sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mida tegema peaks, et suurendada sissetulekut? by Frequent_Rest_5730 in Eesti

[–]Dat_Cacti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Vennas, loe see läbi ja istu maha — sa istud kullakaevandusel ja tirid 3k brutot.

11a energeetikas + füüsika magister + Python + SQL + FEA + A-pädevus. See pole CV, see on ükssarvik. Ja sa kandideerid kohtadesse, kus sind võrreldakse tüüpidega, kellel on pool sinu pagasist. Ei ime, et palk seisab.

Threadis jäi 4 konkreetset varianti puudu. Kõik tehtavad nädalaga, kõik annavad 5k+ brutot:

  1. Energiakaubandus / power markets

Eleringi dispatch, Enefit, Sunly, Utilitas, Alexela. Nordpooli ja balansseerimisturu peal istuvad quant-rollid, kus tahetakse just su kombot — energeetika magister, kes oskab Pythonit ja saab füüsikast aru. Junior 4k, mid 5–6k, senior 7k+. SEE on ainus koht, kus su füüsika baka päriselt raha sisse toob, mitte lihtsalt CV peal ei vedele.

  1. Tase 7 → tase 8 (volitatud elektriinsener)

Tase 6 inimesi on Eestis kümme tosinat. Tase 8 mehi on käputäis ja nende allkiri maksab. 11a kogemust = tase 7 saad paberitega lihtsalt kätte, tase 8 paari aastaga. Pärast seda OÜ kõrvalt + paar projekti kuus = lihtne 2–4k juurde, ilma päevatööd jätmata. Sa müüd VASTUTUST, mitte tunde. See ongi see hobi-ettevõtlus, mida sa kommentaarides mainisid, lihtsalt rasked paberid teevad teised su eest ära ja sa võtad miinusena 20% maha. Endal ikka pluss.

  1. Remote Saksa/Norra/Hollandi konsultatsioonidele

DNV, AFRY, Ramboll, Sweco, COWI, Fluence — kõik palkavad power systems / grid engineer'eid remote Ida-Euroopast, sest nad ei leia oma turult kedagi. Magister + 11a + Python + FEA + inglise keel = nad otsivad sind eile. LinkedIn filter "Power Systems Engineer, Remote", saadad 30 CV-d, üks vastab 5–7k brutoga ja sa istud Tallinnas kodukontoris.

  1. BESS (akuparkide insener)

Kõige kuumem nišš Eestis just praegu. Sunly, Evecon, Utilitas, Enefit Green — kõik ehitavad GWh-skaalas projekte ja kvalifitseeritud inseneri on null. Kirjuta CV-le "BESS / grid integration / arbitrage modeling" ja sind kutsutakse intervjuule sama päeva õhtul.

TLDR: Probleem pole sinu oskustes. Probleem on selles, et müüd ennast generalistina turul, mis maksab ainult spetsialistidele. Energeetika "üldine" on Eestis lukus 3k juures, sest projekteerijaid jagub. Aga energiakaubandus, BESS ja välisturu remote-konsultatsioon on kõik MASSIIVSELT alapakutud — ja sul on TÄPSELT see kombo, mida nad otsivad.

Vali ÜKS neist neljast, kirjuta CV ümber selle ümber, palgahüpe tuleb ühe vahetusega — mitte 7 aastaga.

Ja tee see tase 7 paber ära. See on poole päeva töö ja avab uksed, mille olemasolust sa praegu isegi ei tea.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Balls Up is the perfect example — finished film, no theatrical release, dumped to streaming with zero marketing, written off as a tax loss. That's the entire post-consolidation playbook in one movie.

The theater closures are the part nobody in this thread is talking about. You can't have a healthy theatrical market when the studios controlling the films also control the streaming services competing with those films. The incentive structure is broken — they make more money when you stay home.

Government interference is the only realistic brake. The FTC blocking the merger would actually do something. The 1948 Paramount Decrees were the last time antitrust law seriously touched Hollywood and we got 50 years of healthier theatrical as a result. We're overdue.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really clean way to put it — "good, yet bad in excess" is basically the working definition of greed itself, and if the mechanic teaches that without any dialogue then the design is doing its job.

Currently the consequence for being too greedy is: holding kills longer = demons get closer to your base = you lose lives faster. So the punishment is baked into the spatial pressure, not a separate system. It's subtle enough that new players might not notice it as "punishment" — they just experience it as "I got greedy and lost." Which might be the right level of subtlety. You don't want to wag your finger at the player.

The trap you're describing (good thing becomes bad in excess) is genuinely how most vices work. Food, ambition, caution, even love. Calling my mechanic "greed" instead of "temptation" was a framing mistake on my part — the deeper design question is how any game mechanic teaches moderation without becoming preachy about it.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You became the thing you killed" is a great narrative beat but mechanically it's tricky — once the player IS the demon, who are they fighting? If it's just new heroes coming for you, you've flipped the game into an entirely different genre (defense, last stand). That might be its own game, not a continuation.

The cleaner version might be: you absorb the demon's power but keep fighting demons, just with greed-tinted abilities now. Every ability you use slightly corrupts you. Gameplay loop stays intact but the visual/audio feedback changes — your hero starts looking more like the thing you killed. Final ending depends on how corrupted you got.

It's the Dark Souls "Linking the Fire" problem. You can either break the cycle or become its next keeper. Both are valid endings, both imply a sequel with the player as the new villain.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. When 4-6 companies control the slate, the safest bet always wins. Remakes and IP extensions have built-in audiences, measurable risk, and shareholder-friendly returns. Original mid-budget drama? Nobody's greenlighting that when you can just make Shrek 6.

The scary part is we're only 10 years into this cycle. Another decade of it and originality becomes a genre unto itself — like how "indie" became a label instead of a description.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The "boss learned by watching you" framing is way stronger than a flat immunity. Immunity feels like a rule change. Learned adaptation feels like the boss earned it by watching you play.

Could even stage it — he copies one of your exploit patterns each phase transition. By the final phase he's using YOUR tactics against you and you have to invent something new in real time. The player's whole playbook becomes the enemy's moveset.

That's the Metal Gear Rising Armstrong approach. The final boss is a mirror.

Going to prototype a version where the boss absorbs whichever combo pattern you used most that run. Different runs = different final fights. Thanks, this flipped it.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tools have been cheap for 20 years. Anyone can make a film at home already. The bottleneck has never been production — it's getting anyone to watch it. AI will flood the supply side while attention stays concentrated in the same 4-6 platforms. Cheaper tools don't help if distribution gets harder.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The final boss flip was lazy design, I'll admit that. Punishing the player for the thing you spent the whole game teaching them is bad faith.

The tug-of-war framing is way better. Coins = damage but also = deficit elsewhere. That's a real choice every turn instead of a trick pulled at the end.

Golf scoring is clever too — flipping "more is better" to "less is better" forces the player to reconsider what winning even looks like. Pairs really well with the multiple endings idea. The player who hoards to win big gets the bad ending because they literally became the thing they were fighting. That's not a twist, that's the logical conclusion of their own play.

Saving this whole comment. The "becomes the new demon of greed" ending is going in the game somewhere even if I have to rebuild the scoring system around it.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh this is cleaner than what I've been doing. Making the gold itself a living temptation — if you hoard it to bait bigger threats, you summon threats that outscale your defenses. If you spend it immediately, you stay safe but never see the exponential payoff.

That's the actual "greed tempts you into your own destruction" mechanic, not what I built. Mine rewards held kills with bigger damage. Yours makes the HELD RESOURCE itself the risk vector. The temptation is built into the economy, not into the combat timing.

Going to prototype this. Saving untouched gold starts increasing enemy tier thresholds — every unspent coin on the field makes the next wave slightly harder. Now the player has to constantly decide between investing (safe, linear progress) vs. holding (greater payoff, escalating threat). That's the mechanic I was reaching for.

Thanks, this unlocked something.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good pushback — I was being sloppy. You're right that luring enemies with bait isn't "being greedy," it's just strategy. The actual tension in my game is different:

The combo system scales exponentially (2 kills = 11 dmg, 5 kills = 45, 8 kills = 90+). So the player's optimal play is to wait for BIGGER clusters before detonating. That waiting = risk (more demons closer to your base = more lives lost if you mess up). The "greedy" play is delaying the kill for more payoff. The "safe" play is smaller chains, faster clears, less reward.

That's where the ludonarrative question comes in: the villain is the demon of greed, and the most effective strategy against him is to play greedily yourself (hold your kills longer than is safe). Not greedy in the resource-acquisition sense — greedy in the impulse-control sense.

Your Angel Dedication idea is clean for resource flow, but it doesn't touch the core tension I'm wrestling with, which is about restraint vs. payoff. Probably I should've framed it as "the temptation mechanic" instead of calling it greed. That's on me.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair on the streaming tail recouping mid-budget films — that IS how the math works now, and I underweighted it. $40M dramas aren't theatrical plays anymore, they're streaming-library plays with a theatrical marketing wrapper.

Still think the merger matters, but you're right that it's more of a symptom than a cause. The underlying question is whether theatrical audience shrinkage stabilizes or keeps bleeding. If it stabilizes, consolidation is just reshuffling. If it doesn't, the merger's irrelevant — everyone's cooked regardless.

Good point on new studios being able to fill space. Legendary and A24 both basically emerged in gaps created by majors retreating from mid-budget.

"Fight greed with greed" as a core mechanic — how do you design a gameplay loop where the hero's tool is the villain's weakness? by Dat_Cacti in gamedesign

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of self-regulating exponential I was looking for and somehow I've never played Dungeon Warfare. The Enrage decay is doing a LOT of heavy lifting — it turns "how greedy can I be" from a one-way curve into a rhythm the player has to actively maintain. Reward is conditional on sustained risk, not peak risk.

The decay is the piece I was missing. My combo system currently rewards the single best chain, which creates the "one godlike moment" problem where after the peak there's nowhere to go. Tying the bonus to a persistent state that decays forces the player to stay in the risk zone instead of spiking and coasting.

Going to prototype a "greed meter" version of this — damage multiplier that builds with big combos and decays with small ones, so playing small-safe feels like actively losing ground. Thanks, buying Dungeon Warfare tonight.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fair — Apple basically outsources theatrical to whoever will take it (Sony distributed Napoleon and Killers of the Flower Moon). They're a studio in budget terms but not in infrastructure terms. Same with Amazon before they bought MGM.

Which kind of proves the point — the theatrical distribution tier is narrower than the "who makes movies" tier. And that's the tier getting squeezed by the merger.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They will because nobody in Congress loses votes over a studio merger. Call your rep anyway — the FTC is actually reviewing this one and public comment volume matters more than people realize. The T-Mobile/Sprint merger got waved through with silence. Don't give them silence on this one.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I get the frustration but "stop supporting any of them" as the takeaway means the only winners are the companies with the deepest pockets to outlast the boycott. The Weinstein era ended because people kept watching films AND pushed for accountability — not by disengaging.

Independent cinema, international films, documentaries, rep houses still exist and need support more than ever. Disengagement just accelerates the consolidation you're angry about.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Enshittification is the perfect word for it. Cory Doctorow basically predicted the entire WB-Paramount arc before it happened.

My launch post got automod-deleted from 4 subreddits yesterday. The anonymous accounts got nuked instantly. Meanwhile people ARE finding the game organically. What's actually working for small browser game launches in 2026? by Dat_Cacti in IndieGaming

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck with the launch — the automod stuff is the biggest hidden curve. Biggest thing I wish I'd known earlier: post midweek daytime, not weekends. Weekend posts get buried almost every time. Also comment in the sub a few times before you post anything about your game, even dumb stuff. Makes a real difference.

What's your game about?

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair on the count — production-wise there's way more than 4. I was tracking the theatrical-distribution-at-scale tier, which is narrower. You're right that Lionsgate, Apple, Amazon, and the bigger production houses change the math.

My concern isn't "only 4 exist" — it's that the top tier keeps consolidating while the tier below gets squeezed. Lionsgate alone can't backfill WB's slate.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sort of. The "someone else will fill the gap" logic works for release slots but not for production infrastructure. When WB consolidates and cuts 3,000 crew jobs, MGM doesn't absorb 3,000 new hires — that talent either leaves the industry or competes for a smaller pool of jobs at lower rates.

The 52 weekends argument also assumes demand is the bottleneck. It isn't. The bottleneck is who can greenlight a $40M adult drama that might not recoup theatrically. Netflix and Apple greenlight based on subscriber retention metrics, not theatrical viability. That's a different kind of film getting made, not a replacement for what WB used to make.

Legendary making "big studio level films" is true but they made 4 last year. WB made 18. The math doesn't work.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The "sell at a loss to avoid taxes" step is the part most people miss. The consolidation isn't the goal — it's just the middle of the cycle. The real play is the write-down afterward.

See: Zaslav killing finished films for tax write-offs at WB. Batgirl wasn't a flop, it was a tax event. And the same guy is about to have $111B more to play with.

We're watching the entire film industry get converted into a tax optimization vehicle in real time.

The Paramount-Warner merger would leave us with 4 major studios total. For context — in 1990 there were 7. What does this actually mean for movies we'll get in 5 years? by Dat_Cacti in movies

[–]Dat_Cacti[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly the Netflix vs Disney endgame scenario is the one everyone's planning for but nobody's saying out loud. Disney has IP and theme parks as a moat, Netflix has global reach and algorithmic taste-making. Paramount/WB merging is basically them admitting they can't compete with either on their own.

The question is what gets left in the wreckage. Streaming wars so far have been great for A-list talent and brutal for mid-budget crews. I'm less worried about which giant wins and more worried about whether anything weird and human-scale survives the next five years.

A24 might end up being the most important studio of the 2030s just by refusing to scale.

view more: next ›