Results and Reflections on BOF2009

In the Score Division, Team “Black Jacks” took first place, while in the Median Division, Team “7.31 dancer” emerged victorious. Congratulations to both teams!

This year marked the 5th BOF, and it saw the return of BMS creators who had been inactive for some time, along with participation from many well-known BMS authors. With the highest number of participating teams and impressions in BOF history, this year’s event became the most exciting and lively one to date.

The concept of a “boss team” had existed for quite some time, but I never imagined that such a team would actually form through open participation.
Whenever events like this are held, one topic that always comes up is “name value”—the idea that well-known creators tend to receive more points, resulting in large point gaps compared to lesser-known participants. I hear concerns every year asking whether this is really fair for an event like this.

However, having run events like this for many years, I personally believe that name value is also part of one’s ability. Many of the creators who consistently rank highly are also people who release music in many different places, not just within BOF. By steadily producing works, improving technical skill, and promoting themselves across various platforms, name recognition naturally follows.
In other words, it is the result of accumulated effort.

As for those who complain that they cannot win due to point differences, my response is simply: “Then what do you think the Median Division is for?”
Even unknown creators with good songs are properly reflected there through average-based evaluation.

This Year’s Theme: “Revolutionary Battles”

This year’s theme, “revolutionary battles,” quite literally meant revolution. In short, it involved major rule changes, all of which included experimental elements.

Among these, changing impression scores from 100 points to 1000 points was particularly experimental in many ways. Additionally, we revived simultaneous public release and P2P distribution, which had last been used in 2006. Once again, I strongly felt that both of these elements are essential for energizing the event.

BOF does make small rule changes every year, but this year’s changes were especially bold.

Evolution of the BMS Format

As mentioned last year, the evolution of the BMS format has not slowed down—if anything, it has accelerated. This year’s competition featured many works using BMS extended definitions, enabling new forms of expression.

There was also an increase in OGG and movie-based works, and perhaps influenced by new features introduced in the official game, LN (Long Note) charts increased significantly compared to last year. LN may continue to develop as a new expressive tool going forward.

In terms of the BMS format itself, a true “revolution” occurred this year, exactly as the theme suggested—though honestly, this was completely unexpected.

Rule Loopholes and Ethics

Rules inevitably have loopholes, and exploiting them is nothing new. In BOF2008, because we did not explicitly state that submissions had to be newly created for the event, some non-new works were submitted. Since this was not clearly prohibited, it became a classic “rule loophole” that the organizers could not contest.

This year as well, there were entries that exploited such loopholes. I won’t name the works, but I believe those highly artistic entries were something entirely new for BOF.

On the other hand, there were also several entries that technically violated the rules. This time, however, all of them were overlooked. I will not go into detail about what rules were broken or by which works. I believe this is a matter of moral responsibility that creators themselves should recognize.

If I had to give a hint, it would be like this:
“In a cooking contest where many people taste dishes to decide the score, secretly adding seasoning to a completed dish.”
If the flavor changes, the evaluation naturally changes as well. Please consider for yourself whether such actions are fair.

On Malicious Impressions

As usual, there were some impressions clearly driven by personal grudges rather than the works themselves. Some were removed, but honestly, I feel that ‘0-point’ impressions that serve no purpose other than harassment could be abolished entirely.

Event Issues and Apology

While I would like to say the event was a success, there were issues such as the server going down during the simultaneous release, as well as various system shortcomings. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. We will reflect on these issues and strive to improve next year.

Behind the Scenes

Now that it’s over, I can say this: although BOF is often assumed to be run by a large team, it was actually operated by just two people—the organizer and one helper. While several people have assisted since BOF2004, the event has essentially been run by one person.

In other words, a large-scale event can be run by a single motivated individual. This community often relies heavily on others, but taking initiative oneself rather than depending on others is something I believe is necessary to further energize the scene.

Final Thoughts for Creators

A BMS work only truly becomes complete when music, visuals, and charts all come together. Even if one element is outstanding, the work will not be highly evaluated if the others fall short.

Rather than being discouraged by low scores or lack of impressions, I hope creators will apply what they learned to their next work or future events.

Those who didn’t receive strong evaluations this time can improve through effort, and by next year, I believe they will be able to produce excellent works. I look forward to seeing those refined creations in the next BOF.

Scores Aren’t Everything

Personally, I don’t believe scores are everything in this event. People experience BOF in different ways—some focus on rankings, while others simply enjoy the festival atmosphere without worrying about points.

How one interprets this event is entirely up to the individual.

So, until next year.

Notice

All registered works are being distributed via P2P.
Currently, a package archive containing all BOF2009 registered works (with some exceptions) is being distributed through a P2P network.

To download, you will need P2P software such as BitTorrent. For installation instructions, please refer to “About BitTorrent – Ceena::BitTorrentTracker::”.

For torrent files and package details, please check the link provided.

This year’s tracker site uses Ceena::BitTorrentTracker:: – BitTorrent Resource Archive, which also supported BOF2006.