I was just curious, but what are the skill demographics for osu!? As in what % of players can play easy, hard normal, hard, insane, etc...
forum
Skill demographics in Osu?
posted
Total Posts
20
Topic Starter
There are no statistics for this as far as I know, but you can sort of figure that out yourself by looking at the ranks of players and what pp they're at. For example, if you assume a 700 pp player can play hards, their rank is 100k so then that's the top 100k players out of however many total active players there are (say, 700k).
if those players are always appeared in the top50 of song rankings depending on the difficulty.
this is makes count on it.
(i'm a E,N,H player thou.. so my name always appeared in the top50s)
this is makes count on it.
(i'm a E,N,H player thou.. so my name always appeared in the top50s)
average player plays around the 5-5.5 star range comfortably, judging by how fast new ranked maps insane/extra difficulty scoreboard saturates with lots of good acc scores as compared to their easier difficulties.
osu! doesn't have clear cut skill demographics like most games. Skill is dependant mostly on time played, even a casual player could be in the top 2% of players if they'd been playing somewhat actively for a few years.
lol..Riince wrote:
average player plays around the 5-5.5 star range comfortably, judging by how fast new ranked maps insane/extra difficulty scoreboard saturates with lots of good acc scores as compared to their easier difficulties.
if the average player is in the top 15-10k then yes
the average player is better than me if i always get like 30th place when a new map only has like 40 plays so yesAnotherEpicName wrote:
lol..Riince wrote:
average player plays around the 5-5.5 star range comfortably, judging by how fast new ranked maps insane/extra difficulty scoreboard saturates with lots of good acc scores as compared to their easier difficulties.
if the average player is in the top 15-10k then yes
that just says something about the people that play new maps first.. lol
You're just bad, so that statistic means nothingRiince wrote:
the average player is better than me
and today i was reminded again that i am a below average player
was referring to his comparison to 10-15k people, not saying i was any goodsanguisinvia wrote:
You're just bad, so that statistic means nothingRiince wrote:
the average player is better than me
The problem of using the scoreboard to calculate the "average" player is that you are looking only at a very small percentage of the player base. What makes that method even worse is the fact that not all players play new maps the moment that they are ranked, nor do all the players play every map that is released. At best, your method only covers approx. 1000 players, on the optimistic side across over 20 maps. (Assuming 50 scores, with no members repeating)Riince wrote:
[]sic. was referring to his comparison to 10-15k people, not saying [i]sic. was any good
Your assertion that the "average" player plays in the the 15-10k range is absurd. How can a player be average when they are in the top 15-10% of the player base?(using 100000 as the total number of active players, it's on the low side)
That's almost as bad as calling the top 10% of your high school only average. Jeez, the logics sure is strong with this one....
That's because (in case you haven't figured out by yourself) most average players don't play qualified maps. Yes I can FC that new qualified insane but still be #89 out of 147 plays because everybody above me is way higher rank and got even higher accuracy or did it with mods.Riince wrote:
the average player is better than me if i always get like 30th place when a new map only has like 40 plays so yes
After the map gets ranked that's when the general population of players start to play it, and achieving a FC then would be considered above average (at least for hards and insanes). I'm surprised this wasn't obvious to you immediately, since it seems like you've been around for a while. It's absolutely crazy to say that average players can play 5-5.5 star maps, unless you limit your scope of "all players" to those who play incredibly often (and then 10-15k rank becomes average).
Kouya-
xxdeathx wrote:
That's because (in case you haven't figured out by yourself) most average players don't play qualified maps. Yes I can FC that new qualified insane but still be #89 out of 147 plays because everybody above me is way higher rank and got even higher accuracy or did it with mods.Riince wrote:
the average player is better than me if i always get like 30th place when a new map only has like 40 plays so yes
After the map gets ranked that's when the general population of players start to play it, and achieving a FC then would be considered above average (at least for hards and insanes). I'm surprised this wasn't obvious to you immediately, since it seems like you've been around for a while. It's absolutely crazy to say that average players can play 5-5.5 star maps, unless you limit your scope of "all players" to those who play incredibly often (and then 10-15k rank becomes average).
i didnt really think the difference between qualified and ranked was significant, i play all 3 kinds of maps [ranked, unranked, qualified] without noticing which is which because i DL'd most of them through osu!direct in multiplayer and always have local rankings on so you'll have to forgive it.
fair enough, i guess if you use ranked map statistics with a larger sample size when comparing paritipation on difficulties is that the average player plays around the ~3 star range, since maps around 2-3 star range have way more scores than the lower/higher difficulties in spreads, even when counting all the people DTing it. Kokou no sousei is a good example, over 100k scores on Hard but Insane is just over 30k, or Pika Girl where the 2 star Normal is actually ahead of the 2.5 star Hard in scores...
but of scores on those i gaurantee like 40% (this is generous, its probably more) of the scores are people who just started playing ous, or went in a multi with their friend after installing it or something and then never played again. Aside from that, anyone who is good at the game probably played such maps at one time too, so higher participation is expected. I'd guess that 5%-10% of the people playing those difficulties are ACTIVE players, since they wouldnt stay at that level long unless they were playing with a trackball or are part of the minority that sits at that level of play because it's fun.
So the average real player is at least playing low insanes, when counting out scoreboard saturation from people who barely/never played
And you'll have to again excuse me using scoreboards for data, because I can't see another way to mine relevant information.
I know its not exactly an accurate representation because some people just play a few weeks and give up but :
if you're supposed to believe the active user counts in the charts, 200k+ in japan alone , more than 1.5 million users active in total
if you're supposed to believe the active user counts in the charts, 200k+ in japan alone , more than 1.5 million users active in total
that sadly hasnt been updated in years, its even still using ppv1 values
imo it should be updated, but only average out of the top 10,000 players, that would be a good country-to-country comparison
its far from elitist too since being top 10k in any particular country is incredibly easy; hell just having 1000 PP will net you a spot in top 10000 for Japan.
what it would do [for most countries] is eliminate the effects of people who played once or twice then quit would have on the averages
It may also encourage multi accounting too so idk, idk who would really care enough to do that.
imo it should be updated, but only average out of the top 10,000 players, that would be a good country-to-country comparison
its far from elitist too since being top 10k in any particular country is incredibly easy; hell just having 1000 PP will net you a spot in top 10000 for Japan.
what it would do [for most countries] is eliminate the effects of people who played once or twice then quit would have on the averages
It may also encourage multi accounting too so idk, idk who would really care enough to do that.
average out the top 10k players for a country would be a terrible idea
seeing as there's only a few countries with more than 10k players
seeing as there's only a few countries with more than 10k players
then average out all the players of countries with less but exclude the ones with <average lowest pp of all the other countries top 10000.
here, have my guess based on completely nothing and drawn in the master edit program, paint
