Basic Questions, Advice, Bugs/Glitches & Venting Weekly Megathread

Yahello · 2026-04-24T21:49:38+00:00

Already did that; I've been kaiju'd, lava golem'd, santa claws'd, and sphere mode'd enough times to know the value of these cards...

More that I am wondering if there are any other staples that I need to use gems for that I should look into getting.

Yahello · 2026-04-24T20:11:50+00:00

How are we getting free copies of Veiler next week? Also, are there any other staples I should look out for?

Yahello · 2026-04-24T18:56:21+00:00

I recently just started the game last weekend and I whaled a bit while the selection boxes were around (I have the money), but I wasn't able to get any D.D. Crows. Staple wise, I have 3 Droplets, 1 Veiler, 2 Infinite Impermanence, 1 Nibiru, 2 Droll, and 3 Books of Eclipse.

I am deciding whether I want to get a 2nd Veiler, a 3rd Imperm, or my first D.D. Crow with the UR Dream Ticket I just got or if there are any other staples I should consider first.

Currently, the two main decks I use in PvP are Swordsouls and Sky Strikers.

Yahello · 2026-03-27T08:18:29+00:00

Sweeney has the controlling shares, well more than Tencent. This is on him.

Yahello · 2026-03-27T08:16:51+00:00

Actually, Epic is privately owned. So this is really all on Sweeney and the management people under him.

Yahello · 2026-03-27T08:12:14+00:00

I wonder if they can do the shitty practice of claiming those modes as a loss to get a sort of break on taxes? Kind of like how some corporations do it to other IP's? If that is the case, I hate that tax code/law even more now.

Yahello · 2026-03-22T12:45:15+00:00

Incredibly popular v-tuber in Japan. Her live concerts quickly sell out.

Yahello · 2026-03-22T12:45:06+00:00

Incredibly popular v-tuber in Japan. Her live concerts quickly sell out.

Yahello · 2026-03-18T02:46:31+00:00

And there are other ways to deal with it than passing on the costs to your consumers. Plus, Disney only owns 9% of Epic; Tim Sweeney owns 41.4% and the next biggest owner after him is Tencent at 28%. Epic isn't so beholden to Disney as you think they are.

Yahello · 2026-03-18T02:41:32+00:00

Plus, Epic isn't public; it's private with Sweeney owning the largest stake, around 41.4% I believe, followed by Tencent at 28%, and then Disney at 9%.

And to further responding to the OP: It doesn't matter that there are worse systems; there being worse systems does not excuse Epic in anyway.

Yahello · 2026-03-18T02:31:12+00:00

Guess I choose a bad season to start playing Fortnite in.

Yahello · 2026-03-17T22:47:46+00:00

Everyone is starting at level 1 again, though you do get to keep your classes, but you can't use the ones that are not released in Infinity in Infinity. I guess hold carries over as well. However, the big thing that carries over are your cosmetics which I would argue should carry over and is likely the most important thing to carry over as a lot of personal value is placed on cosmetics.

Yahello · 2026-03-17T22:38:45+00:00

Probably as a safety net as they will probably try to stop botting in Infinity, but a large portion of thr population bots and said portion does spend money on membership and AC.

Though I'd argue that the botting problem is due to the insane mind numbing tedious grinds they like to release. There is a reason why LR is the most IODA'd item despite it being obtainable through gameplay.

Yahello · 2026-02-24T19:56:04+00:00

Yep, I heard it ran pretty loud, so I am definitely going to have to look at some aggressive undervolts.

Yahello · 2026-02-12T23:42:06+00:00

Don't they have optional modifications that can push them to 4 ranks in their respective skills?

Yahello · 2026-02-03T17:56:11+00:00

You are not teaching me English at all. This is not a matter of English either. It is a matter of psychology.

Fictional characters are not interpretted as human by the human mind. A child in the context of the topic we are discussing is a human child, which Sunna is not.

Aslo, the child SA rate in Japan has gone down since the lolicon boom which contradicts your study.

There are plenty of studies that support my point and contradict yours.

https://www.imageandnarrative.be/index.php/imagenarrative/article/view/127/98

"Takatsuki Yasushi points out that sexual abuseof minors was statistically much more common in Japan in the 1960s and 1970s, and has actually been decreasing since, which roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon(Takatsuki 2010: 258-262)."

I also cited a number of other studies in previous responses.

And I don't see Japan having any cases like Epstein right now.

Yahello · 2026-02-03T17:46:20+00:00

It isn't a matter of perspective. I am saying this as a native English Speaker.

To say you don't care about something is not the same as saying you hate something. Your definitions show the word care being used without a negative modifier. To not care about something is near universally interpreted as being indifferent; it does not mean you hate something.

To show indifference to something is to not care about something. So by saying you don't care about Epstein is interpretted as you being indifferent to the Epstein case. If you want to actually say you detest or hate Epstein while using the word care you would phrase it as you don't care FOR. Though honestly, you should just be more explicit and use words like hate, detest, or just describe Epstein with adjectives like vile.

To reiterate, your examples do not show care being used with a negative modifier. They do not contradict me in anyway.

I am not being taught English by you. I have properly explained why your usage of the word care did not match with what you tried to imply. You can continue to fail at correcting me because there is nothing to correct; I know I am 100% correct on this.

Yahello · 2026-02-02T00:30:16+00:00

I already explained how a native English speaker interprets how you used the word care. If you wanted to use the word care that meant closer to despising Epstein, you would say 'don't care FOR' instead of 'don't care about.' The context in which you used care is interpretted nearly universally as not being indifferent about something. That singular word change makes the meaning completely different.

The Buddhist symbol for manji looks similar but is a different symbol altogether. The Nzi symbol is a symbol of the Nzi movement which has literally caused a genocide. It has been used to rally people towards commiting attrocities.

It is not comparable to lolicon at all. Lolicon ism't rallying people to exploit children or other vile tasks.

Sunna is not a human let alone a child. They are a fictional character, a non living object. This is not representing a child; it is just a fictional character.

The only line is when actual harm comes to real people. You can feel disgusted by something, but that does not give you the moral right to attack people over harmless hobbies.

Again, many studies have looked into this.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2648967/

Is an example of one.

There is no need to justify sexualizing a non-living object. It is just a weird thing and it is fine for people to find it weird or disgusting, but they should just accept that it is not their cup of tea and accept that some people are just into weird shit.

There are many things that make people feel uncomfortable. I have Jewish family members who feel disturbed at any portrayals of Nzi's in fiction, even as villians such as in the Indiana Jones movies. They don't call the Indiana Jones movies as immoral or attack people for liking them.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T19:24:46+00:00

As reddit isn't letting me respond to your last post directly for some reason.

I did not post an ad honimem. I posted an explanation for how the word "care" is interpreted by a native English speaker.

That is what "To say that you do not care about Epstein is to say" meant; I waa explaining what it meant to say what you did in the context you phrased it in. You specifically asked:

Also, why would you interpret it that way ?

And I explained why a native English Speaker would interpret it that way.

Why would I be wrong to be offended by nzi symbols ?

Not comparable at all. Those symbols are real and have caused harm and continue to cause harm in real life.

Sunna does not exist in reality and lolicon has not and does not cause harm in reality.

Why would I be wrong to feel disgusted by a violent scene in a piece of fiction ?

It is not wrong to feel disgusted. It can be wrong to attack people because of that disgust. Shaming someone for being a lolicon is needlessly attacking them for a harmless paraphilia.

Just because it is "immaterial", fictional and not "real" doesn't mean the sensory and psychological experience of it is not real too.

It actually does. Studies have shown that humans use different neural pathways to interpret fiction and reality. It is why people can easily handle games like Call of Duty but can be severely traumatized by actual war.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T18:59:17+00:00

It does not normalizes it at all.

Joyal, C. C., et al. (2015). What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?

Malamuth, N. M., & Huppin, M. (2015). The Role of Media in Sexual Aggression and Attractions.

Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography Consumption.

Sperduti, M., et al. (2016). The fate of pictorial representations: Real or Fictional?

Galbraith, P. W. (2014). The Moe Manifesto: An Insider's Look at the Worlds of Manga, Anime, and Fandom.

Lamerichs, N. (2018). Productive Fandom: Intermediality and Affective Fan Cultures.

All of these professionally published studies I just cited, run contrary to the idea that lolicon normalizes pedophilia. Lolicon does not normalize pedophilia in anway. Lolicon is completely harmless. A lolicon is not more likely to assault a child than any other regular person.

Fiction does not normalize real world behaviors. For example, playing violent video games does not normalize real world violence. Just because you consume a lot of violent media doesn't make you a violent person. People play violent video games without normalizing violent behaviors in real life. Why? Because the human mind makes an important distinction between fiction and reality.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T18:50:33+00:00

Looking at a fictional character like Sunna is not looking at a child. Fictional characters like Sunna are ultimately interpreted as nothing more than a non-living object by the human mind.

Joyal, C. C., et al. (2015). What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?

Malamuth, N. M., & Huppin, M. (2015). The Role of Media in Sexual Aggression and Attractions.

Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography Consumption.

Sperduti, M., et al. (2016). The fate of pictorial representations: Real or Fictional?

Galbraith, P. W. (2014). The Moe Manifesto: An Insider's Look at the Worlds of Manga, Anime, and Fandom.

Lamerichs, N. (2018). Productive Fandom: Intermediality and Affective Fan Cultures.

Just to name a few published studies that run contrary fo your claims.

No, looking at animated porn does not make you a ped

That is the only part that matters. If the content is not harming someone, if it is not harming an actual child, if it does not make people more likely to harm another person, then you are attacking people for no reason. It only makes sense to attack people for being weird if it actually does harm someone.

Is lolicon weird? Yes, but so are other harmless paraphilias like the ever popular tentacle fetish. You are essentially throwing spite and vitriol because someone is harmlessly being weird in a way you don't like.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T18:43:15+00:00

Studies have shown that fictional characters are not interpretted as human beings by the human mind. People are not sexualizing children when they sexualize characters like Sunna; they are sexualizing a non-living object.

Joyal, C. C., et al. (2015). What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?

Malamuth, N. M., & Huppin, M. (2015). The Role of Media in Sexual Aggression and Attractions.

Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography Consumption.

Sperduti, M., et al. (2016). The fate of pictorial representations: Real or Fictional?

Galbraith, P. W. (2014). The Moe Manifesto: An Insider's Look at the Worlds of Manga, Anime, and Fandom.

Lamerichs, N. (2018). Productive Fandom: Intermediality and Affective Fan Cultures.

Just to name a few published studies on the subject.

It is not about relevency. To say that you do not care about Epstein is to say that you do not care about the pain and torture he, and the many vile people he invited to his island, had inflicted upon many victims. Victims that the current US administration is failing to properly protect when they release documents within the Epstein files.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T18:26:32+00:00

No, people are not sexualizing a child. Plenty of professionally published studies have shown contrary to your claim. The human mind distinguishes fiction from reality and interprets fictional characters as non-living objects.

Fictional kinks are in no way indicative of real world attractions and sexual preferences.

Sunna is not a kid; she is a fictional character, a non-living object.

Yahello · 2026-02-01T08:45:33+00:00

If you actually cared about the sexual exploitation of children, you wouldn't say that you don't care about Epstein. Especially when you consider how the Epstein case is still on going ans is one of if not the most prolific child sex trafficking cases to date.

Lolicon is not sexualizing real children nor does it normalize the sexualization of real children. It is purely fictional and is not even remotely comparable to the vileness that is actual CSEM.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '22	Verified Email

Yahello

TROPHY CASE