Apparently in the future, background dim will be limited to 90% instead of 100%. This change makes no sense, because it provides the older players an unfair advantage. New records with the 90% dim background will have to compete with old records at 100% dimming- which, presumably, will give the newer players a disadvantage.

Now, peppy has said that there is no measurable difference between 100% and 90%. If this was true, then why limit it to 90% in the first place?

Please let backgrounds be dimmed to 100%.

Alternatively, and perhaps an idea that peppy would favour more:

Gens wrote:

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.

This would mean that a mapper could decide whether or not they want every player to see the background, so that anybody who is really opposed to bg deletion could choose to disallow it. I think this is better than my original idea, as it lets peppy have what he wants, too.

If you can't play mods with 90% there is something wrong with your eyes. 90 is just as good as 100 imo.

playing-wise, 90% vs 100% has pretty much no effect. There is truly no disadvantage. If you truly think there is a difference, than at most it will cost you 1 extra measly little playcount, but honestly, it won't. What may cause extra play counts and annoyances is the fact that we can only 90% dim/remove SB or skin after one run through. Having a black screen is now considered cheating, and well I guess peppy just marginally believes (now, at least) that at 90% dim, it isn't cheating.

I guess it's the fact that the background is still barely visible that makes people think it has some effect on playing. Just learn to play with it.

Also this is in the wrong sub forum?

winber1 wrote:

playing-wise, 90% vs 100% has pretty much no effect. There is truly no disadvantage. If you truly think there is a difference, than at most it will cost you 1 extra measly little playcount, but honestly, it won't. What may cause extra play counts and annoyances is the fact that we can only 90% dim/remove SB or skin after one run through. Having a black screen is now considered cheating, and well I guess peppy just marginally believes (now, at least) that at 90% dim, it isn't cheating.

I guess it's the fact that the background is still barely visible that makes people think it has some effect on playing. Just learn to play with it.

Also this is in the wrong sub forum?

If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating. The very act of blocking 100% shows that peppy believes there is a disadvantage, and so he believes that he will be making it harder for new players to take on old records.

All this griping about a minor dimming limit change favoring players who got to play with 100% dimming in the narrow time window it's existed, yet you make no mention of the years of records from players who deleted their background images entirely.

Yyyyyep.

"in the future" lol
implying 100% is possible lol

Shiro wrote:

"in the future" lol
implying 100% is possible lol

its not?

boat wrote:

Shiro wrote:

"in the future" lol
implying 100% is possible lol

its not?

not through the fun spoiler panel

I'm assuming peppy leaves it at 90% so people will appreciate the BG's(and implementing osz2), albeit to a small extent at least it's still there. Overall I prefer this more as a fully black BG is extremely dull and gives no sense of uniqueness or "feel" to the map but at the same time doesn't affect the visibility of it either.

As subjective as this is, since its introduction I haven't removed a single BG and utilised this feature to its fullest, to which I honestly do not see the "significant" difference between 90% and removing the BG entirely or a 100% dim.

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...

DADDYCOOLVIP wrote:

winber1 wrote:

playing-wise, 90% vs 100% has pretty much no effect. There is truly no disadvantage. If you truly think there is a difference, than at most it will cost you 1 extra measly little playcount, but honestly, it won't. What may cause extra play counts and annoyances is the fact that we can only 90% dim/remove SB or skin after one run through. Having a black screen is now considered cheating, and well I guess peppy just marginally believes (now, at least) that at 90% dim, it isn't cheating.

I guess it's the fact that the background is still barely visible that makes people think it has some effect on playing. Just learn to play with it.

Also this is in the wrong sub forum?

If there is no disadvantage for a 90%, then it makes no sense that a 100% dim would be considered cheating. The very act of blocking 100% shows that peppy believes there is a disadvantage, and so he believes that he will be making it harder for new players to take on old records.

It's more so that people get to "appreciate" the background/storyboard. Not sure if fun spoiler really helped that, but 100% dimming being considered as cheating in my reasoning was about that appreciation bit, not the disadvantage to players bit, while at 90% you can just marginally appreciate the background... I guess... lol

basically, just l2play90%dim

90% is just as fine imo ~

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...

In the future, peppy will make it so that you can't remove the backgrounds entirely.

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.

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.

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.

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. :<

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!.

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.

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.

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.

110% dimming please, because I always give it 110% when I play and I expect my background dimming to do the same.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.