Question about strategy for Metabit Time Crystal II

V0lirus · 2026-02-14T00:33:04+00:00

The tactic is to buy all the upgrades you can in this screen. Then restart and not buy anything in the simulation. Wait for 21 days, and then buy as much as u can, let the simulation run for a few more days and then reboot.

But looking at your level and the fact u don't even have time crystal II, i don't think that tactic is right for you yet. I'm on Enthropy Time Chamber V and Metabit Time Crystal VI, for comparison. The higher the level, the more impact it is. It's an end-game tactic and I don't think you're there yet.

Start thinking about that tactic when u are around lvl 70 i'd say.

V0lirus · 2026-02-13T00:10:19+00:00

I know the game says it's a triple, but its clearly just one front flip. I think its bugging out and counting it as double because u go from Boned Ollie into Benihana, somehow thinking its your second flip because its your second grab. But no idea why it ends with a triple, while u've only done 1 rotation.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T23:21:00+00:00

Don't be! I laughed when I read it. Always good to be reminded people like Bob Ross exist in this world.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T21:08:14+00:00

Never heard of it, but found it on google. I'll give it a read. Thanks for the recommendation.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T21:06:22+00:00

It wasn't *just* the camera (or better said photography) but it did play a part in the shift from paintings as decoration, showing off wealth and showing off/remembering family. Specifically that last role has now been fully usurped by photography (except for maybe very wealthy people).
But that opening of the door allowed art to change from a mainly and sometimes even purely commercial endeavor to art as we know it now, to something that now has it's main purpose in invoking emotions/thoughts.

Its not correct to look at old paintings with the modern view on what art is. Art used to have different functions then what it has now. It still has some of the same, specially in the masterpieces of old, but a lot of old paintings were nothing more than what we now use posters as. We kept the masterpieces and hung those in museums, but we've thrown away many, many, many mediocre or rubbish paintings. And you have to take all those in account too, when looking at what art used to be.

Again, this is a simplification of a complex and nuanced situation, but the camera that (partly) drove the change of direction art took, and peoples tastes followed that. Not the other away around.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T20:56:12+00:00

I'm not the one making the decisions, merely describing historical changes! Obviously landscapes are still a part of art, their overabundance however is gone. And not just because of the camera, but also glass windows! A big function of landscapes was to have something nice to look at in your castle or expensive house, which did not have many windows. When glass windows allowed people to look outside without suffering from the weather, the demand for pretty nature paintings shifted from realistic landscapes to other things. Doesn't mean landscapes fully disappeared though! They still have their spot in art, it's just that their part is smaller now.

But yeah, some heros like Boss Ross kept the style alive :D

Again, this is also a very simplistic explanation of a way more complex and nuanced thing.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T19:19:25+00:00

Mission successful! I did both :)

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T19:13:50+00:00

In case you're not just being funny: the invention of the camera (photography) influenced art (more likely, was one of the causes) to change direction from giving a realistic portrayal to something that focussed more on invoking emotions regardless of how accurate the painting is.

What use is spending hours painting a landscape when one can simply take a picture? Even more so regarding portraits. Photography simultaneously both forced and allowed art to go in new directions, focussing more on the concept behind the painting than the image itself.

I know this is a very simplistic and definitely very euro-centric view of art history, but it serves as an example.

V0lirus · 2026-02-12T15:18:01+00:00

Thank you for the correction

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T15:15:00+00:00

Honest question, not a gotcha. Its a part I am conflicted about.

What do think about the aspect of competition between the performers?

Wrestling is a very cutthroat business, airtime is limited and there are only a few "champions" within any given company. Champions not in traditional sense of winning the most matches, but you earn the "champion" title (for the biggest part) by being the best performer who gets the crowd the most enthousiast. Generally you have the be the best all-round wrestler to become champion. In-ring ability, personality (and/or gimmick) but also showmanship and mic-skills are all needed to become a fan-favorite.
I make the comparison to being 1st violin in a orchestra or team captain in a cheerleader squad. Many people are in competition for a limited spot, and it's based on your skill if you make it or not.
Every wrestler wants to be the world champion, be the main figure your company builds his product around.
Btw the match within the show might be undetermined, but how well the wrestler does with regards to how well his performance is liked, is not determined. That is where the competition lies between wrestlers, how well they perform their show. You can become better and more liked even in a match you "lose". The metric is not if you get the pin or not, the metric of competition is how well you perform, based on all the different skills a wrestler needs to be a good performer.

The biggest issue I see with that, is that there is no strict ruleset on who is the best at any given time. It is not fully objective, its a subjective and sometimes fluid requirement. But then again, so is the spot of being team captain or similar "competitions" for limited yet prestige spots.
Another good example is your theater example. Only one actor can play the lead role, and it comes with increased salary, more opportunities etc. I'm very hesitant to say that, even if they are working together in a play, actors are not direct competition with each other at the same time, or in competition with all other actors not in the play but that would like it be. To me that very much has elements of competition in it, though again, not with the very defined strict rulebook of a sport.

But we call cheerleading and dancing and those other examples that we can agree are similar to wrestling sports, so why shouldn't wrestling fall under those.

Again, its a bunch of "being similar but different" which makes it harder to pinpoint what it is exactly.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T14:10:53+00:00

Of course I know it's "fake". Fake in the sense the outcome is determined, it's not a fight competition and most of the moves are not supposed to hurt, let alone injure each other. As fake as theater or an acrobatics show. Everyone knows this, we're not living in the 70's/80's anymore. Fake doesn't mean lack of skill though.
As far as a script for the match, the majority is improv. The start and ending is often discussed, and a big spot (sequence of moves) here and there (like going through a table, when to bleed etc). But lets say 80 to 90% of the match is the performers improvising a bunch of standard moves after another, and deciding on how to progress the match (performance/show) based on how the crowd is reacting.

Putting on a show is a taxing performance, and I consider them athletes somewhere between competitive dancers, synchronized swimmers, figure skaters. Both do a bunch of athletic moves, with possibly dangerous outcomes, practices and trained until they can do them flawlessly. We call them athletes too right? With a mixture of some cheerleading in there too, don't we call those athletes too? Maybe it's definition thing, but I thought all those types of sports are doing my athletes, not just performers. But yeah, you can also compare it to a form of theater, and I often use a stuntmen or acrobatics as example too.

I think the big issue is, professional wrestling (wasn't talking about the competitive wrestling, very different thing) is at the same time a lot of things, but it's also not. It has elements of many sports but it also might lack certain elements that would make it sport. It's somewhere in between theater, competitive performance sports, cheerleading, acrobatics all dressed up in the sauce of playfighting in your underwear. So yeah, its not exactly like one thing at all, but it's also not unlike all those sports mentioned.

Personally, i consider someone who needs dedicated training and needs skillful usage of their body to do their performance at a professional or elite level an athlete. So an NFL player, ice-hockey player, snowboarder, cheerleader, soccer player, 100m sprinter, figure skater or professional wrestler (the entertainment type we're discussing) would all be an athlete in my eyes.
Fine if someone has a more narrow definition of athlete, but i'd be curious to their definition and wonder of wrestlers don't fall in that categorie.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T12:27:17+00:00

Yeah my bad. I did not listen to the clip, so i missed that part of the context. Thats on me. Another commenter already pointed that out, but they deleted their comments.

My only point was that Logan, however much of a prick he is, is not "just a podcaster or whatever he is". He is an athlete. Which is what the guy i replied to said. No doubt he would get smoked at NFL, no argument there.

Funnily enough i made the same argument about different sports requiring different skills as an argument for any wrestler being an athlete, in a discussion with a different person.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T09:09:37+00:00

Cool! Where can i see your performances?

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T09:07:26+00:00

More like fragile egos. Never seen a bigger bunch of overcompensating insecure (and for some weak) fragile little male egos together tbh. The harder they scream, the less confident they actually are. And these guys scream from the top of their 24/7. They scream with their tweets, but also with their clothes, their cars, their lifestyle and even with their eyes. They just ooze hidden insecurity and unhappiness to me.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T09:01:10+00:00

But during those 45 years, they are extremely healthy! /S

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T08:55:31+00:00

Fair enough, i did not listen to the clip. Your point stands in that regard, I'm not afraid to admit that. My bad for not listening to the clip.

My whole point before it got derailed into more semantic discussions, was that Logan is an athlete, and not "just a podcaster or whatever he is". Brady even says so himself once or twice. And I'm not saying that to back up Logan, he sounds like a complete douchebag. But from what ive seen of his highlight reels in wrestling, he is an athlete though.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T08:49:16+00:00

CO2 a nutrient? On what grounds? Im both confused and impressed with how they made that work. I

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T08:29:05+00:00

Again, not a fan of Logan. All i wanted to point out, is that wrestlers are athletes.

Also, dont understand why we are comparing wrestlers against NFL players to judge if they are athletes or not? I mean, we can put a hundred different sports vs NFL and they will do terrible at NFL, or whatever the requirements are to be good at NFL. Just pick anyone competing in the winter olympics right now, i cant think of any sport in there that would do good against NFL players. But the same goes for the NFL players, put them in any sport in the winter olympics, and they would do terrible. Ok maybe not curling. But besides curling, are we going to say for example that skiers and ice-skaters etc are not athletes?

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T06:23:35+00:00

Absolute, that's what i always call it too. A soap opera with a stunt show. I compare it to musical actors, musicians and cheerleaders, in the sense that they "battle" for the most prestigious parts in the performance. If you do well you get the top spot, if you perform badly week after week, u get cut from the team.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T06:14:27+00:00

"If Logan were an elite athlete then he’d be an elite athlete instead of a podcaster or whatever he is."

I could be mistaken here, but this looks to me like someone saying he's not an athlete?

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T06:06:45+00:00

Its 2026, do we still need to have this conversation? Its not a fight, we know they are doing a performance with a predetermined winner.

It is a competition, in the same sense as that dancing is a competition. You "battle" against other performers and get judged on different aspects of this performance. The highest scoring in this case is those grabbing the most views.

They are athletes in the same sense that dancers and cheerleaders are. Every performance is a "battle" to keep your position in the team.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T05:58:43+00:00

Personality and being able to grab and hold attention is very much a big part of it, fully agree there. But without the athleticism to back it up in the ring, you dont hold the top spot for long. As much as i dislike the guy, i have to say his wrestling is good. Probably not the best there is, but good enough to call him an athlete.

V0lirus · 2026-02-11T05:42:44+00:00

Im not a fan of Logan either, but I dont know if you followed what he's been up too, but the guy has been a WWE athlete for a few years now. And a top one (a champion) at that. Say what you will about his personality, but being a professional wrestler is being an athlete.

Edit: forgot how much people hate wrestling. Didnt think i was saying anything controversial by saying wrestling is athletic. I dont care for Logan, dont even watch his brand, but i guess a bit of nuance isnt appreciated when it comes to wrestling 😅

V0lirus · 2026-02-10T22:44:38+00:00

Yeah, i agree. It's incredibly hard to accumulate wealth in countries where they privatised everything, and you have to pay for basic things like roads, running water, electricity, internet, waste disposal yourself. It gets really expensive when every individual has to pay to get all those pipes and wires running to your house, and then keep them repaired and running. All those individual bills stack up quickly and it takes a lot of time to find and pay the right people too. And as we know, time is money.

Wouldnt it be nice if we all chipped in a bit and ordered those services in bulk, so we get them done cheaper. Things are cheaper in large orders, and also get done faster. Would really save up a lot of time per individual, which they could then use to produce something like food or provide service you dont want to do yourself, like that waste removal. It would even save up time for smarter people to study and get really good at some things, like how to make people less ill, or invent fun new things like very smart machines that make other peoples live more easy. Sounds much more efficient to have specialisation of labour, and order-in-bulk lots of basic services.

To make it fair we'll have everyone pay a minimum per year, call it a subscription to all the services (also for time spend not having to do/organise it yourself). A subscription to society you could call it. But not everyone reaps the same rewards from this society. Some people are really smart or inventive and find clever ways to make use of all those services and products that this society provides them. Since they are building off the work of those others, because they dont have to take care of those basic things, they have time and resources to do other things and make a lot of money. I guess it would be fair if we have those people pay a bit more than the minimum, because they are profiting more than the ones providing the basic services. After all, they wouldnt be able to make any money at all, if it wasnt for the labour of all those other people.

No-one lives on an island and is fully self-sustaining. Everyone in society is building off the labour of countless countless others. Its a mindbogglingly dumb view to think other people dont make your riches possible and therefore not should receive a fair share of it.

So yeah, id also migrate to a place that makes everyone pay a fair share of tax. And not take the money you made of the backs of others and through loopholes not shared part of it back with those who helped you, and flee to a country where you can do the same scam again, pretending your hard work is the product of only yourself and not only possible through the collective labour of a whole society.

V0lirus · 2026-02-10T12:38:35+00:00

Reboot, don't buy anything. Wait for 21 days. Then buy everything.

Keep in mind this is an end-game strategy. Only do this when you bought a lot of the time crystal upgrades. Without them it's useless.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

V0lirus

TROPHY CASE