll fix Choprite later.

[psychoangel691]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Floating Point (Drumcorps Remix) [EzExZeRo7497] {The Algorithm}
Rating: 7.5/10 [+.]
- gimme a minute while I push all positive bias out of the way before judging this because this song is seriously god-tier to me
- OK SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT OUT OF THE WAY
- 15.588/etc: situations like this where the jack patterns break off (15.910) are a bit unclear given that the foundation of jacks typically follows the guitar chugging + bass drum; in this circumstance, all five notes would be viable as the same -- if the deviation happens as a result of the lower melody shifting, then you can’t defend having all the jacks there, and if the deviation happens as a result of the higher note hit that happens at 15.910 (similar to 16.553), then what dictates the changes at 17.195/24.053, etc? Food for thought.
- 16.445: non-isolated overtoned note that likely should be a 192nd
- 25.883: while this is an overtone/buzz - given the fullness and separation and earlier notes, wouldn’t this effectively be a triple as well?
- 30.695/30.803: some more notes here that likely should be 192nds given their general overtoning
- 40.231: remove white here
- 44.624 to 1:08.624: I’ve always been a huge fan of how menacing this section sounds, and the jacks in here are absolutely brutal, but very fitting.
- ^, that being said: some things to consider:
----- missing note for guitar at 44.731 for continuity purposes, since that’s what you accent
----- 46.338/etc: because the guitar is no longer accompanied by the bass kicks, you now have a tonal element and having them repeat looks a bit strange, given that they are very clearly two different notes; additionally, having these detracts from the actual repeated percussion accents that happen at 47.838/etc.
---- 1:07.660: missing jump for kicks here; gives a bit more abrasion to the termination of that section
- 1:33.160: that snare is accompanied by an overtone that clearly continues from earlier, so this note likely should be a 192nd as well
- 1:50.195: move this [UR] to a [DR] to better accent the separation in the guitar chugging (your current pattern creates a very noticeable four-note anchor)
- follow through with keeping a check on your mini-jacks and make sure they’re clearly working in the way you want them to in terms of representation of the percussion/guitar/bass/etc.
- 2:54.374: percussion changes slightly here; missing jump for kick to help separate things out a bit
- 3:01.981: given that you can’t use a hold here or anything, it’d be nice to have something here to accent that buzz (a few notes for the attacks of the overtones would likely work well here)
- even with all the things suggested, the chart’s structure is very deliberate and is effective overall
- clean up some mini-jacks and add a bit more accenting power to the main sections of the song

[EzExZeRo7497]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

- 15.588/etc: situations like this where the jack patterns break off (15.910) are a bit unclear given that the foundation of jacks typically follows the guitar chugging + bass drum; in this circumstance, all five notes would be viable as the same -- if the deviation happens as a result of the lower melody shifting, then you can’t defend having all the jacks there, and if the deviation happens as a result of the higher note hit that happens at 15.910 (similar to 16.553), then what dictates the changes at 17.195/24.053, etc? Food for thought.

I charted Floating Point about 2.5 years ago, so my memory of this is pretty foggy. I believe that the general idea I had in mind was that I broke longer jack-chains whenever a player can hear prominent notes of the primary melody of the song. I didn't want to use 5-chord jumpjacks for these particular sections because it would fail to follow a very prominent part of the song. Following just the main melody would be similarly bad (imo far worse) because it fails to follow a very salient part of the song. What I did, as a result, was some sort of compromise which is similar to how you would accent certain rhythms in a stream or jumpstream.

The prominent notes, in this case, would be (that are also layered as doubles): 14.088, 15.374, 15.910, 16.553, 17.195-17.303, 19.445-19.553, 20.195, 20.945, along with other sounds in repeated sections. I consider these sounds prominent because they're salient enough (generally significantly higher-pitched or lower-pitched than the sounds surrounding it, though it doesn't have to be as shrill as say, 15.910). This includes 24.053. I don't know to what degree my logic is solid here because I'm not good at picking up tonal instrumentation, but I hope that this makes some sense.

Looking at the chart now, the accenting is very sloppily executed (a lot of the notes that I've mentioned above aren't even accented), and it's my fault for being as sloppy as I was here. I might've been a bit too prudent or just unsure of how to work out the accenting in that section. That said, I think I have a better way of using chords for the bass chugs for this section and the main sections of the chart (more mechanical). I'll rework this and get back to you, but the general idea is the same for this specific section: using certain chords to deviate from specific jumpjacks before it to emphasise specific parts of the song.

- 16.445: non-isolated overtoned note that likely should be a 192nd

I didn't accent this note because I thought it was too low-pitched and inaudible, but given that these overtones are way more different from hi-hats than other notes with overtones... I wouldn't be able to defend using 16ths here anyway. Added.

- 25.883: while this is an overtone/buzz - given the fullness and separation and earlier notes, wouldn’t this effectively be a triple as well?

I thought that this note was softer, which was why I used a double for this. The difference between earlier triples and this is insignificant though, so I'll use a triple here. Fixed (along with other iterations of this).

- 30.695/30.803: some more notes here that likely should be 192nds given their general overtoning

Same reason as 16.445: I felt that the other two notes were a bit too low-pitched. Not a strong justification to make them non-192nds for the reason above though.

----- missing note for guitar at 44.731 for continuity purposes, since that’s what you accent

I think I was just being too prude here in general -- I didn't think that the notes were salient enough to layer doubles there. Fixed.

----- 46.338/etc: because the guitar is no longer accompanied by the bass kicks, you now have a tonal element and having them repeat looks a bit strange, given that they are very clearly two different notes; additionally, having these detracts from the actual repeated percussion accents that happen at 47.838/etc.

You're right there, my mistake. Changed how doubles are used here. Snares are distinguished based on the double that was not used for the guitar.

1:07.660: missing jump for kicks here; gives a bit more abrasion to the termination of that section

I didn't layer this because I felt that the kick here is a bit soft relative to the other sounds in this section, but I can do that regardless since there is indeed a bass kick there.

- 1:33.160: that snare is accompanied by an overtone that clearly continues from earlier, so this note likely should be a 192nd as well

I couldn't really hear the buzz sound until I slowed it down to about 70%, which was why I made this a regular 16th. I'm not sure if the overtone is noticeable on normal speed, but I'll change this to a 192nd either way. The fact that the double is a [34] is enough to show that there is a snare present.

- 1:50.195: move this [UR] to a [DR] to better accent the separation in the guitar chugging (your current pattern creates a very noticeable four-note anchor)

Snares are always [34] or [12] outside of the choruses. There were two exceptions in the intro of the chart, and that was because I was trying to avoid 6+ note anchors. I found a way of avoiding the 4-note anchor regardless (and there aren't any 4-note anchors in the rest of this section based on what I did).

- follow through with keeping a check on your mini-jacks and make sure they’re clearly working in the way you want them to in terms of representation of the percussion/guitar/bass/etc.

I don't exactly know what you mean by this, but I redid how specific doubles are used for this section along with the intro. I don't think that I can follow the melody in any capacity here, so I'm focusing almost entirely on percussion in this section.

- 2:54.374: percussion changes slightly here; missing jump for kick to help separate things out a bit

Added jump. My mistake.

- 3:01.981: given that you can’t use a hold here or anything, it’d be nice to have something here to accent that buzz (a few notes for the attacks of the overtones would likely work well here

Added a 32nd burst here along with another 32nd burst (2:30.481) based on similar logic.

Changed a few miscellaneous things (missing notes and accents primarily) that weren't mentioned in the notes because I overlooked them since I'm very dumb.

Thanks for the notes as usual -- I've sent fixes based on your feedback and some structural changes. I'd like further feedback on the intro of the chart particularly since that's the primary section that we disagree on.

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Updated Choprite. Not surprised if it needs one or two more rounds of fixes. Anyways, here's my explanation for not following through with some of the notes on Choprite:

- numerous missing notes for samples (8.810, 10.685, 13.610, 14.060, 43.382, 43.682, 1:19.836, etc.)

I only didn’t do 10.685, 43.382, 43.682, b/c those sound like just vocals, which I’m intentionally not stepping.

- 36.035: if you’re going to follow the melody here, then fill out the notes earlier in the phrase at 34.085/34.385

I didn’t fill 34.085/34.385 b/c the vocals drowned out the melody for a bit (whereas at 36.035 it was clear enough)

- 42.932: the kicks keep going past here at a pretty audible volume, so them being missing in the notes to follow feels a bit strange, I suppose

Where don’t I have kicks (assuming they are stepped as jumps) after 42.932?

[ositzxz369]

Re: 2019 September/October Set 8

Updated Choprite again. Made some of the 32nd bursts less stupid. Also changed file difficulty from Medium to Hard.