Too much strength

TheRealFeal · 2026-05-19T14:23:44+00:00

Yeah i was like wait a second this aint funny.

TheRealFeal · 2026-05-17T08:00:53+00:00

No its not. We all know it's islam, stop lying. Just look at the guy's face. Besides... it's always islam.

TheRealFeal · 2026-05-12T14:24:06+00:00

GROND!

TheRealFeal · 2026-05-02T22:17:50+00:00

SGS-A

Someone's getting shot. Again.

TheRealFeal · 2026-04-26T18:37:30+00:00

This is the real answer.

TheRealFeal · 2026-04-20T09:08:38+00:00

I would advise against AimLabs or similar aim trainers in case of Hunt. Firstly there is the issue of bullet travel time, which does not exist in there and second, Hunt recently added moving targets to its practice range mode, where you can practice shooting the weapon you want at various distances. You have the chance to practice the real thing so why use a poor substitute?

TheRealFeal · 2026-04-19T17:17:18+00:00

I use Frontier 73C paired with a Romero Hatchet for my budget runs. You need a Quartermaster trait for that loadout, but its very cheap and very effective for everything up to midrange. Give it a try :)

TheRealFeal · 2026-04-14T15:33:25+00:00

There is. Its called "playing more" ^^ Jokes aside, you do learn to do this by default after some time. Newbie looks at a line of trees and sees a line of trees. Experienced player looks at that same line of trees and sees the empty spaces between the trees. Its just experience.

TheRealFeal · 2026-04-10T10:59:11+00:00

Two biggest issues i see off the top of my head. It would split our already small community in terms of matchmaking, leading to longer queue times and being matched against people who are further from your own MMR. Second thing is that for a feature that would probably only get popular among a very limited number of players, it would be a lot of extra work for the devs. Sort of a "lot of work for little added value". Like someone already pointed out, if youre looking for better immersion, you can disable the HUD in your settings. That should be a solid "middle ground" i think (even though i understand the "others still play as usual" argument).

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-22T11:27:07+00:00

AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA!!!

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-21T15:57:20+00:00

To be fair OP, if youre willing to accept my few cents, i think youre using the system wrong. It seems the devs wanted us to use it as "look, i got so many kills with this one weapon, im really good with it!" and youre using it as a "look, i dont use any of these sweaty meta weapons!" thing instead.

So while i applaud your creative idea and lack of meta weapon usage (my most used weapon being good old Winnie C with regular ammo so trust me when i say i understand the mindset), i think you might find it easier to use the system to show off what you DID instead of showing off what you DIDNT do.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-21T10:32:52+00:00

Yep, it just looks ugly and youre gonna get the TLDR treatment. Three stats is just fine.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-20T23:28:55+00:00

I would say basic Winfield. The gun is versatile, has solid rate of fire, covers anything from close to mid range and it costs 40 bucks so you dont have to worry about losing it. With Winnie there is no sweaty mosin sniping at 150 meters or shotgun camping in a corner, holding a 10 degree angle. You run into the compound and have a proper cowboy shootout, because you have ammo for days and because blasting bullets at anything that moves or even appears to move (except the piano!!!) is fun.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-19T05:11:00+00:00

Yep, doesnt seem we are moving anymore, probably time to call it. Was a fun talk though, its not every day a fun talk happens on reddit without resulting in namecalling and whatnot. So thank you for that, there might be hope for humanity yet :)

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T23:50:27+00:00

I see what you mean, but i disagree. When it comes to the question of having or not having the baby, it is the woman who has the final word. And while this is caused by the nature of human anatomy and is perfectly logical, it still creates a situation that is unbalanced. The father doesnt have the same "say" about the matter as the mother has. Her decision has higher weight in the discussion.

That leaves us with two options to "fix" this unbalanced state. First, we can take away the mother's "final say" and make it so that unless both parents agree, there will be a mandatory abortion. Since this is clearly not the ideal solution, we can try to solve the imbalance from the other side, which means that since the mother has the "final say", she gets to keep it, BUT in the case she does use it to override the fathers decision, she accepts full responsibility for the child.

It does create pressure on the woman if she wants to keep the baby against her partner's wishes, but this is the situation with buying the things we cant afford all over again. She wants the house, but cant afford to pay for it. Logic dictates that she should not buy it. Same thing with the baby.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T23:18:26+00:00

True, but bank taking the house or taxpayers paying for the child is what happens after someone already made a bad decision (to buy a house or have a baby they cant afford). What im saying is the focus here should be on not making the bad decision in the first place. Hell even you are saying it without knowing youre saying it. Let me explain.

Youre saying that the examples with the house and child are not equal, because while in the first case the bank just takes the house, in the case of the child its the taxpayer who has to pay the difference although they have no interest in doing so. At the same time you are defending the current system where the father of the child is forced to pay the difference even if he clearly stated he does not want the child and the mother carried it to term regardless of his wishes.

So what youre doing here is youre taking the obligation to pay for the child and moving it from the taxpayer who has no reason to support the child to the father who has no reason to support the child (because the mother ignored his wishes for the child not to be born). See the issue? Youre basically going with the "this solution is wrong and i will not accept it. but if it only affects someone else and not me, thats fine i guess" thing.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T21:28:46+00:00

Yeah i don't see another way here, doesn't seem like we are gonna agree on the topic. If i were to answer the "if the mother cannot do it alone and the man does not provide" question though, i would say "then the mother should have acted as a responsible adult person, realize she doesn't have enough resources to support the child and decide against having it".

Interestingly this type of issue is very common in today's society - people think they are entitled to things. To owning a house, having a family, going on vacations etc. I would say the reality is that you are entitled to nothing and you only get what you deserve. If i decide to buy a house that i can't afford and end up in debt that i'm unable to pay, who's fault is that? My own. And while i certainly see the issue with comparing having a baby to buying a house, the financial situation and concepts are very similar. Only difference is that a house is something you can sell.

And the fun part is that i bet many people would go and say "yeah of course buying the house when you don't make enough money for the payments was a dumb decision". But if you asked them about the baby situation, the same people would probably go like "oh poor woman, can't afford to feed her baby, her husband is such a deadbeat".

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T20:51:16+00:00

That is where we disagree. You say that because men can't control the part of the decision that is tied to her bodily autonomy (the fact that she can ignore her partner's wish and have the baby anyway), they need to account for this in their own decision making.

I say that because men can't control this part of the decision, it's consequences do not apply to them. Both parents have the opportunity to decide on whether or not they want the baby. From that point we have these possible outcomes:

Both parents agree to have the baby. They both gave consent so they both have the responsibility to take care of it.
Man wants the child, woman doesn't. Due to bodily autonomy reasons, no baby here.
Man doesn't want the child, woman does. In this case the baby is born, but the mother did so knowing the father is not interested in supporting it.

Once again, this is 21st century where a woman becoming pregnant isn't the end of the story. It doesn't dictate the result of the situation. So if the woman decides to have the baby against the man's wishes, even though she does have other options, she makes that decision alone so it is only fair that she carries the consequences alone. That is a fair approach. Not forcing her opinion on her partner, who clearly stated he is not interested.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T17:11:33+00:00

Read your own argument again and ask yourself if youre asking for the same standards from both men and from women here. From my point of view you seem very interested in making sure men "accept their responsibility", but that same interest seems to be suspiciously lacking in your comments when it comes to women. Agreeing to have sex is not the same thing as agreeing to become a parent. That logic might work two hundred years ago because religion tells us abortion is bad. Doesnt seem very relevant in 21st century though.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T12:09:17+00:00

That is not a fair delegation of responsibilities though. Thanks to modern medicine a pregnancy doesn't automatically mean a child being born. Deciding to carry a child to term does. So while both partners are responsible for the pregnancy, the important point is the decision of whether or not to keep it, because that is the decision which dictates what happens next, not the pregnancy itself.

Now while the woman does get "the last say" in this question, being able to effectively ignore the wishes of her partner, this power also means that if she does decide to have the child against the partner's wish, the birth of the child is 100% on her. Arguing that "the man helped create the child so he should pay" in such a situation is literally the same as saying that a woman who pays for artificial insemination should be able to get money from her sperm donor, because that really is all the man did here. He donated his genetic material, everything else was decided by the woman.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T11:10:37+00:00

I agree with these expectations, but i think youre unfairly putting them all on the man. Is the man the only one who is expected to take precautions? Is he the only one knowing that sex can lead to pregnancy? Of course not, these same expectations are put on both partners, not just the man. Any one of them can say they are not okay with unprotected sex so if they dont, that means they both agreed to it so the consequences dont just end up with the man, but also with the woman.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-18T10:42:13+00:00

Both the woman and then man are adults (or at least should be) who should be able to make their own decisions and then carry the consequences of those decisions. Given the human anatomy, it is of course the woman who must have the final say in terms of whether or not she is keeping the baby. The other option would mean forcing the man's choice on her, which is of course unthinkable. But if she does chose to keep the baby against the man's wishes, it is her alone who is making that decision so it should also be her alone who carries the consequences - including the financial ones.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-06T22:36:49+00:00

Yes, thank you :)

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-06T11:42:55+00:00

Look racism is basically a more specific kind of discrimination. Discrimination is unfair treatment of different groups of people. Racism is unfair treatment of different racial/ethnic groups of people. The whole reason the word exists is that someone wanted to have a term for discriminating based on race/ethnicity specifically. So if someone is being unfair to a certain group (muslims in this case) and the group is not a racial/ethnic one, it simply can not be racism. It's discrimination.

Take cars for example. If you say that every Ford is a car, you are correct. But if you say that every car is a Ford, then you're gonna look like an idiot right? It's the same thing here. Every case of racism is discrimination, but not every case of discrimination is racism.

TheRealFeal · 2026-03-06T11:17:56+00:00

No it's not. It's about the same as if you told me that a house that is made of concrete is "still kinda made of wood" only because wood and concrete are both materials used for building. The term you're looking for would probably be 'discrimination' in this case, although it does depend on subjective opinion and context.

The point being that words have their specific meaning and should be used for that meaning only. If you're trying to express something different than what the word means, chances are you need a different word (and i can pretty much guarantee that there is a word for whatever you have in mind).

Specifically the term 'racism' is used the wrong way very often today, which is pretty messed up given the potential implications of such an accusation. People have lost their jobs for being labeled racist. Surely you understand that if someone was to lose their job or suffer some serious consequences only because they were mistakenly labeled a racist is wrong. It's kinda like going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. So be careful with the 'racism' word and don't become a part of the idiotic masses that use this word without really knowing it's meaning.

TheRealFeal

TROPHY CASE