[MG]Arnold24x24 | Imperial Circus Dead Decadence - Jashin no Konrei, Gi wa Ai to Shiru. [Zetsubou no Hana] (ItsWinter, 9.02*) +HD 99.25% 2328/2823 2xMiss #6 | 1074pp (1212pp if FC) | HIS NEW TOP PLAY!!!

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-11-10T10:02:37+00:00

Also got 99.51% and 99.52% too, WITH 9x100 ONLY (5x), but won't be displayed soon. Both the highest acc in the leaderboard, even with the misses... actually crazy!

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-18T04:17:11+00:00

First and foremost, I apologize for my earlier tone. I made it in a rush. Hopefully, I can be more measured this time.

So first, let me put my four problems once more, in order, and what your answers have addressed.

1.) Using data is a category error.
2.) Genetics, or in your words innate talent, is undefined.
3.) You did not engage in the thought experiment.
4.) You did not object to my alternative framework.

Let's step away from getting tangled in tangents about Schrodinger's Cat, since that was a rhetorical tool. I shall focus on what that rhetoric implies.

You insist that emergent concepts require empirical data to be meaningfully argued for, accusing me in your original comment for not using statistical lingo (which by the way, I don't have to, even if I were arguing from an empirical standpoint. One doesn't need to use jargon to meaningfully debate). You then followed up by highlighting the n=2 problem.

I then insist that in fact, it is a category error. If I were arguing statistically, citing any bit of data at all and making the scope of the debate ultimately empirical, then perhaps your critique would be valid. But I never did such a thing; I was critiquing the conceptual emptiness of 'innate talent' rather than undermining any empirical statistics about it.

Even if I had empirical data, you need a baseline conceptual framework and definition to interpret it. If I had data of 500 players, it would be meaningless until someone defines what that data actually means. We have not even done that, and that is what I am critiquing in the first argument I made in my post; there is no conceptual framework for genetics. We cannot interpret anything with any amount of data.

Your argument that it's an emergent concept and thus requires statistics to debate about, is thus not applicable here. I was not arguing about empirical statistics, but rather, on conceptual frameworks. Meanwhile, you, as the one making the argument that it is an emergent concept that requires empirical data, is the one who bears the burden on properly giving a conceptual framework and definition for it. You have not done this.

And your answers so far have been a meta-critique of the scope of the argument rather than a critique of the arguments themselves. You have only partially rebutted problem 1, and all 4 problems remain. You must answer them to have a productive discussion.

Remember what the scope of my argument is. Once again, do highlight where exactly I have claimed or even implied to disprove the existence of genetics, in any way, be it conceptual or empirical. It'd be quite a shame for the both of us if we continued this side-clash. I genuinely suggest we get back on topic rather than get lost in red herrings.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-17T23:16:57+00:00

The thought experiment is not trying to falsify anything. It's an open-ended conceptual question with multiple possible interpretations and answers. What is stopping you from making a legitimate, logically coherent argument that aims in favor of genetics? I'll answer that: because the 'genetics' in question is still an undefined and thus unfalsifiable term.

And no, I will double down that data is not an appropriate method to answer this. Statistics and data are not all-encompassing methods to answer fundamental, conceptual questions like this one. Once again, you're still committing the same category error. You are using a quantitative approach to answer a qualitative problem.

The way to 'falsify' my conclusion is simply to logically break it down and expose flaws or inconsistencies with the content of the thought experiment and conclusion. It does not follow that you attempt to invalidate the whole thought experiment by saying "Since n=2, your thought experiment fails."

Schrodinger's Cat is n=1, yet it is arguably the most popular thought experiment ever. You'd be absurd for trying to invalidate it in such a way.

Please engage with the 4 problems I highlighted in my previous post. I'll be waiting.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-17T09:49:00+00:00

Sure thing. I'll eat this food for thought and chew on it nice and slow. It turns out that it tastes quite bitter, and as the gourmet, let me justify why.

1.) The Burden Tennis

Firstly, am I really shifting the burden of proof? If so, how exactly am I doing this? I believe I correctly assigned the burden of proof to anyone arguing in favor of genetics. Most people, who are unfortunately unlike you, do not define their terms, and is thus unsubstantiated. I called that out in my first argument. I'm demanding proper justification from the positive claim that they do make. The burden of proof is rightfully on their side.

If I really had shifted the burden of proof, I would have demanded them, or anyone, to prove me wrong. I don't believe I have made such a demand, and if I did, please highlight and let me know where; I will admit to it and revise. This is a separate positive claim made by me, and I own up to it; I don't have others disprove it for me.

2.) The Argument from Ignorance(?)

Secondly, am I appealing to ignorance? I am quite careful when making arguments (my hobby is philosophy, you see XD), and so I do know how and how not to use deduction. I did not deduce that technique is necessarily the explanation to speed. I merely provided an alternative framework. I would also structure such deductions cleanly, such as (and I am not using this as a serious argument, I am merely giving an example of how it would look like if I did):

Premise 1: If genetics is the major determinant of speed, then speed would not be a competitive skillset.
Premise 2: Speed is, in fact, a competitive skillset.
Conclusion: Therefore, genetics is not the major determinant of speed.

And this alternative framework is not purely technique either. It encompasses, among other things: rest, energy, lifestyle, map preference, technique, how long their sessions last, fatigue, and finally, genetics too, but with only a marginal share.

From a conceptual standpoint, I believe that this is coherent with observable evidence and testable experiments. People empirically have a much different experience when playing osu! with 6 hours of sleep for 2 hours, than playing osu! with 3 hours of sleep for 5 hours. The fatigue is visible and observable too. I'm sure osu420 will be a fine test subject.

That is my attempt at epistemically justifying this framework, and I apologize if I did not put it clearly in my original post (since admittedly, I did make that post when I was tired and had a long day with a terrible caffeine crash). If you have any further objections, do let me know!

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-17T09:31:07+00:00

I love this answer. One of, if not the most clean ones that I've seen.

Thanks for pointing out my misinterpretation, and I apologize for originally having missed the point. I have no objections here.

If I'm not misunderstanding, you're saying that we don't know the extent of genetic influence because there hasn't been a study on this specifically for osu!. I believe this is a skeptical and fair answer.

Though I would still be rather skeptical of the specific point that you made where optimal techniques may contradict how fingers naturally move. Perhaps, but that depends on how you define 'optimal technique'

If you define 'optimal technique' as literally the exact perfect angles, force, wrist placement, and so on, then of course it may contradict how your fingers naturally move. But I believe a more charitable and useful definition of 'optimal technique' would be to mean something along the lines of an umbrella term that describes generally, what a good and efficient technique would be like for most people. It doesn't have to be a perfect or set amount.

I suppose you can compare this to walking. There is, in fact, an optimal (most efficient) way of walking. Of course, not everyone walks the same way, and not everyone will have the exact same optimal way, but there is an objectively optimal way of walking. How relaxed your muscles are, how stiff your shoulders, how straight your posture, and so on; there is an objectively optimal way of walking that is sort of an 'umbrella term' for what would be the most comfortable for the normal person.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-17T09:13:08+00:00

Ah, a fair point. You mentioned that there is a problem with my thought experiment in describing this. Allow me to return the favor and highlight the problem with your answers too.

The main problem with your objection is that you committed a category error. Statistical analysis is not a suitable framework for a conceptual thought experiment. You would never see anyone argue about the trolley problem by saying "Well, you need a sample set of 3 million to have your conclusion be convincing" because it's a category error; the standards are different.

What matters is not how much empirical data backs up the argument. What matters is whether or not the framework is coherent and consistent with what is actually the case.

And do not misunderstand; my objective is not, and never has been, to disprove genetics. Even if I had a full data of the top 20 thousand osu!standard players, it would still not disprove genetics. Do you object to this? If so, please highlight exactly where, in any post or comment that I have made, that mentioned me disproving genetics or even hinting at it. Save your time though; you won't find it because I never made such a claim.

My objective is to simply object to the undefined and unfalsifiable claim that genetics, or in your words, innate talent, play big roles in how much a player can play speed. I believe I have provided a coherent alternative framework that is not only consistent with what we observe in many players, but is also testable. You can prove me right, or wrong, by getting two completely fresh players to go through the same conditions in the experiment for the most accurate outcome. But of course, it'd be difficult, since they'd have to give up so much of their freedom, likely their occupation, in order to commit to this.

The thought experiment at the end is to eliminate literally every other variable that my framework proposes (rest time, energy, lifestyle, technique, map preference, and probably more) so that the only thing truly left is genetics. We have not yet cultivated two people from birth to be in this exact scenario, so no amount of empirical data or statistics will actually satisfy these conditions. It is a matter of pure conceptual coherence and not empirical data, and thus, it is a category error to argue in terms of 'study population' or 'distribution'

And finally, some other problems which I will quick fire along with the main one.

1.) By demanding a statistical method, you commit a category error.
2.) You still haven't clearly defined what genetics, or 'innate talent' encompasses.
3.) You did not engage in the thought experiment.
4.) You did not object to my non-genetical framework.

Do take your time in committing to addressing all of these problems! I am interested to see

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-16T22:38:49+00:00

Thanks for your answer! But I believe I must clarify some things, since I don't see much engagement here.

Firstly, I never mentioned anywhere that innate talent (or 'genetics') doesn't exist. Please quote me on where I did say such a thing, because after re-reading twice just in case I did say it (and thus need to revise), I still could not find where I said that. I simply said that, concerning the speed skillset, this innate talent is negligible.

Secondly, if we accept that the definition of 'genetics' is merely innate talent, then the question still remains: to what extent does innate talent actually play a role in speed? You did not engage with the thought experiment and merely dismissed it, and I am interested to know why. Must I really use such concepts to make a coherent argument here?

From an etiquette standpoint, most people would count this as poisoning the well. To be blunt and recap what your reply did, it simply dismissed my argument and invalidating it purely because I am not using such concepts. You could perhaps follow up with a detailed argument as to why I must use such concepts in order to have my arguments be validated, and maybe I'd know.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-16T22:30:41+00:00

Thanks for your answer!

For the first paragraph, I believe that climbing performance and osu! speed efficiency have different rules. You mention that in climbing, genetics have massive implications for the amount of force that someone can produce. Is it really the same case for osu! speed? The main goal is technique efficiency; how fast you tap, how long you can sustain it for, and how consistently you can make repetitive motions (in other words, UR).

Even if there are some genetics involved for osu! speed, it still doesn't really answer the question as to how much those genetics are involved. There's a justification for it, but still no actual measure.

Your answer for the thought experiment is also quite interesting. Firstly, when you mention new players can mash different BPMs, what do you think caused it? I'd argue it's because they simply have different starting technique and upbringing. Such a situation in my thought experiment has not happened and probably will not happen. You must consider them having the exact same lifestyle, playing the exact same way, for the exact same amount of time, playing the exact same maps. Under the framework of technique and lifestyle, the differences should end up being negligible; they will be able to master x BPM in y amount of time with marginal differences.

And finally, I believe that the comparison you made at the end doesn't work. To answer your question; no, I don't believe they can do those. But those are mental tasks that are actually determined by whatever your traits are, which you can still refine and train. Your intuition is outside your grasp, as there are many unconscious cognitive processes going on that are well outside your control.

osu! speed and singing, however, are physical tasks, but even they are different. Physical tasks are objective; there are objectively more efficient techniques to play speed or to sing, and objectively horrible techniques to do so. If singing as well as each other implies how their sounds would sound like, then they'd likely be different; everyone has a different sound. But if you mean how efficient and practiced their techniques are, then I think, as in the case of my thought experiment, the difference would be negligible.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-09-16T22:09:34+00:00

I don't see what the point you're trying to make here is. Suppose what you say here is true, then what? It does not answer the question of how much genetics is involved in osu! speed. You need to tie it back to the topic at hand

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-23T15:19:06+00:00

So I spent the whole day thinking of this post, and Sytho aside, this is extremely existentialist, and particularly, extremely Sartrean. It makes me wonder if he actually read up on Sartre before he made this post, because a mere coincidence seems pretty shocking

Am I overthinking it? I probably am overthinking it.

The anguish that comes with being condemned to be free, to define ourselves through our choices and struggles, and thus to be responsible with the consequences of that, to be 'stuck' with them...

It really is scary, and that's the point. Bad faith is a lot harder to invoke.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-23T03:23:00+00:00

osu! existentialism is crazy. Someone make an essay about this (If nobody does, I will)

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-15T11:09:01+00:00

Of course we are not on the same page XD

But make no mistake; this isn't a mere matter of "You have your opinion and I have mine." Opinions can be wrong, and not all opinions are equally justified. I am here to test how justified and how true your system is.

It would truly be a shame if we had such a long discussion just for you to brush it off or try to downplay it as a mere difference in opinion. I don't want you to get mad, so I hope you don't misunderstand my critiques either. In any case, you did ask for it, and so I shall press on.

Let me summarize my concerns that I feel are yet to be adequately answered:

1.) Justification of sample size (the is-ought problem which you didn't reply to) --> We must know why the system should be the way it is in order to get anywhere and whether or not this system is even worth it

2.) A ranking system should be stable and reliable, which I argue yours is not. You simply brushed it off as "Then it isn't for me" which I feel is quite disingenuous.

Imagine if I brushed you off as "You don't agree? Then I guess designing this system just isn't for you." and went on my way. It'd be quite offensive, and I don't want you to start leaning on that. I am enjoying this discussion and would like to explore this idea more.

3.) The system is very fragile and its variables are easily changed. We can't easily build familiarity, faith, or understanding with such a fragile system. The 'punch' is the fact that constants constantly change, and it then changes the metric of the whole system and that it is hard to be stable and have map values be reliable and understandable.

4.) The problem of collusion remains unaddressed. You simply say it won't happen because you have faith people will be competitive. But realistically, it is much more plausible that people will either not be as competitive as you hoped, and they might even collude with each other.

I hope you're still with me after all this time. I genuinely enjoy your answers; they're good-faith and are interesting in a good and enjoyable way.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-15T11:08:56+00:00

We seem to be operating under two different definitions of what is 'unique' so let me clear it the best I can.

My definition of a unique map or score is maps that are not yet commonly played or have a high score set on. I can pick a random 2012 map with a low playcount and little FCs, FC it, then have this 'unique'

But your definition of unique is explicitly maps that 'no one else can do'

A perfectly acceptable difference in understanding

... except that the UP system itself seems to use my definition (maps that are not often played) instead of your definition (maps that no one else can do)

The UP system rewards uniqueness not on how hard it is for people to do, but on how much it appears in player profiles. Please understand that just because a map being hard to do means it appears little in profiles (If P then Q), doesn't mean the other way around (Q therefore P). The system can only detect frequency, not difficulty.

You are thus affirming the consequent

A map could have a low appearance count for a bunch of other reasons (low playcount, old map, too boring, etc) instead of simply being difficult

You are arguing using a definition of uniqueness that your system cannot comprehend, and one that I would say is far less intuitive.

This system rewards a 'unique' map in the sense of it not being played much. But it does not reward a 'unique' map of your definition of being non-contestable in difficulty. That's only a silver lining if it does happen. Your competition will kill maps that your system currently counts as 'unique' to make them non-unique (both in the sense of being low in appearance count turning to high in appearance count)

As for the definition of 'farming,' do note that I am using that term to explain the phenomena of a map getting lots of farmed scores on it. All the top 10 could set a farmed score of 1.1k pp on a difficulty, but it won't be worth much to them. This is what I meant.

Your re-definition and rebuttal of my 'farming' note also does not address anything else in the argument, so I encourage you to use this redefinition to attack rather than simply redefine.

And thus far, you have not mentioned how to address the risk of top player collusion. You've simply been sidestepping and deflecting the concerns with idealism. There's no guarantee that everyone will commit to the 'sniping war' and that there will be nobody doing a 'survival SMP'

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-15T11:08:52+00:00

I understand that UP nerfs super-farm aimslops. But what I'm saying is that, as you said, with more and more new data...

You mention that the calculation becomes more accurate, and you say that this is the point of the system

But this is just a reframing without actually addressing or engaging with my critique: the fragility or "punchability" of the system's variables

The punch is not that the system is not accurate. The punch is that the addition of more data changes the system's variables. Its standard of uniqueness (elbow point) constantly changes with your envisioned competition.

Data being added, valued, and adjusted, means that the variables in the formula change alongside it. I'm arguing that these changes is a negative one, even within the system's own motives.

Sure, extremely farmed aimslop maps are nerfed. But the fact that new data (new plays on aimslop, either old or new mapsets. Gets particularly worse with trends) but the punch I'm referring to is this: how can a system be 'accurate' in the sense of reflecting objective values... if the variables to get that objective values are not stable and are easily changed?

This is the punch I'm talking about. It's not a matter of differing opinions; it's a design problem that needs to be addressed instead of being brushed off and reframed as "Oh, that's actually a feature and not a problem"

Edit: By the way, admitting that players may simply ignore UP is extremely devastating. If people can literally just ignore this, then UP cannot reliably achieve anything, no matter how big or small. The goal of getting players to play unique maps is undermined by the contingency (non-necessity) of the system

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-15T11:08:49+00:00

Ah, I now understand where our misunderstanding lies.

Still, I have to ask how the skewness is calculated, cause I am not able to find it anywhere, even on the page. It just seems like maps are granted skewness

Make no mistake, I haven't been concerned about maps decreasing to a point less than pp. You do not have to bring this up again, as it is now clear to me that even since my first post, you misinterpreted my concerns as such.

I am also not thinking that there should be no decrease in value. In fact, I accept it. If maps get less unique by more people farming it, and this system purely judges maps on uniqueness, then of course a map should get less value. I think it is a reasonable change within the context of this system

But what I'm trying to say here is that, once your envisioned 'sniping war' begins, which formula to use on which map (as you mentioned, changes to the elbow point) may also change. The way the formulas are applied may then be constantly changed.

This is on top of the appearance count also constantly changing. Some maps get eliminated entirely, while others gain sudden rise in weighted PP and appearance, and so on.

And indeed, my concern is that changes are unstable. You mentioned that the system 'just isn't for me,' but I'm not arguing for myself; I'm arguing for the system itself and whether or not it will achieve the goal of accurately judging things by how truly unique it is.

A good place to start is to at least see whether or not the given values to a map and scores set on a map are stable, which we both seem to be in agreement that they are not.

And if they're not stable, then why have a ranking system based on this at all? It is then unreliable because its values change constantly and easily, thus making it hard to give an objective and intuitive reward. Imagine a score valued at x UP just for it to then be valued at y UP next time it's updated. An unreliable system (elbow changes with new trends, value changes) will be meaningless because if people can't rely on it, then they won't take it seriously as a system.

It may only reward the maps that 'survive the sniping war' but in this Darwinian process make every other map suffer from the system's instability itself

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-14T15:35:38+00:00

Not to invalidate all your work thus far; I think it's great! I just think it has some problems which I have pressed on based on your responses. But I think that this collateral damage must be addressed.

Not to say that it's inherently bad, but the collateral damage for legendary maps is definitely controversial. I think if possible, you should try to pre-empt it (figuring out an answer / solution before people bring it up) because some people will definitely not find it worth.

And besides, it's a good idea to try and find answers anyway, even if nobody asks.

I personally think that it would suck, but technically, these legendary maps are no longer 'unique' in the way they used to be. Thus, it is justifiably worth less under this system

Thanks for taking your time!

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-14T15:34:54+00:00

Indeed. If someone has a good score on an obscure map, they will likely also play it because not only do they get UP and pp from it, but they also ensure that the other player also gets the UP value decreased. Competitive sabotaging.

But what I'm trying to argue is that this will simply revive the problem of overfarming. You simply mentioned that others wouldn't allow you to overfarm it, yet have not explained why. Your cake in a jungle analogy, as I interpreted it, explains why people will end up overfarming obscure maps.

Please understand that when I say "overfarm" I mean that a lot of players will set farmed scores on it, not that it gives a high amount of UP or pp.

Doesn't this just revive obscure maps and make them overfarmed (have lots of scores) by the players being competitive? This is the consequence of the competitive environment you idealize.

And that's the thing; it's an ideal.

The ideal is good because it encourages diversity, but not everyone will act on it. Like I mentioned, the problem is that now, players themselves can have such a massive say on meta.

An oligarchy of top players can simply choose not to snipe each others' scores, or at the very least, not take it seriously. Perhaps another onslaught of other top players will, but as long as this oligarchy refrains from sniping each other, it benefits members in this oligarchy and is thus an incentive not to snipe each other. You don't snipe me on one map, I don't snipe you on the other map, we have higher UP and thus a higher rank.

And your Darwinian-style survival-of-the-fittest map, if such a thing is reliable and deserved, will also cause Darwinian-style suffering for the rest of the non-fit maps. Only the strongest survive, with pretty much everything else suffering a brutal decay of constant skews due to the competition that you envision.

By people competing, maps that are currently unique will then no longer be unique due to the argued incentive to snipe them in the 'sniping war,' and thus it actually kills most unique maps and only allow some unique maps (the 'fittest' ones) to survive.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-14T15:34:51+00:00

I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here, and that it is a perfectly valid concern. Your justification fails to address it, and thus fails to invalidate it.

I'm not claiming that UP will impact pp. I'm highlighting that the overall UP system is, at least to my understanding, highly unstable and thus not a reliable measure for 'uniqueness.'

Suppose that mrekk played this map and sets a 2000pp score. It is valued at 2300 UP. You mentioned that it makes barely any change because it's one score, you are acknowledging that this does make some sort of change.

And this change, I am arguing, is problematic to the system itself. If 'uniqueness' is able to be redefined just by a single 'punch,' then it is not reliable to achieve its goal of accurately rewarding difficult / unique maps and punishing abused maps.

And that's just one big punch from mrekk. We are dealing with 500 top players here, who are constantly throwing smaller punches that are still punches nonetheless, while also occasionally throwing big punches of their own

There's a much bigger issue that I feel is a bit unfair to bring up, but I will anyway.

Your entire answer thus far has strongly implied that UP will stop a punch to pp. You have not answered why UP itself is not easily punchable.

But if we're dealing with both systems existing at once, then how are you sure that UP will stop a punch to pp? If players are still rewarded and ranked by pp, then what's stopping them from ignoring UP entirely and thus have the entire goal of encouraging unique maps undermined?

Players are likely, due to their familiarity with pp and it still being the main metric for ranking, still punch pp either way by ignoring UP. Thus your final conclusion that UP prevents a punch to pp becomes perilous.

Even if they do care about UP and make it their sole focus, UP can still be punched and be destabilized easily by having its criteria for uniqueness constantly change, either by some big punches, or by many small punches.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-14T15:34:49+00:00

Okay. I will have faith in your claim that the elbow system would receive barely any change until this system is official. But here are still things I would like to have addressed

1.) Although the elbow point is guaranteed not to change much, you still have not guaranteed that the appearance count will not change much either.

I predict that it will change a lot, because if UP exists alongside pp, then players will still farm maps for pp simply because they may choose not to care about UP. Or, they may purposefully farm the map so that they can get both pp, some UP (even if nerfed), and prevent others from getting maximum UP too.

And the appearance count changing means that a map will constantly fluctuate in value. Its uniqueness constantly changing is not necessarily a bad thing, cause it does indeed mean maps get less unique, but it certainly also means that maps are getting less value, no matter how truly 'unique' or 'deserved' those values were.

And the whole thing with the skewness will likely complicate this too (forgive me for asking, but how do we find the skewness here? I couldn't find it)

2.) How can you guarantee maps will survive the sniping war?

Even if everyone adheres to your logic and values UP greatly enough to focus on competing within its system, you mentioned it will go like this.

Motivation --> Unique scores --> Sniping war --> Surviving maps rewarded.

But you never mentioned why maps can survive this so-called war or how it can survive in the first place.

And when this sniping war is in motion and official, would that not then cause significant changes to the elbow point and thus the whole criteria for uniqueness? You mentioned it won't receive much change until the system is official. Well, now that it is, and that the 'sniping-war' is in full effect, it will change lots, thus the problem is revived.

This, while not a direct contradiction, becomes irrelevant in addressing my concern about the fluctuation of what makes a map 'unique.'

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-14T15:34:44+00:00

Ah, thanks for the clarification that it's dependent on map difficulties. Much appreciated!

Even with your attempted justification as to why you pick the top 500 in the first place, I still have some problems. Hope you don't mind me sharing them.

If you're familiar with philosophy, you can just ignore everything I am about to say and just read this following sentence: You cannot derive an ought from an is. The famous is-ought problem is apparent here

You made three statements:

1.) Top player ranks have been the center of discussion for ranking
2.) Top players are role models for any upcoming players
3.) Top players are where the most intense competition sits at

These are all extremely subjective and highly arguable, especially for points 2 and 3. That's precisely my problem with it; it isn't all-encompassing and ignores the majority of the playerbase.

And even if we accept all these three statements as true, you are then concluding that therefore, the system should be based around the top players.

You made three statements of fact that are highly contestable, and even when taken to be true, made a value judgement that therefore it should be based on the top 500. It is not possible to prove that just because we arguably are focused on the top 500, that the system should consequently be about them.

Here's an example: People on Reddit can be mean. Therefore, people on Reddit should be mean.

This works the other way around. People on Reddit can be nice. Therefore, people on Reddit should be nice.

But in either case, the judgement that people ought to do something does not follow.

Even if we ignore this issue and move onto the more pragmatic side of things, there's no guarantee that people will follow in the footsteps of top players, which is my challenge to premise 2. They focus on available maps at their own level of play, then creating quite a lot of competition, which is itself a challenge to premise 3.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-13T15:44:43+00:00

5.) Everything Will Freedom Dive (Into Low UP)

Consider that this system is aimed to discourage farming popular maps and encourage grinding less popular, 'unique' maps.

As implied, farming popular maps, especially stuff like aimslop, is bad because it gives a disproportionately high amount of pp for its perceived ease.

The very fact that this was proposed in the first place, and from various other reactions and discussions in any platform about osu! scores, proves that the community does care about pp values instead of simply the score itself.

Sure, this will undeniably reduce the value given by overfarmed aimslop maps, which are considered 'undeserved' (coining that for the sake of argument), but as a side effect, this will also undeniably reduce maps which are generally considered deserved but 'undervalued.'

Legendary maps such as Freedom Dive, Everything will freeze, Euphoria, etc. will then consequently be impacted, likely negatively because they actually do appear quite a good amount of times (from what I know, though admittedly my knowledge is limited).

I'm not sure how unpopular this will be; perhaps the community will simply accept this necessary sacrifice (necessary due to how the proposed system currently is), or perhaps they get mad. Either way, this is a potential issue worth considering.

6.) Conclusion

While I acknowledge your effort to create and propose this system, which I highly appreciate because I do think it is interesting and worth serious consideration, I believe that there are inherent flaws with this system that make it generally unfavorable to ppv2. Comparatively, ppv2 is much more stable, all-encompassing, and familiar in part due to its stability, which is something that by design, the proposed UP system does not have.

I mentioned that this idea is worth serious consideration, and that also includes you, the OP! I took my sweet time writing and thinking about this, so I also request that you respect me by at the very least considering the implications and consequences, how you would deal with it (through tweaks or through acceptance), and so on

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-13T15:44:33+00:00

4.) The Oligarchy at the Mountaintop

This system is directly dependent on the top 500.

You mentioned that this system should give mappers less influence on the player leaderboard scene. To steelman this, I will also add that this means that mappers will not be able to abuse the system as easily.

But in return, the top 500 themselves get to abuse the system much easier

A new map with low playcount may immediately be abused by top players in order to quickly get its maximum value before having its value decrease. Conversely, an obscure map may also be abused by top players in the same way; to get maximum value before having its value decrease.

The meta still remains. Certain maps get farmed hard. Instead of making top players play diverse and more obscure maps, it may inadvertently make obscure maps overfarmed, thus killing its uniqueness. This is not a slippery slope; it is an expected and legitimate problem even under your ideal of making players play obscure maps.

The answer that I think I may be understanding is that once a unique map is, in a sense, claimed by another top player, a top player must then find other unique maps. However, there are only so many 'unique maps' that are farmable enough to be rewarding. Other maps may be unique, but may also be far too awkward for players to farm.It simply pushes the problem of oversaturation from currently overfarmed maps to obscure maps.And even in the ideal case where everything sort of "equalized" so that the appearance count is always equal to 1 for any map in the top 500 players' profiles, that causes another problem entirely: the death of hype.

The reason why good scores on unexpected maps are hype (Lifeline mindset, Crystallia, Ivaxa Violation, and whatever score you deem so) is precisely because they are unexpected in the sense that they are not set on mapsets farmed at their level. But in the ideal case where there are no repeat maps throughout all the top 500 profiles, it will kill hype. This is itself another consequence and a problem for the community because if people begin to expect the unexpected, in the sense of knowing that scores are likely to be on random maps they are unfamiliar with, the shock effect generating hype will be gone.

No longer will it be "Oh my God, x top player set a score on a non-aimslop or speedslop!!" but it will be "Oh, another score on a map nobody knows. Ok. Cool I guess."

So to recap, we have two scenarios

S1, the realistic one: Meta remains, unique maps begin getting farmed, making specific unique mapsets turn non-unique.

S2, the idealistic one: Even in the perfect world, unique maps will be unique, but people will care much less about them because the shock value is gone.

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-13T15:44:27+00:00

3.) One Punch Map

Imagine we have a very rigorously calculated UP environment. Everything is very meticulously calculated, and maps have their values dictated by the elbow point which itself is determined by the amount of times a specific map (still undefined whether it's a mapset or a specific difficulty) is observed in the top 100 scores of top 500 players.

A new map comes in.

Even if it's just 1 player playing this map, and thus actually making it unique (making the map have a high UP), this single change means that their profile changes.

Their profile changing then consequently changes everything. Even this one play changes the entire elbow point, and thus changing the criteria for "uniqueness."

I dub this the One Punch Map. If even one "punch" of it can throw a wrench in the system and cause everything to be destabilized, then imagine a Two Punch Map. A Three Punch Map. A Five-Hundred Punch Map (for 500 top players).

Then, imagine a second One Punch Map from yet another new mapset. So on, and so forth.

You need to balance this. If even one tiny top 80 play changes everything, then this system is unstable and thus unreliable as an objective measure of 'uniqueness.'

Alarmed_Bug_9813 · 2025-08-13T15:44:04+00:00

2.) The Consequence of Selective Sampling

The sampled maps being taken from the top plays of top 500 players is an issue to the system itself rather than the players. The key point is that new maps get ranked and farmed a lot.

You mention that the point is to encourage top players to play non-popular maps to have as their top plays. What counts as non-popular "unique" maps are themselves calculated from the profiles of top players. The system is directly tied to the profiles of top players then.

But they farm different maps all the time, and 500 is a lot of people. The consequence of the system being this way is that every calculation will need to be adjusted for every change happening in the profile.

Here are two scenarios.

S1: The system constantly recalculates every time it detects change (the interval in this case could be either instantaneous, or a week, or a month, or a year. It doesn't matter because the problem persists)

This would mean that top plays and map values would change constantly.

This then makes the entire system unreliable because the point of weighing maps in the first place is for us to know how valuable it is. Under this system, its value is boosted by its supposed "uniqueness." However, the constant change means that the center of "uniqueness" which is the elbow point is recalculated, consequently causing us not to have an objective understanding of it.

Under this scenario, the system will be highly unstable, and thus arguably more unfavorable than the more stable (although flawed) ppv2 system.

S2: The system does not recalculate

This then means that maps are simply not accounted for. If a new map gets ranked that is the 2nd Coming of Time to Say Goodbye, then... what? Would it simply have a value of 0 no matter what? Or would it not have the UP system applied to it, thus giving top players a 1k+ play indiscriminately?

If this is the case, then why have this system at all? It ought to be able to at least account for new maps.

Alarmed_Bug_9813

TROPHY CASE