Thank you. I will cherish your gift of nothing until I dieBrian OA wrote:
Nothingabraker wrote:
mania user here. What do I get?
Thank you. I will cherish your gift of nothing until I dieBrian OA wrote:
Nothingabraker wrote:
mania user here. What do I get?
perhaps the most important question of allAllmynamestaken wrote:
and why is she not naked?
stopthelewa wrote:
"“Play More” or "Keep Playing" is an extremely vague quote that doesn't help any player specifically."
Verily so, the only advice that's actually helpful is "try thinking for yourself". If you are incapable of doing that much, you are incapable of improving.
osu! is a great test of intelligence. Anyone incapable of getting good at it is an idiot. I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anything, but at least they're capable of figuring things out for themselves.
Fastest way to learn is by getting taughtthelewa wrote:
what part did you disagree with?
thelewa wrote:
Not in osu!. How is someone going to teach you how to properly move the pen or the mouse in a way optimal to the way your hand is? How is someone going to teach you to make new nerve connections allowing for faster movement of fingers? How is someone going to teach you to process the visual information received? These are all things that you cannot receive help with. They're things you have to figure out for yourself.
It takes repitition to acquire those motor skills, because that's what they are at the end of the day. I don't think it requires logic. So no, the "play more" advice is not too vague in my opinion. For example, you could know anything about the piano, right? But if you never sit down and nurture your motor skills, you'd be a horrible player. An idiot could sit down and do the same thing every day, but that doesn't mean they'll actually learn the technical side of clicking circles (if there even is one. I am not an expert on this and I haven't even played the game in a while.)thelewa wrote:
Not in osu!. How is someone going to teach you how to properly move the pen or the mouse in a way optimal to the way your hand is? How is someone going to teach you to make new nerve connections allowing for faster movement of fingers? How is someone going to teach you to process the visual information received? These are all things that you cannot receive help with. They're things you have to figure out for yourself.
Because piano teachers are useless peopleFoxtrot wrote:
It takes repitition to acquire those motor skills, because that's what they are at the end of the day. I don't think it requires logic. So no, the "play more" advice is not too vague in my opinion. For example, you could know anything about the piano, right? But if you never sit down and nurture your motor skills, you'd be a horrible player. An idiot could sit down and do the same thing every day, but that doesn't mean they'll actually learn the technical side of clicking circles (if there even is one. I am not an expert on this and I haven't even played the game in a while.)
Who said I'm logical, I'm BlitzfrogFoxtrot wrote:
Didn't you claim to be logical, Blitz? I'm surprised to see such a reaction out of you
You'd have to be an idiotFoxtrot wrote:
But since we're specifically talking about osu!, how stupid do you have to be to not comprehend that you're supposed to click the circles at the rhythm of the song? You're just a vegetable at that point. Bad osu! players do realize what they must do, but they fail because their motor skills are not as refined as someone who has been playing for months. I've never seen anybody play osu! in the "wrong way" and that's because it'd completely impossible for you to play the game in a different way than it was originally meant.
The crimson knight and the flying dragonthelewa wrote:
What drama?
Having fun is not good for your brain. Life is all about having as much misery as possibleBrian OA wrote:
The best advice I would offer would be to have fun
thelewa wrote:
I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anything
case in point?thelewa wrote:
Talent doesn't exist in this game.
i thought of linking my thread but i'd rather have him look at just my comment from now.johnmedina999 wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/504759
You truly lead a sad existence believing thatRailey2 wrote:
thelewa wrote:
I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anythingcase in point?thelewa wrote:
Talent doesn't exist in this game.
you can't seriously believe that talent is not a major factor when it comes to osu, when there's such a disparity in skill between players that put a similar amount of effort and thought into the game.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone is as talented as cookiezi?
i mean.. i do agree that intelligence (or rather: the ability to pin down strengths and weaknesses of your play and develop long-term strategies to improve) are very important, but they're certainly not all there is to it.
Cookiezi isn't the best because he's just THAT MUCH better at self-analysing. That's total bullshit.
As for most things in life when the end result is the sum of many random factors, you're gonna see all end results fall in a normal distribution.
When your potential of being good at osu (aka talent) depends on your intelligence, spatial thinking, pattern recognition, reaction time, the physical makeup of your hands and arms, fine motor skills, rhythm sense, ability to cope with stress etc. then you'll get a bell curve. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
This one of the most important theorems of statistical research. You can't just wish it away.
You say that talent is one thing, and not another thing, when all the words you're using are synonyms. The most obvious answer to the difference in achievement is the existence of natural talent. Cynicism is going out of your way to look at things in a negative light, it's not forgoing the obvious conclusion and claiming that instead it's the result of a million other variables. It seems apparent that your conclusion is based on the fact that you don't want to believe that people's ability is limited by their talent rather than any logic.Brian OA wrote:
Talent refers to an aptitude, not capacity or potential. It is often cited as an amalgam of internal and external factors (whatever these may be) that end up favoring one's effort to result ratio relative to others.
Asserting that talent does not exist is not a matter of wishful thinking, either. At least, not any more than asserting its existence is a matter of cynicism.
My doubt of it comes from it being the go-to explanation for relative disparities in skill when the issue could easily be lack of data.
That you were doing everything wrong and were incapable of recognizing that you could be doing something wrong. You harbored a mislead belief of somehow doing everything perfect and when you didn't see improvement you arrived at the logical conclusion of somehow your perfect not being perfect enough. That you weren't capable of as much improvement due to things that you couldn't do anything about.B1rd wrote:
I had lots of enthusiasm when I first started this game, but it's hard not to be pessimistic in the face of continuous lack of improvement. I can remember a time when I tried to compete with various people in pp gains, and I could barely do so despite playing over 6 hours a day fueled by caffeine (compared to their one hour or so). What you people who refuse to believe in natural ability have to say in such large disparities in achievement despite similar effort other than 'you're just lazy'?
Sure; I'd rather not get into a back and forth on the definition of terms.B1rd wrote:
You say that talent is one thing, and not another thing, when all the words you're using are synonyms.
The most obvious answer to the difference in achievement is the existence of natural talent.
Cynicism is going out of your way to look at things in a negative light, it's not forgoing the obvious conclusion and claiming that instead it's the result of a million other variables.
It seems apparent that your conclusion is based on the fact that you don't want to believe that people's ability is limited by their talent rather than any logic.