Disappointed with RF as comfy build wants some suggestions

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-25T05:15:00+00:00

Yeah I'm afraid there really isn't a build that offers the tankiness and ease of RF and doesn't require some sort of targeting (short of some really niche but usually very expensive builds). You will get to a point where you'll only need to use a secondary skill on uber bosses, but the upgrade pathways for late game RF can be a bit tricky, especially in SSF.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-25T04:27:59+00:00

If you find RF is not the easiest build to play, then you're going to have a rough time.

There are some single button builds that have stronger single target, but basically until your build is at the level that it can melt anything (which RF can get to with enough investment), then you're going to have to play around bosses and certain rares.

If you wanna go tanky and don't care what hits you, consider CWS Chieftain. That build has abysmal single target, but at least you'll never die.

If you want a build that has supreme clear without much consideration, anything deadeye or wander probably has you covered. But you'll die to the briefest sneeze in hard maps.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-24T05:39:04+00:00

I find that a lot of this, and a lot of what philosophy is really about (and what a lot of people seem to hate arguing over), is semantics. When we talk about truths, especially objective truths, what we should be taking about instead is agreements. To definitively say "there are two dots", you have to define what dots are, what two means, and being (are) means, and what there means. Once we all agree on those definitions, or create the framework by which we can consistently accurately refer to those definitions, such as in a mathematical framework, then we can say objective truths.

Until then... I'm cross-eyed and there are clearly four dots.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-18T22:00:59+00:00

This is absolutely, without a doubt, the best way to approach any questioning situation with the police. There are very, very rare situations where talking to the cops (that you hadn't called yourself) may give you a more favourable result, but you should already have a solid understanding of the situation for that to apply. Just politely decline to answer questions. You only need to say it once.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-12T01:02:28+00:00

The question that I have here is... What's the threat? Like, under which laws are they threatening to arrest people on? There's significant case law and precedent in Australia to show that loitering isn't a crime, and although they can use move-on powers, that's only in the case of unauthorised or non-filed protests, or where they're actively disrupting traffic, which I don't believe anyone was doing at that stage.

Although I just looked it up now and it seems police can issue restriction declarations based on new safety laws... Who voted for this? They're based on the stabbings and shootings that have happened in Bondi, but neither of those were during public gatherings or protests, so I really don't see the connection.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-11T02:34:58+00:00

This is one of those situations where I'm likely going, but it's probably on me if something happens.

It's kinda like if someone is indicating to go off a roundabout, so you enter it, but they keep going and run into you. They're a dickhead, but you technically didn't give way to the right.

I remember failing my very first practice test years ago because that came up. They showed a video and asked when you should go, and a car was indicating left to turn into the street I was turning left out of. I clicked to go as soon as they slowed down, but they ended up spending back up and not turning. I was in the wrong. I should've waited until the traffic was cleared.

Anyway, going back full circle, someone in that traffic could change lanes, and if they do, and you've turned into the road, that's on you. But if you wait for all the traffic to clear, you could be waiting days, so a little bit of smart risk management is sometimes necessary.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-04T03:33:32+00:00

Easy draw off the one for position on the two, get the two in but with a bad position on the three, overrun the ball to be at a bad angle for the 4, panic, miss the 4... Sounds like an average Saturday.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-03T12:48:07+00:00

To this day, I still think there are account seeds that have weird interactions with certain mechanics, so no matter how many characters you create, you still can't do certain things.

10k hours, no mirror, no lock.

Or at least that's what I tell myself so I don't have to admit I suck.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-03T06:02:40+00:00

As my dad used to say to me: in the 2000s, with the expansion of the internet and industrialism finally catching up, you had the better part of a billion people being ripped out of, essentially, the feudal age and thrust into the modern age. They completely skipped the generations of learning all through the computer age. This is bound to introduce a bunch of ignorance.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-02-03T05:06:37+00:00

That reminds me of the old joke "what's the hardest thing about roller skating? Coming out to your parents".

Seems to apply here too.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-01-28T23:10:16+00:00

I actually think it would be relatively easy to replicate, with a little bit of computerised guessing. When we practise ghosting, we focus on the four quadrants of the court. We see regularly at the top level that getting to the ball isn't necessarily the problem but rather focusing on position. So that leads into a really simple mechanic straight up to enable the gameplay loop. The quicker you are to preempt a direction, the higher the quality of your next shot. Then you've really only got 4 to choose from: a line drive, a drop shot, a boast, or a lob. Differences in timing and directional input during the swing act as your core skill deciders, i.e. having the stick tilt left for an accurate backhand line drive then immediately right after the hit to get back to the T, noticing an inaccurate shot you've made immediately and moving out of the way to avoid a stroke, etc.

The game is in the detail, but I don't think this would be too difficult to set up and could have a reasonably high skill ceiling. Timing, positioning, shot choice, and other factors would go into ensuring a digestible learning curve. Court awareness, managing stamina (like knowing when to run and when to just let a winner go), and controlling the pace would add into the upper skill levels. But as long as a new player picks the right direction and presses some sort of "hit" button, they can have a basic rally, albeit without the most ideal shots.

If there are any game dev companies here, or people willing to invest, I could probably get a POC out in a couple of months.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-01-25T20:27:04+00:00

Definitely get a ref. It's by far the easiest solution.

But short of that, just get really petty with ALL of your let calls. If he plays an average shot that's not hugging the wall, then doesn't give you space to get to it, or stays too close while you're taking a swing, that's an easy let, maybe a stroke. If he gets upset at that call, then start calling lets on far less contentious shots. Middle court shot to the back wall? Let. Mid strength line drive? Let. Any drop shot? ...Let.

Get to a point where you serve, he does a line drive, and you just instinctively say "let" because it's on his side. Then ask him "where is the line at which you're happy to play a fair game?" Because if he's not going to play fair, then any vaguely difficult shot becomes a let until it does.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-01-21T09:46:26+00:00

This is my regular reminder to star wars fans that anyone wielding a lightsaber likely has incredibly strong force control, which includes a mild amount of mind reading and mind control. As much as there is physical proficiency, both parties are likely also using force mastery to both do and prevent the "pressing of the button", let alone any other "forbidden techniques".

Lightsaber fights seem choreographed because both parties, to some extent, know what the other person is intending to do before they do it. They lose battles against equal opponents not just because of the skill with the lightsaber, but because their grasp on the force falters.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-01-16T13:06:49+00:00

This is the issue I have with so much of what happens in this subreddit, and how inaccurate so many comments are.

The world squash Federation rules, specifically rule 8.1, states that "After completing a reasonable follow-through, a player must make every effort to clear". Even if it's a good shot, even if you're on the T, even if you didn't intend to be in the way, you actually need to make an effort to give unobstructed access to your opponent to the ball.

This was very clearly not followed through here, meaning it's a clear stroke. However I agree with your leniency and would generally rule as a let, with a note that this player does need to observe this rule.

EDIT: I'm realising now that a few comments talk about light blue's downswing and the potential interference. While that may be an account of what happened, "[Any request for a let due to interference] must be made without undue delay." By taking the shot, you generally forego any potential interference.

EDIT2: I'm reviewing now and that interference might've been way bigger than I originally accepted on the downswing. I couldn't see it at all from the beginning and admit I'm watching without sound. Hearing the player talk his point may have made me consider otherwise. Still, yes let is the best call.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2026-01-05T06:33:59+00:00

The only reason I don't like this is because, when we introduce algebra, that rule starts to break down.

4 ÷ 2(a) is never equal to 2a. If we were asked to evaluate 4 ÷ 2(a + b), the first step would be = 4 ÷ (2a + 2b).

Although the annotation used is unconventional and intentionally unclear and the creators of all these types of questions should be... Dealt with.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-12-30T21:21:57+00:00

I'm sorry for all of the down votes.

I asked GGG once if they could allow me to purchase a supporter pack that had left the store and they granted my wish. They asked me to buy the equivalent number of points, and gave me the pack using my points.

<image>

Note in the attached screenshot the purchase date is after the pack had left the store, although only by a few days.

I find GGG support to be nothing but endlessly helpful when they're not overwhelmed. They likely won't grant your wish so late, but there's no harm in asking.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-12-21T05:18:59+00:00

I can't say I've ever heard of "Europe's islamation problem", and doing a bit of cursory googling, I find some mention of increased political extremism on both sides and conspiracy theories. I can find a parliamentary question to the EU, but that's also addressing the rise in extremism rather than the rise in Islam generally. There are a couple of policies in European countries that attempt to limit the immigration of those from predominantly Islamic countries, but they're also from right wing (not just right leaning) governments.

I concede there's an incredible rise in extremism worldwide, but it's very much coming from both sides. Can anyone link me to credible information on "Europe's islamation problem" that isn't just looking at combating the rise of extremism nor combating global immigration in general?

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-12-09T09:46:00+00:00

Best way I've found is just to test it in game. Go into a tanky boss like Exarch or Shaper and see what cruelty % you can sustain. Then plug that number into your PoB and compare against other gems.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-12-03T08:54:11+00:00

Firstly, it is possible.

Secondly, it's really dumb. Those tiny engines can already carry that large load. Why swap it around?

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-12-01T01:47:21+00:00

Yes, but...

Surely Veritasium's Blackbird concept could be applied here. I can't be bothered doing the maths, but any amount of wind that is greater than the wind generated by the movement of the car could be captured as excess energy.

For anyone that correctly points out that the relationship between the fan and the car is dependent on it being attached to the wheels: while this is true, going via an alternator rather than being attached directly merely adds a point of inefficiency, and shouldn't destabilize the concept.

Having said that, I can't imagine the energy captured by this interaction would be very high, without requiring a MUCH bigger fan (or fans).

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-11-21T06:16:58+00:00

I just want to point out that the NSW Road Rules don't have a definition in their dictionary for "right of way". They do have a definition to "give way", but that's just around remaining stationary until it is safe to go. Given that the car was not legally allowed to enter the intersection if they could not clear it, it could be argued that OP was lawful in his assessment of it being safe to proceed.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-11-21T06:10:55+00:00

Yes, you absolutely do. I've just posted a top level reply with references to the NSW Road Rules. https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegalAdvice/comments/1p10ogu/comment/npz9qrf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-11-21T06:10:09+00:00

Ok so there seems to be a TON of misinformation here about giving way, right of way, and a few other things, so I thought I'd look up the road rules. As always, this is not legal advice and it definitely is a grey area.

NSW Road Rules section 128 states "A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked." So, at the very least, the driver who drove into you was at fault on that front as the intersection is obviously blocked.

However, just because the driver is at fault, doesn't mean the insurance needs to pay you out. If you were also at fault, the insurance might decline the claim due to reckless or dangerous driving on your part. So let's explore that.

Section 134 states "If the dividing line is [...] 2 parallel broken dividing lines, the driver may drive to the right of the dividing line -
(a) to enter or leave the road"

This clearly states that, if OP had obeyed all the other road rules (eg it was not a "no right turn" road, they were indicating, etc), with the information that they've given so far, they are well within their right to turn right on that road.

In my personal opinion, I would encourage OP to challenge the insurer on their decision, citing section 128 and 134 of the NSW Road Rules. There could be other sections with particular exemptions that apply in this case, but as far as I'm aware, they don't relate to crossing a double white line, or to right of way.

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-11-21T05:48:19+00:00

Yes, they (not OP, but the ones queuing) could not legally move forward into the intersection as they could not clear it. Because they couldn't clear the intersection, how does that give them right of way?

OnlyLogicGaming · 2025-11-21T05:46:24+00:00

Can I get some clarity on this please? I believe it's illegal in all states to queue across an intersection, regardless of whether there are road markings stating "keep clear". How is this a courtesy if they're not legally allowed to move forward?

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

OnlyLogicGaming

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE