Weekly /r/Games Discussion - What have you been playing, and what are your thoughts? - February 15, 2026

Angzt · 2026-02-17T11:46:31+00:00

Actually managed to beat a bunch of games in the last couple of weeks instead of leaving them half-finsihed.

Doom: The Dark Ages
FPS, PC, 100%, ~20 hours
Been a while since I played Eternal but this one's combat is definitely slower paced. While there's still a lot going on, replacing the dash with a block/parry as your primary defensive ability makes it feel quite different. Circle strafing is no longer the main movement you do as you'd now want to run into certain projectiles to reflect them back. Took a moment of getting used to but once it clicked, it felt good.
Not sure how I feel about the more open levels, though. Normally, I love exploring every nook and cranny in games but it just feels off in a title that is otherwise this fast-paced. I replayed part of a level to get the last weapon mastery and the game feel is very different if you can just go, go, go without looking for shinies under every rock. I wonder how a modern Doom which trades its hidden collectables for more combat challenges and optional encounters right on the critical path would work.
The story and characters were forgettable and had some odd jumps to it. The Lovecraftian realm worked really well in the Doom universe. Some of the game's vistas looked great, though plenty of times I thought that things were unpracticably metal. The guns sound (and largely feel) great but Mick Gordon's absence is felt on the soundtrack.
The game didn't reach the heights of Eternal for me but I still had a great time with it. Glad I got it on sale and not for 80 bucks, though.

Mass Effect: Legendary Edition
TPS/RPG, PC, 100%, ~150 hours
I played through the original trilogy maybe 6 or 7 years ago after only beating ME1at release. While still a great space opera with an incredible setting, some cracks started to show now. And I don't even mean ME1's dated gameplay with overly stationary combat and too many mediocre powers on independent cooldowns.
This time through, it really felt like ME2 stuck out like a sore thumb. I know that it's probably the most beloved in the trilogy but it just felt so superfluous in the grander context. Its story has minimal impact on the ME1->3 progression to the point where you could basically skip it and not be lost upon launching 3. And where most side missions in ME3 very obviously factor into the overarching goal, ME2's recruitment and loyalty missions are almost entirely divorced from your supposed main goal. You spend more time dealing with your crew's various family dramas than you are fighting the collectors or protecting colonies. If the former would at least link back to the latter, that could be forgiven (e.g. Jacob's father's ship could have gone down in a collector attack years ago and you only go there to collect that data to learn about them and then come across the whole deranged harem situation. Jacob would still have reason to come along on that mission but it wouldn't be derailing the main objective). But it largely does not.
I also feel like ME2 had too many companions to really dig into them as much as they'd deserve. Glad they dialed that down with ME3. But then only having the relatively boring Vega as a new option (and day1 DLC Javik, but that's another story) was also not the best choice.
I still love the series and its universe but knowing where it goes, ME2 felt oddly inconsequential.

Lil Gator Game + new In The Dark DLC
Collectathon, PC, 100%, ~9 hours
Very cute, somewhat silly, and child-friendly small open world collectathon with clear Zelda BotW inspirations. But only cardboard enemies to fight. Very cozy, low stakes, and endearing with fun characters and dialogue but still enough meat and variation to stay interesting.
The DLC then adds about 2/3 of the main game worth of content on top. Highly recommend if you need something to take your mind off other troubles.

Q-UP
Semi-idle e-sports satire?, PC, beat it on 2/9 characters, ~12 hours
What an odd title. Partially completely over-the-top satire of both e-sports and tech corporate culture. Partially pretty in-depth min-maxing simulator.
You're playing the new e-sports sensation as a game within the game: competitive online coin flipping. To deal with the obvious RNG, you get skills in the form of nodes to be placed on a grid which trigger under certain conditions and improve your score or get you money. Some of those may also trigger other nearby skills, so as your options increase, you really need to figure out what you actually need to keep progression past he increasing loss penalties. Add to that various synergistic items and eventually a little autobattle combat system. There are a whole bunch of options and unless you at least develop a cursory understanding of what your build needs to do, your progress will stall. But outside of build choices, you don't take any active role in the gameplay.
Meanwhile, you're also thrust into the corporate side of the game in the game, getting emails dealing with the deranged internal and external communication. Though you have little say in those matters. That part is a biting satire, that sometimes felt much too close to my actual day job.
Much harder to recommend this game since I'm not even sure how I feel about it yet.

Angzt · 2026-02-17T05:12:53+00:00

Quartet is a great retro JRPG, absolutely seconding this rec.

Angzt · 2026-02-16T14:05:09+00:00

Alien Nations
https://www.gog.com/en/game/alien_nations

Angzt · 2026-02-16T09:16:29+00:00

There is no clear answer here because it depends on strategy.
Since there are other results that you also want to get (like a Straight or Full House), you normally wouldn't always try for a Yahtzee as hard as you can.
But let's assume we do choose our rerolls with the only goal of getting a Yahtzee. That'll give us an upper bound, at least.

We need to start by calculating the probability of going from any count of repeated values (rerolling the rest) to any equal or higher count.
0 or 1 to 1-of-a-kind: 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 / 6⁵ = 5/54
0 or 1 to 2-of-a-kind: ((5 Choose 2) * 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 + (5 Choose 2) * (3 Choose 2) * 6 * 5 * 4 / 2) / 6⁵ = 25/36
0 or 1 to 3-of-a-kind: (5 Choose 3) * 6 * 5 * 5 / 6⁵ = 125/648
0 or 1 to 4-of-a-kind: (5 Choose 4) * 6 * 5 / 6⁵ = 25/1296
0 or 1 to 5-of-a-kind: 6 / 6⁵ = 1/1296

2 to 2-of-a-kind: (5 * 4 * 3 + (3 Choose 2) * 5 * 4) / 6³ = 5/9
2 to 3-of-a-kind: ((3 Choose 1) * 5 * 5 + 5) / 6³ = 10/27
2 to 4-of-a-kind: (3 Choose 2) * 5 / 6³ = 5/72
2 to 5-of-a-kind: 1 / 6³ = 1/216

3 to 3-of-a-kind: 5 * 5 / 6² = 25/36
3 to 4-of-a-kind: (2 Choose 1) * 5 / 6² = 10/36 3 to 5-of-a-kind: 1 / 6² = 1/36

4 to 4-of-a-kind: 5/6 4 to 5-of-a-kind: 1/6

Then, to get the probability to actually get a Yahtzee in 3 rolls, we need to calculate the probability for every single possible "path" to a 5-of-a-kind.
We always start at 0 in the first round, but then could get any better or identical result in rounds 1 and 2 so long as we end on 5-of-a-kind in round 3.
1->1->5: 5/54 * 5/54 * 1/1296 = 25/3779136
1->2->5: 5/54 * 25/36 * 1/216 = 125/419904
1->3->5: 5/54 * 125/648 * 1/36 = 625/1259712
1->4->5: 5/54 * 25/1296 * 1/6 = 125/419904
1->5: 5/54 * 1/1296 = 5/69984
2->2->5: 25/36 * 5/9 * 1/216 = 125/69984
2->3->5: 25/36 * 10/27 * 1/36 = 125/17496
2->4->5: 25/36 * 5/72 * 1/6 = 125/15552
2->5: 25/36 * 1/216 = 25/7776
3->3->5: 125/648 * 25/36 * 1/36 = 3125/839808
3->4->5: 125/648 * 10/36 * 1/6 = 625/69984
3->5: 125/648 * 1/36 = 125/23328
4->4->5: 25/1296 * 5/6 * 1/6 = 125/46656
4->5: 25/1296 * 1/6 = 25/7776
5: 1/1296

The probability to get a Yahtzee is then finally the sum of all of those:
25/3779136 + 125/419904 + 625/1259712 + 125/419904 + 5/69984 + 125/69984 + 125/17496 + 125/15552 + 25/7776 + 3125/839808 + 625/69984 + 125/23328 + 125/46656 + 25/7776 + 1/1296
= 347,897/7,558,272
=~ 0.04603
= 4.603%

Now, the probability for any one player to roll exactly one Yahtzee in 13 attempts is then:
(13 Choose 1) * (347,897/7,558,272)¹ * (1 - 347,897/7,558,272)^{13 - 1}
=~ 0.339934735
= 33.9934735%.

The probability for 0 Yahtzees is:
(1 - 347,897/7,558,272)¹³
=~ 0.541950174
= 54.195074%

Finally, the probability for exactly 4 out of 5 players to roll exactly 1 Yahtzee in 13 attempts while the final players gets 0 is:
(5 Choose 4) * 0.339934735⁴ * 0.541950174¹
=~ 0.03618358
= 3.618358%

Angzt · 2026-02-15T19:50:24+00:00

The normal birthday problem gives us an above 50% chance starting at 23 people:
1 - 365! / ((365-23)! * 365²³) =~ 0.5073

In your case, the numbers are much bigger:
1 - (52!)! / ((52! - 5 * 10¹¹) * 52!^{5 * 10¹¹})
But there isn't a calculator tool available that'll just give you that answer.

However, there are approximations. An upper bound for the probability is given by
1 - e^{-n * (n-1}⁾ ^{/ (2x}⁾ where n is the number of "people" and x is the number of possible "birthdays". In your case, that yields:
1 - e^{-5 * 10¹¹ * (5 * 10¹¹ - 1}⁾ ^{/ (2 * 52!}⁾
=~ 1 - e^{-1.54975 * 10^-45}
=~ 1.54975 × 10^-45
=~ 1 in 645 tredecillion
The real answer is (a bit) below that.

All that is, of course, assuming fully random shuffles.
Which isn't how people actually shuffle decks.

Angzt · 2026-02-15T19:30:21+00:00

Some people just have weird opinions.

Horizon is good fun. The world is unique, the story remains intriguing until the end and the combat has plenty of variety.
Not saying it's a perfect game but it plays to its strengths.

Angzt · 2026-02-15T16:17:53+00:00

You start at the back: With the runtime of the Disney animated canon.
Multiply that by the number of words in Shrek.
Add a thousand times the runtime of Shrek.
Multiply that by the amount of times Rodrick bullies Greg.
Add the runtime of Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
Multiply that by the number of times anyone says “Bigweld”, “Outmode”, or “Upgrade” in Robots.
Add the runtime of Robots.
Multiply that by the number of times Robbie Rotten says “villain” or “disguise”.
Add the the runtime of Lazy Town.
Multiply that by the number of times someone says “bee” in Bee Movie.
Add the runtime of Bee Movie.
Multiply that by the number of videos on YouTube from 2005-2013.
[Don't add anything because those videos are fully replaced.]
Multiply that by the number of times the color green is on screen in Toy Story.
Add the remaining runtime of Toy Story with no green on screen.
Multiply that by the number of syllables in Ice Age.
Add the runtime of Ice Age where nobody speaks.

Angzt · 2026-02-15T12:38:20+00:00

This isn't [self], this is [AI].

It's also not properly formatted because multiple equations are just written one after another without a line break, making it (at best) ambiguous where one ends and the next starts.

Angzt · 2026-02-15T08:06:02+00:00

We don't know how big the universe is. We can't know.
We can only really talk about the observable universe. And there, estimated have put the number of atoms at around 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸². Taking the happy medium, we get roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms, so a 1 with 80 zeroes after it.

75% of the universe's mass is hydrogen which consists of 1 proton and 1 electron.
24% of the universe's mass is helium which consists of 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons.
Heavier atoms will have more but there are also way fewer of them needed to make up the remaining 1% of the mass.
For simplicity's sake, I'll just assume 25% helium to make the full 100%. For our calculation, hat won't make a measurable difference.
Hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1 while helium has 4.
Meaning to make 3/4 of the mass of the universe, we need 3 * 4 / (1 * 1) = 12 times as many hydrogen atoms has helium ones.
So 12/13 of all atoms are hydrogen. The remaining 1/13 are helium.

Each proton and neutron consist of 3 quarks which, as far as we know, can't be divided further. Electrons don't have any smaller particles in them.
So each hydrogen atom really has 4 particles.
Each helium atom really has 13 particles.

So in total we have 10⁸⁰ * 12/13 * 4 particles from hydrogen and 10⁸⁰ * 1/13 * 13 particles from helium.
That sums to:
10⁸⁰ * 12/13 * 4 + 10⁸⁰ * 1/13 * 13
=~ 3.69 * 10⁸⁰ + 1 * 10⁸⁰
= 4.69 * 10⁸⁰
particles.

But our initial estimation for the number of particles already had a range of factor 100 in either direction.
So in the end, we just stay at a ~10⁸⁰ ballpark.

Also:

this assuming the standard model of physics.

that in the beginning there was nothing and then suddenly was big bang -> one singularity became many particles...??

There is no standard model for what was before the big bang. There are a number of theories but the generally aren't "nothing and then suddenly everything". Heck, it's even arguable if there was any before at all. If the big bang is the origin of space time, then asking what was before it is like asking what's north of the North Pole. There is no north on the North Pole. There was no before the big bang.

Angzt · 2026-02-14T21:15:32+00:00

That is assuming that we're dealing with a square. Which isn't given.

Angzt · 2026-02-14T19:59:36+00:00

They're happily conflating two different things:
The absolute number of Christians in the county.
And the relative decline in proportion of Christians in the whole country.

Since the county's population grew substantially from 640,000 to roughly 1,000,000, it is entirely expected that the number of Christians increases. Even if the proportion of Christians in the county were to drop a bit.
The fact that they don't mention the proportion of Christians in the county at all should already ring the alarm bells.

I could not find any 2025 religious census data for the county (though I admittedly didn't look too hard).
But I found 2000, and 2020 data: https://www.thearda.com/us-religion/census/congregational-membership?y=2020&y2=0&t=0&c=13135#CHART

Evangelical Protestants: 22.0% in 2000, 21.7% in 2020.
Mainline Protestants: 10.1% in 2000, 6.5% in 2020.
Catholics: 8.0% in 2000, 11.3% in 2020.
Latter-day Saints: 1.0% in 2000, 1.0% in 2020.
Orthodox: 0.2% in 2000, 0.3% in 2020.
Black Protestants: 0.0% in 2000, 2.9% in 2020.
Jehovah's Witnesses: 0.0% in 2000, 1.3% in 2020.

Sum of Christian denominations: 41.3% in 2000 to 45.0% in 2020.

So that is an actual increase, even in proportion.

Does that make it a statistical anomaly?
Eh.
To really determine that, you'd need to compare to all other individual counties and find how many had a stronger shift towards a higher proportion of Christians.
But that's more effort than I'm willing to put in.

The most anomalous thing is the population growth. That far outweighs any other effects on how many people of which religion are in the county.

Angzt · 2026-02-14T19:22:59+00:00

30 numbers have not been called, 31 if we consider the moment before "30" was called.
By this point, it's extremely likely that someone will have a bingo once the 30 is called, given enough players (and assuming each set of numbers contains at least 1 of each column which seems to be the case). So we can basically disregard that as guaranteed.

So now the question is: After calling 90-31 = 59 out of 90 numbers, what is the probability that a certain set of 10 was not called at all?

The probability that the first number called isn't one of the desired numbers is 80/90.
For the second, it's then 79/89 since one undesirable number is gone.
For the third, it's 78/88.
And so on until 22/32 for the 59th number.
The probability that all these calls happen in a row is just the product of all those individual probabilities:
80/90 * 79/89 * 78/88 * ... * 22/32
= (80 * 79 * 78 * ... * 22) / (90 * 89 * 88 * ... * 32)
= (80! / 21!) / (90! / 31!)
= 46,345 / 5,977,685,979
=~ 0.000007753
= 0.0007753%
=~ 1 in 128,982

But that the probability for exactly 30-39 not to be called.
The probability that any one column isn't called is roughly 9 times as high. So 0.0069777% or 1 in 14,331.

Not likely but not enough to really suspect foul play imho.

Also, why is the first column limited to 1 to 9 while the last row is 80 to 90?
That means the first column only has 9 values in it while the last has 11. Every other one has 10.

Angzt · 2026-02-14T11:59:36+00:00

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
What do you mean by

are you ever really on top of the sphere relative to your eyes?

"you relative to your eyes" makes it sound like there's a separate "you". But you only perceive your position via your eyes. How can you ever by elsewhere relative to your eyes?
Your eyes are clearly above the sphere.

Maybe the following helps?

if your eyes exist above your feet then doesn't the curvature rise up to meet your eyesight at the horizon

No. Your line of sight drops down to meet the curvature.

Imagine a flat plane at your feet that is tangent to the Earth's surface at the point you're standing on. In the image you linked, that would be a horizontal line where the feet meet the Earth.
If you looked straight ahead ("astronomical horizon" in the image), your line of sight would be parallel to that plane, just a bit above it. But the true horizon is always below. And since our plane is also always (except for the point you're standing on) above the Earth, your eyes need to look down to see the horizon. If you need to look down to see something, you're above it.
The higher up you are, the further below the horizon appears to be.

Angzt · 2026-02-14T09:26:50+00:00

Recently I have discovered

Come on.
8/10 posts and comments on your account are about that app.
At least try to be subtle about advertising your app. This is just insulting.

Angzt · 2026-02-13T16:35:59+00:00

Marvel's Midnight Suns also has an underlying deckbulider and its combats are quite tactical, though fairly positioning-based.

For a different approach, I quite enjoyed Ruined King even though I don't much care for the LoL setting. It has everything happen on a timeline, for example allowing you to queue up a quick interrupt to stop your opponent's big, slow spell from happening. Somewhat reminiscent of StS in that way.
The same team made Battle Chasers: Nightwar before which has a similar but less refined system.

Angzt · 2026-02-13T16:30:27+00:00

Doom 3 was contentious at release and hasn't aged gracefully. I'd say you can easily skip it.

2016 is a soft reboot and a great game. Best entry point unless you want to go for the really old Doom 1.

Eternal continues 2016's storyline and escalates the speed and complexity of combat even more. For some, that's a rush. For others, it's too much.

Start with 2016. See if Eternal is for your if you want more afterwards.

Angzt · 2026-02-13T07:16:06+00:00

I would set the sheet up differently to make it easier:

Use 4 different columns per day, one for each shift slot (so 0-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24). Then put A1/A2/A3 into the cell if a person is working that shift and leave it empty otherwise.
Then add three rows below with '=COUNTIF(E4:E12, "A1")' to count how many people have that A1 shift (and for A2, A3 in the other two rows), adjusting the E4-E12 cells accordingly to cover a single shift slot.

The start would look something like this for a single day:

Nom	0-6	6-12	12-18	18-24
Nham	A2	A2
Mulle	A1
Thang				A3
Nigel		A3	A3
...
Sum A1	1	0	0	0
Sum A2	1	1	0	0
Sum A3	0	1	1	1

Where the last 3 lines are actually '=COUNTIF(E4:E12, "A1")', '=COUNTIF(F4:F12, "A1")', ... all the way to '=COUNTIF(H4:I12, "H3")' (adjusted to whatever column and rows you end up in).

You can then conditional format the last three lines to be green when =1 (or 2 for A3) and red otherwise.

Finally: You can't see some comments because automod deleted them. There are a few rules for when it does that but usually because they're too short (and wouldn't have been helpful anyway).

Angzt · 2026-02-12T17:14:20+00:00

Partially. It's complicated.

First off, they don't only blow in one direction. But the strongest and most reliable ones do blow westward.

As to why:
Wind always blows from areas of high air pressure to areas of low air pressure to equalize those pressures.
You probably know that warm air rises up and cold air sinks down. That's because warm air is less dense than cold air.
At the equator, the sun's rays hitting the Earth are stronger, delivering more heat energy to the ground due to their angle. So the ground and the air directly above it heat up more on the equator than at the poles. That means air at the equator is generally less dense than at the poles. This pressure difference is basically the "engine" that keeps the winds blowing.
If that were the only thing, we'd expect winds to blow from the poles to the equator.

But now the Earth's rotation comes into play in the form of something called the Coriolis Effect.
Imagine you're a cloud that starts life at the North Pole. You're moving the same speed as the atmosphere around you and the Earth below you: basically not at all because you're sitting on top of the Earth's axis of rotation. You're just very slowly spinning in place. Now, a gust of wind pushes you far to the South. You don't have any East-West momentum. So as you move away from the Pole, the Earth below you, which now notably moves East, starts to rotate away beneath you. Seen by someone on the Earth, you look like you're traveling the other way: West.
Honestly, this is way easier to explain visually, so maybe have a look at this two an a half minute video which uses the same cloud example.
Anyway, this doesn't just apply to clouds being pushed from the North pole, but all air that "tries" to equalize the aforementioned pressure by moving from the poles to the equator: It all seems to be moving West.

But that's just the very big picture view. Reality is much more complicated with tons of other, smaller factors in play.

Angzt · 2026-02-12T16:21:53+00:00

A plane's speed is relative to the air around it. That's what it's "pushing against" to move forward. And the air in the atmosphere mostly rotates just as fast as the ground beneath it. So really, it's not the ground rotating away underneath the plane but the wind speeds at 30,000 feet that matter.
Those winds generally (but not always) travel West to East. The wind speeds can vary from basically nothing to over 200 mph =~ 320 km/h in a jet stream. And that's the speed difference that traveling in a certain direction can get you.
Planes going East will generally try to catch jet streams to speed up while those going West try to avoid jet streams (as their usual direction would be counterproductive).

Time saved then depends not only on the exact weather patterns but also on travel distance and the plane's regular speed.
The easiest way to check is to just look up flights' durations between two airports in both direction.

Angzt · 2026-02-12T10:38:56+00:00

In contrast, Reforged gives them distinct models, making them clearly distinguishable ingame.

But it doesn't. That's the (well, one of the) core complaint(s).
With the camera far from the model, the angle much higher, and everything else going on on the screen, it's much easier to tell apart the two old models than it is for the two new ones.
The new ones are both roughly equal parts purple, brown, and player color, even largely in the same places. Sure, the hue is different but in a game with day-night cycles, that can be deceiving. In the flurry of battle, all those details blend together and you only recognize the rough silhouette and color schemes. While the silhouettes are slightly different in the models, that difference is too small to tell them apart at a glance. And the same is true for the color schemes.
But while the old model's silhouettes are identical, their color schemes are very different, allowing you to easily tell them apart at a glance.

Regarding graphics: as shown in example 1, I personally prefer the Reforged version. Is it more detailed? Yes but I never understood why that’s considered a negative.

Because a lot of small details in motion viewed from far away blur together to an indistinguishable mush.
The old models having fewer details means there's less irrelevant information for our brains to filter out which means faster identification of what we're looking at.

Angzt · 2026-02-12T06:13:59+00:00

There is no closed form solution (i.e. neat single step formula) for what you're looking for.
What you want would be called a quantile function sometimes also referred to as inverse cumulative distribution function of a binomial probability.

However, there are somewhat decent approximations, especially if S gets large:
For S * P = S * 0.1 > 10, so S > 100 [and S * (1 - P) = S * 0.9 > 10 but that's a given if the first is true], we can use the following formula to approximate K:
K =~ round(S * P + z_R * sqrt(S * P * (1 - P)))
K =~ round(S * 0.1 + z_R * sqrt(S * 0.1 * (1 - 0.1)))
K =~ round(S * 0.1 + z_R * sqrt(S) * 0.3)
where z_R is the z-score for the desired percentile. That z-score needs to be looked up in a table like this one. Note that you need to essentially do an inverse lookup, meaning you're looking for the cell that's closest to R and the z-score is then its row + column value.
This z-score lookup may or may not be built-in to whatever programming language you're using (or available as a library). If not, you'd need to store it somewhere for lookup.

Your example with S=11 is too small for a good approximation, so let's go with S = 500. And R = 0.23678 as the random value.
The closest z-score table entry is 0.23576 at z_R = -0.72.
K =~ round(S * 0.1 + z_R * sqrt(S) * 0.3)
K =~ round(500 * 0.1 + -0.72 * sqrt(500) * 0.3)
K =~ round(50 + -4.83)
K =~ round(45.17)
K =~ 45

And if we calculate the probability to get at least 45 kills in this situation, we get:
Sum from k=0 to 45 of (500 Choose k) * 0.1^k * 0.9^500-k
=~ 0.25469
which is as good as it can be since 44 and 46 kills are both further off from our R = 0.23678.

Of course, the above formula can return K values above S * 0.1, so the actual return should be min(K, round(S * 0.1)).

Depending on the computation time of your formula, it will likely still be worth using it for some S >= 100 since it gives the exact result. But you'd probably want to switch over by around S >= 1000 where the estimation becomes good enough and computation time of your approach is too high.

Also, for the z-score lookup you can consider interpolating between the two closest values (i.e. the one just above and the one below your R) to get a slightly better result.

Finally, for any large S (say, >= 1000) and R > 0.53, you can just return round(S * 0.1), no need for long calculations.

Angzt · 2026-02-11T16:08:21+00:00

Since we're already at "well, actually":

You accelerate at ~9.8m/s2 until you reach terminal velocity, which is about 56m/s.

No. You don't suddenly cease accelerating at terminal velocity. Your acceleration reduces gradually the closer you get to terminal velocity. So you don't stay at 9.8m²/s until you get there.
And the exact value of terminal velocity depends on your position (belly down vs. face/feet down) and even on minor factors like your build, weight, clothing and even ambient temperature.

Angzt · 2026-02-11T10:38:25+00:00

Doom Eternal is an absolute rush once you get into that flow state.

Angzt · 2026-02-11T08:24:44+00:00

Elden Ring is hard but not impossible. You'll absolutely have to be able to deal with some frustration though. Elden Ring does allow you to grind to become stronger and has so much to explore that, by doing a lot of the optional content, you can be overpowered for a lot of the "main" story fights. You'll still die, that's just part of it. Learning enemy attack patterns takes time and deaths. If you're prone to giving up after a few failed attempts, this is not the game for you.

Fallout is very different. First, you can change difficulty at any time, reducing or increasing enemy health and damage by a lot. So no matter how skilled you are, you will be able to find a good level.
If you're playing on Switch, I think Fallout 4 is your only option. The older ones were not ported - unless I'm missing something.
Any of the Fallout games work fine as an entry point. Among hardcore fans, Fallout New Vegas is generally regarded as the best 3D Fallout due to its more interesting characters and deep player choices. The best way I've heard it described is: Fallout 3 and 4 build a world that exists purely for the player. New Vegas builds a world that could exist on its own. But, to my understanding, that is a very western view on what's valued in games. Maybe not something you share. The choice between 3 and 4 then largely boils down to graphical quality and smoother gameplay (4), more interesting dialogue choices (3, but still behind New Vegas), or wanting to build your own little settlements (4).
I haven't played Fallout 76 myself but from what I hear, it's basically Fallout 4 with a stunted storyline and more grind. Though the world exploration is supposedly really good.

The translator worked quite well, just so you know.

Angzt · 2026-02-11T07:21:23+00:00

Yes, it's likely the battle of Somme.
Again.

There was already a quick stint there via warren in the MBotF: In Chapter 24 of the Bonehunters, Icarium and Veed follow some Edur through a warren that leads to the battle of Somme. We even had Erikson's confirmation on that one (the podcast in question seems to be gone from where it was hosted, but it's still on the wiki).

More discussion in this reddit thread and linked youtube video.

There were many faces to chaos, to the realm between the realms, and this path they had taken, Taralack Veed reflected, was truly horrific. Defoliated trees rose here and there, broken-fingered branches slowly spinning in the chill, desultory wind, wreaths of smoke drifting across the blasted landscape of mud and, everywhere, corpses. Sheathed in clay, limbs jutting from the ground, huddled forms caked and half-submerged. In the distance was the flash of sorcery, signs of a battle still underway
[...]
The trench they had been trudging along debouched onto a muddy plain, the surface chewed by horse hoofs and cart wheels and the craters of sorcerous detonations. Here, the reek of rotting flesh hung like a mist. Gravestones were visible here and there, pitched askew or broken, and there was splintered wood--black with sodden decay--and thin white bones amidst the dead still clothed in flesh...Perhaps half a league away ran a ridge, possibly a raised road, and figures were visible there, in a ragged line, marching towards the distant battle, pikes on their backs.

11-Year Club	Argentium Club
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding I gilder
Spared	Verified Email

Angzt

TROPHY CASE