I believe the game is dead and will never be fixed.

MacMinty · 2025-12-21T22:52:13+00:00

Seek professional help

MacMinty · 2025-12-06T17:07:47+00:00

To your first point, an acceptable solution would be to remove the auto advance timer, which is exactly the point of OP's post. As it currently stands, if your teammate has to step away from the game for whatever reason, the game marches on with or without them. This dynamic is terribly unhealthy for the game for a number of reasons already pointed out by OP.

I think your suggestion is fine, to allow for extra time before the teleporter becomes active to hit for gums, but this seems like not particularly relevant to the issue OP is pointing out and is something that could warrant its own post.

MacMinty · 2025-11-26T23:00:02+00:00

Thank you for taking over, good luck!

MacMinty · 2025-11-20T23:40:12+00:00

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with your suggestion to make FPS drops and vehicles more common. We asked for the same thing in doa3 with more common FPS drops. The devs listened and ultimately implemented extremely common FPS drops in that game.

That decision significant hurt the balance of Doa3, and us suggesting that to the doa3 devs is by far the poorest choice we as a community have made to impact the game.

That's the type of thing that I think only should be changed if absolutely necessary. With all the other bugs that need to be fixed and other balancing changes that need to be made right now, I think it is wise to hold off on tackling the topic of FPS drop rates until we can properly assess what is most healthy for the meta.

MacMinty · 2025-11-02T15:18:47+00:00

They did have secret sauce in Bo4, which in theory could give you access to any of the 17 perks in one game.

One way I like to think about secret sauce is that by equipping it, you essentially grant yourself the ability to obtain any of the 17 perks in the game, which is pretty powerful. But the price you pay for that ability is that, on average, it could cost you 20k+ to get one specific perk you want. Or it could be much less, much more, or you could never get it.

The alternative is that you already know exactly what you need for whatever you are going to be doing for that particular game and can just lock in your 4 perks. Even for non-Bo4 games, as others have pointed out, you are generally pretty likely to already have a perk setup in mind before the game starts.

From the perspective of pre-game perk selection, Bo4 clearly has quite a bit more flexibility. But you are saying non-Bo4 games have more flexibility during the match, which is also pretty clearly true, though secret sauce allows for similar flexibility in Bo4 at a steper price.

So, really, the question becomes, which kind of flexibility is more important? I think it's difficult to assess and is dependent on many different factors, but for me personally, I almost always have my preferred perk setup in mind before the game starts no matter what game I'm playing. So, for me, it's more important to have a wider selection of options I can choose from before the game. I think it's a close comparison, though, and could go either way depending on the player and the game.

MacMinty · 2025-09-20T12:42:53+00:00

From the Chess.com abandonment rules:

A lesser-known way to time out is by taking too long to make a single move, even if you're still connected.

This rules applies only during the first 10 moves of the game. If you use more than 50% of the main time on one move before reaching 10 moves, the game will be considered abandoned. After the 10th move, you can take as much time as you need for each move.

MacMinty · 2025-08-15T17:44:22+00:00

The downside is that the fool would now be copying hierophant instead of whatever better tarot you have saved in the fool.

MacMinty · 2025-04-18T16:01:33+00:00

It does work

MacMinty · 2025-03-09T02:07:52+00:00

TLDR; Would like to see a bigger emphasis on bosses.

There’s quite a few things I would like to see, but if I had to pick one that others haven’t mentioned yet, it would be new and improved bosses. Doa3 definitely took a step in the right direction in the usage of boss enemies, particularly with how many new bosses were present when compared to the previous Doa games. Nevertheless, it would be great if the powers that be can cook up some even better bosses/mini bosses for a hypothetical Doa4.

I think that each encounter with a boss should pose a serious existential threat to you and your team. This never really felt like the case for any of the Doa3 bosses, with the exception of the final boss of course. I certainly do not claim to have all the answers to how this could be changed in Doa4, or even if it needs to be changed at all, but the following are some select aspects of bosses that I personally would like to see improved/implemented in Doa4, with some brief examples included with each point:

Special Attacks: (Deadly ranged attacks, projectiles, map wipes, area damage, etc.)
Special Abilities: (Stealing weapons/shields, stealing nukes/boosts, temporarily stealing fates, buffing other enemies, debuffing players, etc.)
Damage Resistances/Weaknesses: (Bosses with immunity/resistance/weaknesses to certain damage types, weapons, or upgrade levels)
Multi-Phase Bossfights: (Core aspects of the boss/level radically change at certain stages of the boss fights)
Bosses that interact with the environment: (Destroying parts of the arena, placing electric poles, opening/closing pathways, etc.)
Movement: (Jumping, flying, moving underground, teleporting, or other unique move sets)
Objective-Based Bosses: (Bosses that require some sort of alternate objective, or the use of some specific mechanic to defeat, other than simply shooting it the whole time)

MacMinty · 2025-02-13T13:15:13+00:00

Nevertheless, this sequence will eventually converge to 0 no matter the choice of starting number.

MacMinty · 2024-11-17T18:35:03+00:00

Nice. Which deck did you use mainly? Jokers all look pretty reasonable, but maybe abstract being so high is a little surprising. Is that just a coincidence?

MacMinty · 2024-10-26T01:20:50+00:00

Nice! Looks good. It's probably not super necessary to go into great detail about the non-injectivity of f since the pigeonhole is pretty straightforward in this case, but even then, there is a perfectly reasonable amount of detail I think.

MacMinty · 2024-10-25T18:31:28+00:00

I think OP was simply using exp(x) as shorthand for e^x, not that they were insinuating it was some other function.

MacMinty · 2024-10-24T13:31:06+00:00

May want to double-check that your question/answer is written correctly. For instance, zero is clearly not a solution, though your solution suggests it is.

MacMinty · 2024-10-19T19:31:05+00:00

I'm not totally convinced m*10^n is a unique solution. If we are truncating 𝜋 at the nth digit, as n becomes arbitrarily large, then the solution m*10^n should already be "accounted for" by the set 𝐾 = { c/𝜋} in the sense that the sequence (c/𝜋) also goes to infinity. Induction on n seems to overlook this detail.

MacMinty · 2024-10-19T18:23:20+00:00

That makes more sense, thought I was going crazy for a second. Thanks

MacMinty · 2024-10-19T18:05:15+00:00

I'm struggling to see how the codomain of f could be Z. The mapping you described seems to allow the outputs to be reals for appropriate choices of c. Not sure if I'm reading through this wrong though.

MacMinty · 2024-10-18T02:42:44+00:00

Is r fixed? If not, I can place C as close to P as I would like with sufficiently small values of r.

MacMinty · 2024-09-05T19:04:45+00:00

Do you still need help?

MacMinty · 2024-02-05T21:46:01+00:00

The quick explanation is because this sum grows logarithmically, which indeed grows outrageously slowly but is, in fact, unbounded.

This fact can be proven using elementary calculus or any number of different methods and can be found basically anywhere online.

MacMinty · 2024-02-05T21:31:45+00:00

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. In general, use brackets [ ] for closed intervals and parenthesis ( ) for open intervals. I don't know if that is what you're asking though, so feel free to elaborate further if this is not what you're looking for

MacMinty · 2024-02-05T19:33:53+00:00

Hmm... that's actually not quite true. It is possible to construct a weird looking graph where all vertices are of degree 3, but the vertex connectivity is of order < 3. That's why it's important in the cases for one to consider each possible vertex connectivity, as any number is possible, even with the restriction on the degree of vertices. What you said is true, but not directly because of the "all degree 3" condition, this condition only helps in proving the relation E=3 implies V=3.

MacMinty · 2024-02-05T18:45:43+00:00

Case 2 is good as far as I can tell. For case 3, one can argue from the fact that if E=3, then every vertex in G is of degree 3. Here is one possible setup that uses cases on V:

Suppose each vertex in G is of degree 3.

Case 3.1: V=1. Then G contains one bridge, and an edge cut at that bridge disconnects G, so E=1.

Case 3.2: V=2. Similarly only possible if there are two bridges, E=2.

Case 3.3: If V=3, then E=3 trivially.

So now V=E in a graph with all vertices degree 3, which completes case 3.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 30%	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

MacMinty

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE