Gaizokubanou

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    964

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gaizokubanou

  1. Posted

    I also know that this is a big commercial property, and nothing marvel does - or will ever do - is because someone feels it is the right thing to do. Things get done because they are the commercially smart thing to do. The degree to which this reality is depressing drives me to go back to the boxing gym to punch things.

     

    Am I the only one on this board who finds the idea of people pursuing good behavior out of profit to be desirable?  Like nobody here seems to be saying that corporations are inherently evil (or maybe some of you think so?)... just that they are inherently about profit and is thus ethics neutral... so then, what's so awful about coaxing corporations to achieve good through the only language they speak (which IMO is very important language (resource distribution) for ethics to begin with)?

     

    I suppose I can't be a 100% non-violent person because of that.

     

    And I'm into military hardwares and advanced weaponry in general.  So you can use me as a flameshield if people give you shit for your combat sport background to be too violent :P

  2. Posted

    I just thought it was super rad-looking and colorful and that's mostly why I liked it.

     

    Don't watch the sequel series, though. Just don't.

     

    Oh yeah I thoroughly enjoyed the spectacles the production staff put together on it.  Wonderful stuff.

     

    And I wikied the sequel the moment I finished first one and yeah, I'll take your advice it read really lame on wiki (and this is coming from someone who adores reading wikis).

  4. Posted

    It's not just the distribution of resources. The idea of using purchasing power to direct the world towards the framework we choose is, while realistic, kinda gross to me. It's essentially saying "We can buy feminism". Average out the distribution of resources and it's still "We can vote on feminism". I don't like the idea of a system where important things like that simply reflect the majority opinion.

     

    Edited for clarity.

     

    Interesting, I can't quite grasp my mind around that (like, I see this phenomenon (entities with ability and the will to carry out X will achieve X) as natural reality, beyond ethical criticism (that isn't to say that said entities are beyond ethics, as I think their will is viewable through scope of ethics)) but thanks nontheless for trying to explain yourself to me.

     

    About comics more broadly, I think webcomics and its large indie scene in general has lot more content catering to female audience (which is weird to say, like is it cool to push this gender specific content instead of trying to erode the difference?), or any other relatively niche comic interest for that matter.

  5. Posted

    Bit of an 'old' series but recently finished Eureka 7.  To give out MASSIVE SPOILERS,

    I liked the "boy-meets-alien-girl-and-their-love-is-awesome-inter-species-communication" angle a lot, but whoa did the whole "this is how the world ends" angle feel dumb or what?

  6. Posted

    The obvious problem is that it makes an individual's ability to support something directly proportional to their buying power. To be cynical, maybe that's accurate, but it's sure not something to like.

     

    What is there to dislike about that though?  It's literally just "more resource you have, more things you can do" because... that's what resources are.  It enable us to do stuff proportionate to their amount.  Unless you are disliking hugely disproportionate resource distribution aspect (which is what I'm guessing here) then I can see why but that seems like a separate issue.

     

    Actually I would even say that the whole reason why hugely disproportionate resource distribution is unlikable is precisely because of how much buying power actually matters.

     

    That's definitely part of it, but I think more broadly it allows individuals to deflect examining their own pernicious sexism. If someone believes that buying this comic makes you a support of feminism, I could imagine them being more resistant to subtler criticisms of their own sexism. Kind of like of how the "but many of my best friends are black" people don't think of themselves as racist but with a credit card instead.

     

    Edit: I suppose it sounds like I'm really unsupportive of lady Thor. As SAM keeps patiently pointing out, it's still entirely possible that this storyline will go in an interesting direction that makes the gender choice meaningful. The little I've seen has made me really skeptical, however.

     

    That's valid concern, but on a flip side is people paying pure lip service while directing their resources elsewhere, and in some extreme cases, actually funding stuff that's harmful which is far worse than people who are lending material support but have some dense aspects.  Like everything we do, we can support or oppose things through multiple levels (and sometimes be hypocrites and oppose/support the same thing but on different layer) so why not embrace a culture of material support to a causes you like (while promoting the subtler matters as well, like two are not mutually exclusive is what I'm saying)?

  7. Posted

    I just don't like the idea of supporting feminism being boiled down to what you buy, but maybe I'm over exaggerating how dire the situation is. Everything is a commodity, even values.

     

    Hmm why is that bad though?  Resource distribution is very critical and should be closely related to non-monetary values like ethics or rights (or another way to put it is, I don't think anything is truly outside the scope of material goods).

  8. Posted

    But that same could be said about everything in game, most notably, death (which you mentioned as ineffective detriment).  IRL, I would think that one of worst outcome of racism would be death.  It's interesting that because we as player died so often across so many games, death rings 'hollower' (because everything within the scope of a game will ring bit 'hollow' compared to outside experience because it's at best, simulation of a real thing. while real things are real.  Best that any art forms can do is to help connect the mental dots in our mind from its presentation to whatever we have in our limited experience) compared to actual racial slurs that games' narratives may muster up.

  9. Posted

    Public Radio International has published an essay by an old friend of mine, Miguel Morales, on the relationship between a former child migrant worker and the food he eats now.

     

    Nice, easy to read essay about rough work and its impact on the author.  Bit off topic but reminds me of my college writing courses where lot of essays we read were similarly constructed.

  13. Posted

    But there's always the possibility that the developer is only asking for the portion of funding they need. Maybe they've got other funding (or maybe they intend to donate a bunch of their own time to the project) and they really only need $X additional Kickstarter funding to achieve A, B, and C, even if $X would be ridiculously too low by itself to make A, B, and C happen.

     

    Unless it's been explicitly stated, that's not an assumption you should make about any of these projects, and you should look at low budget goals as sign of either poor planning or deception.

  14. Posted

    I, on the other hand, see a categorical difference between hype about an existing product you want people to buy and making promises to crowdfunding backers you don't intend to keep.

     

    If you pre-order Watchdogs based on Ubisoft's hype machine, shame on you.  You could have waited for reviews. 

     

    But if a developer runs a Kickstarter and says, "If you give us X amount of money, we will deliver A, B, and C" then they've got to make every effort to deliver A, B, and C.  Maybe A, B, and C will suck, that's the chance you're taking when you back them.  But they should expect some harsh questions if they just throw up their hands and say, "Well, that was never going to be enough money to do B, C, or more than half of A."

    I don't think backers are entitled to get their money refunded, but I don't think it's out of line for them to tell Molyneux in pretty harsh terms that what he did is not okay, and is in fact damaging to the entire idea of crowdfunding.

     

    I think that's an overall good perspective but it does get murkier when promises are so outrageously impossible.

     

    Like say, I ask you for $60 and promises to give you a full vacation trip to the moon, you give me the $60, I don't deliever... clearly I would be to blame (I did lie) but more outrageous the offer gets, the less scummy it seems and more shame to the person who fall for it?

     

    Obviously $60 for moon trip isn't in the same ballpark as lot of these kickstarter budgets, but so many of these projects under-sell their budgets by ridiculously impossible margin (really obvious example is Yogsventure, the scope of the game and pricepoint they were asking for was absurd, anyone who expected it to work out were completely obliviously to labor involved in making games), I often ask, doesn't the potential backers have some, even if very slight, responsibility to give these things some thought?

     

    As scummy as under marking the cost of the project just to get some of the money, it's also baffling how mindlessly these things are funded.

  15. Posted

    Trying to level each class to max resolve to see how they play, but the four classes above seem to be the best all-rounders and and the rest are situational for certain dungeon types. If there's another marking or heavy stunning class I could see the Bounty Hunter getting prominence as a heavy hitting finisher (collect bounty, finish him) with control mechanisms (pull, stun grenade).

     

    Bounty hunter's execute has to be one of the weirdest skill, design wise.  I mean, it lets you kill stunned target faster... except that stunned targets usually needs to be killed the least because they are... stunned.  Like, what's up with that?  It's puzzling.

     

    I was a bit angry about that at first, but it's probably one of the more exciting parts of this whole playthrough, the clawing back afterwards. Sometimes I don't want to go too far towards ideal results. Like all those spotless missions in XCOM endgame? Gets kinda boring.

     

    That Hellion probably got another nerf coming I guess. Maybe just to her insanely strong pendants at least. I played around with the Grave Robber for a bit, but that was before the stage coach even presented me with a Bounty Hunter or decent Jester so I was just looking for somebody who could attack from third position. Probably not a lot of use beyond that general versatility of moving up, then fading back with stuns and self-buffs. Now I use the Bounty Hunter for hitting from the back line, stuns and pulls. Or just the Jester.

     

    I am kind of fond of the Occultist though. The Vestal is definitely the more reliably healer, but I don't mind the bleed to much since most folk seem to resist that reliably, which turns him into something of an erratic healer. Sometimes I get exactly zero points out of healing out of that guy, other times he instantly patches a comrade back up to full health. Most times it doesn't seem to be necessary to be pumping out heals constantly, and in those cases he just offers a bit more damage than the Vestal, I think. Abyssal Artillery is pretty good for targetting the back lines, or you can bring the debuffs. Didn't get to test the synergies with the Bounty Hunter yet though.

     

    Outside of boss runs and other missions that require extra safety, I've also taken to sending people out for torchless runs. With upgraded skills, weapons, the buff from total darkness and battle ballad, crit chances get around 30% easily, and at that point, people seem to be landing them reliably enough to take care of the extra stress. The usefulness of EVEN MORE LOOT! definitely rubs up against the limits of the backpack though, plenty of times when you fill that up with good stuff either way.

    Ah the neverending struggle of designers in regard to persistent progression vs snowballing...

     

    Occultist is IMO the best example of what this game should be all about...  Lots of interesting  skills with bit of ROFL RNG related skill (a heal that could possibly end up hurting you more?)... too bad about current balance (combat allows and favors quick and decisive end outside of griefing loner for healing) that makes him bit too 'cutesy', exact opposite of helion which is all about brute forcing.

     

    I think it would be cool to see overall damage nerf to EVERYTHING in the game, including the enemy so that we are encouraged to consider control elements more than now.  Like say, everything did half the damage.  I think occultist and bounty hunter's pull/push's value would dramatically increase, along with 'fun' factor involved.

  16. Posted

    Oh yeah, and I actually don't mind that it's pretty easy for me at all.  It scratches that basic RPG itch pretty well (well not anymore cause only thing left for me now is to get few classes to level 6 but it's early access and every game ends somewhere) as it is, albeit with few mid to late game problems that we were discussing earlier.

     

    I think you are spot on about first impression on the classes.  I kind of 'lucked out' on my plague doctor.  The first freebie I got came with the two plague grenades, stun, and debuff removal, which IMO is pretty much the optimal way to use plague doctor.  I might swap out grenade for bleed if going into weald (that swamp place) but bringing her there is probably a mistake to begin with to to high poison resist over there.

     

    So with that build, you got your two poison grenades that doesn't exactly kill things outright, but has the most powerful DoT you can get, so that's nice on big creatures while others clean up smaller ones.  The stun grenade is some sweet stuff against full pack if you can get her speed up a bit to move fast.  Bleed/poison removal can be very handy at higher level when those things can tick for 8 dmg (when stacked).

     

    But on the other hand it took me a while to appreciate the helion because my first batch of them were just loaded with those skills that debuffs her and didn't have her brokenly useful bleed attack.

     

    Still trying to figure out exact purpose of gravedigger and occultist... I think occultist is bit too poor ATM, especially if you upgrade his heal beyond the 2nd rank as the bleed from it gets just too crazy at max level.  The whole pull/push mechanic is nice design on paper, but in practice I find it not so great when other classes can just help you kill the target... like every range targets that gets gimped when pulled to first 2 tiles, helion can just one shot it at third spot and those guys usually come in pair of 2 so two helion == easy two kill right off the bat.  Gravedigger is like bounty hunter to me, fast and easy with positioning at the cost of damage, which isn't worth it with current overall balance IMO because I don't think target picking in this game is sensitive enough to warrant that trade off (better to just deal extra damage to whatever).  But I have a suspicion that speed might have some sort of group calculation and ambush aspect, as I've seen a very fast unit in overall slow group going way after all the AI units move, while my slightly faster group tend to have easier time with turn priority and ambushes.  But these are just observations, so who knows.  But if they hold some truth to them, then I can see gravedigger being this light unit you bring to ensure your party doesn't get screwed over in turn order.

     

    Two classes that I got a bad impression but started to hang onto really fast is probably the vestal (obvious healer) and jester (browsed through skill, saw party stress heal, was instantly sold on the class).

     

    About Swine dude, yeah I read very similar story ("I hit the little guy and got stun locked to death") when I did little research on him after my Hag debacle and avoided that pain through the power of internet.

     

    Also been watching this guy Northernlion (I love that dude, he's my online rolemodel) play this game and man it's really eye opening how different some people play this game... like he does stuff that completely catches me off guard (in poor ways for him), so it's super interesting how some people just get completely caught in the theme of this game and don't bother to min max their party and also how some games just fail to teach certain players how it works (watching him and ManVsGame playing Xcom was something else, as neither figured out how cover exactly works).  Makes me appreciate games that just clicks with me without any tutorials even more.

  17. Posted

    Thanks Fingus for detailed response.  Yeah I got my party wiped too when I ran into Hag totally blind (up to that point my entire gameplan was focusing down the first 2 slots).  Sounds like you had some trouble after that though, what comp did you bring?  I use 2 Helions at front (used two self camp buffs before the fight), Jester at third and Vestal at last with first 3 built to focus on bleed, which seems to reliably kill her before the pot puts the unlucky party member at death's door.  Same party for Swine King too (bleed stack is really reliable).

     

    But other than that single blind wipe I'm actually finding the rest of the game to be trivial.  Like I have 30+ hours in ATM (split into 10 and 20+ because that first 10 hour save got corrupted) I believe and I had total of 6 deaths (4 from that blind Hag wipe).  That's why I'm curious about other people's experience with this game cause Darkest Dungeon seem to have the reputation of being a very hard game and I just can't see how.  And it's not like I'm super good at games overall cause it took me many tries to reliably beat FTL on hard mode, found Dark Soul to be challenging, took about 8 hours to beat Volgarr... so I'm curious as to why there seem to be such a huge discrepancy in this particular game between me and popular opinion on its difficulty.  Is it simply because I approach any games with farming tactics by farming first?  I mean the primary party wipe on Hag wasn't a big deal for me cause I had 10+ members waiting with 3 newbies coming in every week with some bank rolling as backup because I farmed a lot to prepare for the worst (best party wiped, which indeed did happen).

     

    As for my regular tactics I don't even do anything fancy... Few group types I run is that double helion setup which focuses on killing 2nd and 3rd position using two 'if it bleeds' + jester's mid bleed attacks..  And then I use highwayman front with tank and 2 support where highwayman just bounces back and forth between first and second slot using pointblank and duelist's advance.  Jester generally makes stress management pretty easy as I can just let one mob live while spamming its aoe stress reducer (the game's mechanic to dissuade me from this kicks in too late and too little that I can just power through).

     

    It's also interesting that you find Bounty Hunter likeable because I found him pretty lackluster (though he looks badass)... like that combo with occultist you describe, I found it to be too unreliable because the order in which your members go is critical for that to work (occultist go first to mark), which may be telling why I find this game trivial because I just stack members that have zero synergy with each others outside of very simple stuff like "healer heals party members".  For specific example is the way I build my crusaders.  I use smite, accusation, lance and inspiring cry.  Smite for single target, accusation for occasional AOE (totally swappable with stun), lance to get him back into proper position if pushed or surprised, and inspiring to stress heal.  He basically has zero input on other members and doesn't really need anything from others.  Even my tactics are pretty bare bone... I don't even try anything fancy with positioning either.  Just beat up the dudes that my party can focus fire and kill the fastest (helion group would be center two, highwayman group would be first), and try to save least dangerous enemy so I can heal health and stress (jester or crusader for stress healing).  Also as for interactable objects, I don't touch any of them unless it's 100% safe like crates or meat when I have medicine.  I wonder if this game might tricks people into trying fancy stuff... when it is just best to brute force because the game is very simple.  I'm certainly not doing anything smart... if anything, I'm baffled because of how simplistic my gameplan is for this game and it just seem to work reliably.

     

    Again I want to emphasize that I don't want to come across as "hur hur look how better I am at this game hur"... I'm curious as to how this game is approached by others so that there can be such huge gulf in perceived difficulty when the game system is relatively simple because I am positive I'm not special at figuring out games.  Hence more specific planning and thoughts you can provide, much more appreciative I will be because I think the game is failing at some point of teaching its players how the game works.  So again, thank you Fingus for the detailed reply, exactly what I was looking for and would love to continue discussing the decision processing in more depth here if you don't mind.

  20. Posted

    I've been there, and it also happened after failing a mission left me with around 200 gold to spare. I picked up new people from the stagecoach to do level 1 missions, but random team compositions (who needs healers) with random negative quirks and no torches or food to avoid stress generation aren't exactly a recipe for success. Had to end a couple of those early after the entire crew got stressed out, better to grab that bit of cash than let them all die in another fight. If your perception here is that level 1 stuff is impossible to mess up then I'd have to disagree.

     

    Level 1 with zero provision and random adventurer is probably tough (some setup can generate light and reduce stress while keeping enemy stunned or tank dmg efficiently), but I just can't imagine how I would end up in that scenario.

  21. Posted

    So what do you guys propose then?  So nobody likes what Biddle did...  But I think that's simply because his goals have become transparent.  My impression is that lot of Biddle-like personalities do what he does except they just repeat acceptable form of base line for justification.

     

    Like say nobody knew that Biddle started the whole deal with Sacco and that tweet were just started to circulate.  I can see lot of us, including me, jumping on the bandwagon of "haha look at that racist asshole getting caught, serves her right".

     

    I mean, I agree that there are lot of shitheads out there that doesn't respond well to diplomacy.  But I think it's preferable to pursue better blocking tools than internet vigilantism because I don't have a good impression of the latter's track record.  It's just very mob-like even under the best of intentions.

  23. Posted

    Let me break it down for you:

     

    In my jurisdiction, I don't think this would be considered a valid contract, because it's structured in a way where one party only gets something if the other party keeps a promise, but the contract does not compel them to keep that promise. Because the contract is then a fancy way of saying 'you actually don't get anything', I think it'd be considered a misleading contract. So the contract hasn't been breached, I agree, but he could probably still sue.

     

    Right, so you agree that it's probably not even a contract... so then why think that anyone have any ground to discuss this as a contract if it's not a valid contract?  Contract laws deal with validity of contracts and then enforcement of valid but breached contracts.  Everything else is out of its scope.  So if you agree that contract isn't breached because it's not a valid contract, then noone can sue for misleading contract cause there was no contract to begin with.

     

    Again, I think sweepstake-contest rules are much better fit.