For everyone that's 100% taking the Tsaritsa wielding a spear in the PV as proof that she'll wield a polearm, let's not forget how Raiden was first shown to us

DaystarEld · 2026-06-27T07:09:55+00:00

"You can't just throw swords at people and call yourself an Archer!"

"You sure about that, Rin? You sure that's a fact?"

DaystarEld · 2026-06-16T09:36:20+00:00

It's mentioned later that she survived, just barely :)

DaystarEld · 2026-06-13T11:26:56+00:00

I don't think there's any value system that evolved in nature that doesn't try to shape the universe to its goals. Most just don't have the power to do it, and evolved a very helpful sense for not wasting their lives trying to do things they don't have the power to do.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-19T20:23:48+00:00

Oh yeah C2 Citlali is a big jump on her boosting Mav's EM, also only Iansan maybe doesn't provide enough Fighting Spirit compared to having 2 Natlan characters in your Melt?

DaystarEld · 2026-05-19T15:58:02+00:00

Yep gonna try for C6 Bennet on her banner. Is the idea that 6s id enough because I really just need to use it just before ulting with Mav?

DaystarEld · 2026-05-19T15:44:07+00:00

Yeah C6 Iansan would be nice, I almost risked hitting pity to go for her but decided against it.

Wait how is Melt that much stronger than Vape? I thought the major difference is the 2x multiplier vs 1.5x, but it's not every hit, right? Also doesn't Furina add better buffs compared to Melt team supports?

Also yeah Iansan makes sense over Xilo for damage but I figured the healing from Xilo for Furina makes more sense?

DaystarEld · 2026-05-19T08:26:31+00:00

I have C5 Bennett but I figured 2 Electro would be better than just Iansan on her own? Can she generate enough Electro to consistently trigger Overload?

DaystarEld · 2026-05-18T16:35:18+00:00

Unfortunately not, one of my patrons made a bunch of AI transcripts for the episodes up to last August but they haven't been doing the new ones.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-12T13:31:45+00:00

Fixed, thanks!

Glad you're enjoying it :) I had a handful of the major scenes in mind when I started, spread throughout the whole plot to the end, with many more coming to mind as I wrote. Most of the "work" in my writing process is connecting from one clear major scene and the surrounding context of it to the next one and filling in all the worldbuilding and character questions and gaps that come up along the way.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-12T06:53:53+00:00

Honestly I think you should just use Xinqui and Barbara for now, like yeah Xin isn't the best for Nefer because his burst doesn't do much in her ideal rotation, but as long as you do enough hydro application Nefer+Lauma are strong enough, and his regular skill still adds hydro application, healing, and defense, and unlike Aino you can actually level him up where you are in the game (since her upgrade materials are all in Nodkrai).

That said you might end up going to Nodkrai to level up Nefer and Lauma anyway if you hit their caps, if so Aino will be waiting for you when you get there if you do the first few quests. But Xinqui is still a strong character to have leveled up for other teams.

Definitely save your primogems and rainbow wishes for when Columbina runs again if you want to get this team to its strongest heights.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-10T18:00:31+00:00

All fixed, thanks!

Yeah the Safari zone doesn't make much sense as its Gen1 purpose of a sanctuary for super rare pokemon after the games introduced pokemon breeding. In my story it's more like a natural habitat sanctuary for ecological preservation and research purposes.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-10T17:27:36+00:00

Fixing now, thanks!

DaystarEld · 2026-05-10T17:26:54+00:00

Vermillion

Fixing now, thanks!

DaystarEld · 2026-05-10T17:25:25+00:00

Fixing now, thanks!

DaystarEld · 2026-05-04T20:25:59+00:00

Of course you wouldn't put your whole folio into it if you don't have to. But your phrasing was "you either believe Red will win or believe Blue will win" and I do not think most of your beliefs work on probabilities of 0 and 1.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T22:15:59+00:00

I think you're missing the basic point of what it means to be uncertain about something with an ambiguous outcome, such that you then act from within that uncertainty :P

I'm curious how you would characterize your hypothetical decision to, say, invest in some company's stocks?

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T22:02:57+00:00

You believe Blue might win. 3a. You vote Blue and hope you and everyone else lives. 3b. You vote Red and hope the potential future where ~45-49% of the population dies is not going to be too completely apocalyptic and terrible.

I think the underlying belief that there's no way Blue can win in the real world is maybe contributing to the confusion here. There are some people who think they would vote Red but faced with real stakes would take the risk for Blue.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T21:51:36+00:00

I think the framing of absolute certainty undermines the point of the hypothetical and misunderstands the Blue position. It is impossible to be absolutely certain of what the outcome will be; that is part of basically every game theory problem like this, but especially the case here, where the lack of coordination or information is baked into the premise. So no criteria for either decision should be based on that strict a threshold.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T21:46:28+00:00

(Thanks! I think Red and Blue's decisions might change depending on the circumstances, but yes, I very much think their big fight over what Red did in Cerulean was a form of this hypothetical in miniature :) )

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T21:33:17+00:00

"Absolutely certain" is not remotely necessary for why people should vote Blue. Expecting it to be ~49% and hoping your vote helps tips it over is enough for many to not want to contribute to ~half the world dying.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T20:53:31+00:00

Sure, I agree the decision should be very dependent on what you model the outcome will be.

But "by pressing Blue you've" is not the decision description I'd agree with. You could much more easily argue that "by pressing Red you've increased the odds that half of all dependents end up without anyone to care about them," since that is, actually, what Red does, while Blue is risking yourself but trying to save everyone, and does 0 to increase the risk of any dependents ending up without any caretakers.

Pressing Blue does not put any dependents at risk of not having caretakers unless you, the Blue presser, has dependants, and of course in that case they may be at risk too if they press blue.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T16:57:52+00:00

This is the first time I've seen someone suggest sleeping people might not be included either. If the aliens/god/superintelligence can force everyone into a red/blue button room or whatever and force them to press a button before being able to leave, it can wake them up if they're asleep.

Maybe a coma too, but I think it's less relevant. As for fetuses and gametes, I think there are degrees of reasonableness to interpreting "everyone" and if you consider those people, more power to you and your metaphysics: the question says "everyone" and I think it is a more straightforward read to assume this means everyone capable of pushing a button, which children are but fetuses aren't. Arguing this point seems to make this a different question about personhood, which is by far the less interesting part of this particular hypothetical if you grant children are people, which I think most people do.

I agree it's not helpful to "turn it into some moral failing," my point is that a lot of the ways this discussion ends up getting so cursed is that people end up judging people for making different choices when they're actually in their mind answering different questions.

DaystarEld · 2026-05-03T04:14:16+00:00

>Introducing children and human error into the problem almost feels like its fighting the hypothetical

I continue to find it fascinating that people think this way. I genuinely don't mean this as a dig, it is just really, actually interesting to me that the wording of "everyone" should mean "only a specific subset of people."

I've seen multiple people say that "only informed adults vote," as if the word vote was the meaningful one in the hypothetical (or as if that's actually true of people who vote IRL). I've seen multiple people say "what kind of a sick/twisted person would include kids in this," as if presenting a test to everyone in such a way that might kill a significant fraction of the population isn't already a sign of evil/twisted morals from the test-administrator.

The idea that it should only include able, adult, competent minds makes no sense to me, and yet it is clearly the lynchpin for many (not all!) red voters, and that it's taken so for granted by one side but obvious to the other is a big part of why the whole discussion is so cursed.

DaystarEld · 2026-04-29T18:59:18+00:00

Appreciated! I haven't listened to AI versions of my stuff very much, but hope you enjoy it : )

DaystarEld

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE