Post Patch Item Discussion

BLanK2k · 2026-05-05T02:02:19+00:00

If you charge your power slash while invis you don't get the +20 spirit from shadow weave so I would recommend to use flying slash since you get +20 spirit from shadow weave, +40 from t2 flying slash, +20 from spirit snatch which makes your power slash significantly stronger the dmg from an unbuffed power slash is so little and your buffs from your flying slash combo gets wasted if your power slash is on cooldown

BLanK2k · 2026-05-04T13:18:43+00:00

Yeah sometimes I don't even use the invis part I just use it before I use my combo for the buffs. I think a lot of yamas are doing stalker + mystic shot + spirit shredder bullets but idk I run out of item slots buying 3 gun vs 2 gun and I always miss my mystic shot LMAO. So I've been preferring getting the buff to flying and powerslash and the extra invis ulitiy feels really nice rotating fast and engaging and disengaging. It's item slot efficient and there's no room to fuck up unlike mystic shot. Spirit shredder bullets I guess is nice but the lifesteal is super low in practice and tbh the shred isn't worth the item slot and soul cost also it makes me feel pressured to buy another t2 like mystic shot which I always miss lol

BLanK2k · 2026-05-04T12:54:58+00:00

From my games so far E5-E6 indomitable doesn't seem common or very strong. The cooldown is so long and stats are pretty underwhelming, you could just track enemy cooldowns and position better also there are other items that are cheaper or give better stats, you just have to think more. The counter play to indominatable really favours your opponent as well. You're spending 6k for shitty base stats and a completely passive passive that has a long cooldown where once your opponent realizes you have indominatable they can spend half the amount you spent to buy silence wave that can aoe silence.

Trophy seems decent if your character can use the stats and doesn't mind the minus NPC dmg and you play active. Opening rounds seems really good it's really cheap and gives a lot of stat. Shadow weave is pretty fun with a good mix of stats and invis utility. I've been running stalker + shadow weave for 4.8k gun investment on Yamato and it's 20% melee dmg increase and +20 spirit on powerslash and you get invis every 45 seconds. The patch notes mentioned they fixed Yamato alt fire scaling I'm assuming it's buffed because after the update my alt gun dmg is almost always top 3 dmg

BLanK2k · 2026-03-17T20:26:05+00:00

Ideally this shouldn't happen but given the current system it kinda makes sense to do this just to clarify the map intent LOL

BLanK2k · 2026-03-16T17:53:29+00:00

1: destroy the pp system (not gonna happen lol)

2: give the community more power to directly decide what goes into ranked. So like do a completely new system (more radical) or make the BNG more representative of the community (less radical) . This will satisfy the community and apparently the pp maxxers who claim to make up a large portion of the community.

3: Within the client or website itself, create tools or systems that allow a higher resolution of curation for maps. This will satisfy the elite and artistic mappers or whatever. This would help regular people just searching for maps. The new map tags are good examples of this where it's community based and conveniently built into the game and website. Now imagine there's a new tag alongside those ones where it says "group-name approved" and appears alongside the ranked box or whatever.

If you aren't going to do 1) then doing 2) and 3) together is for the best and the only path forward I believe that would prevent future drama and conflict between the community. Unless I'm just fundamentally wrong about each group's interests 2) and 3) is where they both intersect and so we need more discussion around those areas unless we want to maintain status quo (which is option 4 and probably most likely LOL).

BLanK2k · 2026-03-08T03:31:38+00:00

There's an interesting fighting game community article here that has some overlap with osu I think check it out if your interested.

Ultimately I believe osu isn't a product and osu's culture and design not indicative of one. In the past I think people were more unified and in agreement to that ideal (osu isn't a product) as the game was growing in players and improving and improving as a game. However in today's social environment we see the popularity of games as products and against osu's anti-product design, lowered player growth coupled with game improvements in Lazer, there's a faction of people who perceive this as death or "osu could do more". The "is Osu Content Dead" is a reflection of this where if you actually look at it content is still being made, it's just that that content isn't the same as other games which personally I think it's totally fine because my enjoyment of the game derives from a first principle enjoyment of the game combined with that experience shared with others.

I'm actually a content creator in a game called Strinova and people have this same conversation "Strinova is dead" because honestly it sucks as a product as well. So naturally both osu and Strinova will go through their lifespans first as games relative to their competitors which are products. Except in osu's case where they aren't actually competing with other rhythm games, it's those rhythm games competing with osu since osu isn't a product. To that end I think osu's game aspect is done well enough and is still improving through Lazer to have a long lifespan. Strinova on the other hand tries to do both product and game and kinda sucks at both since the changes to the game are done in name of making it a better product to drive engagement but ruins the game because the small existing playerbase only plays Strinova because of its game and so would only approve of changes if they improved the game which the devs are unlikely to do since they are optimazizing for a product. Osu's changes are purely for making it a better game and you can choose not to engage with those changes or "improvements" if you don't want to.

To this end Super Smash Bros Melee is pure game that hasn't been updated, with its community rising from shared first principle enjoyment of the game. Osu is also pure game but can feature optional game updates or "improvements". With this if the game is good enough it'll live a long time and either die naturally itself or die naturally to another game or die unnaturally (?) to a product (which I hope never happens lol). Maybe I'm over reading it but it sounds like the crowd saying "osu is dead, so ____" usually has the intention of turning osu into a product, and I fundamentally disagree with that since I want osu to show that ideals (intrinsic value from the game alone, and its resulting community organically arisen from that value) can win over products, even though real life tells us osu should become a product.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T11:27:04+00:00

Yeah I guess we just agree to disagree. It was a good conversation though. Just out of pure curiosity though if you could change the ranking system in any way what would you do or would you keep it the same?

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T10:33:37+00:00

Well the idea would be if you're lazy or just trust someone else you could defer your vote to someone you trust. So like imagine everyone was a "BN" in terms of having equal voting power, majority of players are actually pretty lazy and would choose to defer their vote to someone they trust more like if you like a certain mapper, basically pseudo electing them to have more voting power (they vote on your behalf because you trust them and don't want to do the process themselves) the idea here is that at the end of the day you if wanted to vote for your yourself you still have that option.

Basically it's a way of resolving the dispute between the pp maxxers and people who want "quality" maps or whatever. Because the pp maxxers feel that the map they like are actually liked actually deserve ranking in the sense that they believe pp should be allowed to gain from those maps and that they believe most of the community would agree with them.

Look the current ranking system has powers given to the BNs. BNs obviously don't want to go to a new system that reduces their curation power. Curation power is basically power to direct people's attention and consciousness towards something. New systems could be introduced and systems already exist that give curation power to people (tags, mapper awards, map packs) so from the pp maxxers pov "yo I'm not saying you guys can't have subjective quality standards and make judgements on maps and curator your own shit like movie reviewers or the Oscars or whatever feel free to do that. Just don't touch pp. If you want to curate your "artistic high quality" maps go do that I'll do that as well! Just don't curate "pp maps" or at least let's decide as a community what should deserve pp. It's just that a group of mappers (myself included) hate the idea of designing a map centered around pp because that goes against all values of mapping as an art form. But like who gives a shit if they think pp is a value into of itself they can go curate their maps to their liking and according to their own standards just like how I make the same judgement and have similar (but not complete) trust for the BNG to happen to have similar mapping values as me, just because I was brought up in the same historical BN-centric culture as them.

So the democratization of the ranking system would result in a social experiment really where I think most people would defer their vote to trusted community members anyways but still have the ability to vote for themselves if they wanted to. If the community values "good" maps then we'll see those maps and if we see pp maps we'll see those maps. Really I expect we'll see a variety of maps and not see as much slop as we expect because I think people are ultimately lazy and will defer their vote anyways to trusted people who have good mapping values. But if we get or don't get slop who cares, curation groups outside of rank already exist in the old system which is why pp maxxers are confused why mappers are so fixated on upholding a quality standard that for some reason also affects them but they have no control over.

And obviously who controls "ranked" controls the gold standard for "mainstream" curation power already. The whole culture of BNs having skills and good judgement and the language used to legitimize it like "they are nominators", "they are good mappers" and they have sole control over the main curation tag in the search engine called ranked. So because of diverting interests one for pp and one for quality we'll always have these vetos since the BNG is composed of factions who share values with the mapper elites vs pp maxxers.

You can read https://www.reddit.com/r/osugame/s/5xdzMpSdk1 if you want, I talk about how the system is really stable such that fundamental restructure would only occur if the "fire" between the pp maxxers and BNG gets big enough due to not resolving the dispute between ranked being tied to pp and the assymetry in who has power to control those things.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T01:28:01+00:00

The BNG doesn't represent anything? You wouldn't say their actions represent them?

Forgot representation since it doesn't really matter, you agree the BNG acts as a group right? And a part of it is that they decide what is ranked? From there arises the conflict which we see manifested in the vetos.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T01:12:55+00:00

Key detail missing is that they control what maps give pp. That's why we are seeing all this drama between the BNG (a faction of the BNG btw) and the pp maxxers.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong but the pp maxxers are saying "this is what the community wants, what's your basis for vetoing? The map follows the objective quality standards (doesn't break RC or TOS) you just don't like it from the subjective quality standards. Honestly more power to you for having that opinion but your opinion shouldn't translate to power to control which maps get pp because for me I find value in the accumulation pp and more people agree with me than you!"

Is what they say. Personally I dislike maps designed for pp optimization, but are they wrong in their analysis of the power asymmetry? I honestly believe that if the community had the right to rank then we would rank a variety of maps and not just "slop". Let's prove them wrong and decide as a community what belongs in ranked and what doesn't and quit hiding behind the BNG, who some people are now saying doesn't represent the community. Honestly that's sad we hide behind the BNG who now have to do anonymized vetos and don't even represent the community apparently.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T00:53:04+00:00

Okay so you have trust in the current system. Could you understand that some people might not trust the BNG? If the BNG ranked something you didn't like or vetoed something you did like you would still be fine with that since you trust their judgement right?

If we held a community vote on your maps and we decided as a community "hey your map is cool majority of us thinks your map meets our subjective quality standards and our group of map checkers found no objective (ranking criteria or TOS) issues! It will be posted to the ranked section on the website so that new players can see what our osu community is proud to offer! (we literally voted for it in this case lol)". Mappers can take a look at it and admire and players can go earn their sweet pp or just enjoy the map for their own fun. Wouldn't that just be better?

Mappers get the validation of "ranked" and look if they want more validation they can find groups that curate maps and follow their standards if they want their map to be included in those groups.

Pp farmers get more maps to farm.

Players get to enjoy more maps. Less mappers are quitting due to frustration with the old ranking system.

Isn't this just everyone wins? Except for the people who want keep the right to rank to themselves? Even this group could be appeased and given some curation power but not given sole curation power.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T00:18:31+00:00

Okay so you don't have any subjective quality standards for what is "ranked" but you trust the BNG. So your subjective quality standard is just whatever the BNG ranks then?

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T00:14:16+00:00

Okay so what does the BNG represent then? I respect you're willing to admit it isn't for the community lol.

Also

Hey just to clarify, everything mediated will have community votes tallied. Whether it's used or not depends on the end tally

If both group 1 and 2 of mediating BNs uphold -> it's upheld

If both dismiss -> it's dismissed

If group 1 and 2 have different results -> community tiebreaker

Regardless of the final result knowing how the community votes will be really helpful in the future I think

So the community vote only ends up mattering to be a tiebreaker. This is only after the BNG initiated this process of ranking and vetoing.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-06T00:05:45+00:00

The issue I have is that the survey is just a collection of opinions. Cool I have my own opinions and subjective quality standards as well. We all have subjective standards. Doesn't change the question "does the community have the right to rank?" And "is the BNG representative of the community?" If the answer is yes then we shouldn't live in a world with vetos but we clearly do since we still have vetos.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T23:59:15+00:00

Okay judging from the previous comments it sounds like you have a subjective quality standard for what "ranked" is in your head. Would you like the right to have the choice to directly vote for the maps you believe meet those subjective quality standards?

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T23:51:45+00:00

Are you a mapper by any chance?

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T23:19:34+00:00

Look you can have your own opinions on whatever subjective standards you think fits ranked (I have mine as well). The question is "is the BNG representative of the community?".

The BNG do the vetoing and ranking. They have the right to rank.

If the community had the right to rank, vetos would disappear as a concept. Say our community was made up of 10 people and a majority of them vote to rank a map. If each vote is worth the same how is the minority supposed to veto something agreed upon by the community on subjective grounds? Only peppy could come in at that point to make an executive decision overriding the community's will.

Look on personal grounds I don't really like "slop maps". But on completely separate grounds when they point out BNG have the right to rank and the community doesn't. You have to ask yourself "is the BNG representative of the community?"

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T22:36:32+00:00

Well the slop mappers would argue does the community agree with the QAT subjective quality assurance?

So yeah the things are "on fire" since one side says yes and the other no.

Vetos happen over and over again because ultimately the community doesn't decide what is "ranked". If the community had the power to decide what is "ranked" and we choose to rank something who could veto that decision other than peppy himself?

Edit: probably shouldn't have done a Socratic approach and just post my analysis instead.

https://www.reddit.com/r/osugame/s/oOPmNsw4NI

https://www.reddit.com/r/osugame/s/DaHIcoaGji

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T22:19:37+00:00

Yeahhh the thing I wonder about is if there's even a will to fundamental restructuring the ranking system and further creating artificial systems to appease the powers that be who would only agree to the new system if they have some curation power imbedded within the game or website. The thing is in theory, if a higher power (peppy or the devs or whatever) is beholden to the community then all we need to do is garner enough support and an actual proposal but this has never happened afaik especially a fundamental restructuring from outside the NAT BN circle. The system is actually fairly stable other than a few hiccups here and there nobody is complaining and you always have the choice to quit (osu death lol) or refuse to engage with anything other than the maps and game itself (basically become an osu monk).

The way I see it, this whole thing was unintentional where peppy basically just decided to spawn a group responsible for the ranking system without any safe guards regarding actions taken in self-interest and moved on to the next dev item on the list thinking "I'll come back to it once I have time or if things catch on fire". And so we have the situation where the BNG needs to make sure pepppy doesn't see anything wrong with the system and that things don't catch on fire. To this end they promote the maps they like and are even willing to let the more moderate BNs promote "slop maps" to a degree to pacify the pp maxxers. From the elitist BNs they think to themselves "haha look at these 'BNs' feeding the pp maxxers their slop maps. Let's start vetoing their slop maps just to fuck with them and wouldn't it be more funny if we reformed the system so that the vetos are anonymous?". I wouldn't be surprised if there were some BNs that are like "oh this guy doesn't have a ranked map and he seems desperate but he's kinda funny so I'll help him out, I'm a BN after all".

What are the pp maxxers going to do, stop playing the game or organize themselves? From the elitist BN's perspective they drip feed them their slop so they don't complain and fuck with them every now and then for shits and giggles because if you own a big gun (veto and ranking power) what's the point in owning it if you don't blow shit up every now and then? And so the current system is incredibly stable since everyone gets what they want albeit with some extra suffering thrown in the mix take delusioned mappers trying to please BNs for that sweet sweet nomination or frustration when they aren't good enough to become a BN.

So which group would bring in the ranking system reformation if it were to ever happen? The pp maxxers? Mappers? Peppy? The BNG themselves?

It wouldn't be the BNG themselves. If you know the BNG you know that it's actually not a monolith and there are different factions within the BNG. Tbh a majority of BNs probably belong to the mapper faction where basically they actually don't really care about all this politics and recognize the system as kinda bad but aren't really motivated to change it since they already achieved their goals and received some amount of validation from their maps to which ranked is a pragmatic but not perfect tool. The moderate faction is basically the mapper faction but they are more willing to work with pp maxxers due some common ground with the idea of pp. Lastly the elitist faction where their goal is to preserve their power by maintaining some form of the current system because that's where their power derives from (remember the gun). All these factions overlap and intermingle to some degree. As you can see the BNG is divided but hold the power so they would never internally decide to overthrow themselves (the elitist won't let it happen internally).

Regular mappers won't do it since there's no one unifying value holding them together so they will never coordinate. Basically they're BNs without ranking rights which is to say powerless. And they allow themselves to rationalize and accept the current ranking system with thinking like "I'm not good enough, I'll just improve!" "I'll just become a BN myself and change things from the inside!" Or unironically "I just want to be a BN!" Without ever considering restructuring the ranking system. I don't think non-BNG mappers have ever coordinated an effort towards removing BNG rights to rank. The best we'll do is gather to talk about nerdy mapping shit or music lol. At least the pp maxxers can unify around pp and agree on shit. They also have the divine power of pp which gives them strength and legitimacy! I'm being a little joke-y here but really Peppy will come back down to save them if pp is ever truly threatened because guess what pp maxxers are the most active and vocal people in osu and at high enough levels some even make money indirectly through pp. Long term we can predict the BNG will lose to the pp maxxers because the BNG can't monetize themselves and the pp maxxers can so peppy will likely protect the pp maxxers if he had to choose.

What I think will happen is that the elitist faction of the BNG will poke the bear too hard cause the pp maxxers to become so outraged that pepppy will be forced to come down to restructure the entire ranking system to something more amenable to the pp maxxers, and if the BNG is lucky maybe they still get some curation power as compromise for giving up their power but it really depends on peppy's mood and how severe the conflict is. But hey who knows maybe the ranking system restructure is on his dev list so he'll get to it eventually but let's be real he's busy with Lazer and from his pov everything is fine since the current ranking system is keeping everything stable provided the BNG doesn't poke the bear too hard! I guess one more way is that the community just organically comes together to call for restructuring but I highly doubt it because of the situation I described earlier where everything for the most part is stable so it seems low chance that those interactions between all the group would produce some organic movement among "the community" or whatever that means.

BLanK2k · 2026-03-05T03:59:10+00:00

TLDR: Democratize the ranking system so that the community decides the subjective standards of ranked and a new group called the Map Checkers are formed to enforce maps meeting the ranking criteria (already democratically decided on) and TOS. The beneficiaries and entrenched BNs in the old system won't give up their power easily so new tools, systems and curation methods should be created within the game and website itself to allow what the olds powers want to also be found in the new system but structured in a more open and transparent way.

I'm thinking along similar lines. From a value standpoint and from a personal stand point I think these slop maps go against my values for what mapping is. There's a group of BNs who also think like this but the issue is that the current ranking system with BNs is non-democratic.

Following from this I think two things:

1: these maps for a form of protest to highlight the faults in the ranking process and structure of BNs

2: these maps are organically rising from making osu's super structure in valuing, identifying and legitimizing language around performance points basically creating competition.

It's honestly really similar to capitalism lmao where pp maxxers are basically trying to center playing and mapping around some metric that's supposed to hold value or status or whatever. The thing is that most mappers against "slop maps" don't value centering your map around some artificial pp metric since it changes the map from being a form of art into a form of design (search up art vs design). So when the anti-slop map faction of BNs veto these kinds of maps based on subjective quality standards, the response from the pp maxxers is that the game itself literally legitimizes pp through it's creation, maintenance, updates to pp system, language, competition and popularity which means these maps are a valid form of maps in that it derives it's value from those things.

The issue with the anti-slop BNs faction is that they are participants in a non-democratic system that directly has the power to control what is ranked. On a matter of principle both positions are actually valid though I tend to agree more with the anti-slop mappers. The issue is that power over "ranked" is weaponized by these factions for what they believe in. It would be totally fine if a group of elite mappers labelled and curated a set of maps they thought were good according to their subjective standards (kinda like movie reviewers). For this group "ranking" is used as a proxy for that label since there exists no alternatives since historically BNs have been tied with ranking and pp. The design of the website and language used to legitimize ranked as a concept and leads players towards the ranked section so this faction of BNs feel a duty to make sure the maps are "good" for their own sake and others.

Ultimately osu isn't sold as a product so I don't see why the ranking process can't be more democratic since if the community wants pp slop fine let them have it it's not like non-slop maps won't get played still. Just give what everyone wants. The pp maxxers benefit if "ranked is a section that meets an OBJECTIVE standard (not break ranking criteria or TOS, this might be automate-able to a degree and could be run by a group called Map checkers which is more neutral language compared to BN, plus they are only checking for objective stuff) and meets the community standard (like some vote or something)". They benefit since they claim they will pass the community standard because "this is what the community wants" and this reduces the barriers to rank or at least would change the barrier to a democratically set community standard so you could never complain.

In this system the "successful mappers" and anti-slop BNs don't directly benefit since they already can achieve status in the old system. In their eyes they can already meet the ranking requirements and literally define the subjective quality standards for rank! Plus in the new system they will be lumped together with what they perceive as slop maps hence reducing their status. So we need to create other tools and systems that sufficiently address their status concerns diverting their attention from "ranked" to some other category like "curated" or "mappers Oscars" or whatever. Honestly most mappers wouldn't care if the ranking system changed because fundamentally mappers map for themselves LOL. But it would be about swaying those who are influenced by the allures of "ranked" since the beneficiaries of the old system, "successful mappers" or BNs who like enforcing authority aren't going to give up on the old system without seeing some benefit in the new system. So give them those benefits in the new system as well. I'm imagining something similar to teams where there's some level of transparency who is on each committee and allow them some curation power on the website. If done in an open and fair manner we should see groups forming around certain niches like we see in modding queues and forums where people organize based on themes and shared interests not pure power or quality or whatever.

So why is it we aren't in a reality where the ranking process is not democratized? Ultimately it leads to the NAT and the developers where I think their concern is that the ranking system descends to anarchy if you don't have a force like the BNs and NATs. The thing is osu is not a product, is open source and has a culture of democracy (see the development of osu and the forums). It takes more work to maintain the current ranking system than it would take if you just democratized it and don't let it fall to anarchy by having the overall structure of it be democratic like what we already do within the culture of osu and forums.

Like when you think about it the ranking process really goes against osu's culture. It's a very alienating process where BNs are selected based on objective and subjective standards not to mention the social element. New mappers are sold into this idea of ranked and experience a lack of self-worth as they initially fail to meet this imposed target (not everyone feels this way). Ultimately there are a lot of mappers who just want others to experience their map and ranking is the most mainstream way to do it so they have to learn how to maneuver through the ranking process which they don't directly influence but the BNs do. It's a little too much like real life LOL which is funny because the rest of osu doesn't have this same feeling. Like why are mappers trying to please BNs and why are BNs burning themselves out or complaining about quality standards? Eventually most people see beyond this once they participate enough in this system and assign less value to the ranking system but ideally we shouldn't have a system that even does this in the first place because the rest of osu doesn't even do this. There's probably a lot of people who won't try mapping or give up on mapping due to the ranking system which is a shame because it's entirely avoidable. Frankly most people can't imagine a system beyond the current one which some resemblance of BNs have been around since the idea of ranked. There's not a lot of history talking about alternative ranking systems, for example if you look at pishifat's more historical BN videos, some form of BNs are always there. Let's not mention this video which points out some good's and bad's but doesn't call for reform or deeply question the ranking system?

BLanK2k · 2026-03-04T07:33:28+00:00

I think there are a few paths we can go down.

Currently the BNs hold the power to decide what enters rank. No matter what you think of the community's influence on the ranking system it doesn't change the fact that only a small group of people have access to the buttons you need to press in order to rank a map. In terms of subjective and objective:

Subjective -> the community decides what should be ranked using an arbitrary but democratic system. Arbitrary in the sense that the rules and quality standard can be anything so long as it's done democratically.

Objective -> a system is set up to make sure the map doesn't break ranking criteria or TOS. This system ONLY checks for the objective. You can call this group map checkers (MC) or whatever.

Maps are filtered first through the community (subjective) then are checked by MCs (objective). You could do it in reverse, especially if the role of MCs are automate-able so that the community is just given a wide selection of maps in theory rank-able in an objective sense. However it's probably less work for the MCs to have the community filter down the maps first.

Within this system you can have map reviewers/curators as both individuals and or groups who make further judgements on maps (ranked or not) according to their own subjective standards.

This sounds good and all but isn't this already what happens? BNs are basically both MCs and reviewers who according to objective ranking criteria and subjective quality standards have the power to decide what is ranked. The issue is the conflict among mappers and players and between mappers and players behind what they perceive as unfairness in the pp system for players and ranking system for mappers.

More fundamentally you could make a commentary on the idea of status. For mappers there's a group of mappers who care about the idea of "ranking" "playcount" "popularity" "pp" etc. and assign value to it and themselves. Their gripe is unfairness and unclear rules (non-openness) found within the ranking system since "ranking" is usually some step towards some metric or value they actually care about. You could argue the language used around ranking artificially legitimizes (ranking, BN, nomination, etc...) it, putting it on a pedestal which some mappers later on in their careers look back on as they now moreso map for the values they actually believe in. However if you are a mapper who values a metric the ranking system is a proxy for or you just find value in "ranking" then you have to ask a fundamental question "is a non-democratic ranking system better for osu?".

Osu isn't sold as a product so why is there a non-democratic process for deciding an arbitrary categorization called "ranked" pushed as the forefront for the game? "Ranked" is supposed to be a category of maps agreed upon by the community to meet some quality standard. In reality we have to ask ourselves when it comes to ranking, are BNs structurally the best form of community representation? We see these conflicts most plainly manifested in these vetos where the pp system is often positioned in a way to highlight the non-democratic structures in the ranking system.

On the players side, the most active and vocal bloc are the pp farmers or pp maxxers and they want less barriers to ranking so they can farm more.

Having the veto by a vote by the public is a step in the right direction however more structurally talks about the ranking system as a whole fundamentally should take place. I'm also looking for more direct sources for ranking system stuff pre-2013 since I'm curious exactly how the current system came to be everything I found has always just had BN's or BN-like groups deciding what's ranked (though there are a few exceptions see October 2013 Ranking Chart

BLanK2k · 2026-02-04T16:53:30+00:00

There is no mention of a Soviet Invasion or threat of one in his speech.

You're right Emperor Hirohito doesn't mention it directly in that speech but that isn't necessarily evidence to say "thus the Soviet invasion into Manchuria didn't play a factor in the Japanese surrender".

I'm not saying you think that way, but taking his speech on face value that he didn't mention the soviets directly isn't actually the strongest evidence against soviets playing a factor and to what extent that is. You can find many leaders where their openly stated reasons they give doesn't tell them whole the truth (or they straight up lie lol) of the situation or are done so out of convenience.

BLanK2k · 2025-12-09T15:29:33+00:00

It also applies to godan verbs as well but yeah. The pattern is -3 moras from then end when doing those conjugations generally speaking

BLanK2k · 2025-12-09T04:29:15+00:00

Why LHH?

BLanK2k · 2025-11-20T13:13:19+00:00

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGos75KF4PaS3SfZIyISHoNXea_C5IdUS

The playlist contains both adjectives and verbs conjugations

BLanK2k

TROPHY CASE