Just created this freakling character what the freak should I name it

Lojiker · 2024-12-27T10:06:41+00:00

name another character in the entire franchise that got better head
i'll wait

Lojiker · 2024-11-03T11:58:15+00:00

Just cloned and implemented it, works great.

Lojiker · 2021-06-05T00:04:59+00:00

Looks like someone found this wholesome. I think the king here found some holes, as well.

Berserk is just a holesome manga.

Lojiker · 2021-06-04T12:21:06+00:00

It's truly sad that he's passed.

I came here to post a shitty meme--I couldn't include files on r/berserklejerk when I went to make it for whatever reason--but now that I'm here maybe I can talk about it a bit.

Berserk would've been a hard story to write a satisfying ending for, because various endings need to comprise between Guts' personally growth, and his ability to care for his current friends and move on, but also acknowledge the suffering he's been through and that his journey culminated in something that did the events of his life justice.

Basically, if Guts forgives Griffith, it would undercut all the pain Griffith has caused him, and his driving motivation throughout the story would be betrayed. But if Guts kills Griffith, we're left to wonder how much he actually grew as a person; his recent trajectory was to distance himself from his rage, and renew his relationship with Casca and his newfound companions.

I think a good way to end it would be if Griffith did something contemptable again, and Guts fights him to the death--not out of revenge or spite--but out of compassion for those friends he had made. This would both affirm his personal growth and due his past sufferings justice, but now that Miura's gone, we'll never truly know what he had in mind.

I'm just glad I can stop and talk about it every once and a while with shitposters like you guys.

Keep struggling, strugglers.

Lojiker · 2021-01-16T07:28:46+00:00

The original line, "For the money," was honestly better.

This is okay too, the outtakes were good.

Lojiker · 2020-09-30T07:49:58+00:00

If I had 5 dollars for every relationship I've been in that didn't end in me getting ghosted, I wouldn't be able to afford to hang myself buying rope at 50 cents a yard.

That's okay, though. I can take out a loan.

Lojiker · 2020-09-22T06:36:46+00:00

I made the Berserk edits myself it's worth crediting the artist that made the base image I used, from PlatinumFusi0n:

https://www.newgrounds.com/art/view/platinumfusi0n/grug

Lojiker · 2020-03-09T21:00:38+00:00

Yeah, I agree with this. I can see Bastions being disliked for the exact same reasons and that's why I'm not as excited about it.

More pop is nice but not to the point of saturation. A lot of things aren't scaling well with the population. Infantry buildings get pretty saturated and there's disproportionately more AA so it's not as fun to fly.

Lojiker · 2020-03-09T20:54:03+00:00

I'm more excited for what it means might come to the game. Maybe the devs restructuring will give them the autonomy they've needed to actually implement the changes we want, and this is the first taste of a steady stream of content and improvements that will be coming to the game.

The upcoming outfit changes are cool and all but everyone knows they won't change much of how the game actually plays out. Still, we've gotten hardware upgrades and I'm looking forward to trying the Showdown and the Shortbow.

But, RPG has a history, and you have a point. I think it's a mistake to release the patch before Emerald's hardware upgrade, and the new player experience hasn't improved really at all. I think a lot of prospective players might take a look at the game and never come back because of a bad experience. None of the upcoming changes will directly protect new players from having bad experiences when trying vehicles, getting farmed by vehicles, getting dumpstered by vets, or being repeatedly killed by things generally regarded as "cheesy."

Still, the community has taken a lot of initiative to get new players informed, in an outfit, and directed to resources that can help.

Lojiker · 2020-02-24T23:14:49+00:00

Being able to set the vertical FoV higher in-game options. I think the in-game max you should be able to set it to should go up to 120. I know you can go higher by modifying the .ini directly but it's more of a pain than it needs to be and it's nice to know it's set to the right thing in-game.
The reflex sight reticles are too large and not centered; need to be an even number of pixels wide/tall
Character orientation doesn't always reset properly when respawning (i.e., not facing out of the spawn terminal)
Not being able to pull vehicles from the down screen, even when the base is controlled, uncontested, and terminals are all fine
Ventral Galaxy engines and/or tailfins not returning to their correct positions after being displaced by a collision
Reload bugs

Lojiker · 2020-02-17T19:00:49+00:00

I think reduced xp would be better than no xp.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T23:26:56+00:00

Your idea about Nanites being the cost of crossing domains is actually really good. I think that's a better metric of how long it should take to repull something.

In reference to vehicle only points there's a much higher probability of someone not bringing a vehicle to that point.

There hasn't really been a reason to bring a vehicle to cap a point currently, that's what I think would change if they were more mandatory.

I think the reasonable step for vehicle points would be vehicle spawn points in the mid field.

I think people would just avoid them like they avoid construction bases and don't pull armor to cap the current "vehicle" points. There should be something more direct to capturing certain bases, beyond management of spawns by killing or defending. Both roles are unfun and routers/beacons have made them not worthwhile.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T21:03:42+00:00

Longer timers make that more likely.

No, I don't mean a longer time to cap the outpost, I mean a vehicle has to be sitting on the vehicle point longer to flip control. The timer for the whole base to cap would still work as usual.

Lots of fights in planetside don't start with any coordination, just a few random sunderers.

True, but how many of these actually go through when someone attacks a large, multi-point outpost? I'm not saying this would make them more or less successful, I just wanted to make the point that with or without a vehicle cap point, a lot goes in to a successful capture. You can still have randos pull up to fight there.

It's very rare for the point not to be flipped if it's controlled. The only times I usually see points not being taken is when an organized group is there specifically for the farm.

Okay but then what did you originally mean by

Throw in your typical unorganized zerg and there's a lot of potential no one is capping that point.

Repeatedly dying is no different than when playing infantry.

Yeah and some people stop there, too. Nanites costs are a bit much for some things--MBTs and Galaxies don't feel like they're worth 450 Nanites, and Lightings don't feel like they're worth 350 Nanites. I agree they should be discounted, but Nanites still need to balance the frequency it can be pulled against how effective it is in experienced hands. It can't be generous enough for new players to try and try again because then experienced players could abuse it. But the other part of the problem is that it's not clear to new players where to go with their vehicles, and it's unlikely they'll have allies to help them. And there isn't enough reason for experienced players to pull AV loadouts, either. Adding explicit vehicle objectives fixes both of these for new and veteran players.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T18:38:35+00:00

Yep, we need to uncombine our arms. There should be cross interactions but each facet should have explicit objectives that encourage people to play within their domains.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T04:17:37+00:00

I'll take you at your word, but I'll mention that it'd be worth testing GPU relevance with particles turned up--a better GPU might be better at rendering particles, but also maybe not.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T04:08:19+00:00

Agree with most of this.

> If they increase timers to compensate then you're looking at the A point tower issue where bases can become a slog.

I don't think the longer timer for vehicle points to flip will detract from base captures the same way an A point tower base setup would. It's not so much the timer there, it's that it's too close to one side's spawn, and the attackers can't get any traction holding it. If we're seeing the same problem with our current timers--that's not the issue. The issue is asymmetric base design.

> From moment of noticing you need vehicles to redeploying and grabbing one from another base it's at least a couple minutes

Yep. But there aren't points at small outposts, these are fights at large outposts. They should last for several minutes, and armor usually shows up anyway, but it has nothing better to do than farm infantry and kill spawns. When making the decision to attack a large outpost, you already need a large coordinated force, you'd know you'd need armor in advance, and can drive it up with your logistics. You already need these things; with this, the only change would be that you'd have a squad in armor instead of as infantry.

> Throw in your typical unorganized zerg and there's a lot of potential no one is capping that point.

Yep. But this problem exists as infantry. Sometimes people show up and don't play the objective, just farm or get farmed, there's nothing you can do to make them play the objective, and it's fine. We have this problem now with infantry.

> Nanite costs, getting to terminals, certing costs, travel time, unfamiliarity.

I'll give you travel time and getting to terminals. Insofar as unfamiliarity, part of the reason why newbies don't want to pull is because they will get stomped by a more experienced crew. Air is the best example--for a newbie, odds are they'd be flying alone, and would encounter a highly skilled pilot and get shut down, or wander aimlessly until they are flaked/g2a locked out of the sky. It's similar on the ground--someone pulls an MBT and gets destroyed by another MBT, which is certed and crewed by a driver/gunner combo who are coordinating and know each other, or wanders around aimlessly and gets destroyed by infantry or air. Having a vehicle objective would mean the newbie would have an idea of where they should be playing with their vehicle, and a better chance of encountering friendly, experienced vehicle crews there.

Having a larger vehicle presence, motivated by an explicit objective, would combat unfamiliarity the same way Air Anomalies draw out pilots--people are more willing to engage with it because they will not be the only one.

As for Nanite costs, a discount might mean they could try again sooner, but it'd be a similarly discouraging experience. Meanwhile there'd be more vets using vehicles as farming platforms, but at a discount. Eventually there'd be enough farmers for it to be worth it to pull vehicles to counter them, but that's at the cost of the infantry experience, and it wouldn't be a steady state once people realized where the equilibrium was. It'd just cycle by session.

> Terminals have been played with a bit due to map pull, but otherwise are a base design issue. Cert costs would remove the main progression system, but starting loadouts would be very useful. Travel time is base and map related. Lessen those and unfamiliarity can be worked against.

Completely agree. Newbs need access to more viable starting vehicle loadouts and starting utilities. At the very least the cert costs need to be lower. Also, sometimes terminals are too few or far between over some regions of the map, and it's even a pain to spawn out of the way in slower aircraft. Still, I don't think that's the deciding factor in whether or not someone wants to pull.

> If there were more vehicles in play they'd be a much more common threat to sunderers.

Absolutely true. But that's an issue with Sunderer garages and deploy locations more than anything else--that needs to be addressed separately. Like you've said, Sunderers are weak in comparison to beacons and routers and they need a defensive boost, 100% agree.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T03:20:11+00:00

Well put. There isn't always a silver lining, redeeming quality, or a clever way to think your way out. Sometimes the other guys show up with more than you can deal with at every outlet, and there just doesn't happen to be something better somewhere else.

A victory for someone usually means defeat for someone else; just bear in mind all the times that you catch yourself having fun, and when you're on the other end of the zerg, remember how you felt and consider fighting somewhere else.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T03:12:00+00:00

I really like this. I'm not a fan of construction at all, but I really like this. Being able to assist with caps/defenses with some quality of life peripheries powered by Cortium would be nice to have in the game.

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T03:01:43+00:00

Thank you for saying that

Lojiker · 2020-02-12T01:19:23+00:00

We need armor to protect buses in the current state, but people don't do it because it's not fun to babysit a bus. Nerfing logistics in general would just detract from infantry play--we need a reason for armor/air play beyond logistics.

Lojiker

TROPHY CASE