you're going to tell me a rank #100k is better than rank #1? lolMahogany wrote:
Better rank =/= better player
forum
Who is the better player?
posted
Total Posts
117
I'm not entirely sure that's correct because you CAN get consistant sub 95% without caring for acc at all - even in all singletaps. Having to time things correctly is still a skill.Mahogany wrote:
But if you consistently get bad accuracy then you probably mash in some way.
Are you going to tell me that a rank #9998 is definitely better than a rank #9999?meteor22 wrote:
you're going to tell me a rank #100k is better than rank #1? lolMahogany wrote:
Better rank =/= better player
Rank is only good as a general guideline to skill, not as an exact statement
I'm an example of a person who cheats the ranking system
I cannot do streams at all
I cannot do anything above 180bpm
I can't read AR10
I don't deserve to be in the top 10k because I lack very many fundamental skills yet I make up for it by playing exclusively to my strengths and gaming the PP system so I can gain as much as possible. Does that mean I'm better than everyone below my rank? Probably not. What about the people who have a wide variety of skills? Someone at my rank with a balanced skillset is definitely far better than someone at my rank with only a few skills, such as me.
I've met people at 13k rank who are very much better than me (5.5k) at the game.
Your argument is idiotic and you intentionally choose only to use extremes of a sample purely to try and make the opposition look like a fool because you haven't thought out a proper response and chose not to. You're trying to discredit people purely for the sake of it. Don't do that, you end up looking dumb and spiteful.
I think you're exactly where you deserve to be because your strength elevates you to that level and you're only lagged behind by your weakness. Saying you don't deserve to be your rank because you lack aim or speed is like I don't deserve mine because I lack acc. If I had better acc, I would be higher! But I don't, so I'm not! If you could read ar10 and go above 180 bpm you'd be higher, but you can't so you don't!
Ideally we would wait for Tom to separate the pp values into aim speed and acc to better see where we stand in those three categories. So what if someone beats you in two out of three but the third is so much higher for you you're ranked higher than them? It's an average. There's no reason why e.g, 50, 70, 60 should be higher than 30, 40, 200 because the second one is better than the first on average
Have you met the people at rank 13k who are better than you in your skillset?
Ideally we would wait for Tom to separate the pp values into aim speed and acc to better see where we stand in those three categories. So what if someone beats you in two out of three but the third is so much higher for you you're ranked higher than them? It's an average. There's no reason why e.g, 50, 70, 60 should be higher than 30, 40, 200 because the second one is better than the first on average
Have you met the people at rank 13k who are better than you in your skillset?
I was using myself as more of an example to demonstrate why rank is not entirely accurate concerning people's actual skill levels,, rather than making an actual complaint. As I said in the above post, someone who managed to get to my rank with an entirely balanced skillset is far, far more skilled than someone who has specialized heavily to get to my rank such as I have.Khelly wrote:
I think you're exactly where you deserve to be because your strength elevates you to that level and you're only lagged behind by your weakness. Saying you don't deserve to be your rank because you lack aim or speed is like I don't deserve mine because I lack acc. If I had better acc, I would be higher! But I don't, so I'm not! If you could read ar10 and go above 180 bpm you'd be higher, but you can't so you don't!
Saying rank directly equals skill will always be stupid. Yes, it's a good general guide to get an idea of how good someone is, but consider getting a PP-worthy play. Did FCing that map suddenly and immediately make you better than the ~300 people you passed in rank? Really? No, your practice and the work leading up to that FC is what made you better than those people, not the play itself.
Someone who managed to get your rank with a balanced skillset is worse than you in your strengths and better than you in your weaknesses, but to a point where it evens out and you're ranked evenly. I see no reason why this means you're worse than them when they will lose to you in some respects and you them.Mahogany wrote:
I was using myself as more of an example to demonstrate why rank is not entirely accurate concerning people's actual skill levels,, rather than making an actual complaint. As I said in the above post, someone who managed to get to my rank with an entirely balanced skillset is far, far more skilled than someone who has specialized heavily to get to my rank such as I have.Khelly wrote:
I think you're exactly where you deserve to be because your strength elevates you to that level and you're only lagged behind by your weakness. Saying you don't deserve to be your rank because you lack aim or speed is like I don't deserve mine because I lack acc. If I had better acc, I would be higher! But I don't, so I'm not! If you could read ar10 and go above 180 bpm you'd be higher, but you can't so you don't!
The play may not directly MAKE you better, but having the play means you can SHOW that you had the skill which I think is really important. Do you remember all of those rank 200ks who post here saying they play 6* maps well?Mahogany wrote:
Saying rank directly equals skill will always be stupid. Yes, it's a good general guide to get an idea of how good someone is, but consider getting a PP-worthy play. Did FCing that map suddenly and immediately make you better than the ~300 people you passed in rank? Really? No, your practice and the work leading up to that FC is what made you better than those people, not the play itself.
But someone with a balanced skillset can get further before having to specialize. Meanwhile, someone who is already specialized will hit a wall sooner and have to stop ranking to learn speed/aim/acc/what have you that they were lacking in order to start ranking properly again.Khelly wrote:
Someone who managed to get your rank with a balanced skillset is worse than you in your strengths and better than you in your weaknesses, but to a point where it evens out and you're ranked evenly.
Case in point, me. Look at the furthest left of my performance graph. That's the end of several months of pure gain. Once I got to a certain level, there were no longer many maps to sate my specialization, and they've pretty much dried up for me. Now, look at the drain period for an entire month of gaining absolutely no ranks, because I wasn't able to push my strengths enough, and had to learn streaming to start gaining ranks again. It took me an entire month before I was able to gain any ranks at all again. Meanwhile, someone with a balanced skillset would have had no such wall to overcome.
Yes, and that's exactly what rank is for. It'll never be an exact measure of skill, though, but it's good for a general idea of skill.Khelly wrote:
The play may not directly MAKE you better, but having the play means you can SHOW that you had the skill which I think is really important. Do you remember all of those rank 200ks who post here saying they play 6* maps well?
But that's related to improvement and now how skilled you are at a moment in time. The player with the balanced skillset will be able to improve in general, and in pp faster than you, but I was only thinking we were talking about one specific point in time regardless of what's going to happen in the future.
I personally believe that an all-round player of a certain rank is more skilled than a specialized player of similar rank.
And I guess I believe they're around even because I like taking the average of their skills in their respective categories.
Now we need pandabee in here to tell me why I'm wrong.
Now we need pandabee in here to tell me why I'm wrong.
you are the one using extreme examples, when comparing a #9998 and a #9999 player. So keep your rude comments for yourself.Mahogany wrote:
Your argument is idiotic and you intentionally choose only to use extremes of a sample purely to try and make the opposition look like a fool because you haven't thought out a proper response and chose not to. You're trying to discredit people purely for the sake of it. Don't do that, you end up looking dumb and spiteful.
ALso it's not my fault if you are a pp farmer, you can only blame yourself
You sound retarded as if saying playing for fcs is somehow unskilled and the only true skilled people are those that make those sick offline plays and don't care for anything.meteor22 wrote:
you are the one using extreme examples, when comparing a #9998 and a #9999 player. So keep your rude comments for yourself.Mahogany wrote:
Your argument is idiotic and you intentionally choose only to use extremes of a sample purely to try and make the opposition look like a fool because you haven't thought out a proper response and chose not to. You're trying to discredit people purely for the sake of it. Don't do that, you end up looking dumb and spiteful.
ALso it's not my fault if you are a pp farmer, you can only blame yourself
>compares rank #1 to rank 100kmeteor22 wrote:
you are the one using extreme examples, when comparing a #9998 and a #9999 player.
>calls a 1 rank difference "extreme" and implies a 99,999 rank difference isn't
right.
You haven't read a word I've written. I was using myself as an example of the problems with using a ranking system as an objective judgement, yet all you read was "I am bad but have rank cuz farm xd"meteor22 wrote:
ALso it's not my fault if you are a pp farmer, you can only blame yourself
I only insult those who act rudely or impolitely in the first placemeteor22 wrote:
So keep your rude comments for yourself.
Even if he means to say extremely insignificant, he has no right to complain about my example considering the example he provided.
E m i
player one is better, the system simply caters more to player two's play because fuck logic
If player one can never fc the map I wouldn't be hasty to say that. But then again a player who can 99% a map is more likely to be able to fc the map more regularly? compared to player 2.buny wrote:
player one is better, the system simply caters more to player two's play because fuck logic
It's not fuck logic because if you can't maintain combo then you're not shit.
99% accuracy non-fc play is more than likely a perfect play with a few misses here and there. An 89% play with high combo pretty much implies that the player is rhythmically impaired and is smashing his/her keyboard to get through the map
I think the only people who seem to think that it's smashing are those who have never had low accuracy before in their life. Have you suffered from having too high a UR naturally on an od you can't handle?buny wrote:
99% accuracy non-fc play is more than likely a perfect play with a few misses here and there. An 89% play with high combo pretty much implies that the player is rhythmically impaired and is smashing his/her keyboard to get through the map
Being one of those who despite 5 years of playing still can not achieve 99% plays I agree with Khelly, some people are accurate some aren't.Khelly wrote:
I think the only people who seem to think that it's smashing are those who have never had low accuracy before in their life.buny wrote:
99% accuracy non-fc play is more than likely a perfect play with a few misses here and there. An 89% play with high combo pretty much implies that the player is rhythmically impaired and is smashing his/her keyboard to get through the map
The situation needs to be one where both players are doing a song they can both FC back to back and then they'll understand.
of course you aren't literally mashing your keyboard. Just like how people aren't actually retarded if they are poorly skilled in their profession. It's the way others see people that are doing something poorlyKhelly wrote:
I think the only people who seem to think that it's smashing are those who have never had low accuracy before in their life. Have you suffered from having too high a UR naturally on an od you can't handle?buny wrote:
99% accuracy non-fc play is more than likely a perfect play with a few misses here and there. An 89% play with high combo pretty much implies that the player is rhythmically impaired and is smashing his/her keyboard to get through the map
honestly, I don't think anybody would truly argue that an 89% accuracy play could ever be better than a 99% accuracy play. Considering a 99% play means that there are only a couple of misses and 100s/50s and an 89% play would have more than twice as many off-hits. Would you argue a 99.99% play with 1 miss be worse than a 90% play with no misses?
And I see mashing as, and I've given this example before: You see a triple, double, triple, single, and then a stream and you decide to stream through all of it to hit the notes rather than trying to do each bit separately and "properly" even if it's inaccurate, yet to people who say the same thing as you there's no distinction between the example I've given and literally not being able to time hitting notes properly.
there is a distinction. You don't have the intention to play the map as to how it's played, since there's no penalty for mindless tapping it's a technique that is abused constantly in maps that are out of players leagues, and by players that understand that combo is rewarded much more than accuracy, and are willing to take a dip in accuracy for that delicious pp
And then what is it? Because all you have to go on to decide for yourself is the accuracy and the distinction for me is the intent with each key pressed.buny wrote:
there is a distinction. You don't have the intention to play the map as to how it's played, and since there's no penalty for mindless tapping it's a feature that is abused constantly in maps that are out of players leagues, and by players that understand that combo is rewarded much more than accuracy, and are willing to take a dip in accuracy for that delicious pp
sure, if your intent is to get a higher score. I never disagreed with that
HOWEVER this is a rhythm game, and going by a rhythm aspect, 89% is disgustingly terrible.
HOWEVER this is a rhythm game, and going by a rhythm aspect, 89% is disgustingly terrible.
Osu standard is not a pure rhythm game like mania. It's point and click with rhythm aspects. You actually have to do things separate from the rhythm element like aim instead of like a 2d game like mania.buny wrote:
sure, if your intent is to get a higher score. I never disagreed with that
HOWEVER this is a rhythm game, and going by a rhythm aspect, 89% is disgustingly terrible.
osu standard is a rhythm game with point and click aspectsKhelly wrote:
Osu standard is not a pure rhythm game like mania. It's point and click with rhythm aspects.buny wrote:
sure, if your intent is to get a higher score. I never disagreed with that
HOWEVER this is a rhythm game, and going by a rhythm aspect, 89% is disgustingly terrible.
are you even reading what you're typing?
Yes, and I don't view this game as 100% rhythm.
then why argue if you have no intent on acknowledging the opposing argument?
I think we've shifted now to whether or not osu standard is a pure pure rhythm game or not. Yes, 89% is terrible by rhythm and it rightly gets a much reduced penalty in pp than 95%, 98%, 99%, etc.buny wrote:
then why argue if you have no intent on acknowledging the opposing argument?
Osu is cs go with bgm
osu is csgo except your target is circles instead of humans
Finally someone that gets it.StephOsu wrote:
osu is csgo except your target is circles instead of humans
ZenithPhantasm
You don't need your sound on to play this game so it just becomes an aiming game.buny wrote:
sure, if your intent is to get a higher score. I never disagreed with that
HOWEVER this is a rhythm game, and going by a rhythm aspect, 89% is disgustingly terrible.
You don't need sound on to play any rhythm game I've seen.
That doesn't mean rhythm isn't an important part of the game.
That doesn't mean rhythm isn't an important part of the game.
You don't need your eyes to play either. All you need is no fail + your two hands and you're set.Mahogany wrote:
You don't need sound on to play any rhythm game I've seen.
That doesn't mean rhythm isn't an important part of the game.