did you know peppy was the best osu-player once?
forum
The reason you can (probably) never become a pro at osu
posted
Total Posts
155
That's a poor answer not worthy of your standards Railey.
I think the argument about the data being faulty is very valid and massively reduces the validity of generalising players via playcount.
Rizzo is obviously one of osu!'s most famous SS-farmers and look, with the introduction of ppv2 he was suddenly #1 even though you claimed that SS farming doesn't do anything for your skill. That is apparently wrong and it is also my personal experience that going for the SS can be very valuable for your skill.
It also shows that the ranking metric has a major influence on what players with a competitive mindset actually play because very soon WWW, Rucker and all those other people passed Rizzo and now he's 2k which is not very pro. Many people consider Rizzo pro anyway.
The common metrics accessible for evaluation (playcount, hitcount, A/S/SS-count, weighted acc, pp) are just way too general to accurately assess a player's skill due to the ranking meta, its development over time and the specific histories of the players.
In order to show the actual difference between players just due to talent you would have to go into many more details, compare plays and set up your data in a way that makes the players well comparable(e.g. similar Total to Ranked Score ratio, similar playtime in months, no previous rhythm game experience, no experience in playing an instrument, ...).
Last but not least "play more" certainly remains the most significant factor in whether someone can become pro or not. A couple months ago some guy made some statistics that showed the correlation very clearly.
I think the argument about the data being faulty is very valid and massively reduces the validity of generalising players via playcount.
Rizzo is obviously one of osu!'s most famous SS-farmers and look, with the introduction of ppv2 he was suddenly #1 even though you claimed that SS farming doesn't do anything for your skill. That is apparently wrong and it is also my personal experience that going for the SS can be very valuable for your skill.
It also shows that the ranking metric has a major influence on what players with a competitive mindset actually play because very soon WWW, Rucker and all those other people passed Rizzo and now he's 2k which is not very pro. Many people consider Rizzo pro anyway.
The common metrics accessible for evaluation (playcount, hitcount, A/S/SS-count, weighted acc, pp) are just way too general to accurately assess a player's skill due to the ranking meta, its development over time and the specific histories of the players.
In order to show the actual difference between players just due to talent you would have to go into many more details, compare plays and set up your data in a way that makes the players well comparable(e.g. similar Total to Ranked Score ratio, similar playtime in months, no previous rhythm game experience, no experience in playing an instrument, ...).
Last but not least "play more" certainly remains the most significant factor in whether someone can become pro or not. A couple months ago some guy made some statistics that showed the correlation very clearly.
this whole thread is getting confused and befuddled with a slowly diverging argument. The initial argument is that talent makes the difference between the amazing and the very best. You are guys are now criticizing now that Railey used playcount as a unit of measurement in skill, when he has already indeed said (or implied) that it is not perfect method, and in a sense using that to combat the argument that talent isn't much of a factor, if it exists at all, despite the two being pretty much unrelated. Even if you are not, it is coming off like that. Same with SS-farming and the like, etc. Opinions are opinions, but I am on Railey's side here that talent is a very large factor. Argue that or let people have their own opinions, or else this thread is gonna become a shithole.
Think what you must, and play for whatever reason you want, it really doesn't matter to me. Perhaps Railey may have pushed a certain notion too far, but at the same time, the G&R community has a strong tendency to just shitface anything that just seems blatantly wrong to them, but in general it's with scrubs asking dumb questions. You may think this thread is cancer, but it's slightly more legitimate than the classic how to get better.
Think what you must, and play for whatever reason you want, it really doesn't matter to me. Perhaps Railey may have pushed a certain notion too far, but at the same time, the G&R community has a strong tendency to just shitface anything that just seems blatantly wrong to them, but in general it's with scrubs asking dumb questions. You may think this thread is cancer, but it's slightly more legitimate than the classic how to get better.
Yes, I won't deny that talent exists and that it makes the difference as you said winber but the method described in OP is arguably very meh
Talent is very elusive and hard to measure, but there is a simple way to do it.This section should get some kind of rework if this thread should be used for informing people in the future because it simplifies stuff way too much.
Think of talent as the thing that caused the difference in skill between two players, that put the same amount of effort into the game. If we think of it like this, we can measure it just fine, because playcount is a decent approximation for effort (hitcount is even better, to be seen on peoples profiles), and pp is a decent approximation for skill. If someone gets more skilled with less effort, we can call them talented.
Green would be an example of a talented player (lower playcount than everyone around him).
Red is an example of an untalented player (higher playcount than everyone around him).
Keep in mind that "talented" is a relative term, which means that it only becomes meaningful in comparison. We call red untalented, because he is less talented than the reference group, other people around rank 5k.
If we went back in time and checked how red was doing when he only had 1k pp, we may have found that red was a relatively talented player.
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.This whole thread is just one - big - fuckin - bullshit.
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.
Performance in this game is similar to performance in real world sports.
In every group of olympic team are people who are talented and hard working but also people who love this sport and working twice as hard to be the best.
If you decide to throw a lot of work into something what you love, hard work grow a talent which overcome just talented people who just hard work.
Will Smith, successfull actor:
I could find tons of speach like this one - where not talented people are proving that you can overcome "so talented" people by ridiculus amount of work.
More - i know this by myself - from real life, i am not a scientific smart person who i ended up my mid-grade school and university with higher scores than "so called talented people" just by working hard, learning hard, not sleeping but learning, spending most of my life time in books. Right now i consider myself as successfull and smart guy in term of Network Security and Software Engineering.
The same apply to almost everything.
Stop your ridiculus idiotic "if you are not talented, you don't reach top100" because it's pure bullshit.
Same as your statistics are bullshit.
Another video - if someone think Michael Jordan is talented - no, he worked extremely hard for what he achieved:
You may be talented in something and that just makes your work on this easier but 2 people - one talented, second not talented can end up on same point, it's just matter of determination, amount of work and effort put into this.
However, he said it to be a "decent" approximation, and both "decent" and "approximation" are both loose and non-conclusive ways to estimate something. In my opinion, the fact of the matter is that he isn't even using playcount as his argument to say talent exists, but more so uses it to try and exemplify the difference it makes. It's a slight difference, but I think it matters. Either way, there's so many lurking variables that nothing can be 100% correct, but some people are mixing the two up (mixing playcount and pp is not a good representation of skill with talent being a predominant factor in being good). I'm sure you can find "evidence" for whatever argument you have considering our sample size in the rankings as well as the innate subjectivity of "effort spent" and "skill" though.
I mean really at this point I think people are just about to go in circles, so I'm just more or less advising to watch out for that.
Edit:
I mean really at this point I think people are just about to go in circles, so I'm just more or less advising to watch out for that.
Edit:
Again, going off-topic again. Railey's argument is that for two people who worked just as hard, the one with more talent will come out on top. Your evidence says nothing, because they explain that you can surpass a so-called talented person if you work harder than them. If not explicitly said, that's the major selling point.[Taiga] wrote:
If you decide to throw a lot of work into something what you love, hard work grow a talent which overcome just talented people who just hard work.
Topic Starter
MICHAEL JORDAN ISN'T TALENTED
is that what you insinuate now?
holy shit man
If he wasn't talented, he wouldn't have made it. This is an insult to everyone who worked just as hard as him but didn't make it.
Will Smith is another topic, because acting is a job where success is much more random in a way. Unlike osu.
I swear the hole you are digging yourself with your arguments gets deeper and deeper.
Work may beat talent. But it can never beat work and talent. The people at the very top have both. Maybe Jordan wants to attribute his success to his insane work-ethic, and you know thats partially true. He wouldn't have gotten so far without work. But also not without talent. Admitting that to ourselves is painful, because it takes away some of the credit that we like to give ourselves. But it's still true. Poor Michael Jordan.
Thanks to winber1 for backing me on this.
I'll try to give Endaris a better response soon, give me some time.
is that what you insinuate now?
holy shit man
If he wasn't talented, he wouldn't have made it. This is an insult to everyone who worked just as hard as him but didn't make it.
Will Smith is another topic, because acting is a job where success is much more random in a way. Unlike osu.
I swear the hole you are digging yourself with your arguments gets deeper and deeper.
Work may beat talent. But it can never beat work and talent. The people at the very top have both. Maybe Jordan wants to attribute his success to his insane work-ethic, and you know thats partially true. He wouldn't have gotten so far without work. But also not without talent. Admitting that to ourselves is painful, because it takes away some of the credit that we like to give ourselves. But it's still true. Poor Michael Jordan.
Thanks to winber1 for backing me on this.
I'll try to give Endaris a better response soon, give me some time.
I agree that "playcount", "play time", "total hits" etc. are not accurate enough statistics to measure whether some player is more talented than another. However, disregarding the existence of talent altogether is simply delusional.
It would be the equivalent of telling me "Yeah, Gigo, go to the basketball court and start driving that ball through the hoop, you'll be as good... hell, maybe even better... than MJ some day!" Uhmm, no, I won't be. I'll also NOT box like Tyson or run like Bolt or dance like Michael Jackson etc. etc. Some people just have "IT".
That being said, this topic is basically pointless. No one will convince the others in their point of view.
It would be the equivalent of telling me "Yeah, Gigo, go to the basketball court and start driving that ball through the hoop, you'll be as good... hell, maybe even better... than MJ some day!" Uhmm, no, I won't be. I'll also NOT box like Tyson or run like Bolt or dance like Michael Jackson etc. etc. Some people just have "IT".
That being said, this topic is basically pointless. No one will convince the others in their point of view.
MICHAEL JORDAN ISN'T TALENTEDOk, i am out, your are not only ridiculusly stupid with this topic but also need to learn search for informations and personal stories of people.
is that what you insinuate now?
holy shit man
If he wasn't talented, he wouldn't have made it. This is an insult to everyone who worked just as hard as him but didn't make it.
When you read about MJ very close, you notice that he himself call that he IS NOT talented, he growed it with hard work.
Keep dreaming kid, there is no place in top for you anyway, one less crying shitter.
If in real life you also cry over everything with "he is more talented" then maybe buy a rope? It may help, really, it will fix all your real life problems.
I swear the hole you are digging yourself with your arguments gets deeper and deeper.Even if i pull out all "dual stylus" from forum, i still will have problem to catch up to you. Your talent o make holes is unbeatable lmao.
Sorry, i pass, cannot work hard on crying and assuming guy in front of me is "talented", i honestly get my pants out and shit on his talent, i prefer to work on my future and be sure it pays off with proper expected result.
Everything in this world have limits and can be achieved... except excessive stupidity of people who think that hard work cannot beat talent.
Everything have limit where talented person and hard working one will meet.
You what. Man if someone really wants to become someone, gain some specified skills or whatever, he will eventually become very good at it if he will put all of his effort to achieve that.Gigo wrote:
Yeah, Gigo, go to the basketball court and start driving that ball through the hoop, you'll be as good... hell, maybe even better... than MJ some day!" Uhmm, no, I won't be.
If you really would want to become better at throwing this brown ball with air inside than MJ and you would train hard for days and nights than it is really possible for you to surpass him. And the quality of practice matters aswell.
There are couple types of practice/training.
One that i like to call bullshit practice. Where the person that practices doesn't commit himself fully to it and don't search for mistakes he makes and how to fix them (I saw that a lot from people that draw. They say that they draw a lot and do that whole day but always think that they drawings are good and there isnt anything that can be improved there)
And there is a proper practise that is helping the person that really wants and commits himself to it. Such person sees his mistakes in the particular thing and spends days in trying to find a fix for these mistakes
MJ is a human and he trained a lot to achieve what he achieved.
This is my opinion on how to get good with training and will of heart
op makes a legitimate point
it's just unfortunate that those people who mindlessly shit on him are actually the people who need to consider his advice the most
Anyway, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly 'talent' is, but there does seem to be a correlation of some players improving at a much slower rate than others, whether it be due to work ethic, mindset, physical attributes, your bringing up as a child, or any other factors - which are all contributors to 'talent' or 'natural ability' in this game.
Neverthless, in the end you need hard work to be good at anything in life. i.e don't think talent is the determining factor to success. That bring me to the one point I don't agree on with OP:
Some people (I hate to fire shots again but too bad) can't even begin to comprehend how much time a 'pro' player has spent trying to improve himself at this game. I might attribute this to ignorance. Next time you play, try playing the hardest maps you can play, maybe even with NF, trying to hit every single note the WHOLE MAP through, even if your arm is burning and your eyes are tired, and then repeat that for 5 hours. This is the work ethic that successful people have and if you can't match that, don't make excuses about talent because it's not the reason you're not improving.
On a side note: (off-topic rant xd)
I hope people realise that the reason 'pro' players constantly say 'play more' is because they are entitled to; they play they asses off every day to improve at the game and then they go onto G&R forums and see people looking for the 'quick fix' to improve it's really just funny. You can't just play 'for fun' and get better. It's fkn hard work and the way people say 'play more' is subtly mocking those who are naive and make excuses for not improving because in reality, they're just lazy. (considering they legitimately want to improve)
there's like a good quote i wanna finish on: "you can dedicate your body and soul to something, but it's no use if you're just more lazy than the person next to you"
tl;dr talent isn't the determining factor to success. It exists but isn't the reason why you're not improving and can't be 'pro' - that's because you don't work hard enough and hence "play more"
it's just unfortunate that those people who mindlessly shit on him are actually the people who need to consider his advice the most
Anyway, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly 'talent' is, but there does seem to be a correlation of some players improving at a much slower rate than others, whether it be due to work ethic, mindset, physical attributes, your bringing up as a child, or any other factors - which are all contributors to 'talent' or 'natural ability' in this game.
Neverthless, in the end you need hard work to be good at anything in life. i.e don't think talent is the determining factor to success. That bring me to the one point I don't agree on with OP:
I'd argue work ethic is definitely more important than natural talent. People who played for only 2-3 years and reached the top- check how much they played every day, probably 5-6 hours or even more, with over 5000 playcount a month. The thing that defines these 'pro' osu players is that they constantly try to improve. There's no secret other than they played hours on end, day after day, year after year and constantly pushed themselves, looked for new ways to improve, changed their settings, thought about the game in their spare time, read threads, stayed healthy, kept playing and kept playing the game.Railey2 wrote:
There is a reason why people always say "play more", right? For sure you can become a pro if you really follow their advice. Well... no.
You are making a costly mistake. Improvement at osu is not only about work, and people who claim that they made it to the top only as a result of their hard work, are lying.
Some people (I hate to fire shots again but too bad) can't even begin to comprehend how much time a 'pro' player has spent trying to improve himself at this game. I might attribute this to ignorance. Next time you play, try playing the hardest maps you can play, maybe even with NF, trying to hit every single note the WHOLE MAP through, even if your arm is burning and your eyes are tired, and then repeat that for 5 hours. This is the work ethic that successful people have and if you can't match that, don't make excuses about talent because it's not the reason you're not improving.
On a side note: (off-topic rant xd)
I hope people realise that the reason 'pro' players constantly say 'play more' is because they are entitled to; they play they asses off every day to improve at the game and then they go onto G&R forums and see people looking for the 'quick fix' to improve it's really just funny. You can't just play 'for fun' and get better. It's fkn hard work and the way people say 'play more' is subtly mocking those who are naive and make excuses for not improving because in reality, they're just lazy. (considering they legitimately want to improve)
there's like a good quote i wanna finish on: "you can dedicate your body and soul to something, but it's no use if you're just more lazy than the person next to you"
tl;dr talent isn't the determining factor to success. It exists but isn't the reason why you're not improving and can't be 'pro' - that's because you don't work hard enough and hence "play more"
whether it be due to work ethic, mindset, physical attributes, your bringing up as a child, or any other factors - which are all contributors to 'talent' or 'natural ability' in this game.Wrong - natural talent is born ability to perform certain activity with much easier learning curve than standard group of people. Nothing what you pointed out eg. ethic, mindset etc have nothing to do with natural talent. They affects your ability to improve at activity which you are talented. Solving your problems, eg - proper mindset, strict times of training / working on, determination improves your ability to perform task. Talented person require less strain in work to achieve let's say point A than person not naturaly dedicated to this task but that doesn't mean this one person cannot get to this point. For someone not naturally dedicated to this task it will take longer time and more work to reach point A but it's definitly possible.
taiga did u even read my entire post
or did u find the first thing u disagreed with and made a post about it
i agree with winber, theres nothing you can do about the quality of discussion on g&r i guess
or did u find the first thing u disagreed with and made a post about it
i agree with winber, theres nothing you can do about the quality of discussion on g&r i guess
taiga did u even read my entire postYes, thats why i didn't speak about rest since i have nothing to add there.
or did u find the first thing u disagreed with and made a post about it
Topic Starter
thanks shortpotato for your long and detailed answer.
I think we agree on even the part you quoted, so let me highlight the most relevant part
The thing is, talent is much more subtle and harder to grasp, while hard work is the opposite. You can see very clearly when someone worked hard, which is why it is so often listed as the main reason (also, because you can feel good about it as it is something that comes from yourself - it's the opposite with talent, that comes from a place unknown to us).
But this is a logical fallacy. Only because it is more accessible, doesn't make it more important, or even equally important. This thread is a plea to not overlook that which only manifests in the obvious differences in improvement rates between people.
The method I gave to approximate this elusive thing is, as others correctly pointed out, flawed. But I say it's better than nothing, and I wouldn't know any other way to do it without going heavy into analyzing every single component of a persons playstyle and playhistory.
Thanks for taking your time to read my post, means a lot. Especially after all that flak I got.
I think we agree on even the part you quoted, so let me highlight the most relevant part
I agree that hard work is essential to become a pro. But talent is just as essential. To reach the very top, you need both, as you can't beat people that have both while having only one yourself.Railey2 wrote:
There is a reason why people always say "play more", right? For sure you can become a pro if you really follow their advice. Well... no.
You are making a costly mistake. Improvement at osu is not only about work, and people who claim that they made it to the top only as a result of their hard work, are lying.
The thing is, talent is much more subtle and harder to grasp, while hard work is the opposite. You can see very clearly when someone worked hard, which is why it is so often listed as the main reason (also, because you can feel good about it as it is something that comes from yourself - it's the opposite with talent, that comes from a place unknown to us).
But this is a logical fallacy. Only because it is more accessible, doesn't make it more important, or even equally important. This thread is a plea to not overlook that which only manifests in the obvious differences in improvement rates between people.
The method I gave to approximate this elusive thing is, as others correctly pointed out, flawed. But I say it's better than nothing, and I wouldn't know any other way to do it without going heavy into analyzing every single component of a persons playstyle and playhistory.
Thanks for taking your time to read my post, means a lot. Especially after all that flak I got.
I used to say that. It's not that I wasn't admitting that I was pessimistic, it's that I didn't even realize it at the time. What does 'being realistic' even mean ? Nowadays I am optimistic as fuck, yet I am realistic, not because I think things are impossible, but because I think 'how to do this ?' 'what makes this possible and not this'.Railey2 wrote:
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.
In my opinion, being realistic means that you question your confidence, while still believing in your confidence. And if you happen to find a mistake in your confidence, you are pessimistic if you think that your confidence was wrong, but you are realistic if you think your confidence had a flaw (yet isn't wrong).
Let's take your phrase. You say that you are exceptionnaly good, which is true since you are judging it from your own standards. Yet, you throw all of it away by saying that you cannot make it to the top. That is, in my opinion, being pessimistic. If you were realistic, you would have said 'I won't make it to the top if I don't commit to it more'.
If the first case, what makes it pessimistic is the word 'never'. Like, you'll never be able to make it to the top. This is pessimistic.
While, what makes it realistic in the second case is the 'if'. It means that you won't (not that you'll never) unless you commit more.
Now, this is total interpretation from my part. I wouldn't be surprised to know that you made this thread purposely to get denied by people. Because your education/life taught you that you cannot do something great if you don't have the talent to. Yet, you don't want to believe this, you want to believe that the lack of talent does not mean that you cannot do it. You want to believe that hardwork can replace talent.
You said that hard work cannot beat both hardwork + talent, even though it can beat talent alone. BUT, you do not consider hardwork and talent as things that can be more or less 'bigger'. You can work very hard for one day, but that will mean much less than if you work without effort for an entire year.
Yep, half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.
What I mean is that it's not because you have both hardwork and talent that you'll do better than someone with hardwork alone.
Also, thanks for appreciating my honest response earlier, a lot of people would have said 'you are wrong because of whatever' yet you said 'thanks'. I appreciate that, you earned my respect by saying that ! :3
Topic Starter
I appreciate your words of encouragement, but really I am wholly content with where I am as a player. At the same time, I am aware of the reality that I will never make it to the very top. That is why I used the word never. It is a fact that I can not humanly make it to the very top, period. Don't see that as an unfounded pessimistic statement that is grounded in my insecurities, see it as a realistic estimate, based on experience and the analysis of players improvement rates.Vayentha wrote:
I used to say that. It's not that I wasn't admitting that I was pessimistic, it's that I didn't even realize it at the time. What does 'being realistic' even mean ? Nowadays I am optimistic as fuck, yet I am realistic, not because I think things are impossible, but because I think 'how to do this ?' 'what makes this possible and not this'.Railey2 wrote:
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.
In my opinion, being realistic means that you question your confidence, while still believing in your confidence. And if you happen to find a mistake in your confidence, you are pessimistic if you think that your confidence was wrong, but you are realistic if you think your confidence had a flaw (yet isn't wrong).
Let's take your phrase. You say that you are exceptionnaly good, which is true since you are judging it from your own standards. Yet, you throw all of it away by saying that you cannot make it to the top. That is, in my opinion, being pessimistic. If you were realistic, you would have said 'I won't make it to the top if I don't commit to it more'.
If the first case, what makes it pessimistic is the word 'never'. Like, you'll never be able to make it to the top. This is pessimistic.
While, what makes it realistic in the second case is the 'if'. It means that you won't (not that you'll never) unless you commit more.
Now, this is total interpretation from my part. I wouldn't be surprised to know that you made this thread purposely to get denied by people. Because your education/life taught you that you cannot do something great if you don't have the talent to. Yet, you don't want to believe this, you want to believe that the lack of talent does not mean that you cannot do it. You want to believe that hardwork can replace talent.
You said that hard work cannot beat both hardwork + talent, even though it can beat talent alone. BUT, you do not consider hardwork and talent as things that can be more or less 'bigger'. You can work very hard for one day, but that will mean much less than if you work without effort for an entire year.
Yep, half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.
What I mean is that it's not because you have both hardwork and talent that you'll do better than someone with hardwork alone.
Also, thanks for appreciating my honest response earlier, a lot of people would have said 'you are wrong because of whatever' yet you said 'thanks'. I appreciate that, you earned my respect by saying that ! :3
I did what I mentioned in the opening post: settling for less and playing the game in a way that I can enjoy.
Your interpretation is quite off though. I was raised in a very positive and approving household, with lots of support from many sides.
half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.
Well, I agree. Too bad that the top is literally all talent and 3 years of hard work. Hard to beat that.
Owh, then I'm wrong :3Railey2 wrote:
Your interpretation is quite off though. I was raised in a very positive and approving household, with lots of support from many sides.
Hum, maybe your experience isn't totally right (yet not wrong either) on this one ! (Just like mine may be.)Railey2 wrote:
It is a fact that I can not humanly make it to the very top, period. Don't see that as an unfounded pessimistic statement that is grounded in my insecurities, see it as a realistic estimate, based on experience and the analysis of players improvement rates.
I think while saying that "talent is essential" we get to the point where you have to ask what talent even is as there are many factors that play into a rapid improvement curve not called "play more". As the talent component might encompass things such as self-assessment, decision making on what to play and what to improve on, frustration tolerance and many other things not directly related to circle clicking it could be replaced by say a coach or gameplay & rankings(nice meme[tm]).
You might notice that these are all skills that are heavily connected to competitiveness which isn't everyone's thing anyway and certainly has nothing to do with circle clicking in particular but I believe that the effect of those is massive regarding the ranking curve of a player.
I think it is important to see hard work as the essential component (as elaborated by shortpotato) and greater talent as the thing that gives you the edge. I think most passionate circle clickers are already talented to play the game in some way because they're able to enjoy the game and show endurance in their progress. Talent always includes the tendency to have an interest in the area you're talented at and I think this is something everyone who plays this game for a long time has.
So even if someone may not have the sufficient talent to get to the very top I think players shouldn't be told that they are untalented. Those untalented never even begin to play this game - my grandma for example to give a really dumb one.
You might notice that these are all skills that are heavily connected to competitiveness which isn't everyone's thing anyway and certainly has nothing to do with circle clicking in particular but I believe that the effect of those is massive regarding the ranking curve of a player.
I think it is important to see hard work as the essential component (as elaborated by shortpotato) and greater talent as the thing that gives you the edge. I think most passionate circle clickers are already talented to play the game in some way because they're able to enjoy the game and show endurance in their progress. Talent always includes the tendency to have an interest in the area you're talented at and I think this is something everyone who plays this game for a long time has.
So even if someone may not have the sufficient talent to get to the very top I think players shouldn't be told that they are untalented. Those untalented never even begin to play this game - my grandma for example to give a really dumb one.
play more
Topic Starter
I gave a definition of talent at the beginning of my post.Endaris wrote:
I think while saying that "talent is essential" we get to the point where you have to ask what talent even is as there are many factors that play into a rapid improvement curve not called "play more". As the talent component might encompass things such as self-assessment, decision making on what to play and what to improve on, frustration tolerance and many other things not directly related to circle clicking it could be replaced by say a coach or gameplay & rankings(nice meme[tm]).
You might notice that these are all skills that are heavily connected to competitiveness which isn't everyone's thing anyway and certainly has nothing to do with circle clicking in particular but I believe that the effect of those is massive regarding the ranking curve of a player.
I think it is important to see hard work as the essential component (as elaborated by shortpotato) and greater talent as the thing that gives you the edge. I think most passionate circle clickers are already talented to play the game in some way because they're able to enjoy the game and show endurance in their progress. Talent always includes the tendency to have an interest in the area you're talented at and I think this is something everyone who plays this game for a long time has.
So even if someone may not have the sufficient talent to get to the very top I think players shouldn't be told that they are untalented. Those untalented never even begin to play this game - my grandma for example to give a really dumb one.
Hard work is important to progress through the rankings all the way.
Talent is important to progress faster and further through the rankings, which is essential to make it to the top.
Hard work will always be essential, but talent is essential too when you have big ambitions. This is why I am telling people, who lack this essential talent, to give up on their ambitions for the sake of avoiding late disappointment.
As to your grandma example, there are certainly different degrees of talentlessness. As I said before, in my opening post, talent is a relative term. Even we are talentless when compared to the likes of vaxei. Saying that untalented people never start playing the game is a statement that misunderstands the nature of how I used the term all along. Feel free to use the term the way you like, but we should make sure that we understand each other.
Talent is overrated af to be honest. 10% luck, 20% talent, 10% believe in your goal, 60% is pure hard work.
Everything has a price. If you got talent you have to trade it. People with talent usually lost their goal because they don't have the will to work as hard as other untalented person.
And yes, if you got talent and hard work you will reach the top, but even if you don't have talent, you can still be a pro, you just don't stand on top
Everything has a price. If you got talent you have to trade it. People with talent usually lost their goal because they don't have the will to work as hard as other untalented person.
And yes, if you got talent and hard work you will reach the top, but even if you don't have talent, you can still be a pro, you just don't stand on top
there really arent enough talented people that play osu for it to be an issue towards reaching top100 with just hard work
E m i
ye trueMuuki wrote:
there really arent enough talented people that play osu for it to be an issue towards reaching top100 with just hard work
you'd have to sacrifice a lot of your current commitments: i.e studying, work, social life, etc. in order to do so tho
I'd say most of us here are innately talented ENOUGH (think bell distribution) at least to reach the top 100 with consistent effort, but almost always it's not worth sacrificing your current commitments as mentioned above. It's also discouraging at times when people who play less than you (i.e the EXTREMELY TALENTED) are still better - and hence why people should consider spending their time elsewhere, maybe in an another area in which THEY might be talented or extremely talented in
But Railey's right I guess, the top of the top (top 5, 10 or 50 maybe) are just exponentially more insane with every rank and maybe only with talent can you break into it, i dunno though i haven't been there dx
w
edit: I don't think it's pessimistic to say this, it's just reality and tbh if ur life purpose is to be the best circle clicker maybe u need to reconsider ur priorities xd (no offence to any aspiring circle clickers)
This is a bit of a vitriolic discussion, but an interesting topic. I find it strange that people say 'talent is more important IN MY OPINION'. I feel that if you don't actually know which one is actually more important, then it's not really that useful to say. If you don't qualify your opinion with evidence (not anecdotes from famous people) then you are unlikely to convince anyone that you are correct.
I found this related article, anyway http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth . TLDR; There is no clear agreement among experts about whether talent is just hard work or not.
I drew a couple of things from this article anyway:
1- The majority of those at the top of any discipline have put in a huge amount of time practicing, and often they had already put in a huge amount of time before the people against whom they are competing. So if these top players are still active (cookiezi, WWW, [Toy], Beafowl etc.) then they are still improving, so it makes catching up to them in terms of hours harder.
2- You don't know if you could be one of the best until you actually put in the hours required to reach the top (whether it is ~1000 hours for memory training, ~25,000 hours for concert level violin playing, ~XXX hours for osu!....). Yes some people can get there quicker (Vaxei, Rafis), but for you personally you just don't know what you might achieve until you have actually done all that practice.
Finally, I personally think that OP's attempt to find a measure for talent vs. effort is interesting, not pure cancer, but I personally think the biggest flaw is that it somehow assumes that people improve at a steady pace. In my experience with eg. language learning this is just not usually the case. Some people find the early stages of learning a skill particularly hard, others might struggle to maintain focus when practicing through a plateau where improvement comes slowly, and in any case you can't predict exactly when something might start to feel natural and easy to you. Yes you might practice for a long time and still suck, but maybe next week something will just click for you, and you'll make a huge leap in improvement.
Just my 2 cents
I found this related article, anyway http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth . TLDR; There is no clear agreement among experts about whether talent is just hard work or not.
I drew a couple of things from this article anyway:
1- The majority of those at the top of any discipline have put in a huge amount of time practicing, and often they had already put in a huge amount of time before the people against whom they are competing. So if these top players are still active (cookiezi, WWW, [Toy], Beafowl etc.) then they are still improving, so it makes catching up to them in terms of hours harder.
2- You don't know if you could be one of the best until you actually put in the hours required to reach the top (whether it is ~1000 hours for memory training, ~25,000 hours for concert level violin playing, ~XXX hours for osu!....). Yes some people can get there quicker (Vaxei, Rafis), but for you personally you just don't know what you might achieve until you have actually done all that practice.
Finally, I personally think that OP's attempt to find a measure for talent vs. effort is interesting, not pure cancer, but I personally think the biggest flaw is that it somehow assumes that people improve at a steady pace. In my experience with eg. language learning this is just not usually the case. Some people find the early stages of learning a skill particularly hard, others might struggle to maintain focus when practicing through a plateau where improvement comes slowly, and in any case you can't predict exactly when something might start to feel natural and easy to you. Yes you might practice for a long time and still suck, but maybe next week something will just click for you, and you'll make a huge leap in improvement.
Just my 2 cents
i like your 2 cents
My entire response to this post can basically be summed up by "so what?"
Obviously, I'd be crazy to think that I can somehow catch up to the likes of Cookiezi and Rafis because they're so far ahead of me and still working hard at improving every day. Obviously, I'm not talented, because there are people who played this game 1/3 as much as me and are higher rank.
But, seriously, who are you to tell me that I couldn't climb to the top if I pushed myself really hard? For the past year and a half, I've only gotten to play one or two days a week, and I'm still climbing (albeit slowly). I still have room to play 5x as much, and when my crazy 6 day workweek + graduate classes schedule ends, maybe that's what I'll do. Maybe I'll find something else I'd rather do, but I'm certainly not going to give up on it just because you told me to.
I dunno, you can be a quitter all you like, but don't go pushing that onto me.
Obviously, I'd be crazy to think that I can somehow catch up to the likes of Cookiezi and Rafis because they're so far ahead of me and still working hard at improving every day. Obviously, I'm not talented, because there are people who played this game 1/3 as much as me and are higher rank.
But, seriously, who are you to tell me that I couldn't climb to the top if I pushed myself really hard? For the past year and a half, I've only gotten to play one or two days a week, and I'm still climbing (albeit slowly). I still have room to play 5x as much, and when my crazy 6 day workweek + graduate classes schedule ends, maybe that's what I'll do. Maybe I'll find something else I'd rather do, but I'm certainly not going to give up on it just because you told me to.
I dunno, you can be a quitter all you like, but don't go pushing that onto me.
rip me im not talented at anything at all might as well just quit
many of the response tells me that "I play for rank."
Yeah you are right, everybody that is not talented should quitFloob wrote:
rip me im not talented at anything at all might as well just quit
Heck yeah ill quit today bcuz playing this game without talent makes no sense
Rip all the untalented players
Rip, osu will be left with approx 100 players and peppy will shut down so amazing game. All thanks to OP being a mindless brick.Hiro-Senpai wrote:
Yeah you are right, everybody that is not talented should quitFloob wrote:
rip me im not talented at anything at all might as well just quit
Heck yeah ill quit today bcuz playing this game without talent makes no sense
Rip all the untalented players
Topic Starter
Did this thread offend you because you find yourself in the untalented-bracket?
That's fine, Taiga. You can play the game for other reasons than making it to the top. Just play for your own personal improvement, play for the music or play for fun. Wanting to quit is a pretty weird reaction to my post anyway. It's not like I was sharing new insights, it's just common sense for the most part.
That's fine, Taiga. You can play the game for other reasons than making it to the top. Just play for your own personal improvement, play for the music or play for fun. Wanting to quit is a pretty weird reaction to my post anyway. It's not like I was sharing new insights, it's just common sense for the most part.
"Oh no... According to what this post says, I'm untalented T_T" (Just a joke alright?)
*Flawed points incoming*
Anyway, I find what OP has said to be interesting or even controversial to what people have in mind when it comes to ranking, score, PP etc.
Yes, putting in hard work does make you improve and do better. But if your method of improving is not benefiting you then there isn't really a point to lash and hate on what defines "Talent" in this context. I do agree on hard working having an important role in ones rise to the top - be it 200k- 100k or 100th-50th placing in ranks.
Although what the replies to the post are...mixed, I do not believe that OP needs to get such flak. Valid arguments and feedback? No problem. But hating with hypocrisy and criticizing in such an absurd way is totally undeserving.
I'll use myself as a sad example, 13k plays and about 2 million hits. Bring in the haters to tell me I am untalented and I should quit this game. While I realize I can never make it to the top(the fact came long ago), it doesn't mean that I can't improve(even slightly) from my sorry state. Some improve faster, some take more time. That's all I can think of at the moment.
It's cool to see the post get so much attention, but saying things like "lol I should quit this game, screw OP" or even "If I'm untalented, so are you lol" kind of comments. I don't know it could offend people to such an extent :/
To OP, interesting post
*Flawed points incoming*
Anyway, I find what OP has said to be interesting or even controversial to what people have in mind when it comes to ranking, score, PP etc.
Yes, putting in hard work does make you improve and do better. But if your method of improving is not benefiting you then there isn't really a point to lash and hate on what defines "Talent" in this context. I do agree on hard working having an important role in ones rise to the top - be it 200k- 100k or 100th-50th placing in ranks.
Although what the replies to the post are...mixed, I do not believe that OP needs to get such flak. Valid arguments and feedback? No problem. But hating with hypocrisy and criticizing in such an absurd way is totally undeserving.
I'll use myself as a sad example, 13k plays and about 2 million hits. Bring in the haters to tell me I am untalented and I should quit this game. While I realize I can never make it to the top(the fact came long ago), it doesn't mean that I can't improve(even slightly) from my sorry state. Some improve faster, some take more time. That's all I can think of at the moment.
It's cool to see the post get so much attention, but saying things like "lol I should quit this game, screw OP" or even "If I'm untalented, so are you lol" kind of comments. I don't know it could offend people to such an extent :/
To OP, interesting post
Railey, I used to respect you but this is seriously fucking stupid
How immature do you have to be to type up this massive post just because you're not capable of improving
You're attempting to rationalize your own failures as some sort of act of god or pre-destined occurrence just because you can't stand the fact that you're just not good enough - this is literally the sort of thing you see children do.
Not only that but you're making an active effort to discourage other people from playing the game too. "If I can't have it, nobody can!" That's literally toddler logic.
This is seriously fucking stupid and probably tops my list of the stupidest threads on this forum (and I've seen a lot of fucking stupid threads)
Stop whining. If you don't want to play, quit. If you do want to play, shut the fuck up and have fun. Not improving? It's your own fucking fault, and focusing on the negatives like this shit is probably WHY you're not improving. Attitude is important.
How immature do you have to be to type up this massive post just because you're not capable of improving
You're attempting to rationalize your own failures as some sort of act of god or pre-destined occurrence just because you can't stand the fact that you're just not good enough - this is literally the sort of thing you see children do.
Not only that but you're making an active effort to discourage other people from playing the game too. "If I can't have it, nobody can!" That's literally toddler logic.
This is seriously fucking stupid and probably tops my list of the stupidest threads on this forum (and I've seen a lot of fucking stupid threads)
Stop whining. If you don't want to play, quit. If you do want to play, shut the fuck up and have fun. Not improving? It's your own fucking fault, and focusing on the negatives like this shit is probably WHY you're not improving. Attitude is important.
Did this thread offend you because you find yourself in the untalented-bracket?LMAO, pls.
That's fine, Taiga. You can play the game for other reasons than making it to the top. Just play for your own personal improvement, play for the music or play for fun. Wanting to quit is a pretty weird reaction to my post anyway. It's not like I was sharing new insights, it's just common sense for the most part.
Yes - i am in so you call it "untallented bracket" and personaly, i don't give a single fuck, i don't take into my mind such bullshit like "you are not talented" since it's pure demotivational emotion to mess you up at any point of activity - basic psychology knock-knock to your empty brain.
First emotion if something goes wrong for several hours should be - how can i improve this, analyze your own mistakes, spend even hours on analyzing your routine, change something, expect better results, if not - change something else, be fuckin positive that at some point you will overcome your barriers and do your job better - one more time - basic psychology knock-knock to your empty shitty head.
I play this game for several reasons, mainly to enjoy certain group of maps created by HW, fanzhen, RLC and more amazing mappers.
When i played for ranking, i was spending minimum 6 hours per day hard working my ass, not paying attention to pain in wrist, overcomming my barriers and pushing forward - i made "impossible" - possible by working on it.
Your post is pure "hey dude, you are untalented, just quit because there is no place in top100 for you".
If you are a failure in computer game, that's fine but don't fuckin dare to demoralize other players. It's mothefuckin stupid.
By this post you prove how big failure you are not only in computer game but also in term of mental strenght.
Topic Starter
well, I don't want to sugarcoat the truth, so I'm going to tell you that you should give up on your dream of making the top. I think upstanding people would appreciate honesty as it prevents them from sinking their time into something without chances of success.
It's nice that you like playing amazing maps, in fact, I do too. RLC is great.
and as I said before, talent is relative. You are probably more talented than the majority of people who got stuck in the 1kpp range.
It's nice that you like playing amazing maps, in fact, I do too. RLC is great.
and as I said before, talent is relative. You are probably more talented than the majority of people who got stuck in the 1kpp range.
well, I don't want to sugarcoat the truth, so I'm going to tell you that you should give up on your dream of making the top. I think upstanding people would appreciate honesty as it prevents them from sinking their time into something without chances of success.You are a fuckin idiot.
Fuckin... demotivational failure who cannot handle anything in both - real life and computer game, your all posts here are just silly shitty excuse of your lazy mofo ass who don't want to work, don't want to improve.
and as I said before, talent is relative. You are probably more talented than the majority of people who got stuck in the 1kpp range.It may be but as many... MANY respected people all over the world pointed out - you can work out and build up your talent but it require excessive amount of self-discipline, determination and sacrifice. You don't know this...
Just go and cry more, i am done with you.
I am curious if actually demotivating players from playing this game (in tl;dr telling people to NOT play it if you don't have so called talent) is actually against any rule so i could get rid of you and this topic. And i will try to do this since GnR is to
HELP PEOPLE IMPROVE - NOT DEMOTIVATE THEM AND TELL "FUCK OFF YOU ARE NOT TALENTED"
Bloody hell Railey, what on earth have you done now?
Topic Starter
Don't worry about me, I'm not crying.
The reason why the "hard work got me where I am"-line of thought is so appealing, is because it is an amazing source of self-credit.
You can't exactly feel good for being born talented, so attributing 100% of your success to your work ethic is what people do to get as much of a boost out of it as possible.
In addition to that we hate admitting to ourselves that there are forces outside of our control, as it makes us feel powerless. You can see that reflected when people look back at their careers. They will often claim that their success is an immediate result of their decisions, when in fact there were often other people making decisions for them, or their decisions led to things that they didn't anticipate at all.
Similarly, attributing everything to hard work just isn't accurate. I don't care what these respectable people say about themselves, talent plays a major role in success for most fields (maybe not acting, but say professional sports for example).
Saying that it doesn't is an insult to everyone who works his ass off and still doesn't get to the top for a clear lack of talent.
What do you think? How would someone who is 165cm tall and worked his ass off every day feel when michael jordan came to him and told him that he didn't make it to the NBA because he didn't try hard enough?
The reason why the "hard work got me where I am"-line of thought is so appealing, is because it is an amazing source of self-credit.
You can't exactly feel good for being born talented, so attributing 100% of your success to your work ethic is what people do to get as much of a boost out of it as possible.
In addition to that we hate admitting to ourselves that there are forces outside of our control, as it makes us feel powerless. You can see that reflected when people look back at their careers. They will often claim that their success is an immediate result of their decisions, when in fact there were often other people making decisions for them, or their decisions led to things that they didn't anticipate at all.
Similarly, attributing everything to hard work just isn't accurate. I don't care what these respectable people say about themselves, talent plays a major role in success for most fields (maybe not acting, but say professional sports for example).
Saying that it doesn't is an insult to everyone who works his ass off and still doesn't get to the top for a clear lack of talent.
What do you think? How would someone who is 165cm tall and worked his ass off every day feel when michael jordan came to him and told him that he didn't make it to the NBA because he didn't try hard enough?
What do you think? How would someone who is 165cm tall and worked his ass off every day feel when michael jordan came to him and told him that he didn't make it to the NBA because he didn't try hard enough?As someone who is 160cm tall, hearing from MJ words "you didn't made it to NBA because you didn't worked enough" even knowing i was training 12 hours per day, i could increase this to 16 hours per day or more, it could be fuckin motivation to show that I CAN DO THIS BECAUSE I LOVE THIS.
I strugled in osu at rank ~160-150k with 800pp till r0ck one time told me stright - you don't improve because you don't play more and work. Took me few months to rocketjump my rank but he motivated me to do this, to show that i can actually improve. I done it for myself, ONLY for myself and i know my hard work paid off properly.
Here's my opinion on the matter:
Osu! (standard) is a game where you click circles on a computer screen. You have to press a button at the right time, and move the cursor to the right place.
I believe anyone can do that, saying that someone would never become good at the game because they lack talent is wrong. They can become good, and they can even be a top player if they want, the only thing I feel talent affects is how fast some people are improving, but even that barely matters.
Why?
You have to keep in mind a player's experience with rhythm games (or games in general) before they started playing Osu!, it'll affect how fast they'd improve. Show your grandma (or anyone who didn't grow up playing video games) Osu! and let them play a <1* song and see if she can even pass it, she obviously won't, does that mean your grandma lacks talent? No. You just grew up playing games all your life, yet she didn't. It's called experience.
Honestly, this whole "talent" thing feels like a bad excuse for you to feel better about yourself being stuck in the 5k range. It's like saying some people can never be a pro at a game like Tetris because they lack the talent for it. Not trying to sound rude or anything.
Osu! (standard) is a game where you click circles on a computer screen. You have to press a button at the right time, and move the cursor to the right place.
I believe anyone can do that, saying that someone would never become good at the game because they lack talent is wrong. They can become good, and they can even be a top player if they want, the only thing I feel talent affects is how fast some people are improving, but even that barely matters.
Why?
You have to keep in mind a player's experience with rhythm games (or games in general) before they started playing Osu!, it'll affect how fast they'd improve. Show your grandma (or anyone who didn't grow up playing video games) Osu! and let them play a <1* song and see if she can even pass it, she obviously won't, does that mean your grandma lacks talent? No. You just grew up playing games all your life, yet she didn't. It's called experience.
Honestly, this whole "talent" thing feels like a bad excuse for you to feel better about yourself being stuck in the 5k range. It's like saying some people can never be a pro at a game like Tetris because they lack the talent for it. Not trying to sound rude or anything.
Topic Starter
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm, no matter how hard you work.[Taiga] wrote:
What do you think? How would someone who is 165cm tall and worked his ass off every day feel when michael jordan came to him and told him that he didn't make it to the NBA because he didn't try hard enough?As someone who is 160cm tall, hearing from MJ words "you didn't made it to NBA because you didn't worked enough" even knowing i was training 12 hours per day, i could increase this to 16 hours per day or more, it could be fuckin motivation to show that I CAN DO THIS BECAUSE I LOVE THIS.
I strugled in osu at rank ~160-150k with 800pp till r0ck one time told me stright - you don't improve because you don't play more and work. Took me few months to rocketjump my rank but he motivated me to do this, to show that i can actually improve. I done it for myself, ONLY for myself and i know my hard work paid off properly.
It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.
please stop saying that I made this thread to console myself. I am not frustrated, I am quite happy with where I am right now.AsyouSaidsir wrote:
Here's my opinion on the matter:
Osu! (standard) is a game where you click circles on a computer screen. You have to press a button at the right time, and move the cursor to the right place.
I believe anyone can do that, saying that someone would never become good at the game because they lack talent is wrong. They can become good, and they can even be a top player if they want, the only thing I feel talent affects is how fast some people are improving, but even that barely matters.
Why?
You have to keep in mind a player's experience with rhythm games (or games in general) before they started playing Osu!, it'll affect how fast they'd improve. Show your grandma (or anyone who didn't grow up playing video games) Osu! and let them play a <1* song and see if she can even pass it, she obviously won't, does that mean your grandma lacks talent? No. You just grew up playing games all your life, yet she didn't. It's called experience.
Honestly, this whole "talent" feels like a bad excuse for you to feel better about yourself being stuck in the 5k range. It's like saying some people can never be a pro at a game like Tetris because they lack the talent for it. Not trying to sound rude or anything.
I made this thread because it was common sense to me, but I didn't see it covered on the forums yet.
To address your other points, my grandma is quite untalented because her reaction time is reduced by a good 200ms. I wouldn't want to tell her that she can make it to the top with hard work (because she can't, and I'd be lying to her). This is the point of the thread. Don't lie to others, don't lie to yourself. There are many people who don't have the stuff to make it, be it for a lower reaction time, worse spacial memory, or whatever it is that cause people to not improve at osu fast enough to keep up with the insane rate at which the top100 run away from everyone else. And yes I think that this applies most games (even tetris), although that might be a bad example. Tetris doesn't seem to be in the end times like osu is.
Thanks for your honest and neutral reply.
Okay, I apologize for saying that. I still stand by what I said earlier, though.Railey2 wrote:
please stop saying that I made this thread to console myself. I am not frustrated, I am quite happy with where I am right now.
I made this thread because it was common sense to me, but I didn't see it covered on the forums yet.
EDIT:
That's an effect of growing up and being old, I don't think players like Cookiezi would be able to play Osu! at age 70 either, I said Grandma because that's the most relatable person I could think of. People with health problems won't be able to play Osu! very well (E.g. blind people), that also applies to other games P:Railey2 wrote:
To address your other points, my grandma is quite untalented because her reaction time is reduced by a good 200ms. I wouldn't want to tell her that she can make it to the top with hard work (because she can't, and I'd be lying to her). This is the point of the thread. Don't lie to others, don't lie to yourself. There are many people who don't have the stuff to make it, be it for a lower reaction time, worse spacial memory, or whatever it is that cause people to not improve at osu fast enough to keep up with the insane rate at which the top100 run away from everyone else. And yes I think that this applies most games (even tetris), although that might be a bad example. Tetris doesn't seem to be in the end times like osu is.
Thanks for your honest and neutral reply.
What about people who are still young and healthy yet they haven't played video games their whole life? It still wouldn't mean they lack talent, they just didn't grow up playing games. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm, no matter how hard you work.One more time i will prove how wrong you are:
It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.
Muggsy Bogues - Toronto Raptor player, 158cm tall.
kthxbai, make some research before you post another bullshit
MJ didn't lied to me. If there is one person who made it - there is open door to me another one, and another one, and many many more can make it.
From the looks of it, it seems like this post is slowly devolving into a heated battlezone of arguments and points regarding both hard work and talent.
It does somewhat feel a tad bit one sided to just claim that talent is major. If you work hard on every occasion you can, you'll get better at what you're doing at some point.
Just realized I'm joining the debate too in a way, I'm such a hypocrite lol. Fuck.
I did a little search before on players who were around the 160cm height range and Muggsy Bogues showed up. Does this counters OP's recent points?
It does somewhat feel a tad bit one sided to just claim that talent is major. If you work hard on every occasion you can, you'll get better at what you're doing at some point.
Feel you. Motivation helps and reality can hurt sometimes, but it isn't too fair to force what you think is the reality onto someone. My current opinion on this whole post is mixed, I don't know what is an ideal opinion to give, but I'll share what comes to mind.[Taiga] wrote:
I strugled in osu at rank ~160-150k with 800pp till r0ck one time told me stright - you don't improve because you don't play more and work. Took me few months to rocketjump my rank but he motivated me to do this, to show that i can actually improve. I done it for myself, ONLY for myself and i know my hard work paid off properly.
Just realized I'm joining the debate too in a way, I'm such a hypocrite lol. Fuck.
[Taiga] wrote:
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm, no matter how hard you work.One more time i will prove how wrong you are:
It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.
Muggsy Bogues - Toronto Raptor player, 158cm tall.
kthxbai, make some research before you post another bullshit
MJ didn't lied to me. If there is one person who made it - there is open door to me another one, and another one, and many many more can make it.
I did a little search before on players who were around the 160cm height range and Muggsy Bogues showed up. Does this counters OP's recent points?
From the looks of it, it seems like this post is slowly devolving into a heated battlezone of arguments and points regarding both hard work and talent.Becuase there is a difference between making a discussion about "Does talent matter to get into top100?" etc. and making a salt ocean of tears thread by random failure who stands "You will never make to the top without talent".
First is a discussion.
Second is a crying of a retarded lazy kid who don't know what means hard work and prefer to demotivate others from it.
I did a little search before on players who were around the 160cm height range and Muggsy Bogues showed up. Does this counters OP's recent points?By logic if there is an exception in a "rule", it make it not true anymore.
If someone made it with 158cm, that means a 160cm guy can also make it.
Yes, he said
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cmWhich is a lie.
Topic Starter
that depends. Do you think he could have made it in 2016?Boomdopew wrote:
I did a little search before on players who were around the 160cm height range and Muggsy Bogues showed up. Does this counters OP's recent points?
I think hard work alone was enough to make the top in 2013 in osu. Now, it seems a bit unrealistic. Then again, I don't know basketball enough to say how important height really is.
I could change the argument slightly and ask how someone who is naturally frail would feel if michael jordan told him that.
Also, I never claimed that a lack of talent will prevent you from improving. Most people can get really good at this game. It will just prevent you from reaching the top.
The only salty person here is you, Taiga. You told me to kill myself twice, said that you'd get me banned, and insult me at every opportunity you get. Exactly how lacking in awareness are you?[Taiga] wrote:
From the looks of it, it seems like this post is slowly devolving into a heated battlezone of arguments and points regarding both hard work and talent.Becuase there is a difference between making a discussion about "Does talent matter to get into top100?" etc. and making a salt ocean of tears thread by random failure who stands "You will never make to the top without talent".
First is a discussion.
Second is a crying of a retarded lazy kid who don't know what means hard work and prefer to demotivate others from it.
no hard feelings. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it!AsyouSaidsir wrote:
Okay, I apologize for saying that. I still stand by what I said earlier, though.Railey2 wrote:
please stop saying that I made this thread to console myself. I am not frustrated, I am quite happy with where I am right now.
I made this thread because it was common sense to me, but I didn't see it covered on the forums yet.
Taiga you are living in a fantasy world where everyone can achieve anything. Wake up, you're too old for this. You can't play in the NBA.[Taiga] wrote:
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cmWhich is a lie.
Where is Gambler with his popcorn when we need him?
Taiga you are living in a fantasy world where everyone can achieve anything. Wake up, you're too old for this. You can't play in the NBA.And you need to grow up and learn that by hard work you achieve a lot, not just by "talent".
Talent is irrevelant if it comes to reaching edge of certain activity, talented person will just do this faster. Hardworker will also do this if he sacrifice himself to this.
ALREADY FUCKIN LEARN THIS KID and stoip throwing bunch of stinky shit into playerbase because you are butthurt over your own failure.
He's just like this.Railey2 wrote:
The only salty person here is you, Taiga. You told me to kill myself twice, said that you'd get me banned, and insult me at every opportunity you get. Exactly how lacking in awareness are you?
Talent only carries you so far tho. Most of it is practise, mindset and lifestyle.
Topic Starter
I don't see myself as a failure. I think I am doing really well at this game, and I'm happy with where I am. I am also happy pushing for more and improving myself. I don't think that I failed by any means.[Taiga] wrote:
Taiga you are living in a fantasy world where everyone can achieve anything. Wake up, you're too old for this. You can't play in the NBA.And you need to grow up and learn that by hard work you achieve a lot, not just by "talent".
Talent is irrevelant if it comes to reaching edge of certain activity, talented person will just do this faster. Hardworker will also do this if he sacrifice himself to this.
ALREADY FUCKIN LEARN THIS KID and stoip throwing bunch of stinky shit into playerbase because you are butthurt over your own failure.
I just know that I won't make it to the top, which is fine by me.
Anyway, to come back to the NBA player example. The fact that only 1 guy who was below 170cm made it in all these years (everyone else that size played pre1990, and most of them were taller), should be a pretty clear sign. Now I don't know if that guy in particular had another talent to compensate for his short height, but one thing I do know: If you are short, your chances of making it are extraordinarily low. So low in fact, that every reasonable person would round down to 0 and call it impossible.
But that is beside the point. When you say that you can make it regardless of what you were born with when you work hard enough, what you really say is that everyone who didn't make it is to blame for not working hard enough. This is insulting to everyone who gave it all they had and still never came close to meeting the requirements, and I assure you.. there are many people like that.
Using one datapoint against my entire argument is a bit weak, I think. Michael Jordan still lied to you. If talent wasn't important, we'd see more people shorter than 170, the fact that there only was one means that the statistical evidence supports my view, not yours. A more likely hypothesis is, that Early Boykin had something else going for him that allowed him to play in the NBA despite his size.
Oh well. I know you think that I am bitter and frustrated, but I think it's quite the opposite. YOU calling ME butthurt is about as ironic as it gets.
I agree. Talent without work won't get anyone to the top. But similarly, work, mindset and lifestyle also pnly carry you so far. Making that very clear, is one point of this thread.KukiMonster wrote:
Talent only carries you so far tho. Most of it is practise, mindset and lifestyle.
honestly, the moment i read op's post, i was like this is fucking obvious and useless and it would just get shut down in like 5 posts and no would ever respond again, hence my first post, but apparently that is not the case and we are incapable of having level-headed conversation here, though not to my surprise.
It's a poor definition for the reasons already mentioned in my previous posts.Railey2 wrote:
I gave a definition of talent at the beginning of my post.
I don't disagree with your logic overall but I think that the OP draws an image that is way too pessimistic and has the intention to lead people to the conclusion that they don't have talent even though it is not evident how much talent they actually have.
It basically tells people that they should give up before even trying based on arbitrary numbers. That is what I consider awful, not your actual arguments.
I'm surprised how many ppl missed the point here...
This might sound irrelevant but i wanna share my experiences within the topic.
When i was reading OP's post i felt like it has some sort of importance for me until someone mentioned that its an obvious thing. That made me ralize it was so obvious to me that i didnt even think about it up until now. Maybe I'm the only one but insead of getting the point i stared to apply Railey's wiev to other things i wanna be succesful at so i ended up feeling bad at the end. This might be how ppl got pissed off and misunderstood things.
Endaris said everything else i wanted to add so thats all i wanna say.
This might sound irrelevant but i wanna share my experiences within the topic.
When i was reading OP's post i felt like it has some sort of importance for me until someone mentioned that its an obvious thing. That made me ralize it was so obvious to me that i didnt even think about it up until now. Maybe I'm the only one but insead of getting the point i stared to apply Railey's wiev to other things i wanna be succesful at so i ended up feeling bad at the end. This might be how ppl got pissed off and misunderstood things.
Endaris said everything else i wanted to add so thats all i wanna say.
Because you probably can't see your own talent and other people may not be able to see it based on your scores. If someone was untalented in too many areas of osu! and doesn't have the intelligence or proper mindset to get better, then that is something they have to discover, not be told. Being good at osu! is not just one talent, there are several different talents you can have that can all relate to being good at osu!. Some talents, such as natural finger speed, may be more visible than others. Some talents wouldn't be as obvious, such as someone who has high mental stamina and can play for hours upon hours without losing focus. It's a great talent to have, but it wouldn't be very visible to yourself or others unless maybe they observed you. Another talent you might have is good spacial awareness of the screen, but you wouldn't realize that unless you got to the level where you could practice EZ mod. There have been so many cases of players seeming to have an epiphany and just instantly boost way up, perhaps because of talent that wasn't realized or utilized before, the progression isn't the same for anyone. I would argue that a great mindset, good work ethic, and a decent amount of talent in some categories are all you need to become top 50 (of course not #1 in the world, though).winber1 wrote:
honestly, the moment i read op's post, i was like this is fucking obvious and useless and it would just get shut down in like 5 posts and no would ever respond again, hence my first post, but apparently that is not the case and we are incapable of having level-headed conversation here, though not to my surprise.
Coming from someone who watches a lot of basketball and knows a lot of stuff about it, I reckon that he can. Muggsy Bogues was an exceptional passer, stealer, and he was one of the fastest players in the game at the time, and that was during the era of the Bad Boys and Michael Jordan, where in physicality and dominating your opponent is everything. Seeing as how the game right now revolves in tactics and less in physicality, he'd become a top role player for any team out there, especially those looking to utilize counterattacking strategies and run and gun.Railey2 wrote:
that depends. Do you think he could have made it in 2016?Boomdopew wrote:
I did a little search before on players who were around the 160cm height range and Muggsy Bogues showed up. Does this counters OP's recent points?
Basketball as a game isn't really all about the height, although of course, taller players have an advantage over the smaller ones depending on their role. Michael Jordan didn't lie about anything as he became who he is through hard work. I doubt he'd be known for "The Flu Game" if he didn't have that working alongside his talent.
Hard work works alongside talent, one without the other can't take you to the fullest potential you can be. In my honest opinion though, I feel like a person who relies on hard work will surpass someone who solely relies on his talent and does not give an ounce of effort to nurturing his/her skills. I have no idea how it works with standard, but in basketball, hard work is almost everything.
@Rurree, thanks for your input. I honestly doubt he will take this seriously since OP doesn't do any homework and deny everything what is plain true in this world.
oh no I can never get good xd
@Rurree, really good input on your part. Certainly an interesting point brought up.
Now it's looking like this post is backfiring heavily on OP...But with more points and arguments in place against the whole thing, I'm starting to think what OP said was a little...unplanned? Ain't too sure :/
A post definitely up for discussion.
Now it's looking like this post is backfiring heavily on OP...But with more points and arguments in place against the whole thing, I'm starting to think what OP said was a little...unplanned? Ain't too sure :/
A post definitely up for discussion.
Omg railey you can't say that some people aren't as talented as others, some people here haven't been through puberty yet. Pls use brain nexted time
why are you responding to me? lolNixXSkate wrote:
Because you probably can't see your own talent and other people may not be able to see it based on your scores. If someone was untalented in too many areas of osu! and doesn't have the intelligence or proper mindset to get better, then that is something they have to discover, not be told. Being good at osu! is not just one talent, there are several different talents you can have that can all relate to being good at osu!. Some talents, such as natural finger speed, may be more visible than others. Some talents wouldn't be as obvious, such as someone who has high mental stamina and can play for hours upon hours without losing focus. It's a great talent to have, but it wouldn't be very visible to yourself or others unless maybe they observed you. Another talent you might have is good spacial awareness of the screen, but you wouldn't realize that unless you got to the level where you could practice EZ mod. There have been so many cases of players seeming to have an epiphany and just instantly boost way up, perhaps because of talent that wasn't realized or utilized before, the progression isn't the same for anyone. I would argue that a great mindset, good work ethic, and a decent amount of talent in some categories are all you need to become top 50 (of course not #1 in the world, though).winber1 wrote:
honestly, the moment i read op's post, i was like this is fucking obvious and useless and it would just get shut down in like 5 posts and no would ever respond again, hence my first post, but apparently that is not the case and we are incapable of having level-headed conversation here, though not to my surprise.
When we watch a truly great athlete, musician, actor, or even someone supremely successful with women, we have a tendency to think their skill level must come from one of two ways. Either they’ve worked incredibly hard or they were simply born with this extraordinary amount of talent.
However, in "Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin, we find that the answer is neither.
Hard work alone is not sufficient to achieve true mastery. All of us work hard every day at our jobs. We devote hundreds of thousands of hours to employment over the course of our lives. But very, very few of us can claim to be truly exceptional performers at our given vocation.
And natural born talent isn’t the answer either. It can, admittedly, be comforting to look at basketball star Kobe Bryant and say, “Well, he was born to play that way,” because the natural talent angle excuses our own mediocrity at basketball or whatever the activity is. We can justify our own midlevel results with the argument that we just weren’t talented enough. Many people feel that the ability to sing or play a musical instrument is a natural talent. But researchers in England looked at school children who performed music at a variety of levels. The assumption was that the most skilled musicians would display some different characteristic, some trait, that separated them from the pack. “The results were clear,” Colvin writes. “The telltale signs of precocious musical ability in the top-performing groups – the evidence of talent that we all know exists – simply weren’t there. On the contrary, judged by early signs of special talent, the groups were highly similar.”
So what made the difference between the rockers and the bumblers? Deliberate practice.
In "Talent is Overrated", Colvin argues that deliberate, methodical, and sustained practice is the way to achieve true mastery, not aimless hard work (no matter how well-intentioned) or relying on natural talent.
“Deliberate practice is also not what most of us do when we think we’re practicing golf or the oboe or any of our other interests,” Colvin writes. “Deliberate practice is hard. It hurts. But it works. More of it equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.”
Deliberate practice is defined by identifying exactly what are the skills an activity requires, breaking them down into the smallest components and then rigorously concentrating on these components through a combination of repetition and evaluation. Colvin illustrates this point by examining Ben Franklin’s exhaustive regimen for becoming a better writer. “He did not try to become a better essay writer by sitting down and writing essays,” Colvin writes. “Instead, like a top-ranked athlete or musician, he worked over and over on those specific aspects that needed improvement.”
So how can you apply these concepts to improving your social life? When you go out tonight, do not try to take a woman to bed or try to meet your soulmate. Do not worry about the big picture of your goals. Instead, break that goal down into microscopically small increments. Then, work on those increments over and over and over again.
Just how microscopically should you focus? Here’s an good analogy:
When we think of musicians in the studio, we imagine them playing segments of a song, maybe a few bars at a time. But we think in terms of complete riffs, maybe a guitar solo, or at least 5 seconds of music. However, in a recently published book, British rock journalist Mick Wall writes that megaproducer Mutt Lange “insisted guitarists strike one string at a time, over and over again in order for him to build up the sound of the chords himself on computer.” Imagine that. Nothing is simpler than an open G chord. Yet, professional musicians didn’t even play that one chord. They broke it down even further.
So instead of just looking at large topics like opening or comfort, instead, focus on how you hold your shoulders as you approach the group. Ruthlessly evaluate your performance and master that micro-detail before moving on to another technique. Instead of worrying about your kino skills or how smooth a cold read might be, focus on the warmth and dryness of your hands or the angle of your head as you perform a palm reading.
No one says this will be easy. But in Talent is Overrated, Geoff Colvin explains how normal people can mimic the habits of the truly great. In chapters such as “Applying the Principles in Our Lives” and “Applying the Principles in Our Organizations,” Colvin shows you how to use these practices, regardless of whether you’re trying to learn an instrument, to become a better accountant, or take your social skills to the next level. And certainly this intense focus — even if it is only for a limited time to refine your skills — will tremendously improve your interactions with women and friends.
(Source: https://www.neilstrauss.com/the-game/ta ... nt-matter/)
I checked PDF with this book and i think i can recommend it to everyone who think that "talent" makes difference. You will be supprised how wrong you were in your life and how big silly excuse are words "he is talented".
However, in "Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin, we find that the answer is neither.
Hard work alone is not sufficient to achieve true mastery. All of us work hard every day at our jobs. We devote hundreds of thousands of hours to employment over the course of our lives. But very, very few of us can claim to be truly exceptional performers at our given vocation.
And natural born talent isn’t the answer either. It can, admittedly, be comforting to look at basketball star Kobe Bryant and say, “Well, he was born to play that way,” because the natural talent angle excuses our own mediocrity at basketball or whatever the activity is. We can justify our own midlevel results with the argument that we just weren’t talented enough. Many people feel that the ability to sing or play a musical instrument is a natural talent. But researchers in England looked at school children who performed music at a variety of levels. The assumption was that the most skilled musicians would display some different characteristic, some trait, that separated them from the pack. “The results were clear,” Colvin writes. “The telltale signs of precocious musical ability in the top-performing groups – the evidence of talent that we all know exists – simply weren’t there. On the contrary, judged by early signs of special talent, the groups were highly similar.”
So what made the difference between the rockers and the bumblers? Deliberate practice.
In "Talent is Overrated", Colvin argues that deliberate, methodical, and sustained practice is the way to achieve true mastery, not aimless hard work (no matter how well-intentioned) or relying on natural talent.
“Deliberate practice is also not what most of us do when we think we’re practicing golf or the oboe or any of our other interests,” Colvin writes. “Deliberate practice is hard. It hurts. But it works. More of it equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.”
Deliberate practice is defined by identifying exactly what are the skills an activity requires, breaking them down into the smallest components and then rigorously concentrating on these components through a combination of repetition and evaluation. Colvin illustrates this point by examining Ben Franklin’s exhaustive regimen for becoming a better writer. “He did not try to become a better essay writer by sitting down and writing essays,” Colvin writes. “Instead, like a top-ranked athlete or musician, he worked over and over on those specific aspects that needed improvement.”
So how can you apply these concepts to improving your social life? When you go out tonight, do not try to take a woman to bed or try to meet your soulmate. Do not worry about the big picture of your goals. Instead, break that goal down into microscopically small increments. Then, work on those increments over and over and over again.
Just how microscopically should you focus? Here’s an good analogy:
When we think of musicians in the studio, we imagine them playing segments of a song, maybe a few bars at a time. But we think in terms of complete riffs, maybe a guitar solo, or at least 5 seconds of music. However, in a recently published book, British rock journalist Mick Wall writes that megaproducer Mutt Lange “insisted guitarists strike one string at a time, over and over again in order for him to build up the sound of the chords himself on computer.” Imagine that. Nothing is simpler than an open G chord. Yet, professional musicians didn’t even play that one chord. They broke it down even further.
So instead of just looking at large topics like opening or comfort, instead, focus on how you hold your shoulders as you approach the group. Ruthlessly evaluate your performance and master that micro-detail before moving on to another technique. Instead of worrying about your kino skills or how smooth a cold read might be, focus on the warmth and dryness of your hands or the angle of your head as you perform a palm reading.
No one says this will be easy. But in Talent is Overrated, Geoff Colvin explains how normal people can mimic the habits of the truly great. In chapters such as “Applying the Principles in Our Lives” and “Applying the Principles in Our Organizations,” Colvin shows you how to use these practices, regardless of whether you’re trying to learn an instrument, to become a better accountant, or take your social skills to the next level. And certainly this intense focus — even if it is only for a limited time to refine your skills — will tremendously improve your interactions with women and friends.
(Source: https://www.neilstrauss.com/the-game/ta ... nt-matter/)
I checked PDF with this book and i think i can recommend it to everyone who think that "talent" makes difference. You will be supprised how wrong you were in your life and how big silly excuse are words "he is talented".
Accidentally clicked on the wrong post, typing on my phone while bored at work lolwinber1 wrote:
why are you responding to me? lol
I was still responding to you though
Topic Starter
it just means I picked a bad example, not that the point is invalid. That is an important difference.Boomdopew wrote:
@Rurree, really good input on your part. Certainly an interesting point brought up.
Now it's looking like this post is backfiring heavily on OP...But with more points and arguments in place against the whole thing, I'm starting to think what OP said was a little...unplanned? Ain't too sure :/
A post definitely up for discussion.
Thanks for your input rurree.
I'll go with Michael Jordan telling someone who is naturally frail that he can do it then. That works too.
@Taiga: thats a nice excerpt and all, but when you have two people who do their deliberate practice routine, the one who is more talented will still come out at top. Your post doesn't contradict my post, really.
@[ -Ryuki- ]: Taking the average hitcount from the players around you and comparing yourself to that is a bit better, but as I said before it is not a foolproof or 100% accurate method. But it is not supposed to be one, it's just a method where you get valuable results when you are either far below or far above the average. Granted that you don't do things like only playing Easy difficulties from 2011.
What I meant with talent is relative, is that talent is relative. If you compare red to group A at time A, red might be talented compared to that group (like when he was at 1k pp). If you compare red now, you might find that red is untalented. Talent depends on who you compare yourself to.
This thread is dedicated to the people who want to get to the top. I am not talking about myself. I don't want to make it to the top.
Playcount matters because a player with 100k playcount who is stuck at 4k pp probably can't make it. Thats why he should give up and play this game for a different reason instead of wasting his energy on an unobtainable goal.
This thread is directed at people like Taiga, who thinks that talent either doesn't matter or doesn't exist.
Thanks for your response. I hope you found all the answers to the questions you raised here. Sorry for the chaotic format, but writing in this thread is getting really tiring after page 7. Good night.
you can certainly get good. Judging from my standards, you already are. But yeah you can never make it to the top10, or top100 even.Kunino Sagiri wrote:
oh no I can never get good xd
Too many people here are missing points made by OP and are too childish and delusionl of the world.
Im not going to question the metrics OP used as he already said theyre not reliable. However i need to say that talent exists amd that is undoubtable.
I myself truly realized the existence and meaning of "talent" a few years back. In short talent is the ability to reach a certain goal with les effort than someone else, and as said by OP it is relative.
The world was not created for us, thus it has no reason to work in a way wed like it to. The world isnt just and hard work is simply efforr to which talent is a multiplier to.
If everyone else just sits on their asses and you work hard youll reach the top. But theyre not sitting on their asses doing nothing so you might not reach the top.
People have talent. Some dont. Thats the way it works
Im not going to question the metrics OP used as he already said theyre not reliable. However i need to say that talent exists amd that is undoubtable.
I myself truly realized the existence and meaning of "talent" a few years back. In short talent is the ability to reach a certain goal with les effort than someone else, and as said by OP it is relative.
The world was not created for us, thus it has no reason to work in a way wed like it to. The world isnt just and hard work is simply efforr to which talent is a multiplier to.
If everyone else just sits on their asses and you work hard youll reach the top. But theyre not sitting on their asses doing nothing so you might not reach the top.
People have talent. Some dont. Thats the way it works
This thread is directed at people like Taiga, who thinks that talent either doesn't matter or doesn't exist.I don't really give a single fuck about your twisted lack of logic at all, this thread is great place to have fun from reading crybaby frustrated guy unable to do jackshit and throwing his failure into "they are more talented".
Sorry, in all my over 30 years of lving, i experienced already situations where people who worked hard made more than this "so called talented".
I already gave examples of people who made it to the top by working hard without talent which proves my point.
You still stay in your delusional lack of any logic that nobody but only talented people can reach top of certain activity - this is one big fuckin bullshit.
You will never crash x thousand years old logic which will live forever - every activity have a limit, top barrier and everyone can reach it. Talent just make it easier and faster, nothing else.
LMAO, please continue, i have a lot of popcorn and time to spend here.
Edit: one example from other game:
Path of Exile - Zizarian - he is not talented person and by your logic, he could never reach to the top tier speed-racers performance. Yet by working hard for 12-14-16 hours per day, spending tons of hours by practicing, he is now considered as one of the best speed-racers who can easiely compete and beat world top tier players. Don't even start with "PoE is easy"... this game have waaaay higher learning curve and difficulty than casual D3.
But his amount of hours spend\t on practice is a month is equal to life time gameplay hours of average player. That's the difference.
well yes technically according to OP's logic you can reach the top by hard work alone, however that amount of work is alot, like alot.
but talent does exist, let me prove the existence of what i like to call the "talent multiplier"
lets use a real-life situation and a mathematical sentence (is that the correct term?)
in a test, i got a better score than a certain person. i myself did not study for the test at home and such my effort put in was simply what i did during class. the other person also attended class in the same way and thus either put in as much or more effort than me (by studying at home he put in more effort than me).
my effort put in times my talent multiplier is greater that then other persons effort times his/her talent multiplier. this means that there must be a talent multiplier and that my talent multiplier is greater than his/her. i know for sure that he/she either put in as much or more effort than me.
that proves that there must be a talent multiplier.
thus i come to the conclusion that if your talent is a multiplier to the amount of effort you put in. and as such if you put in 0 effort, you do not achieve anything, as anything multiplied by 0 is 0.
but talent does exist, let me prove the existence of what i like to call the "talent multiplier"
lets use a real-life situation and a mathematical sentence (is that the correct term?)
in a test, i got a better score than a certain person. i myself did not study for the test at home and such my effort put in was simply what i did during class. the other person also attended class in the same way and thus either put in as much or more effort than me (by studying at home he put in more effort than me).
my effort put in times my talent multiplier is greater that then other persons effort times his/her talent multiplier. this means that there must be a talent multiplier and that my talent multiplier is greater than his/her. i know for sure that he/she either put in as much or more effort than me.
that proves that there must be a talent multiplier.
thus i come to the conclusion that if your talent is a multiplier to the amount of effort you put in. and as such if you put in 0 effort, you do not achieve anything, as anything multiplied by 0 is 0.
lets use a real-life situation and a mathematical sentence (is that the correct term?)Yes, i agree but that doesn't mean you cannot reach the very top by hard work what OP is trying to say and discourage everyone around.
in a test, i got a better score than a certain person. i myself did not study for the test at home and such my effort put in was simply what i did during class. the other person also attended class in the same way and thus either put in as much or more effort than me (by studying at home he put in more effort than me).
my effort put in times my talent multiplier is greater that then other persons effort times his/her talent multiplier. this means that there must be a talent multiplier and that my talent multiplier is greater than his/her. i know for sure that he/she either put in as much or more effort than me.
that proves that there must be a talent multiplier.
thus i come to the conclusion that if your talent is a mu
My situation from real life - I... hate physics, i was always bad at it in school, i never understanded all this bs around it (despite being exeptional at math). In university, we had physics, you don't imagine how scared i was about exams. While my friend who was just taking tasks and doing them without any problem, i sacrificed TONS, like TONS of hours to study, used coach to teach me more, this one friend was also helping me to get into some topics, while my friend was spending time in party, i was sitting and learning, before lessons while my friends was chitchatting, i was sitting in corner and studying. It ended up i made up exam on 98/100 points while my talented at physics friend made it at 97/100. I cannot say - it was HUGE sacrifice of time what talented person spend doing something else, but i don't regret it at all since till this day i remember everything what i learned. It just proves that my excessive amount of work, discipline, determination and sacrifice, you can make it to the very top. It cost you A LOT, but it's possible. You don't need to be talented to be in pro tier activity ladder.
I think i did say you can reach the top with only hard work. However the case in osu is that the people at the top are also putting in alot of effort and due to their talent multipliers theyw went higher than others. All high ranked players worked hard.
Why are we even equating physical differences to "talent"? Any attempt at a formal definition of talent completely ignores this for very good reason. It's a degenerate argument and goes completely against the spirit of the debate. Of course a cripple won't be able to play basketball in the same way MJ will be able to.
A person who's had all their arms and legs amputated simply won't be capable of playing osu in the same way as cookiezi (ignoring the possibility of prosthetic limbs because the use of them could arguably considered to be cheating anyways). If I agreed in the existence of talent (playing devil's advocate here) I would argue that person might still be more talented than cookiezi. They could be infinitely more talented than cookiezi, capable of obtaining rank 1 in less than 1k plays but simply incapable of applying this talent due to the loss of limbs. By your arguments for talent this person is a worthless untalented PoS which completely contradicts the notion of talent to begin with.
Since it seemed to fly over people's heads at the start of this debate, I wasn't ever arguing against certain players improving faster than certain other players. Talent is not even necessary for this and you seem to not understand this nuance of the talent debate. If you've ever worked with machine learning you'd understand how non-trivial concepts as simple as "objects" are to learn. There are many many layers of abstraction that pure sensory data passes through before even simple concepts are extracted. You don't even need to play osu! to get a head start on building and reinforcing the necessary layers. It's a pretty silly and obvious example but consider top mania players who have been playing mania-like games for years. They will tend to improve at osu much faster than people who have never touched a rhythm game in their life. The nuance here and reason this example isn't the best is that there are things completely unrelated to rhythm games that you might never think of that contribute to skills you never realize are used in a rhythm game (similar to what I brought up when talking to winber1 earlier). When defining talent I would certainly want to avoid this sort of "talent" as it certainly isn't something you are just born with.
On top of that, sensory data obtained earlier on in the learning process influences how connections are made and reinforced much more than data obtained later. When people talk "environment" in debates on nature vs. nurture they very often are looking at environments of the children after they have exited the womb. There is very little known about brain development that occurs during the various stages of development inside the womb and the impact it can have later in life. Reviews of these studies almost always end by concluding that studies in no way collect sufficient quality of information to support concrete conclusions for either side. While it's been determined that actual practice doesn't account for more than about 30% of what goes into things like chess the other 70% is completely undetermined (ie. could be environmental things, could be genetic things, etc.). These numbers are very specific to chess and are purely reasonable estimates backed by survey based studies.
I think the issue with this thread is that we are talking about something completely different from talent. Instead of talent we are talking about one's foundation and potential to improve which, if "talent" exists, would take "talent" into account among other things. It would also include many other variables that were possibly completely out of your control (ie. environment starting from conception up until the point where you could actually choose your own environment) and also the things that are within your control (choosing to avoid anything to do with rhythm games up until now). Most of the evidence provided in this thread has also been completely anecdotal (one of the main issues plaguing the debate over the existence of talent) and contributing stories of "I didn't study and my friend did but I still did better" isn't helpful because it doesn't take into account the insurmountable number of other factors that could have allowed for this occurrence.
If you guys want to instead bicker over this then go ahead but I don't really see a point when like half of the top 1000 (same for top 100) is inactive and/or simply doesn't care about farming to their true potential. As shortpotato has pointed out, if your only goal is like top 100 or something all it takes is the right mindset and playing several hours every single day without many breaks for RL stuff. I really don't think many people give a shit that it took rrtyui 3000 plays to SS the big black when cookiezi fc'd it in 41 because an SS on big black is impressive as fuck regardless. The same applies to high rank and most accomplishments in life.
I just want to finish by saying that while I don't necessarily agree with winber's argument we have both pointed out that there really is not enough data obtained with a sufficient amount of scientific/mathematical rigor to actually support either side of the debate at the moment (most experts in this field will cede this much and call for people to set aside their differences to collect better data in order to further the debate). Until sufficiently rigorous data is collected there is no point in further argument with him so it is more efficient to agree to disagree until then.
Edit: Oh, quick reminder, correlation does not imply causation. Useful to know for all sides of this argument.
A person who's had all their arms and legs amputated simply won't be capable of playing osu in the same way as cookiezi (ignoring the possibility of prosthetic limbs because the use of them could arguably considered to be cheating anyways). If I agreed in the existence of talent (playing devil's advocate here) I would argue that person might still be more talented than cookiezi. They could be infinitely more talented than cookiezi, capable of obtaining rank 1 in less than 1k plays but simply incapable of applying this talent due to the loss of limbs. By your arguments for talent this person is a worthless untalented PoS which completely contradicts the notion of talent to begin with.
Since it seemed to fly over people's heads at the start of this debate, I wasn't ever arguing against certain players improving faster than certain other players. Talent is not even necessary for this and you seem to not understand this nuance of the talent debate. If you've ever worked with machine learning you'd understand how non-trivial concepts as simple as "objects" are to learn. There are many many layers of abstraction that pure sensory data passes through before even simple concepts are extracted. You don't even need to play osu! to get a head start on building and reinforcing the necessary layers. It's a pretty silly and obvious example but consider top mania players who have been playing mania-like games for years. They will tend to improve at osu much faster than people who have never touched a rhythm game in their life. The nuance here and reason this example isn't the best is that there are things completely unrelated to rhythm games that you might never think of that contribute to skills you never realize are used in a rhythm game (similar to what I brought up when talking to winber1 earlier). When defining talent I would certainly want to avoid this sort of "talent" as it certainly isn't something you are just born with.
On top of that, sensory data obtained earlier on in the learning process influences how connections are made and reinforced much more than data obtained later. When people talk "environment" in debates on nature vs. nurture they very often are looking at environments of the children after they have exited the womb. There is very little known about brain development that occurs during the various stages of development inside the womb and the impact it can have later in life. Reviews of these studies almost always end by concluding that studies in no way collect sufficient quality of information to support concrete conclusions for either side. While it's been determined that actual practice doesn't account for more than about 30% of what goes into things like chess the other 70% is completely undetermined (ie. could be environmental things, could be genetic things, etc.). These numbers are very specific to chess and are purely reasonable estimates backed by survey based studies.
I think the issue with this thread is that we are talking about something completely different from talent. Instead of talent we are talking about one's foundation and potential to improve which, if "talent" exists, would take "talent" into account among other things. It would also include many other variables that were possibly completely out of your control (ie. environment starting from conception up until the point where you could actually choose your own environment) and also the things that are within your control (choosing to avoid anything to do with rhythm games up until now). Most of the evidence provided in this thread has also been completely anecdotal (one of the main issues plaguing the debate over the existence of talent) and contributing stories of "I didn't study and my friend did but I still did better" isn't helpful because it doesn't take into account the insurmountable number of other factors that could have allowed for this occurrence.
If you guys want to instead bicker over this then go ahead but I don't really see a point when like half of the top 1000 (same for top 100) is inactive and/or simply doesn't care about farming to their true potential. As shortpotato has pointed out, if your only goal is like top 100 or something all it takes is the right mindset and playing several hours every single day without many breaks for RL stuff. I really don't think many people give a shit that it took rrtyui 3000 plays to SS the big black when cookiezi fc'd it in 41 because an SS on big black is impressive as fuck regardless. The same applies to high rank and most accomplishments in life.
I just want to finish by saying that while I don't necessarily agree with winber's argument we have both pointed out that there really is not enough data obtained with a sufficient amount of scientific/mathematical rigor to actually support either side of the debate at the moment (most experts in this field will cede this much and call for people to set aside their differences to collect better data in order to further the debate). Until sufficiently rigorous data is collected there is no point in further argument with him so it is more efficient to agree to disagree until then.
Edit: Oh, quick reminder, correlation does not imply causation. Useful to know for all sides of this argument.
Amen!
DeletedUser_4310508
Because it IS talent, along with mental capabilities. With good reaction time, tapping skills, stamina, hand-to-eye coordination, finger independence (for mania/taiko), memory etc. you get "talent". Of course you can improve this, but alot of people have a hard time of memorizing something. I don't think someone as slow as slowpoke can even play this game.chainpullz wrote:
Why are we even equating physical differences to "talent"?.
to be honest, this argument can be applied to mentality as well. scientifically, our brains are physically not the same; they are wired different, and neurons are connected differently which will in turn cause different mental capabilities. In a sense, you can actually even consider mental capacity a sort of physical phenomena. of course, there is still much to learn about how the brain works, but you can't deny that our brains are not exactly the same physically. Even one less neuron, one less atom technically can count as a difference.Mein Gauche wrote:
Because it IS talent, along with mental capabilities. I don't think someone as slow as slowpoke can even play this game.chainpullz wrote:
Why are we even equating physical differences to "talent"?.
I will read the rest later.
personally, i'd say talent is an innate advantage given to someone by some way or another, whether by chance or not. however, innate advantage can be really anything. philosophically you can divide mental and physical capacity, but at a certain point you still need to describe what the cut off point between mind and body is before even attacking the concept of talent as it pertains to physical or mental ability.
man, i don't even care anymore, people should just believe what they want and play more.
Edited the post.
But yeah, people should just play more instead of thinking about this talent bs.
But yeah, people should just play more instead of thinking about this talent bs.
OP never said quit the game if you're untalented
There's many ways to enjoy the game other than striving to be the top 10-100 players in the game
I still dont know why people are arguing natural talent doesn't exist, (looking at u Taiga~) it's like saying all people are born equal. I also don't know why you're expressing such anger and emotion, even bringing ur mate Mahogany into this mess: maybe something in this thread hit a soft spot?
If you didn't know the best way to have a proper discussion is to acknowledge both sides of the argument, but by presenting your argument that "talent doesn't exist - everything I got is due to hard work" in addition to telling Railey to kill himself, and other personal insults you come across as ignorant and bigoted
tl;dr if you disagree with OP attack his points instead of his person? And don't misrepresent his argument to make it easier to attack (i.e quit the game if you're untalented) - thats a strawman
There's many ways to enjoy the game other than striving to be the top 10-100 players in the game
I still dont know why people are arguing natural talent doesn't exist, (looking at u Taiga~) it's like saying all people are born equal. I also don't know why you're expressing such anger and emotion, even bringing ur mate Mahogany into this mess: maybe something in this thread hit a soft spot?
If you didn't know the best way to have a proper discussion is to acknowledge both sides of the argument, but by presenting your argument that "talent doesn't exist - everything I got is due to hard work" in addition to telling Railey to kill himself, and other personal insults you come across as ignorant and bigoted
tl;dr if you disagree with OP attack his points instead of his person? And don't misrepresent his argument to make it easier to attack (i.e quit the game if you're untalented) - thats a strawman
shortpotato wrote:
OP never said quit the game if you're untalented
I wonder how taiga would respond to this after he called Railey a retard, salty, crybaby and saying how he should be permanently banned. It's also funny how he then agreed with Railey's notion (I'm sure he still isn't aware that he did) xdshortpotato wrote:
tl;dr if you disagree with OP attack his points instead of his person? And don't misrepresent his argument to make it easier to attack (i.e quit the game if you're untalented) - thats a strawman
If I start getting in heated arguments in a rhythm game forum and produce walls and walls of text at the age of 30, I'd ask someone to shoot me
let's just go back to shitposting.
hey guys i'm gay
hey guys i'm gay
I wonder how taiga would respond to this after he called Railey a retard, salty, crybaby and saying how he should be permanently banned. It's also funny how he then agreed with Railey's notion (I'm sure he still isn't aware that he did) xdI never agreed with this "untalented" shitter.
And i still have a lot of popcorn, this topic is essence of dual stylus idiot OP crying over being bad at some pixels
For me real life hard work > "talent" Eifel Tower size list than his imaginary bullshit from his sick empty head.
hey guys i'm gaywank wank wank dicks dicks dicks
Kisses wrote:
If I start getting in heated arguments in a rhythm game forum and produce walls and walls of text at the age of 30, I'd ask someone to shoot me
Even as I type my poor opinions that are horribly flawed, I still feel sad to do so. Ain't gonna bring age into this but having a ballistic reaction(not talking about you Kisses(I had to say this to prevent any wrong conflict)), in a forum is pretty sad.
winber1 wrote:
useless thread
You spent a fraction of the time playing this game that I have, You have likely never truly examined your play, determined your flaws and worked on them. You have likely never spent hours upon hours playing in ways that are entirely enjoyable all in order to get better. Talent exists, you would have to be retarded to deny that, but anyone who blames talent before working many times harder than everyone else can fuck off. If you want to beat someone who has talent and works hard, work harder, else it becomes clear that you never really wanted to beat them in the first place, all you really wanted was to beat them on your own terms, without actually having to work hard.
I agree with your post, but keeping people determined that they can improve (ignorance is bliss argument) works a lot better than telling people that they could never improve.
nzbasic wrote:
I agree with your post, but keeping people determined that they can improve (ignorance is bliss argument) works a lot better than telling people that they could never improve.
Ahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Bro, stop posting when you didn't even touched real maps, you don't even know what means hard work in osu so pls xxxxxxxxxxxxxDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Play more
Pls.
Talent doesn't exist.
Do u still believe in Santa?
Edit: just read the entire post. NVM, 5 years old kid logic.
BUT, I think AGE (I'm "old") does impact on the ranking/pp.
I've seen kids half my age that started to play the game stream way too faster than me
But who knows ... I'm not playing anymore
o/
Talent doesn't exist.
Do u still believe in Santa?
Edit: just read the entire post. NVM, 5 years old kid logic.
BUT, I think AGE (I'm "old") does impact on the ranking/pp.
I've seen kids half my age that started to play the game stream way too faster than me
But who knows ... I'm not playing anymore
o/
I cant tell if youre joking or very stupid.astelios wrote:
Pls.
Talent doesn't exist.
Do u still believe in Santa?
Oh ... I forgot what it was like over here ...-Jukke- wrote:
I cant tell if youre joking or very stupid.
Osu forum quality level TO THE MAX!
Bye forum o/
He has a very good work ethic, its disgusting that people dismiss this as nothing but talent when they wont even put a fraction of that work ethic in. If you actually believe the crap in this thread, then yeah, you just never had the mindset required to go far in this game.LoliPantsu wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/u/7260014
Younger people learn stuff/skills way faster due to a phenomenon named "neuroplasticity" which decays at higher age, and instead we develop more the rational part of the brain as we age. That's why most top players are around the age of 16-18. Yet they started playing at the age of maybe 12-13, in which the brain is still developing in terms of both abstract thinking and physical skills.astelios wrote:
Pls.
Talent doesn't exist.
Do u still believe in Santa?
Edit: just read the entire post. NVM, 5 years old kid logic.
BUT, I think AGE (I'm "old") does impact on the ranking/pp.
I've seen kids half my age that started to play the game stream way too faster than me
But who knows ... I'm not playing anymore
o/
CMIIW, but long story short,
1. Talent exists.
2. Talent + hard work >> hard work only, assuming that the amount of hard work is the same.
3. Hard work can beat talent without hard work.
4. You can become high-ranked just with hard work alone, but the effort needed is higher compared to those who have talent.
Aren't these the point of this thread? What are we even arguing about?
And also, some people (including OP, I guess) are just not interested in getting to the top, probably because they don't have the time or something. That's why Railey keeps saying that he/she won't make it to the top.
1. Talent exists.
2. Talent + hard work >> hard work only, assuming that the amount of hard work is the same.
3. Hard work can beat talent without hard work.
4. You can become high-ranked just with hard work alone, but the effort needed is higher compared to those who have talent.
Aren't these the point of this thread? What are we even arguing about?
And also, some people (including OP, I guess) are just not interested in getting to the top, probably because they don't have the time or something. That's why Railey keeps saying that he/she won't make it to the top.
could you elaborate on good work ethic, not that im doubting you or anything but for my own useithgyu wrote:
He has a very good work ethic, its disgusting that people dismiss this as nothing but talent when they wont even put a fraction of that work ethic in. If you actually believe the crap in this thread, then yeah, you just never had the mindset required to go far in this game.LoliPantsu wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/u/7260014
Topic Starter
What he is saying is: The reason you didn't make it beyond 5k pp even though you played so much is, because your work ethic sucks.LoliPantsu wrote:
could you elaborate on good work ethic, not that im doubting you or anything but for my own useithgyu wrote:
He has a very good work ethic, its disgusting that people dismiss this as nothing but talent when they wont even put a fraction of that work ethic in. If you actually believe the crap in this thread, then yeah, you just never had the mindset required to go far in this game.
Factors outside of our control like talent aren't a thing and only used to discredit people. So now I'm going to discredit your work by saying that you just didn't try hard enough, even though you arguably tried harder already (more playtime).
That's the thing. If you deny the existence of talent, you are automatically discrediting the people that are not talented, by blaming them directly for their lack of success. It's hilarious how ithgyu keeps complaining about people discrediting his friend, when he does the same by implication to the majority of the playerbase. The irony is probably lost on him.
Close but not quite. What I am saying is, that their rate of improvement is so much faster, that it is humanly impossible to catch up to them with just hard work alone.DeathAdderz wrote:
CMIIW, but long story short,
1. Talent exists.
2. Talent + hard work >> hard work only, assuming that the amount of hard work is the same.
3. Hard work can beat talent without hard work.
4. You can become high-ranked just with hard work alone, but the effort needed is higher compared to those who have talent.
Aren't these the point of this thread? What are we even arguing about?
And also, some people (including OP, I guess) are just not interested in getting to the top, probably because they don't have the time or something. That's why Railey keeps saying that he/she won't make it to the top.
If I have the ability to theoretically make it, is a question that is never going to be answered, but I will claim that people like taiga or chainpullz (who spent even more time than me, achieving visibly less), are NEVER going to make it, no matter how much they work.
I haven't visited here for a few days and I get to see drama the moment I get back. This is quite amusing.