Saturos shall never be forgotten
forum
what rank is considered 'good'
posted
Total Posts
90
Probably 10k 
Or WWW if I'm remembering correctly.GoldenWolf wrote:
Saturos shall never be forgotten
I think I am good but I need to be"better"Varetyr wrote:
Can't agree more with silm here, you guys either have extremely low self esteem or don't bother watching what's happening around you because if you're ~10k, you're probably far above the REAL "average" players, therefore "good" already.
kevpwns
around ~500 and up
But personally I think anyone above 5kpp deserves to call themselves good too
But personally I think anyone above 5kpp deserves to call themselves good too
ahaha that's a funny jokeRiince wrote:
But personally I think anyone above 5kpp deserves to call themselves good too
can you tell it again
just going off my tons of spectating of hundreds of different people good and badwinber1 wrote:
ahaha that's a funny jokeRiince wrote:
But personally I think anyone above 5kpp deserves to call themselves good too
can you tell it again
Anyone better than me. It's a dynamic skill metric!
This thread taught me that no one wants to admit they are good. "Good" is just above "Average". There are over a million ranked players. Based on that, I'd say the top 10 or even top 5% could easily say they are "Good". That's the top 100k and 50k respectively. "Good" does not mean "Great".
At least 7k pp. 8k is when you're certainly good.
lewa says he's bad, so 8k isnt good enough.
But only like 1/4 actually still play from time and time, and only those above #100k are casual/regular players. It's not a huge player base.Xayne wrote:
There are over a million ranked players.
That's oddly depressing to read.KukiMonster wrote:
But only like 1/4 actually still play from time and time, and only those above #100k are casual/regular players. It's not a huge player base.Xayne wrote:
There are over a million ranked players.
there are about 700-800k people with at least 1pp. this means they have played in the past 3 months. given that a lot of them are just people who tried out the game once and didnt enjoy it, or people who quit. you can safely assume that there are no more than 500k active people, possibly even less.
even then being in the top10k is a massive feat.
especially considering there are people who have been playing for a while (over a year) and still havent managed to get into top10k
even then being in the top10k is a massive feat.
especially considering there are people who have been playing for a while (over a year) and still havent managed to get into top10k
Why do you get to decide the line for who is casual/regularKukiMonster wrote:
But only like 1/4 actually still play from time and time, and only those above #100k are casual/regular players. It's not a huge player base.Xayne wrote:
There are over a million ranked players.
Top 1000 is what I consider good. Because let's be real, if you're average at games and give osu a bit of effort you will easily break 10k.
Then the average players stall between ~2-4k since time invested in the game effectively translates to pp/rank gain until somewhere around this level. Until talent/skill decides who moves on. If good is considered above average, then above average (including players actually trying) should be around sub 1k.
Of course these are just my opinions.
Then the average players stall between ~2-4k since time invested in the game effectively translates to pp/rank gain until somewhere around this level. Until talent/skill decides who moves on. If good is considered above average, then above average (including players actually trying) should be around sub 1k.
Of course these are just my opinions.
I don't think you have a different definition of average than the formal definition. Most players of games are shitty casual players thus the skill level of the average player is that of a shitty casual player. You just don't interact with shitty casuals enough to realize just how many of them there actually are. Osu! is no different in this respect. You will probably never interact with many players below like rank 40k unless you actively seek them out. The equivalent of top 20k (which is probably about top 10%) is the wedge of people you would consider make up all of the players in the games and thus you are finding that the average player in these games is the equivalent of top 10k here. So yes, if you ignore the vast majority of most games' player base this statement is true.Kayneighn wrote:
Top 1000 is what I consider good. Because let's be real, if you're average at games and give osu a bit of effort you will easily break 10k.
Then the average players stall between ~2-4k since time invested in the game effectively translates to pp/rank gain until somewhere around this level. Until talent/skill decides who moves on. If good is considered above average, then above average (including players actually trying) should be around sub 1k.
Of course these are just my opinions.
This is a pretty interesting fact, shows how many people have basically just given up before really even starting to play the game, which seems to be way more than people who actually actively play the game. I started at rank 2.6M 8 months ago with <1 PP (Decimal), so that means there are now probably more than 2M+ people ranked with 0.X PP, and a slightly lesser amount with only 1 PP.silmarilen wrote:
there are about 700-800k people with at least 1pp.
#10 000 and less is good . But that is it though, just "good" .
I think if anyone bothered trying, top 1k is pretty easy as well. You don't even need to have talent.Kayneighn wrote:
Top 1000 is what I consider good. Because let's be real, if you're average at games and give osu a bit of effort you will easily break 10k.
Then the average players stall between ~2-4k since time invested in the game effectively translates to pp/rank gain until somewhere around this level. Until talent/skill decides who moves on. If good is considered above average, then above average (including players actually trying) should be around sub 1k.
Of course these are just my opinions.
if i am basically the only mentally retarded semi-troll on this subforum it means we don't have enough active players
fact
fact
you forgot the part where not playing for 3 months also sets your pp to 0 until you play againcheezstik wrote:
This is a pretty interesting fact, shows how many people have basically just given up before really even starting to play the game, which seems to be way more than people who actually actively play the game. I started at rank 2.6M 8 months ago with <1 PP (Decimal), so that means there are now probably more than 2M+ people ranked with 0.X PP, and a slightly lesser amount with only 1 PP.silmarilen wrote:
there are about 700-800k people with at least 1pp.
relativity isn't a great way to judge 'good'. or you will just be a downer like lewa.
plz enjoy game
Topic Starter
i got that reference ^^.thedamntrain wrote:
plz enjoy game
Keep in mind that 'good' doesn't mean the absolute best. You can't just say that only the athletes who play in the NBA are good at basketball, there are people under the NBA who play very well.
not being bad
so like rank 1
so like rank 1
Dat username doe.....cooksgochu wrote:
Keep in mind that 'good' doesn't mean the absolute best. You can't just say that only the athletes who play in the NBA are good at basketball, there are people under the NBA who play very well.
Of course good is subjective, lets give it a definition. Good can mean various things but lets break it down.
I read that top ~100k of players are the ones that are actually active.
Sum of 1 to N = n(n+1)/2
Sum of 1 to 100000 = 100000(100000+1)/2 = 5000050000
Mean of 1 to N = (1+N)/2 Where N > 1
Mean of 1 to 100000 = 100001/2 = 50000.5
STD of 1 to N = sqrt( (1/N) * Sigma(((1 to N) - Mean)^2) = (too much work going to approximate)
As you add 1 to a sum the standard deviation appears to go up by roughly .3
The STD from 1 to 30 is 8.803 so it is a little less than .3 (lets do .28)
STD of 8.803 and assuming the curve of ranks is normal (it isn't, its not even quantitative)
So extrapolate this trend 8.803 + (.28 * 99970) = ~28k ( o boy is this going to be funny)
So to be in the top 84% of players you have to be rank (Mean - 1 STD) which is = 22,000 or 22k
(Holy shit statistics actually gave us a close answer from by bullshit.)
To be in the top 5% you have to be in the -6k rank which means rrtyui, WWW, Sayonara, and Lewa, yes I said it, lewa are absolute shit.
When players such as WWW and Lewa calls themselves shit it means they have simply done the math and know no matter how hard they try, no matter how they beg the osu gods, -6k rank is not in their league. It is in the 4th dimension. Math does not lie in this case it did
Cookiezi, our lord, is the only one that comes close.
/Thread
I read that top ~100k of players are the ones that are actually active.
Sum of 1 to N = n(n+1)/2
Sum of 1 to 100000 = 100000(100000+1)/2 = 5000050000
Mean of 1 to N = (1+N)/2 Where N > 1
Mean of 1 to 100000 = 100001/2 = 50000.5
STD of 1 to N = sqrt( (1/N) * Sigma(((1 to N) - Mean)^2) = (too much work going to approximate)
As you add 1 to a sum the standard deviation appears to go up by roughly .3
The STD from 1 to 30 is 8.803 so it is a little less than .3 (lets do .28)
STD of 8.803 and assuming the curve of ranks is normal (it isn't, its not even quantitative)
So extrapolate this trend 8.803 + (.28 * 99970) = ~28k ( o boy is this going to be funny)
So to be in the top 84% of players you have to be rank (Mean - 1 STD) which is = 22,000 or 22k
(Holy shit statistics actually gave us a close answer from by bullshit.)
To be in the top 5% you have to be in the -6k rank which means rrtyui, WWW, Sayonara, and Lewa, yes I said it, lewa are absolute shit.
When players such as WWW and Lewa calls themselves shit it means they have simply done the math and know no matter how hard they try, no matter how they beg the osu gods, -6k rank is not in their league. It is in the 4th dimension. Math does not lie in this case it did
Cookiezi, our lord, is the only one that comes close.
/Thread
MATH
Welp, too bad, your calculations don't mean anything. To be in the top 5% of 100k people you have to - waitforit - be 5k or less.Clappy wrote:
STD of 8.803 and assuming the curve of ranks is normal (it isn't, its not even quantitative)
Which is what you know but still.
Narrill wrote:
MATH