many people is not most people. active players are most definitely skewed towards higher end of the spectruim.[Haku] wrote:
I know many active people over rank 100k. I would say active community is 200k+winber1 wrote:
the actiive community is basically only 50k+ for the most part, and in that regard u are way below average.
It depends on your definition of active. If you mean people who play an average of 2+ hours a day, then this is probably accurate since most players in this category below 50k are the ones that have only just started playing.winber1 wrote:
many people is not most people. active players are most definitely skewed towards higher end of the spectruim.
and the fact of the matter is that even if they were "active" at 200k, they would probably reach 50k in like a month or two by just playing more.
Endeed, this is my definition of "active", witch can be different for other.Xyrus wrote:
If it's just based on people who play most days, regardless of how little they play each day, then [Haku] seems more accurate as there are quite a few players who play very little but very often and hang around the 100-200k marker.
doublelift is that you?Lagel wrote:
trash
Wouldn't you be judging the cutoff point for "active", then, instead of "player"?Khelly wrote:
Average is subjective because you're subjectively deciding where the cutoff point for "player" is. And if you're going as wide as "all accounts" for player then the average is painfully low - like probably 0 skill at all played the game for 10 minutes and quit - low.
The average person also has less than two arms.
Just a fact.
Again, I get what you're saying, but that's not what subjective means. There is empirical data on the number of players. Just because we don't know the specifics, doesn't mean that whatever you think is the average is the average. You can debate on it, but it isn't subjective. So I'll quote:Khelly wrote:
I don't think you understand the point of subjective here because it's about to what group of players do we apply the term average.
Puzzle wrote:
I get what the people in this thread were trying to say, and I totally understand the sentiment that skill is a relative idea.
But average is a term that directly relates to statistics.
It's harder to come up with an average statistic for osu players, because there isn't really any percentile ranges that we can see. Or at least not that I know of. I'd guess the average is around 400-600k, I really don't have any idea because I have no clue how many people actively play.
You're tecnically right saying that average is average but thinking that way, there is 8.4 millions account, then if your rank is better than 4.2 millions you're better than average, period. That's obviously not what we are looking for. Plus, this is based on average rank, not average skill. There is no accurate data about players skills so you can't be objective spiking of that... and that's what we are talking about.Puzzle wrote:
I'm so confused.
I get what the people in this thread were trying to say, and I totally understand the sentiment that skill is a relative idea.
But average is a term that directly relates to statistics. There is nothing subjective about it.
It's harder to come up with an average statistic for osu players, because there isn't really any percentile ranges that we can see. Or at least not that I know of. I'd guess the average is around 400-600k, I really don't have any idea because I have no clue how many people actively play.
Mediocre 2000ppBara- wrote:
I call people average if the have around 1000-2500 pp
They aren't bad, but they aren't really good
I'd call 2500-4000 good players, 4000-5000 great players, and 6000+ would be considered pro (imo)
thx to both of you to show up how "being good" is all subjective mostly depending of your experience.Khelly wrote:
Mediocre 2000ppBara- wrote:
I call people average if the have around 1000-2500 pp
They aren't bad, but they aren't really good
I'd call 2500-4000 good players, 4000-5000 great players, and 6000+ would be considered pro (imo)
Okay 3000pp
average 4000pp
All right 5000pp
Mediocre for good good palyers 6000pp
Actually good 7000pp
Pro 8000+pp
necroYummyPichu wrote:
It would be interesting to post this sort of question into the forum for suggestions in the game. I wouldn't know how to word it but if one were to simply ask for the data of active users according to X hours per X days/weeks, then we could start to get some info. On top of that, you would want some that shows their highest finished song and possibly the song difficulty that they seem to have mastered. (ie a bunch of S's A's or such at a certain difficulty).
This information would of course just be for the "kicks and giggles" but it would also show some interesting insight to what people are able to accomplish. We know that "average" in this game has too many variables. What if instead we had the information to simply look for what we wanted. I would love to know what difficulty active users are able to accomplish. This would then tell me if I were getting better at songs at an above or below average rate. Sure, I have played for 3 weeks and can finish some 4 star songs, but where are most people in that amount of play time?
Too many variables.
Again, what if we polled this to get it added into the game?
WHY NECROIllusio214 wrote:
All you have to do is add everybody's pp (AND I MEAN EVERYONE) and divide by the the amount of players, then u get the average pp