1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Gameplay & Rankings
show more
posted
taiga did u even read my entire post

or did u find the first thing u disagreed with and made a post about it

i agree with winber, theres nothing you can do about the quality of discussion on g&r i guess
posted
taiga did u even read my entire post

or did u find the first thing u disagreed with and made a post about it
Yes, thats why i didn't speak about rest since i have nothing to add there.
posted
thanks shortpotato for your long and detailed answer.

I think we agree on even the part you quoted, so let me highlight the most relevant part

Railey2 wrote:

There is a reason why people always say "play more", right? For sure you can become a pro if you really follow their advice. Well... no.
You are making a costly mistake. Improvement at osu is not only about work, and people who claim that they made it to the top only as a result of their hard work, are lying.
I agree that hard work is essential to become a pro. But talent is just as essential. To reach the very top, you need both, as you can't beat people that have both while having only one yourself.

The thing is, talent is much more subtle and harder to grasp, while hard work is the opposite. You can see very clearly when someone worked hard, which is why it is so often listed as the main reason (also, because you can feel good about it as it is something that comes from yourself - it's the opposite with talent, that comes from a place unknown to us).

But this is a logical fallacy. Only because it is more accessible, doesn't make it more important, or even equally important. This thread is a plea to not overlook that which only manifests in the obvious differences in improvement rates between people.


The method I gave to approximate this elusive thing is, as others correctly pointed out, flawed. But I say it's better than nothing, and I wouldn't know any other way to do it without going heavy into analyzing every single component of a persons playstyle and playhistory.


Thanks for taking your time to read my post, means a lot. Especially after all that flak I got.
posted

Railey2 wrote:

I am pretty good at this game. Exceptionally good, even, at least for my own standards. But I can never make it to the very top. It's not called being pessimistic, or giving up on your dreams, it's called being realistic.
I used to say that. It's not that I wasn't admitting that I was pessimistic, it's that I didn't even realize it at the time. What does 'being realistic' even mean ? Nowadays I am optimistic as fuck, yet I am realistic, not because I think things are impossible, but because I think 'how to do this ?' 'what makes this possible and not this'.
In my opinion, being realistic means that you question your confidence, while still believing in your confidence. And if you happen to find a mistake in your confidence, you are pessimistic if you think that your confidence was wrong, but you are realistic if you think your confidence had a flaw (yet isn't wrong).

Let's take your phrase. You say that you are exceptionnaly good, which is true since you are judging it from your own standards. Yet, you throw all of it away by saying that you cannot make it to the top. That is, in my opinion, being pessimistic. If you were realistic, you would have said 'I won't make it to the top if I don't commit to it more'.
If the first case, what makes it pessimistic is the word 'never'. Like, you'll never be able to make it to the top. This is pessimistic.
While, what makes it realistic in the second case is the 'if'. It means that you won't (not that you'll never) unless you commit more.

Now, this is total interpretation from my part. I wouldn't be surprised to know that you made this thread purposely to get denied by people. Because your education/life taught you that you cannot do something great if you don't have the talent to. Yet, you don't want to believe this, you want to believe that the lack of talent does not mean that you cannot do it. You want to believe that hardwork can replace talent.

You said that hard work cannot beat both hardwork + talent, even though it can beat talent alone. BUT, you do not consider hardwork and talent as things that can be more or less 'bigger'. You can work very hard for one day, but that will mean much less than if you work without effort for an entire year.
Yep, half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.

What I mean is that it's not because you have both hardwork and talent that you'll do better than someone with hardwork alone.

Also, thanks for appreciating my honest response earlier, a lot of people would have said 'you are wrong because of whatever' yet you said 'thanks'. I appreciate that, you earned my respect by saying that ! :3
posted

Vayentha wrote:

Railey2 wrote:

I am pretty good at this game. Exceptionally good, even, at least for my own standards. But I can never make it to the very top. It's not called being pessimistic, or giving up on your dreams, it's called being realistic.
I used to say that. It's not that I wasn't admitting that I was pessimistic, it's that I didn't even realize it at the time. What does 'being realistic' even mean ? Nowadays I am optimistic as fuck, yet I am realistic, not because I think things are impossible, but because I think 'how to do this ?' 'what makes this possible and not this'.
In my opinion, being realistic means that you question your confidence, while still believing in your confidence. And if you happen to find a mistake in your confidence, you are pessimistic if you think that your confidence was wrong, but you are realistic if you think your confidence had a flaw (yet isn't wrong).

Let's take your phrase. You say that you are exceptionnaly good, which is true since you are judging it from your own standards. Yet, you throw all of it away by saying that you cannot make it to the top. That is, in my opinion, being pessimistic. If you were realistic, you would have said 'I won't make it to the top if I don't commit to it more'.
If the first case, what makes it pessimistic is the word 'never'. Like, you'll never be able to make it to the top. This is pessimistic.
While, what makes it realistic in the second case is the 'if'. It means that you won't (not that you'll never) unless you commit more.

Now, this is total interpretation from my part. I wouldn't be surprised to know that you made this thread purposely to get denied by people. Because your education/life taught you that you cannot do something great if you don't have the talent to. Yet, you don't want to believe this, you want to believe that the lack of talent does not mean that you cannot do it. You want to believe that hardwork can replace talent.

You said that hard work cannot beat both hardwork + talent, even though it can beat talent alone. BUT, you do not consider hardwork and talent as things that can be more or less 'bigger'. You can work very hard for one day, but that will mean much less than if you work without effort for an entire year.
Yep, half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.

What I mean is that it's not because you have both hardwork and talent that you'll do better than someone with hardwork alone.

Also, thanks for appreciating my honest response earlier, a lot of people would have said 'you are wrong because of whatever' yet you said 'thanks'. I appreciate that, you earned my respect by saying that ! :3
I appreciate your words of encouragement, but really I am wholly content with where I am as a player. At the same time, I am aware of the reality that I will never make it to the very top. That is why I used the word never. It is a fact that I can not humanly make it to the very top, period. Don't see that as an unfounded pessimistic statement that is grounded in my insecurities, see it as a realistic estimate, based on experience and the analysis of players improvement rates.

I did what I mentioned in the opening post: settling for less and playing the game in a way that I can enjoy.

Your interpretation is quite off though. I was raised in a very positive and approving household, with lots of support from many sides.


half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than one year of hardwork without talent. But that doesn't mean that half a year of hardwork + talent will have higher results than two years of hardwork alone.
Well, I agree. Too bad that the top is literally all talent and 3 years of hard work. Hard to beat that.
posted
actually it's 3 years of DT farm
posted

Railey2 wrote:

Your interpretation is quite off though. I was raised in a very positive and approving household, with lots of support from many sides.
Owh, then I'm wrong :3

Railey2 wrote:

It is a fact that I can not humanly make it to the very top, period. Don't see that as an unfounded pessimistic statement that is grounded in my insecurities, see it as a realistic estimate, based on experience and the analysis of players improvement rates.
Hum, maybe your experience isn't totally right (yet not wrong either) on this one ! (Just like mine may be.)
posted
I think while saying that "talent is essential" we get to the point where you have to ask what talent even is as there are many factors that play into a rapid improvement curve not called "play more". As the talent component might encompass things such as self-assessment, decision making on what to play and what to improve on, frustration tolerance and many other things not directly related to circle clicking it could be replaced by say a coach or gameplay & rankings(nice meme[tm]).
You might notice that these are all skills that are heavily connected to competitiveness which isn't everyone's thing anyway and certainly has nothing to do with circle clicking in particular but I believe that the effect of those is massive regarding the ranking curve of a player.

I think it is important to see hard work as the essential component (as elaborated by shortpotato) and greater talent as the thing that gives you the edge. I think most passionate circle clickers are already talented to play the game in some way because they're able to enjoy the game and show endurance in their progress. Talent always includes the tendency to have an interest in the area you're talented at and I think this is something everyone who plays this game for a long time has.
So even if someone may not have the sufficient talent to get to the very top I think players shouldn't be told that they are untalented. Those untalented never even begin to play this game - my grandma for example to give a really dumb one.
posted
play more
posted

Endaris wrote:

I think while saying that "talent is essential" we get to the point where you have to ask what talent even is as there are many factors that play into a rapid improvement curve not called "play more". As the talent component might encompass things such as self-assessment, decision making on what to play and what to improve on, frustration tolerance and many other things not directly related to circle clicking it could be replaced by say a coach or gameplay & rankings(nice meme[tm]).
You might notice that these are all skills that are heavily connected to competitiveness which isn't everyone's thing anyway and certainly has nothing to do with circle clicking in particular but I believe that the effect of those is massive regarding the ranking curve of a player.

I think it is important to see hard work as the essential component (as elaborated by shortpotato) and greater talent as the thing that gives you the edge. I think most passionate circle clickers are already talented to play the game in some way because they're able to enjoy the game and show endurance in their progress. Talent always includes the tendency to have an interest in the area you're talented at and I think this is something everyone who plays this game for a long time has.
So even if someone may not have the sufficient talent to get to the very top I think players shouldn't be told that they are untalented. Those untalented never even begin to play this game - my grandma for example to give a really dumb one.
I gave a definition of talent at the beginning of my post.


Hard work is important to progress through the rankings all the way.
Talent is important to progress faster and further through the rankings, which is essential to make it to the top.

Hard work will always be essential, but talent is essential too when you have big ambitions. This is why I am telling people, who lack this essential talent, to give up on their ambitions for the sake of avoiding late disappointment.

As to your grandma example, there are certainly different degrees of talentlessness. As I said before, in my opening post, talent is a relative term. Even we are talentless when compared to the likes of vaxei. Saying that untalented people never start playing the game is a statement that misunderstands the nature of how I used the term all along. Feel free to use the term the way you like, but we should make sure that we understand each other.
posted
Talent is overrated af to be honest. 10% luck, 20% talent, 10% believe in your goal, 60% is pure hard work.
Everything has a price. If you got talent you have to trade it. People with talent usually lost their goal because they don't have the will to work as hard as other untalented person.
And yes, if you got talent and hard work you will reach the top, but even if you don't have talent, you can still be a pro, you just don't stand on top
posted
there really arent enough talented people that play osu for it to be an issue towards reaching top100 with just hard work
posted

Corim wrote:

actually it's 3 years of DT farm

no 5 minutes of hr farm 1v1 please i am 90 second acc meister
posted

Muuki wrote:

there really arent enough talented people that play osu for it to be an issue towards reaching top100 with just hard work
ye true

you'd have to sacrifice a lot of your current commitments: i.e studying, work, social life, etc. in order to do so tho

I'd say most of us here are innately talented ENOUGH (think bell distribution) at least to reach the top 100 with consistent effort, but almost always it's not worth sacrificing your current commitments as mentioned above. It's also discouraging at times when people who play less than you (i.e the EXTREMELY TALENTED) are still better - and hence why people should consider spending their time elsewhere, maybe in an another area in which THEY might be talented or extremely talented in

But Railey's right I guess, the top of the top (top 5, 10 or 50 maybe) are just exponentially more insane with every rank and maybe only with talent can you break into it, i dunno though i haven't been there dx

w

edit: I don't think it's pessimistic to say this, it's just reality and tbh if ur life purpose is to be the best circle clicker maybe u need to reconsider ur priorities xd (no offence to any aspiring circle clickers)
posted
This is a bit of a vitriolic discussion, but an interesting topic. I find it strange that people say 'talent is more important IN MY OPINION'. I feel that if you don't actually know which one is actually more important, then it's not really that useful to say. If you don't qualify your opinion with evidence (not anecdotes from famous people) then you are unlikely to convince anyone that you are correct.

I found this related article, anyway http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth . TLDR; There is no clear agreement among experts about whether talent is just hard work or not.

I drew a couple of things from this article anyway:

1- The majority of those at the top of any discipline have put in a huge amount of time practicing, and often they had already put in a huge amount of time before the people against whom they are competing. So if these top players are still active (cookiezi, WWW, [Toy], Beafowl etc.) then they are still improving, so it makes catching up to them in terms of hours harder.

2- You don't know if you could be one of the best until you actually put in the hours required to reach the top (whether it is ~1000 hours for memory training, ~25,000 hours for concert level violin playing, ~XXX hours for osu!....). Yes some people can get there quicker (Vaxei, Rafis), but for you personally you just don't know what you might achieve until you have actually done all that practice.

Finally, I personally think that OP's attempt to find a measure for talent vs. effort is interesting, not pure cancer, but I personally think the biggest flaw is that it somehow assumes that people improve at a steady pace. In my experience with eg. language learning this is just not usually the case. Some people find the early stages of learning a skill particularly hard, others might struggle to maintain focus when practicing through a plateau where improvement comes slowly, and in any case you can't predict exactly when something might start to feel natural and easy to you. Yes you might practice for a long time and still suck, but maybe next week something will just click for you, and you'll make a huge leap in improvement.

Just my 2 cents
posted
i like your 2 cents
posted
My entire response to this post can basically be summed up by "so what?"

Obviously, I'd be crazy to think that I can somehow catch up to the likes of Cookiezi and Rafis because they're so far ahead of me and still working hard at improving every day. Obviously, I'm not talented, because there are people who played this game 1/3 as much as me and are higher rank.

But, seriously, who are you to tell me that I couldn't climb to the top if I pushed myself really hard? For the past year and a half, I've only gotten to play one or two days a week, and I'm still climbing (albeit slowly). I still have room to play 5x as much, and when my crazy 6 day workweek + graduate classes schedule ends, maybe that's what I'll do. Maybe I'll find something else I'd rather do, but I'm certainly not going to give up on it just because you told me to.

I dunno, you can be a quitter all you like, but don't go pushing that onto me.
posted
rip me im not talented at anything at all might as well just quit
posted
many of the response tells me that "I play for rank."
posted

Floob wrote:

rip me im not talented at anything at all might as well just quit
Yeah you are right, everybody that is not talented should quit
Heck yeah ill quit today bcuz playing this game without talent makes no sense

Rip all the untalented players
show more
Please sign in to reply.