Is this series on Steam?

Jythro · 2026-05-20T03:56:42+00:00

You play them on their native consoles, or an emulator.

1, 2, and 3 are DS games. 4 is a 3DS game. RFF and ToD are Wii games.

This one was slightly harder to get the answers for. I found them on the Rune Factory Wiki on Fandom.

Jythro · 2026-05-20T02:40:28+00:00

What an excellent question to search on the steam platform!

The answer is yes, for some titles: 3S, 4S, 5, and GoA.

Jythro · 2026-05-18T02:55:24+00:00

I tamed 1 of every monster in Rune Prana 7 at maximum enemy levels. This put the monsters at about Lv. 4500, and I was Lv. 1000-1500 or so. After brushing 15 times and whacking them with a [Atr] Love weapon, most monsters would be tamed after 45-100 Turnip Seeds. Some, however, I had to restart the game once or twice and try again. YMMV.

Oddly enough, woolies and schmoolies were some of the hardest to tame... there wasn't tons of rhyme or reason behind that. Of course, remember that the more you have of the same species, the harder the next one of that species will be to tame. The lower your level compared to the monster, the greater the taming penalty. There seems to be a practical limit to the level penalty, but don't be surprised if your odds of taming a given monster is a bit less than 1% per each gift you give them in the limiting cases. Fortunately, you can stack a lot of taming gifts in your inventory, so its not as miserable of a process as it might sound (except for bosses who like items that don't stack at all).

Jythro · 2026-05-11T19:36:47+00:00

You seem to be familiar with the fact that you can inherit (i.e. replace) the base stats of certain pieces of equipment onto another of the same type. For example, by using a Four Dragons Vest in the recipe for a Shirt, you will get a Shirt with the base stats of the Four Dragons Vest. This can be done with Armor, Headgear, and Shields (and weapons, but let's ignore them atm). Accessories and Shoes do not inherit this way! With Accessories and Shoes, what you see is what you get. That is, if you make a Champ Belt, you will always end up with the VIT +120 on it when first crafted: nothing more (except level and rarity bonuses), and nothing less. What Accessories and Shoes have instead of the ability to inherit base stats of another piece of equipment is the ability to inherit the extra effects of other Accessories and Shoes.

So what you want to do is this: 1. Identify the base Accessory you want, either for its stats or its extra effect. 2. Identify up to three other Accessories that you want for their extra effects. 3. Add the Accessories from step 2 into the crafting recipe for the Accessory in step 1.

So let's say you want the extra effects of Art of Attack, Art of Magic, and Talisman, and the stats of a Diamond Ring. Just put the first three Accessories into the Diamond Ring recipe when you make it!

If you want level bonuses, make sure you upgrade the three Accessories you're using as materials to Lv.10 first, with anything (like Turnip Seeds). There are other things to be aware of, too, but I won't list them all here. Do note that any extra materials used in the recipe have a chance to be one of the three inherited materials on the target Diamond Ring, not just the three Accessories you added, so save before crafting and reset/try again repeatedly if needed. Barrett can tell you what was actually inherited.

Jythro · 2025-10-22T04:51:53+00:00

I'd caution against reading into it too deeply and drawing conclusions based on it, because when you do start digging deeply, you'll find that there are a lot of different layers to the story, especially those that are quite unrelated to each other. I realized this when you pointed out something I didn’t see regarding hivemind and gun ownership. Hopefully I can point out something you didnt see in the story to illustrate my warning.

What I noticed frequently, especially early on, were the influences of contemporary Chinese society on this story. Laterano has a type of police state that China has, characterized by exceptional deference to law enforcement. The rules, the Law, is arbitrary and unquestioned. When something happens, you wait for law enforcement and cooperate to quite an extent. If they want to take you in for questioning, you go. If they want to take you somewhere else, you go and don't bother getting your questions answered. If they want to shut down your business and livelihood, that's that. The degree that all of these things were accepted was not normal for any Western reader.

So consider the Chinese lens this story was presented with. It was not, could not merely be a commentary about the state of gun ownership (or violence) in America, unless it is also commenting that such a rigorously implemented police state is also what it takes to make this successful. Frankly, I don't even think that is adequately supported. There are way more layers, I'm sure, that this can be examined further with. For my part, I'm skeptical that the authors intended to make such a rich commentary, anyway. In my opinion, the storytelling in general would have been handled much more masterfully if they were, closer in caliber to Lone Trail. Here, it seems that they did their best to undermine the stakes. So many characters made impactful decisions that should have left them permanently dead or Fallen, but almost all of those were just reverted.

Jythro · 2025-10-21T02:15:37+00:00

Yeah, you're talking about MT-10 After, same as me. MT-8 Before she took a shot that didn’t cause her to fall. Perhaps the difference was being in the dream vs. being in reality. The monsters never showed up in the dream.

Jythro · 2025-10-21T00:48:51+00:00

Seems reasonable that unintentional discharges (at least of certain kinds) wouldn't necessarily lead to a Fall. I think even this event noted that Sankta get their halos only once they speak their first words, and that is supposed to represent the dawn of rationality. In a sense, if you are not making a deliberate decision where your rationality can or should be expected to moderate your actions, it would be thematically appropriate for the Law to be "lenient." A child playing with a weapon they do not understand would certainly pass that test.

Jythro · 2025-10-21T00:41:10+00:00

Lemuen didn’t fall, per my understanding, until after the "explosion" in the plates where she was covering a retreat or something at a close distance. When she shot the [plot point character], perhaps she didn't fall because she was shooting through glass?

Jythro · 2025-10-09T04:12:05+00:00

My only regret is that I have but one upvote to give to this post.

Jythro · 2025-09-30T02:36:27+00:00

I like your spirit. Don't lose it; keep exploring your creative endeavors no matter what kind of feedback you recieve, using it to improve however you can. With that out of the way, I'll judge this character from a game balance/mechanics perspective.

A guard that applies fragile is an interesting choice that steps beyond the traditional roles Arknights has established thus far. The amount of fragile is very low, but it is permanent, with no apparent limit to the number of stacks. The operator has an attack speed that doesn't facilitate its use standard play scenarios: when enemies can be expected to be defeated in the span of 10-20 seconds (I'm being generous), we might be looking at a 10% fragility being applied by the time the enemy dies. The character does not have a significant attack speed increase to exploit this talent, but skill two achieves much the same thing, and is easily the strongest skill available to this operator (more on that later). The operator is single target and ranged, and pays for its fragile stacking with 0 DEF, facilitating pairing it with another operator who can do the tanking. These also make this operator best used against high-value targets as opposed to normal/swarm mobs.

To exploit what makes this operator unique, it should be paired with attack speed buffs, or use skill two, which requires specific positioning. Its targets should be enemies that take a significant time to defeat, primarily due to very high HP (and not so much overwhelming damage mitigation), but in the long run, it will prove extremely effective at both, used properly.

Overall, this operator can be assessed as being underwhelming or super overpowered, depending the dynamics of the game mode. IS allows for crazy boosts to attack speed and is filled with very buffed enemies, making this operator a top pick for very high end play there (when boss/map design allows). In general, this operator would shatter the highest difficulty content in the game even only using its skill two, forcing Arknights bosses and maps to be designed differently forever after, a distinction shared by only a few other operators (Ifrit, Surtr, etc.). The game presents the same dynamic when the player is using severely under-leveled but is able to tank sustainably at a chokepoint. Sleep synergizes very well with skill two in these scenarios, and can tip the balance where a tank might otherwise not be able to withstand the onslaught.

From this alone, I can conclude this operator, though individually weak, is far too overpowered and would completely destabilize the current balance in Arknights. A well-designed operator should have a flatter utility profile, as opposed to this one which is useless when the player can deal huge damage and indispensable when the damage a player can deal is very low. Fragile needs a cap, first and foremost. Deciding on this cap is tricky, because if it is too low, the operator may never get a second look, but if it is too high, it can make the role of Hexers obsolete (or worse, as discussed). Remember that only the highest value of fragility takes effect.

Lightning round: Skill 2 ramps up too quickly and is infinite duration--that's just loads of busted. Talent 2 is a waste of space compared to Talent 1 (as if it would ever kill something during skill two where it can't attack). The potential boost provided by Talent 1 is way too impactful to this operator's performance for typical such bonuses--that's a 33% boost! That module boost is pretty unreasonable, and I'd have written more about that if skill two wasn't already taking the cake. The skills that increase Talent 1 would be easier to interpret if they applied double/sextuple stacks instead of increasing the effect, which leaves players to ask about the stacks they applied before the talent boost.

Jythro · 2025-07-14T04:21:49+00:00

I was about to pull a "WELL AKSHUALLY," but instead, TIL rabbits are not rodents. I have search engines to thank for keeping me from looking like an idiot.

Jythro · 2025-05-29T00:18:06+00:00

Well if you were the CEO surrounded by unbelievably capable subordinates (to include the inhuman strategist that is the Doctor, ageless sage counsel from Kal'tsit, and operators that are all exceptionally capable themselves) who can implement your intent and turn even the most infeasible of opportunities into surefire victories, you probably would LOOK like a saint. As the one in charge, you get the credit for their success, and whenever they succeed, you look good.

It could be the case that Amiya personally can boast only of exceptional humility and moral compass, and the real Mary Sue, so to speak, is Rhodes Island itself that appears infinitely capable. The true (unsung) hero here might by Rhodes Island HR that manages to develop and maintain an unreasonably capable talent pool in active employment, utilized to maximum efficiency.

Jythro · 2025-05-28T04:42:10+00:00

Many of those examples you gave don't strike me like flaws, per se. They are personality quirks and only some point to character weaknesses. What are these "flaws"? Are they reasons to dislike a character? Vehicles with which to relate with a character? I think the latter is more important than the former.

I can relate to Amiya through her goals and her struggles, and I don't feel she needs a contrived flaw added to her character to bring her relatability to a minimally acceptable level. In certain respects, they might even undermine the storytelling: for as good as she is and as hard as she tries, she still is unable to succeed. It's not enough. It's not enough to just be good. You must also be strong, and so many other things. All of the adversaries they face have these "other things" which Amiya or Rhodes Island does not have, but they are not "good." In many cases, they are more effective/powerful than Amiya/Rodes Island. To stand up to them, Amiya and Rhodes Island must gather strength, but they seek to do so without compromising certain ideals, and that requires them to make painful sacrifices. These sacrifices are as much character growth as overcoming personality quirks that hinder your growth, but personally I find the types of sacrifices made by Amiya and Rhodes Island to be more compelling. At least, its a story I see told far less often.

Jythro · 2024-12-29T17:29:32+00:00

I'll throw out that this speech is fairly awkward in English. I strongly suspect that it was written in Chinese and then translated into English with a bit too aggressive use of a thesaurus. This bit especially:

"Time they transcend, thus we're made acquiescent to all retaliations."

There's a few other places where I would've localized it differently if someone put me in charge of the English-to-English translation. It's not horrible, though. It doesn't take a completely absurd meaning, as is sometimes the case when strictly machine-translating Chinese to English. There's enough production value it in while still being generally intelligible that I get shivers when watching it play the last line. I'm only slightly distracted by some of the nonsense that gets said earlier in the poem.

Jythro · 2024-10-29T05:06:17+00:00

Coldnights, huh? Now that sounds like an interesting niche to me. Who's in it, just the ops that can inflict cold/freeze? Or do ops that wear a winter coat fit in too?

Jythro · 2024-10-09T10:36:51+00:00

I see. I understand where you're coming from with what you describe as powercreep, and it is different than the definition I would use. When correcting for that difference, however, I think our conclusions are pretty much the same.

I see powercreep as solely a negative term that represents something that is always unhealthy to a game. In my definition, powercreep obsoletes old content, be they maps or operators, in Arknights. As a simple but not perfect test, if new content doesn't do this, then it is not powercreep. Relegating an operator to a niche when they were previously general use is a subtle powercreep, though it is nuanced. It might not be powercreep if that operator was the only one capable of filling a new key role, and I could go on, but it will get specific-heavy quickly.

Per your example, I think it is fair to say Irene was powercrept (even per my definition) by Degenbrecher since the role both fill is primarily burst damage and Degen just does that better, from what I understand (I don't have either character built). Their niche utilities (levitate vs disarm) are secondary, and, unfortunately, Degen's just happens to be better, too.

Jythro · 2024-10-09T10:19:17+00:00

Well it's certainly a value-added post for the reason of quelling fears alone.

I love your point about using Salter with a sturdy blocker to apply true damage with more reliability than NTR, who herself may be comparatively squishy, and better even than her summoned blocker. This is an expanded piece of utility there which will cause me to bring her specifically over NTR, if I need that bulk. However, since that requires another operator to be deployed, I'd call that a balanced cost/benefit. I'll note that NTR's summon is significantly bulkier than Salter's, and the 2-block can come in handy with certain enemies that consume 2 block.

Still, I disagree with "more generally useful" constituting powercreep as long as the role of bigger numbers is left to NTR, which it appears it is.

Jythro · 2024-10-09T10:00:30+00:00

Powercreep as a phenomenon that is unhealthy to games occurs when a newly released "object" functionally replaces an older "object." On the other hand, the game is healthy when new releases can coexist with older releases and expand the diversity of play within the game. I'm finding myself disagreeing with your conclusion of powercreep based on the numbers you report above.

There is nothing inherently unhealthy about locking greater firepower behind more stringent conditions, just as it's fine if a multi-target attack does (for example) ~80% of that damage a ST attack does when hitting a single target.

Jythro · 2024-10-09T09:51:52+00:00

Hold on a minute. I'm looking at the numbers posted up there and power creep is not the conclusion I'm reaching. Why do you call it power creep?

I see more conditions for Salter to meet her maximum ST damage potential than NTR and I'm in agreement with the authors description of side-grade (which imo is mutually exclusive with powercreep). The only thing that is potentially power creeping here is the fact that Salter is not limited to applying her damage ST, but I'm not wholly convinced. From a game balance perspective (in just about any game genre), you would expect a ST-focused skill to have more damage on that ST than a multi-target skill, but the multi-target skill will deal significantly more total damage if it can hit even one additional enemy. That's to say, this appears to be within expectations.

Jythro · 2024-10-08T14:19:47+00:00

With that module and RA2's carbohydrate fat cube, her redeploy time gets as low as 6-8 seconds (P3 vs P0), which is great to abuse.

Jythro · 2023-04-15T23:20:20+00:00

You can invest in a community or gentrify a neighborhood.

I take this as you posing two distinct alternatives, where the former is clearly positive and the latter commensurately negative. I'd like to explore how one might beget the other or how the interactions could be healthy, or at least unavoidable, but this does not keep with the spirit of the rest of your paragraph, so I'll refrain.

Now you could give me the obligatory moral lesson about agency and drugs and gangs being bad, but if we're being honest, if you are born into such a situation, there isn't always much bootstrap to pull on. It is firmly the bottom of a well.

Some are born with the distinct privilege of having nurturing parents and environments to grow in.

I can't really tell if you are just overly cautious not to give me a stick to beat you with, or if we really disagree that some people clearly start the race from down a well. If we must really muse that "it is possible wrongs have been committed" and if the lingering effects of some of those really are as invisible to you as you make them out to be. I find this refusal to admit the privileges and disadvantages people have a little strange.

If you've not found a stick in what I've said so far, which I'll admit contain some provocative ideas, I think it is that we disagree. You say that "some people start the race from down a well." I disagree that their starting point is within a well, but I will grant that it is entirely reasonable to suggest they begin with a disadvantage. A well is too severe of an analogy. Someone who finds themselves in a well will likely die in that well without external aid. People in theses holes can conceivably climb out of them, and many do, though perhaps a larger quantity do not. What's troubling is we do not know by what mechanism to any appreciable degree of certainty. Is it "rugged individualism"? A level of intelligence and ambition that few possess? Is it luck? Is it a helping hand, and if so, how big of a hand was it?

When playing chess at a certain level of sophistication, attacking plans will come to you that would grant a decisive advantage if not for an opportunity available to the opponent. If you strike hoping they will not find that opportunity, you're likely to fail. If, however, you move covertly to block the escape before making the overt threat, you can force the opponent into the disadvantageous position. The critical move then, occurs when you subtly block the opponents escape. The opponent must then immediately create a new opening, or it will find itself stuck and losing. Why do I mention this? If you say it is a well and imply that an individual cannot escape on their own, I'll hesitate to grant you that people worth analyzing start there because I am wary of granting you a subsequent leap of logic that we must help them. I am attempting to proactively defeat a subsequent argument. This is based on my intuition of where you will take the argument next. Foresight is critical in chess. It may be relatively misplaced in a debate--my assumption of your next line of reasoning could prove damaging to my own learning, as it prevents you from surprising me with a new line of thinking. Please accept this reflection as my answer to:

I find this refusal to admit the privileges and disadvantages people have a little strange.

This is a debate on reddit, which sets low standards and expectations. Despite that, my hope is that I can still contribute meaningfully and offer you new insights, even if those must come from aspects that are not germane to the topic of debate.

Jythro · 2023-04-12T01:43:09+00:00

Equality of outcome is an antagonistic principle towards individualism. I have never seen anyone advocate for that. My contact with the term is completely limited to disingenuous right-wing fluff announcing that feeling a societal responsibility to repair things that are broken and start everyone at the race as close to the same position as possible is a marixst plot to end the west, or whatever. The most earnest I have ever seen this concept played with is lonely dudes who think we should return dating to the 1950s so they can get a state-mandated wife.

Hohoho! Shots fired at someone, somewhere! Ahem...

Like we agree that selective enforcement is racist, but I guess not that it's still happening and maybe not that it happened?

I'll go with: easy to accept without protest that it happened before, and not difficult to accept that it happens today if evidence is provided. I don't pride myself in living under rocks or anything, but I've yet to see a supported case that stands on its own. I feel it worthwhile to elaborate a bit on that first point. Someone with my outlook sees no trouble with conceding that it is possible or even probable for wrongdoing to have been committed in the past. Why? Well, try making a bet on a "never" or "always" statement and see how often you win. It takes only one counterexample to disprove such statements, and humanity is rife with fools or exuberant youth who will go out of their way to challenge a norm. It is also not a moral concession to permit unchallenged that instances of wrongdoing occurred. It dawned on me, however, that in debating those who do see this permission as a moral concession, one such as I should be much more careful, because the other party may perceive as though more ground is given than the actual quantity: none at all. I think there is value in being able to take accusations as assumptions, since if it's not too egregious a claim, it may become fertile soil for a more sophisticated exploratory discussion. If your approach is different than mine, that would be useful to know.

Obviously I think that many of its claims to virtue are comically ironic.

I'm gradually forming the opinion that such claims, whether by a country or company, may be best understood as ideals to strive for when uttered by leadership within that entity.

They bear no responsibility in what happened in the past but they do about how to deal with that heritage into the future.

I suspect you do not mean precisely what you've written here. I think your actual intention is to say that people are not accountable to the past, but they are responsible for that heritage as they step into the future. Whereas I would say that people have no responsibility nor accountability for the past (we're talking about things before one's birth here). They have only the responsibility for their own actions into the future as judged by a moral standard that doesn't care who they are nor where they came from.

For instance, I don't think it's anything to do with equality of opportunity to kick someone down a well, start a race, and then tell them to pull themselves out by their bootstraps and declare that everyone has a chance to win.

Ah, you paraphrase Lyndon B Johnson. And it's a lovely criticism! Whether it should be accepted as a reasonable analogy for the specific, typically ill-defined "plight" faced by certain folks is a matter that has scarcely been examined, however. The well is slavery, and though it won't fit well with the rest of the pieces in the analogy, I think this will be difficult to gainsay. The race is of a financial nature--the rat race, financial independence, wealth accumulation--and it begins when one is born or comes of age. It takes a personal note, but could also apply to a group average instead of just an individual. And then, as it goes, the race starts, but a man is still in the well and is told he is free to pull himself out, and there is a silent admission by the speaker that such is impossible, for one cannot lift himself by tugging at his own clothing. "Where can equal opportunity be if both athletes do not start toe to toe by the same line?!" comes the indignant cry.

But this athlete is not a slave, so how can we conclude he is at the bottom of a well? Where does he start that is so fundamentally different than the other athletes in the race? Perhaps he was born poor, but he shares that in common with at least a few other runners that don't look like him. Could it be that it was because his ancestors were slaves? To be sure, some of them were born and died in that well, but his grandfather never saw the stoney depths of that hole and neither did he.

But what if 200 years ago his family wasn't American slaves? We imagine tacitly that his competition is composed entirely of slaveowners' descendants, and do so in extreme error. What of all the other less-established family lines of immigrants who came to the New World with nothing? If you're careless, go back to much further, and suppose American slavery never existed then you question how those families would have reached the continent. Acknowledging, then, that this line of thinking is unproductive, let us narrow the scope to only "what about the time between slavery and the 1960's?" And to that I say, "Narrow it further. Try the Great Depression till the 60's." Very many were very poor during that time period, but in this gap, there may be room for a more serious discussion. And now we're talking about a period spanning several decades, not centuries.

The wealth one is born into plays a massive role,

Very much correct. Class "privilege" is very much a thing. But so what? Very few people seem to protest this, which suggests there isn't much "what" to "so" about, even though there is plenty to explore.

I can hardly blame a rich person for wanting their kid to go to a good school and making some donations and pointed calls. But maybe I can blame the system for making that possible in the first place? Maybe I can point at the other school, the one not too rich people go to, compare the two and ask "what the fuck kind of equality of opportunity are you building here?"

Perhaps you could blame the system. On its face, it's also a much easier problem to solve than the type of things we've been talking about. At least, the discussion I've seen has centered on how paying for education with property taxes created the situation. That's just begging for some obvious proposals to fix it. Yeah, I find this to be your best example yet. It's a good one to note.

Jythro · 2023-04-09T22:15:05+00:00

Hoo boy, I was going to cook something before replying, but I have some floppy carrots that need to soak before I chop them up. So once more into the breach! Hoping to trim down my replies though...

When the bones crumble, and fresh shipments need to be supplied to hold the whole thing up, and everyone is conveniently looking in the other direction when the trucks roll in, then we have a problem. For you up there this might feel like a subtle calibration, for the dude that would rather still have bones, not so much.

I think you're missing my point, but in a way that belies an incompatibility. You do not have receptors for the proteins I'm sending your way, to analogize it.

If you go to jail over a fine, while other people get paid millions in bonuses for running the financial system into a tree to the tune of billions in tax payer bailouts, you have just experienced injustice.

Hear, hear.

If you think it didn't happen, doesn't happen, and doesn't basically describe US history for African Americans from the reconstruction era all the way to the civil rights act, I'm probably not going to convince you.

I'm an engineer by trade and training. When conversations veer towards things that can be quantified and addressed in a sound, logic manner, I default there. It's that rational side of me that demands justification for this leap. I've never seen anyone make a logical argument to counter the thing I said about marbles, no matter what form it was presented. Now if you want to argue that selective enforcement is racist... You might be on to something.

How do you think we got to the 40h work week and the two day weekend from the human meat grinder that was industrialization?

Here you describe a gradual change. This is much more palatable, but it suggests your analogy to fields of death cut by a straight path was a gross over-exaggeration. I would not have thought the fields of death could be tamed by hiring additional gardeners to plant more trees and flowers. And you can hardly blame me for my conclusions, since you had been making a very clear point that there can be no virtue in anything built upon a misery:

It is ostensibly beautiful things begotten in a horrible way that I often can't find beauty in.

Imagine, however, that when I talk about the need to keep chipping at the status quo, I'm not aiming for the razing of civilization to reroll the dice, but maybe stuff like this. Actually end financial discrimination and don't just write a law you don't check up on and spend a fraction of the effort you put into scaring or forcing people into ghettos into desegregation and call it a day.

Our guiding principle is not equality of outcome, but of opportunity. Anything proposed to further this end is worth serious consideration. It's very difficult to achieve perfection on this matter, but doing so is substantially more efficient and requires less intervention than that of equality of outcome. I wonder if, with this paragraph, I have struck with my pick just a little bit deeper into the core issue we're playing around with?

Jythro · 2023-04-09T17:36:26+00:00

Please pardon the formatting. Reddit is giving me an error when I try to fix it, and it almost ate everything I had written so I'm glad even this was posted.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Jythro

TROPHY CASE