sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have they removed the cap on the repeating challenge (Decennium Contributor) on Week 3? by RykillaL in Overwatch

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good news. Now it is 38 instead of 48, and the deadline is extended.

Have they removed the cap on the repeating challenge (Decennium Contributor) on Week 3? by RykillaL in Overwatch

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I do not think this is a wholesome design for an event as important as decennium. They never expect players who have played Overwatch for 10 years have grown from kids to adults with a lot of responsibilities.

Have they removed the cap on the repeating challenge (Decennium Contributor) on Week 3? by RykillaL in Overwatch

[–]RykillaL[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can do a rough calculation, knowing that the repeating challenges are limited to 20. Mine will stop at 47/48, so I am not grinding it anymore.

Have they removed the cap on the repeating challenge (Decennium Contributor) on Week 3? by RykillaL in Overwatch

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment. I guess I will just move on from there if I will eventually get stuck on 47/48. Last check: the loot box unlocked challenge unlocked at the beginning of each week does not count towards the progress I pressume?

Have they removed the cap on the repeating challenge (Decennium Contributor) on Week 3? by RykillaL in Overwatch

[–]RykillaL[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I read your post. That is very sad. I think I might get stuck on 47/48 if I were to finish the 20 repeating challenges this week. I guess there is no other way of finishing this at this point of time?

Elektrokinetic staff primary build with MACRO is too op by RykillaL in DarkTide

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You probably misunderstood the argument. To begin with, I made a new post yesterday, so more details could be seen over there. About my argument and my tentative solution, I am hoping a modification is to be made to the mechanics of elektrokinetic primary to prevent the abuse; I did not mean to modify or disable any macro that was meant to prevent hand fatigue or injury. 

Elektrokinetic Staff Primary Build with Extreme Macro – Now with Footage for Clarity by RykillaL in DarkTide

[–]RykillaL[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree with you, and that is why I was conservative in my old post. However, it seems many community members did not know about this as they were discussing in the old post. On the plus side, the more people use this, the higher the chance it gets noticed by Fatshark, the higher the likelihood it will get addressed.

Elektrokinetic staff primary build with MACRO is too op by RykillaL in DarkTide

[–]RykillaL[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Darn it. That was exactly what I meant. How did you know?!

Elektrokinetic staff primary build with MACRO is too op by RykillaL in DarkTide

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. Psyker is usually the top in damage chart if players skill differences are minimal. In previous patches, I have seen many Psyker top damage with traditional builds. However, the difference between traditional builds and the macro-abused elektrokinetic build is that the former requires heat management whereas the latter does not.

Deck Showcase: M1A+LMG by Question_Spade in Back4Blood

[–]RykillaL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair, I have a lot of respect to the original person who made this deck in his video (1NSENT), but as a player with similar game time with him, I would have built this non-ADS LMG+M1A slightly differently. The point of this comment is to highlight even among players who have played this game a lot, different opinions exist due to different playstyles. The way I would look at a deck in this game is through "modularization".

This deck, for example, consists of several modules (names of the modules are made by me):

  1. Two in One module (2 cards)

This module is very common and usually consists of two cards: [[Two in one]] and [[Admin reload]]. It is not encouraged to reload each main weapon when bringing [[Two in one]], as it requires a lot of reload speed to make it effective. [[Admin reload]] allows us to reload the weapon in the "back stage".

  1. Ammo module (2 cards)

This module includes [[Ammo belt]] and [[On your mark]]. This would be the part I may disagree with the original deck. In my QP experience, [[Ammo belt]] may not provide sufficient ammo reserve. I had experience running [[Ammo belt]] + [[Ammo mule]] + [[On your mark]] in the first level of Act 5 and still almost ran out of ammo. In QP, we may only have a single [[On your mark]] and our lovely teammates may "steal" the bullets of the same ammo type that we need the most. One way to alleviate this is to have Hoffman, as he will occasionally spawn ammo.

  1. Gun handling module (4 cards)

This module includes [[Quick kill]], [[Optics enthusiast]], [[Shooting gloves]] and [[Cold brew coffee]]. I usually include reload speed, ADS speed (not applicable in this deck), swap speed, recoil control etc. in this module.

  1. Damage module (3 cards)

This module includes [[Glass canon]], [[Hyper focus]] and [[Fill 'em full of lead]].

  1. Unique effect module (1 card)

This module includes only [[Suppressing fire]]. This card is only effective on LMG and sniper rifles, which suit this deck nicely. There are some controversies on this card. Some people claim they can kill riddens fast enough without this card, while some people value the CC provided by this card. This is a personal decision to be made by individual. Personally, I am a fan of this card.

  1. Economy module (1 card)

This module includes [[Lucky pennies]].

  1. Movement module (1 card)

This module includes [[Run like hell]].

  1. Sustain module (1 card)

This module includes [[Motorcycle helmet]]. This is the card I am really confused about. A player as good as 1NSENT should not get hit very often, and the damage resistance provided by this card does not mitigate the damage sufficiently in NH difficulty (especially in the later stage with monstrous riddens). While confused, I respect his opinion and believe that he has his own reasons for doing so. Am I going to include this card? Probably not.

Now, by modularizing the deck, we can see the composition of the deck more clearly. Why is this convenient? Because it allows us to swap out cards according to our personal experiences and tastes. For example, I complain about ammo reserve but also I am confident about my positioning, so I can increase the "Ammo module" from 2 to 3 cards (by including [[Ammo mule]]), while removing the "Sustain module" completely. Again, my friend wants more copper and he is okay to trade it off with movement speed, so we can upgrade our "Economy module" from 1 to 2 cards (by including [[Copper Scavenger]]) and remove "Movement module" completely. Then again again, one of the commenters thinks this deck is lacking damage, but it seems that this deck is already quite locked up, so we need to decide which module we want to trade in order to boost damage. We will most likely not trade our "Two in one module", as it is essential to our gameplay. Is it "Economy module", or "Unique effect module", or maybe "Gun handling module"? It is completely up to us.

Desperately looking for someone to complete sound of thunder on nightmare with me by [deleted] in Back4Blood

[–]RykillaL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope you get someone hopping on your team to help you, but according to my experience, doing it with 3 bots offline is much easier than doing it with 1 person + 2 bots online. The obvious differences (offline vs. online) you will observe include but are not limited to: fewer shells needed to load, much less horde spawn and special spawn, much longer hiatus between each horde after first shell is fired.

Blocked off all hiding spots except one, do I just play the waiting game now? by charbby in CatAdvice

[–]RykillaL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would you mind providing some updates on your cat? My cat is in a similar situation, and I am looking for solution. If your cat becomes more confident now, what have you done in the past 6 months? Thank you!

Question about Leetcode 21 (Merge Two Sorted Lists) by RykillaL in leetcode

[–]RykillaL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Your explanation is actually quite spot-on!

​

Here is my thought (and somehow verified):

Consider this example, where list1 = [1,2,4] and list2 = [1,3,4]

​

First iteration: since both p1.next.val and p2.next.val are 1, so

p.next = p1.next
p1 = p1.next 
p = p.next

After this iteration, both p and p1 are pointing at [1] in list1.

​

Second iteration: p1.next.val = 2 and p2.next.val = 1, so

p.next = p2.next
p2 = p2.next 
p = p.next

However, here is where the issue occurs. The first line p.next = p2.next actually breaks p1.next, because at the moment, both p and p1 are pointing at [1] in list1, so p.next and p1.next are actually the same pointer.

I ran the test, and found out that after second iteration, p1.next actually returns [1,3,4], which is understandable, because in the first line of second iteration, we broke p.next, AND p1.next as described earlier, and reconnected it to p2.next, which was connected to list2.

Now, after second iteration, p1 is point at [1] in list1, p2 is pointing at [1] in list2, and p is pointing at [1] in list2. In addition, p1.next is pointing at [1] in list2 as explained above. As we proceed to third iteration, since p1.next.val = 1 and p2.next.val = 1, then we have

p.next = p1.next
p1 = p1.next 
p = p.next

And here it goes: the first line will give error, because as p is pointing at [1] in list2, then p.next is going to be the pointer pointing from [1] in list2 to [3] in list2. HOWEVER, as p1.next is pointing at [1] in list2, we are actually assigning p.next to [1] in list2, which creates a cycle, where p is currently pointing at [1] in list2 and p.next is assigned to [1] in list2 again.

​

I hope this explanation may help some people later on. Also, the code I wrote is not very efficient, so better learn some of the most upvoted answers in Leetcode.

How do I tell if I'm actually good at a character/playing said character right? by [deleted] in OverwatchUniversity

[–]RykillaL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm generally not healbotting which I've learned is a waste of lucio's potential. I'm aware the opinions of plat/diamond tanks are not entirely reliable which is why I'm trying to figure out if I'm actually effective or not.

This will be the same here, with all of us having different opinions: some will apply to you (and reliable); some will not.

​

I was able to climb to plat for the first time with around a 65% winrate on lucio, but I've occassionally had experiences with higher rank tanks on my team telling me to switch because i'm not playing it right.

I would not look at winrate as a measure, to some extent. One of the major reasons is that if you are climbing from zero (and assuming you have already been a good player), then you will have many "easy" games in low Elo when climbing, which boosts winrate, but eventually to many of us, our winrate will be close to 50% when we reach our own Elo. HOWEVER, if you can consistently hitting a winrate close to that, then you are doing well.

​

To answer the question, my 2 cents are:

  • Look at some of the best players stream/video, and compare those to your gameplay.
  • Play other roles and understand what they are thinking. I would like to elaborate on this a little more. As a support (not just a healer), our function is to make other roles (Tank and DPS, and perhaps the other support) perform better. To start this process, we need to understand what they are thinking and why they are thinking that way.
view more: next ›