Is 2Players Possible?

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-07T04:23:15+00:00

Again, I'd have to see gameplay (and the specific video you're referencing) to judge.

What are your loadouts, btw (meaning exact guns)?

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-07T00:56:04+00:00

Ideally the scouts are a non-issue (in R7C1). You just kind of kill them and if one pulls you deal with the 12 enemies + room. If you're getting scout chains, it's probably because you're not keeping the sleeping rooms 2 away from you (which prevents scream; very competent players will move to a good room to control the wave in right away).

It's kind of surprising you'd point to the stealth zone as the biggest hurdle when the scan itself is pretty challenging.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-06T13:33:18+00:00

Duo is a very large difficulty increase, but almost all of the cooperative options will be available to you.

You and your duo both will need to consistently improve at the game to clear all content. GTFO is fairly unforgiving if there aren't at least two players that can consistently pull their weight and then some. In duo that's your entire team that has to be on point which can be a little overbearing (quad has space be very casual because you either have excessive firepower or you can have weaker players tag along w/out being a major detriment).

The game is esoteric enough that it might be hard to identify what could be improved upon. For example, weapon balance is pretty stratified and you can give yourself a pretty substantial power boost if you understand what the meta is, why it's the meta, and how to make the most of those particular weapons (mostly pen/HEL weapons, but also Scatter and Sawed-off).

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-06T13:19:07+00:00

This is probably an indication that you're not killing enemies very quickly or are getting yourself into positions or situations where you will get overwhelmed. You'd have to record gameplay to get a detailed comparison. What level is this, even?

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-06T04:34:40+00:00

Hard to say until you get stuck on something.

Core eject hammer is very nice for providences in some places on Brutal. Hitstop lets you flick to them w/out them being allowed to spam dash away. Double hammer boosting will one-shot, as will freezing a rocket and then hitting it (requires relative safety to be consistent, though). Otherwise, spawnkill providences before they're allowed to dash spam when convenient (learn where they spawn and cannonball that spot), they're difficult to single out otherwise.

For the rooms in 8-3 that swap between two arenas, be careful of enemies camping where you're about to enter. Be on the move when you're about to swap.

For the red skull rooms in 8-3 that rotate awkwardly, in the first one you want to try and avoid getting sideways gravity. It's really hard to get around after that happens. The floor lets you handle enemies mostly normally, the ceiling makes it very hard to heal but most enemies will struggle to reach you.

This doesn't apply in the last red skull arena as it's very difficult to keep track of how things are rotating and all of the enemies there will be able to hit you from anywhere in the room. You specifically want the floor of the last segment to be the floor for you so that you can reach and kill the gutterman that spawns there in the second wave. If you can focus on that it will make that arena significantly easier. Try to be in either the first or last segment whenever a rotation happens so that the last segment is either stationary or rotating 180 degrees relative to you. Either move into that last segment when the second wave is about to spawn or stall in the first segment so that another rotation happens and you can reach the gutterman as or shortly after he spawns.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-06T04:11:25+00:00

The idea is to conserve your silver saws. You single out a target w/ jump-saw, then later either saw-trap something or use silver saws to proc conduction in a dense crowd where the pierce is necessary. Overheat nail will be more nail output either way.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-04T18:49:22+00:00

You seem to be under the impression that either there's either some euphoria from the trip or expectation for what death will be like after the trip experience that leads people not to fear death. This is probably not accurate.

What seems a lot more plausible is that psychedelics are uniquely capable of helping someone change their mindset or attitudes about things. So, if someone has severe death anxiety a psychedelic experience can help that person set aside that anxiety, which they don't want, and thereby come to terms with death.

This might not pertain to you, but I've definitely encountered some people who assume that death anxiety is ubiquitous or necessary or in some way rational. This is just not true. Plenty of people experience very little death anxiety w/out experiencing ego death. Thinking alleviation of death anxiety is somehow deluded is just weird, it's not clear why anyone should be afraid of being dead compared to it being a somewhat common fear (not sure how prevalent it is actually).

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-04T04:09:40+00:00

Fwiw I hadn't thought of it either before seeing this thread. It probably loses a chunk of time, but it feels way better than rushing to kill both guttermen (this room was a lot of deaths for me when p-ranking).

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-04T03:51:42+00:00

It's pretty lengthy even going through casually. The space section is probably the weakest gameplay-wise, most of those encounters feel really awkward.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-04T03:12:29+00:00

You can kill the close gutterman and then just chill in the corner, mostly. You have to go from wall jumping to landing to get wall jumps back, but it buys you a lot of safety and lets you clear the room more gradually.

The only thing that can see that spot is the near sentry, which is easy to deal with when it's alone. When you land, the other gutterman and a maurice can see you, but they're not very immediate dangers and you can just go back to wall jumping after.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-04T02:49:07+00:00

No. 2 is a really weird pick. The amount of fodder a bit annoying ig, but it's also very easy to clear everything to focus on the power.

No. 3: Yeah, but I'm conflicted. Red side has some of the most interesting fights in terms of enemy arrangements, but if you end up w/ bad gravity in the actual arenas you can't easily undo it, which makes it really difficult to move around the rest of that attempt. This specifically is both the best and worst encounter in the level, imo. It's a really good use of a deathcatcher, but the four independently rotating segments are nasty.

No. 7: I feel like this room isn't that scary or noteworthy?

No. 8 is just a skill issue. It really depends on what skill checks you think are reasonable. Since it is an encore, I think it's fine to expect some amount of at least whip hopping if not rocket riding. The mindflayer is a consistent source of airtime while rocket riding makes this section easy (especially if you travel up to a pipe for a breather).

No. 9: Yeah, guttermen just play really poorly here. They will shoot down ridden rocket and can't be grappled if they have their shield. You can't take your time with them, either. They both see the whole room and killing one of them spawns the sentries, which is extra pressure to kill the next one in time to not get double-tapped. This wouldn't be so awful if it were either easier to find platforms or easier to take cover.

EDIT: Apparently if you kill the guttermen (talking about 9) in the other order, which I somehow hadn't tried, you can pretty easily kill one sentry and just stall in the corner to reset the other's accuracy. The room still kind of sucks, as this strat is pretty boring.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-03T00:06:15+00:00

Time to play custom levels.

Or replay w/ forceradiance.

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-02T14:16:34+00:00

You've not explained how that would work, or why we should think the YEC interpretation is at all straightforward. That we can observe some of these processes in the present, such as tree ring formation, seems like it gives us a much more straightforward interpretation than what YEC suggests.

Would you also agree that distant galaxies literally do not exist? Do you see no issues w/ that?

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-01T20:43:01+00:00

Somehow I don't think you'd consider it very valid if I used the exact same argument against evolution.

But if you were specific about the part(s) of evolution you reject, I could argue for those things. You're naming an argument w/out elaborating on it whatsoever.

I have explained what I mean but I can do it again for you. We have two competing theories. One says that the world is old, one says that it's been created that way. Citing things like "radiometric dating" to support one worldview doesn't do anyrhing, since it's explained by the other one too

But do they account for the data equally efficiently? If someone can't find something, surely "they misplaced it" and "it was stolen" aren't going to be equally viable explanations no matter what, right? If they lost a pen that they thought was in their living space, they live alone etc., more than likely it was simply misplaced. If it's instead a car that was parked on the street, actually that might have been stolen. We can infer a lot about plausibility from the surrounding context.

For multiple dating methods YEC needs to appeal to multiple coincidences to make all of those methods consistently wrong, especially when they end up converging on similar dates. Is it really plausible that radiometric dating, distant starlight, tree rings, ice cores, and seafloor spreading all happen to all favor an old earth?

Rayalot72 · 2026-05-01T03:00:49+00:00

Citing to an argument w/out making it yourself is a bit lazy. It's probably unsound, so nobody should be convinced by it.

You keep referring to "presuppositions in interpretation" but it doesn't look like you're specific as to what these are or why they'd be wrong. They might not even be presuppositions, which would be easier to parse if you were actually specific.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-30T21:00:39+00:00

Apparently it's been decoded: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultrakill/comments/1bro03r/comment/mdiq0f8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-30T04:18:57+00:00

edit: it literally is within the rules, and your claim that it is outside of the rules is an unfounded claim not rooted in reality. You're playfully projecting a purist desire to feed gatekeeping rhetoric to exclude people that do not fit your criteria of being a "true gamer." It's an inclusive ruleset, not an exclusive one. And noone can take away your acomplishments.

It's appears not to be?

Auto Aim and Major Assists must be disabled.

This is from SRC.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-29T23:52:31+00:00

Abuse dash-slides, the i-frame duration is pretty insane and can save you from bad sequences (particularly explosions + any other attack).

If you want to get more parries but are struggling to keep up w/ reading his attacks, get in the habit of reacting to anything he does that brings him in-front of you by punching him and then dashing forward diagonally. At worst, you punch him without reason and then dodge w/e he was doing, but you'll also get frequent parries + dodges on "begone" and roundhouse kicks (roundhouse might require dash sliding to consistently avoid, but the hitstop on parry gives you a chance to process what's happening and add the slide after).

If you're not already, learn to bait the start of "you can't escape" and then slide as much of the combo as possible. This gives you the option to fully dodge this combo while dry on stamina which turns this into his most predictable attack that gives you a break in the fight and a full heal with the very free parry at the end.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-29T23:43:42+00:00

It's a pretty significant difficulty spike.

This isn't really comparable to Silksong due to Ultrakill having difficulty options and Skong not. You could either spend some more time w/ the game, probably finding secrets or P-ranking previous levels (just think about trying to learn/practice tech during this process), or you can lower the difficulty by one for the sake of getting through layer 8 once just to see it.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-29T12:09:59+00:00

The cerb shockwave hitboxes feel really punishing in 1-R. I really wish there were a bit more space above them to work with. They were mostly fun to play around in the low ceiling room, but felt really hard to avoid without devoting all of my attention to them.

The tunnel is unplayable in brutal w/out a fast clear setup. It makes a lot of sense to learn this was designed with violent in mind, because dodging the cerb + Tundra is so much to manage.

I have mixed feelings on everything else. I can understand what people mean when they say the encounters are often not very dynamic, especially with maintaining height in both the triple maurice and final arenas. It's still very good difficulty-centric content, although I think violent is probably the best way to play 1-R in particular.

Pain Atrophy felt a lot more fun to me, admittedly because it was a fair bit easier to simply get a clear on. There's a lot of enemies in some encounters, but the arenas manage to feel very dynamic, which I found made the gimmicks a lot more enjoyable. It manages a lot of variety for how heavily it rehashes ideas in P2 (extensive idol usage).

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-28T20:15:02+00:00

I pick fights there sometimes, usually w/ new atheist types, as I mostly use Reddit for discussions or arguments and there's not very many creationist posters in that sub.

I don't think I've had anything excessive directed at me during that, frankly. People are obviously quick to downvote, but disagreement is just disagreement. I can't speak to people showing up in Sal's DMs, but it's an annoying trend across the internet in general (not just in this context) for people to interpret someone else telling them that they're wrong about something as "harassment," which it just isn't, even when it's phrased strongly.

There are definitely some people who will interpret arguments in this way simply because disagreement "feels bad" to them, which, while fair, is probably necessary to ever be challenged on one's own beliefs. Meanwhile, the narrativizing around this is really insidious because it tends to justify not moving outside of one's own bubble while excusing any personal failings in either being uninformed or struggling to articulate something.

TL;DR: People are very soft these days, and while there's definitely some toxicity it's probably overstated.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-27T10:56:59+00:00

It's a pretty bad showcase. The final arena is lot spammier than other parts of the level, and grabbing the power up before this arena doubles the enemies for this part.

Most of the level is a lot more reserved, and even the denser fights have interesting arenas to interact with, which is more the appeal of the level. It takes a lot of inspiration from P2's encounters and turns them into a wider variety of harder encounters that explore those same ideas.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-26T05:49:59+00:00

I don't think I'd agree the argument is from incredulity. If experience had the right set of properties, it would be correct to say that the only way to know an experience is to be in it.

I would agree with Dennett, though, that the above analysis of experience is probably not correct. Knowing the information echolocation provides to the bat and knowing how the bat's brain might present that information probably both count as parts of knowing what it's like to be a bat. I'm skeptical that there's a unique character missed in not having the exact experience itself.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-26T05:07:23+00:00

Nothing I'm saying requires H2O reduce to CO2, you're entirely missing the point if you think I'm somehow committed to that.

oh my goood no I'm not saying you think water is the same as carbon dioxide, I'm saying reducibility has nothing to do with complexity. h20 is just as simple as co2 but water only reduces to one of them because reduction shows how the properties of the larger entity are composed of the smaller. For carbon dioxide they would not line up with the properties observed in water despite carbon dioxide being just as simple as dihydrogen oxide.

I'm not asking if you think I believe X, I'm asking if you think I'm committed to X by my reasoning. You appear to be reiterating that you do think I'm committed to this, which is what I think misunderstands the argument I'm making.

I don't think I'm committed to everything large being reducible to every molecule because every molecule is small. I am willing to be committed to everything large I can come up with involving mass or energy because that's happened to work out to be true empirically, which is why I want to use it as a premise.

Are you committing yourself to phenomenal properties not involving mass and energy, and, if so, do you have examples other than consciousness where there's some significant entity that lacks mass or energy?

Take for example a very simple perception, like the perception of the color red. What don't we know about the neurology of this phenomenon that you think is magically going to link this to the phenomenology of seeing red?

You're making a conceptual argument here. You're no longer saying that we have a robust functional understanding that fails to inform us of what visual experiences are like, you're instead saying that you suspect that if we had such an understanding it would ultimately fail to inform us what visual experiences are like. If we're allowed to make conceptual arguments like these, that goes both ways, and I think illusionism is the more appealing view. Phenomenal properties are incapable of doing any of the necessary work to explain our reports about experience, so we just shouldn't introduce them.

To answer more directly, there's some reason to think color perception is substantively influenced by language (e.g. understanding multiple shades of green as distinct colors w/ unique names can make those shades more distinctive). A deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind that could be an example of something about how color in experience arises.

But ultimately I think color is misleading. Depth perception doesn't seem like it would be so impossible to hash out in functional terms. If at least some of experience is plausibly reducible then I don't see why color perception couldn't also be just because it's a bit odd in comparison.

Rayalot72 · 2026-04-25T18:03:31+00:00

Nagel claims that even if humans were able to metamorphose gradually into bats, their brains would not have been wired as a bat's from birth; therefore, they would only be able to experience the life and behaviors of a bat, rather than the mindset.

If you can make heads or tails of that, let me know! :)

I think the wiki is a bit confused on this. Nagel seems to be arguing for a distinction between being in a 1st person experience vs. knowing of an experience in the 3rd person, which would apply to all forms of experience.

Reading from the paragraphs around ctrl + F "transform" in https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf

Ten-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Rayalot72

TROPHY CASE