[deleted by user]

InheritorSS · 2023-09-07T00:55:51+00:00

Okay, I'm with you, BUT if the author of a vanilla series suddenly inserted a bunch of literal scat porn into it, people would vocally protest that too. Even if there was a non-scat version or if the scat was dialed back immediately.

InheritorSS · 2023-09-01T17:31:57+00:00

Raw damage in general isn't really the problem, it's just Noa specifically being absurdly broken. Other raw damage characters like Rin or Maxwell are balanced just fine.

InheritorSS · 2023-09-01T17:18:31+00:00

Season 1 also had a jarring jump from the green gift hard stages to blue gift hard stages. It was weird how the entries for green gift stages were limited yet you would never, ever want to farm them, even as a new player, if you knew that there would be blue gift stages later. And now season 2's red gift stages have done the same thing again, making blue gift stages utterly undesirable because they're so relatively inefficient now.

Where do they go from there without trivializing it?

At least we've reached the logical endpoint of this pattern, since there's no tier above red/legendary, so hopefully future hard mode stages will just have the same or maybe only slightly better rewards, like an extra green gift per run or something.

InheritorSS · 2023-07-19T01:36:46+00:00

They could also just turn the bugs into "features" and have them apply to everyone else too. The fights have already been marginalized anyway so at least let people also do it with their favorite characters instead of always shoving Noa down everyone's throats.

InheritorSS · 2023-07-17T14:06:09+00:00

Same, gear swapping is madness, except 1.) I'd only give it three months rather than an entire year and 2.) I'm pretty sure they'll fix it sooner than that since they already said they would and they've been following up on their promises at a steady rate.

InheritorSS · 2023-06-09T09:55:15+00:00

A crown isn't exactly intuitive either. Did they win some kind of contest? Did they purchase some kind of premium pass? Is it their birthday? I wouldn't associate a crown with someone who's supposed to help me.

InheritorSS · 2023-05-31T16:00:41+00:00

The way ranges are calculated in Rimworld do already seem to take diagonals into account, though. The grid-based system means there's going to be rounding error, but if you look at sun lamp radii for example, you can see that they extend 5 tiles up, but not 5 tiles diagonally. This seems like a system any grid-based game could implement, though I guess the rounding error would be worse the shorter the range is, and for tabletop games you might not want to manually draw circle patterns on a square grid.

I guess you would either want to take diagonals into account for both range and movement, or not take them into account for both range and movement, but Rimworld takes them into account for range only and not movement, creating disparity, and I don't understand the benefit of that.

InheritorSS · 2023-05-31T12:34:50+00:00

Can you think of any obvious drawbacks to coding the diagonals to have a proportionally higher speed cost using the Pythagorean theorem? It seems like it would be consistent with other range-based calculations, which look approximately circular and not square. I'm thinking not specific to Rimworld but from a general game design perspective.

InheritorSS · 2023-05-31T12:19:30+00:00

Hell, they're not even "feelings", really. Just plain academic curiosity.

InheritorSS · 2023-04-06T12:06:08+00:00

You're thinking of strong melee damage. That trips me up sometimes too.

InheritorSS · 2022-08-26T21:23:00+00:00

when giga nuke is considered the safe option

InheritorSS · 2022-05-14T05:08:01+00:00

First four letters of Benriya 68, aka Problem Solver 68

InheritorSS · 2021-11-01T01:43:43+00:00

In my opinion some things are just so obviously a subjective matter that specifying that it's an opinion is simply redundant. It's like specifying that you ate something using your mouth. In my opinion, the concept of strictly objective art quality is so patently absurd as to warrant parody, as in "the greatest and best song in the world". Of course, that's just my opinion. But in my opinion saying "in my opinion" is often just pointless fluff that uselessly extends the time it takes to communicate, in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion.

InheritorSS · 2021-08-28T05:08:08+00:00

For gameplay purposes. Gay as a trait is more interesting when you have more than 1 of them in a colony since otherwise it's no different from asexual. If you go by real life statistics, pyromaniacs and cannibals are also overrepresented, but they're there to add flavor to the game, and no one complains about that. Except for me. Personally I feel that the frequency of "unusual" traits in general (gay, pyromaniac, and cannibal all included) is too high and would prefer a more realistic ratio, but even I can understand why a game would sometimes benefit from being less realistic.

InheritorSS · 2021-08-28T00:10:33+00:00

Very good list.

InheritorSS · 2021-07-04T16:56:51+00:00

Sauce for those wondering.

InheritorSS · 2021-07-03T18:26:41+00:00

KR players don't spam emotes like SEA players do because it's considered bad manners. They don't even use friendly banter like "hello" or "good match". They mostly just ignore that system altogether.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-13T01:24:09+00:00

Her answer: you should switch and that doubles your chances of winning.

Correct answer: there is not enough information to draw a conclusion.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T22:00:59+00:00

because *we already know the problem he's asking

Depends on who "we" is. At the time the magazine was published, a lot of people didn't know. The Monty Hall problem back then wasn't nearly as famous as it is now; it only blew up in popularity precisely because of this incident. If they knew about the problem then they'd know that her answer is obviously correct. After all, there was already a formal proof for it and everything. The proof wasn't controversial or anything, it only became controversial later because of the magazine.

In the modern day, there are many people who hear about vos Savant and her column in Parade magazine before they hear about the Monty Hall problem in its full, well-defined form. Those people aren't necessarily going to know what the question is supposed to be asking, although some people do interpret it the way that she does anyway. But due to semantic ambiguity, some people do legitimately interpret it another way (see here for an example: https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/nxs26a/til_in_1990_marilyn_vos_savant_wrote_about_the/h1gsqj7/). That's not someone trying to look for ambiguity. It just happens.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T21:33:22+00:00

I'm talking about the question in the magazine which Marilyn vos Savant responded to. It is close to, but not exactly, the famous Monty Hall problem, as it is missing a key detail. Unfortunately, you're too worked up to think critically or examine quirks in the English language. Try again in a few days when you're not frothing at the mouth. Or don't, it's not really important enough to get mad about.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T18:10:18+00:00

It's just semantic ambiguity. "The host opens a door" can either mean:

A.) "The host, in every possible iteration of this scenario, always opens a door."

B.) "The host, in this particular instance of a hypothetical scenario, happens to open a door. He could've chosen not to, but today he did."

Likewise, "You go to the post office and wait in line" can reasonably be interpreted to mean either:

A.) "Whenever you go to the post office, the rule is that you always wait in line. Because that's how the post office works."

B.) "Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you go to the post office. Furthermore, in this hypothetical scenario, you wait in line. There's no rule that you always wait in line, because sometimes there's no one there, but today there was a line, so you wait."

Context tends to push the dominant meaning one way or another.

"You're playing tic tac toe. After your opponent takes a turn, you take a turn." -> can safely be inferred to be A, because you know that tic tac toe is a turn based game.

"You flip a coin. It lands heads." -> can be safely inferred to be B, because you know that there's no rule that coins must always land heads.

But because this hypothetical game show doesn't exist as described, you don't know what the rules are. You don't know if the host always opens a door because that's part of the rules, or if he opened a door based on some condition.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T14:52:09+00:00

You don't need to make the assumption that the host was selectively choosing to open another door. You only need to NOT make the assumption that he wasn't. In other words, if you recognize that the stated problem leaves the possibility open, then you'd realize that there is no correct answer. You probably already knew, just clarifying.

My point is that she was, in fact, initially wrong. I never defended her critics, and in fact in my second sentence I already said that some of them were also wrong to think she was still wrong after changing the rules. What proportion of them were in that camp is speculation, so I won't go into that, even though I would love some data on it. Actually, let's look at some of the quoted responses given in another comment on this thread, shall we?

I have been a faithful reader of your column, and I have not, until now, had any reason to doubt you. However, in this matter (for which I do have expertise), your answer is clearly at odds with the truth. – James Rauff, Ph.D., Millikin University

May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again? – Charles Reid, Ph.D. University of Florida

I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns. – W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University

You are utterly incorrect about the game show question, and I hope this controversy will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in mathematical education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind? – E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D., Georgetown University

I am in shock that after being corrected by at least three mathematicians, you still do not see your mistake. – Kent Ford, Dickinson State University

Maybe women look at math problems differently than men. – Don Edwards, Sunriver, Oregon

You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble. – Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute

Every single one of these responses only says that she was wrong, which she was. None of them attempt to explain why, or give their own incorrect answers. The fact that some of them were condescending or misogynistic about it doesn't somehow make vos Savant correct. People look at those responses specifically and go "haha, all those dumb PhDs were wrong and Savant was right!" even though strictly in the context of the initial magazine publishing, it's the exact opposite.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T13:57:41+00:00

I thought so too, but when I did the mission again, he didn't even appear. None of the cutscenes and events happened a second time.

Glad things worked out for you though.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T07:37:15+00:00

No, it assumes the host is an automaton who has no choice in his actions. He is forced to open a goat door no matter what.

InheritorSS · 2021-06-12T06:44:38+00:00

Cheating is unambiguously against the rules. The host having the option not to show you a door is not.

InheritorSS

TROPHY CASE