90% is just as fine imo ~
forum
90% Dimming limit: Why?
posted
Total Posts
93
Topic Starter
In the future, peppy will make it so that you can't remove the backgrounds entirely.Soaprman wrote:
Ah, there's never been 100% dimming? I kind of just assumed he was right about it having existed, though I wouldn't actually know as I've never used the fun spoiler...
Also, I don't think pro players will "appreciate" any background when they're trying for a top rank.
Who the hell cares about what pros say? It's their own problem that they are THAT bad so they need to remove BG.
"If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating"
I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."
How would you feel if someone cut something out of your creation, just so in their mind, they appreciated the creation better? They deemed that part of your creation to be distracting and negative, yet you intended people to play with it. Is that fair to the mapper?
Peppy was against background dimming for a long time. I still think he is, but it's compromise. 90% of the field is black, but it's not cut out, and the file is not modified either. The artist of the beatmap can safely say it was at least properly appreciated once by everyone who has a high rank on it. Like previously stated, 90% dim isn't much different from 100% dim, only 90% dim actually keeps a large part of the artist's work involved. Ask any top player and they will say that Fun Spoiler settings actually saves them time seeing in most cases it takes longer to replace a BG than do one play through of the map.
Honestly if you can't play with 10% of a background peeking through, I suggest you get your eyes checked or something. Not even a video BG of another song's osu! gameplay would throw most people off then.
This also gives beatmap artists more freedom in combo colours with relations to backgrounds, but that's not important.
I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."
How would you feel if someone cut something out of your creation, just so in their mind, they appreciated the creation better? They deemed that part of your creation to be distracting and negative, yet you intended people to play with it. Is that fair to the mapper?
Peppy was against background dimming for a long time. I still think he is, but it's compromise. 90% of the field is black, but it's not cut out, and the file is not modified either. The artist of the beatmap can safely say it was at least properly appreciated once by everyone who has a high rank on it. Like previously stated, 90% dim isn't much different from 100% dim, only 90% dim actually keeps a large part of the artist's work involved. Ask any top player and they will say that Fun Spoiler settings actually saves them time seeing in most cases it takes longer to replace a BG than do one play through of the map.
Honestly if you can't play with 10% of a background peeking through, I suggest you get your eyes checked or something. Not even a video BG of another song's osu! gameplay would throw most people off then.
This also gives beatmap artists more freedom in combo colours with relations to backgrounds, but that's not important.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
That's an awful analogy. It might be accurate for a storyboarded map, but not for 95% of the maps that just pull some BG off konachan or danbooru. You aren't really ruining what the 'artist' (mapper) made. A fair number of mappers would probably not even include a BG if it weren't a requirement.
That's an awful analogy. It might be accurate for a storyboarded map, but not for 95% of the maps that just pull some BG off konachan or danbooru. You aren't really ruining what the 'artist' (mapper) made. A fair number of mappers would probably not even include a BG if it weren't a requirement.
90% is fine for me, the only thing I can see being a problem is that people could argue the remaining 10% is why people managed to make their old scores.
Also that analogy is a little off, it's more like walking into a room with a painting as well as blinding disco lights which prevent you from seeing the picture while the artist considers the disco lights part of the picture. I don't really want to see disco lights in my face, I could do that anywhere; I paid to see the pictures not your over the top death lights.
I think a lot of mappers would choose to not have a background if possible, but on the other hand a lot would not. I've seen a few maps in which people add SB's to turn the background black after the intro.
Also that analogy is a little off, it's more like walking into a room with a painting as well as blinding disco lights which prevent you from seeing the picture while the artist considers the disco lights part of the picture. I don't really want to see disco lights in my face, I could do that anywhere; I paid to see the pictures not your over the top death lights.
I think a lot of mappers would choose to not have a background if possible, but on the other hand a lot would not. I've seen a few maps in which people add SB's to turn the background black after the intro.
Tom69_old
Mithost wrote:
"If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating"
I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."
How would you feel if someone cut something out of your creation, just so in their mind, they appreciated the creation better? They deemed that part of your creation to be distracting and negative, yet you intended people to play with it. Is that fair to the mapper?
Peppy was against background dimming for a long time. I still think he is, but it's compromise. 90% of the field is black, but it's not cut out, and the file is not modified either. The artist of the beatmap can safely say it was at least properly appreciated once by everyone who has a high rank on it. Like previously stated, 90% dim isn't much different from 100% dim, only 90% dim actually keeps a large part of the artist's work involved. Ask any top player and they will say that Fun Spoiler settings actually saves them time seeing in most cases it takes longer to replace a BG than do one play through of the map.
Honestly if you can't play with 10% of a background peeking through, I suggest you get your eyes checked or something. Not even a video BG of another song's osu! gameplay would throw most people off then.
This also gives beatmap artists more freedom in combo colours with relations to backgrounds, but that's not important.
If I were an artist I would draw a picture with the purpose of being looked at.
If I were a mapper I would make a map with the purpose of being played.
That said your analogy is completely out of context in my opinion.
Let me introduce one:
You are an artist who creates a wonderful picture, but you require every person who wants to look at it to play a rythm game meanwhile.
People who want to ignore the rythm game and just want to look at your piece of art, those guys are like the ones who delete BGs in osu!.
PS: I'm not saying 90% dim is bad or something. I'm content with it. Just had to reply to that analogy.
_____
EDIT:
Some ppl were faster. :<
Topic Starter
I think this is a perfect analogy. And while some people put a lot of effort into storyboards, osu is, at core, a game. So stripping it down to the gameplay shouldn't be a problem, it's like lowering the graphics to minimum on an FPS game. It's an option that doesn't negatively affect non-pros and lets the pros enjoy it too.Tom69 wrote:
You are an artist who creates a wonderful picture, but you require every person who wants to look at it to play a rythm game meanwhile.
People who want to ignore the rythm game and just want to look at your piece of art, those guys are like the ones who delete BGs in osu!.
Analogies are basically taking the same situation and putting it in a different context, that's what analogies are. Of course it's out of context.
The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.
If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.
The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.
If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.
Topic Starter
Mithost wrote:
Analogies are basically taking the same situation and putting it in a different context, that's what analogies are. Of course it's out of context.
The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.
If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.
I think he meant that your analogy was wrong.
Anyway as I said, if there's no difference between 90% and 100%, why would peppy disallow 100%? He obviously believes that it makes a difference and is making it clear that he believes with this update the older records will have an unfair advantage.
0% dim please
Dumb analogy, as a background in nearly all cases is just another hurranimu picture they found on konachan or wherever. There are rare cases in which people perhaps illustrated the background, but mostly they ever do is crop them or slap a bunch of brushes on them making it look worse than they did before.
I don't mind backgrounds, but I don't at all care for them, because its really not a part that matters. Defending them as if its something sacred and holy is a bit too much.
I don't mind backgrounds, but I don't at all care for them, because its really not a part that matters. Defending them as if its something sacred and holy is a bit too much.
110% dimming please, because I always give it 110% when I play and I expect my background dimming to do the same.
I explained that peppy doesn't want black BGs. Argue with him if you want to get his exact reasoning on why. I don't see how allowing us to dim the background instead of just forcing us to play with 0% dim makes an obvious score barrier between old scores and new ones.DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:
Mithost wrote:
Analogies are basically taking the same situation and putting it in a different context, that's what analogies are. Of course it's out of context.
The bottom line is that peppy (you know, the guy who made this game) doesn't like it when people rip backgrounds out of his game. He knew that if he made it so you couldn't edit backgrounds people would riot, so he compromised and made it so the background stays there (what he wants) but the hitcircles are more visible due to a change in contrast (what you want). The mapper doesn't get his creation ripped up, and you get to enjoy the map the way you want to.
If a 10% change in gradient is so much different that someone's memorization, timing, and accuracy of a map really changes enough that scores with 100% dim overpower those with 90% dim so much that those scores are impassable, then I'll eat my graphics tablet. Until that happens though, debating that it might happen is meaningless and 90% dim will continue to do the same job that black BGs did, just without being against the game's rules.
I think he meant that your analogy was wrong.
Anyway as I said, if there's no difference between 90% and 100%, why would peppy disallow 100%? He obviously believes that it makes a difference and is making it clear that he believes with this update the older records will have an unfair advantage.
Topic Starter
The hardcore players are the ones complaining, and if they say that there is a difference, they're probably right. I don't think peppy should ignore the top ranking osu players in favour of the mappers, when I haven't seen any mapper actually complain that they hate their background being removed. This is clearly an issue with peppy, and I think like it could be solved by having both the mappers and the pros talk about it and reach their own conclusion, instead of making his own decision and ignoring a whole part of the community when that part of the community is being affected the most by the change.Mithost wrote:
I explained that peppy doesn't want black BGs. Argue with him if you want to get his exact reasoning on why. I don't see how allowing us to dim the background instead of just forcing us to play with 0% dim makes an obvious score barrier between old scores and new ones.
Hardcore players are like that by nature. Peppy also stated that removing backgrounds or altering anything in the beatmap is considered hacking, so hardcore players shouldn't even be doing it in the first place. They should be happy that peppy actually gave them a chance and added "Fun Spoiler" settings.
Topic Starter
This game has quite a lot of potential for the hardcore players, though. Since it's extremely competitive, it shouldn't limit the options that everyone has access to for the sake of people who may not even be complaining in the first place.Mithost wrote:
Hardcore players are like that by nature. Peppy also stated that removing backgrounds or altering anything in the beatmap is considered hacking, so hardcore players shouldn't even be doing it in the first place. They should be happy that peppy actually gave them a chance and added "Fun Spoiler" settings.
Screw hardcore players, if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.
Topic Starter
While that's what you would assume, I've talked to one good player about it and apparently the majority of great players eg white wolf and all those kind of people disable the backgrounds. This is more evidence that having no background gives you an advantage.Marcin wrote:
Screw hardcore players, if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.
Also the hardcore players will take any advantage they can get, which is why there is a lot of complaints about the feature- it puts the newer players at a disadvantage and alienates the hardcore crowd (as I've mentioned)
I'd like peppy to comment on this thread, hopefully he'll notice it.
Doesn't necessarily give you an advantage. I'm certain that people wouldn't perform worse by now if they didn't earlier have the choice of deleting the backgrounds. Surely it makes it easier to see things as its less of a clutter, but the map is not changed and there is barely any performance difference, all it takes is a skin that isn't a piece of ass and to not get used to playing on a blank background.
Peppy has commented on a truckload of "these threads" already, with the same reply in every single one of them.
Disabling backgrounds is not going to happen, regardless of if you like it or not.
Peppy has commented on a truckload of "these threads" already, with the same reply in every single one of them.
Disabling backgrounds is not going to happen, regardless of if you like it or not.
JENNNNNNYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYMarcin wrote:
if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Since I was lured here, my 2ct for you people and all the cryhards: Learn to play the game and adapt to it, don't force the thing to adapt to your needs.
Bubblepoptime!
EAT MY COLORS, BITCHES /o/
Bubblepoptime!
EAT MY COLORS, BITCHES /o/
More like it's just the players' eyes that fails to read those notes with BG on. I'm going with Jenny:DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:
While that's what you would assume, I've talked to one good player about it and apparently the majority of great players eg white wolf and all those kind of people disable the backgrounds. This is more evidence that having no background gives you an advantage.
Also the hardcore players will take any advantage they can get, which is why there is a lot of complaints about the feature- it puts the newer players at a disadvantage and alienates the hardcore crowd (as I've mentioned)
Jenny wrote:
Learn to play the game and adapt to it, don't force the thing to adapt to your needs.
Winshley wrote:
More like it's just the players' eyes that fails to read those notes with BG on. I'm going with Jenny:Jenny wrote:
Learn to play the game and adapt to it, don't force the thing to adapt to your needs.
funny how the guys who defend BG deleting and the guys who defend BG keeping are on the same level of stupidity.
this discussion is old, repetitive, and everybody from either side should finally accept the things like they currently are. saying that BG deleters don't have skill is as wrong as saying that BG deleting is important for high level play.
this discussion is old, repetitive, and everybody from either side should finally accept the things like they currently are. saying that BG deleters don't have skill is as wrong as saying that BG deleting is important for high level play.
You know, this might be a little off-topic, but all this fun spoiler discussions make me think... is it what the mapper really wants? In my case, I wouldn't really mind if people disabled or not my storyboards. I'd totally hate if they disabled my skin, but the storyboard or Kiai I can see why; just as an example.
So, what about the idea of letting the mapper choose what to disable and what not? For some gimmick maps it'd totally destroy the joke, and in that case, everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages.
Well, I guess that's more of a feature request than anything.
As for the thread... eh, it's already clear enough it's not going to change. Players should already feel lucky the Fun Spoiler feature was added. If people keep whining about it, it might get removed, even.
Even if there's an advantage, it's a very minimal advantage that can be easily overcome.
So, what about the idea of letting the mapper choose what to disable and what not? For some gimmick maps it'd totally destroy the joke, and in that case, everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages.
Well, I guess that's more of a feature request than anything.
As for the thread... eh, it's already clear enough it's not going to change. Players should already feel lucky the Fun Spoiler feature was added. If people keep whining about it, it might get removed, even.
Even if there's an advantage, it's a very minimal advantage that can be easily overcome.
Funny how the one person following me likely everywhere just opens up more shit and insults :v
Also, I know the feel Gens, the idea seems to be good - also, alternating BGs the mapper could give as "replacemental components" (as for example, for colorblind people?), wouldn't be a bad adition.
Also, I know the feel Gens, the idea seems to be good - also, alternating BGs the mapper could give as "replacemental components" (as for example, for colorblind people?), wouldn't be a bad adition.
Topic Starter
This'd be a decent solution, actually. Also, every old map made before the update would have the background deletable for fairness. If it was like that, peppy could have his way about the new maps, and the hardcores could have their way as well.Gens wrote:
You know, this might be a little off-topic, but all this fun spoiler discussions make me think... is it what the mapper really wants? In my case, I wouldn't really mind if people disabled or not my storyboards. I'd totally hate if they disabled my skin, but the storyboard or Kiai I can see why; just as an example.
So, what about the idea of letting the mapper choose what to disable and what not? For some gimmick maps it'd totally destroy the joke, and in that case, everyone would still have the same advantages and disadvantages.
Well, I guess that's more of a feature request than anything.
As for the thread... eh, it's already clear enough it's not going to change. Players should already feel lucky the Fun Spoiler feature was added. If people keep whining about it, it might get removed, even.
Even if there's an advantage, it's a very minimal advantage that can be easily overcome.
Thanks for the good idea, I'll update the OP.
There is no evidence that 90% dim is any less helpful than a black BG. Like I said earlier, I'll eat my graphics tablet if you find some proof of this.DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:
While that's what you would assume, I've talked to one good player about it and apparently the majority of great players eg white wolf and all those kind of people disable the backgrounds. This is more evidence that having no background gives you an advantage.Marcin wrote:
Screw hardcore players, if you're hardcore enough, you should be able to play with BG, THAT'S _ING HARDCORE.
Anyone here has problem with playing with BG? then it's their own fault that they're THAT bad to cheat with BG.
Uh i have deja vu, i said it, but, who cares.
Also the hardcore players will take any advantage they can get, which is why there is a lot of complaints about the feature- it puts the newer players at a disadvantage and alienates the hardcore crowd (as I've mentioned)
I'd like peppy to comment on this thread, hopefully he'll notice it.
I agree with Jenny as well.
Topic Starter
I can't provide scientific proof, but the fact that the hardcore players are complaining about 90% dim instead of total removal on top of how peppy thinks 100% dim is "cheating" shows that at least peppy, the person I'm trying to convince, believes that the extra 10% does indeed affect gameplay.Mithost wrote:
There is no evidence that 90% dim is any less helpful than a black BG. Like I said earlier, I'll eat my graphics tablet if you find some proof of this.
I agree with Jenny as well.
Not to jump in the middle of things here, but I'd like to show off a comparison between 90% and black background. I left my own skin on.
When was the last time you were ever actually distracted by a map background? Be honest.
Play a map with just a background. And then play it with 90% dim. And finally, play it with a black background. Come back and tell me just how much the background stole away your eyes in the middle of things. Because I have never, ever blamed the background for screwing me up.
When was the last time you were ever actually distracted by a map background? Be honest.
Play a map with just a background. And then play it with 90% dim. And finally, play it with a black background. Come back and tell me just how much the background stole away your eyes in the middle of things. Because I have never, ever blamed the background for screwing me up.
Peppy labeled editing the mapset's files (which includes removing/editing backgrounds/skins/storyboards) as cheating. He does not think that playing with 100% dim compared to 90% dim is cheating (or maybe I'm wrong, you gotta ask him). "Hardcore" players started complaining before fun spoiler was in place, when peppy said not to remove backgrounds. It's been like a month or two since you could dim the background. Most "hardcore" players don't even know about the background dim because all of their stuff is all removed.
BATs could be able to edit it online (as we already can with online offset and other thingies), in case someone disagrees with something being deletable in an old map. The mapper can then just request a BAT to fix it. That way, everyone who doesn't like it complains about the map and not about osu!~DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:
This'd be a decent solution, actually. Also, every old map made before the update would have the background deletable for fairness. If it was like that, peppy could have his way about the new maps, and the hardcores could have their way as well.
Thanks for the good idea, I'll update the OP.
Scores would be kept, as it makes no sense to delete them; it's not like peppy was planning a score reset for when osz2 came.
I had a feeling the idea had already been brought up and it was shot down, but well, I haven't been really active these days to know what's going on.
LOL Strong logic, then how about not allowing any changes to the map? Let's just keep all BGs at 100%, skins as they are etc if you want to keep your "painting" fully assembled? it should be either that or nothing at all.Mithost wrote:
"If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating"
I'll use the analogy from the last thread. What if you were an artist. You make a nice painting of a mountain, a sunset, whatever you like. You painted that picture to be appreciated the way you made it. A few years later, an art critique walks into the art gallery where your painting is. He walks up to your painting, looks at it for a total of 10 seconds, then takes some scissors and cuts out a slice of your painting, a key part of it to be precise. He then chooses to critique it like he would to any other piece of art. Your first question would be, "Why would this man cut my picture?" His response is, "I can critique your painting better when I remove the distractions."
Also how very nice of you all to speak for every mapper out there. I'm a mapper and I prefer people who play my maps to enjoy my work any way they want, with or without skins or backgrounds, as long as they have fun, I'm happy.
Topic Starter
Gens wrote:
BATs could be able to edit it online (as we already can with online offset and other thingies), in case someone disagrees with something being deletable in an old map. The mapper can then just request a BAT to fix it. That way, everyone who doesn't like it complains about the map and not about osu!~DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:
This'd be a decent solution, actually. Also, every old map made before the update would have the background deletable for fairness. If it was like that, peppy could have his way about the new maps, and the hardcores could have their way as well.
Thanks for the good idea, I'll update the OP.
Scores would be kept, as it makes no sense to delete them; it's not like peppy was planning a score reset for when osz2 came.
I had a feeling the idea had already been brought up and it was shot down, but well, I haven't been really active these days to know what's going on.
I guess at this point we're just waiting for peppy to comment after he reads every counter-argument in this thread to his proposed plan.
Come on, peppy, we're waiting for you!
This isn't a feature request and sadly I don't see why he would reply to this one. I hope he does, but it's not guaranteed.
Topic Starter
This isn't the feature request forum, this is General Development.Mithost wrote:
This isn't a feature request and sadly I don't see why he would reply to this one. I hope he does, but it's not guaranteed.
edit: I just tried out 90% dimming for myself. The background/storyboard is still very noticeable, even after the dimming, and is very different from a 100% removal. It's much more noticeable in gameplay than it is in a screenshot.
It is still a substantial difference in contrast. It's not 100%, but it's compromise. People should feel lucky that peppy actually agreed to add the setting, when for years and years he was 100% apposed to the idea.
Topic Starter
If he can be convinced to go to 90%, he can be convinced to go to 100%. It might take a long time as it has in the past, but I really hope he sees the response and goes back on his current decision, for the best.Mithost wrote:
It is still a substantial difference in contrast. It's not 100%, but it's compromise. People should feel lucky that peppy actually agreed to add the setting, when for years and years he was 100% apposed to the idea.
This is one of the things that bothers me about the toggles. Peppy never ever wanted to add them in: when he did, he added a condition so you could actually appreciate some of the creativity that goes into osu!.Mithost wrote:
It is still a substantial difference in contrast. It's not 100%, but it's compromise. People should feel lucky that peppy actually agreed to add the setting, when for years and years he was 100% apposed to the idea.
So even after getting their toggles, people still complain.