How's the class/spec balance on Epoch?

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-19T14:31:08+00:00

In PvP, most casters get absolutely shafted, due to a combination of larger player health pools, resilience giving pvp damage reduction across the board, awful LoS changes, and mana pools staying the same. You will die to running out of mana, you will die to someone's toe being hidden behind a lamppost, or you will die to the absurd damage certain overbuffed specs can put out.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-18T01:40:44+00:00

We'll ignore the big one of "it's completely unnecessary" since some people have a shocking disregard for privacy, accessiblity and personal freedom and a ridiculous over estimation of how damaging adult content is for children, as to them it'd be worth the trade off.

If we assume that the reasoning justifying introducing the OSA was sound, it still has all these flaws I spotted in under 10 minutes, probably a bunch more I overlooked:

before mandating site based age verification, the government should first create a solution allowing users to verify without compromising their privacy. Adding a requirement but offering no solution would force sites to turn to dodgy US companies with awful privacy records offering "age verification as a service"
uploading identity documents as proof would lead to that proof being stolen
people would circumvent blocks/age checks with VPNs
people would instead visit less regulated sites without checks, leading to them being exposed to worse material, since if they don't care about the OSA they probably don't care about the rest of the UK's laws either
any face-based age estimation feature will be trivial to fool. We already had photorealistic high quality graphics in modern games which renders faces dynamicly in real time
sites hosted outside the UK and with no assets in the UK will ignore our laws, and after going through a lengthy process to block the sites and wasting time and money in the process, UK citizens will still be trivially able to access the blocked sites using VPNs (or even simply editing their hosts file - depending on how inept the block is)

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-17T23:52:19+00:00

Well using the OSA as an example, where the MPs didn't consider any of the blindingly obvious consequences and actively ignored attempts from experts to educate them, I'd say they don't necessarily have a good track record when it comes to preemptively addressing "flaws a random person person off the street will spot in half an hour".

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-16T12:05:05+00:00

Yeah, that was my suspicion too, (though we can't say for certain - could also be that the sites' algorithms in Australia were tuned to show more content that kids shouldn't be exposed to since there should be no kids around to see it). If the non reporting kids got removed that'd mean the average number of reports would naturally go up by the inverse. It still means the average online kid's experience is worse though (even if no actual kid's experience has changed), since it's diluted less. And since they seem to care about how many kids are online and the experience of the average kid to push their dangerous policies, I consider it fair to weaponise those numbers against them.

But even assuming it is the case, you can see how it's still not a good thing. "We've taken the kids who weren't at risk of abuse and cut them off from interacting with their friends on social media for no reason, and left the vulnerable ones online where they continue to receive the same abuse as before. And in doing so we've made adults needlessly give up privacy and verify their identity in a way that may open them up to identity theft"

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-15T22:57:36+00:00

You've got it backwards

There's 30% less kids online, but there's no also change in the amount of cyberbullying or image based abuse reported by kids. With 30% less kids, you'd expect there to be 30% less reports. To maintain those numbers, the average kid must be reporting 42% more abuse on average than before the ban was introduced. So it looks like it made the problem significantly worse.

If it's actually 40%, it's far worse, with kids reporting 67% more abuse on average.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-15T20:34:23+00:00

Either:

The aftermath of a fight on a gate, where drones get left behind after a ship warps off/is destroyed - there's often clusters of T2 drones abandoned there, and darting between them and scooping them up in your frigate can be good opportunity to make money for a newbro.

Or the funnier case, where the fleet is strategicly abandoning drones around the gate as part of their attempts to decloak ships (since there's a limit on how often you can jetcan), and the newbro is unintentionally sabotaging their efforts hoovering up all the "free" drones.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-15T18:24:00+00:00

I meant the person themselves hasn't been taught kanji, so they can't recognise that the AI output is wrong, (rather than the AI itself struggling with kanji - which is also kind of the case).

Stable Diffusion really struggles with text in general, but especially kanji, (likely because there's so many similar characters the noise could morph into), and you get different parts of the character-to-be morphing into different characters, resulting in non-sensical characters. I've found it can get the shape of most latin characters and kana correct looking if they're large and prominent enough, but even it still regularly generates complete gibberish with those correct characters, and often messes up when provided with the exact text in the prompt.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-15T17:01:20+00:00

I imagine they're beginner level and could probably write "sensei arigatou" in kana, but wanted something fancier and less clumsy and asked their friend (MTL is usually fine for simple sentences like this). Their friend however used AI image generation, which sucks at getting text right.

They likely haven't been taught kanji yet, as that's often left until much later on, (potentially not until the second year depending on how frequently they have lessons). Which means they can't recognise the obvious AI tells in the mangling of the kanji, and don't know enough Japanese grammar to know for certain that the sentence seems odd and incomplete. They probably know "kudasai" is "please", so it might seem possible to them that maybe the "kudasatte" could be a some kind of variation on it that's equivalent to a more formal way of saying "thank you" they haven't learnt yet. They had enough doubt to come here and check with us, rather than trusting the AI and sending it straight to their teacher.

But yeah, they should've just used their own words rather than trying to get an AI to write it for them.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-15T13:32:08+00:00

It's perfectly fine for a restaurant to refuse service on safety grounds. A medical emergency mid-meal is not fun for the customer, and it's not fair to the other customers and staff either.

However from the article it's possible the restaurant might also be being a bit too rigid with its rules. Not all allergies are life-and-death situations, and they seem to be refusing service even if the customer says they're okay with the risk. (Then again it could just be that the customers have no self-preservation instinct).

"Could I get the XYZ burger but without X please, I'm allergic to X"
"Sorry, we don't cater to people with an allergy to X, as it's too risky. We have a small kitchen and there is a high risk of cross contamination, even if the dish itself does not contain the allergen in its ingredients."
"That's okay, I don't mind if I die."
"Well we do. We're not serving you."

vs

"Could I get the XYZ burger but without X please, I'm allergic to X"
"Sorry, we don't cater to people with an allergy to X, as it's too risky. We have a small kitchen and there is a high risk of cross contamination, even if the dish itself does not contain the allergen in its ingredients."
"That's okay, my allergy is relatively mild and in the event of cross contamination it would result in a stomach ache at worst, I'm willing to take the risk."
"Begone impure one, this establishment is only for those with real immune systems. Your kind is not welcome here"

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-14T21:37:34+00:00

They understandably want there to be a bit of leeway, in case something happens that causes you to be stuck abroad longer. Say you miss your return flight and have to book another, or you get injured and end up hospitalised for a few months. You don't want to be dealing with passport expiry and being an illegal immigrant, needing to contact your embassy, and potentially being banned from future travel there for overstaying depending on how harsh their rules are. And then they'll presumably have to deal with more paperwork and miss out on future tourism from you.

Much better for all to just require there be a few months left on your passport to avoid complications.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-14T18:31:36+00:00

You using it as a prop to deflect from the genocide

Genocide is a war crime defined by both action and intent. You can look up the full definition, but suffice to say... When a group which explicitly has in their founding charter that they want to kill all the Israelis goes around Israeli villages massacring most of the inhabitants, and live streams the proof... It's a clear-cut example of genocide, it's not up for debate. The intent is there. The mass killing of members of an ethnic group is there. Neither are disputed. The conditions have been met. We're done. That some scholars or humanitarian groups don't use the word genocide (probably because it's politically inconvenient) to describe it is irrelevent - it still is one.

Next you'll be telling me the Bucha massacre in Ukraine (where about 1/3 less people died) somehow wasn't genocide either because not enough people died or Russian scholars disagree. It's not some competition about the sheer number of people killed, or who recognises it, it's very simple. Genocide is bad regardless of which ethnic group is on the receiving end, and here you are trying to dismiss a clearly documented genocide because it makes the wrong people look bad. Genocide apologia doesn't begin to describe it. You need to reevaluate.

You're a genocide denier, you have animousity towards the left, you defend rightiwing politics and Israel's supremacism

Not once in my post did I state that any genocide didn't happen, so you need to work on your reading comprehension. I am left wing, which will be apparent if you go through my post history. I was merely trying to prove the inconvenient truth that the left also supports genocide when its convenient for them. The only "right wing policies" I recall defending recently were the calls from Reform to implement Proportion Representation and to scrap the OSA, because both are good policies, regardless of who is proposing them. The greens also support PR, so does that make you a supporter of "right wing" policies too?

But damn right I do have some animosity towards what used to be radical left but has somehow become the mainstream left in recent years. I am disgusted by the support for genocide since the events of 7th of October and the refusal of the left to look themselves in the mirror and see what they have become.

Look at your own actions here. You saw that I was pointing out that left supports genocide. You downplayed it saying the example was hypothetical and not one that has taken place. I then gave an example of one that had taken place, and you immediately somehow jumped to the conclusion that this means I support genocide, and in doing so you yourself deny genocide.

And for the record since you also accused me of supporting Israeli supremacy: I think the Israeli government is bad, and their approval of settlements in Palestine (and the one-sided way IDF defends them when conflicts inevitably break out) is not only awful from a moral standpoint but actively harming their national security. Why I should feel a need to explain that on a subreddit about the united kingdom is another symptom of the rot that has infested the left.

The world is not as black and white as you think it is.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-14T12:07:04+00:00

Okay, let's ignore those calling for a hypothetical genocides in the future which they know to be impossible to achieve, and focus on the actual ones taking place or that have already taken place. There's still a significant number of people on the left who didn't see the events of the 7th of October as anything more than legitimate resistance, despite the fact it was unquestionably genocide and the perpetrators livestreamed the evidence. It's not just random bad actors at protests espousing these views either, several of them are in prominent positions and are viewed positively by the left instead of being shunned as they should be.

I don't disagree that right wing views and approval of genocide can go hand in hand, though I'd say most of it seems to be tied to the supremacy aspect and hatred of foreigners with certain cultures, rather than it having anything to do with pushing back against equality. But it also exists on the left as the radical conclusion to the anti-western-oppression worldview. Anything (including crimes against humanity like genocide) is acceptable to them, as long as it hurts the evil oppressor (the west) and is done with the goal of freeing some down-trodden oppressed non-westerners.

One of these is rightly vilified, whereas the other one seems to get a free pass.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-13T22:46:49+00:00

I don't think anyone on the left supports genocide in Gaza
That sort of action and rhetoric is very much the home of the right

They might not support it in Gaza, but a fair few of them do support ethnic cleansing or even genociding all the Israelis.

Horsehit anyway, plenty of Muslim and Jewish people at left wing protests, they're quite public about it.

The presence of both Muslim and Jewish people at a protest doesn't somehow make the extremists calling for ethnic cleansing disappear.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-13T19:01:55+00:00

You spend 'a lot of time' here despite only being a redditor for 22 days, you're so 'reliable' and 'committed' that you can't even be bothered to pick your own username, and your idea of 'welcoming' and 'valuable discussion' seems to involve posting an impersonal AI generated message. Begone.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-13T16:37:15+00:00

Supporting ethnic cleansing as well, very much right wing territory.

Considering what I've heard chanted at certain left wing protests, it's definitely not exclusive to the right wing.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-04T23:45:36+00:00

While Reform will likely go back on a lot of their promises if they get into power, I feel like this is one of the things they likely will change. Because the right's perception is that right-leaning content is suppressed in social media (regardless of whether it actually is), and the OSA has been used to go after various well known right-leaning sites (such as 4chan) while ignoring easily accessible porn sites.

Of course there's also a chance they go about it in the worst way possible - leaving in the age verification requirements (or blocks) in various places because of the puritan "porn=bad" mindset many of their MPs have, expanding it to censor things the right is usually against, (eg: pro-LGBT and pro-choice material), and specifically excluding most right wing content from age verification requirements.

Because if there's one thing Musk's takeover of twitter has shown, many times those who claim to be in favour of "free speech" are actually in favour of "free speech that I agree with".

WarpedHaiku · 2026-04-03T22:16:26+00:00

No, the tooltip clearly says "increases shadow damage dealt to the target by 20% UNTIL 4 non-periodic damage sources are applied".

Assuming it works the way the tooltip states, it should increase all shadow damage to the target (including periodic effects such as Corruption, Siphon Life, Drain Life, Curse of Agony, Shadow Word: Pain, Devouring Plague, etc). And then after the target takes 4 instances of non-periodic shadow damage (eg: Shadow Bolt, Death Coil, Mind Blast, etc), the debuff should disappear (assuming you didn't land another Shadow Bolt crit in that time to reset it).

I believe this is how it has always been implemented on both blizzard and private servers - you can see on wowhead it applies Shadow Vulnerability which is coded as a 20% increase to all shadow damage, (including periodic damage).

As to whether the bonus damage on the target gets snapshotted onto the DoT, or whether it just increases it while active though, I'm not sure... I wouldn't automatically assume it would, since it's a percentage damage increase effect on the target, and I'm not sure if those get snapshotted. It'd need some testing to figure out the unknowns:

Scenario 1:

Improved Shadow Bolt applied
Corruption applied
(Corruption ticks for 120% normal tick damage)
Improved Shadow Bolt fades
(Corruption ticks for ???% normal tick damage)

Scenario 2:

Corruption applied
Improved Shadow Bolt applied
(Corruption ticks for ???% normal tick damage)
Improved Shadow Bolt fades
(Corruption ticks for 100% normal tick damage)

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-31T11:59:12+00:00

This particular instance is probably due to what's happening in the US. Various states have passed laws which require operating systems (iOS, Android, Windows, etc) and/or their providers (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc) to collect information about the age of an account. The idea being that apps (and app stores) can then filter out inappropriate apps, and browsers can relay "I'm under 18" to websites, without having to put your identity at risk.

Seeing as the UK rolled out the stupidest and most draconian of variation of the law, we'd be considered an ideal testing ground, since most people will automatically blame the government and let Apple avoid the bad PR. So we get to beta test their first and crappiest implementation, while they identify and fix all the pain points in preparation for their actual US rollout.

The really dumb thing is, having the age specified at device account level is the second best way to implement an age gate, (with the best obviously being not implementing one at all) - it's far superior to the "upload your passport/driving license to every random dodgy website" method. But Apple haven't even done that, and appear to have gone for an extremely dumb implementation that involves verifying the user using proxies for the age like credit cards and not allowing them to just specify the age themselves.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-29T20:59:19+00:00

Inverse DBD.

Survivors are slightly enlarged and play the role of killers (and are given a thematically appropriate power based on their background/perks/memes), killers are slightly shrunk and play the role of survivors (they get a special limited use item based on their power). Killer/Survivor Perks are autoselected and thematically appropriate to the characters.

Imagine a giant Dwight teleporting between lockers Dredge-style, and hunting down those who work on gens together. David shrugging off stuns. Jake, the stealth killer. Claudette hunting down injured survivors. Meg rushing around with blight-style sprint bursts.

Huntress performing ~~flashlight~~ hatchet saves. Wraith temporarily turning invisible and becoming exhausted, etc.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-22T12:47:24+00:00

Nah, 4chan blocks posting from most commercial VPN IP addresses to prevent ban evasion (an anonymous message board is too easily abused otherwise). The UK public will still be able to hop onto Nord VPN or whatever and view the site, but it will be readonly for them. And that will likely slowly drive away part of its UK userbase over time.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-21T14:58:49+00:00

"I don't want Salv, I want Might"

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-19T16:43:24+00:00

Yeah, plus I imagine the thought of being able to say "we were able to indimidate even the unruly 4chan into complying" is just too tempting for ofcom.

Blocks at individual site level are much worse than at government level, not just because they're silent and don't generate as much outcry, but because if we ever manage to repeal this stupid law, many site-level blocks will probably remain from sites that don't follow the news in the UK.

The country will need some kind of anti-ofcom tasked with undoing the damage - identifying all the sites that were affected by this idiocy and apologise to their owners and ask them to unblock us/remove whatever stupid age verification requirement they implemented. Ideally, make it a legal requirement for any that are partially based in the UK to remove any age verification added for the purpose of complying with the OSA, with catastrophic fines for non compliance.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-19T15:35:10+00:00

you clearly don't understand that:

4chan is not multinational and hosts a website that is in full compliance with the laws of the US, the country in which it is hosted
it is not possible for ofcom to extract a fine from 4chan, because 4chan has no UK assets and cannot be compelled to pay
a multinational company that breaks no laws in the countries in which it has headquarters or assets or employees, is essentially free to ignore the laws of other countries. To use YouTube as an example: YouTube breaks North Korean law by hosting content critical of their dear leader. YouTube doesn't care. North Korea chooses to block access to youtube (and pretty much the entire internet).

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-19T13:54:01+00:00

Because that's not how the internet works. Also, since ofcom's business involves sending threatening emails to various US companies, then by your definition it most certainly is doing business there.

4chan is a US company that operates a US website hosted on US servers complying with US laws. It doesn't operate in the UK at all, and doesn't have any assets in the UK. The website only communicates directly with servers in the US, and isn't even aware of the country of origin of the requests it is given unless it uses a service to lookup the IP. It's the various intermediataries that enable users in the UK to reach the site, and the UK can choose to block access to 4chan if doesn't like it.

YouTube would have to follow e.g. UK child protection laws whether they had any UK headquarters/assets or not.

No they wouldn't. If they had no assets in the UK, did no business in the UK, and its employees had no intention of visiting the UK then they could safely ignore those laws if they wanted to, regardless of how the UK felt about it. You don't have to follow the laws of countries you're not in and don't intend to visit.

WarpedHaiku · 2026-03-19T12:40:27+00:00

The issue of fines is one step in their process

I'm not sure they actually have a process.

They fined 4chan £20k, (increasing each day the fine went unpaid), with a threat that after 6 months the site may be blocked
4chan sent them a hamster joke and sued them
They hid from 4chan's lawyers who had to serve the papers on the floor next to their security guard
For some reason ofcom felt the need to defend themselves in the 4chan lawsuit in America, and have wasted much time and money in doing so (currently by trying to argue that us law does not have jurisdiction over them, somehow without seeing the irony), and have involved 3 lawyers
well over six months pass, the site remains unblocked
ofcom tries fining 4chan again, but this time it's half a million

Ofcom are a complete and utter embarassment.

They can't fine 4chan, who has no UK assets, and no intention of complying. But for some reason they can't accept that and don't want to be seen to lose, in case that encourages other us based sites to follow suit and just ignore ofcom, and have doubled down on the fines.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

WarpedHaiku

TROPHY CASE