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.

B1rd wrote:

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

I really love hearing about how easy doing something is from someone who then goes on to not do it.

Then again, considering how well you fared the last time you took me up on a challenge, maybe that's for the best.

I won't put in the effort again to refute you, but maybe I can spare a chuckle.

Your claim that you "won" is based on nothing but your own assumption. I think I see a conflict of interest there. You didn't convince any one. It takes some serious effort to think yourself away from common sense that is apparent to most people, like happiness is good or the quality of art isn't completely subjective.

And then you complain that I didn't rebut your comic when you're the one who made an assertion without providing an argument in the first place. No, linking to some third-party material is not an acceptable substitute for an argument. And if I recall correctly, you still haven't responded to my last post about the topic.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

subjectivity and objectivity without a problem

One might argue that the objectivity of a given concept is highly subjective. "Common" sense isn't very common after all - if it exists at all. :^)

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

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.

We could actually just agree to what Momiji said, everyone HAVE his own "pp farm" threshold. It depends on your ability to aim, read, snap... and right now ESPECIALLY speed. I could say - having speed makes you a better farmer since it opens you to way wider amount of maps which can be farmed.

For many people this map:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/352714
Is a nice pp farm map - simple readable patterns, not too high AR (I think its AR10 with DT on last diff), few bursts, just sit and farm till you get enough pp from it. But what it require?
Stable 210 bpm - trust me, there are people even in 4/3-digit groups who cannot play anything above 200 bpm. It looks like some kind of magical barrier because it holds down many players to the point where even maps like Kakushigoto are painfull and almost impossible to FC.
On side note - it is not matter of work out your speed in my case, long time ago I spend numerous amount of time playing only 200+ with mindset that having speed will just benefit my strongest skill which is consistency and only thing what it gave me is burn out of this game to the point where I just randomly run it and play just for sake to not forget how to click circles and hope one day I will get my motivation back.

So - at this point - people who don't have speed are limited and many maps what for one person was "ez pp", for them most like was cost of hard work to get this pp - do you call it at this point "pp farm"? For you it is, for them, it doesn't since they worked their ass and got FC either after 30-40-50+ retry as a lucky run.

Consistency - comes to the point where for one people long maps and marathons might be a farm maps due they doesn't really feel any nerves, they learned how to deal with them etc. For majority however, long maps are not a farm maps and will never be. Consistency is hardest, right after streaming skillset to maintain since it include dealing with nerves as they grow while you go to the end of map. Also, from my own experience, dealing with annoying songs is also hard, focusing for 5-6-7+ min while song is not in your taste just adds difficulty.

As you can see - map being a farm map is subjective at many points.

Now from mapping point of view:

Right now we have era of making a 30 second pure jump maps for sake of giving out gigantic amount of pp for just a one particular skillset - jump aim. How benefit from it? Everyone, like literally everyone. You must agree that jumping is a basic skillset which is in high tendency to be developed first. Considering how maps are builded and calculated, right now it is just a race between mappers who will squeeze more pp from shortest possible song. Again - it benefits all people, short song, even people without speed might just go through the pain and somehow get a score there, it is not a big deal to play for this 18-20sec.

I couldn't call out "people who doesn't know anything about mapping" so easily - In my opinion better judgment about playability and general map quality have players who can FC map with ease, even with mods - speaking about high tier players. Mappers know map from technical point but lets be honest - someone like Monstrata who cannot play his own maps for shit, cannot tell how players will feel about it (example of cookie monster being widely called out as garbage trash, yet Monstrata thinks its better than 98% of maps created this days). Yet - players have nothing to say about maps... that's why we have - what we have, playerbase split apart for this who hate pure pp maps and this who support them because they give extremely easy ranking points.

As I stated in one of posts in this forum - I tend to go for them but as much as it is in my power, I try to keep map being at least 2 min drain time after DT. So far it works, I feel less trashy but again, I don't hide that I am in group who support balanced maps over pure pp farm. Yet, my "pp farming" threshold is low, as I am speed capped + not motivated to play either for ranks or for progression (reason why I cba to even try to improve my remote control score and my overall acc drop over time).

"Haters" as you call it, yes, we are haters of pure pp farm maps, myself, I had moments of peace and just "don't give a single fuck" which created this mess in my top ranks but I wasn't able to hold down for long, probably after harumachi spam, I wasn't able to hold on and again started to hate whole idea of mapping for pure pp. I could just say to myself "pp farmers benefit from speed but others can just learn HDHR and farm this kind of maps". Yet:
- HDHR is way harder to learn than HDDT at range where people actually benefit from pure pp farm maps (due HDDT giving out AR9.6 and often OD9 while HDHR puts everything at 10 + higher CS which makes aiming harder)
- HDHR gives significant lower amount of pp from this maps which again puts speed players at heavy advantage in term of gaining ranks
- HDHR is generally not recommended for 5-digits (this statement comes from my own questions towards top ranked players who also stream, everyone said same thing, get your first 300pp nomod or HD then try to learn HR)
So what we have left? Right now practically nothing, people blessed with physical ability to work out their speed will benefit greatly from actual meta while slower players will just slowly go up or stay at their own rank (speaking about this not talented who most of the time work out for each score). Talented people will not have problem at all and they are mainly in group "I don't care".

For you I might have many "pp farm maps" in top ranks, for me some of them were actually a workout to get an actual score. You should get the point from now on, I look forward for nice discussion.

chainpullz wrote:

One might argue that the objectivity of a given concept is highly subjective. "Common" sense isn't very common after all - if it exists at all. :^)

That's a useless rabbit hole you don't want to go in, it has no useful implications if you consider everything subjective.

Yes sure language is completely made up thus our choice of word are inheritly subjective but that's just not helpful on a practical level

[Taiga] wrote:

SPOILER

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

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.

We could actually just agree to what Momiji said, everyone HAVE his own "pp farm" threshold. It depends on your ability to aim, read, snap... and right now ESPECIALLY speed. I could say - having speed makes you a better farmer since it opens you to way wider amount of maps which can be farmed.

For many people this map:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/352714
Is a nice pp farm map - simple readable patterns, not too high AR (I think its AR10 with DT on last diff), few bursts, just sit and farm till you get enough pp from it. But what it require?
Stable 210 bpm - trust me, there are people even in 4/3-digit groups who cannot play anything above 200 bpm. It looks like some kind of magical barrier because it holds down many players to the point where even maps like Kakushigoto are painfull and almost impossible to FC.
On side note - it is not matter of work out your speed in my case, long time ago I spend numerous amount of time playing only 200+ with mindset that having speed will just benefit my strongest skill which is consistency and only thing what it gave me is burn out of this game to the point where I just randomly run it and play just for sake to not forget how to click circles and hope one day I will get my motivation back.

So - at this point - people who don't have speed are limited and many maps what for one person was "ez pp", for them most like was cost of hard work to get this pp - do you call it at this point "pp farm"? For you it is, for them, it doesn't since they worked their ass and got FC either after 30-40-50+ retry as a lucky run.

Consistency - comes to the point where for one people long maps and marathons might be a farm maps due they doesn't really feel any nerves, they learned how to deal with them etc. For majority however, long maps are not a farm maps and will never be. Consistency is hardest, right after streaming skillset to maintain since it include dealing with nerves as they grow while you go to the end of map. Also, from my own experience, dealing with annoying songs is also hard, focusing for 5-6-7+ min while song is not in your taste just adds difficulty.

As you can see - map being a farm map is subjective at many points.

Now from mapping point of view:

Right now we have era of making a 30 second pure jump maps for sake of giving out gigantic amount of pp for just a one particular skillset - jump aim. How benefit from it? Everyone, like literally everyone. You must agree that jumping is a basic skillset which is in high tendency to be developed first. Considering how maps are builded and calculated, right now it is just a race between mappers who will squeeze more pp from shortest possible song. Again - it benefits all people, short song, even people without speed might just go through the pain and somehow get a score there, it is not a big deal to play for this 18-20sec.

I couldn't call out "people who doesn't know anything about mapping" so easily - In my opinion better judgment about playability and general map quality have players who can FC map with ease, even with mods - speaking about high tier players. Mappers know map from technical point but lets be honest - someone like Monstrata who cannot play his own maps for shit, cannot tell how players will feel about it (example of cookie monster being widely called out as garbage trash, yet Monstrata thinks its better than 98% of maps created this days). Yet - players have nothing to say about maps... that's why we have - what we have, playerbase split apart for this who hate pure pp maps and this who support them because they give extremely easy ranking points.

As I stated in one of posts in this forum - I tend to go for them but as much as it is in my power, I try to keep map being at least 2 min drain time after DT. So far it works, I feel less trashy but again, I don't hide that I am in group who support balanced maps over pure pp farm. Yet, my "pp farming" threshold is low, as I am speed capped + not motivated to play either for ranks or for progression (reason why I cba to even try to improve my remote control score and my overall acc drop over time).

"Haters" as you call it, yes, we are haters of pure pp farm maps, myself, I had moments of peace and just "don't give a single fuck" which created this mess in my top ranks but I wasn't able to hold down for long, probably after harumachi spam, I wasn't able to hold on and again started to hate whole idea of mapping for pure pp. I could just say to myself "pp farmers benefit from speed but others can just learn HDHR and farm this kind of maps". Yet:
- HDHR is way harder to learn than HDDT at range where people actually benefit from pure pp farm maps (due HDDT giving out AR9.6 and often OD9 while HDHR puts everything at 10 + higher CS which makes aiming harder)
- HDHR gives significant lower amount of pp from this maps which again puts speed players at heavy advantage in term of gaining ranks
- HDHR is generally not recommended for 5-digits (this statement comes from my own questions towards top ranked players who also stream, everyone said same thing, get your first 300pp nomod or HD then try to learn HR)
So what we have left? Right now practically nothing, people blessed with physical ability to work out their speed will benefit greatly from actual meta while slower players will just slowly go up or stay at their own rank (speaking about this not talented who most of the time work out for each score). Talented people will not have problem at all and they are mainly in group "I don't care".

For you I might have many "pp farm maps" in top ranks, for me some of them were actually a workout to get an actual score. You should get the point from now on, I look forward for nice discussion.

I don't think speed is about physical ability. It's a cognitive ability. Like, how fast your brain can churn out complex instructions for every circle you see on the screen. Angelsim has insane speed with both his mouse and his tablet, and that's not because he practiced his hand for speed in both of the playstyles, but because his brain already had the skill.

On another note, I find people who write posts longer than five paragraphs very endearing. Doesn't matter what the post is about.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

One might argue that the objectivity of a given concept is highly subjective. "Common" sense isn't very common after all - if it exists at all. :^)

That's a useless rabbit hole you don't want to go in, it has no useful implications if you consider everything subjective.

Yes sure language is completely made up thus our choice of word are inheritly subjective but that's just not helpful on a practical level

On the contrary, philosophy is all about exploring useless rabbit holes. If you want something more practical/concrete go with mathematics. :^)

chainpullz wrote:

On the contrary, philosophy is all about exploring useless rabbit holes. If you want something more practical/concrete go with mathematics. :^)

I am offended. Certain kinds of philosophy is about the most important thing you could learn about, even for most plausible values you could have. Other kinds of philosophy are about as useless as the most arcane forms of pure mathematics, but you don't know which kinds of philosophy are important before you've figured them out.

In summary: math bad, philosophy good

Mio Winter wrote:

Angelsim has insane speed with both his mouse and his tablet, and that's not because he practiced his hand for speed in both of the playstyles, but because his brain already had the skill.

option 1: speed of tapping
Because mouse and tablet have no impact on your keyboard, next.
option 2: speed of reading
Because mouse and tablet have no impact on your mind, next.
option 3: speed of aiming
Because mouse and tablet both require a hand, next.

I won't say pp maps are always alright, to be honest there ARE circumstance i think pp map are not ok.

Take a look at this
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1192759?m=0
I have no problem with this kind of pp-ish map, i feel like i am clicking on the rhythm, i like the way it is mapped.
There are maps that are pp map but are still considered as a good map, for an example, the blue dragon by blue dragon (aka mismagius) is ok, even tho it is quite overmapped for people who wanted to grind pp out of it

what is not ok, however, are maps which are made purely for pp. when you dont even feel like you are playing with the rhythm, the map doesn't repersent the music well etc
what i mean would be places where a slider with velocity change can be used to repersent the rhythm but instead, a jump/triangle is used just for the sake of pp gain.
I do notice a considerable amount people who doesn't like velocity change, lets accept this. Slider with velocity change is hard but they are a good way to repersent the rhythm's speed change. This is shown in one of rrtyui's map; exit the earth's atmosphere

I do not hate people who pp map or pp farms, its just that the map does not repersents the music sometimes and well sometimes i don't feel as good as i played them at all.

chainpullz wrote:

chainpullz wrote:

One might argue that the objectivity of a given concept is highly subjective. "Common" sense isn't very common after all - if it exists at all. :^)

On the contrary, philosophy is all about exploring useless rabbit holes. If you want something more practical/concrete go with mathematics. :^)

Science finds how, but philosophy finds why. Science without philosophy is like speeding in a car at night with the lights off. When the end result is running off the road into a tree, did going fast really help? Do you really want to be responsible for something like the atomic bomb without thoroughly considering the ethical implications?

"Now we are all sons of bitches."
—Kenneth Bainbridge, director of the Trinity nuclear test

B1rd wrote:

Your claim that you "won" is based on nothing but your own assumption. I think I see a conflict of interest there. You didn't convince any one. It takes some serious effort to think yourself away from common sense that is apparent to most people, like happiness is good or the quality of art isn't completely subjective.

And yes, the idea of "common sense", ironically for what you're trying to call me out for, is just shorthard for "observations about the world I've made that I assume to be universal". Go to any foreign country, live there for a while, and see just how far your common sense goes.

B1rd wrote:

And then you complain that I didn't rebut your comic when you're the one who made an assertion without providing an argument in the first place. No, linking to some third-party material is not an acceptable substitute for an argument. And if I recall correctly, you still haven't responded to my last post about the topic.

First, the point of my post is to show that the idea of reducing good and bad to such incredibly oversimplified terms is absurd. It is so much more complex than that.

Secondly, at no point did you even respond to the post that I made. You completely ignored it. I fail to see why I have to make a field goal every time you move the goal posts while you are not obliged to so much as read what I write.

The end result of this, and the reason why I have little motivation to continue to debate you, is that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable divide in the driving force of our mechanations. I seek self-direction and universalism, and you seek hierarchy and power. And, in essence, you think that anything that isn't driven by the value of power and hierarchy is a failure.

[Taiga] wrote:

As you can see - map being a farm map is subjective at many points.

Yes it is subjective, as is music. However just like music you can classify it based on traits. When many traits agree with a decent list of criteria you can make very objective observations. For example you cant say that a jazz song is metal because music is subjective. Therefore farm and non farm maps can be objectively differentiated.

[Taiga] wrote:

You must agree that jumping is a basic skillset which is in high tendency to be developed first.

I agree with this

[Taiga] wrote:

cookie monster being widely called out as garbage trash

Yes it was called trash, I call it trash too but as a joke. I'm sorry to say this but If you actually hate the map you don't have a sense of humor, that map was hilarious. What is wrong with an occasionally ranked shitmap for fun? Maybe then more interesting meta breaking maps can enter ranked because people are not too tight about what gets ranked.

[Taiga] wrote:

I had moments of peace and just "don't give a single fuck" which created this mess in my top ranks but I wasn't able to hold down for long, probably after harumachi spam, I wasn't able to hold on and again started to hate whole idea of mapping for pure pp.

Game balance is hard, especially when a game is complex. However the perfectly balanced game is not necessarily a fun one. Games are platforms in which a player explores, they are not reward machines. If a reward system is not perfect it doesn't matter, what matters is the journey not the goal.

[B1rd] wrote:

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.

It may not be a correct representation of reality but it does show the authors bias which detracts from the values which are presented

[B1rd] wrote:

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.

He didn't know what he wanted because he was two different people with two different desires. If his self interest was power he would of chosen Dominique and if his self interest was a real relationship he would of chosen Catherine. If his interest was others he could also choose either Dominique or Catherine because he had two different personalities. His fault was not the lack of egoism, it was a lack of spine.

I usually don't like talking about egoism because people often try to prove that giving to others is always in the givers self interest. However the reverse is also true, you can consider any "selfish" action and show how it can benefit others.

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Game balance is hard, especially when a game is complex. However the perfectly balanced game is not necessarily a fun one. Games are platforms in which a player explores, they are not reward machines. If a reward system is not perfect it doesn't matter, what matters is the journey not the goal.

[B1rd] wrote:

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.

It may not be a correct representation of reality but it does show the authors bias which detracts from the values which are presented

[B1rd] wrote:

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.

He didn't know what he wanted because he was two different people with two different desires. If his self interest was power he would of chosen Dominique and if his self interest was a real relationship he would of chosen Catherine. If his interest was others he could also choose either Dominique or Catherine because he had two different personalities. His fault was not the lack of egoism, it was a lack of spine.

I usually don't like talking about egoism because people often try to prove that giving to others is always in the givers self interest. However the reverse is also true, you can consider any "selfish" action and show how it can benefit others.

No, he wasn't two different people. He was merely creating a persona and manifesting traits that society expected of him, because he was to cowardly to confront his own inner desires and seek his own path for his own sake. Allowing your actions to be shaped by society is not the actions of an egoist. This is reinforced many times throughout the book:

"Every form has its own meaning. Every man creates his meaning and form and goal. Why is it so important—what others have done? Why does it become sacred by the mere fact of not being your own? Why is anyone and everyone right—so long as it's not yourself? Why does the number of those others take the place of truth? Why is truth made a mere matter of arithmetic—and only of addition at that? Why is everything twisted out of all sense to fit everything else? There must be some reason. I don't know. I've never known it. I'd like to understand."
Chapter I, pp. 18-19 ; Howard Roark to the Dean

"If you want my advice, Peter, you've made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don't you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?"
Chapter II, p. 28 ; Howard Roark to Peter Keating

"How do you always manage to decide?"
"How can you let others decide for you?"
Chapter II, p. 28 ; Peter Keating and Howard Roark

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Yes it is subjective, as is music. However just like music you can classify it based on traits. When many traits agree with a decent list of criteria you can make very objective observations. For example you cant say that a jazz song is metal because music is subjective. Therefore farm and non farm maps can be objectively differentiated.

Yes, if comes to general criteria, farm and non-farm maps are different. If someone call a Camellia - Let's Jump a farm map, I would call this guy stupid without regret. Even easier maps in term of patterns - for example many of pishi rock maps are not considered farm maps due strain what they put to play them (amount of weird angled streams and bursts). In general many maps are farm maps but as I said, don't you think that if you take down variables into pieces, at some point map being a "farm maps" for one person, doesn't really need to be a farm map for another?

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Yes it was called trash, I call it trash too but as a joke. I'm sorry to say this but If you actually hate the map you don't have a sense of humor, that map was hilarious. What is wrong with an occasionally ranked shitmap for fun? Maybe then more interesting meta breaking maps can enter ranked because people are not too tight about what gets ranked.

It is old case of maps having certain level of quality. There was already many topics about this in mapping community, this is one of reasons why Neil Watts doesn't make first april maps anymore due how last one (Bad Apple by Yuyuyuppe mixed with Justin Bieber) enraged community of being bad in term of mapping alongside with being a completely garbage concept.

Most of Harumachi, Cookie Monster, Bill Nye etc actually join this trend right now - maps being made just as a "meme". Before we had Miiro spam and honestly, I prefer spam of Miiro which despite being a copy paste all over the place, had some basic rhythm sense. Unfortunately latest Monstrata maps are made completely out of it, yet exploiting almost every possible hole in pp formula.

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Game balance is hard, especially when a game is complex. However the perfectly balanced game is not necessarily a fun one. Games are platforms in which a player explores, they are not reward machines. If a reward system is not perfect it doesn't matter, what matters is the journey not the goal.

Well, maybe fact that I came from times where "big reward" was equal to "massive effort" is the case. I am old gamer, for me "going easy mode" is a disgusting way of fixing balance (?) or trying to help newbies, dunno really. I cannot find anything which could support this case. In my dictionary top places in the ranking (speaking even up to top 1k) are for people who doesn't have holes in skillsets, who are stable as fuck and can deal with everything what others cannot. Going further down, same rule applies.
But right now ranking doesn't mean shit, it is artificially boosted by maps created purely for gains with almost zero effort needed. Someone who have physical ability to get up to 230-240 bpm, not even stable and controllable one, can just spam 30s up to 1min maps and get ahead of people who actually have many skillsets developed. From my experience in visiting multi, I saw already people like that - put a semi-tech map into lobby and they either quit or cannot play this map for shit, put over 2k combo map - they cannot achieve more than 300-400 combo with high amount of misses, only thing what they can play is pure jumpy map which is max one and half min long. Someone who is low 4-digit/high 5-digit (about my rank) shouldn't have such big skillset gaps at this rank, yet there are people like that. In my dictionary, they don't belong to this rank and should never be there. By other games terminology, this guys got just boosted to this rank and actual "maps made for pure pp" are way to get self-boosted. Even daidai require effort in comparison to most Harumachi / ok dad / cookie monster / bill nye etc.
I know that I shouldn't speak about ranking when I am completely not interested in playing for it (and keeping my personal fun by staying forever at 20-25k which I never left for over a one and half year right now ^^), yet when day come where I somehow regain my motivation to again play actively and possibly go for 4-digit place, it just make me sad and adds to lack of motivation that - there is really no point in ranking up. Right now only point in this is unlocking higher stage of tournaments capped by ranks.

In my opinion good fix for this issue right now could be creating a KYU/DAN System ranking - which could efficiently put "one trick ponies" at the bottom of it and let all-rounder players progress higher no matter what kind of mods they play - as HR/DT as a difficulty increasing mods, it is player choice to play them, yet ranking should base on player ability to play maps as they are supposed to be played. Maybe map chart for certain level could contain "choice for certain mod mapsets", dunno, osu!std is complex at this point in term of checking player skillset at certain point. PP ranking is not possible to fix right now, I would just waste it completely :/.

You get my point I think.

[Taiga] wrote:

In my opinion good fix for this issue right now could be creating a KYU/DAN System ranking [...]

This is the best idea ever!

How does that work, though? I just know the words from Go.

Mio Winter wrote:

[Taiga] wrote:

In my opinion good fix for this issue right now could be creating a KYU/DAN System ranking [...]

This is the best idea ever!

How does that work, though? I just know the words from Go.

Each KYU/DAN have dedicated mapset which contain several lower type of maps. For STD this could be few maps in one mapset. You have requirement for example - "FC, min 98% acc" to pass and be placed in certain category. If you don't meet this requirement, you cannot progress. Basically, KYU/DAN system force you to develop all skillsets if you want to progress.

Maps for them could start from basic jumpy short maps at KYU level (lowest one) and progress to semi-tech reading + control + streaming at low DAN, reading + streaming + consistency (marathon type maps) at mid DAN up to pure tech + slider art + deathstream/stamina maps at high DAN level.

For mods it could be just - adding as a choice at first maps for HR/DT/HD up to "required to pass" at high stage which means, for example to be placed high in DAN ranking, you are required to pass additional mapsets with HR and DT (HD as a choice).

[Taiga] wrote:

Mio Winter wrote:

This is the best idea ever!

How does that work, though? I just know the words from Go.

Each KYU/DAN have dedicated mapset which contain several lower type of maps. For STD this could be few maps in one mapset. You have requirement for example - "FC, min 98% acc" to pass and be placed in certain category. If you don't meet this requirement, you cannot progress. Basically, KYU/DAN system force you to develop all skillsets if you want to progress.

Maps for them could start from basic jumpy short maps at KYU level (lowest one) and progress to semi-tech reading + control + streaming at low DAN, reading + streaming + consistency (marathon type maps) at mid DAN up to pure tech + slider art + deathstream/stamina maps at high DAN level.

Oh! That's a fun idea. Would disproportionately favour the maps that are used as ranking criteria, though. I suppose it's already true that certain maps are disproportionately favoured in the PP system, because they are easier to gain PP on. But with the KYU/DAN system, you could choose to favour maps which require more varied skills, as you say.

Sounds like more fun than PP system to me, but I'm weird, and others will probably prefer the PP system.

Well, I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring all the skills (e.g. speed, reading, aim, acc) to advance a rank. I think -GN should be ranked among the top simply because he's one of the best at one thing: reading/technical maps. I'd prefer if a system let you advance in rank either by becoming much better at one skill, or a little better at many different skills. So the ranking would reflect the average of your skills, instead of favouring any specific skill (PP system) and instead of requiring you to be good at all skills (as your suggested ranking would require).

B1rd wrote:

Allowing your actions to be shaped by society is not the actions of an egoist.

Then by that definition there is no egoist in this world and there never will be. All people are shaped by society whether they want to be or not. Social conditioning remains even if you are alone and choose your own path. If you want to escape the effect of society you have to lead an antisocial life. The book hides any social conditioning of Roark (parents or relatives etc) because the author is oblivious of social conditioning and believes they are separate from the world they live in. They want to believe their being can be solely of their own creation because they reject society.

They don't realize that by rejecting society they are rejecting themselves because they are society. They were born in it, molded by it and cannot be taken outside of it because they are it. People don't exist without society and society does not exist without people. Consciousness is born out of social interaction and will die without it. [1]

B1rd wrote:

No, he wasn't two different people. He was merely creating a persona and manifesting traits that society expected of him, because he was to cowardly to confront his own inner desires and seek his own path for his own sake.

Allowing your actions to be shaped by society isn't a bad thing. It can sometimes lead to bad situations but so can following your own desires. The book has been set up in a way that those who follow their own desires have desires that lead to positive outcomes and those who follow the desires of others are lead astray by bad influences. If Peter had good influences or he could see the intent of his bad influences he would of had a better life. The problem with egoism is that self interest is all that matters so if the interests of the person is bad then the outcome will be bad e.g prisoners dilemma. The book makes a gross assumption that all self interest is good and all desires of others are bad. In reality you should consider both the desires of others and yourself.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2762377?se ... b_contents

Mio Winter wrote:

Oh! That's a fun idea. Would disproportionately favour the maps that are used as ranking criteria, though. I suppose it's already true that certain maps are disproportionately favoured in the PP system, because they are easier to gain PP on. But with the KYU/DAN system, you could choose to favour maps which require more varied skills, as you say.

Sounds like more fun than PP system to me, but I'm weird, and others will probably prefer the PP system.

Well, I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring all the skills (e.g. speed, reading, aim, acc) to advance a rank. I think -GN should be ranked among the top simply because he's one of the best at one thing: reading/technical maps. I'd prefer if a system let you advance in rank either by becoming much better at one skill, or a little better at many different skills. So the ranking would reflect the average of your skills, instead of favouring any specific skill (PP system) and instead of requiring you to be good at all skills (as your suggested ranking would require).

Being an all-rounder for the very top of DAN ranking is main reason why it exist. People cannot complain then that someone who is not skilled at X is placed high in the ranking. Very top of it is designed for people who really put effort into everything in this game - reading, streaming, consistency, jumps, etc. Someone who miss some skills should never be allowed to sit in one place with people who are efficient in everything.

DAN ranking is not made for people who want to compete in certain skills. For this you can use global ranking on the map which require only certain skill. DAN ranking is so far, from history of IIDX/KSM, the most fair ranking system out of them since it put into challenge your skills, not your ability to play something or how much time you play. Skill above everything which puts on one boat players who are talented and doesn't need much time to achieve high tier performance and people who work out for it.

Which goes to one conclusion - typical "pp farmer" who only play to get score on another 30s-1m farm map and doesn't care about being good at streaming, long maps, semi-tech/tech reading will never have a chance to get higher than he supposed to be. There will not be a situation like it is now - people who don't belong to certain ranking range will not be there.

I love everything about pp maps and am not ashamed to admit i like them. Yes. The more pp maps that get ranked the better!!

Dan ranking is, overall, the best approach. I agree with taiga. Hopefully they push something like it in the future.

Naotoshi wrote:

Dan ranking is, overall, the best approach. I agree with taiga. Hopefully they push something like it in the future.

I was thinking already about developing such system as 3rd party site but any moves in this direction... not really, at least not for now till I stabilize new work and get used to new working hours.

As far as I am able to provide dedicated server with full administration (nginx, php, my(pg)sql, mail and ftp service), that doing everything alone takes time (speaking about creating website from scratch, script to check osu replays based on "replay analyzer", etc).

Not to mention I am in not good relationship with few mappers (especially Monstrata, I can just imagine how he hate me), having reasonable and experienced people to create mappools for each stage could be helpful (as I am not experienced in that matter).

idk Dan system implies forcing mappers to map in a certain way which only a few proficient mappers can do, and let's just say it will barricade a lot of aspiring mappers from even getting started.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

idk Dan system implies forcing mappers to map in a certain way which only a few proficient mappers can do, and let's just say it will barricade a lot of aspiring mappers from even getting started.

Bs.... stage mappools can be made from what we have now. With exceptions that scores needs to be actually done within 24 hours to be fair with everyone.