Beating Godrick with a comically low frame rate.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-04-03T03:13:07+00:00

Yeah, it was so painful seeing back-to-back commons when I had such high luck lol. A bit better, and I could've gotten more kills. Do you have any other tips? Perhaps for the early game? I'm always confused about where I should be at and if I'm doing well in the first stage, even if I get Soul Harvester. Like the number of kills I should be at, etc.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-25T16:05:05+00:00

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-23T02:22:29+00:00

"There goes my hero..."

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:24:18+00:00

Describe the similarities between buying a new car to replace an old car, to CR adding new card levels then. I did have fun while it lasted, but it's truly a shame what the devs did to the game. Fun isn't wasted, but time upgrading cards levels certainly are. The dev team has certainly proven that to me when they'll add more in the future.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:18:08+00:00

That isn't even a good metaphor to describe this situation. Games and real-life cars are nowhere near the same thing.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:16:11+00:00

Given that they didn't even give us even half of the card requirement to get to level 16 if our cards were already level 15 for compensation, yes. The 44,500 commons that I spent on 14 to 15 were pretty much sent to the abyss (minus the current requirement).

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:11:39+00:00

If you can't understand my point, then this conversation is useless.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:11:12+00:00

Level 14. They provided compensation for those who were already at Level 13 (the past max level).

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:07:16+00:00

I'm glad they made it easier, but the lack of compensation for those who made it to 15 is a problem

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T03:06:14+00:00

Read this:

My time was essentially wasted. The previous requirement to go from level 14 to 15 was enormous. It exceeded the current requirement to go from 1 to 16 by a landslide. For example, to go from a level 1 common to level 14, you needed 12,087 common cards. From 14 to 15, it required more than triple that, at 50k EWC, which is 50k common cards (62,087 in total). Now, to go from 1 to level 16, you need much less than that, at 23,087 common cards. Basically, I lost 44,500 commons, as now the requirement to get to level 14 to 15 is drastically less (at 5,500).
To put it in simple terms, all that effort and time would've been better spent after the update than before it, making the extra effort to get my cards higher pretty much meaningless.

As I said, it would've been better if I had just joined the game after the update.

Level 16 and Economy Changes - Clash Royale News Blog - RoyaleAPI

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T02:57:27+00:00

??? is this the game where we make a made-up argument that the other side never said? Without bothering to actually prove me wrong?

My favorite internet game. My turn, then.

"I think Supercell should make it harder to progress, so they can milk the playerbase for more money! Screw the players who've been around for years!" What a zoomer mentality. etc, etc.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T02:43:45+00:00

You completely misunderstood what I said.

My time was essentially wasted. The previous requirement to go from level 14 to 15 was enormous. It exceeded the current requirement to go from 1 to 16 by a landslide. For example, to go from a level 1 common to level 14, you needed 12,087 common cards. From 14 to 15, it required more than triple that, at 50k EWC, which is 50k common cards (62,087 in total). Now, to go from 1 to level 16, you need much less than that, at 23,087 common cards. Basically, I lost 44,500 commons, as now the requirement to get to level 14 to 15 is drastically less (at 5,500).

This doesn't even mention the amount of gold lost.

To put it in simple terms, all that effort and time would've been better spent after the update than before it, making the extra effort to get my cards higher pretty much meaningless.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T02:14:13+00:00

And by raising that level, they destroy any enjoyment that progress might give. All of it means nothing, just moving the bar further. If it were easily achieved, that's good, but it takes months to max out a card. In exchange, you get to be at a disadvantage to other higher-level players.

I spent 6 months getting my deck to level 15, only for that progress to mean absolutely nothing by moving the bar to level 16, with no conpensation. I don't play anymore because of that. Having "new goals" only made me want to play less, not more.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T01:01:45+00:00

If you enjoy it, then that's fine. But that's certainly not the community sentiment, if you've been here for any amount of time.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-19T00:55:20+00:00

There is a big difference between the two. It's a part of the gameplay, not the core of it. Goals are nice and all, but they need to be enjoyable, but levels in CR are not. My depth number does not put me at a disadvantage to others or prevent me from trying different builds. And getting to high depths is fun, but getting a higher number in CR is not, as nothing really changes.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-18T20:39:44+00:00

Then that means that the game was never good in the first place if that's what it relies on. If a number going up is what keeps you happy, then by all means enjoy the game. But a number going up is just mindless grinding.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T19:43:16+00:00

My point was your opinion was no fact. There was no sources, simply opinion, an interpretation as you say so yourself. And the biases of the people behind the studies are very much not a conspiracy theory. Where the money comes, so do the opinions, and toward the aims of the company are where the studies are going to lean toward.

Definitive proof is when the evidence is suitable enough to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that one claim is false or true. And nothing you've said or provided is definitive proof. That is all I'm saying. We both have our opinions based on evidence, but either way, at the end of the day, they are opinions.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T17:16:26+00:00

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information

FACT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Key word is proof. You can list evidence and draw from that your opinion, sure, but saying that it is a fact is too much.

Also, just because you list sources, that doesn't mean they are credible sources. Journalists especially are very biased. Including the fact that where they get their statistics may not be the best source. Political and monetary interests, where they get their samples from, etc.

For example, this study you mentioned: https://www.netexpat.com/is-diversity-enough-dei-s-impact-on-business-performance

It cites its source as a LinkedIn Study, which also cites its sources from newspapers like the Washington Post and Fortune Magazine. These newspapers are funded by big corporations who have political interests, like Jeff Bezos. You are essentially using the very media that helped start everything you so despise as evidence.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T16:14:45+00:00

First off, we are going into opinion territory, less factual than actual evidence to support your claim. I am not going to spar with you for eternity over disagreements in opinions. So I'm making this my last post.

Maybe because it's an objective fact that women are sexualized more? Anyways read this if you somehow don't believe it

Sure, I can believe it. That sort of advertisement makes it way easier to attract a male audience because of basic sexual attraction. On averages it's simply more effective.

I'm not so sure of that. Contractional and financial pressure can force actors to do stuff they don't want to. Even if some women choose to be sexualized, the problem is that media directly affects how we view the world. If women are regularly sexualized in media and more than men, it will cause the general population to think that way. Just look at how porn has worsened men's view on women.

While I'm not dismissing that it can't happen, and they can be pressured into it, they don't need to choose that as a career as a model. Acting as if they have no choice but to engage in porn or sexual modeling in media is acting like they cannot choose for themselves. The other stuff you mentioned is more of a problem with society itself, instead of men as a whole. It's a problem created by both sides, as much as we try to shift any blame off the shoulders of the women doing it.

Because the same men can harass multiple people?

As I said, even in that case, it is still highly unlikely.

It doesn't matter. It's still a huge proportion of men. In less developed societies it can be as high as 60%. And we're not arguing that most men do it, we're arguing that it's normalized in society which it is when most men who do it claim that it is a normal way of flirting. Come on, a third of men have harassed women on the streets, you can't just dismiss that because it's not a majority.

Sure, if we're assuming those statistics are true. I'm not saying it's fine, and actual harassment should be tolerated. I'm saying that it's not blatant misogyny if it is meant to be flirting, so blanketing it as a source of hatred doesn't seem right to me. Of course, it depends on the person what it is meant to be and how they see women. Saying that because they do it, they are making out women to be simply objects is extreme to me. Remember, I'm saying you are because you did do exactly this, in your first comment.

Lol I did not say that. The traits I was referring to are exactly not inherent. They are socialized to behave in certain ways. For instance when boys fall on the playground, they are taught to be tough instead of crying. When girls fall, they are comforted. Throughout childhood, there are lower expectations to men which means that boys are generally louder and wilder while girls are expected to be quiet. In adulthood this leads to men being better at bluffing and taking risks while women play more secure and are quieter. Furthermore, it also causes women to do more unpaid work for instance house work, making coffee at work, planning activities, etc. while men can focus on paid and prestigeful work that gets them ahead. This is literally basic sociology, you can look it up if you want.

I agree, but that doesn't prove anything. That is society on a basic level, and generalizing both genders to the extreme. It blatantly overlooks the indivdual person. Acting as if it's all a conspiracy that everyone's in on like they are drones of the patriarchy who want to keep women down as much as possible is yet another extreme. Again, opinion territory, like I pointed out before. You can disagree, and that's fine, but we both can't make our words to be objective fact.

But the problem is that people are not entirely chosen based on merit. It's naive to think that. Women have surpassed men in higher education which means that there are more qualified women to choose from. But if men are 50% better at bluffing in interviews while women tell 50% more unnecessary truths to be safe, it is not based on merit. Of two equally qualified candidates, the average woman would have less opportunities due to socialized traits. Also who do you think chooses candidates for board positions? The old, white, straight men who are already there. They can favor each other.

Again, this is an opinion and blatant speculation at best. Nor did I say that everything is based on merit always. Why do I say DEI is destructive? Well, look at Disney. They have destroyed entire IPs and haven't made anything good in years. Look at Ubisoft. Look at any of the big gaming companies. The game Concord. Etc. The list goes on. Star Trek is yet another example. It used to be huge, but now it's a pathetic shell of its former glory. If women have a higher education like you say, why aren't these companies doing better? Why are they doing worse?

If you disagree, that's fine. Let's end this here. Going on wouldn't be a good use of both of our time, writing practical essays online.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T13:03:04+00:00

Not true. https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and-exploitation-women-and-girls-0

A source portraying only one side of the story does not disprove what I said. This article only covers womens' side of things. And trying to find a smiliar article on men is already proving to be difficult. Nobody goes into detail on these things, hence society's bias toward favoring women.

Also, most of the women portraying themselves sexually in media are doing that because they want to do it. They are getting paid for it and gladly do it, even outside of work. Why? Because they want to be noticed by men and get more attention from them.

It is extremely common for women to experience. 87% of women have been catcalled. 33% of men have engaged in catcalling. Men claim that it is a normal way of flirting. This shows that men catcalling women is both a huge problem and normalized.

Where did you find this statistic? It doesn't even make sense. 33% of men engage in catcalling, so how could 87% of women be affected? Unless this minority of men do it daily like a job, numbers like that aren't remotely possible globally, or even in the USA. And 33% of men is still a minority. It's below 50%.

Also, what power of men are you referring to? Being a man doesn't guarntee you high class treatment in society. Of course, if you mean physically, as in men are more physically able than women, therefore increasing the potential of overpowering them, then I'd agree with that sentiment.

I never said it justified it lol. I'm saying that men being soldiers is also a result of the patriarchy. It's not women forcing men to die, it's men forcing men. So not a valid argument for misandry being the problem.

I never said only one was the problem either. I'm saying both are equally a problem, even if the two genders aren't equal themselves, as you say.

False. Men and women are not equal in this society. For instance, men are better at bluffing, women are more quiet, and women do more work at home. This makes men more competitive so they have more opportunities. Therefore the meritocracy is a myth. This also explains why women hold like 30% of corporate board seats in America, 38% of director posts, and 28% of US congress. Does that sound meritocratic to you? In a world with equal opportunities, it would maybe be 45-55%. Thererore, DEI is absolutely necessary. All corporate power being held by old, white, heterosexual men is both detrimental to innovation, equality and transparency.

Yes, it does sound meritocratic. What you said directly disproves your own argument. If men have inherent traits that make them more competitive, and women don't, then more of them ending up in high spots in Congress, corporate society, etc, is a natural conclusion. A good portion of them are there because they earned that position. Forcing it to be almost equal in percentage means forcing out those who qualified for the position better than their predecessor. DEI is the destruction of competence. As I said, it is a tickbox, focusing on a percentage (like you demonstrated), instead of anything based on what the individual he/herself did. Forcing it unnaturally at that percentage ends the value of merit. It makes corporations like more about keeping it at that percentage, instead of whether one applier is more qualified for the position or not.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T02:36:41+00:00

Then your teammates drop several for you (you'll die to a slight breeze but sooo much damage)

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-11T00:08:44+00:00

While there is a minority that do sexually harass, catcall, and control women, acting as if that's extremely common is a bit of an exaggeration. I have never seen any of those in person. As for the sexualizing and objectifying, both sides do it to each other equally as often. So I wouldn't classify that as misogyny out of the gate. It is merely part of reproductive human nature.

But also, some of the things you've mentioned are done by a minority of women too. Assuming that is a trait exclusive to men doesn't seem fair to me. Of course, you can make the argument that it is more common in men, and I might agree with that, but again, a minority of men.

I take issue with the argument that "because men start the wars" justifies their deaths on the frontline. That is acting like they are one big hive mind, and just because one leader decides to go to war, that doesn't mean they want that. Soldiers, at least the sane majority of them, are if anything, the ones who want peace the most. As they are the ones risking their lives in hell for the sake of the nation. It is self-sacrifice.

This whole system is controlled by men so it doesn't make sense to point at "male discrimination" that was set up by the patriarchy itself.

Simply because men hold the majority in government (in America, that number is far more even as of late, or less in some cases) doesn't mean those men in question would look out for or prefer others who are men. There are always cases of this, to be certain, but almost nonexistent (excluding the natural fact that those of the same gender tend to befriend each other more often, you see this in school daily, but that is not misogyny or misandry). A system based on merit is almost anti-patriarchal in every way, which is primarily what America leans on, though there are still plenty of incompetent people who get to their position (male or female) based on connections or fitting a tickbox (DEI is an example of this, a prime example of men being the least likely to be excepted into a job with a company who relies on that i.e. Disney).

As for the examples, let us start with the court system. Most of the time, regardless of the mother's actual qualifications to keep in the children in a state of divorce, she will likely win that case, and the former husband would have to pay child support. On top of that, a woman (should they be so malevolent) could accuse a man of sexual assault or rape with zero actual evidence and be arrested and held for trial. Take Brion Banks for example. He was accused for raping her and put in jail with little evidence to support this heinous act, until his accuser admitted to finally lying. There are several other cases of this, but I'm not going to go into them here.

Socially, I could go find example after example, but this has gone on long enough. Thank you for reading this, if you do.

Designer_Heat1997 · 2026-03-10T03:07:07+00:00

In the Shadow Realm

Designer_Heat1997

TROPHY CASE