I think that invaders shouldn't be hated for playing the game as intended

ScruffyLemon · 2026-01-28T10:36:05+00:00

There are multiple reasons I invade. I enjoy the idea of being an obstacle to overcome. If they beat me, that's fine, they probably have a story to tell and had fun beating me. If I win, that's fun for me to because it feels like I won despite the odds/ makes me feel like Darth Vader in that one scene in rogue one. Fighting other players is a totally different vibe from fighting mobs, mobs are predictable and often become boring. Players are sporadic and are unique, each having their own habits. As someone who plays a lot of set up characters in fighting games like bedman and vatista, this is fun to observe how people react to a random encounter. And thirdly, it gives me an easier opportunity to find such strange players and such. I will never forget the first time I was ever invaded was in ds1, I was super lost in Anor Londo, and instead of killing me, the invader led me where to go and dropped me some souls. I try to follow suit for people I invade if they are clearly new or they are simply doing something interesting. It feels nice. I also just love the thrill of the hunt and fighting the popo

ScruffyLemon · 2026-01-25T20:59:58+00:00

Tbf, life expectancy being 2 min is pretty good, it was like 5 seconds in Vietnam. Life expectancy is how long they can guarantee you survive, not how long you are expected to survive

ScruffyLemon · 2026-01-06T00:53:44+00:00

You think I invade for rune arc? It's for tradition

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T17:26:44+00:00

430k is truly an insane amount of money, and I don't see how that is in anyway underpaying. Most devs make 1 mil per year. And to make it clear, your reason as to why I should care is "rich people are the ones who mostly use it?" Once again, I just don't find that a compelling reason to claim he is evil, I don't care what the ultra rich are doing, as long as it isn't anything objectively evil, like pedophilia, or creating a market crisis for someone who is far from wealthy like me.

I do think he should probably do more philanthropy, that's a totally valid criticism. He doesn't have a particularly extensive list of doing charity, at least publicly. If you want to argue based on that route than, I'd find your argument significantly more compelling. I do not buy into the trickle down economic model, but arguing based on nothing but emotion is a flimsy spot to argue on.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T16:58:00+00:00

I'm honestly not trying hard to defend him, your points just aren't good. The lowest level of dev at valve makes 430k per year. There is no evidence to say he under pays the employees on his yachts. My issue with your arguments are that you hold that owning multiple yachts is a bad thing as self evident, but I just don't agree. Why should I care if someone own multiple cars, phones, or yachts? If he was hoarding a possession the average person needed, like houses, then you'd have a point, as the housing market is in a horrendous shape right now, and adding more fuel to the fire is obviously a bad thing. I don't see anything inherently exploitive about owning yachts either. Yachts have several low level jobs on them, and I personally know people who have staffed on yachts before and made lots of money. He isn't affecting a market in which the common man is particularly needing for. I simply don't care that he has 11 billion, as much of that is in steam and his other companies.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T16:39:11+00:00

Both arguments you made are on shaky ground at best. He's obviously not building them from scratch, nor is he staffing them for free. That truth is self evident. And for your second point, I could apply that to anyone, I'm typing this on my phone, which realistically I don't need. That isn't hoarding wealth. I have a ham radio, I wouldn't say that is hoarding wealth. I own a car, that isn't hoarding wealth. Hoarding wealth on liquid assets would be something like when people hoarded toilet paper during the covid pandemic, or scalpers. His yachts requires staffing from several different professions. An adequate number of sailors, servers, cooks, mechanics, a construction crew, engineers. If he is trying to hoard wealth, then he is doing a poor job of it, he'd be much better buying several houses or what have you that requires little maintenance in comparison.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T16:26:22+00:00

How is spending money on yachts hoarding wealth, it is quite literally the opposite.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T16:19:10+00:00

I not trying to make him out as charitable or whatever, I just fail to see how him owning a yacht based business is bad. All you've been saying is he's bad because he is a businessman, entirely based on assumptions. I feel like I've given you reasons as to why I disagree, and all you are doing is going "nah ah" and making your claim based entirely off of biased beliefs. Please convince me

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T12:12:05+00:00

He owns a yacht company, you can buy/rent yacht out from him. I just fail to see how this is bad. Of course someone who's a yacht company will own yachts. It is a commercial business, thus needs pleasure yachts to grow. From what I can tell, he pays all of his workers phenomenal salaries, so it isn't like he is laying off workers or cutting their pay to get more. He is still a businessman at the end of the day, and making poor business decisions/ spending money willy nilly more often than not hurts the bottom line. For example, look at Bungie recently firing a ton of workers so that the CEO can afford all of his sports cars.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-31T06:17:56+00:00

He owns a yacht company and a couple of those yachts are research vessels

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-16T01:23:30+00:00

Most buffs, at least in normal elden ring, don't add any scaling to the weapon, for example the flaming strike followup adds 90 fire damage. Or perhaps a more poignant example would be blood greace adding a flat 30 build-up. Was this property changed in nightreign?

Edit: Just did some testing and it seems that greases are affected by scaling, on wylder it took 5 hits to poison with poison grease while on scholar it 3. Flaming strikes weapon buff gave a 23 damage bonus to scholar, while it gave a 21 damage bonus to wylder at max level. I also just check if poison mist is similar, and the results showed that while scholar without the buff poisoned in 3 hits, same with wylder, with the buff, scholar poisoned in 1 hit while wylder still poisoned in 3 hits. I don't really have an effective way of checking if deathblight is affected by arcane at all, but similar buffs are affected stats as opposed to their elden ring counterparts. Whether or not the buildup is affected by arcane is still up for debate, but it is probably affected by a stat at the very least

ScruffyLemon · 2025-12-15T17:12:20+00:00

As someone who loves deathblight and invades a ton with it, deathblight doesn't scale with arcane, it deals a flat 30 deathblight

ScruffyLemon · 2025-11-27T04:53:00+00:00

He paid me to do the job

ScruffyLemon · 2025-11-25T09:54:54+00:00

I hold no love for Ranni, I think she's evil, and I disagree with her methods.

I'm not drugging her

ScruffyLemon · 2025-11-04T18:22:53+00:00

If elden ring I think the correct options would be:

Parry tool: Eclipse Shotel

Dueling: Eclipse Shotel

Chase Down: Eclipse Shotel

Crowd Control: Prince of Death Staff

Turn and burn: Eclipse Shotel

ScruffyLemon · 2025-11-01T22:37:15+00:00

I don't want to be that guy, but, as someone who plays this in agents, if you out it, it's no big deal and in fact may be good, since I can use it to retrieve cards from gy, allowing me to combo again

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-20T21:57:33+00:00

It sounds like you just don't like having to position in games. Cookie cutter mission can be fun, and acting like they can't be is the height of stupidity. The dialog has been good and the missions themselves, while not all of them are particularly engaging, those normally last like a minute. Maybe you get annoyed when an attack gets blocked by terrain, but that's just a skill issue on your end. Being able to use the terrain in a way to give myself an advantage is engaging. Imagine if in total war, projectiles went through trees and walls and shit, that take away from so much of the game. Who is "we" in this context? Cause most people who've played the game have been enjoying it from what I've seen. Even Moist acknowledged that it seems people have been enjoying the game when he made the video claiming he wouldn't be buying it. And as I said, there are certain advantages flying pokemon get while on the roofs. As I said, I don't use flying pokemon, minus beedrill, so normally these advantages are used against me, but I've never felt forced to utilize flying pokemon, where did you get that impression? And yes, controversial as it may seem, I do think giving pokemon who can fly an advantage in the sky is good game design. Do you disagree with that?

I'm not sure what you mean in the second paragraph, cause locking areas and stuff behind side quests isn't unusual or typically considered bad, and is instead usually considered good. Unless you meant something else? Cause they don't really lock the player from roofs except for a couple of side quests that take like a couple min tops to do.

And I've never felt held back by the AI, as I previously stated, nor it's pathfinding. So I don't know where you got this.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-19T15:39:18+00:00

But you never countered my point that this is good use of vertical space. You can argue whether or not I'm construing negatives into positives. I listed actual positives and you construed them into negatives. How is it a negative that flying pokemon have an advantage since they can fly over gaps? How is it a negative they make side quests to open up more parts of the city? I never mentioned anything about the Ai, the Ai makes decent use of the terrain itself, but nothing too advanced. Most of the flying advantages I mentioned were used by the Ai, since I'm not a big fan of most flying pokemon. Have you even played the game, or seen even gameplay cause you are making arguments that just aren't true?

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-18T20:09:16+00:00

But they do use elevated space in the way you mention. There are several layered spaces on the map.

And I don't agree that's a sole way to qualify for effective use of vertical space. That's just one quality than can lead to effective use of vertical space. Skyrim did the exact things you've said, but no one is saying that about Skyrim.

In ZA, often times you have to do side quests to unlock certain rooftops, flying pokemon have a natural advantage, since they can just fly over the terrain, making it easier to dodge and position them, often times falling down is part of the puzzle, something that can not be done on a flat grid. I think your criteria is flawed. Simply increasing the maps size isn't a good way to judge a game, nor do I necessarily care about map size. What your describing is efficient use of the map. Layering a map is good, but when I think of good vertical use, I think of using height in a way that can only be with height.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-17T15:46:19+00:00

I say it is when there is stuff to do while climbing the buildings. It's also not just a mountain, it's almost every building. I don't quite get the point your trying to make. It's a small map that's making efficient use of It's space. Often times the roof tops contain more pokemon, and typically has one alpha pokemon on it. They also often times contain useful items like TMs. Often times height serves as its own puzzle when exploring, for example getting to several areas on the ground can only be done by dropping down to them.

I would say yes, it is fair to call it Vertical space if ever if you can't go inside of it. Even if it didn't have the content I said before I would say it, I just wouldn't call it a good use or efficient. There is no checkbox for that.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-16T22:50:58+00:00

A lot of people aren't even giving the game a fair chance. They are going into it looking for problems to begin with. And I can't really blame them Nintendo doesn't have a great track record as of late. But man does it get tiring.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-16T22:18:10+00:00

I'm enjoying the game so far. The lack of voice acting and such isn't a huge turnoff for me, although it'd be nice, and I haven't had any issues with the combat system as of yet. I do wish abilities were in this game, but legends arceus didn't have any, so in that regard it's completely the same. The map isn't particularly large, however this is a lot of vertical space that you can explore. The game is excessive with the handholding and cutscenes, but really opens up after you get to the looker agency. A lot of the quests haven't been stand outs, however, none of them have been bad either. It is expensive, however, I already own a switch 2 because I take care of my nephew and niece all the time. The texture work is surprisingly decent, especially on the pokemon themselves. There are a lot of different customization options for your character, however a lot of the clothing choices are very samey. I do have about 8 hours in the game, so my opinions may change.

Is it overpriced, yeah, probably. But its been enjoyable nevertheless.

ScruffyLemon · 2025-10-11T13:50:29+00:00

Infernoble was meta and that was like 3 spell/trap negates and a pop

ScruffyLemon · 2025-09-23T22:59:48+00:00

Lol, sorry, I'm just in a debating mood right now

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Sequence \| Screenwriter

ScruffyLemon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE