I don't really like maps like CBCC, that qualify themselves as a meme map.
Moreover, there is some points I don't like & some I like the maps with 80 Insane difficulty & 30 Extras.

Why I like it?
I enjoy the fact that there is a lot of diffs, cause it allows EACH guest diffs to be different, cause we all have a different perception on mapping. Usually, you can see that on a lot (but not all) of maps that had multiple Insanes/Extra, use different style. For instance, different rhythm, different speed, etc...

Why I dislike it?
I sometimes dislike those kind of maps, because sometimes, it's made on a song that has a really basic rhythm. Let's take as an example "CBCC" (I'm not hating on it). When you look at the map, you notice that there is a looooot of diffs. But when you look closely, you notice that most of the rhythm is somehow similar on all the diffs, and once you play one Insane diffs, it sounds like you played all of them. In my opinion, this map was made for meme and to create a PP farm by making a lot of diffs.

My conclusion
I think that the PP itself is not a problem, but the way that people abuse of it in their mapping is. (I agree I kinda contradict myself... )

Anyway, as long as it still has player that have fun on it, then I think it's not a problem, it just kinda "foul" the real player's skill.

chainpullz wrote:

Gonna try to keep this concise because honestly reading through the entirety of this thread is pretty pointless already.

I think the bigger complaint isn't about maps giving pp. We still have plenty of creative maps etc. What is suffering is the variety within the less creative pop song maps. As has probably been pointed out, the "pp maps" have all converged on a very very specific formula. Mappers that mapped pop songs nicely but that were still reasonable to farm include rizia (wkyik), laurier, cryo, and pre-miraizu fycho among others.

Most of the people who are complaining about pp mapping don't actually enjoy the more creative maps and the furthest they stray from their pop songs is post-2105 skystar style mapping. When it comes to things like shiirn/byfar/etc. they typically don't find as much enjoyment (judging based off how long they spend playing these kinds of maps before switching to more normal maps). While I don't fully agree with Railey he does make a few agreeable points.

I think you missed the point. You're right that it's not about "maps giving pp," its that maps gives too much pp.

THIS IS EXTREMELY TL:DR. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

B1rd wrote:

incoherent logical spaghetti

Oh, man, you actually took up my challenge and tried to do it. Truly comedy gold.

Strap in to your seats everyone, and grab some popcorn because this is going to be a hell of a ride.



Before we get to that, I need to refute this irritatingly persistent criticism of myself lest it stick and continue to malign me:

B1rd wrote:

Why do you think that I was derogatory towards you when you try to imply that people having a discussion about criticisms of PPv2 have the same underlying psychology as white supremacists? Your pathology of a social justice warrior sticks out like a sore thumb, it's laughable to think your "ideas" could be constructive in any way.

First, since you are apparently incapable of understanding nuance of any kind, it's not what you're critiquing, but why and how you're doing it. I don't see how pointing out the underlying ad hominem fallacy and insecurity that drives those groups, and relating it to your argument against art, is unreasonable when you, specifically, say things like this:

B1rd wrote:

your beloved plebs aren't always the most enlightened and discerning in whatever behaviour they choose to partake in

B1rd wrote:

a lot of pop music is indisputably trash, and the people who listen to it are most likely trash as well

B1rd wrote:

people who listen to superficial and shameless music are likely to exhibit the same traits in their own personality

Yes, if I like things you don't like, I am literally trash. Basically, you might say, sub-human? Definitely not Nazi-style thinking in any way.

It's worth noting I made my assertion before you even posted, so it's a little amusing to me that you essentially pwalked right into my assertion.

Second, you did not actually address my argument in any way. You see this? You're at the third rung at best. My argument is an address of how you are approaching the issue and why it's wrong on a fundamental level, even if you are being too superficial (intentionally or not) to understand it. Where is that on the chart again?

Third, if you knew me, you would know that the idea of me, personally, being an SJW is ridiculous. This is me making fun of a radical feminist yesterday. I've been a 4chan user for ten years, I couldn't give less of a shit about social justice specifically when there are people from all walks of life that need taking down a notch.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now, let's get to breaking down the meat of your argument, which is one of the most absolutely cringe worthy things I have ever read on this forum.

B1rd wrote:

Now, what are these evil ideas that I have that are so problematic? Well, that's the idea that good is intrinsically good and bad is intrinsically bad. Good could roughly be defined as pleasure - not necessarily pleasure of the hedonistic kind but the kind that is more wholesome - and bad could be defined as pain. Of course you could do a lot more to elaborate on those definitions but simplified terms will do for the sake of the argument. Once you have accepted that simple premise you can use those values to make value judgements of deeds and entities and infer morality. And you really can't dispute that premise, it doesn't matter what your beliefs or values are, no one likes pain and being the recipient of unnecessary suffering. Thus, we can make the conclusion that some emotions and values are superior to others. Those values which are beneficial to yourself and society are good, and vice versa.

Nobody likes pain, therefore pain is objectively bad, and so is anything that causes it.

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/42

B1rd wrote:

Now you might say that "interpretation of music is subjective", and it is to a certain degree, but not infinitely so like you seem to imply. There is only a finite amount of plausible interpretations of a given piece of art, and in the case of music, those variables are things like the harmony and melody, speed and intensity, complexity, the effort and skill required to produce, the historical and cultural context, et cetera. Classical music is more complex, it has more variation in the melodies that compliment each other in an overarching structure. It takes great talent, skill, discipline and sacrifice to create; composers and musicians often dedicate their whole lives to creating music that others will love.

Absolutely none of the traits you have just listed have anything to do with the value of a piece of music. According to you, this is pretty much the best piece of music ever made. Pack it up and go home Beethoven, some random guy on YouTube has solved music.

B1rd wrote:

And due to the aforementioned traits, it inspires different emotions than that of Justin Bieber's music: it inspires admiration of the beauty of the world and the desire to strive to the ideal of human greatness; that is, spending your whole life doing something truly worthwhile to create something of value to your fellow man. Because classical music is an embodiment of that - it's a reveling of beauty and a celebration of humanity. The same cannot be said about Justin Bieber's music, which inspires vapid teenage girls to worship a horrible role model. It doesn't take great skill to create or produce, often songs like this aren't even written by the artists who supposedly wrote it, the music is all electronically generated according to some general algorithms, and the vocalist is assisted with autotune. Then it is mass-marketed to the masses to ensure popularity. I could elaborate a lot more on what values and emotions different kinds of music invoke, but suffice it to say, Vivaldi's Four Seasons inspire more noble, better, and more worthwhile values than Justin Bieber's songs

A complete and total fail. The purpose of music, and art in general, is to communicate emotion. You may feel different emotions from the same piece of art depending on the perspective you see it at.



The creation of good music may be inspired by constructive virtues, but that does not mean that those virtues create good music, or that good music only come from these virtues. The worst kind of art is not the art that makes you feel bad, but the kind of art that is so totally devoid of resonance that it makes you feel nothing. Something can be so bad, it's good!

I have the interesting experience of being good friends with a large group of highly talented musicians, and it is mind blowing some of the music they just shit out as random audio doodles. Some of the best music I have heard in my entire life has been made in the span of a few hours at a whim. With that experience, to me, the assertion that good music only comes from self-sacrifice and hard work is just pure bullshit. Good music comes from the invisible brilliancy of having just the right perspective to communicate a concept.

https://imgur.com/uMjPV5V

B1rd wrote:

Unlike what you say, I don't have an motivations of "elitism" or a desire to elevate myself over other people.

I'm not an elitist, but here I am telling you that everything you think you like is actually shit, and you are shit for liking it. Sure.

B1rd wrote:

My motivation stems from my love of beauty, of which people like you say don't exist, or would say that a turd has more beauty than a rose if enough people thought that. No, I'd definitely say that post-modernists like you have done far more harm to our society than people like me.

How fascinating that you can claim to hate something you have a poor understanding of. Postmodernism is not about the notion that quality is derived from popularity, postmodernism is about the idea that all experiences are fundamentally equal, whether they are good or bad. Postmodernism does not say that nothing is beautiful, postmodernism says beauty is subjective, not objective, and that there is beauty in everything, if you look at it from the right viewpoint. This is pretty much the stance that people take when they say that old maps are not inherently bad maps.

If you want to learn what postmodernism actually is, watch this. Skip to 8:48 if you are boring.

I don't even know how to react to your assertion that "postmodernists have done harm to society" considering what a throwaway comment it is, being incredibly vague and completely unsupported by evidence or example. Who even knows what that was supposed to mean.

B1rd wrote:

It's amazing what intellectual sinkholes one can find themselves in when they let their bigotry and arrogance get in the way of truth and reasoning.

The absolute lack of self awareness is truly ironic, I know.

You know what would be really amazing though, considering what a self-congratulatory slog that was to tear apart?

still posting????

Philosofikal wrote:

At this point Philosofikal's topic is completely irrelevant to the one at hand. If you wanna take it personal, take it somehwere else..

L-a-m-e-y [ B ] wrote:

still posting????

Nice throwaway comment. The plastic Fisher-Price table for little kids is over there, this area is for big boys, OK?

EDIT: lol I looked at your comment history and I really shouldn't have even given you the credibility of a reply. My comment was more on point than I originally thought.

Ongaku wrote:

At this point Philosofikal's topic is completely irrelevant to the one at hand. If you wanna take it personal, take it somehwere else..

Because this was a good thread.

Philosofikal wrote:

L-a-m-e-y [ B ] wrote:

still posting????

Nice throwaway comment. The plastic Fisher-Price table for little kids is over there, this area is for big boys, OK?

holy who fed salt to this guy

Aaaaaaand looks like this thread has devolved into personal attacks. Looks likely that it could get locked soon.

B1rd wrote:

I don't care to PC up my language.

I agree with you on your view on political correctness. In my opinion many people are way too PC.

However when you are trying to convince someone else with a different opinion that doesn't know you, you have to use language that will provoke less of an emotional response.

Save your non PC opinions for people you know (or tone it down) because in this environment you will just start arguments that focus more on trying to win, rather than trying to work together to find the truth.

Ongaku wrote:

I think you missed the point. You're right that it's not about "maps giving pp," its that maps gives too much pp.

I mean, there are going to be those maps no matter what you do (if player rankings exist) and that follows simply from the well ordering principle. There were maps that gave "too much" pp even back in like 2013 and 2014, the years people tend to look back upon with fond memories.

Welp, this thread was an interesting read. Almost forgot I was in class!
I don't really have much to add to the topic at hand, as everything has basically been said AND dissected within this thread.
But hey, gotta love how intelligent discussion can just fall into mindless rabble in the space of a few hours, right?

Ongaku wrote:

At this point Philosofikal's topic is completely irrelevant to the one at hand. If you wanna take it personal, take it somehwere else..

It's not irrelevant. He is essentially saying that everything is subjective. How can you argue that PP maps are good or bad if nothing is objectively good or bad?

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

I agree with you on your view on political correctness. In my opinion many people are way too PC.

However when you are trying to convince someone else with a different opinion that doesn't know you, you have to use language that will provoke less of an emotional response.

Save your non PC opinions for people you know (or tone it down) because in this environment you will just start arguments that focus more on trying to win, rather than trying to work together to find the truth.

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Railey2 wrote:

What do all these players have in common? They enjoy the simple stuff.
Any thoughts about how to serve all these people, whose existence you just overlooked?

by helping them not encounter disproportionately hard maps when their 5.17 star map has a 13 note 270bpm stream and the highest acc on it is 98.72%

181.13pp good job Random 2 Digit Player Who I Don't Know

B1rd wrote:

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Why are you not a sophist? I assume its not because you want to be morally right since you enjoy triggering people who you think deserve it.

B1rd wrote:

It's not irrelevant. He is essentially saying that everything is subjective. How can you argue that PP maps are good or bad if nothing is objectively good or bad?

In theory nothing is objectively good or bad, by defining something as bad or good it already falls in the category of subjectivty. That's why it's better to focus on the real life implications of said subjectivity instead of circle jerking on the idea "hurr durr your opinion is invalid cause it's subjective"

Come on you're the guy who clearly thinks about thinking stop miss using words like objectivity and axiom lol

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit. If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism. Rather, it's self-evident to anyone but over-educated idiots that good and bad exist and aren't just subject to individual whim.

B1rd wrote:

If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism.

You're finally completely on point about something.

Arguing is completely pointless if you're seeking to change someone's mind. In fact, an argument, due to the way that human minds and emotional systems are constructed, is pretty much the exact opposite of the correct environment for fostering authenitc changes in belief. Changing your mind in an argument is seen as revealing a weakness in oneself. The only useful point of arguing with anyone is to test your own beliefs, which is why I wrote my post to you. There wasn't one second where I thought that anything I said, or anything I coupld possibly conceive of to say, could change your mind. I don't even care if you understood it or even read it. I wrote all that crap entirely to prove myself to myself, and I did, and I continue to argue with you not to change your mind, but only to sharpen my own as an exercise.

See: https://youtu.be/Tp1eZdtkdQM?t=35s, until 1:12.

B1rd wrote:

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

What if I told you that there are indigenous human societies where what we see as child rape is actually an integral part of their belief systems, and that they more or less function just fine? Pretty much all ethics can be relative if you put them into the correct context. I don't believe in moral truths, just universally held beliefs. Even science only hopes to approach the smallest probability of error, instead of certainty. There is such a thing as the problem of inductive reasoning.

Be sure to mention in your response that what I said clearly means I support child rape, even though it doesn't. Even I buy into some of the values pressed upon me by the sociey I'm a part of.

B1rd wrote:

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit.

Actually, it's the complete opposite. It gives you the intellectual freedom to analyze your own personal values and construct a belief system that fits them from the ground up to become your own person. You wouldn't understand that as you place your emotional security in intellectual objectivity. If nothing has inherent meaning, then you have to find meaning on your own, and I think that is scary to you.

B1rd wrote:

and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

I'm not as cynical and misanthropist as you. I believe you're seeking the truth, but you're misguided.

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

B1rd wrote:

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Why are you not a sophist? I assume its not because you want to be morally right since you enjoy triggering people who you think deserve it.

It's because they want to be intellectually superior without any of the hard work. Being a sophist would require arguing with people who can actually carry their own mental weight around.

B1rd wrote:

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit. If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism. Rather, it's self-evident to anyone but over-educated idiots that good and bad exist and aren't just subject to individual whim.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

That's why it's better to focus on the real life implications of said subjectivity

It's like you didn't bother to read, trying to box something into objectivity is even more closed minded and death to thinking from multiple perspectives, boxing everything to subjectivity is death to thinking at all tbh cause at that point nothing has any meaning, hence you look at the implications of thinking with both subjectivity and objectivity in mind. Man I thought I was the arrogant pseudo intellectual here B1rd you manage impress me

N0thingSpecial wrote:

Man I thought I was the arrogant pseudo intellectual here

Well, you were certainly wrong about that, because that's definitely me

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LETS COMPARE E PENIS

You're a fool and a hypocrite. Here you are grandstanding on a platform and in a society that necessitates that millions of assumptions about the nature of the reality were correct. Yes I'm sure there were or are countries that think or though that child rape is perfectly fine. And you know why we don't hear about those countries? Because they failed. The fundamental assumptions that they rested their society on didn't work, and so they were overtaken by societies and cultures that got those fundamental assumptions right.

Provide you want to live, and not die, and live a good and meaningful life, rather than suffer in torment, there are rules that you must follow and it doesn't matter if you acknowledged them or not because they still exist regardless. You can't build a rocket and fly in to space without using the scientific method. You can't live happily and peaceful in a culture that condones wanton murder. The culture of the West is built upon thousands of years of trial and error to become the thriving and most dominant culture in the world, and that's not only due to our knowledge about that nature of physical reality, but the intricacies of our culture, our societal norms, our religion - all these things have been built up because they help us function as a society. This is where morality comes from: it is not something you "make up" by choosing your own arbitrary set of values, it's essentially a system of beliefs that relies on the idea that good exists, and helps you seek it out. Is the system and culture we have now perfect? No, but it's the best we have. The function of philosophy to examine our systems and improve them. It's not to tear down all of the progress we have achieved so far like idiots like so you seem intent on doing.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

I would be more than happy to continue this over PM, but at this point I smell a thread lock incoming because we've essentially hijacked the whole thread with the argument.

B1rd wrote:

You're a fool and a hypocrite. and stuff

Never denied I wasn't one.

And congratulations you just further proved my point on the implication part of my argument, and you're the perfect example of the implication of a relatively healthy upbringing society.
So now can we lock thread cause we basically almost discussed every single point every time a thread like this appear and we're not really looking for a solution also this is kinda pointless

Philosofikal wrote:

I would be more than happy to continue this over PM, but at this point I smell a thread lock incoming because we've essentially hijacked the whole thread with the argument.

Locking only happens when you resort to ad hominem and personal attacks; otherwise, you're good to go.

The post wasn't directed at you, and I'm not sure what you're on about regardless. I don't see why this thread needs to be locked, even if we have pretty much come to a conclusion (or as much as we can anyway in a place like this) over the main topic, there are still plenty of tangentially related points to talk about, even if I probably won't be bothered. Regardless, any sort of semi-intelligent discussion to be had hardly take less precedence over the inane questions that make up the majority of activity in the Godforsaken subforum.

The past two or three dozen posts is kind of allegorical for mapping criticism as a whole, actually. Start at the topic of "x is bad and I don't like it" and it gradually devolves into massively conflated exposition about tangential topics with only vague association to the actual issue being covered.

I've been of the opinion for years that beatmaps are essentially what you choose to make of them - for better, or worse. Some mappers will cater their style towards increasing whatever progression metric of the time is popular, others will spend their efforts on artistic direction or creative design, others still will do a bit of both and end up somewhere in the middle.

The only thing concerning about this is when the systemic pressure bears down too heavily on anything considered "non-standard", which from what I've seen in the past month or so of reacquainting with the BN/QAT scene, isn't that big of a deal. A variety of maps get qualified, and while the mapping scene is certainly slightly homogenised towards these pp-favorable, progression-centered maps, it isn't skewed to the point of alternative styles being excessively threatened, I think.

We can still probably do better, though. The move to promote "better" maps via Spotlights is a good step forward as I honestly believe that curated content and ranking 'seasons' are the way forward as far as osu! progression is concerned, and if we begin showing precedence to maps that are just simply well made instead of adhering to a particular style or meta, we're bound to see a revival in the interest for these alternative styles.

Or maybe we won't, and perhaps "pp mapping" is just the natural terminus at which the stylistic development of "common" mapping ends. Either way, I'm not hugely concerned.

Ephemeral wrote:

I've been of the opinion for years that beatmaps are essentially what you choose to make of them - for better, or worse. Some mappers will cater their style towards increasing whatever progression metric of the time is popular, others will spend their efforts on artistic direction or creative design, others still will do a bit of both and end up somewhere in the middle.

The only thing concerning about this is when the systemic pressure bears down too heavily on anything considered "non-standard", which from what I've seen in the past month or so of reacquainting with the BN/QAT scene, isn't that big of a deal. A variety of maps get qualified, and while the mapping scene is certainly slightly homogenised towards these pp-favorable, progression-centered maps, it isn't skewed to the point of alternative styles being excessively threatened, I think.

We can still probably do better, though. The move to promote "better" maps via Spotlights is a good step forward as I honestly believe that curated content and ranking 'seasons' are the way forward as far as osu! progression is concerned, and if we begin showing precedence to maps that are just simply well made instead of adhering to a particular style or meta, we're bound to see a revival in the interest for these alternative styles.

Or maybe we won't, and perhaps "pp mapping" is just the natural terminus at which the stylistic development of "common" mapping ends. Either way, I'm not hugely concerned.

People make maps for more or less the same reason play games. Some people make maps to have a social experience. Some people make maps to express something about themselves. Some people make maps to game the system. None of these motivations are wrong as long as there is room for everyone.

People who get their knickers in a bunch about pp mapping are people basically saying that it's wrong to play games to win.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2006-03-20

And as far as unjustified personal attacks/namecalling goes... there's only really one person here whose arguments are mainly based on that.

Ekam says hi.

B1rd wrote:

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

I agree with you on your view on political correctness. In my opinion many people are way too PC.

However when you are trying to convince someone else with a different opinion that doesn't know you, you have to use language that will provoke less of an emotional response.

Save your non PC opinions for people you know (or tone it down) because in this environment you will just start arguments that focus more on trying to win, rather than trying to work together to find the truth.

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Also I would like to add that toning down what you say doesn't make you a sophist. For example:

B1rd wrote:

a lot of pop music is indisputably trash, and the people who listen to it are most likely trash as well.

This could of been edited to only say "a lot of pop music is trash"

This still gets your point across without being unnecessarily condescending. Saying that its indisputable is not accurate since music taste is subjective and calling a group of people trash based on something subjective is also unnecessary.

Pop music is trash for the same reason PP maps are trash. Lack of creativity and lack of values. Say what you want but I'm not going back on my point.

Good post!

Actually, PP ruined my enjoyment of simple jumpy maps. I don't play maps like Remote Control and others (except when they're unranked) because I'd rather gain PP through maps that are hard to get PP from (not that I'm succeeding). It means I care enough about getting pretty PP scores that I actively avoid some maps I find fun to play. That's kinda weird.

Railey2 wrote:

Reflecting a song isn't the purpose of a map, the purpose follows its function, and its function is that it serves the player as a means to enjoy the game. It's simple really. Song-reflection is merely a byproduct of the main-function: The providing of fun, enjoyment.
The fact that he got this wrong really is concerning.

I reacted when Phisi said that the mappers perspective is "the best way to judge a map". And I react when you say that enjoyment is the best way to judge a map (if I understand you correctly).

"best" is way to score something on a scale. It means it's at the top of that scale. If you don't specify what scale you're talking about, or you're being vague because you don't actually know what scale you're talking about (realist ethics in a nutshell), you're talking nonsense.

You can judge a map based on how well it reflects a song and you can judge a map based on how much enjoyment it produces, and you don't need to specify which perspective is "the best". If you do, at least clarify what the perspective is best at.