Saiya - Remote Control [Take Control!] +HD - map by Linda, barely anyone can DT this despite being low bpm, have tech aspects...... 5min map.... "farm map"

Sakamoto Maaya - Okaerinasai (tomatomerde Remix) [Return] +HD - 6min map with bursts, low complexity patterns, 1735 combo map "farm map"..............

ok, I don't even need to check more, You don't have idea about farm maps at all.

[Taiga] wrote:

Saiya - Remote Control [Take Control!] +HD - map by Linda, barely anyone can DT this despite being low bpm, have tech aspects...... 5min map.... "farm map"

Have you tried reading the comments for the map?

Sakamoto Maaya - Okaerinasai (tomatomerde Remix) [Return] +HD - 6min map with bursts, low complexity patterns, 1735 combo map "farm map"..............

Oh, you mean the map that is literally the exact same pattern, over and over and over again, for six whole minutes? If you can do a burst of 5 notes consistently you have everything you need to 99% this map. It's a farm map copy pasted over itself four times.

I mean, what would I know about this map, except, you know,

you basically just said your threshold for farm map is lower than his, he's not even saying they're turbo hard to get pp from.

I don't think Taiga needs to be attacked for anything, even if he/she sometimes plays maps that are easier to get PP from than Imperial Circus maps. It's mean to attack someone unnecessarily.

Mio Winter wrote:

I don't think Taiga needs to be attacked for anything, even if he/she sometimes plays maps that are easier to get PP from than Imperial Circus maps. It's mean to attack someone unnecessarily.

Oh, but everything he said to me is apparently fine, despite being way ruder and additionally completely pointless. It's just me you criticize. Go fuck yourself. At least what I said directly relates to my point, which is that the people who are the loudest critics of "le evil pp system" are usually the biggest exploiters of it. It's all insecurity.

Philosofikal wrote:

Mio Winter wrote:

I don't think Taiga needs to be attacked for anything, even if he/she sometimes plays maps that are easier to get PP from than Imperial Circus maps. It's mean to attack someone unnecessarily.

Oh, but everything he said to me is apparently fine, despite being way ruder and additionally completely pointless. It's just me you criticize. Go fuck yourself. At least what I said directly relates to my point, which is that the people who are the loudest critics of "le evil pp system" are usually the biggest exploiters of it. It's all insecurity.

I didn't know this was a continuation of an earlier feud. I just commented on what I saw.

Mio Winter wrote:

I didn't know this was a continuation of an earlier feud. I just commented on what I saw.

I'm talking about right now. Have you even read the thread? Why is it OK for me to be called an autistic retard on drugs if you're going to take it upon yourself to single people out for their arguing tactics?

Well, it's mostly a "camp"-mentality, partially formed of players who want to give themselves the benefit of the doubt by not playing PP maps at all so they can say "I could be way higher but I just don't play pp maps"


Then there's also the actual pp farmers who just want to rank up to give themselves a feeling of superiority by having such a high rank in a very low time, living under the illusion they're just that talented to "improve" much faster than everyone else, usually will also condemn any non-farm map as "cancer" or "shit map", because all they did was acquire the skillset needed to play said pp-maps.



If you're coming from League, you would call the PP-farmers "One-trick-ponies", simply because they can only really play those kind of maps, however this is the type of playstyle that will get you the furthest in terms of ranks in a short time.

And as in every game, there's also the unofficial ranking / pp-police that will call you out on this kind of stuff.



Obviously there are a lot of people in between. Some just don't care, some just play everything there is.
Funny enough, both groups mentioned above usually do this so they can think they're better than they actually are, whether it be by inflating your pp by playing maps optimized for pp-gain, or by said benefit of the doubt of never playing said maps.


edit: nice ava momiji

Philosofikal wrote:

Mio Winter wrote:

I didn't know this was a continuation of an earlier feud. I just commented on what I saw.

I'm talking about right now. Have you even read the thread? Why is it OK for me to be called an autistic retard on drugs if you're going to take it upon yourself to single people out for their arguing tactics?

Oh yeah, lots of the things he/she said to you after you attacked him/her were really rude, and I condemn them too. Using "autistic" as a swear word is bad enough in its own right. I didn't mention these things at first because they were delivered in defence.

I should make a note that if I'm going to take my moral hat on and start judging people for what they do, I ought to judge everyone for their due. : P

Rayne wrote:

Well, it's mostly a "camp"-mentality, partially formed of players who want to give themselves the benefit of the doubt by not playing PP maps at all so they can say "I could be way higher but I just don't play pp maps"

Then there's also the actual pp farmers who just want to rank up to give themselves a feeling of superiority by having such a high rank in a very low time, living under the illusion they're just that talented to "improve" much faster than everyone else, usually will also condemn any non-farm map as "cancer" or "shit map", because all they did was acquire the skillset needed to play said pp-maps.v

There's just no way to play without being accused of something is there? : P

I want to be in the camp that gets PP from maps that are hard to get PP from, so that I can claim to be underrated. (Because I think that would be cool, even if I'm not actually succeeding at it...) Gaining lots of PP in a short time by playing PP maps is also commendable because it's hard to do, but that's not the kind of cool I aim to be. Let's just say that it's OK to play osu! no matter how you play it, and it's not OK to attack people for playing certain kinds of osu!.

Mio Winter wrote:

Oh yeah, lots of the things he/she said to you after you attacked him/her were really rude, and I condemn them too. Using "autistic" as a swear word is bad enough in its own right. I didn't mention these things at first because they were delivered in defence.

I should make a note that if I'm going to take my moral hat on and start judging people for what they do, I ought to judge everyone for their due. : P

You should first spend some time to view history of this guy in GnR and why not only me is rude towards him. Then you will understand situation.

[Taiga] wrote:

You should first spend some time to view history of this guy in GnR and why not only me is rude towards him. Then you will understand situation.

He was rude but he wasn't wrong, you do have a lot of farm maps in your top plays.

Now now guys, no reason to be so antagonistic here. Can't we all just drink beer click circles and be merry?

[Taiga] wrote:

Saiya - Remote Control [Take Control!] +HD - map by Linda, barely anyone can DT this despite being low bpm, have tech aspects...... 5min map.... "farm map"

This may be just anecdotal experience or luck but I FCd that map on my first try for 257pp

It might have tech aspects but the map is very simple and repetitive and that outweighs the tech aspects.

It might have tech aspects but the map is very simple and repetitive and that outweighs the tech aspects.

Well, with this mentality most maps are farm maps, ESPECIALLY 10-15min (3-6k combo) marathons due how "easy patterns they have".
/shrug

every ranked map is farm map

[Taiga] wrote:

Well, with this mentality most maps are farm maps, ESPECIALLY 10-15min (3-6k combo) marathons due how "easy patterns they have".
/shrug

No, there are many many many maps with slider speed variation, hard to read patterns, weird AR/bpm combos, mapping that accentuates the less prominent instruments etc.

Over half of my maps I play are not farm maps and I'm not going to run out ever.

When you get a combination of predictable, high OD, easy, repetitive patterns its a farm map. Also there is diminishing pp returns for maps beyond 2k combo approx so no most marathon maps are not farm maps.

99% percent of farm map haters are either
1) mappers who want their content to be preferred
2) people who don't understand mapping
3) elitists who are bad at playing and want to be seen as actually better than their rank because they don't play dirty farm maps

People who are neutral or just don't prefer farm maps are not "haters" I'm talking about people who say farm maps are cancer and are not joking.

[Taiga] wrote:

Sakamoto Maaya - Okaerinasai (tomatomerde Remix) [Return] +HD - 6min map with bursts, low complexity patterns, 1735 combo map "farm map"..............

Don't know about the remote control one

But this one, I FCed this once with no mod back when I was 5 digit for them marathon pp, after entering 4 digit decided to re-FC it with HD cause it's easy, after breaking 6k pp and learning HR, decided to FC this with HDHR cause it's sweet marathon pp, and that's how I got a 294pp score from this map.

Trust me this is a pp map

L-a-m-e-y [ B ] wrote:

easy pp right over here

Good example of how music used to be objectively better.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

[Taiga] wrote:

Sakamoto Maaya - Okaerinasai (tomatomerde Remix) [Return] +HD - 6min map with bursts, low complexity patterns, 1735 combo map "farm map"..............

Don't know about the remote control one

But this one, I FCed this once with no mod back when I was 5 digit for them marathon pp, after entering 4 digit decided to re-FC it with HD cause it's easy, after breaking 6k pp and learning HR, decided to FC this with HDHR cause it's sweet marathon pp, and that's how I got a 294pp score from this map.

Trust me this is a pp map

You need to make a distinction between farm maps and good maps that just so happen to give good PP. That map falls into the latter category, and I've FC'd it many times with and without hidden, not for PP but just because I like that map and its enjoyable (even though I think Azer is a douche).

B1rd wrote:

You need to make a distinction between farm maps and good maps that just so happen to give good PP. That map falls into the latter category, and I've FC'd it many times with and without hidden, not for PP but just because I like that map and its enjoyable (even though I think Azer is a douche).

Are we talking about the same okaerinasai? Cause azer's is called "collab" and the one we're talking about is called "Return"

Also if I understand you correctly, are you saying the quality of the map affects the quality of the pp despite its still overweighted?

I really don't keep up with the newest farm maps. Some one will make a good map and then half a dozen PP mappers will make ripoff farm maps of it.

Hey, it's not nice to call someone a "douche"!

Why should I care what's "nice"? The purpose of forums is not to blow smoke up other people's arses.

Yea exactly, fuk you B1rd.

B1rd wrote:

Good example of how music used to be objectively better.

Music is nether purely subjective or objective

There is objective qualities to music however the perception of it is heavily effected by social conditioning [1] just like food. [2]

Music is heavily tied to memory, just by listening to a song you can feel like you are taken back to the time in your life you listened to it. You are attracted to music that expresses your identity. [3]

Therefore it is incorrect to say music is objective, since for the most part the perception of it depends on the person.

Music is subjective

[1] https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream ... sequence=1
[2] http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-c ... px?Id=7565
[3] http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/t ... y-1996.pdf

*Hype!* Philosophy debate incoming!

PS: I won't bother to read any dry academic articles, but I'll gladly consume any actual reasoning presented in posts here.

Can we not turn this into a philosophy debate

N0thingSpecial wrote:

Can we not turn this into a philosophy debate

I say we define our moral axioms clearly and deduce our conclusions using formal logic. It should go something like this:

Premise 1: Suffering is bad and happiness is good.
???
Conclusion: PP maps are bad/good. And btw music is subjective/objective.

Mio Winter wrote:

N0thingSpecial wrote:

Can we not turn this into a philosophy debate

I say we define our moral axioms clearly and deduce our conclusions using formal logic. It should go something like this:

Premise 1: Suffering is bad and happiness is good.
???
Conclusion: PP maps are bad/good. And btw music is subjective/objective.

That's what I did in the last thread.

By the way, looking at your blog, you really need to read Rand or something.

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Good example of how music used to be objectively better.

Music is nether purely subjective or objective

There is objective qualities to music however the perception of it is heavily effected by social conditioning [1] just like food. [2]

Music is heavily tied to memory, just by listening to a song you can feel like you are taken back to the time in your life you listened to it. You are attracted to music that expresses your identity. [3]

Therefore it is incorrect to say music is objective, since for the most part the perception of it depends on the person.

Music is subjective

[1] https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream ... sequence=1
[2] http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-c ... px?Id=7565
[3] http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/t ... y-1996.pdf

Musical and other cultural events integrate individuals into groups (Gurvitch 1971), and at the same time
express and reinforce social values (Dalhaus 1982)

Because the values and moral framework of society has degenerated, so has the music. It's why I don't like modern music, I don't identify with the underlying values of the millennial generation at all, and I can identify far more with 70s rock music and even Rick Astley songs than with modern mainstream music.

Here's how I think that discussion can be productive.

When you're arguing whether to call a thing (here, music) a certain word (here, "subjective" or "objective") it is often very helpfwl to taboo those words (i.e. you're not allowed to use the words) and replace them with their intended meaning.

So if you want to say "music is objective", you can't. You have to say "music is such and such" where "such and such" is what you mean by "objective".

It may seem pointless at first, but it's very often usefwl because we often mean different things with big words like "subjective" and "objective", and replacing them with their meaning lets us bypass lots of confusion that would result from the different meanings.

PS: Sorry, N0thingSpecial. This has officially turned into a philosophy debate.

B1rd wrote:

By the way, looking at your blog, you really need to read Rand or something.

Why? : O

Because you're a filthy altruist.

B1rd wrote:

Because you're a filthy altruist.

But I want to (try to) be.

B1rd wrote:

you really need to read Rand or something.

I have read half of the fountainhead and so far I have a few concerns with the ideas presented so far.

I stopped reading after the point Roark met Dominique since the book stopped being grounded in reality and started to twist reason to the point things started seeming supernatural. Events occurred because people started knowing things based on "feeling" and the weird stare off between Dom and Roark after their weird coincidental meet up after Dom and Peter didn't work out was a bit much.

It tries to show that pure egoism is an ideal virtue and tries to degrade the supposed "opposite" using the character Peter. Peter is a strawman from the start, he is deeply flawed supposedly because he is the opposite of an egoist but I would argue that he is actually an egoist that is only concerned about others when it benefits him. The true difference between Peter and Roark is the congruence of their actions and their ideals. Peter is flawed not because of his lack of egoism but because of his lack of direction and the conflict of the different personas he has because of his lack of authenticity. Not to mention his shallow fascination with the superficial and his unawareness of his own ideals and emotions.

The book also portrays the two protagonists Roark and Dominique as superhuman at times to sell the ideals they portray. Roark is supposed to be the type who is immersed in architecture and antisocial but somehow he is able to read Peter like a book? You don't magically get social skills without being social. Also Peter had no problem with women at all but somehow when he meets Dom he is rejected and completely breaks down? This makes no sense at all.

Some of the ideas are good such as judging a person by the work they do but the book takes this way too far trying to paint the world in black and white rather than what it should be which is a shade of gray. Ideas are important, your interests are important but they should not be the only interest you have.

Mio Winter wrote:

I say we define our moral axioms clearly and deduce our conclusions using formal logic. It should go something like this:

Premise 1: Suffering is bad and happiness is good.
???
Conclusion: PP maps are bad/good. And btw music is subjective/objective.

You find it amusing but after nearly 2k post I say it gets old real quick and I can accept the fact that people like B1rd can butcher the word subjectivity and objectivity without a problem

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

B1rd wrote:

you really need to read Rand or something.

I have read half of the fountainhead and so far I have a few concerns with the ideas presented so far.

I stopped reading after the point Roark met Dominique since the book stopped being grounded in reality and started to twist reason to the point things started seeming supernatural. People started knowing things based on "feeling" and the weird stare off between Dom and Roark and their weird coincidental meet up after Dom and Peter didn't work out was a bit much.

It tries to show that pure egoism is an ideal virtue and tries to degrade the supposed "opposite" using the character Peter. Peter is a strawman from the start, he is deeply flawed supposedly because he is the opposite of an egoist but I would argue that he is actually an egoist that is only concerned about others when it benefits him. The true difference between Peter and Roark is the congruence of their actions and their ideals. Peter is flawed not because of his lack of egoism but because of his lack of direction and the conflict of the different personas he has because of his lack of authenticity. Not to mention his shallow fascination with the superficial and his unawareness of his own ideals and emotions.

The book also portrays the two protagonists Roark and Dominique as superhuman at times. Roark is supposed to be the type who is immersed in architecture and antisocial but somehow he is able to read Peter like a book? You don't magically get social skills without being social.

Some of the ideas are good such as judging a person by the work they do but the book takes this way too far trying to paint the world in black and white rather than what it should be which is a shade of gray. Ideas are important, your interests are important but they should not be the only interest you have.

Rand's books are largely formulaic. I wouldn't criticise them in that respect any more than I'd criticise 1984 for not being a perfect representation of totalitarian governments. It's not a literal interpretation of reality.

Peter's fault was allowing his values to be dictated by other people, he spent all his life chasing after success as defined by them. He achieved his goal of becoming famous but his fame was based on nothing but his persona that he had created and in the end it left him a broken man because he wasted his life. It does make sense that Peter was obsessed with Dominique. She was the ultimate embodiment of the unobtainable female so obviously a large part of his self-worth was dependent upon him getting her. So you are correct in your analysis but not in the conclusion that his fault was not a lack of egoism, if he were an egoist he would have look after his own self interest, and chosen what he wanted (Catherine) rather than chasing after societies idea of success and choosing Dominique.

And about Dominique and Roark? Let's face it, Rand had an obsessive personality, if she had been born today she would probably be writing Twilight fanfiction. She projects her own fantasies in to the book.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

You find it amusing but after nearly 2k post I say it gets old real quick and I can accept the fact that people like B1rd can butcher the word subjectivity and objectivity without a problem

What gets tedious is arguments about semantics.

B1rd wrote:

What gets tedious is arguments about semantics.

That feeling is mutual

B1rd wrote:

What gets tedious is arguments about semantics.

Welcome to like 75% of philosophy, bickering about the technical details of organizational systems.

Mio Winter wrote:

Premise 1: Suffering is bad and happiness is good.

This premise is already rubbish.

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/42

I'm going to pass on rehashing this incredibly enthralling discussion. I'm not particularly interested in a second helping of breaking my foot off in a special someone's ass, because it wasn't time well spent the first go around even when I accomplished everything I expected.

Philosofikal wrote:

B1rd wrote:

What gets tedious is arguments about semantics.

Welcome to like 75% of philosophy, bickering about the technical details of organizational systems.

Mio Winter wrote:

Premise 1: Suffering is bad and happiness is good.

This premise is already rubbish.

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/42

I'm going to pass on rehashing this incredibly enthralling discussion. I'm not particularly interested in a second helping of breaking my foot off in a special someone's ass, because it wasn't time well spent the first go around even when I accomplished everything I expected.

That comic isn't very hard to debunk. Its makes faulty assumptions and does a horrible job at defining happiness and suffering.