forum

The reason you can (probably) never become a pro at osu

posted
Total Posts
155
show more
Yolshka
im heavily offended
Topic Starter
Railey2

Husky wrote:

And then, there was thelewa, who's never been a talented player. He repeated many times that he sucked in rhythm games. Yet, he was one of the best players in the world through insane hard work he put in.
lewa is probably among the top10 most accurate players in osu, right behind bikko, HDHR, xilver and maybe a couple others.

If you want to make an example to debunk what I said, https://osu.ppy.sh/u/1208858 is probably the best counter-example.

But even then, I can almost assure you that Vettel was most likely not behind at 4k pp.


The only thing that can really debunk my argument is showing me a large amount of players that were in the untalented-bracket early on, but still made it to the top. But you won't find many examples like this, because it is generally not a thing. The overwhelming majority of top-players always did better than people close to their rank, until they joined the ranks of the top-players. If you don't count to this group, your chances of becoming a top-player are significantly reduced.
Endaris
Don't need to be a pro to be good.
winber1
useless thread

let me help all you nerds out there

tl;dr you suck
chainpullz

Railey2 wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

This post is flawed because you can acquire play count etc from playing maps that wouldn't even give you pp for an SS. Not everyone goes hard every hour of every day. Some people still choose to play even on days where they are both physically and mentally exhausted and not capable of making top performance plays. Does this have anything to do with "talent"? No.

Your entire notion of talent is flawed if you are basing it off rank/pp/playcount.
To make this a bit more clear:

If you misapply your effort (never going hard, only playing for SS, depriving yourself of sleep for the sake of playing more..), this can also be a reason why you don't see results.
But what I said about talent is still true. Keep in mind that I mentioned how pp and playcount (better: hitcount), are just approximations for skill and effort, not perfect representations of it. It is just a way to estimate how talented you are. I will claim that it generally works, if you don't do some super crazy shit like only playing while blindfolded. Forming the average of the people around you and comparing yourself to it will give you a basic idea of where you fall. -/+ 2 million hitcount around the average and you are probably fine. More than that? Probably lacking talent.


Take yourself as an example. You have 9,587,322 hits and are rank 8k.

You are already in the untalented-bracket, by approximation. You will never make it to the top and should give up on it. You'll make it to top500 tops. There are other reasons to play the game.
My actual stats are nowhere close to what is listed on my profile and the same could be said about most players which is why your argument is 100% pointless. There is no such thing as talent. Just mindset. If you live and breath circles you will be better at them then other people. That has 100% nothing to do with talent. Saying that someone is at the top because they are both talented and worked hard is stupid and is honestly an insult to those players. It had nothing to do with talent.

Talent is an excuse people make for not having the drive to succeed. It is an admittance to defeat. This doesn't just apply to circles. It applies to pretty much everything in life.
OnosakiHito
I won't say whether this is likely to be the case or not. But for someone like me who plays Taiko since a very long time, I can say, that I reached some kind of cap in the past which brought me to my nowaday's thinking, keeping playing for fun and not putting pressure on me. I found my own niche where I am good at. Though, the outcome of this was surpassing my old self later, especially since I found another way of playing for me, so the cap I reached in the past was outdated.

What I want to say with this is that I do believe there is some kind of physical cap to one which could be determined as 'talent'. But one can't really say when this cap is reached at all. There are afterall other things which influence this cap such as the way you play or even ones health.

I find the OP interesting which is why I am here.
winber1
talent is an excuse but also a reason. completely denying talent is just showing ignorance as well tbh. just in osu alone, you can see examples of kids who reach top ranks within like 2 or 3 years, which you can attribute partially to more maps to train particular skills and more maps in general to just practice in addition to the higher cleanliness/quality of maps, but mostly to both having the right mindset and the right set of skills to begin with.

you seriously can't say some 130 pound asian kid who never works out or plays sport is gonna be a good bodybuilder. you can't say some diagnosed mentally retarded or autistic kid is gonna be the next genius physicist by pure hard work. i know these are completely random extreme cases, but you can apply them on smaller scale. Some people are just bad at math, some people are just plain stupid. These kids aren't gonna win a noble prize by studying science all day. They probably will never be able to do pretty much anything. people have strengths and weaknesses and almost always in their life end up following their strengths instead of their weaknesses, although they might have the heart to mitigate their lack of skill in certain subjects.

i'd like to think of myself as somewhat talented in intellect, or at least lucky to not be shitfaced retarded. Most of school I would never study, or at most 1-2 hour for only things like final exams at the end of a semester, yet although other kids spend more than 3 or more times the amount of time i spend studying, they often still get worse grades and worse gpa. that's also one of the only reasons i was able to balance my somewhat busy schedule while still playing league errday bruh. Hell, I even probably paid less attention in class, but I just retained information more easily. I really don't think you can just chalk that up to hard work.
Topic Starter
Railey2

chainpullz wrote:

There is no such thing as talent. Just mindset. If you live and breath circles you will be better at them then other people. That has 100% nothing to do with talent. Saying that someone is at the top because they are both talented and worked hard is stupid and is honestly an insult to those players. It had nothing to do with talent.

Talent is an excuse people make for not having the drive to succeed. It is an admittance to defeat. This doesn't just apply to circles. It applies to pretty much everything in life.
You are one of the people that hate admitting to themselves that there are forces outside of their control that affect what they can reasonably achieve.

People are born with certain predispositions. I can play as much chess as I want, but I will never beat Magnus Carlsen. I can study as hard as I want, but I'll never be as smart as someone with IQ 165 who studies half as much as me.

I can play as much osu as I want, but I'll never be even close to the top 100. And the same applies to you.

This is an undeniable reality. You can accept it, or you can call talent an excuse in an effort to justify your naive view of a world where talent is evenly distributed and effort gets rewarded fairly.

Denying the existence of talent is childish.

Read the original post again. I made this thread for people that think like you too. I don't want to insult anyone, I'm just don't want anyone to have unrealistic expectations of themselves.
PriestMVP
Very good post.

The grim reality is, you may pass someone with talent if you put in insane amounts of work while they sit idle.

But if they put in the same amount of work, they will inevitably pass you.

That's all there is to it.
chainpullz

winber1 wrote:

completely random extreme cases

chainpullz wrote:

pretty much everything in life.
Dw fam I know how to quantify my arguments to avoid extreme cases. :^)

winber1 wrote:

i'd like to think of myself as somewhat talented in intellect, or at least lucky to not be shitfaced retarded. Most of school I would never study, or at most 1-2 hour for only things like final exams at the end of a semester, yet although other kids spend more than 3 or more times the amount of time i spend studying, they often still get worse grades and worse gpa. that's also one of the only reasons i was able to balance my somewhat busy schedule while still playing league errday bruh. Hell, I even probably paid less attention in class, but I just retained information more easily. I really don't think you can just chalk that up to hard work.
As I said, mindset. When it comes to matters of knowledge/intellect "work" doesn't simply apply to like actually doing problems and shit. Both conscious and subconscious thinking apply here as well. People who are good at math are good at math because they see and think about everything in the world in a very mathematical way. They are in essence "working" just by living their life. If you want to go as far as to call things like that talent I would still say that is just disrespectful to those people, at least to use it in this sort of context. Most of these "talented" people have difficulty living normal lives because they are incapable of seeing/thinking about the world in a normal way.

I mean sure, there are the obvious extreme cases. Micheal Phelps is double jointed and that gives him a massive evolutionary advantage against most other people when it comes to Olympic Swimming. I still wouldn't call that talent.

I argue that talent doesn't exist and that you are simply using the wrong metric with which to measure effort. It's also a difficult thing to discuss due to how little we understand about the early developmental phase for humans from a research standpoint. Whether talent actually exists from a mental capacity standpoint (barring actual mental diseases) is still a contested topic.

But yeah, for a game where you literally just click circles you probably aren't ever going to hit your true limits as onosaki has pointed out and those are the only things that are really worth debating as far as "talent" is concerned.
B1rd
now for some more red pills:
-in addition to circle clicking, some people are just better than others in pretty much every way
-it applies to everything in life and if you lose the genetic lottery you're fucked
-race/gender has a big effect on IQ/intelligence
-jews control America

etc etc
Endaris
socialisation is more important than genes though
too bad that society sucks in most places
B1rd
Oh yeah statistically if you was raised by a single mother you're fucked too

sad life
Topic Starter
Railey2
chainpullz, this is insane. The existence of talent is not a contested topic. The blank slate-theory has been exhaustively refuted, there are about nobody left in professional fields who claims that all people could theoretically work themselves anywhere they want.

Reaction time is already moderately genetic.
Working memory is influenced by genetics.
IQ is influenced by genetics.


Your argument is demonstrably false. I've seen many people claim that hard work is more important than talent, but I've never seen anyone say that talent doesn't exist.
winber1

chainpullz wrote:

People who are good at math are good at math because they see and think about everything in the world in a very mathematical way.
not really. I didn't really want to go into this topic since there is not quantitative evidence truly, but what do you even quantify as "a very mathematical way?" I'd say doing basic math and solving basic algebraic equations for work or just curiosity isn't not really that mathematical, but that's what most people would do. And to be fair, a good portion of mathematically inclined people (asians lul) are not thinking about group theory or matrix transformations or some crap like that, they only use it when they need to. Otherwise, they'd only think about more complex problems if that is their job. Every once in a while people will just solve problems for fun or do it to help someone. I know most of my friends haven't even taken a math class in 4 to 5 years and only use basic math skills nowadays, but would be bounds better at relearning calculus than most people our age (who also have not taken or done advanced math in years). This is all just hypothesizing and no evidence, but that's all I have for that.

But when it comes to hardwork and mindset, even that is a talent in and of itself. Our brains are a physical entity that can be almost completely hardwired to think a certain way. Perhaps there's no absolute conclusion on the malleability of the human brain, but just evolutionarily speaking, certain animals have been "proven" to act a certain way under certain stimuli regardless of any environment. Of course, we don't see that specifically in humans, but the idea is that tendencies to retain a certain behavior exist in all animal, and especially for humans, regardless of whether it's "hardwired" or not. This is why personalities exist, because we have a tendency to always be a certain way. You can argue that people can push through if they work "hard enough" to change their identity and personality, but can't it also be said that that particular is much harder and time-consuming to accomlpish? And in that way, wouldn't that mean that for someone who has a behaviorally negative tendency to require more time and effort to fix it and improve themselves in a particular area? If you don't consider this a kind of talent, then there still seems to be a discrepancy between the amount of time one person takes to learn a skill and the time it takes for another, and that time discrepancy itself is like a pseudo-talent. If not measurable in mental capacity, we can still measure talent in the amount of time it takes people to learn particular sets of skills, although not numerically per se.
7ambda
Being good at osu! doesn't mean much in real life, so it doesn't matter.

Also, the fact that you're judging someone's skill by their play count is pretty sad.
Topic Starter
Railey2

F1r3tar wrote:

Being good at osu! doesn't mean much in real life, so it doesn't matter.

Also, the fact that you're judging someone's skill by their play count is pretty sad.
You don't get to decide what matters to anyone but yourself, don't be so presumptuous.

I don't judge skill by play count, I consider hitcount and skill to estimate talent.
KupcaH
ok

Just believe in yourself, and stay positive.
7ambda

Railey2 wrote:

You don't get to decide what matters to anyone but yourself, don't be so presumptuous.
Since when did I say my words are fact?

But honestly, when is osu! going to help you in real life? You don't need to pour an insane amount of dedication and time into something that you won't be using in the future. I'm not saying you can't if that's how you feel, but don't feel obligated to get good at something that ultimately won't help you.
Rhonin
you can't just call people "untalented" you inconsiderate douche.
chainpullz
Idk, seems to be a pretty contested topic in philosophy to me.
http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm

For reference all my previous studies have been in regard to innateness of language so I did have to confirm that the innateness of domain specific talent in general was also highly contested.
I Give Up
Topic Starter
Railey2

F1r3tar wrote:

Railey2 wrote:

You don't get to decide what matters to anyone but yourself, don't be so presumptuous.
Since when did I say my words are fact?

But honestly, when is osu! going to help you in real life? You don't need to pour an insane amount of dedication and time into something that you won't be using in the future. I'm not saying you can't if that's how you feel, but don't feel obligated to get good at something that ultimately won't help you.
You said that "it doesn't matter" as a factual statement.


I don't need to do anything.

Rhonin wrote:

you can't just call people "untalented" you inconsiderate douche.
Some people are talented, others aren't. The point of this thread is giving people a heuristic to estimate how talented they are. This will prevent untalented people from pouring a huge amount of time into a game to reach a goal that was unobtainable to begin with. Nobody should have to delude themselves into thinking that they can reach the top when it is not possible.
suh
So the real question is: how do I obtain talent? Is it something I can develop? Do I have to think a lot harder than others to get talent? Can I even get talented? 0.o

People can argue you have to born with talent. Over the past months I had a casual play break where I had no idea what I was doing or how to improve. Just recently I figured out my problems (I'm prob wrong but oh well). Im not sure if the reason I figured out how I should get better is because I got older (it's weerd I've been able to learn thing better now that I'm older). Maybe I'm developing talent? I dunno. I really want some of this talent that people are talking bout nowadays.

:D
PinkNightmares
I find your post hilarious. By definition you can never become a pro at osu! because you can't make a living out of it (even if you are top 5 material). You try to give your own definition to talent by using a flawed metric and buzzwords such as "untalented bracket". It may be true that people have a different skill ceiling but most players will never even come close to it.
NixXSkate
Judging people based on playcount or hitcount? Really? You assume the other player in question doesn't play offline, play mostly unranked maps, use an alternate account, or farm for certain scores in general. It's an extremely inaccurate statistic that would probably only discourage you if you took it to heart, which would only hurt your performance. Some people don't actively try to improve their physical skill with each play they make. Hell, my first ~60,000 plays were all easy/normal farming. And then I moved to hard farming and SS farming until like ~100,000 playcount. Older players weren't improving themselves based on a ppv2 system, and the players in question may not be either. For example, Doomsday is very talented, but if you went based on his playcount, you would probably think he was less talented than his competitors, even though his extreme finger speeds give him massive potential to become much higher ranked than he is now.

Sometimes you might have a weakness that's hard to improve (but can be improved). For example, I started off terrible at streaming, maxing 210bpm bursts in my first 2 years of osu!. However, slowly but surely I've improved to 220bpm deathstreams and 270bpm bursts. It took a lot of playing to do this, and in that playing I could've focused on other aspects, like aim or accuracy. Even if you aren't a perfect well rounded player like Cookiezi or hvick, there could be something you specialize far more than others when practiced, and perhaps you just haven't realized what that niche is yet. I would argue that nothing about WubWoofWolf's skill set and playing is abnormal (aside from his reading most likely because of all the old map practice), but he's definitely pro, most likely because of his state of mind and consistent practice over the years. First step in becoming a pro at osu! is to not dwell on whether you're untalented or not. As long as you work to improve yourself and understand how to you can improve yourself, there's no reason to be discouraged. If you hit a wall, take a lengthy break and think about it for a little, you might come back and get an epiphany.
Topic Starter
Railey2

NixXSkate wrote:

Judging people based on playcount or hitcount? Really?
Yes, really. Your playcount reflects to a certain extent how much you play this game. Hitcount is even better. If you take the average of 100 people around your rank and compare yourself to that average, all the points you mentioned become statistical background noise. To account for the inaccuracy of the method you can only consider your result as significant when it is either far lower or far higher than the average. And there you go, you have a (somewhat) reliable method for estimating how talented you are at osu, granted that you don't do stuff like playing for SS or only playing Easy maps for #1's on the leaderboards, which would really skew the results.
Doomsday isn't as talented as most other top-players, he will never make it to the very top again.



B1oody wrote:

I find your post hilarious. By definition you can never become a pro at osu! because you can't make a living out of it (even if you are top 5 material). You try to give your own definition to talent by using a flawed metric and buzzwords such as "untalented bracket". It may be true that people have a different skill ceiling but most players will never even come close to it.
1) stop your semantic nitpicking. You know exactly what I mean by pro, and so does everyone else
2) I used a widely used and understood definition of talent. Again, semantics.
3) I know that the metric is flawed, but there isn't really a better one. That's why its only approximating talent.
4) That most people never reach their skill ceiling is completely beside the point. How is that even relevant? I never said that you have to give up on getting better, just on reaching the top.
NixXSkate

Railey2 wrote:

NixXSkate wrote:

Judging people based on playcount or hitcount? Really?
Yes, really. Your playcount reflects to a certain extent how much you play this game. Hitcount is even better. If you take the average of 100 people around your rank and compare yourself to that average, all the points you mentioned become statistical background noise.
No, not really. Many players still don't try to improve physical skill every play, many players play offline or primarily unranked maps, many players may be focusing on becoming well rounded rather than a specific specialty, and many players may not be focusing on pp nearly as much as the others. There are many top players that are only talented in one or two aspects of osu!. As I said before, some talents may be held back, there have been many times where players that consistently play just seemed to shoot up once they weren't held back from a weakness, like a speed demon that learned how to aim fast or vise-versa.

KukiMonster wrote:

FathomAssembly
I agree with NixXSkate. Playcount and stuff could be good information to take into account, but for that you'd need to remove of the playcount (for instance) all of the plays that did not have the endeavor to make you better. Look at me for instance, I have 34k playcount, yet, I spend what, a fifth of my play time playing easy maps to take breaks from tryharding. A fifth of 34k would be 6800, which is a lot of difference. Now, let's imagine that I've been playing for much more time and that I have 200.000 playcount, and that I would always have played easy maps. A fifth of it would be 40k playcount, which is a big lot.

On the other hand, I've noticed that people that play less than me (like, maybe twice or thrice a week, while I'm playing six days out of seven) improve faster playcount-wise, but slower time-wise (one of my friends, for instance, has 2600pp, when I had as much as him, my playcount was twice as high, yet, I went to this amount of pp way faster than he did, he attained this amount in one year and a half while I atteined it in just one year).


Besides, retrying makes a lot of difference playcount wise, as it increases a lot faster, while the total hits doesn't increase as fast.

Railey, let's take you and I as exemple, if you go to my profile, you'll notice that we begun playing (or at least created our accounts) the exact same day.

In those 21 months, my playcount went all the way up to 34k. Yours is 41.5k. Yet I have 110 hours of playcount more than you. I also have half as much total hits as you. My max combo is 3670 while your is 1330.

For all of this I get to the conclusion that you retry a lot more than I do (and I did retry a lot before deciding to get consistent, if I had never retried, maybe I would be at around 25k playcount or something like that).

If we take only playcount and total hits into account, it would seem like you have more talent than me, but if you take into account that a big part of my total hits comes from not retrying, and that another significant part of them comes from playing piss easy maps, we can't say which one of us is the most talented. Or at least I cannot, and I probably couldn't even though if I knew if you were not retrying like me or playing maps just for fun and not for improvement like I do.

I think that playcount, total hits, and play time are influenced by too much variables to discern them from one another, which would make any judgment based on them dubious.

Also, but this is 'total' intuition from my part (which means that it's totally up to you to believe any of it), I looked at your profile and I think that you tend be pessimistic, which could lead you to think that certains things that look impossible indeed are, while they not necessarily are.
7ambda

B1oody wrote:

By definition you can never become a pro at osu! because you can't make a living out of it
Not unless you're a partnered Twitch streamer.
-Makishima S-
Just few words:

There are 2 meaning of "being pro":

1) You are pro because you are in top100 and you can play whatever majority of players cannot due having talent for "everything"

but

2) You can be pro in one thing which separates you from majority at your own rank range - for example:

https://osu.ppy.sh/u/-GN

Is not in top100, yet holds biggest amount of most crazy plays which nobody in top100 can probably do (or can do with great effort and sacrifice). One of examples of this scores which i think everyone in top100 tried and failed:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/155691 - HDHR FC.
Not mention amount of TAG4 Solo FC scores.

Next example:

If you are let's say in top5000 but your control and reading is focused into fast complex patterns and you can without much problems FC gimmick maps, anytime when someone throw at you another camellia map you just laugh at it and do another 200pp FC due this map not yelding much of it - you can consider youself as a pro in this one thing - due probably 99% of players around you will strugle hard in this maps.

This kind of examples are a lot and honestly - who gives a fuck, really, top100, top50, top1.... who gives a fuck if you actually can play maps what you enjoy, as far as people produce them and you find new one even unranked.

For me Railey2 post sounds like crying "i cannot be good", dunno if it's just me but really, demotivating people from work to progress and enjoy higher variety of fun maps is just retarded.

Fuck this thread and OP for bunch of salt, my room looks like ocean after reading this, bye.

@Edit: I also put here Thelewa as someone who worked extremely hard to be good and now it's one of best acc players in this game. As he said - he is "untallented".

Really... if you think you cannot do something because you don't have talent - buy a rope and use it properly, here is tutorial:


Railey should do this right now since there is no hope for you bro, pls don't waste precious oxygene.
Hiro-Senpai
I didnt read what the op wrote bcuz its too long
Basically i dont believe in this talent bullshit.



This is my nindo, my path of ninja
CXu
The moment you made this thread is the moment you're not going to reach the top.
E m i
skill:
https://osu.ppy.sh/u/My%20Aim%20Trash
https://osu.ppy.sh/u/KeigoClear

don't care about talent 8-)

to put it simply, no aim no life (salty)

Shoutout to mithew also.
-Makishima S-

CXu wrote:

The moment you made this thread is the moment you're not going to reach the top.
Hug me CXu <3

So true, so so true.

This thread should be deleted and OP permanently banned from this game.
Topic Starter
Railey2
Vayenthapost
SPOILER

Vayentha wrote:

I agree with NixXSkate. Playcount and stuff could be good information to take into account, but for that you'd need to remove of the playcount (for instance) all of the plays that did not have the endeavor to make you better. Look at me for instance, I have 34k playcount, yet, I spend what, a fifth of my play time playing easy maps to take breaks from tryharding. A fifth of 34k would be 6800, which is a lot of difference. Now, let's imagine that I've been playing for much more time and that I have 200.000 playcount, and that I would always have played easy maps. A fifth of it would be 40k playcount, which is a big lot.

On the other hand, I've noticed that people that play less than me (like, maybe twice or thrice a week, while I'm playing six days out of seven) improve faster playcount-wise, but slower time-wise (one of my friends, for instance, has 2600pp, when I had as much as him, my playcount was twice as high, yet, I went to this amount of pp way faster than he did, he attained this amount in one year and a half while I atteined it in just one year).


Besides, retrying makes a lot of difference playcount wise, as it increases a lot faster, while the total hits doesn't increase as fast.

Railey, let's take you and I as exemple, if you go to my profile, you'll notice that we begun playing (or at least created our accounts) the exact same day.

In those 21 months, my playcount went all the way up to 34k. Yours is 41.5k. Yet I have 110 hours of playcount more than you. I also have half as much total hits as you. My max combo is 3670 while your is 1330.

For all of this I get to the conclusion that you retry a lot more than I do (and I did retry a lot before deciding to get consistent, if I had never retried, maybe I would be at around 25k playcount or something like that).

If we take only playcount and total hits into account, it would seem like you have more talent than me, but if you take into account that a big part of my total hits comes from not retrying, and that another significant part of them comes from playing piss easy maps, we can't say which one of us is the most talented. Or at least I cannot, and I probably couldn't even though if I knew if you were not retrying like me or playing maps just for fun and not for improvement like I do.

I think that playcount, total hits, and play time are influenced by too much variables to discern them from one another, which would make any judgment based on them dubious.

Also, but this is 'total' intuition from my part (which means that it's totally up to you to believe any of it), I looked at your profile and I think that you tend be pessimistic, which could lead you to think that certains things that look impossible indeed are, while they not necessarily are.
thanks for your honest response, I will try to reply to it adequately.

As a response to your example: Everyone plays maps that are easier to take a break. Some more, some less. The good thing is, when you compare yourself to an average, you expect these factors to even out a fair bit, meaning the average you compare yourself with also has a good number of plays on easier maps in it. Some of the players that make up the average that you compare yourself to will also have offline-plays.
It only stops working when you, as you correctly pointed out, do some very irregular stuff. Like having 200k playcount and only playing easy maps. Or playing offline for entire 2 years. Then you could certainly get the wrong idea when you compare yourself to the people around you.

If I have 40 less hitcount than you but am still considerably higher in the rankings than you, a natural conclusion would be that I am more talented, yes. Of course there are many, many confounding factors (which I never denied), but thats why the method is only approximate. When I have the same hitcount as you, it is expected that I am well ahead of where you are.

Regarding frequency of play, I've seen it go the other way round too. People that play more in a short time improving faster (with less hitcount/pp). I am unsure if this is really such a big factor.




To sum it up: the confounding factors become less important when you compare yourself to an average, that is the nice thing about big numbers. Individual deviations vanish in statistics. You just have to account for it when the deviation lies with YOU, like you playing offline for 2 years.


Taigapost
SPOILER

[Taiga] wrote:

Just few words:

There are 2 meaning of "being pro":

1) You are pro because you are in top100 and you can play whatever majority of players cannot due having talent for "everything"

but

2) You can be pro in one thing which separates you from majority at your own rank range - for example:

https://osu.ppy.sh/u/-GN

Is not in top100, yet holds biggest amount of most crazy plays which nobody in top100 can probably do (or can do with great effort and sacrifice). One of examples of this scores which i think everyone in top100 tried and failed:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/155691 - HDHR FC.
Not mention amount of TAG4 Solo FC scores.

Next example:

If you are let's say in top5000 but your control and reading is focused into fast complex patterns and you can without much problems FC gimmick maps, anytime when someone throw at you another camellia map you just laugh at it and do another 200pp FC due this map not yelding much of it - you can consider youself as a pro in this one thing - due probably 99% of players around you will strugle hard in this maps.

This kind of examples are a lot and honestly - who gives a fuck, really, top100, top50, top1.... who gives a fuck if you actually can play maps what you enjoy, as far as people produce them and you find new one even unranked.

For me Railey2 post sounds like crying "i cannot be good", dunno if it's just me but really, demotivating people from work to progress and enjoy higher variety of fun maps is just retarded.

Fuck this thread and OP for bunch of salt, my room looks like ocean after reading this, bye.

@Edit: I also put here Thelewa as someone who worked extremely hard to be good and now it's one of best acc players in this game. As he said - he is "untallented".

Really... if you think you cannot do something because you don't have talent - buy a rope and use it properly, here is tutorial:



Railey should do this right now since there is no hope for you bro, pls don't waste precious oxygene.
You call me salty and yet you tell me to kill myself? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Anyway, you got it entirely the wrong way around. This post was made to show people that playing to be at the top isn't for everyone, but that there are other ways to play the game. I concluded my post on a positive note even.

I am pretty good at this game. Exceptionally good, even, at least for my own standards. But I can never make it to the very top. It's not called being pessimistic, or giving up on your dreams, it's called being realistic.

I think getting peoples hopes up when there is no chance of them achieving their dreams is the biggest insult. It doesn't only insult their intelligence, it also makes them waste their time on a goal that is unobtainable.

Lastly

this is the exact type of just-world-hypothesis bullshit that rational people try to avoid like the pest. It doesn't get more delusional than that.
Topic Starter
Railey2

CXu wrote:

The moment you made this thread is the moment you're not going to reach the top.
ok Mr.CXu I want you to write a PM to Cr1mmy, telling him that he will catch up to your rank if he just worked a bit harder. Can you do that for me? I'm sure he will feel very encouraged.
CXu
Yes because I'd want to do something someone making this thread tells me to do.
Topic Starter
Railey2

CXu wrote:

Yes because I'd want to do something someone making this thread tells me to do.
I think you are missing the point.

Telling cr1m that he can make it to the top after he spent so much time on the game without getting there is a very vile and mean-spirited thing. That's why you wouldn't do it. It'd be almost like an insult. A taunt.

Your response made it sound as if attitude is the only thing that prevents people from reaching the top, when that is not true at all. Attitude isn't everything. Talent does exist, and it is very, very important for this game.

I wasn't surprised that both low-ranked and high-ranked players react aggressively to this post, because it crushes the hopes of low players and undermines a source of self-credit for high players, but the amount of delusional people who even claim that talent doesn't exist, is beyond shocking.


Anyway, I never wanted for this thread to have this sort of backlash. Think what you want. I'd rather go with the things that reflect in the rankings: People improve at vastly different speeds, and the ones that don't improve fast won't make it far up. That is just common sense.
chainpullz
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply