Bracket 1 - Rating and Discussion

[Sir.Rendr]

Tilt: +5 - Used for any reason, like extra charts or similar (This can only fill in points that the entrant missed in other areas!)

There were plenty of files in this pack that included extras, or goodies, yet, neither of the two reviews included the important tilt factor.

How come?

[hellrazor]

How come?

Let's see, because they don't have to and probably didn't want to. The important part is that they reviewed all of the files equally (no tilt score for anything).

[x0_000]

Light: 4/5

Even if it's a Light chart I don't like seeing random doublestepping in it (beginning), so I'll have to dock a bit for that. Otherwise it's ok. Not how I would have done it but whatever.

Standard: 4.5/5

Wee bit of unnecessary doublestepping. Jacks probably could have been swapped for regular streams but that's mostly personal choice.

Heavy: 6/10

Again, some unnecessary doublestepping present, although I could see some spins going with the horns. I feel some more jumps could have help the chart become more interesting as well. Overall, there's nothing memorable about it.

Presentation: 3/5

It's got the basics. Graphics could easily be better with a gradient overlay on the clock. Right now it looks like Google Image + text. Readme made a mistake about the standard difficulty too, for some reason.

Tilt: +0

Doesn't have anything other than the standard, so nothing to see here.

Total:17.5/25

Light: 4.5/5

Stylistically speaking, the chart is unusually hard for a Light chart. Steps flow well, though and nothing seems out of place. It feels more of a 5 to me than a 4.

Standard: 5/5

...So this could pass for a Heavy chart. The ending sequence is especially suited for it. No real problems otherwise.

Heavy: 8.5/10

Solid 9, no doubt about it. A few of the sporadic technical sections feel out of place though, even if the chart is meant to be difficult.

Presentation: 3.5/5

E-Rotic graphic clashes awfully with the rest of the background, try changing it to yellow. The videos are ok, but nothing amazing.

Tilt: +0

Nada. It's got nothing other than the usual suspects.

Total: 21.5/25

Light: 5/5

Solid chart with no noticeable problems.

Standard: 5/5

m9-10 transition has a double step, but otherwise a perfectly fine chart.

Heavy: 6/10

The overall chart doesn't feel very consistent. There are needless technical sections throughout the second eigth-note run, and the use of eighth-note runs itself feels like a cop out. Difficulty drops like a bomb in the end, as well.

Presentation: 2/5

The cut isn't amazing, especially the poor fadeout at the end. Graphics are random assortments of text and fractals without anything to tie to the song. You could add a heart, or something relevant!

Tilt: +1

What's this? A Challenge chart?

Total:19/25

Light: 5/5

No problems with this chart.

Standard: 4/5

An ok chart, although some of the rhythms don't make sense to me.

Heavy: 7/10

Don't quite get the doublestepping triplets stuff at the beginning and not really a fan of the eighth-note run at m22. The rest of the chart was ok.

Presentation: 2/5

Title could be clearer, stroke it or at least don't make it a color that's really similar to the staff. Ending sync is sloppy as well.

Tilt: +0

I see nothing worth mentioning.

Total: 18/25

Light: 5/5

Steps go well with the song and usage of eighth-notes are well done.

Standard: 5/5

Overall good, although the ending jump should go properly with the end.

Heavy: 8/10

The chart is good, but the 1+1=2 section is too similar to the Standard chart.

Presentation: 3.5/5

Background animations are pretty good, although they could be taken a step further. Sync is sloppy around the slowdown, it's pretty offsync for the first few measures.

Tilt: +1

Beginner chart (Whoops) and Heavy doubles chart present.

Total: 22.5/25

Light: 4.5/5

A bit inconsistent. You use the eighth notes at the end, but in the measures before that you don't, even though the current steps don't quite go with the music, e.g. m1,3,5,7,60,62,64.

Standard: 4.5/5

The inconsistencies are still bothersome.

Heavy: 9/10

Pretty fun! Some doublestepping at m17-18 and m64-65 , m26 and 28 don't seem to follow anything but otherwise great.

Presentation: 3.5/5

Good graphics and standard stuff. The slowdown is a good addition.

Tilt: +0

Nothing to note.

Total: 21.5

Light: 5/5

Good chart without any noticeable flaws.

Standard: 5/5

Hey, 16ths in my Standard chart! The chart is solid and goes with the music, although there are some parts I'd do differently.

Heavy: 10/10

It was a enjoyable chart. Also a good job with keeping what would have been an eighth-note run interesting.

Presentation: 2.5/5

graphics are slick although not quite representative of the song, the not-so-slowdown irks me and introduces unnecessary 32nds.

Tilt: +1

Doubles? In my simfile?

Total:23.5

Time To Move - 23.5
Otso Otso - 22.5
Sunny The Ride, Dynamite - 21.5
Loveline - 19.4
Oratio - 18
4 Minutes - 17.5

[C Jota]

I don't know if its even allowed, but I would like to pull my sim out of the competition. I didn't know the kind of style this comp was and didn't step/prepare the file in such a way to be successful in the competition. I'm sorry if this is trouble, but I'd like to save the embarrassment and my reputation lol.

[Sir.Rendr]

?!

Yah, I kinda' noticed your cd-title was on Loveline. I didn't notice it at first, but now when I look at it again, it clearly reads "CJOTA".

[BLueSS]

I don't know if its even allowed, but I would like to pull my sim out of the competition. I didn't know the kind of style this comp was and didn't step/prepare the file in such a way to be successful in the competition. I'm sorry if this is trouble, but I'd like to save the embarrassment and my reputation lol.

Umm, I would allow that, if there was someway possible of actually doing it (since it seems like you want to withdraw anonymously?).
By "removing the file", I'm essentially saying that that was your file. So everyone will know it's you anyway. Additionally, after the first round, the files who do not move on will be revealed who did them.

Your file isn't horrible by any means, there are just stronger files in the pack. Definitely don't let just TWO reviews indicate that is the opinion of everyone else. The more reviews you get for it, the better feedback you can build on for next time too.

So I'd recommend just waiting it out until the end of round 1. I can't stop you though from pulling out, but I don't see a reason to. You've already stated you weren't prepared for the style of tournament, so whether you leave it in or not, we've already heard you say you can do better.

[Sir.Rendr]

What about the issue on the cd-title?

He obviously didn't know the first 2 points of this competition.

1. Annonimity
2. DDR-styled steps

The steps were indeed very ITG and he included his own cd-title.

But your file wasn't bad at all. It just wasn't made for this type of tournament, which, as I see from what you said above, is the reason why you're willing to drop out.

BTW, who cares about reputation? Just show up next tournament with a kick butt file and all of the past will be forgotten (not like you've ruined anything about your simfile career by your submission).

[BLueSS]

What about the issue on the cd-title?

We'll see if it makes it to the next round first.
Unfortunately, I didn't catch that sooner.

I haven't been super strict with anything (besides GAP issues) this tournament, and the file will not be DQ'ed for it because I do not believe it was intentional (and I don't think it will change the outcome of the file either).
One could say that the stylistic properties of MANY of the entered files give the authors away too. Those don't DQ a file, and will never be in the DQ list. But even if I didn't have the list of entrants, I could have matched about 5 authors right off the bat.

The reason it is anonymous it to try to make it fair for as many people as possible, and allow well known authors to make files without their name being attached automatically to the file. If I see anyone trying to ruin the spirit of the competition, I will DQ your file without hesitation. I try to make it fun and fair for everyone, so as long as you do the same, everything will go good.

[C Jota]

I'm not down about how my file did, I've just read other reviews in other brackets, and I realize this is more of ddr-influenced charts, while I am an ITG-influenced stepper.

I did not realize I left my cd title in the file I didn't mean to do that, and it kind of blows because everybody knows which file is mine.

It just seems pointless to pull it out now, just let things run its course, I'll probably laugh if it goes through anyways.

I will download this sims for this comp and hold onto them until a new competition goes underway so I can see how I need to step.

[BLueSS]

I will download this sims for this comp and hold onto them until a new competition goes underway so I can see how I need to step.

Good plan. We'd definitely like to see you back for the next competition.

[C Jota]

Somebody will have to alert me though, I'm pretty sure I'll end up forgetting unless its in the near future.

[BLueSS]

Summer... (well, for those in the Northern Hemisphere).

4-5 months away.

[C Jota]

Oh yeah I'll definitely need some kind of alert haha

[Juub005]

x0_000, in regards to your review of 4 Minutes and what you said for Loveline's Standard chart (though I recognize you didn't take off any points there), what's wrong with doublestepping occasionally? It's not as if you're going to slip and fall every time it happens or feel immense displeasure-- in fact I think that a lot of people have an unnecessary fear of doublesteps. DDR has doublestepping all over the place, so it's not as if it's a rarity or anything, and it's not all just "End of the Century"-style where the double-stepping just hits you like a hammer. If DDR stuck fully to alternating feet all the time, it wouldn't be the same game. Doublestepping in DDR has only become extremely rare lately, with the release of the Supernovas. Keep in mind that the slight amounts of doublestepping you're calling unnecessary are probably intentional, regardless of whether it's stated explicitly in the readme or not.

I guess the real issue I have is that it seems like you're saying that if a double-step in a pattern could easily have been modified to make the pattern completely an alternating-feet one, then it should have been an alternating-feet pattern...?[/quote]

[x0_000]

Personally I find if you are going to use doublestepping, you should use it consistently or at least use it in a way such that it's obvious it's intentional. Most of the doublestepping I found felt more like oversights than creative license. If I see an unintentional doublestep it makes me think the author was randomly slapping arrows down (or at least sloppy in his doublechecking) rather than putting some thought, regardless of what the true intent was.