Gens wrote:

So, what about the idea of letting the mapper choose what to disable and what not? For some gimmick maps it'd totally destroy the joke, and in that case, everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages.

winber1 wrote:

playing-wise, 90% vs 100% has pretty much no effect. There is truly no disadvantage. If you truly think there is a difference, than at most it will cost you 1 extra measly little playcount, but honestly, it won't. What may cause extra play counts and annoyances is the fact that we can only 90% dim/remove SB or skin after one run through. Having a black screen is now considered cheating, and well I guess peppy just marginally believes (now, at least) that at 90% dim, it isn't cheating.

I guess it's the fact that the background is still barely visible that makes people think it has some effect on playing. Just learn to play with it.

Also this is in the wrong sub forum?

Shiro wrote:

"in the future" lol
implying 100% is possible lol

boat wrote:

Shiro wrote:

"in the future" lol
implying 100% is possible lol

its not?

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

winber1 wrote:

playing-wise, 90% vs 100% has pretty much no effect. There is truly no disadvantage. If you truly think there is a difference, than at most it will cost you 1 extra measly little playcount, but honestly, it won't. What may cause extra play counts and annoyances is the fact that we can only 90% dim/remove SB or skin after one run through. Having a black screen is now considered cheating, and well I guess peppy just marginally believes (now, at least) that at 90% dim, it isn't cheating.

I guess it's the fact that the background is still barely visible that makes people think it has some effect on playing. Just learn to play with it.

Also this is in the wrong sub forum?

If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating. The very act of blocking 100% shows that peppy believes there is a disadvantage, and so he believes that he will be making it harder for new players to take on old records.

Soaprman wrote:

Ah, there's never been 100% dimming? I kind of just assumed he was right about it having existed, though I wouldn't actually know as I've never used the fun spoiler...

Mithost wrote:

"If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating"

I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."

How would you feel if someone cut something out of your creation, just so in their mind, they appreciated the creation better? They deemed that part of your creation to be distracting and negative, yet you intended people to play with it. Is that fair to the mapper?

Peppy was against background dimming for a long time. I still think he is, but it's compromise. 90% of the field is black, but it's not cut out, and the file is not modified either. The artist of the beatmap can safely say it was at least properly appreciated once by everyone who has a high rank on it. Like previously stated, 90% dim isn't much different from 100% dim, only 90% dim actually keeps a large part of the artist's work involved. Ask any top player and they will say that Fun Spoiler settings actually saves them time seeing in most cases it takes longer to replace a BG than do one play through of the map.

Honestly if you can't play with 10% of a background peeking through, I suggest you get your eyes checked or something. Not even a video BG of another song's osu! gameplay would throw most people off then.

This also gives beatmap artists more freedom in combo colours with relations to backgrounds, but that's not important.

Tom69 wrote:

You are an artist who creates a wonderful picture, but you require every person who wants to look at it to play a rythm game meanwhile.
People who want to ignore the rythm game and just want to look at your piece of art, those guys are like the ones who delete BGs in osu!.

Mithost wrote:

Analogies are basically taking the same situation and putting it in a different context, that's what analogies are. Of course it's out of context.

The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.

If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

Mithost wrote:

Analogies are basically taking the same situation and putting it in a different context, that's what analogies are. Of course it's out of context.

The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.

If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.

I think he meant that your analogy was wrong.

Anyway as I said, if there's no difference between 90% and 100%, why would peppy disallow 100%? He obviously believes that it makes a difference and is making it clear that he believes with this update the older records will have an unfair advantage.

Mithost wrote:

I explained that peppy doesn't want black BGs. Argue with him if you want to get his exact reasoning on why. I don't see how allowing us to dim the background instead of just forcing us to play with 0% dim makes an obvious score barrier between old scores and new ones.

Mithost wrote:

Hardcore players are like that by nature. Peppy also stated that removing backgrounds or altering anything in the beatmap is considered hacking, so hardcore players shouldn't even be doing it in the first place. They should be happy that peppy actually gave them a chance and added "Fun Spoiler" settings.

Marcin wrote:

Screw hardcore players, if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.

Marcin wrote:

if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

While that's what you would assume, I've talked to one good player about it and apparently the majority of great players eg white wolf and all those kind of people disable the backgrounds. This is more evidence that having no background gives you an advantage.
Also the hardcore players will take any advantage they can get, which is why there is a lot of complaints about the feature- it puts the newer players at a disadvantage and alienates the hardcore crowd (as I've mentioned)

Jenny wrote:

Learn to play the game and adapt to it, don't force the thing to adapt to your needs.

Winshley wrote:

More like it's just the players' eyes that fails to read those notes with BG on. I'm going with Jenny:

Jenny wrote:

Learn to play the game and adapt to it, don't force the thing to adapt to your needs.

Gens wrote:

You know, this might be a little off-topic, but all this fun spoiler discussions make me think... is it what the mapper really wants? In my case, I wouldn't really mind if people disabled or not my storyboards. I'd totally hate if they disabled my skin, but the storyboard or Kiai I can see why; just as an example.

So, what about the idea of letting the mapper choose what to disable and what not? For some gimmick maps it'd totally destroy the joke, and in that case, everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages.

Well, I guess that's more of a feature request than anything.

As for the thread... eh, it's already clear enough it's not going to change. Players should already feel lucky the Fun Spoiler feature was added. If people keep whining about it, it might get removed, even.
Even if there's an advantage, it's a very minimal advantage that can be easily overcome.

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

Marcin wrote:

Screw hardcore players, if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.

While that's what you would assume, I've talked to one good player about it and apparently the majority of great players eg white wolf and all those kind of people disable the backgrounds. This is more evidence that having no background gives you an advantage.
Also the hardcore players will take any advantage they can get, which is why there is a lot of complaints about the feature- it puts the newer players at a disadvantage and alienates the hardcore crowd (as I've mentioned)

I'd like peppy to comment on this thread, hopefully he'll notice it.

Mithost wrote:

There is no evidence that 90% dim is any less helpful than a black BG. Like I said earlier, I'll eat my graphics tablet if you find some proof of this.

I agree with Jenny as well.

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

This'd be a decent solution, actually. Also, every old map made before the update would have the background deletable for fairness. If it was like that, peppy could have his way about the new maps, and the hardcores could have their way as well.
Thanks for the good idea, I'll update the OP.

Mithost wrote:

"If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating"

I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."

Gens wrote:

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

This'd be a decent solution, actually. Also, every old map made before the update would have the background deletable for fairness. If it was like that, peppy could have his way about the new maps, and the hardcores could have their way as well.
Thanks for the good idea, I'll update the OP.

BATs could be able to edit it online (as we already can with online offset and other thingies), in case someone disagrees with something being deletable in an old map. The mapper can then just request a BAT to fix it. That way, everyone who doesn't like it complains about the map and not about osu!~
Scores would be kept, as it makes no sense to delete them; it's not like peppy was planning a score reset for when osz2 came.

I had a feeling the idea had already been brought up and it was shot down, but well, I haven't been really active these days to know what's going on.

Mithost wrote:

This isn't a feature request and sadly I don't see why he would reply to this one. I hope he does, but it's not guaranteed.

Mithost wrote:

It is still a substantial difference in contrast. It's not 100%, but it's compromise. People should feel lucky that peppy actually agreed to add the setting, when for years and years he was 100% apposed to the idea.