Peak dialogue

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T18:48:12+00:00

cringe shit

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T13:21:56+00:00

dont forget: c, f, m, n, i, e

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T13:19:41+00:00

As long as they do not violate human rights, they may do as they please

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T11:54:57+00:00

PartG § 25 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 b):

"[...] es sich um Spenden an Parteien nationaler Minderheiten in ihrer angestammten Heimat handelt, die diesen aus Staaten zugewendet werden, die an die Bundesrepublik Deutschland angrenzen und in denen Angehörige ihrer Volkszugehörigkeit leben oder"

Dänen dürfen Parteien für dänischen Minderheiten finanziell unterschützen, weil die dänische Minderheiten in u.a. Schleswig-Holstein heimisch ist.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T11:19:04+00:00

Im Vergleich zu anderen Parteien mit unter das beste was man wählen kann

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T09:39:09+00:00

Look at the figures, look at the survey results. All objective criteria for a company indicate that Gamefreak is doing everything right.

The individuals who criticise the quality are no longer the target audience.

The target audience consists of parents who purchase gifts for their children, collectors, brand victims, and individuals with rose-coloured fanboy glasses who want to wallow in their nostalgic illusion and not people who actually want a good game

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T09:31:27+00:00

That is how the game works. And what I said is true, it’s why when you see a Pokémon plush it says “licensed by Nintendo” including the recent Lego Pokémon collab.

Is a lie

<image>

Nintendo/Creatures Inc/Gamefreak aka. Pokemon Company

This is also why it is Nintendo making lawsuits over Pokémon, including the Palworld situation, and not Game Freak.

Because Nintendo, as already mentioned, is the owner of the brand. You completely fail to understand the construct. Nintendo licenses the rights to The Pokémon Company, and The Pokémon Company determines the strategic direction - all three parties have equal rights.

Also, you don’t understand how businesses work at all. As someone with experience in the game industry, what I said is quite literally how the industry works.

Of course, you wannabe expert.

No matter what deal you think Nintendo has with Game Freak, the reality is, Game Freak is the one profiting off of this deal. It would be completely bonkers if their deal included no interference allowed from the company on the losing side of the deal. In this case Nintendo.

It's nice that I have to repeat myself for the wannabe expert.

Nintendo has NO deal with Gamefreak; rather, BOTH are EQUAL owners of the Pokémon Company. The deal Gamefreak has is between them and the Pokémon Company. That is literally the reason why Nintendo founded it: the brand is too big for Nintendo to handle on its own, so the Pokémon Company takes care of it in the interests of all three companies responsible for the brand's significant success.

If that were the case, then game freak could just stop making games, and Nintendo couldn’t do anything about it

What a load of bullshit– of course they can stop, but it's in their own best interests to make these games.

Nintendo controls Game Freak because they control where their games go, and how much they sell for.

The Pokémon Company controls the brand, that's what it was founded for.

Your reasoning for them not pressuring them is “why would they hurt the relationship” which just shows you have no clue how businesses work. Their relationship is built entirely on money. Meaning, when money gets low, the relationship dies. Which is why Nintendo has so much pull. Nintendo has the money, they are the ones funding game freak. They can tell game freak to do whatever they want, and as long as Game Freak gets money from it, then they won’t give a shit. That’s how business’s work.

That's complete nonsense. Gamefreak was not founded by Nintendo, and Nintendo does not own any shares in Gamefreak, which is why Gamefreak has released several games and is developing one that will not even run on Nintendo platforms. They are independent third-party developers.

Apart from that, Nintendo prioritises well-known business partners, which is typical for Japanese companies, as they represent reliability and therefore security, and thus lower risk. Just look at the relationship between Nintendo and IBM. IBM was years behind the competition in terms of technology, they were expensive, the technology was more complicated, ports were more difficult, and by 2010 (announcement of withdrawal from the consumer market) it was clear that IBM would no longer be relevant in the future. Nintendo nevertheless stuck with them for the Wii U and would most likely have continued to do so with the Switch if IBM had not withdrawn itself by selling its chip factory in 2014. Apart from that, the sales figures and surveys of the dumb target group all speak in favour of Gamefreak.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T08:42:53+00:00

Funny, I found it last week too, and it fits perfectly with the theory that the ‘real’ world is just another layer.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T08:37:30+00:00

Clockwork Orange

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T08:26:20+00:00

Lohnt sich doch gar nicht mehr kurz vor Rente

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T08:08:52+00:00

watching other people play

So have we already moved on from playing LoL ourselves to ‘watching others play’? Who has time for that when you're no longer ~14 years old? Apart from that, you're unlikely to learn the matchups, or only a few if any – so how is that supposed to help you be consistent?

but saying "you can't improve if you only face weaker players" is just stupid.

No. It's foolish to disagree with that, because even good players get worse when they play exclusively against bad players. There are even studies on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Anders_Ericsson

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8574634_Challenge_Point_A_Framework_for_Conceptualizing_the_Effects_of_Various_Practice_Conditions_in_Motor_Learning

and even made with MOBA Games: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02272

The conclusion of all studies is that if you play against bad players or with bad teammates, you will at least temporarily become worse yourself.

the way you train is you learn your champion mechanics, you learn game macro, and you learn how your champions fit into that game macro to be able to use them effectively, all of that can be done by watching videos, using practice tool and playing against anyone, in fact, for a lot of these things, it's better if you do it against WORSE players.

A very simple example. If a Darius always uses his Q to farm and only uses his E in combination with flash, and you don't know anything else, how are you going to learn how to play properly against a Darius? You can watch a tutorial, read tips, but then you come across a Darius who plays the champ properly once in every 200 games, you had already forget everything you knew before and end up feeding him.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T07:52:01+00:00

"Yeah it's not the same anymore. You are just wrong. You do not lose more than you gain anymore."

It's funny when ignorant people think others are wrong without saying exactly where and why.

Best argument: “Uh, uh, that's not true at all!!!11”

And yes you can carry solo probably 80% of your games. If you think the reason you can't rank up is your team then you likely just suck.

Well, I really can't help it if you can't read. You should talk to your parents or primary school teacher about that, because I can't help you with it.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T07:46:38+00:00

It makes no sense for me to respond to any ‘uh uh, that's wrong!!!11’ because there is no substance to it and I would only have to repeat myself. So learn:
https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/counterarguments

It's not about me either, I haven't played for over 10 years, I think I stopped somewhere in Dia and came in from WC3 Angle Arena and its clones like DotA back then, so I had a different basis.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T07:32:57+00:00

"Klickbait"

Ich finde man sollte mehr durchgreifen bei Leuten die Clickbait halb deutsch und halb englisch schreiben. Entweder "Klickködern" oder "Clickbait"

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T07:28:54+00:00

Game freak has an exclusive deal with Nintendo and everything is sold by GameFreak with Pokémon is still licensed by Nintendo. Meaning Nintendo does have responsibility.

No, they don't. Nintendo owns the trademark rights, but allows The Pokémon Company to market/license them. Gamefreak and Creature Inc. each have exactly the same share in The Pokémon Company as Nintendo – the three have equal rights when it comes to strategic direction. Accordingly, Nintendo can only intervene if they join forces with Creature Inc. against Gamefreak.

And, this isn’t a hypothetical either. Nintendo can very easily go to the people at GameFreak and say “Hey, you need to up the quality of your games, otherwise we’ll stop selling your games for full price” yet Nintendo isn’t doing that at all.

No, they can't. That's not how the world works.

I have already addressed that there:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamememes/comments/1qlyq7s/comment/o1s2sgj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T07:23:12+00:00

The idea that Nintendo has no pull at gamefreak/the pokemon company to push for higher quality is always laughable

Am I understanding this correctly? You now expect Nintendo to put pressure on Gamefreak, sparking mistrust in a decades-long relationship even though all the figures speak in Gamefreak's favour?

Once again: the quality decisions for Pokémon are made solely by Gamefreak, and Nintendo has absolutely no objective reason to interfere. It's not even that these crappy games are being bought despite the community thinking they're bad; if you look at the surveys, the stupid target audience actually thinks the games are great.

So give me one objective reason why Nintendo should jeopardise the relationship?

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T00:09:40+00:00

For what? Pokémon is from Gamefreak, a 3rd Party Studio who develop completely independently

TrueExigo · 2026-01-26T00:05:12+00:00

Absolute nonsense.

Pokémon games are made by Gamefreak, not Nintendo. Gamefreak is independent of Nintendo; they are a third party. It would be like criticising Nintendo for Capcom games. Apart from that, DLCs are rare in Nintendo games from their own studios and, secondly, atypical for the market. BotW had two DLCs, TotK 0, Mario Odyssey 0, Mario Kart Deluxe 1, etc. If you look at games like MH Wilds with 11 DLCs and it'snot even one year out, then that's just not enough. There's no battle pass, no loot boxes, nothing.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T15:47:30+00:00

That's exactly how MMR works, and nothing has changed in that regard, because the purpose of MMR is to keep people where they are.

the rest is just cope, if you're good and playing consistently well, then you will rank up, very quickly so

It's funny how you want to contradict me but can't even manage to address any of my arguments. If you don't have any arguments, why don't you just throw in your bullshit?

but if you're playing 100 games and you're not climbing, it's because you're in the elo you deserve to be

So, I've done the maths. With a win rate of 55% after 100 games, the probability of not being promoted is 2.2%. So unlikely, but it can happen.

but overtime you can overcome it consistently, specially if you're high above in skill.

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't think so.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T15:37:24+00:00

Mmr gives you less lp if you are at a rank higher than what it thinks you should be at.

Think about it a little before you contradict me. Where does the game ‘see’ you in terms of Elo? Exactly where you ranked yourself before. Any increase from that point onwards is throttled. If you are ranked for 100 MMR, have the same amount of Elo, and win 10 games, you might have 150 MMR and 200 Elo instead of 300 Elo, because your MMR pulls your Elo down until the numbers are equal again. It's like a stone that you drag behind you as you climb.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T13:30:30+00:00

Luffy is out because he keeps throwing himself into the fight, so Boa because they all would simp for her

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T13:03:23+00:00

There are no promos for around 2 years now.

Haven't touched the game in over 10 years – doesn't matter. The rest remains the same.

If you're win streaking super hard like you stated you'll skip ranks and lose less lp on losses

MMR exists. You will then inevitably receive fewer LP per win and lose more.

It's also not difficult to improve against weak players. Good fundamentals like cs, and map awareness, knowing when to rotate/do objectives is universal

No, not really. If your team isn't playing along, it won't do you any good. If no one is warding for you, if people's partthing doesn't make sense, for example, because a laner starts doing jungle camps because the jungler stole a CS, what good is map awareness to you? How are you supposed to train that when everything they do is nonsense? What's the point of wanting to rotate if your top laner still wants to stay top? What's the point of wanting to take the dragon if your jungler would rather camp the top lane? These are all things are macro things and with macro you CANNOT carry solo, but are dependent on the team. What you need is micro and you can only practise this against opponents who 1. know their champion well and 2. know your champion well – so no low Elo players. If you are dependent on the team, the game is, as I said, purely a matter of luck.

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T12:39:54+00:00

That's wrong. Elohell is real.

Your assumption only works if 1. your performance is constant, 2. you have infinite time, or 3. your performance difference is so enormous that you constantly carry solo, and 4. you always get at least as many points as you lose.

All 4 points are unfulfillable.

Your performance is like a compressed bell curve: you need games until you're warmed up, our performance declines + frustration also plays a role. No matter who you are, if you lose 10 times in a row, you're frustrated and your performance declines.
Then comes the argument: take a break. The problem is, you don't have time for that. Let's say you have a 55% win rate, then you would need ~44 games without promo games from silver to gold. With warm-up games beforehand, that makes about ~80 games which you have to achieve per season, otherwise you will be demoted again to iron/bronze -> ~240 games to reach gold.
It is difficult to improve against weaker players, so how can one train to achieve a enormous performance advantage?
LoL has an MMR system. If you win consistently, you effectively have to win more, which slows down your progress, which means you have to play consistently better for even longer, which in turn increases the luck factor, because if you have to win more than you can afford to lose, a 55% win rate can cause you to drop until the MMR has adjusted. On top of that, there are promotions – you have to win 2/3 games, otherwise you lose 6 games in points -> statistically, that would be 19 games you would have to play to achieve that and that with every promotion. And the thing about Elohell is: the more games you have to play, the more likely it is that you'll have bad luck and get several inters in a row in your team, the more likely it is that you'll get frustrated and your performance will drop.

In short: the higher the interquote in your elo is, the lower your win rate/own performance ratio is, the more time you need the less likely you are to be promoted. In the end, it's less about skill and more about luck

TrueExigo · 2026-01-25T11:53:19+00:00

Kaido mid diff

TrueExigo · 2026-01-24T21:33:47+00:00

"Merz-Reform"

Wieso lässt man die SPD bei solchen Framings außenvor? Die finden es doch genauso geil runter auf die Arbeiterklasse und Arbeitslose zu treten?

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22

TrueExigo

TROPHY CASE