cheezstik wrote:

Treatzza wrote:

I then saw you and noticed that there was someone else who was also heavily inspired by the same person as me and was going through the ranks fast. I noticed that you made it into the top 1600 players (top 120 in the US) in about 10 months and was really happy that someone could get this good at the game if they take the right steps. Seeing someone beat Big Black with no more than a year of play just captivated me and now I'm more eager to push on.

His fastest ranking (before he slowed down) is actually top #3000 in 6 months I think, which is pretty damn impressive imo. Also, a big black pass in a year of average playcount really isn't that impressive. Someone that's really impressive for a year, and probably fastest progression (to the point where he constantly gets accused of cheating) is Rafis.

Niko wouldn't cheat.

Riince wrote:

Niko wouldn't cheat.

Rafis is the latest and greatest addition to my Magical Girl figurine box set. Still mint.

On a different note, even though I'm also guilty of joking about the whole "Asian genetics" stereotype for gaming, it's pretty clear from all of the talent we see from even OWC that there's far more to it than just genetics. All of the players invested a respectable amount of time and effort to this game.

And some of you still don't know, but I am in fact Korean-American. Take whatever you want from that statement, but that alone shouldn't change any opinions okay?

I mean with 96k playcount in a single year I'd hope he would progress pretty fast. It takes most people like 3 years to accumulate that many plays and 96k plays in a year is far better for improvement than 96k plays over 3 years.

Asians just have more people who play rhythm games.

chainpullz wrote:

96k plays in a year is far better for improvement than 96k plays over 3 years.

Depends on a lot of factors. how many were retries/on easy maps? were they forcing themselves to play that much and only didnt burn out because of willpower and a lack of a full time job? or was it actually enjoyable, etc

if someone actually did 3 years worth of playing in 1 while actually having fun then yeah it probably would be better

how do I have fun

phonics wrote:

how do I have fun

If you're asking that question, you might consider consulting a doctor.

420 blaze it

Treatzza wrote:

.

dw if you are bad like me you can get 3000pp in 6 months just play more.

Woobowiz wrote:

On a different note, even though I'm also guilty of joking about the whole "Asian genetics" stereotype for gaming, it's pretty clear from all of the talent we see from even OWC that there's far more to it than just genetics. All of the players invested a respectable amount of time and effort to this game.

I think it's mostly that Western people tend to be lazy spoiled shits and Asians can also be lazy but they're generally known to be disciplined people and hard workers

So it would make sense that there are more good Eastern players than Western players because there will be less Eastern players going "omg i suck this game sucks peppy sucks rafis is a h4cker" and actually practicing. I'm not entirely certain if this "eastern people tend to be more disciplined" thing is just a false stereotype or not but it makes sense to me. Western people are always whining because they want to gain lots of skill with little effort. I don't see Easterners doing that as often.

Quite a few of the front page asian players have only played about 2 years, and some with a play count of 40k-70k. I'm not sure if that's a impressive or not. Just thought I'd point it out.

Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice

Tess wrote:

Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice

I did, but that's based on assumptions.

Ash Marley wrote:

Tess wrote:

Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice

I did, but that's based on assumptions.

It's assumption, but it seems kinda reasonable and logical, kinda like the saying "quality over quantity". Even if someone played for 10 hours mindlessly mashing stuff that is too hard with no-fail on, or playing only easy maps, they probably wouldn't improve as much as someone that played for 5 hours playing actual material that will improve them.

It's not really assumption considering that I've spent months trying out different practice methods and have found some to result in faster progress than others consistently, no matter in what stage of skill I was. So the only thing I'm assuming here is that a fact that applied to me will also apply to others

Perhaps you shouldn't have assumed that I was assuming more than you assumed I'd assume

I'm not sure how much of the following is 100% accurate, though I looked for reliable sources only. This is just what I found researching around the web. It's just something to think about. It has always been a big topic of debate about genetics and is argued for and against amongst the scientific community. No conclusive answer.


Visuospatial Perception: "it underlies our ability to move around in an environment and orient ourselves appropriately. Visuospatial perception is also involved in our ability to accurately reach for objects in our visual field and our ability to shift our gaze to different points in space." (1)

"North East Asians have tended to score relatively higher on visuospatial subtests with lower scores in verbal subtests while Ashkenazi Jews score higher in verbal and reasoning subtests with lower scores in visuospatial subtests." (2)

"East Asian children adopted by families of the European genetic clustering show higher median IQ’s than the nonadopted children of families of the European genetic clustering." - (so white parents who adopted an east asian child still results in higher IQ of the child).
"Arctic people, East Asians, Australian Aborigines and American Indians all have an elevated visual memory IQ." (3)

Reaction time: "When the results from different tasks are combined, as is also done in IQ tests, the correlation between IQ and reaction time is 0.6-0.7. Racial differences are found consistent with those from IQ testing. Just as for IQ these racial differences are largest on the tasks that best measure the g factor." - (So higher IQ correlates with a higher reaction time? I'm not sure if interpreted that correctly). (4)

(1) http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/visuospe.htm
(2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8D3.f04t02
(3) http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/iq_matters --- (originally referenced from Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence)
(4) http://benthamopen.com/openaccess.php?t ... TOPSYJ.htm

Ash Marley wrote:

genetics

it would seem that high quality humans tend to have high quality offspring
but do not worry, even if we have lost the genetical lottery, we can still become good at clicking circles if we dedicate our life to it.
i really want to be good at clicking circles.

i maed an oopsie

It's nice how there's no value to that post other than trying to find something about me you can nitpick on

Never mind, I misread you.

I'll still challenge the notion that practice methods matter more than practice time though.

Sure, how do you challenge them? Practice time is clearly important, since without it, you can't employ your methods, but if your methods aren't right, then your time will be wasted.

They're reliant of each other, but the methods used are crucial for higher efficiency (and thus productivity) with practice.

I challenge the claim that one of the two is objectively more important than the other, and even if you want to assume one is more important for the sake of discussion I'll challenge the claim that we have the ability to determine which is which; neither can exist in a vacuum, and we have no way to quantify the two in terms of each other, so comparison is impossible. I'll also challenge the value in determining which is more important on the grounds that the method new players gravitate towards, playing anything and everything basically at random, is close enough to optimal that the impact of such a determination would be negligible.

I posit that you should just practice more and practice right and call it a day. Also, Narrill brings up good points, even if they completely degenerate the discussion.

Narrill wrote:

I challenge the claim that one of the two is objectively more important than the other, and even if you want to assume one is more important for the sake of discussion I'll challenge the claim that we have the ability to determine which is which; neither can exist in a vacuum, and we have no way to quantify the two in terms of each other, so comparison is impossible. I'll also challenge the value in determining which is more important on the grounds that the method new players gravitate towards, playing anything and everything basically at random, is close enough to optimal that the impact of such a determination would be negligible.

I agree with the part where you say (simplified) that time is useless with no method and a method is useless with no time, so you can't really weigh one against the other since it would be saying like your brain is more important than your heart. I was thinking about this as I wrote my last post but decided to post anyway since, despite method and time both being necessary for practice to occur, time can be put in without a well thought out method and requires no thinking behind it other than "k gonna play now". You actually have to experiment to find a good method and think about what would work best for you so that you can get the most out of your time.

So, to answer your points; On a level of necessity, time is objectively more important than method, because you can practice without thinking about a method, but you can't practice without putting in time.

When it comes to efficiency though, thinking about a method is objectively more important than putting in time for practice, since finding a useful method could give you the same results with 20 hours of practice that mindless spamming of shit would give you with 200 hours of practice, meaning that a good method could give you more time to achieve more results and thus improve faster than everyone else, which is what this whole game is about, or at least the ranked aspect of it.

How we're able to determine which is more important can be seen as above. There quite is a way to weigh the two against each other, just like there's a way to weigh aiming against tapping. You not seeing a way =/= there not being one.

The value in determining which is more important lies in that your grounds are plain wrong. Playing anything and everything at random does not give close to optimal results. If that were the case then thinking about effective practice methods wouldn't result in any more or less improvements and nobody would really be doing it since people who tried to do it would get discouraged very quickly, either through experience or by their peers. Planned, systematic practice is always more efficient than thoughtless chaotic random spam in trying to achieve a focused goal.

I don't see how you think that a chaotic approach to attaining a specific goal is close to optimal. It isn't so by definition.

Tess wrote:

How we're able to determine which is more important can be seen as above.

"Because efficiency" isn't nearly concrete enough to be an answer to this question.

Tess wrote:

Playing anything and everything at random does not give close to optimal results. ... Planned, systematic practice is always more efficient than thoughtless chaotic random spam in trying to achieve a focused goal.

I don't see how you think that a chaotic approach to attaining a specific goal is close to optimal. It isn't so by definition.

Ah, but the goal isn't nearly as focused as you think. I explained my viewpoint regarding optimal practice methods in the low AR thread.

I dont get why I cant be this good. I messed up somewhere along the line xD

ZenitH-AT wrote:

I dont get why I cant be this good. I messed up somewhere along the line xD

You messed up by having a ten times lower playcount than him.
Seriously, what do people expect?

Narrill isn't even nitpicking much. 99% of what is discussed on these forums isn't even well defined for rigorous discussion.

settle it over cheatreal already

all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.

B1rd wrote:

all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.

waste of time to type/read imo

Asiangodx2 wrote:

B1rd wrote:

all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.

waste of time to type/read imo

I put the pages with walls of texts on them from these 2 in a bookmark folder and whip out ones i havent read yet to go through while im eating dinner or something, its become a hobby when theres not anything more interesting in my youtube subscriptions.

B1rd wrote:

all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.

Who's narril? Also Tess is a girl.

I still don't see the issue with walls of text on a discussion forum. Just go on IRC if you want less spammy shit???

oh wait #osu

Narrill wrote:

B1rd wrote:

all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.

Who's narril?

When people call sayonara-bye "sayo", or thelewa "lewa", do you ask who that is? D:

Wow "one other guy"

Very rude

I have a name thanks

cheezstik wrote:

When people call sayonara-bye "sayo", or thelewa "lewa", do you ask who that is? D:

lel it was joke chill bruh

I knew it would annoy you if I didn't bother to spell you name properly. baited.

It doesn't really, I just think it's funny how badly people misspell it.

Narrill wrote:

It doesn't really, I just think it's funny how badly people misspell it.

Dw I feel your pain, I'm forever being called cheesestick or cheezstick etc., it's almost like I'm the one that misspelled my actual name or something.