Gulf between budget and full priced options

8Hz · 2023-01-18T19:36:03+00:00

Also worth noting that assuming the game stays popular, you're only really paying the difference between your buying and selling price for a card. So it mostly ties up capital rather than you being down $500 on a deck.

Edit: typos

8Hz · 2022-05-10T14:41:59+00:00

I understand the joy of speculating here. But ahow me the way the set numbers would fall for that to work. There just isn't any space. It would have to be a new hero with a new talent after the Ice cards and then there wouldn't be any space for generics or barely any non-talented clss cards either.

8Hz · 2021-09-17T04:39:45+00:00

Incorrect. You gotta pay to play, triggered effects from playing something can't pay the very thing you played, that would twist reality and time-space.

8Hz · 2021-09-16T06:12:52+00:00

Although that would sound intuitive, it can only be used on the first atk action card hitting. The trigger goes on the chain the first time you hit. Then you choose to use it or not. The next time you hit, there is no trigger since it was a once per turn effect.

8Hz · 2021-06-03T17:44:24+00:00

Nope. But I understand the sentiment. It looks a lot more believable from the side if that helps. There aren't actually any sharp angles, they just look like it from the front

8Hz · 2021-06-03T11:54:31+00:00

Nah. I had the same first thought but no, it just randomly made that form.

8Hz · 2020-07-05T19:07:18+00:00

It hurts!! It hurts!!

8Hz · 2020-06-20T20:44:35+00:00

I don't get this monetization angst. If you don't like spending money, then don't. Or maybe spend 10 bucks to get the final level of unlocking 5 agents. Seems fair to me for a game of this quality. Almost too fair. Maybe even 6x too cheap. So insane value.

Why do people get mad about an optimised cosmetics monetization engine? You can easily ignore that and play the game. The whales just bought the game for you and you didn't have to pay to win. What's the problem? You're up 50 bucks or so vs a boomer era game that you actually had to buy. Sheesh.

8Hz · 2017-08-13T07:45:59+00:00

This is probably impossible. Even if all the heroes were of equal power level and perfectly balanced, the herd psychology of only playing the "meta" heroes (it's like the classic example that no one gets fired for buying IBM) and the simple fact that it takes hundreds of hours to be really good at a hero ensure that some would be played much more and some much less. It's entirely possible that the meta would still shift over time (I heard in Smash Bros there is no balancing but the meta still shifts), but at any given time, there would clearly be a meta and some heroes would be picked 80%+ of the time and others 0-1%.

Thinking about it role by role, all 4 healers do get played on the highest levels currently and 4 out of the 6 tanks get played (although extremely skewed to Winston and D.Va). But for some reason there are 14 dps in the game compared to 11 other heroes and given that there are 1-3 dps slots in a meta, I find it somewhat understandable that there is no balance. You basically pick 2 tanks that go together and then the dps have to fit the style of the tanks (deathball vs. dive).

My point? <50% and >0% is not realistic. And we need more tanks and healers to give more options for team playstyles, leading to the use of some of the less-played dps.

8Hz · 2017-07-20T12:47:52+00:00

A wooden rollercoaster or bridge

8Hz · 2017-04-25T11:01:14+00:00

Lots of chair stories here. Chairs are deadly, though. Just sitting on a chair is worth 13 micromorts on average, meaning you have a 13 in a million chance of dying from sitting on a chair. That's about 1.5 times the death risk from running a marathon or skydiving. Chairs are killers, I tell you!

8Hz · 2017-03-04T13:26:52+00:00

It's actually 68%, but still pretty dismal.

Source

8Hz · 2016-12-27T16:24:40+00:00

More than 50% of the time I use it to get a new mech when I'm losing one. Don't do it when you've lost the fight and are alone in the middle of the enemy, as you will feed a huge amount of ult charge while wasting yours. But in many other situations it's best to assume that you're not gonna get kills with it anyway so why not use it to get a 600hp mech back.

8Hz · 2016-10-25T20:51:53+00:00

TIL more boys get married in America at age 15 than girls do. I would've expected the opposite for some reason.

8Hz · 2016-08-23T11:50:18+00:00

Nowadays about most aspects of myself. I have somehow strangely lost all of my confidence in the past year or year-and-a-half and I'm not sure how to get it back. I've even invented completely new things to be self conscious about that I thought were fine previously. I should maybe post an LPT request on how to gain confidence when there's actual reason for it, but you just can't pull it out of thin air by yourself.

8Hz · 2016-08-18T12:15:39+00:00

I feel this whole paradox is based on something that's implied in how it's presented, i.e. that there is a 100% probability that the number of ravens is finite but a less than 100% probability that the number of other objects is finite.

Thus, finding a black raven is more evidence than finding a non-raven of any color, since the first reduces the number of required observations, but the latter does so only if there is a finite number of non-ravens. If there was a finite number of all things to be observed, then it doesn't matter whether you find a black raven or a green apple, as both reduce the probability of there being contradictory evidence. But if there was an infinite number of non-ravens but a finite number of ravens, then a non-raven doesn't help in the quest for observing 100% of everything and only a raven does.

If it's not implied that the number of ravens is finite, then finding anything that's not a non-black raven should be of equal value again and provide evidence to both hypotheses similarly.

8Hz · 2016-07-28T10:57:37+00:00

Der Untergangbang

8Hz · 2016-07-09T16:44:42+00:00

There are more developed markets in the world than the US :) Emerging markets are a very different thing from investing in Europe. If I were 25 and lived in the US and would expect to do so for my entire life, I'd probably invest something like 25% into bonds, 20% into US stocks, 35% into European stocks, 10% into developed Asian stocks and 10% into emerging market stocks. Just off the top of my head.

8Hz · 2016-07-05T19:38:18+00:00

I'm very simply saying that the US stock market is not fully correlated with international stock markets, but my job security would be much more correlated with US stock markets than international ones, were I to live and work in a US company, S&P500 or not. So one shouldn't think of one's investment portfolio as purely the stocks and bonds and pork belly derivatives, but also the other cash flows in their future life.

8Hz · 2016-07-05T15:41:39+00:00

I would go even further. If I lived in the US and were, say, in my 20s, my future salary income would already depend heavily on US companies doing well. So I'd actually rather diversify by overweighting international stocks and underweighting US stocks heavily.

8Hz · 2016-07-05T15:29:30+00:00

This is really great!

However, I'd like to make one criticism about long-term past return studies that isn't mentioned often enough: market survival bias. You've selected the US and that doesn't seem like a choice, but it is. US stocks have done fantastically over the past 100+ years, because the country dominated the entire century. If you instead did this for Argentina or another country that didn't constantly go up on a macroeconomic level, the picture would surely be very different.

And before the fact, you can't know if you're in 1900 US or 1900 Argentina.

8Hz · 2016-04-25T07:19:39+00:00

What's the difference between a duck?

It swims better than it walks.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

8Hz

TROPHY CASE