What's the bpm you're most comfortable for streams?
Asking because I can't stream more than 130bpm and I wanna see if i'm the only one that can't do it properly even after practicing everyday for 7 months

When in a good day, 150 for long ones, 160 for short ones, anything faster i'm too slow (it still allow me to do very-short/bursts with minimal 100s/50s).
When in a bad day (tired, not in mood or whatever) 0 bpm, i just can't stream at all.

200bpm for long streams, 220 for a 5-9 notes or bursts :/

i can do like 130 bpm for long and like 120-125 for short ones

280 for short on a good day, 160-180ish for long

ItzJustAlex wrote:

I wanna see if i'm the only one that can't do it properly even after practicing everyday for 7 months

If you've been actively practicing streaming for 7 months and can't go above 130, look to change of tactics and/or figure out what is prevent you from reaching faster (position, playstyle, hardware, cat sitting on your arm, etc.)

And as for my bpm ranges :
6-note burst 315bpm, 16-notes burst 270bpm-300bpm, long streams 240ish bpm, deathstreams 200ish bpm

up to 260 10-15 note streams, 210 up to 100 notes, 200 for 400 notes

340 bpm for deathstreams, 420 bpm bursts (100-200 notes), 69420 bpm for triples.

180-195ish

You've obviously been practicing the wrong way for the past 7 months...

Almost wrote:

You've obviously been practicing the wrong way for the past 7 months...

That's what you'd think but after all this time I still can't deathstream 130bpm.
But maybe all my advice on improvement has always been trash.

Endaris wrote:

Almost wrote:

You've obviously been practicing the wrong way for the past 7 months...

That's what you'd think but after all this time I still can't deathstream 130bpm.
But maybe all my advice on improvement has always been trash.

You've definitely been doing it wrong this whole time haha. In all honesty, if you have nothing wrong with your fingers then there isn't any reason you shouldn't be able to stream at least above 200 bpm with the right and enough practice (even 200 is quite 'low').

Think about what type of maps you normally play and whether or not you're actually challenging yourself physically. It's not just about finding maps just outside of your comfort zone in terms of overall skill, you have to be playing maps just outside of comfort zone in terms of speed if you want to stream faster. Just to drill the point in further, expecting to stream faster just because you're playing a lot of hours playing things that you find comfortable is like expecting to be able to run a full marathon because you spend hours a day walking.

about 5 sometimes 6

Streaming 200 bpm like with high accuracy isn't too hard
deathstreaming (100 or more notes) is a whole different ball game for any bpm
a lot of things come into play that don't in normal streams, like ability to keep that rhythm consistently and on time for an extended period, keeping your internal metronome steady, stamina, being able to correct your streaming when you start to get 100's, flow aim since deathstreams almost always have to curve around the playfield, etc.
i can handle up to like 175

For normal length streams, the most important thing is starting the first note at the right time. The rest of those things play less of a role.

Vuelo Eluko wrote:

Streaming 200 bpm like with high accuracy isn't too hard
deathstreaming (100 or more notes) is a whole different ball game for any bpm
a lot of things come into play that don't in normal streams, like ability to keep that rhythm consistently and on time for an extended period, keeping your internal metronome steady, stamina, being able to correct your streaming when you start to get 100's, flow aim since deathstreams almost always have to curve around the playfield, etc.
i can handle up to like 175

For normal length streams, the most important thing is starting the first note at the right time. The rest of those things play less of a role.

A bit off-topic but I'm just going to point out that 'flow aim' is a non-factor for being able to stream something. I can guarantee you that if you screw up a stream it's either going to be because you screwed up the tapping or your reading. I don't believe 'flow aim' even is anything at all really. Everything else you said I agree with.

Almost wrote:

Vuelo Eluko wrote:

Streaming 200 bpm like with high accuracy isn't too hard
deathstreaming (100 or more notes) is a whole different ball game for any bpm
a lot of things come into play that don't in normal streams, like ability to keep that rhythm consistently and on time for an extended period, keeping your internal metronome steady, stamina, being able to correct your streaming when you start to get 100's, flow aim since deathstreams almost always have to curve around the playfield, etc.
i can handle up to like 175

For normal length streams, the most important thing is starting the first note at the right time. The rest of those things play less of a role.

A bit off-topic but I'm just going to point out that 'flow aim' is a non-factor for being able to stream something. I can guarantee you that if you screw up a stream it's either going to be because you screwed up the tapping or your reading. I don't believe 'flow aim' even is anything at all really. Everything else you said I agree with.

This is a pretty clueless post, by this logic fcing this is just as hard if not harder than fcing 4d because it has even longer 222bpm streams, right?



Aim matters a whole lot when it comes to streams, the amount it matters varies with spacing. On a map like this sure it's basically all coming down to taps, but most death streams are at least half a circle apart if not more and some also vary in length constantly.

Or are you going to tell me this map is as easy as any other 170 bpm stream map? https://files.catbox.moe/1tuu52.osz

Almost wrote:

A bit off-topic but I'm just going to point out that 'flow aim' is a non-factor for being able to stream something. I can guarantee you that if you screw up a stream it's either going to be because you screwed up the tapping or your reading. I don't believe 'flow aim' even is anything at all really. Everything else you said I agree with.

Sure it's well know that spaced stuff are exactly as hard to aim as stacked stuff.
Everyone know that aiming in a flow motion at the exact correct speed to make your cursor hovering the circles at the correct time is firetrucking easy.

Vuelo Eluko wrote:

Almost wrote:

A bit off-topic but I'm just going to point out that 'flow aim' is a non-factor for being able to stream something. I can guarantee you that if you screw up a stream it's either going to be because you screwed up the tapping or your reading. I don't believe 'flow aim' even is anything at all really. Everything else you said I agree with.

This is a pretty clueless post, by this logic fcing this is just as hard if not harder than fcing 4d because it has even longer 222bpm streams, right?

Aim matters a whole lot when it comes to streams, the amount it matters varies with spacing. On a map like this sure it's basically all coming down to taps, but most death streams are at least half a circle apart if not more and some also vary in length constantly.

Or are you going to tell me this map is as easy as any other 170 bpm stream map? https://files.catbox.moe/1tuu52.osz

I think you're misconstruing and/or not understanding my point here. I have not commented at all about the tapping part of streaming, only the aiming. So comparing the video you linked to 4D is a stupid point as it's not even what I'm arguing. As an aside, both have aspects that are more difficult than the other - 4D in terms of the difficulty in reading and that video in the difficulty in stamina.

People seem to mistake the reading difficulty in streaming with some sort of aiming difficulty. What makes a stream more difficult to read is the object density, the AR, the spacing and the way the stream is mapped (straight, curly, zig zag, etc). Aiming in streaming is not very difficult, most streams are not spaced very far apart and aim only has to do with getting your cursor from point A to point B accurately. Obviously, this gets more difficult when streams have large gaps in between each circle and then aim becomes more difficult (but so too does the reading of the stream). Even if the spacing is varied within a stream, that can be corrected just based on reading the stream better.

I feel like the reason people mistake the reading and aiming difficulties in streams is based on the way most people read them. If you just look at the stream as a whole and then move your cursor along trying to trace the stream, you're essentially just guessing and you're going to have a whole lot of consistency issues. If you look at the next circle within the stream you need to click on, then none of those spacing issues really matter because you're going to be moving your cursor to where it's needed. Streaming properly isn't about trying to match the speed of your cursor to the stream.

I can't comment on that map you linked as the link doesn't work.

Aim is more than just swinging your cursor around at individual circles, and is closely tied to aiming. When you say a stream is harder because of 'reading' i see that as 'flow aim'.

and AR isn't that big of a factor when you can read them all, there's a reason stream maps become much harder with hdhr despite higher ar meaning they should be "easier to read"

Knowing what you have to do (reading well) don't make you able to magically success at it (aiming correctly).

Of course you can't aim properly something if you're not reading it well,
but saying that if i don't hit the the target's center easily with a dart, is because i don't know how to trow a dart, is wrong.
Mouse (or pen) control (snap-aim, flow-aim) is a thing, you can't blame reading for every mistakes.

If you see people like doom or wolf missing a circle from a few pixels then notelocking and missing several circles in the spaced stream, you'll say to them "you have reading issues" ?

Vuelo Eluko wrote:

Aim is more than just swinging your cursor around at individual circles, and is closely tied to aiming. When you say a stream is harder because of 'reading' i see that as 'flow aim'.

and AR isn't that big of a factor when you can read them all, there's a reason stream maps become much harder with hdhr despite higher ar meaning they should be "easier to read"

Calling it 'flow aim' is just misrepresenting what the true issue really is. Obviously my description of aiming is very rudimentary but my point still stands. Imagine you had 2 streams, exact same bpm, cs, spacing, etc and the only difference was the way they were mapped. The first was mapped in a slight curve like you see quite commonly and the second was mapped in a zigzag shape. The aim component is the same for both but the latter stream is more difficult because it's harder to read. You can't say 'it's harder to flow aim the zigzag' because that just doesn't make much sense.

AR is actually a big factor behind reading difficulty. Everyone seems to spread around this myth that low AR is harder to read when in fact higher AR is actually harder to read. Higher AR means you have less time to react and process all the elements on the field so you don't need as high an object density versus something with low AR but higher object density for them to be comparable in reading difficulty. Adding HR to a map obviously makes it easier to read but it also makes it more difficult to aim and accuracy so obviously it makes it overall more difficult.

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

Knowing what you have to do (reading well) don't make you able to magically success at it (aiming correctly).

Of course you can't aim properly something if you're not reading it well,
but saying that if i don't hit the the target's center easily with a dart, is because i don't know how to trow a dart, is wrong.
Mouse (or pen) control (snap-aim, flow-aim) is a thing, you can't blame reading for every mistakes.

If you see people like doom or wolf missing a circle from a few pixels then notelocking and missing several circles in the spaced stream, you'll say to them "you have reading issues" ?

Yes, your first point is correct, you do need the ability to hit a circle within certain time constraints as well as being able to read it. However, I emphasize that people tend to push towards having 'flow aim' or 'snap aim' or whatever you want to call them. It doesn't matter how you get from point A to point B as long as you can consistently do it within those time constraints. Aim is just aim but your aim is dictated by how you read it therefore reading is what's more important.

And yes, I will say they likely misread it which caused them to miss the stream. However, that's not to say they didn't hiccup with their aim also, it's just more likely they misread it slightly. A lot of people tend to dismiss that their reading is the culprit by brushing it off by saying 'I can play high object densities' or 'I can read it' or whatever. But you know, I can play some of the highest object densities in the game and I still admit that I make plenty of mistakes with my reading even on things that shouldn't be difficult for me. It really doesn't take much to cause you to misread something, even looking just looking a a millimeter away from where you should be is enough.

i still disagree, the same arguments you make for flow aim not being aim can be made for jump aim not being aim. It all comes down to reading because reading basically is aim.

Snap-aim is going from A to B without caring about your cursor velocity.
Flow-aim is adapting your cursor velocity to make your cursor hovering A and B on the correct timing.
The first is useful for jumps, the second is useful for sliders and streams. flow-aim work for jumps as well, but snapping on streams don't work well.

Mastering both is hard and as you said, it's not possible without reading correctly.

You can try to snap streams, but look at replays on stuff like you mentionned, for example zigzag streams, you'll see better if you enable a long cursor trail on your skin, players are not snapping from A to B without caring about their cursor velocity, they're moving in a flow-motion, hovering the circles at the correct velocity to make it possible.

But as i said, mouse (or pen) control is a thing and even if reading perfectly, you can have trouble controling your mouse (or pen), velocity, angles, and stuff can make you struggle to put the cursor exactly where and when you need it.

It's easy to see with editing a map that you perfectly read already, and know very well, to CS:7 or more. No matter how well you'll read, controling your cursor on this precision level will be hard and misses will not comes from reading issue.

Well, i understand what you say about the fact that reading is a core skill to make aim possible. But i disagree when you say that snap-aim, flow-aim don't matter at all as long as the reading is good, it's wrong.

Vuelo Eluko wrote:

i still disagree, the same arguments you make for flow aim not being aim can be made for jump aim not being aim. It all comes down to reading because reading basically is aim.

As I gave in my example of 2 different streams, the difficulty came from reading not aim. You can't just disregard that. Aim in both instances were the same as you're moving your cursor the same distance between circles but the zigzag stream is more difficult.

I would separate reading from aim because they're 2 distinct categories. Aim is just your mechanical ability to move from point A to point B within a given time constraint factoring in error and reading is your ability to gather, process, interpret what you see on the screen and execute it. You can test your ability to aim something by placing 2 circles on the screen and hitting them consecutively within certain time constraints and with a certain circle size and repeating to test for consistency. People's aim is a lot higher than what you'd expect but most people can't generally play to their fullest aiming ability because their reading lags their aim.

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

Snap-aim is going from A to B without caring about your cursor velocity.
Flow-aim is adapting your cursor velocity to make your cursor hovering A and B on the correct timing.
The first is useful for jumps, the second is useful for sliders and streams. flow-aim work for jumps as well, but snapping on streams don't work well.

Mastering both is hard and as you said, it's not possible without reading correctly.

You can try to snap streams, but look at replays on stuff like you mentionned, for example zigzag streams, you'll see better if you enable a long cursor trail on your skin, players are not snapping from A to B without caring about their cursor velocity, they're moving in a flow-motion, hovering the circles at the correct velocity to make it possible.

But as i said, mouse (or pen) control is a thing and even if reading perfectly, you can have trouble controling your mouse (or pen), velocity, angles, and stuff can make you struggle to put the cursor exactly where and when you need it.

It's easy to see with editing a map that you perfectly read already, and know very well, to CS:7 or more. No matter how well you'll read, controling your cursor on this precision level will be hard and misses will not comes from reading issue.

Well, i understand what you say about the fact that reading is a core skill to make aim possible. But i disagree when you say that snap-aim, flow-aim don't matter at all as long as the reading is good, it's wrong.

As I mentioned before, when you're reading streams correctly, it's not about timing your cursor to match the stream, it's about placing your cursor where it's needed. There's a big difference. The type of reading done in both 'snap aim' and 'flow aim' are exactly the same. There's no distinction really necessary as it gives some false illusion that there's 2 different types of aims to master when there isn't - it's just aim itself. When you read well, your aim will follow. It's as simple as that.

The timing between circles for a 1/4 beat and 1/2 beat are also very different. 1/2 beats generally give you ample time to pause in between circles while 1/4 generally do not. The only 1/2 beat pattern that's really similar to a stream to compare the type of aim used is one where the circles are placed adjacent one another (with or without spacing). If you watch any top play for when that sort of pattern is used on high BPM you'll see that the aim they use is 'flow aim'. They don't use the flow aim because they want to but because you just can't use 'snap aim'.

In regards to mouse/pen control, I'm sure if you just command yourself while not playing, you can move your cursor into any position on the screen you like. The reason you tend to have some awkward movements while playing is more to do with reading also because the circles you need to hit in the future skew where you're looking which also causes you to move in a more awkward manner. Velocities is just based on the sensitivity of your mouse or area of the tablet you're using.

Obviously having smaller circles requires you to be more accurate with your cursor movements so it greatly effects you aim not your reading.

I would separate reading from aim because they're 2 distinct categories. Aim is just your mechanical ability to move from point A to point B within a given time constraint factoring in error and reading is your ability to gather, process, interpret what you see on the screen and execute it. You can test your ability to aim something by placing 2 circles on the screen and hitting them consecutively within certain time constraints and with a certain circle size and repeating to test for consistency

exactly,
but why you're obscessed by the (wrong) fact that aim don't matter as long as you read correctly. You're contradicting yourself.
Why do you think everyones have a great aim and are limited by reading ? it's so hard to understand that for some people, raw aim (mechanical/physical moves) are hard to do ? (rhetorical questions, i don't need an answer)

The type of reading done in both 'snap aim' and 'flow aim' are exactly the same

i never said anything about types of reading, i agree of course, reading is just reading.

illusion that there's 2 different types of aims to master when there isn't

it's not an illusion, it's a choice, you can choose to make a flow-motion hovering circles, or choose to go from a circles to an other without caring about velocity.

When you read well, your aim will follow. It's as simple as that

i disagree, it's unfortunally not that simple.

on high BPM you'll see that the aim they use is 'flow aim'. They don't use the flow aim because they want to but because you just can't use 'snap aim'.

i agree and i already said the same thing in my previous post. "flow-aim work for jumps as well, but snapping on streams don't work well."

I'm sure if you just command yourself while not playing, you can move your cursor into any position on the screen you like. The reason you tend to have some awkward movements while playing is more to do with reading also because the circles you need to hit in the future skew where you're looking which also causes you to move in a more awkward manner. Velocities is just based on the sensitivity of your mouse or area of the tablet you're using.

Don't be so sure, or you'll say that i'm not reading correctly my Windows desktop ? yes, i missclic some icons or folders sometimes, same when i'm selecting text with mouse or want to hit the X to close a window.
No, when i move my cursor from A to B, the cursor is not always landing on B. the smaller B is the harder to land correctly, same for speed, the faster the move, the harder to land correcly. no matter if doing that on Windows desktop or in any games, because it's AIM, not reading.
also for flow-aim and velocity, tracking correctly is not so easy, keeping the cursor on sliderball is hard for fast and curved sliders, no matter the reading, the move is physically hard to do.
Same for "hard to aim" streams.

(English is not my native language, i hope my words are not leading to a a misunderstanding)

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

exactly,
but why you're obscessed by the (wrong) fact that aim don't matter as long as you read correctly. You're contradicting yourself.
Why do you think everyones have a great aim and are limited by reading ? it's so hard to understand that for some people, raw aim (mechanical/physical moves) are hard to do ? (rhetorical questions, i don't need an answer)

Aim is of course important, I'm saying that there is unnecessary distinction in 'flow aim' and 'snap aim'.

To the second point, misses in aim are mainly due to reading not poor mechanical aim. For me personally, my aim and speed was far superior to what is now but I do far better on specific maps simply because my reading is a lot better now. Why? Because what was stifling me was my reading, not my aim. It's the same problem for everyone else.

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

it's not an illusion, it's a choice, you can choose to make a flow-motion hovering circles, or choose to go from a circles to an other without caring about velocity.

If you play a slow enough map, everyone will be ignoring velocity for basically everything. And conversely, if you play a fast enough map, you won't be pausing your cursor at all. Therefore, no real distinction at all since you aim based on what is needed.

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

When you read well, your aim will follow. It's as simple as that

i disagree, it's unfortunally not that simple.

It is that simple. As long as you can hit a jump between point A and point B within a certain time constraint and with low enough error (circle size), you should be able to hit it consistently as long as you read if properly. It doesn't matter if you choose 'flow aim' or 'snap aim' because you'll pick whatever's suitable naturally.

Juuuuuuuuul wrote:

Don't be so sure, or you'll say that i'm not reading correctly my Windows desktop ? yes, i missclic some icons or folders sometimes, same when i'm selecting text with mouse or want to hit the X to close a window.
No, when i move my cursor from A to B, the cursor is not always landing on B. the smaller B is the harder to land correctly, same for speed, the faster the move, the harder to land correcly. no matter if doing that on Windows desktop or in any games, because it's AIM, not reading.
also for flow-aim and velocity, tracking correctly is not so easy, keeping the cursor on sliderball is hard for fast and curved sliders, no matter the reading, the move is physically hard to do.
Same for "hard to aim" streams.

From the first line in what you said here, I feel you have a poor understanding of what reading really is. Reading is not only knowing what to do, it's actually doing it. That second half is the important point. Aim is required to execute but is generally not the problem in most cases as I described earlier.

As in your example where your cursor isn't landing on B, the most probable reason for you missing is because you got lazy with your reading (maybe you moved where you were focusing on too quickly or you looked just slightly off from the circle).

It's not something people really realize but if you were to play high object densities, you will have a lot more random misses even though the aim portion may not be that difficult if you were to isolate the circles.

Almost wrote:

Because what was stifling me was my reading, not my aim. It's the same problem for everyone else.

That was your personal case, it's not the same for everyone.
Well, this discuss will lead nowhere and is now offtopic, i agree with some points (ex:reading being mandatory for a correct aim) but disagree with some others (ex:no missread=no missaim), everything is said.
Differents people, differents issues, misses may comes from reading (gathering and processing informations to know what to do) AND from aim (doing the moves physicaly, controling hand with precision).

Me as a 6 digit i can stream 197-200bpm max normally i can stream 190