Looking for 3 star stream maps? Im new to osu and I need practice with streams!
Thanks
Thanks
forum
Good 3 Star Stream Maps
posted
Total Posts
110
I like these maps (all three star):
(3.97) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/26158
(3.95) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/375036
(3.71) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/87580
(3.76) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/143243
(3.70) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/46842
(3.61) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/315552
(3.65) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/125701 (Hard)
(2.86) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/83712 (2 stars but nice for finger control)
Some general advice would be to focus on your finger control in every map you play. Focus on good accuracy with triples and stacks as well as streams.
(3.97) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/26158
(3.95) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/375036
(3.71) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/87580
(3.76) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/143243
(3.70) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/46842
(3.61) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/315552
(3.65) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/125701 (Hard)
(2.86) https://osu.ppy.sh/b/83712 (2 stars but nice for finger control)
Some general advice would be to focus on your finger control in every map you play. Focus on good accuracy with triples and stacks as well as streams.
Minecraft wow
Mnecraft World of Warcraft?Kheldragar wrote:
Minecraft wow
i can't tell if this is is serious
I clicked the first 3 maps and they're like .1-.2 away from 4 starsBarusamikosu wrote:
I like these maps (all three star):
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/26158
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/375036
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/87580
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/143243
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/46842
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/315552
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/125701 (Hard)
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/83712 (2 stars but nice for finger control)
Some general advice would be to focus on your finger control in every map you play. Focus on good accuracy with triples and stacks as well as streams.
He said 3 stars; 3.99 is still 3.
I don't think I've seen any stream heavy maps really low in star rating but if you have anything easier please share so I can try it.buny wrote:
I clicked the first 3 maps and they're like .1-.2 away from 4 stars
ZenithPhantasm
I know you're trying to sound like a smartass, but 3.99 =/= 3, and rounded up it's 4Kheldragar wrote:
He said 3 stars; 3.99 is still 3.
I don't play low star maps at all, but I'd assume they'd just be ~130 bpm 5 notes at a time. The OP was pretty vague in specifying exactly what maps he wants, seeing as how nearly every map that has a stream in it is going to get its difficulty boosted a lot higher than 3 starsBarusamikosu wrote:
I don't think I've seen any stream heavy maps really low in star rating but if you have anything easier please share so I can try it.buny wrote:
I clicked the first 3 maps and they're like .1-.2 away from 4 stars
Learning first time know the basis, you've got only about 600 PlayCount. Improve your accuracy first before it starts 3 stars.
buny wrote:
I know you're trying to sound like a smartass, but 3.99 =/= 3, and rounded up it's 4Kheldragar wrote:
He said 3 stars; 3.99 is still 3.
So you saying 3 stars is only 3.0-3.49? Really,
Because last time I checked 3.6 has a 3 in it and only the client does a rounding. Or do you mean to say that there should only be 3.00 maps. 3.99 is still 3 stars whether you like it or not. What world do we live in where a 4 star map has a 3 in it; I guess that's why it's called 4 stars.
numbers don't even matter if op struggles with achieving S ranks on normals
learn the basics first before trying to stream
learn the basics first before trying to stream
I'll probably make a collection of burst maps for newbies at some point. Anyways, I wasn't expecting OP to S the maps the first time, but rather to improve his scores on them as he gets better (I have a lot of slowstream maps I started playing early and went from ~80% acc to S/SS over time).buny wrote:
I don't play low star maps at all, but I'd assume they'd just be ~130 bpm 5 notes at a time. The OP was pretty vague in specifying exactly what maps he wants, seeing as how nearly every map that has a stream in it is going to get its difficulty boosted a lot higher than 3 stars
Last time I checked, as dictated by common sense, when people ask for 3* maps they usually mean: I want stuff AROUND 3*. Note that 3.99 is much closer to 4* than 3*.Kheldragar wrote:
So you saying 3 stars is only 3.0-3.49? Really,
Because last time I checked 3.6 has a 3 in it and only the client does a rounding. Or do you mean to say that there should only be 3.00 maps. 3.99 is still 3 stars whether you like it or not. What world do we live in where a 4 star map has a 3 in it; I guess that's why it's called 4 stars.
So 3* is at the focal point of what they're looking for, and the range of maps they want are centered close to 3*, for example, 2.8-3.2. Unless stated otherwise ofc (I want at least 3* or higher maps, I want maps that aren't higher than 3*, etc.)
I've never interpreted asking for 3 star maps meaning around 3.00; it's always meant 3.00-3.99 because by common sense all of those maps are officially 3 stars.
When I say I play 5 stars NO ONE has interpreted that as also including 4.8+ because those maps are not 5 stars.
When I say I play 5 stars NO ONE has interpreted that as also including 4.8+ because those maps are not 5 stars.
There's a sorting mode (recently played, collections, by artist, etc...) called difficulty I believe and it sorts maps exactly the way I described. as in ~2.5-3.5 go under 3 stars, 3.5-4.5 go under 4, etc. etc. Because again, common sense. Osu agrees as well. So I'm not sure of what your interpretation of "official" is in this case.Kheldragar wrote:
I've never interpreted asking for 3 star maps meaning around 3.00; it's always meant 3.00-3.99 because by common sense all of those maps are officially 3 stars.
When I say I play 5 stars NO ONE has interpreted that as also including 4.8+ because those maps are not 5 stars.
When people say 3* they're referring to the maps that are similar in difficulty. Noone really uses this to mean "has 3 in the first digit" Because with this kind of criteria it's just not very useful when it comes to trying to communicate things about similar difficulties since you've essentially arbitrarily created a silly grouping range where the beatmaps that fall in that range that you've created are not sorted in much of a meaningful way.
My logic when picking maps was similar to the kind you see in multiplayer lobbies.
For example: In a "4☆ Host Rotation" lobby, I've never really seen anybody complain if somebody picks a 4.8-4.9 star map.
Well, sorry for starting a shitstorm.
For example: In a "4☆ Host Rotation" lobby, I've never really seen anybody complain if somebody picks a 4.8-4.9 star map.
Well, sorry for starting a shitstorm.
Official as in the DEFINITION of 3 stars being a map whose difficulty begins with 3.xx
There's no reason for your "common sense" to mean 3 stars means around 3 as opposed to every diff including 3. NO ONE I have ever met refers to 5.5 as 6 star instead of 5.
There's no reason for your "common sense" to mean 3 stars means around 3 as opposed to every diff including 3. NO ONE I have ever met refers to 5.5 as 6 star instead of 5.
And 2.5-3.5 isn't just another arbitrary grouping range around entry 3 star songs as opposed to all 3 star songs? How do we know no one does this or that WHEN WE ARE NOT EVERYONE.pandaBee wrote:
There's a sorting mode (recently played, collections, by artist, etc...) called difficulty I believe and it sorts maps exactly the way I described. as in ~2.5-3.5 go under 3 stars, 3.5-4.5 go under 4, etc. etc. Because again, common sense. Osu agrees as well. So I'm not sure of what your interpretation of "official" is in this case.Kheldragar wrote:
I've never interpreted asking for 3 star maps meaning around 3.00; it's always meant 3.00-3.99 because by common sense all of those maps are officially 3 stars.
When I say I play 5 stars NO ONE has interpreted that as also including 4.8+ because those maps are not 5 stars.
When people say 3* they're referring to the maps that are similar in difficulty. Noone really uses this to mean "has 3 in the first digit" Because with this kind of criteria it's just not very useful when it comes to trying to communicate things about similar difficulties since you've essentially arbitrarily created a silly grouping range where the beatmaps that fall in that range that you've created are not sorted in much of a meaningful way.
Again, it's an appeal to common sense. If you go into the library asking for a book around 300 pages the librarian is more likely to show you books that are close to 300 than something that's practically 400 (399)Kheldragar wrote:
And 2.5-3.5 isn't just another arbitrary grouping range around entry 3 star songs as opposed to all 3 star songs? How do we know no one does this or that WHEN WE ARE NOT EVERYONE.
If someone says my budget for my computer is 700$ then none is going to expect them to spend, 800, 850, or 900 on a rig.
etc. etc. etc.
This is even more apparent in the sciences when everyone adheres to this kind of grouping, for example: statistics. Confidence intervals for population parameter estimates are constructed with a sample estimate as it's center, with a range spreading out from that sample estimate.
Those examples don't apply here because having a budget of around $700 isn't as ridigdly defined by the term 3 stars which I would suggest many people would assume as having a 3 in its star rating. Ask the OP what he meant; Baru clearly thought 3 stars was up to 3.99; I did too. We're not going to be the only ones who do this.
Can I start talking to you about all my sweet 6 star nomod fcs now? Fuck no, I'm still a 5 star player.
Can I start talking to you about all my sweet 6 star nomod fcs now? Fuck no, I'm still a 5 star player.
You're not listening. I'm implying that when people ask for 3, or 4, or 5, they're generally asking for stuff AROUND that value, not just the maps in front of it unless specifically stated.Kheldragar wrote:
So you saying 3 stars is only 3.0-3.49? Really,
Because last time I checked 3.6 has a 3 in it and only the client does a rounding. Or do you mean to say that there should only be 3.00 maps. 3.99 is still 3 stars whether you like it or not. What world do we live in where a 4 star map has a 3 in it; I guess that's why it's called 4 stars.
For example:
'I want maps around 3*' = ~2.5 -3.5 , approximately, depending on how much variation in difficulty they want.
'I want maps that are a little harder than 3*' = ~3.0-3.5ish, again, depending on their tolerance towards variability in difficulty
'i want maps that are no harder than 3*' = ~anything less than 3.
They do apply, it also brings up the fact that these defined numeric ranges are defined by humans and that to be relevant they need to be applied to a person's accepted tolerance in variability.Kheldragar wrote:
Those examples don't apply here because having a budget of around $700 isn't as ridigdly defined by the term 3 stars which I would suggest many people would assume as having a 3 in its star rating. Ask the OP what he meant; Baru clearly thought 3 stars was up to 3.99; I did too. We're not going to be the only ones who do this.
Can I start talking to you about all my sweet 6 star nomod fcs now? Fuck no, I'm still a 5 star player.
For example, 'I'm looking to spend around 700$ on a gaming rig, give or take 100$' - the 100$ in this example is their variability and the accepted range i around 600-800 - notice that it is centered around 700.
So generally when we're talking about ranges we use the number as our center, unless specifically stated otherwise; keywords for such applications being: GREATER THAN, LESS THAN, AT LEAST, NO MORE THAN, etc.
There is a reason why a distinction needs to be made, it's logical and adheres to common sense.
In our osu example, if someone wants a 3* map, a 2.9 and 3.1* map would both be much closer to their request, then a 3.99 aka 4 * map would for all the reasons I just brought up.
Does "I want 3 star maps" imply exactly 3.00 stars, then? 
Then the argument is that the OP's question is dilberately vague because the thread title says 3* and not AROUND 3*
Yes, with ranges you would start at the centre, BUT THAT CANNOT APPLY WHEN THE TERM 3* IS USED BECAUSE ITS RANGE IS IN ITS NAME.
Yes, with ranges you would start at the centre, BUT THAT CANNOT APPLY WHEN THE TERM 3* IS USED BECAUSE ITS RANGE IS IN ITS NAME.
Read my previous post again carefully.Kheldragar wrote:
Then the argument is that the OP's question is dilberately vague because the thread title says 3* and not AROUND 3*
Yes, with ranges you would start at the centre, BUT THAT CANNOT APPLY WHEN THE TERM 3* IS USED BECAUSE ITS RANGE IS IN ITS NAME.
Also, the OP's question isn't vague because people generally think of the center application unless stated otherwise in this kind of situation.
The reason why, for instance, baru is suggesting stuff higher than 3* is a consequence of the fact that OP wants streaming maps, none of which are really found in 3* maps, in fact they usually start popping up in ~3.6 and higher.
That's also common sense though. If someone came up to me asking me where they could buy a gaming computer for 50$, I would tell them that there generally is no such thing, and instead show them builds they can buy and construct for the closest increment, probably around 400-600 in that range depending on what they want the pc for.
I'm going to disagree with this when it comes to star classification.pandaBee wrote:
Also, the OP's question isn't vague because people automatically think of the center application unless stated otherwise in this kind of situation.
It's not really up for debate, unless it's officially stated and understood by the osu population to be as such. In which case i'd be the outlier.Kheldragar wrote:
I'm going to disagree with this when it comes to star classification.pandaBee wrote:
Also, the OP's question isn't vague because people automatically think of the center application unless stated otherwise in this kind of situation.
Note that stars by themselves mean nothing, it's really an allusion to the perceived difficulty of a beatmap. So when people are asking for 3* maps they're essentially asking for things close to 3* in difficulty. I would argue that, 4* is a lot harder than 3* for most people.
Here, I'll mimic you. Read my other posts carefully.pandaBee wrote:
That's also common sense though. If someone came up to me asking me where they could buy a gaming computer for 50$, I would tell them that there generally is no such thing, and instead show them builds they can buy and construct for the closest increment, probably around 400-600 in that range depending on what they want the pc for.
You cannot compare spending "around X" dollars to star rating because the range in a star rating is directly in its name.
Here's the only osu player I have availible to poll. His answer is more reasonable, he considers the hardest 2 star maps up until the extreme end of 3 stars to be 3 and doesn't consider 3.99 to be 3*. That's fair enough. I'll find more people to question later.pandaBee wrote:
It's not really up for debate, unless it's officially stated and understood by the osu population to be as such. In which case i'd be the outlier.
e: When you say people are asking, I'm not entirely sure that's correct for everyone. If I ask you to give me 5 star maps, I'm going to say "haha, funny" if you try to give me a 4.9 star map.
In that case you should be more specific. as in I want stuff greater than 5*Kheldragar wrote:
Here's the only osu player I have availible to poll. His answer is more reasonable, he considers the hardest 2 star maps up until the extreme end of 3 stars to be 3 and doesn't consider 3.99 to be 3*. That's fair enough. I'll find more people to question later.pandaBee wrote:
It's not really up for debate, unless it's officially stated and understood by the osu population to be as such. In which case i'd be the outlier.
e: When you say people are asking, I'm not entirely sure that's correct for everyone. If I ask you to give me 5 star maps, I'm going to say "haha, funny" if you try to give me a 4.9 star map.
Your main argument is that 3* is inherently defined by the community to be 3-3.99 but I don't think that's true, and even if it was then it would be a pretty dumb system since a lot of precision and nuance is lost.
I don't think it should be more specific because 5* means the entirety of the range that inclues 5.xx.
Around 5.00*; greater than 5.2*, middling 5*, easy 5* are much better.
My argument is that 3 star being 3.xx* is inherently defined by its name
Around 5.00*; greater than 5.2*, middling 5*, easy 5* are much better.
My argument is that 3 star being 3.xx* is inherently defined by its name
'My argument is that 3 star being 3.xx* is inherently defined by its name'Kheldragar wrote:
:| I don't think it should be more specific because 5* means the entirety of the range that inclues 5.xx.
Around 5.00*; greater than 5.2*, middling 5*, easy 5* are much better.
My argument is that 3 star being 3.xx* is inherently defined by its name
What evidence do you have for this? None that I can see. Just by saying something is true doesn't make it inherently true.
All of your statements are arguments are done on personal bias, and don't appeal to common sense or rationale. You're essentially arguing semantics.
I asked a friend too:
Please tell me how 3 stars not being 3.xx* isn't based on common sense. I can say the exact same thing about your case and it has equal weight because all you've said is "common sense" because common sense.pandaBee wrote:
All of your statements are arguments are done on personal bias, and don't appeal to common sense or rationale. You're essentially arguing semantics.
The evidence is in its name. I'm guessing then your version of asking for x star being based around x star as opposed to the range its name implies doesn't make itself inherently true either? Let's then ask every random osu player we can find what they think. I wouldn't be suprised if it was half and half.pandaBee wrote:
What evidence do you have for this? None that I can see. Just by saying something is true doesn't make it inherently true.
Show it. Prove it. What indication is there that this measurement is carried out in this way separate from how measurements are usually perceived?Kheldragar wrote:
The evidence is in its name.
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
I wrote extensively on the subject for like 5 posts. Point out something that I said specifically and tell me why you have a problem with it and I'll address it for you.Kheldragar wrote:
Please tell me how 3 stars not being 3.xx* isn't based on common sense. I can say the exact same thing about your case and it has equal weight because all you've said is "common sense" because common sense.
We can say this for everything you've said too, mate. I seriously don't see how you can't see that the way to define this measurement is in its name; it's right there. 3. Star. Map. Not a map that's around 3.00 stars. Not a map that's near 3.00 stars. A map that has 3 stars in its name. We're not talking about buying something for $700 being around $700 because "$700" doesn't have an actual category assigned to it by name.pandaBee wrote:
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
I guess you can call me a 6 star player now if you want.
Explain to me how 3 star doesn't categorise itself in its name and is the same as "$700" which doesn't.pandaBee wrote:
I wrote extensively on the subject for like 5 posts. Point out something that I said specifically and tell me why you have a problem with it and I'll address it for you.
I asked another friend:
Maybe my previous logic was bad. Oh well.
Maybe my previous logic was bad. Oh well.
I did too.
What's with this category you keep bringing up? Where is this defined and by whom? Certainly not the general populace and certainly not even by osu itself, like i pointed out, when you sort maps by stars it will center the maps around the star rating, just as I had stated for my examples, this isn't a coincidence this is just common sense.Kheldragar wrote:
We can say this for everything you've said too, mate. I seriously don't see how you can't see that the way to define this measurement is in its name; it's right there. 3. Star. Map. Not a map that's around 3.00 stars. Not a map that's near 3.00 stars. A map that has 3 stars in its name. We're not talking about buying something for $700 being around $700 because "$700" doesn't have an actual category assigned to it by name.pandaBee wrote:
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
I guess you can call me a 6 star player now if you want.
Star ratings are not a category, they're a measure of difficulty. I.e. they're a variable.
star ranges can be categories, but they must be specified. You can even specify it to be a point if that's what you so desire, but a variable is not intrinsically a range
Again, they're both measurements of something. 700$ is a measurement of monetary, economic goods whereas 3 star is a difficulty measurement.Kheldragar wrote:
Explain to me how 3 star doesn't categorise itself in its name and is the same as "$700" which doesn't.pandaBee wrote:
I wrote extensively on the subject for like 5 posts. Point out something that I said specifically and tell me why you have a problem with it and I'll address it for you.
They don't necessarily categorize anything unless you define one.
For example, categorizing different ethnicities by income is a categorization that uses money $$$ as one if it's main variables,
There is no official or general consensus that x star where x is some number, implies a categorization of maps with a range of [x, x+.99]
When people ask for or talk about x, where x is some kind of unit of measure, they generally mean x+/- some measure of variance unless stated otherwise
examples:
'I want you to write a 5 page essay'
'I want to spend around 700$ on gaming rig'
'How many 6ft guys are there in this group'
'could you recommend me things of difficulty level x?'
'give me 5 feet of cloth.'
The name 3 star is as much a category from 2.5 to 3.5 as you would want as I would call it 3.00 to 3.99. Oh look, I have one person saying 5 star is basically anything with 5 in it and another person agreeing with you in this poorly made image.pandaBee wrote:
What's with this category you keep bringing up? Where is this defined and by whom? Certainly not the general populace and certainly not even by osu itself, like i pointed out, when you sort maps by stars it will center the maps around the star rating, just as I had stated for my examples, this isn't a coincidence this is just common sense.
Star ratings are not a category, they're a measure of difficulty. I.e. they're a variable.
star ranges can be categories, but they must be specified. You can even specify it to be a point if that's what you so desire, but a variable is not intrinsically a range
- 5 page essay to me would include 4 pages full and one word on the 5th to 5 pages full. Having almost 4 full pages but not quite does not qualify for a 5 page essay, but your teacher probably wouldn't be so cruel like that. For any other value that goes above 5 pages or below 5 pages, it is not a 5 page essay as there are more or less than the requisite 5 pages.
When people ask for or talk about x, where x is some kind of unit of measure, they generally mean x+/- some measure of variance unless stated otherwiseJust because you say something doesn't automatically make it true. - Pandabee
There's no way to know that anything you say "When people talk about" applies in this case to star ratings (And star ratings alone), and I'm getting both answers.
You do realize that most of your people in this biased study actually agree with me more than with you? You're defining stars in a weird way whereas mine is based on what most people would do via common sense - which is what just about all of your interviewees have done, bar that 'duh there's a 5 in it' guy.
When asked 'give me ~x' They will generally either give you a little less than x, or a little more than x, how much those increments will be varies on their perception and on the necessity of the situation. This is all consistent with everything that I've been saying.
When asked 'give me ~x' They will generally either give you a little less than x, or a little more than x, how much those increments will be varies on their perception and on the necessity of the situation. This is all consistent with everything that I've been saying.
Asking for 3 star maps= 3.00-3.99
Asking for around 3 stars maps= 2.50-3.50
Asking for around 3 stars maps= 2.50-3.50
You mean poggle and dankhomie don't count either? Sorry for finding people who agree with you. Here, let's take tooth whom I don't feel the need to screenshot because effort:pandaBee wrote:
You do realize that most of your people in this biased study actually agree with me more than with you? You're defining stars in a weird way whereas mine is based on what most people would do via common sense - which is what just about all of your interviewees have done, bar that 'duh there's a 5 in it' guy.
When asked 'give me ~x' They will generally either give you a little less than x, or a little more than x, more much those increments will be varies on their perception and on the necessity of the situation. This is all consistent with everything that I've been saying.
12:10 - Hata no Kokoro: When I say 4 star map
12:10 - Hata no Kokoro: what star range do you think of
12:18 - HeBr | Mahogany: 4.00-4.99
12:18 - HeBr | Mahogany: when people say "around"
12:18 - HeBr | Mahogany: then I think 3.5-4.5
Give me 5 star maps is a fundamentally different question than give me 5.00 maps; the latter case would be one where you would get around 5.00 whereas the first one is a large fucking area of map diffs.
Go out and ask more people then.
Topic Starter
Thanks for all your replies!
Sorry I came from the Minecraft community but its crap so I quit.
Forgot that my profile picture was still that
Sorry I came from the Minecraft community but its crap so I quit.
Forgot that my profile picture was still that
WHEN YOU ASKED FOR 3 STAR MAPS DID YOU MEAN ANY MAP BETWEEN 3.00 AND 3.99 OR MAPS AROUND 3.00LighterPvP wrote:
Thanks for all your replies!
Sorry I came from the Minecraft community but its crap so I quit.
Forgot that my profile picture was still that
Please answer this question, OP (LighterPvP).Kheldragar wrote:
WHEN YOU ASKED FOR 3 STAR MAPS DID YOU MEAN ANY MAP BETWEEN 3.00 AND 3.99 OR MAPS AROUND 3.00