k

Narrill wrote:

Lerq wrote:

Object density remains constant between nomod and DT. HR reduces object density. The logical conclusion you can draw from this is that reading HR is easier due to lower density difficulty., provided that player comfort with every AR is constant.

I guess I'll reiterate again why this is a misguided argument: DT is just plain harder than HR. You can't compare the two with all else held equal and claim that DT is harder to read because that's blatantly obvious, and it disregards the context of the question. If difficulty is held constant DT will yield a slightly higher object density than HR, but a massively lower level of pattern complexity because of the fact that current mapping trends cause complexity to scale proportionally with difficulty.

Let's keep this to clean facts rather than generalizing. I'm well aware of the inherent difficulty differences between HR and DT, however this is not a discussion about the two mods as a whole. It is purely about the reading aspects, and so we need to look at only the relevant truths of each mod.

If you take a map, any map, and compare it in terms of nomod, DT, HR; the version(s) with the highest 'reading difficulty' will be nomod and DT. This is because object density is the main factor of reading difficulty (lets ignore maps that abuse overlap, as its my understanding that overlap is mostly unrankable now, i may be wrong). Object density is derived from the BPM and AR of a map. DT will increase both of these factors, so the object density remains constant with the nomod 'version'. Hardrock on the other hand, only increases the Approach rate, not the BPM, so the object density lowers. This results in an objectively easier to read map. Hardrock will always be the easiest variant to a map in terms of reading difficulty, even below nomod.

"Maps that are DT'able are easier to read anyway!" is not a valid argument, nor is it a true statement. I could link maps that have complex patterns and high density, but given the interactions in this thread so far I have a feeling I'll just be met with something like: "That isn't hard to read, it's just fast!".

Actually, I guess I can just leave one: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21877

FWIW; all anecdotal experience that I've seen/heard of has been consistent with this view. Maps with high density are more difficult to read, and also to aim, as aim generally suffers when density is higher (anecdotal)

Narrill wrote:

You can't just keep saying it and make it true. Present an argument or give it up.

Or maybe you're trolling, I don't know you well enough to say.

It's more like you deny any kind of argument presented with semi-related ignorant reasoning or simply change the topic altogether, either because you don't want to admit to not having a retort or because you can't keep up with forum conversation.

For the record, I linked those replays because you said I had no replays that confirmed my claimed ability to read. You were wrong, and instead of admitting it you went "LOL NO MY DICK IZ ACUALY BIGER"

Grow up.

Thread Summary
Some guy who plays nothing but AR10 tells players with low AR experience that their experience is wrong, gets increasingly hostile when made to look stupid.

Thread rating
3/10. Had potential. Got shat on. Needs more cowbell and more winber.

Suggested Improvements
Abandon discussion and post pictures of frogs

you guys should settle this over cheatreal

i just setup the multiplayer lobby, its called "Rekt City"

Narrill wrote:

Almost wrote:

You judge what I play based off my best performance list which hasn't even been updated for close to a year?

I really like how you quoted the whole post but only responded to the part where I called you bad.

News flash, I don't care about your EZ scores or your 250pp 1x0 plays. You can read high density, cool. Everything else about your skillset is probably trash because density is literally the only thing EZ trains, so good job.

I was only saying that I do play HR which you assumed I didn't. And nice assumption about the rest of my skillset.

Narrill wrote:

Lerq wrote:

Object density remains constant between nomod and DT. HR reduces object density. The logical conclusion you can draw from this is that reading HR is easier due to lower density difficulty., provided that player comfort with every AR is constant.

I guess I'll reiterate again why this is a misguided argument: DT is just plain harder than HR. You can't compare the two with all else held equal and claim that DT is harder to read because that's blatantly obvious, and it disregards the context of the question. If difficulty is held constant DT will yield a slightly higher object density than HR, but a massively lower level of pattern complexity because of the fact that current mapping trends cause complexity to scale proportionally with difficulty.

It's not slightly higher object density. HR object density is dropped a lot not only because the AR is increased but also because circle size is smaller allowing you to see where everything is easier. Pattern complexity is lower for maps that are played with DT generally speaking yes but HR also reduces pattern complexity because you see less of the pattern at a time so it equilibrates.

Narrill wrote:

Tess wrote:

What, so you say I have no proof to show that I can read what I say I can read, and when I provide said proof you try to counter it with a list of your own scores? This was never about you, this was about my ability to read approach rates. I was never comparing myself to you other than that my range of ARs I can read is bigger than yours

And you call my points small? When did I ever claim to be able to read anything besides 10? The only claim I've made in this entire thread is that low AR practice doesn't help a player succeed in the current metagame. I don't care that you can read lots of ARs, good for you. But when you go around proclaiming, with no logical reasoning or evidence or even experience to back it up, that training on low ARs is beneficial to some goal other than playing at low AR and have the balls to tell me that I don't know how to read I'm gonna take you down a notch.

And another assumption claiming that EZ mod doesn't help with the current meta. EZ mod improves your reading in general, it doesn't matter if you can't play EZ mod to get a large epeen, it helps you play maps that do give you a bigger epeen. From what I see, there are a few players who can play EZ and are also at a high rank like SG.

cheezstik wrote:

Almost wrote:

It doesn't definitely make it harder to read overall even with the reduced time to react to patterns. If you struggle to read a pattern no mod, there is an extremely high chance you will be able to read it with HR. Reduced time to react to patterns just makes it harder to aim rather than plan ahead. In terms of AR11, I think AR11 is more about aim and reacting to things but I haven't FCed many AR11 maps for my opinion to mean anything.

Part of reading is the speed of it though. The majority of players that can't read ar10, even if they edited a really simple map that wasnt dense at all to be ar10. Even if the density decreased, it's too fast, which heavily outweighs the reduced density in terms of difficulty. This is proven by no one playing ar11 because of their inability to read it, it does reduce density, but becomes too fast in the process.

That's because they don't have the reaction speed for it. If the AR is too fast for you, there is no real reading going on, it's all playing by reaction.

This can be a good thread. I believe in it.

good job

GhostFrog wrote:

Needs more cowbell and more winber.

WINBER WE NEED YOU. OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR OF G&R. SHARE YOUR WISDOM OF SPREADING NUTELLA ON OUR FINGERS AND RUBBING OUR FACES AGAINST FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.

But for real, I like this discussion. Keep it going.

1000th post hype?

Wow, stuff happened while I was making my edit. Posting it here instead.

Lerq wrote:

Let's keep this to clean facts rather than generalizing. I'm well aware of the inherent difficulty differences between HR and DT, however this is not a discussion about the two mods as a whole. It is purely about the reading aspects, and so we need to look at only the relevant truths of each mod.

If you take a map, any map, and compare it in terms of nomod, DT, HR; the version(s) with the highest 'reading difficulty' will be nomod and DT. This is because object density is the main factor of reading difficulty (lets ignore maps that abuse overlap, as its my understanding that overlap is mostly unrankable now, i may be wrong). Object density is derived from the BPM and AR of a map. DT will increase both of these factors, so the object density remains constant with the nomod 'version'. Hardrock on the other hand, only increases the Approach rate, not the BPM, so the object density lowers. This results in an objectively easier to read map. Hardrock will always be the easiest variant to a map in terms of reading difficulty, even below nomod.

"Maps that are DT'able are easier to read anyway!" is not a valid argument, nor is it a true statement. I could link maps that have complex patterns and high density, but given the interactions in this thread so far I have a feeling I'll just be met with something like: "That isn't hard to read, it's just fast!".

Actually, I guess I can just leave one: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21877

Overlaps are fine as long as they make sense, but only on higher difficulties. We're discussing those here anyway though so it doesn't matter.

Also, your points are all valid. HR not only lowers the object density but also deflates the objects, making it easier to distinguish them from one another. Giant circles can get annoying because they seem to fill up your entire screen, even at AR10.

This discussion is basically a HR player saying all other mods are invalid and not listening to the several people providing counterarguments

Almost wrote:

cheezstik wrote:

Part of reading is the speed of it though. The majority of players that can't read ar10, even if they edited a really simple map that wasnt dense at all to be ar10. Even if the density decreased, it's too fast, which heavily outweighs the reduced density in terms of difficulty. This is proven by no one playing ar11 because of their inability to read it, it does reduce density, but becomes too fast in the process.

That's because they don't have the reaction speed for it. If the AR is too fast for you, there is no real reading going on, it's all playing by reaction.

Even if you have the reaction speed for it, it is still pretty taxing to have to push it to that speed, more than the load that the reduced density lifts off, which is why people that can read AR10 sometimes say stuff like having to focus more when playing AR10, or if they blink then they miss a note, or it hurts their eyes or whatever.

to me speed has nothing to do with AR but how rapidly the notes are actually coming and how short the delay between them is

Riince wrote:

to me speed has nothing to do with AR but how rapidly the notes are actually coming and how short the delay between them is

welcome to object density

The higher the bpm relative to the AR, the harder it is to read.

inb4 "but i said the speed didn't matter!"

the higher the bpm is, the shorter the delay between notes.

Which is why Big Black would've been much nicer to read at 10.3, but that's not exactly possible

narrill didnt show to multiplayer i think we have a clear winner

cheezstik wrote:

Almost wrote:

That's because they don't have the reaction speed for it. If the AR is too fast for you, there is no real reading going on, it's all playing by reaction.

Even if you have the reaction speed for it, it is still pretty taxing to have to push it to that speed, more than the load that the reduced density lifts off, which is why people that can read AR10 sometimes say stuff like having to focus more when playing AR10, or if they blink then they miss a note, or it hurts their eyes or whatever.

You have to focus for every AR not just AR10. AR10 can feel "normal" in speed if you play too much of it.

Tess wrote:

This discussion is basically a HR player saying all other mods are invalid and not listening to the several people providing counterarguments

And ironically, he's claiming that everyone should be playing the meta when DT is the current meta not HR.

omg guys the meta is plz enjoy game

Tess wrote:

For the record, I linked those replays because you said I had no replays that confirmed my claimed ability to read.

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of passably reading a wide variety of ARs. This distinction is pretty central to my argument.

Lerq wrote:

This is because object density is the main factor of reading difficulty

This right here is where you lose me. Object density is absolutely not the main factor of reading difficulty, map complexity is the main factor of reading difficulty. Object density and approach speed, which no one seems to like to talk about, are both secondary factors that simply serve as a lens through which map complexity is presented.

Lerq wrote:

Actually, I guess I can just leave one: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/21877

Great, now things are getting empirical. Find me a map that has a similar difficulty with HR that this one does with DT and we can compare the two.

Tess wrote:

It's more like you deny any kind of argument presented with semi-related ignorant reasoning or simply change the topic altogether, either because you don't want to admit to not having a retort or because you can't keep up with forum conversation.

There are two arguments here from my perspective:

1. Low AR training helps with high ARs because low AR increases density and density increases reading difficulty

I responded to this in the long post that no one seems to want to respond to. Basically, density is just one aspect of reading, and if you're playing with the current meta and have been choosing your maps properly there's no reason for extra density training to be necessary. I mean honestly, by the time you reach the caliber of map that reaches density levels comparable to EZ mod you're probably top 10. There's no reason for that much density training to be necessary, and density isn't the sole component of reading.

2. DT is more difficult to read than HR

This one really baffles me, because I don't think I've seen a single poster in the past few months claim that DT offers higher complexity than HR or nomod at a given difficulty without being shot down immediately by a handful of other posters. I've already explained why this is the case: map complexity and map difficulty are roughly proportional in the current mapping meta, and DT is substantially harder than HR and nomod. It follows that at a constant difficulty DT will be less complex than both HR and nomod.

The only rebuttal I've been given for either of these arguments is "loldensity tho," and the flaw in that should be obvious. You could pick any run-of-the-mill hard DT you wanted and it would be more dense than, say, Insane Techniques, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as hard to read. I honestly don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.

Almost wrote:

And ironically, he's claiming that everyone should be playing the meta when DT is the current meta not HR.

Yeah, I'm not playing the current meta, I don't know why you think that's relevant. This is actually pretty solid evidence for DT being less complex than HR per difficulty point when you consider that the difficulty calcs don't consider complexity at all.

Tess wrote:

This discussion is basically a HR player saying all other mods are invalid and not listening to the several people providing counterarguments

This discussion is a bunch of scrubs circlejerking over density while ignoring complexity. Just another day in G&R I guess. I really need to sleep now, so bai.

Narrill wrote:

Tess wrote:

For the record, I linked those replays because you said I had no replays that confirmed my claimed ability to read.

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of passably reading a wide variety of ARs. This distinction is pretty central to my argument.

Narrill wrote:

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of passably reading

Narrill wrote:

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of reading

Narrill wrote:

they proved that you're capable of reading

And that is why analphabetics shouldn't argue definitions~

Narill wrote:

Lerq wrote:

This is because object density is the main factor of reading difficulty

This right here is where you lose me. Object density is absolutely not the main factor of reading difficulty, map complexity is the main factor of reading difficulty. Object density and approach speed, which no one seems to like to talk about, are both secondary factors that simply serve as a lens through which map complexity is presented.

The issue here is that map complexity only holds its true difficulty if the object density is at its highest point. At no point does HR offer this, so that only leaves DT/nomod, which are equal in reading difficulty.

A map could have the most intricate patterns in existence, but if the density is too low then that pattern loses potentially all of its difficulty. An example of a map that gains a lot of difficulty through density is Nogard's atama no taisou. This map obviously doesn't become 'hurr durr ezpz' with hardrock on, but it does become easier to read (disregard the other factors of hardrock, we're discussing the reading factors).

This is, to me, the main point I wanted to argue. Hard rock is inherently easier to read than the alternative mod variations.

Nice ad hominem at the end btw. Throwing logical fallacies around is the fastest way to get people to disregard any input you have.

Narrill wrote:

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of passably reading a wide variety of ARs.

Narrill wrote:

Those replays didn't prove that you have an ability to read, they proved that you're capable of... reading

Man this thread sucks. Bring back the frogs please.

Angusman wrote:

Man this thread sucks. Bring back the frogs please.

Do I get extra points for being on topic and posting frogs simultaneously?

Ribbit~

suck me DT is life hr is for coconut milks get outta here

DTLORDS SUCKA

hr is ez mod for slow nerds

beep boop farm more beep boop

pola[r]is wrote:

beep boop farm more beep boop

Oh shit, you know a thread is getting hectic when the "welcome to ossssss" guy walks in.

um no guysz hr is a harder mod because playing od10 200bpm streams is harder than od9.6 300bpm streams

see you next time

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/228524 welcome to oss

noob mek using welcome to oss as an excuse to advertise his own map

What the actual fuck, why hasnt this shit been locked 6 pages ago
mods where u at

I used to like intelligent discussions... But then Narrill came along and redefined the word intelligent... and reading and complexity.

RaneFire wrote:

I used to like intelligent discussions... But then Narrill came along and redefined the word intelligent... and reading and complexity.

You seem to assume that using less common words and terminology, and calling others stupid means "intelligent". He didn't redefine the word intelligent at all, he just doesn't fit the definition. If you just read back you can see that a majority of the people either disagreed or misunderstood his points. From the words he was using, I'd gather that he felt misunderstood. Not being capable of making yourself understood in general is the very opposite of intelligence, regardless of how good your verbal skills may be.

The better term to use here would be "stubborn". Very incredibly stubborn.

Wow Tess please, can you guys like stop picking on each other? o_O What is this, elementary school?

Zare wrote:

Wow Tess please, can you guys like stop picking on each other? o_O What is this, elementary school?

this is ossssss

Tess wrote:

RaneFire wrote:

I used to like intelligent discussions... But then Narrill came along and redefined the word intelligent... and reading and complexity.

...He didn't redefine the word intelligent at all, he just doesn't fit the definition.

Yeah well... that was the point. He didn't actually redefine it by anything he said, but it was implied since he steered the debate to his view only, disregarding any contradiction, thus redefining it in that sense, but only for himself, and argues that we misunderstand the absolute true definition (his).

So that was just entertaining the possibility of Narrill being right. i.e. sarcasm. 3 lines to explain that is already TL;DR.

Riince wrote:

ar10 is the easiest part of playing hard rock followed by circle size then OD

this is so subjective it hurts (for me it's the exact opposite)

silmarilen wrote:

Riince wrote:

ar10 is the easiest part of playing hard rock followed by circle size then OD

this is so subjective it hurts (for me it's the exact opposite)

it's objective because i said so

damn i cant beat your freedom

silmarilen wrote:

damn i cant beat your freedom

i have a hard time believing you find ar10 hard