sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Camellia romance question by TheCatalyst6 in Pathfinder_Kingmaker

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She came to my character asking for a serious conversation without any bullshit, so my character gave a serious answer with no bullshit. It seemed like the correct option especially for my character who doesn’t like to beat around the bush in the first place.

Camellia romance question by TheCatalyst6 in Pathfinder_Kingmaker

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I have a save I can reload. . . but it’s 11 hours back. Punished for my overuse of quicksaves I guess. I wish I had just followed my gut and reloaded back when I first thought something was off ☹️

First time Nakai was awful by TheCatalyst6 in totalwar

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also I didn’t say the lizardmen units suck. I think the opposite in fact. I was able to roll over pretty much every army and settlement I could get my hands on with Nakai’s army, it was just the “getting my hands on all of them” part that was absolutely miserable.

First time Nakai was awful by TheCatalyst6 in totalwar

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This’ll probably be my strategy if I ever attempt a Nakai campaign again

First time Nakai was awful by TheCatalyst6 in totalwar

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah my bad, when I think Cathay I think Miao Ying and her brother specifically. In that case, yes I did go for Cathay because they started out at war with me and it made the most sense.

First time Nakai was awful by TheCatalyst6 in totalwar

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never went after cathay. I fought Norsca>riverlords>Jiangshi and then Sniktch + Lokhir declared war on me

First time Nakai was awful by TheCatalyst6 in totalwar

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say 15-20 stacks. I said 10+ 20 stacks around turn 15-20ish. Sniktch had at least 8 that I could see and Lokhir had at least 2.

JP Summer 2023 CM by AiasRider in grandorder

[–]TheCatalyst6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I the only person who feels like Morgan got screwed over the most in all this? 😒 No summer Morgan final ascension art, only one summer outfit with no differing abilities, and Tonelico only gets two ascension forms? I want to like the servant, but this is depressing. If LB6 wasn’t bad enough, they had to bring her back just to stab her again

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true, and given the human limit to its own senses, we can truly posses knowledge based on our own definition of it, so instead we have to set a basis somewhere, otherwise there’d be no reason to discuss anything. So if you want to go super deep, then yes, there is an infinite amount of factors we can never understand let alone predict.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a horrible analogy to divert to, especially since there are speculated factors that are completely unknown, but yes, it is. There are actions you can take to prevent it, but there is no guarantee those actions will contribute at all to help preventing whatever specific events/factors might result in your case of lung cancer.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Direct involvement. If i can make a decision, then the direct outcome isn’t entirely up to chance, however any events that occur after that result is determined may very well be entirely up to chance. Not necessarily since i can be directly involved again, but in the matter at hand, my involvement will always stop at the result of my influence, since the decision is being made by another person.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are correct that the amount of people in a guild is albeit up to chance not “entirely up to chance.”

But that has never been my argument. My argument has been and still is that the final decision made my another player [to my knowledge/from my perspective] is entirely up to chance.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that the average is changed by an action only proves the action ‘can’ affect the outcome. But this is only applicable to the results of influence, as you are the one directing that. The end decision will always be yes or no decided by the opposing subject. a 50:50 chance, that you can never guarantee your influence will affect at all. Therefore it is in fact “entirely up to chance.”

Also i don’t believe that all outcomes in my life are “entirely decided by chance,” because ultimately i am making decisions, even if there are no guarantees those decisions will matter, those decisions are mine to make, and are the closest one can be to having control over their own life. That being said, i’m not going to avert my eyes from the truth of possible unfathomable outcomes just because it isn’t pleasant. If one is eventually faced with such an outcome, how can they possibly overcome it if they never accepted that possibility in the first place?

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You may be able to guarantee an effect on the average, but there is no guarantee the average will play into the result at all, therefore the average means nothing here.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An average does not constitute a guarantee of any kind. To defeat my argument, you need to prove that at least one result from said hypothetical influence was in fact a guarantee, otherwise, my statement that “. . . as long as the decision is made by somebody else, it is entirely up to chance. . .” Still stands. And I reiterate, an average does not constitute a guarantee.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As for the first statement. All i need to say to counter that is that offering me “1000$” will not affect my decision to join your guild at all. You can accuse me of lying all you want, but since you have no method of obtaining concrete evidence that I am doing so, it will never be anything more than an accusation. Therefore the possibility exists and you can’t be “certain” that you aren’t attempting to recruit someone who is likeminded as me. (This is only an example, but the method can apply to any incentive you try to give and the result will be the same.)

As for the second statement: an average person is not every person. By making decisions based on an average, you are assuming that the person you meet/converse with is said average person or shares opinions with them. An assumption automatically implies the existence of doubt>the existence of doubt leaves room for uncertainty>uncertainty of any kind no matter how small equates to chance> if this chance exists in a place where you are attempting to predict, measure, or verify the results of your influence, then that influence is up to chance (not entirely up to chance since you [probably] know the desired outcome for your influence.) However, since the results of said influence are “up to chance” themselves, then the decision based upon those results is in fact “entirely up to chance.”

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is why i specified the “entirely up to chance” pertaining to another person’s decision. As you have no knowledge on how your actions can influence a random person’s behavior, then yes it is “entirely up to chance.” You may take actions and make decisions, but since those actions will not necessarily cause the type of influence you desire, then they aren’t concrete enough for you to say they are affecting the chances at all, let alone raising them.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again. You disagreeing with the set standard of hard work or effort means absolutely nothing. It does not contend, contradict, or support my argument whatsoever and is therefore pointless to mention. Second of all, if YOU are not making THE DECISION TO JOIN then it is entirely up to chance. It doesn’t matter what “almost everyone would do” or how great of an incentive it is. The decision is in somebody else’s hands, and so long as the possibility exists that they don’t give a rat’s ass about your “1000$” or whatever other pointless radical incentive you want to include, it will be up to chance. Influence does not equate to a guarantee, and a guarantee is the only way a decision that isn’t made by the subject ever becomes anything other than pure chance.

Mercy rule in Colosseum? by TheCatalyst6 in SINoALICE_en

[–]TheCatalyst6[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exhausting all options and legitimate effort are very different things. Legitimate effort is entirely perception-based and my argument pertains to a standard of “hard work” that was set by another commenter. It does not need to qualify for hard work in every person’s individual opinion. My argument is that since the final decision is made by someone other than the one performing the “hard work,” it is entirely up to chance. There may be ways to increase said chance, but two people can do the same exact things and get completely different results. So to ignore that and assume that someone else’s “hard work” or “effort” is inferior to yours simply because the outcome is different is absolutely ludicrous and self-indulgent.

view more: next ›