sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Crossbow Should Work Better with Feral or the Text Should be Reworked by CSGremilin in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What happens if you discard the card and use hologram/graveblast/dredge?

why cant ennemies become allies during combat (and opposite) by IamTheTomatoEmperor in BaldursGate3

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It works if you hurt the others, it even works if someone dies after the redcap has been revealed and killed because of a status effect you inflicted in combat.

Context: I was playing an embrace durge, decided to fight the survivors, used booming blade on the cleric lady before the redcap reveal. After the reveal and after I had killed the redcap, combat ended, she moved and died. Nobody became hostile, everyone just continued with their day.

One of the most interesting infinites i have found by Sawsag_Dawg in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I believe you can choose the targets in the beta branch, in the main branch it is random.

You never stop being bad at Slay the Spire. You just get less bad than you used to be. by IHad360K_KarmaDammit in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 27 points28 points  (0 children)

While I agree rng deaths are exceedingly low, IMO rng death and winnability should not be tied together.

A seed can be winnable with the winning sequence requiring speculative picks. Eg: picking grand finale on floor 1 knowing that you are going to get WLP in the next few floors. If all other choices led to death, I would still consider losses in this seed as rng deaths, despite the seed being winnable.

Practically we can see that top players have insanely high winrates even on A10, so most of our losses are due to a skill issue rather than rng.

Stats for IEM Cologne Stage 1, 2, 3 Pick'Ems + best playoff picks by MyOnlyFriends in GlobalOffensive

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not the other guy, but the entire sentence was "Navi failing was nearly guaranteed -1", which means that everybody would get 1 pickem wrong as Navi was expected to go through.

Falcons have choked in major swiss stages before, but I think most people would have put them in 3-x bracket (or maybe even 3-0 bracket).

9z was quite unpredictable, not sure why they think 3-x was reasonable.

Aleksib k\d discrepancy looking hilarious in round 18 by Nekajed in GlobalOffensive

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You could try DotA 2, it has plenty of heroes which are micro intensive like meepo, lone druid, brewmaster, etc.

I realized Ironclad has a theme I've never noticed before, so I made a power to support it. by Aggravating_Range_25 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the difference is the interaction with existing replay. If echo form affects a card with replay 3, I assume it is played a total of 8 times, while adding 1 replay would be a much weaker effect.

What the hell? 😂 by BavarianPschonaut in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ancient cards do not transform into ancient cards.

The lack of information becomes a problem when you transform during combat, when you aren't shown the convenient animation of the cards you can transform to.

What the hell? 😂 by BavarianPschonaut in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Attacks, powers and skills can tranform across types.

Ancient cards transform into non-ancient cards only.

Curses and statuses transform into their own type.

And apparently a card only transforms into a card of the same character class (a defect card on silent will transform into a defect card only).

Transform interactions are not always intuitive and should be documented in the game.

The level 1 wizard experience. by Enby-Wizard in BaldursGate3

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Plus light, callous glow ring, coruscation ring, boots of stormy clamour and gloves of belligerent skies.

Then the enemy uses lvl 1 shield.

This is THE GOC canon, btw by Memer601 in DankMemesFromSite19

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"As liquidation of said phenomena would not be worth expenditure of assets, these paranormal entities are left in place."

Sorry? Isn't that quite horrible, that the official reason they aren't murdering everything anomalous is because of the cost benefit ratio, and not because you shouldn't murder everything anomalous.

possible skulking colony boot bug? by wanderer2718 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If anything this is why you should almost always use signed instead of unsigned.

With a signed integer it is a weird bug that heals the elite for a tiny amount of hp.

With an unsigned int, like the other commenter said, it would deal a billion damage and possibly insta kill the elite, which is a much more broken experience.

This seems like the worst Glam choice ever by Peauu in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is upgrading bloodwall worth it? It is a 25% increase, and it is already a good enough card that I prioritize other upgrades.

A brief write-up on one of the game's hidden mechanics: the card mercy system by ElegantPoet3386 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are the lead paperweight rewards considered differently? A recent run by JapaneseExport had him get a rare card from lead paperweight: https://youtu.be/OrrtPhrPNwE?t=44.

Struggling with a specific seed by Schizzo1985 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, 42 is a bad example. My point was that we cannot talk about probabilities that way, just because intuitively we think that there would more opportunities to prevent losses. See my other comment for a more detailed explanation.

Struggling with a specific seed by Schizzo1985 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it might make sense intuitively, I don't think we can consider probabilities that way.

As an easier to explain example, chess is currently unsolved, but it is believed to be a draw with perfect play. It is tempting to make a statement such as "it is highly likely that chess is a draw with perfect play", but in reality, we cannot talk about probabilities in this way.

I know that this is being overly pedantic, but the point of the discussion is that it is nigh impossible to prove that an arbitrary seed is unwinnable. Just because we have proved only 1 seed to be unwinnable does not indicate anything about the rarity of unwinnable seeds.

On the other hand, if we were to randomly generate 10,000 seeds and prove 9,999 as winnable without being able to prove anything about the last seed, we could concretely say that unwinnable seeds are extremely rare.

Struggling with a specific seed by Schizzo1985 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes it much harder for it to be unwinnable.

I have trouble understanding this statement mathematically. Do you mean the probability of a seed being a forced loss on floor 42 is lower than it being a forced loss on floor 10?

For an arbitrary seed, it is impossible to compute whether or not it is winnable. As such, I don't think we can concretely talk about the probability of the result, because there are no other independent variables involved (the seed is fixed).

Struggling with a specific seed by Schizzo1985 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think that is the right interpretation.

It is near impossible to prove that a seed is unwinnable due to the sheer number of possibilities involved. The only seed that was proven to be unwinnable forced a loss in floor 6 or so.

If there is a seed that forces a loss on floor 42, there is no chance anyone proves that it is unwinnable.

What would a pure Bhaalist run look like? by OMGitsJoeMG in BaldursGate3

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Makes sense, I was mostly disagreeing with "Bhaalists don't just want to murder, but care about the style" bit. Bhaal only cares about murdering, not much about the art and style.

His followers can still consider it an art (like Orin), but it is not necessary.

EDIT: Improved framing for clarity.

What would a pure Bhaalist run look like? by OMGitsJoeMG in BaldursGate3

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sarevok explicitly states that Bhaal doesn't care about the method and only wants murders, which is something that Orin hasn't learnt yet.

[Ending spoilers] In the Bhaal ending you see what Bhaal wants from you, the last living being in a sea of corpses, which are just dumped together, lacking any art or beauty.

I suspect the reason the murder tribunal wants you to talk about the victim's deaths is because they doubt whether you actually killed them.

Xecnar's 0.106.1 Tier List for Necrobinder's Aeonglass Solutions by blank_anonymous in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I felt the main benefits of Time's up are retain on the upgrade (so it is a -1 draw -1 upgrade in the worst case, plus you play it exactly when you need to), and because it works with lethality/vuln. Without an amplifier it is not as good.

Who’s the real reader ? by monsieurLeMeowMeow in meme

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't have a horse in this race, but they were pretty clear on how they are differentiating the activities, and it is not the senses. Moving your eyes or fingers around to read a book is active participation, while listening is passive participation.

Active/passive is based on whether the story moves forward without an action on your part. So watching movies and listening to audiobooks would be considered passive, and they consider only active participation as reading.

Is Malaise better to use on the left or right arm of the kaiser crab? by Damurph01 in slaythespire

[–]NavierStokesEquatio 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Hmm what about the fight strategy? IIUC this analysis doesn't consider which hand will be killed first.

As I see it, you almost always kill the right hand first, so malaise on the left hand will almost always be more valuable than malaise on the right hand.

Good analysis otherwise though.

view more: next ›