Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings

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

posted
Total Posts
155
show more
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

[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.
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm, no matter how hard you work.

It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.

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.
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.

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.
Last edited by Railey2 , edited 1 time in total.
AsyouSaidsir
71 posts
Joined April 2015
AsyouSaidsir

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.
Okay, I apologize for saying that. I still stand by what I said earlier, though.


EDIT:

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.
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:

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)_/¯
Last edited by AsyouSaidsir , edited 8 times in total.
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm, no matter how hard you work.

It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.
One more time i will prove how wrong you are:

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.
Boomdopew
29 posts
Joined August 2013
Boomdopew
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.

[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.
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.

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.

It doesn't work that way. Michael Jordan lied to you. Sure you can get better, but you can't get NBA-good.
One more time i will prove how wrong you are:

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?
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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 160cm
Which is a lie.
Last edited by -Makishima S- , edited 1 time in total.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

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?
that depends. Do you think he could have made it in 2016?

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.

[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.
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?

AsyouSaidsir wrote:

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.
Okay, I apologize for saying that. I still stand by what I said earlier, though.
no hard feelings. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it!


[Taiga] wrote:

I hate to break it to you but you will never play in the NBA with 160cm
Which is a lie.
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.
KupcaH
2,830 posts
Joined January 2016
KupcaH
Where is Gambler with his popcorn when we need him?
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd

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?
He's just like this.
I Give Up
1,648 posts
Joined January 2014
I Give Up
Talent only carries you so far tho. Most of it is practise, mindset and lifestyle.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

[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 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.

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.

KukiMonster wrote:

Talent only carries you so far tho. Most of it is practise, mindset and lifestyle.
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.
winber1
4,519 posts
Joined February 2010
winber1
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.
Endaris
5,282 posts
Joined June 2010
Endaris

Railey2 wrote:

I gave a definition of talent at the beginning of my post.
It's a poor definition for the reasons already mentioned in my previous posts.
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.
Manysi
336 posts
Joined July 2014
Manysi
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.
NixXSkate
785 posts
Joined February 2011
NixXSkate

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.
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).
Rurree
1,291 posts
Joined June 2014
Rurree

Railey2 wrote:

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?
that depends. Do you think he could have made it in 2016?
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.

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.
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
@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.
Kunino Sagiri
272 posts
Joined January 2012
Kunino Sagiri
oh no I can never get good xd
Boomdopew
29 posts
Joined August 2013
Boomdopew
@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.
_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding
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
winber1
4,519 posts
Joined February 2010
winber1

NixXSkate wrote:

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.
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).
why are you responding to me? lol
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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".
NixXSkate
785 posts
Joined February 2011
NixXSkate

winber1 wrote:

why are you responding to me? lol
Accidentally clicked on the wrong post, typing on my phone while bored at work lol
I was still responding to you though
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

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.
it just means I picked a bad example, not that the point is invalid. That is an important difference.

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.

Kunino Sagiri wrote:

oh no I can never get good xd
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.
Jukkii
597 posts
Joined October 2015
Jukkii
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
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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.
Jukkii
597 posts
Joined October 2015
Jukkii
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.
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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 mu
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.

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.
Jukkii
597 posts
Joined October 2015
Jukkii
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.
chainpullz
2,335 posts
Joined June 2013
chainpullz
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.
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
Amen!
DeletedUser_4310508
DeletedUser_4310508
I found a fix for untalented players
Caput Mortuum
1,854 posts
Joined March 2016
Caput Mortuum

chainpullz wrote:

Why are we even equating physical differences to "talent"?.
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.
winber1
4,519 posts
Joined February 2010
winber1

Mein Gauche wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

Why are we even equating physical differences to "talent"?.
Because it IS talent, along with mental capabilities. I don't think someone as slow as slowpoke can even play this game.
I will read the rest later.
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.

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.
Caput Mortuum
1,854 posts
Joined March 2016
Caput Mortuum
Edited the post.

But yeah, people should just play more instead of thinking about this talent bs.
shortpotato
312 posts
Joined December 2011
shortpotato
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
_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding

shortpotato wrote:

OP never said quit the game if you're untalented

shortpotato 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
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) xd

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
winber1
4,519 posts
Joined February 2010
winber1
let's just go back to shitposting.

hey guys i'm gay
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
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) xd
I 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 8-)

For me real life hard work > "talent" Eifel Tower size list than his imaginary bullshit from his sick empty head.

hey guys i'm gay
wank wank wank dicks dicks dicks
Boomdopew
29 posts
Joined August 2013
Boomdopew

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.
I Give Up
1,648 posts
Joined January 2014
I Give Up

winber1 wrote:

useless thread
ithgyu
468 posts
Joined October 2014
ithgyu
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.
nzbasic
10 posts
Joined September 2016
nzbasic
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.
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-

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
Jesper
38 posts
Joined October 2015
Jesper
inb4 osu has a million dollard price pool.
astelios
60 posts
Joined June 2013
astelios
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
o/
Last edited by astelios , edited 2 times in total.
Jukkii
597 posts
Joined October 2015
Jukkii

astelios wrote:

Pls.
Talent doesn't exist.
Do u still believe in Santa?
I cant tell if youre joking or very stupid.
LoliPantsu
311 posts
Joined January 2015
LoliPantsu
https://osu.ppy.sh/u/7260014
astelios
60 posts
Joined June 2013
astelios

-Jukke- wrote:

I cant tell if youre joking or very stupid.
Oh ... I forgot what it was like over here ...
Osu forum quality level TO THE MAX!

Bye forum o/
ithgyu
468 posts
Joined October 2014
ithgyu

LoliPantsu wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/u/7260014
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.
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Raiden

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
o/
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.
Risa
435 posts
Joined January 2014
Risa
Still not a good enough reason to quit kms
DeathHydra
652 posts
Joined November 2015
DeathHydra
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.
LoliPantsu
311 posts
Joined January 2015
LoliPantsu

ithgyu wrote:

LoliPantsu wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/u/7260014
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.
could you elaborate on good work ethic, not that im doubting you or anything but for my own use
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

LoliPantsu wrote:

ithgyu 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.
could you elaborate on good work ethic, not that im doubting you or anything but for my own use
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
Last edited by Railey2 , edited 3 times in total.
Sayorie
975 posts
Joined December 2014
Sayorie
I haven't visited here for a few days and I get to see drama the moment I get back. This is quite amusing.
Caput Mortuum
1,854 posts
Joined March 2016
Caput Mortuum

[Taiga] wrote:

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
Lmao he didn't even said anything about osu. Also where are the moderators?
Be nice. Harassment or other antagonism has no place within the osu! community. Continual violation of this rule may result in the loss of ability to communicate with other users permanently.
Personal attacks are frowned upon. Criticism of all kinds is welcome and encouraged, but attacking other users personally is not allowed. If you cannot prove your point without such tactics, your point is not worth posting.
edit: seems like he already got it.
Last edited by Caput Mortuum , edited 1 time in total.
Sayorie
975 posts
Joined December 2014
Sayorie
For a serious post, I'll give some insight and comments on your original post.

Railey2 wrote:

Talent is very elusive and hard to measure, but there is a simple way to do it.
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.
In the first place, I hate the word talent, because it puts people on a pedestal. There is no clear line between talented and talentless. Everyone does things better than others, with varying degree.
Since you compared two players from each other, your definition of 'talent' comes down to being completely relative and only between the two. If you include the whole playerbase to determine who's talented and who's not, you won't see it as two distinct categories between 'talented' and 'talentless'. You would see it as an ever growing slope of people in order of 'natural skill for the game', thus making the line for 'talent' to not exist at all.

My point? There is no simple way to measure talent.

Railey2 wrote:



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).
This one pisses me off the most. You could at least censor the name, you know? The fact that you explicitly called Rayne as untalented was totally uncalled for. That's just completely rude.

Railey2 wrote:

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.
That is why you can't put 'talent' as a label to determine if you can become pro or not. Fuck off.

Railey2 wrote:

So, why is this relevant?

Simply put: As soon as you find yourself in the "untalented-bracket", it is time to bury your dream of becoming a top-player. This is particularly true if you get there early.
The top-players became top-players through hard work, but they were also very talented. You will find nobody in the top100 who isn't extremely talented, and the overwhelming majority worked very hard in addition to that. As a result, you will never catch up to them, if you are "just" hard working.
Hard work may beat talent, but it can't beat talent and hard work. The top, has both.
So how did you determine that everyone in the top 100 is extremely talented? Holy fucking shit. If that's your subjective opinion, then everyone might as well be talented too, subjectively.

Railey2 wrote:

But if you find yourself in the "average-bracket", or possibly even in the "talented-bracket", go ahead and play more. See how long your talent lasts. As soon as it runs out, you know that you are close to approaching your limit as a competitive player.
Great effort will get you far, but if you lack talent, it will never get you to the top.
Once again, you're treating talent as a 'perk' or a 'unique blessing' similar in video games. You

Railey2 wrote:

Lastly, a word for people that lack talent.

Change your goals. Osu can be an extremely fun game, especially without the pressure of playing for ranks. Discover new music, play with friends, play interesting maps. It's all about what you make of it. A more talented player once said "plz enjoy game", and this is good advice regardless of how talented you are. Settle for less, but enjoy it all the way.

Good luck to everyone! It's a rocky road that leads to the top100. Let's hope that you have the talent to make it there.

exceptions
SPOILER
There are cases where people put effort into the game in wrong ways, such as only playing for SS. In that case, their lack of success is not necessarily a result of them lacking talent, but rather a result of a misapplication of effort. It can be hard to tell the two apart sometimes, but what I wrote above still holds true either way.


Sorry, I already stopped trying to reason with this. Say what you want to say, I'm not stopping you.
Nevertheless, you're doing a pretty good job at discouraging a shit ton of players here.
Hope it makes you sleep at night.
Xyrus_old_1
407 posts
Joined October 2015
Xyrus_old_1

Arthraxium wrote:

I haven't visited here for a few days and I get to see drama the moment I get back. This is quite amusing.
If only Gambler was here with Popcorn. :(
Rilene
2,105 posts
Joined April 2014
Rilene
Well, talent does obviously exist, at least as a skill improvement multiplier.
But I feel like the way the main postworded looks discouraring to some people, at least not me.
DeletedUser_4310508
DeletedUser_4310508

Xyrus wrote:

If only Gambler was here with Popcorn. :(
No worries, I'll pass around the popcorn
just make sure taiga gets sweet rather than salty because the bitch is already salty enough

_handholding
3,109 posts
Joined April 2014
_handholding
by taiga's logic everyone can be the next ronaldo with hard work xd
-Makishima S-
2,434 posts
Joined August 2013
-Makishima S-
Idc anymore, give some popcorn.

Just realized that talking to brick wall is more constructive than trying to show OP how much toxicity spread his initial post and how big slpa with stinky shit into face of every single player it is.

Whatever for me, gib some popcorn.
DeletedUser_4310508
DeletedUser_4310508
Taiga I think you should get a job
anything that'll get you off this forum will be great
Yuudachi-kun
5,434 posts
Joined August 2014
Yuudachi-kun
I didn't read this thread but you're all nerds
OnosakiHito
osu!taiko Paragon
6,864 posts
Joined March 2010
OnosakiHito
And that's how interesting topics get ruined. To avoid any more heated discussions and save the last dignity of some, I will just close the thread.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
90 / 155