Wishy wrote:

Still butt-hurt cause you got your team half banned? By the way, maybe my post was not properly explained, if you read it again and try to see what I meant, you'll see I'm talking about people who are serious about the game and try to be good.

Wishy wrote:

Playing with the wrong device should make people think you're wasting your time other than giving you extra credit for being good with a bad play style. Really if you're serious about this game and play mouse-only there is something wrong with you.

Wishy wrote:

If you really want to be good and play mouse only, then you really love wasting your potential

Wishy wrote:

Don't know why I'm answering to this Gladi kid tho, gotta be dumb to get banned several times in this game without cheating, no real possibility to hold any argument with his kind.

GladiOol wrote:

I was serious about this game back in the day and played mouse only. I had fun and was serious about getting good scores/ranks. You're saying that when somebody does this, that there's something wrong with them. Well, if you are truly unable to see how stupid this remark is, then you truly are a stupid person. I am really curious what your IQ would be if you'd take a test.

How do you read your own bullshit without thinking: ''Hmm, maybe I should stop typing with my ass and let bullshit like this flow over the forums.''
Did you know it's possible to have fun in a game and still be serious? Yes, it is possible. Weird right? I had fun back in the day mouse only and still was serious about getting the best possible rank. ''no i am wisy not poissible there jus somthin wrong with head lol XD''

And this again shows your stupidity, really, how do you read your own crap without thinking how stupid you are? It's incredibly sad that you honestly do not understand that what you type is pure crap. I'm not even going to type out why, this is just sad. You are a sad person Wishy. Please take that IQ test, man, please oh fucking please.

Kanye West wrote:

And just because it's harder, you should just give up that playstyle? Sounds like someone's promoting an attitude of being a little bitch and conform to the majority.

silmarilen wrote:

i think the reason why mouse only players arent so high up is because very few people keep playing it long enough to be considered a pro
it is possible to play insane maps with it, look at shizuru on rainbow dash

Wishy wrote:

You can play mouse only for fun and then switch to a better playstyle for serious playing.

There are people whose fun means getting insane top scores.

silmarilen wrote:

i think the reason why mouse only players arent so high up is because very few people keep playing it long enough to be considered a pro
it is possible to play insane maps with it, look at shizuru on rainbow dash

Tanzklaue wrote:

Wishy wrote:

You can play mouse only for fun and then switch to a better playstyle for serious playing.

There are people whose fun means getting insane top scores.

look at players like shizuru and gladi, or doomsday before he switched back. you can be extremely crazy good with mouse only. people do not only play it for fun, it is also a serious playstyle that can compete on the very top level, if practiced enough.

Oinari-sama wrote:

Long Version, aka Story Telling Mode

This is more of a story telling than a serious argument/debate. Please feel free to read on with the aim of amusing yourself. I was writing this quite late at night so the points/ideas may not be conveyed properly and the story may lack consistency, my apologies in advance.

To excel in osu, one would require a serious amount of time and dedication. What better relation to make than combat martial arts.

Humans have been fighting and killing each others since ancient times. In order to perform this task more efficiently, there has always been people who wreck their brains to come up with new weapon and combat styles in order to gain an edge over their enemies. Starting with stones and sticks, new weapons were born and tested on the battle field. Weapons held by those who survived becomes the "standard" weapon of choice for that period of human history, until another weapon wins people victory in battle.

Weapon designs in the old days can be funky. Next time you visit historical museum go take a look at historical weapons. Some of the weapons serve a very specific purpose and can leave you scratching your head for hours, trying to figure out how to weld it, let alone killing someone with it. Some weapons are easily recognisable and doesn't take much guessing work to figure out how to use it. Well, guess what, human nature didn't change all that much in the last 100k years. Most people prefer something that achieves more efficient result while spending minimum effort in learning/training. More people train themselves to fight with swords, bow&arrows while you don't see many soldiers go to battle with sickles.

In the old days, news spread by word of mouth and often travels with merchants. Merchants have a lot of business to attend to and they will not remember someone's name unless they've truly (or rumoured to have) excel in something. Obviously weapon users distinguish themselves in battle or duels. Bearing in mind that if a weapon is easy to use, it will attract more users ie a larger user base, while the opposite can be said for weapons that are hard to use, it is clear that you'll hear more story about sword masters than "sickle masters." This drives more people to learn swords, while the sickle master is left to hang dry in his lone doujou. Students who initially tried learning sickle may "convert" to sword if they progress too slowly, since in the old days incompetence in combat skills usually means death. People did not train for fun, they were training seriously so they can raise the chance for survival.

Now what about the poor sickle master? He's losing students over time, competing with the more popular sword schools everywhere. He survived many duels and battles against top swordsman and combat artists, with all seriousness, so he could live to tell the story to his students, but that doesn't bring in more students because the sword school is more popular. People can name more famous swordsman than sickle masters. The doujou slowly dies out overtime, barely kept running by a very small group of dedicated elites. These elite students strive to become top combat artists in the world, they prefer sickle more than swords because they have an affinity with sickles (or they just wanted to honour the tradition). But their names may never be heard despite having skills that rival many top swordsman, simply because they're small in number and the swordsman have more chance to distinguish themselves in battle.

"Okay..." you said, "that story is all fine and well, but how did I compare mouse/tablet to sickle/sword? Most osu players start with mouse then move to tablet if they are serious about playing at top levels, but people in the old days don't necessarily start with sickles?" Well let's not forget that in the old days the majority of the populations (asians at least) are farmers who grow their own food (provided that they don't get robbed by bandits and authorities). Those people are no stranger to sickles at all, in fact they should all have certain level of competencies in it.

Wow...kudos to you if you've read all that.

yoyomster wrote:

Oinari-sama wrote:

Long Version, aka Story Telling Mode

This is more of a story telling than a serious argument/debate. Please feel free to read on with the aim of amusing yourself. I was writing this quite late at night so the points/ideas may not be conveyed properly and the story may lack consistency, my apologies in advance.

To excel in osu, one would require a serious amount of time and dedication. What better relation to make than combat martial arts.

Humans have been fighting and killing each others since ancient times. In order to perform this task more efficiently, there has always been people who wreck their brains to come up with new weapon and combat styles in order to gain an edge over their enemies. Starting with stones and sticks, new weapons were born and tested on the battle field. Weapons held by those who survived becomes the "standard" weapon of choice for that period of human history, until another weapon wins people victory in battle.

Weapon designs in the old days can be funky. Next time you visit historical museum go take a look at historical weapons. Some of the weapons serve a very specific purpose and can leave you scratching your head for hours, trying to figure out how to weld it, let alone killing someone with it. Some weapons are easily recognisable and doesn't take much guessing work to figure out how to use it. Well, guess what, human nature didn't change all that much in the last 100k years. Most people prefer something that achieves more efficient result while spending minimum effort in learning/training. More people train themselves to fight with swords, bow&arrows while you don't see many soldiers go to battle with sickles.

In the old days, news spread by word of mouth and often travels with merchants. Merchants have a lot of business to attend to and they will not remember someone's name unless they've truly (or rumoured to have) excel in something. Obviously weapon users distinguish themselves in battle or duels. Bearing in mind that if a weapon is easy to use, it will attract more users ie a larger user base, while the opposite can be said for weapons that are hard to use, it is clear that you'll hear more story about sword masters than "sickle masters." This drives more people to learn swords, while the sickle master is left to hang dry in his lone doujou. Students who initially tried learning sickle may "convert" to sword if they progress too slowly, since in the old days incompetence in combat skills usually means death. People did not train for fun, they were training seriously so they can raise the chance for survival.

Now what about the poor sickle master? He's losing students over time, competing with the more popular sword schools everywhere. He survived many duels and battles against top swordsman and combat artists, with all seriousness, so he could live to tell the story to his students, but that doesn't bring in more students because the sword school is more popular. People can name more famous swordsman than sickle masters. The doujou slowly dies out overtime, barely kept running by a very small group of dedicated elites. These elite students strive to become top combat artists in the world, they prefer sickle more than swords because they have an affinity with sickles (or they just wanted to honour the tradition). But their names may never be heard despite having skills that rival many top swordsman, simply because they're small in number and the swordsman have more chance to distinguish themselves in battle.

"Okay..." you said, "that story is all fine and well, but how did I compare mouse/tablet to sickle/sword? Most osu players start with mouse then move to tablet if they are serious about playing at top levels, but people in the old days don't necessarily start with sickles?" Well let's not forget that in the old days the majority of the populations (asians at least) are farmers who grow their own food (provided that they don't get robbed by bandits and authorities). Those people are no stranger to sickles at all, in fact they should all have certain level of competencies in it.

Wow...kudos to you if you've read all that.

This analogy holds up pretty well, except I don't really get the last two sentences Are you saying there that most people can be good with mouse only, but they won't do it because the majority doesn't and it takes more time than other play styles to reach a certain skill level?

Then a lot of mouse only players who are competitive are going against a the flow. Personally i don't think there's anything wrong with that, but you can't expect recognition from the majority if you're going against the way(s) that majority plays. After all, your way of playing is so strange to them that they don't understand why you would do more to achieve the same.

Wishy wrote:

Imagine I didn't know how to ride a bike, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth learning how to do so since I'll be faster on a bike than on feet.

jesus1412 wrote:

Wishy wrote:

Imagine I didn't know how to ride a bike, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth learning how to do so since I'll be faster on a bike than on feet.

The only difference is you could never compare to a bike if you're on foot which makes this a horrible analogy.

BRBP wrote:

jesus1412 wrote:

The only difference is you could never compare to a bike if you're on foot which makes this a horrible analogy.

What if the distance between start and finish line is 15 feet?

jesus1412 wrote:

Well that's why this is a shit analogy.

Wishy wrote:

Imagine I didn't know how to ride a bike, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth learning how to do so since I'll be faster on a bike than on feet.

TRIYP wrote:

Wishy wrote:

Imagine I didn't know how to ride a bike, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth learning how to do so since I'll be faster on a bike than on feet.

Then why do people still train to compete in track competitions? Why would anyone want to run if you could just ride a bike instead?

jesus1412 wrote:

Wishy wrote:

Imagine I didn't know how to ride a bike, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth learning how to do so since I'll be faster on a bike than on feet.

The only difference is you could never compare to a bike if you're on foot which makes this a horrible analogy.