by not using it to argue about semantics i suppose.
I mean for simple and basic communication it's pretty good without semantics...

good night

oh wait you were making a serious argument? i'll reply properly tomorrow then if you care to spell it out some more, i was joking around instead of giving a proper reply.

if you like. But seriously not, gn Endaris cya around

wow, what happened while i was gone
railey doesn't jump at opportunities for discussions anymore
maybe the corruption finally kicked in

Endaris wrote:

wow, what happened while i was gone
railey doesn't jump at opportunities for discussions anymore
maybe the corruption finally kicked in

The corruption Ohn dah loose

johnmedina999 wrote:

Railey2 wrote:

Maybe this thread is art too?

Maybe if camera was taking the picture upwards

blitzfrog you filthy

language doesn't come out of arguments lol

it's a fluid process honestly. our language is changing right now and we don't even notice it.

winber1 wrote:

language doesn't come out of arguments lol

it's a fluid process honestly. our language is changing right now and we don't even notice it.

My homie is right

winber1 wrote:

language doesn't come out of arguments lol

it's a fluid process honestly. our language is changing right now and we don't even notice it.

To make one counter-example:

scientific jargon is a part of our language that can fail as soon as it starts being even slightly inaccurate or muddled (as opposed to common language, where there is a lot more leeway).

Scientific terms are often subject to debates that last over decades and often have a definition so contrived that it goes on for a hundred words or more.

This is one example where arguing semantics (aka: the exact meaning of words) is immensely important and also doesn't just happen naturally.


Take for example a term that should be very familiar to many users of this forum: ''autism spectrum disorder''. The definition of this term has been subject to change ever since it was invented, but not through a process of random change by personal interpretation and misunderstanding.

it was changed through a process of careful adjustment - step by step - according to new scientific discoveries.

Just read through the different DSM versions and see how it changed. This can be attributed to people arguing semantics. They had a term to work with, they wanted it to describe something specific, and they agreed to have its meaning changed because they wanted it to be more accurate.

i mean you can go on about that branch of language if you want, but that's not entirely what anyone was particularly arguing for. There's core language, and then there's labeled language which we knowingly contrived in order to facilitate cultural and scientific growth. I mean you really can't say that people argued the meaning of "to run" and because of that now we attribute the word with someone jogging at a fast pace. No one just invented greek or latin. Language at its core is just a product of social interaction, not semantics, but what you say is correct. I'd personally group that in a different branch of language because it's not core language, which we need or will use in order to communicate, but rather things created to facilitate development as I said earlier. If anything, it's the step after language has been created. For instance, it's impossible to just create pig latin or elvish without having a solid language foundation to begin with.

so i guess we're both right then depending on what in particular we dictate "language" to be.

So mapping drama ---> language drama

This is what Wikipedia etymologists do all day.

If this game's history was broken up by eras, I'd say we are in the Medieval Times era approaching Renaissance. There have been almost no great developments to the game in the past 2 years, maps style is all and the same and it's all about the PP religion. Once osu!lazer, moddingv2, and the new website rolls out we can expect great works of art to come with it.

abraker wrote:

If this game's history was broken up by eras, I'd say we are in the Medieval Times era approaching Renaissance. There have been almost no great developments to the game in the past 2 years, maps style is all and the same and it's all about the PP religion. Once osu!lazer, moddingv2, and the new website rolls out we can expect great works of art to come with it.

i thought we were permanently stuck in 1942

F1r3tar wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5761475

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/456366

t/398059&start=0

>please be serious about this. osu! is not a joke community.

aahahahahahah

abraker wrote:

If this game's history was broken up by eras, I'd say we are in the Medieval Times era approaching Renaissance. There have been almost no great developments to the game in the past 2 years, maps style is all and the same and it's all about the PP religion. Once osu!lazer, moddingv2, and the new website rolls out we can expect great works of art to come with it.

And I am Beethoven who will move the osu into romantic period, skipping classical

Railey2 wrote:

abraker wrote:

If this game's history was broken up by eras, I'd say we are in the Medieval Times era approaching Renaissance. There have been almost no great developments to the game in the past 2 years, maps style is all and the same and it's all about the PP religion. Once osu!lazer, moddingv2, and the new website rolls out we can expect great works of art to come with it.

i thought we were permanently stuck in 1942

We are yet to see a drama turn into an all out battle

Ephemeral wrote:

none of you know who ketchup is or was. evans probably means nothing to you. who the fuck is alace? what's a pasonia?

you have NO idea what mapping drama is

mystearica called she wants her drama crown back

SPEAKING OF this is almost certainly gonna lead me to the bruise cruise but you know how touchy-feely i get about mapping

B1rd wrote:

Stefan wrote:

Tell me, genius, how does having a lot of extra diffs negatively impact a mapset? Are you worried your precious casual players won't be able to find the easy diffs if there are too many?

I remember Mr. Color saying that mapsets should only have one map of each difficulty. Typical mod behaviour, they love enforcing completely pointless rules, probably just to be an annoyance.

plenty of people have already told you this with nicer words but i'll lay it down for you: you're either fucking stupid, or you're baiting for replies. possibly both

time to find my old puush links!



so this is what is happening right now, right? as you can see i don't necessarily knock that kind of way of doing things, but entering a mapset and seeing 50 fucking difficulties might be off-putting for a large amount of players. on top of that you often (not always, but often) have a problem where the diffs end up overlapping each other which in turn makes a jumbled mess with no real sense of progression. congratulations you just cleared difficulty #21. have fun doing the same thing with a few more circles here and there, maybe a triple stack once in a while.

tedium at its goddamn finest, and unneccessary baggage for the mapset.



this is what you have in good rhythm games. very rarely will you see the easy difficulty and the normal difficulty be close to each other unless the set is either at the top of the diff scale or at the bottom. now what you've completely failed to understand is that "mapsets should only have one difficulty each" this means jack shit. difficulty is entirely subjective and let's take beatmania IIDX 18 Resort Anthem to illustrate that.

Eternal Tears is a lv7 Another (highest global difficulty setting in IIDX)
reunion is a lv8 Normal (lowest global difficulty setting in IIDX)

you have here two sets that are at the complete opposite spectrum of the diff range. Eternal Tears is an easy set (diff lvs. 2/5/7) and reunion is a hard set (8/11/12)

and hey, look at that! wouldn't you know it, the lv. spread reduces the harder the difficulty you pick! you have a "low" difficulty which is standalone and for casual players to try out -- in IIDX it ranges from 1 to 7 sometimes 8, a mid-tier difficulty known as Hyper where the difficulty ramps up a fair amount and destined towards experienced players. Depending on the set's difficulty it can range from +2 to +8 lvs. compared to the Normal difficulty, so it's generally a fair bit harder. The high-tier difficulty known as Another is closer in difficulty to the Hyper than the Hyper is to the Normal. Only +0 to +3 lvs. in average. (an example that speaks for itself is the song gigadelic -- both the Hyper and Another share the lv. 12) the reason this is the case is because only the strongest of players can get past these difficulties, therefore they're closer to the previous difficulty than before, because as you increase in skill, it becomes harder and harder to progress. I'm sure most mid-tier players can agree that between what osu! traditionally calls an easy and a normal, the only difference is the circle size and maybe the approach rate and if you can play one, you can play another. however at the top end of the scale you have maps that become so intricate in the way their difficulty shows that it's not rare to pass a song rated harder than another just because it doesn't require the same kind of skill. many players can clear Innocent Walls on Another (a lv.12) because most of the song consists of jackhammers, decently slow ones at that, yet will be completely walled by naughty girl@queen's palace (lv.11) because it has an ungodly amount of turntable scratches, something most players aren't used to dealing with.

you're not gonna be able to say "a map must have an easy, a normal, a hard, and an insane" because these terms do not have any kind of value whatsoever. They're completely subjective. One's easy is another's insane.

now hear me out when i say this: there is no fucking reason to require any map to adhere to any arbitrary level of difficulty as long as there is a clear spread between the different difficulties of your set. One of the must fucktarded rules when i used to map for ranking was a hard-cap on how hard your easy/normal diff had to be. It was something drastic too, like 2/5* when 90% of maps were over 4*. the correct way is to follow what i mentioned before: follow the spread.
Easy spread:

Hard spread:


both of these are valid. sometimes the song calls for a relaxed beat and all the difficulties of your set may not exceed 4/10* in difficulty. and sometimes you just feel like being blue dragon so you map some 300bpm BR-core and the lowest difficulty will be like 6-7/10*. It doesn't matter as long as the spread makes sense: one difficulty lower than the rest accessible for the greater public, and then making smaller and smaller increments to difficulty as you go along. this prevents any bloating of maps ending up with 3 easies, 4 normals, 10 hards and 21 insanes - and it also makes a natural difficulty flow that prompts you to git gud.

I don't give a shit about how many difficulties you put in a beatmap as long as none of it is superfluous or cramped. This should all come naturally as you design your beatmap anyway, the song choice absolutely dictates how you're going to build your map once you have enough experience to know how to make something half-decent in the editor.

So before you start putting words in my mouth, consider taking the dicks out of yours and learn a thing or two about game design before you come talk shit about something you clearly don't understand the first thing about to push forward your bullshit narrative of mods being tyrants to the persecuted masses. cocknose

Angry Frenchman wrote:

So before you start putting words in my mouth, consider taking the dicks out of yours and learn a thing or two about game design before you come talk shit about something you clearly don't understand the first thing about to push forward your bullshit narrative of mods being tyrants to the persecuted masses. cocknose

Do you really think your behaviour validates anything but my claim of your arrogant domineering attitude, in that you think your arbitrary logic is superior to all of the plebeians who play and map and thus you should have authority to enforce your will on every inconsequential aspect? Perhaps you have good points, but that fact that you cannot accept that there might be two different interpretations of a song that are around the same difficult is an example of the most unnecessary, extreme and counter-productive facets of regulation and red-tape that unnecessarily restricts the creative freedom of mappers to create great mapsets, for the most superficial definitions of "quality" imaginable. That is, nothing but the "quality" of a consistent and standardised product like that from a factory line; the products we're dealing with are irregular, by their nature of being an individual's interpretation of a song converted into the new technical dimensions of mapping. When, like music, defining the exact qualities that constitute quality mapping is an incredibly hard thing to do, especially considering individual preference is involved, how then do we justify having such overbearing rules by applying such arbitrary considerations as "star rating" and "difficulty spread" and claiming they are the most important factors to which none other take precedent?

this is a game. not an art project. a game has to have intelligent design to appeal to the widest margin whether it be the aficionado or the newcomer. and in a game where the extreme majority of the music is either tailored to fit another game, or anime openings which are extremely cookie-cutter in format, you'll notice there's not exactly a ton of room to exert "creative freedom", if it's any different from the creativity needed to build any set. there's obviously projects that build outside of the box and are puzzling to deal with, but guess what, we have a loved category where all of that stuff goes nowadays. Most of lan wings's stuff, BASARA, 2B series, etc etc. stuff that wasn't built for gameplay, it all goes there. you literally cannot make the argument that mapping forces you into decisions that go against what you want your map to be. There's a reason why making several difficulties of the same level is frowned upon -- It's a clumsy gimmick to emphasize a gameplay element (jumps, streams, speed) that ends up being forced while a balanced difficulty could combine all these gameplay elements into one well-crafted difficulty. Some of my favorite mappers have tried this approach and failed because their difficulties ended up gimmicky and one-dimensional. Maps are not one-dimensional.

Don't confuse tricks and techniques that are commonly used by mappers to improve gameplay as "standardized products" because if the song allows for it and the mapper is experienced enough, their own mark of fabric shows through. I've literally come across maps from mappers I didn't know who were emulating another popular mapper's style and identified who they were borrowing from. Every experienced mapper either takes from older mappers they liked the style of or create something new altogether, but it's never pure copycat. And when it is, it's got a TV Size tag next to it.

as for my behavior, it's completely dependant on whoever i'm talking to. maybe act like a decent human being and i'll be inclined to treat you as one

o.o

Cyclohexane wrote:

as for my behavior, it's completely dependant on whoever i'm talking to. maybe act like a decent human being and i'll be inclined to treat you as one

Does that mean if I think you're awesome then you'll think I'm awesome?
And does that mean if I add you you will add me?
And does that mean if I suck the nuts in your chin you will suck the nuts on my chin?

if the price is right

i think having multiple difficulties around the same level of difficulty doesn't make the most sense, unless either of them offers some unique experience while not being forcibly centered around one gimmick only, there's no real need to force the player to choose.

what i think we need to get rid off is that an "Extra" is an "Extra" because given the various kinds of difficulties that can fit into 5.25*+ rating, it really depends on what the song offers for as far as you can go with that (i'm talking about rhythmically, not about how much you can upscale your jumpmaps).

I mean you can have a well designed spread of extras up to like 8 stars but extras are made for the minority of players to begin with, because like the top 30k or something out of what? 2 million or so active players? can actually play them lol. In that sense the Ultra idea actually makes some sort sense, though not so much from a gamedesign pov because you usually want to offer a blaanced progression throughout your set to cater to players of all levels, so as is i'm kinda meh on the whole spread limitation discussion, because either enforcing some sort of linear spread, allowing a bit of leeway edge cases or just going for the ULTRA APPROACH kinda all have their sense

and then there's a lot of people crying about how this is limiting, yeah i forgot about those

Was it really necessary to revive this thread?

is anything in this subforum necessary

Ily right now mr color <3

Every single post made by Lord Farquaad shall be remembered as a sign of God.

The concept of spreads is a toxic idea from the beginning which now we can't imagine without of. I fully support one diff spreads per rank and think doing such is the best way going forward. And do notice I said "one diff spreads per rank". Let me elaborate. Currently we are ranking a spread with multiple difficulties and as Cyclohexane said, there are good way to make a spread and there are bad ways. This concept arise only when ranking multiple diffs at once. Nobody complains about this when two different mappers rank the same song, which can be in some respect be considered an extension of a spread in loose terms. By ranking a difficulty at a time and allowing a cooling period, a spread of the same mapper can be extended without this notion in which multiple difficulties overlap. When you rank them all at once, players play them all at once. Overlapping spreads become redundant. When ranking a diff and adding it into a spread sometime later, they can be considered as an improvement or a variant of the diff(s) without saturating the quantity of same difficulties.


So when some mapper decides to rank a map, they don't need to rank an entire spread at once. You can rank the rest of the difficulties as time goes on. If both difficulties end up being 4*, for instance, who are you to say that it's not acceptable if it's acceptable for 2 different mappers to rank similar difficulties of the same song at different times?

Emphasis that it is an assumption that it is acceptable for 2 different mappers to rank similar difficulties of the same song at different times since I never saw anyone complain about that.

your argument is based around the assumption that sets are flawed ideas, but how is providing content to each playing level a flawed concept?

the current spread thing is boiling down to the same thing you described as ~just ranking more diffs as you move on~ except it waits for all the things you would make over the course of time moving on and based around the idea that full packages of content are to hit ranked status at the same time instead of diffs for specific audiences

#agruingforlaziness

I support Abraker because I'm lazy too

Okorin wrote:

your argument is based around the assumption that sets are flawed ideas, but how is providing content to each playing level a flawed concept?

the current spread thing is boiling down to the same thing you described as ~just ranking more diffs as you move on~ except it waits for all the things you would make over the course of time moving on and based around the idea that full packages of content are to hit ranked status at the same time instead of diffs for specific audiences

It is the same thing... for the player. Now for the mapper, especially new mappers that are considering whether to rank a map or not, this is a huge difference. It offers the flexibility to focus on individual difficulties instead of multiple difficulties. You also don't need a mapper giving up ranking entire mapset over some drama due to a diff that can and should be worked on later. There are so many mappers like me that bail on ranking because it's too much of a stretch to rank a full spread at a time. It's like giving a 70 page packet for you to finish whenever you feel like it. 70 pages feels intimidating, so you just push it a side to due something else. Now give a 2 page packet and you consider that you can get it done quickly enough not to take up much time. Then comes another 2 page packet, not too scary. Rinse and repeat. I'd say the current system with spreads works fine in most areas concerning quality, but it wasn't made with the thought of attracting mappers by understanding their psychology.

abraker wrote:

The concept of spreads is a toxic idea from the beginning which now we can't imagine without of.

the most toxic idea that floats around in the contemporary mapping community, is pishifat's tenet that a ''good'' map should represent the song. He just made that up, but people like the idea because his voice is apparently so soothing that they forget to consider the massive obstacle they created by forcing an arbitrary creative restriction on mappers based on one guy's subjective preference.

What the hell was that fun vs. good video of his
fun is all the good. We're playing a rhythm game, not a two-dimensional song visualisation simulator.

oh, saw abraker on around 5:30

Meah wrote:

Is this why the thread exploded?

johnmedina999 wrote:

Meah wrote:

Is this why the thread exploded?

The thread is interesting enough to explode

Meah wrote:

oh, saw abraker on around 5:30

I would be so keen for that to happen.