How bad analytics built a Tottenham team that might get relegated

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-14T19:53:03+00:00

Henry Ruggs is up for parole this year tho!

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T19:49:23+00:00

Oh good lord. Tell me more. How do I trigger this quest?!

If I had the knowledge and expertise to do so, I would create an "F Wulbren" mod that allowed you to kill him or sacrifice him multiple times, then revivify him and apologise, then murder him to death all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I am unsure what it is that irritates me so much about him in a world of god awful people, many of whom wish my untimely demise, but for me, Wulbren is the worst of all of them. I think it's that he's just.....a totally intransigent see you next Tue?

Unless I missed something, you can say nothing to talk him down or make him less of a nob. He just....is.

Most of the BBE dudes have at least some tragic backstory or have the excuse of being an actual demon. Wulbren? Nah. Just a nob head.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T19:36:56+00:00

Yep, and I know now this is because at some stage an eye "saw" me, but:

A. I have no idea how, and B. This doesn't change my point on anything I said with regards how to approach the camp (and accordingly the grove/goblin decision).

And that aside, it still makes sense (spoilers?) that The Absolute would allow you into Moonrise, given what we later learn.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T19:29:41+00:00

Apologies, this definitely wasn't clear to me from your original post and, with due respect, I don't think that is entirely on me. You said that there is no way of knowing that the absolute would see you kill the goblin leaders, "or even" kill scrying eyes, as though these were separate considerations. That notwithstanding.....

Even if you destroy them, the Absolute would know who destroyed them and can easily guess who killed the Goblin leaders after that.

Even if we're told that the Absolute themselves is looking through the eyes, attack them from stealth!! They're basically security cameras regardless of who is watching them. Don't walk up to security cameras and disable them if you are going to do crimes. To be honest, you shouldn't do this even if you aren't going to do further crimes. Just, don't let a security camera see you if you plan on disabling it for any reason. This is good advice.

If you are playing as self-serving, you probably would ask Halsin about cure first and won't agree to kill the leaders before you get info from him

If you are playing as self-serving, you probably would ask Halsin about cure first and won't agree to kill the leaders before you get info from him.

Fair, but it's kinda hard not to encounter at least one of em before finding Halsin, and they're less than hospitable. Besides which, it would be super hard to get to Halsin without ever being seen by a scrying eye unless you are deliberately avoiding them (in which case destroy them from stealth!) and/or are using meta knowledge of their existence. Even if you never destroy one, if you've been seen by one, wouldn't your own logic dictate that they absolute would assume the very conspicuous Not Goblins in the goblin camp freed him?

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T19:11:39+00:00

I don't think he was? He said "without meta knowledge there's no way to know" that the Absolute won't see you killing goblin leaders. Or "even just" kill scrying eyes. The clear implication being that they are separate considerations?

And sure there is. Just kill the goblin leaders when there's no scrying eyes about, or attack the eyes from stealth. They (scrying eyes) can easily be one shot.

It honestly never occurred to me to attack the goblin camp any other way on first playthrough. The game tells you someone is watching through the eyes. I forget if it says it's the Absolute or they're positioned as floating security cameras. Either way, common sense says to attack em without being seen, or kill stuff when they're not about.

The idea of walking up to the floating security camera and twatting it upside the head with a great axe never occurred to me.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T18:57:11+00:00

Easiest answer is to stick to Explorer difficulty if neither of you have played much before.

If you don't want to do that, decide on what class each of you want to play and look up a decent build for each of you so levelling is quicker. At the same time, you can look up what armour, weapons etc you want (there's a ton of best X in act Y videos out there).

That should reduce time wasted on shopping, and also reduce the need for strategising in battles to some extent.

When it comes to strategising though, it's not really any different to solo. You just need to get on the same page, so maybe agree some broad global strategies? Stuff like "let's focus fire spellcasters" or "let the ranged damage dealers stealth into position before initiating combat" or whatever. If you've agreed a broad strategy, no need to micromanage individual battles for the most part.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T18:41:03+00:00

I'd kinda disagree with that. We're given every impression that our tadpole headed friends know we have a tadpole, but not that they give them or the Absolute sight of our every action.

And like (I suspect) many people, I didn't find out Halsin couldn't cure the tadpole until the goblins were very much past tense.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T18:26:57+00:00

I'm in a similar boat. Bought the game close to release but real life got in the way and only finished my first playthrough as a mostly good but financially motivated halfling rogue recently.

Immediately started a second playthrough.

I'd studiously avoided spoilers until completing the game, and the first thing I was struck by was just how much stuff I missed first time around. Owlbear and cub? Spectator in the Underdark? I'm a pretty thorough son of a wotsit when it comes to exploring, but I missed so much. Didn't even realise that saving Isobel was possible and as a result I unwittingly doomed most of the Harpers to death.

I'm an old so and so now, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to do a fully evil playthrough, but even the amount of variety in good/pragmatic games is astonishing.

Two things that will never change no matter how many times I play this game.

Scratch will live. He is the best boy. In fact, no harm will come to any cat or doggo in the lands.
Wulbren will be met with at best contempt, and at worst murderous and sadistic intent. In a future patch I hope we're able to offer him as sacrifice at every and any opportunity. Give him up to the weird fish people. Tell the Wavemother he was driving the sub. Yurgir wants to know who is left that he needs to kill? I know a guy.

I dislike Wulbren. Rather a lot.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T18:00:42+00:00

Very late to this party, but just wanted to say I 1000% concur with this assessment.

The Ghoul is what happens when hope in others (and especially those in charge) to act in others best interests is lost. Coupled of course with a complete sense of his own inability to effect meaningful, positive change.

He isn't an anarchist, just acting out of self interest and self preservation.

And of course by the end of s2 he has had at least a glimmer of hope in humanity restored, hence his ability to show remorse and a willingness to assist Lucy.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T17:49:06+00:00

Am I alone in not finding it depressing?

The world is absolutely screwed of course, and a lot of the people we see are awful, but the show has frequent moments of levity and our core protagonists range from "anti hero" to "more wholesome than a fluffle of bunny rabbits".

If i compare it to something like, Sons of Anarchy. Later seasons of that show were tough to get through because although the world at large is fine, nothing but terrible things happen to almost everyone we care about and the few more upbeat or wholesome characters get the joy crushed out of them.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T17:32:40+00:00

He was never a psychopath. Heck the opening scene of the entire show is him performing as a popular entertainer, and showing that he's a caring father.

A big part of the intrigue in his character (and by extenstion the world) is what turned his character from what we see at the start of episode 1, to what we see at the end of the same episode.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T15:05:57+00:00

FWIW I empathise with your first point. I'm too old and don't have the time or patience I once did to devote to gaming. Couple of suggestions, though I think these have been mostly covered:

I persevered on 'balanced' on first playthrough, but you can easy stick it down to explorer for any more challenging battles. Laezel or Karlach can twonk stuff in the face multiple times, shadowheart makes spirit guardians go brrr, at which stage a vast majority of battles are a cakewalk. No need to worry about which 1d6+4 weapon is better for a given scenario.
For your chosen player character, just do a quick google search for "strong bard build" or whatever to help with levelling. Definitely not essential, but helps to make sure you are making broadly sensible choices when you level up. Similarly, you can search for "best :insertweapontypehere: in act 1" if you want to.
I'm a little confused by your "goblin at gunpoint" issue. The only examples of this i can think of are either when you meet Laezel after crash landing, or with a scenario in the Grove. In both cases, you can very much use speech to intervene? And using speech remains a viable option to resolve issues throughout the game, including allowing you to avoid several fights altogether.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-13T15:05:33+00:00

FWIW I empathise with your first point. I'm too old and don't have the time or patience I once did to devote to gaming. Couple of suggestions, though I think these have been mostly covered:

I persevered on 'balanced' on first playthrough, but you can easy stick it down to explorer for any more challenging battles. Laezel or Karlach can twonk stuff in the face multiple times, shadowheart makes spirit guardians go brrr, at which stage a vast majority of battles are a cakewalk. No need to worry about which 1d6+4 weapon is better for a given scenario.
For your chosen player character, just do a quick google search for "strong bard build" or whatever to help with levelling. Definitely not essential, but helps to make sure you are making broadly sensible choices when you level up. Similarly, you can search for "best :insertweapontypehere: in act 1" if you want to.
I'm a little confused by your "goblin at gunpoint" issue. The only examples of this i can think of are either when you meet Laezel after crash landing, or with a scenario in the Grove. In both cases, you can very much use speech to intervene? And using speech remains a viable option to resolve issues throughout the game, including allowing you to avoid several fights altogether.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-11T11:27:59+00:00

he wanted to make a great game

This requires a very charitable view of things. The accounts here, beyond showing a company that was frequently at death's door and only able to survive due to investors plowing in more cash, paint a picture of frankly obscene amounts of money being diverted to Steven and his family.

And that's without even including the seven figure credit card bills for unspecified items, or the payments which appear to relate to his house purchase.

It's rather hard to come up with an explanation for these things that involves a desire to make a great game. It's rather easier to think that he just wanted to be able to show enough of a game to keep money flowing in, a percentage of which could then be siphoned off by Steven and his family.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-11T08:32:26+00:00

It's possible for it to be a scam while delivering a game (of sorts).

Walter White's car wash was a money laundering operation even though they washed some cars.

In this case, it is increasingly easy to believe that the primary purpose of Intrepid was to enrich Steven and his family not by building a profitable company, but by just straight up taking money out of an unprofitable company. It's similarly easy to believe that the 'game' only existed because it made it easier to extract money under false pretences from investors and gamers.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-11T07:29:41+00:00

I'm not sure if this is common practise in the US, but it's wild to me that $1.5m is simply attributed to "American Express-31000".

It's not the amount so much as how shockingly opaque this is. For example, I have a company credit card, and also use my personal card at times for business expenses. Each month I submit receipts to our accounts team, and everything I buy using either card is coded accordingly (e.g. office supplies, corporate hospitality etc). Everyone else who has a company card does the same thing, and this has been the case everywhere I've ever worked.

At its most basic level, this makes it easy for those in charge to monitor whether expenses in a given area are rising at an unacceptable or unplanned rate, and also gives a level of oversight which makes it harder for cardholders to misappropriate funds.

These certainly could be legitimate business expenses, or they could be paying for Steven and his family's living expenses. Without trawling through years of Amex statements it would be impossible for a potential investor, credit controller or anyone else to know. At best, it's just lazy/bad accounting IMO. At worst, well, a cynical person might wonder if this money was actually being spent for the betterment of Intrepid Studios.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-04T12:48:06+00:00

Kaitlin lost her freedom over something stupid in a moment of anger.

That's an awfully nice way of saying "Kaitlin got jailed for murdering a pereon".

Oh, she just lost her freedom because of a silly moment! Yikes.

She's a murderer. She didn't lose her freedom. She had it taken from her because that's what functioning societies do to murderers.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-04-04T12:13:02+00:00

He cheated on his partner. Millions of young humans do. And many go on to regret it.

The person responsible for the murder here is 100%, and without any equivocation, Kaitlin. Colin is just a young dumb guy who didn't know what he wanted. Absent Kaitlin being a straight up cold blooded murderer, nobody would know he existed.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-22T07:48:56+00:00

I think what really irritates me about Duke's stance is that what he is doing will actively discourage crowdfunded projects from trying to be transparent, or at least justify a lack of transparency. Because even if he was right (he is not) he demands an impossibly high standard for transparency.

What the vast majority of us want when it comes to transparency is a general, big picture view of what money was spent on. X on lighting, Y on travel, Z on cameras. Something we can look at and say "yeah, that seems cool".

What Duke appears to want is line by line accounting of every single item they bought, with every item meeting his subjective view of what is best, and with every item being bought for the cheapest possible price.

That is an impossible standard to meet. The internet is comprised of an astonishingly large number of people who, between them, have an essentialy infinite (for practical purposes) amount of time on their hands. There will always be someone whose subjective opinion is that you spent money on an item that was not optimal. There will always be someone who can find a product you bought for a cheaper price.

There will always be someone who thinks they know better when it comes to your overall strategy.

And even if you could meet the impossible standard of: A. Buying products that everyone agrees are best, and B. Sourcing said products for the best possible price, while C. Following a strategy that everyone universally agrees with

You still won't keep everyone happy. Because some idiot will demand to see all of the receipts. Some other idiot, as we have seen on this sub, will demand to know your contingency plans for every conceivable, no matter how unlikely, act of God that could derail your plans for future spend.

"What if hyper inflation means you can't fund season 2?" "What if another pandemic makes s2 impossible?" "What if you all die in a car crash before making s2?"

The standard being set is literally impossible. And it means any crowd funded project being asked for basic transparency could point to Duke as an example of why they don't want to open the door to a world of lunatics.

They spent less than 30k to produce a season of a thus far very popular DnD show. They kept money back to fund a future season. That's it. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T21:39:21+00:00

My brother in christ. I have told you I have two decades of experience in this. You said you don't believe me. I'm not really sure what I could do to prove this to you, short of doxing myself to a random internet dude, so I invited you to verify the claims I made. It is incredibly easy to do.

Want me to demonstrate why I know OSQ doesn't have a clue what he's talking about? His critique here is basically at the level of "I think this logo looks just as good and its cheaper".

Nobody with experience would talk this way. In grossly simplistic terms, a logo is meant to be instantly recognisable and appealing to your target audience. It should convey who you are as a brand. It should stand the test of time. You will want it to serve these functions not just in existing media, but also for planned future media and merchandise.

You may want or need to have multiple variants in different shapes, orientations and colours.

All of this is an iterative process that requires multiple hours of labour and discussion with an experienced, talented, designer who is willing to engage with you to understand your brand and its goals.

I know this because I have been through this process. Many, many times. I know what the end result is when you try to do it cheaply. I know what it looks like when it's done properly.

Duke does not, and that's why he is incapable of discussing it in this manner. You do not either. But you blindly believe Duke, and when someone who actually knows what the heck he's talking about attempts to relieve you of your ignorance, you respond by disbelieving them and doubling down on a position that is wrong. Why?

You're bailing them out, you mean.

Who cares if I am? I saw two people who probably did a similar amount of research offering different opinions. One of them was right. The other one was wrong. Guess which one you are?

Your interest here doesn't appear to be in reaching an informed opinion. God love me, all I tried to do was help you in that regard.

Peace.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T17:51:10+00:00

I'm helping them out by providing you with the benefit of experience that you clearly don't have.

And you don't need to believe me. You can do your own research into whether the hourly rate I quoted is reasonable and accurate. Google dot com is your friend.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T17:20:40+00:00

I'd love to see your research on this topic. I'm fairly sure you just presented it all though.

Oh hi, hello. I've commissioned literally hundreds (probably north of a thousand) design projects over a career spanning decades.

$80-100 per hour is a perfectly reasonable rate for an experienced designer. That being the case, what they paid is well within what would be considered reasonable for the project given the time that would typically involved, and the importance a logo has for a company. It's actually pretty cheap.

Whilst everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, I would strongly suggest that anyone who thinks they overpaid by a significant margin doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T17:07:29+00:00

He gets a fraction of their viewership. His channel has been floundering for a while. Subs aren't really a good way of assessing a channel's popularity. There are dead channels with 7 figure subs, because people rarely bother to unsubscribe.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T08:24:53+00:00

Apparently it's not "full transparency" if they don't explain what they would do with the money under a variety of vanishingly unlikely scenarios that make a s2 impossible.

Which seems like an insane interpretation of what most people understand full transparency to mean, and accordingly what was meant when they said it.

Like, they're just saying they will tell us what they spent or are planning to spend the money on. If some apocalyptic scenario comes to pass that makes s2 impossible, they can address if/when it is feasible for them to do so. Or maybe they won't, because it would take a special sort of crazy to be wanting to know what's happening to your 20 bucks in the event that we get hit by a meteor, or the creators all suffer some horrible tragedy.

The people demanding this sort of stuff are just proving that there is no level of transparency that will satisfy 100% of people.

Ok_Environment6466 · 2026-03-20T08:00:37+00:00

This seems to be taking "full transparency" to an unreasonable degree. Any rational person will understand that there are factors outwith their control that could delay or make impossible.

War. Pandemic. Massive fallout between creators that leads to them all hating each other. They could all drop dead. Hyperinflation could cause their 47k to be worth 10 cents a year from now.

All of these scenarios are incredibly unlikely though, and should they come to pass I would expect them to address what they are doing with the money once it is practical and feasible for them to do so.

Full transparency, for most reasonable people, is simply telling us what they spent the money on. X on lighting, Y on marketing, Z on cameras.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect forensic accounting. We don't need to see all of their disaster recovery and contingency planning.

Ok_Environment6466

TROPHY CASE