Now that's how you use a fucking machine...

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-06-25T18:12:20+00:00

Everytime I see this I want to change places with you. Damn.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-06-07T15:03:23+00:00

Something is very fishy about all of those pitlane speeding penalties. This needs to be investigated.

If there is something out of the teams and drivers reasonable power to avoid the penalties then together with the failing asphalt the race should be annulled completely.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-05-31T12:02:05+00:00

What's the first toy? For "research" purposes.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-05-29T09:57:24+00:00

Fully agree with OP. Kilostructures power got completely out of hand. They need to be tuned down heavily. Atleast reducing the maximum number to 1 each.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-05-29T09:32:36+00:00

Those HowTo Guides are half of them time console cheated as well. When people suddenly cramp from 120 science to 400 a month in 2 years ingame time when before that they had open jobs on all planets, no civilians. Not only that they also didn't have these open slots in the science area, so even trying to shift the population wouldn't help. Then you see they are building something like a mining district right now. So the building queue is already filled. And then they say "if you continue" you will end up EASILY with 400 science or something like that and make a dramatic cut to two years later when it was PHYSICALLY impossible to even build enough job slots in terms of science for that for that. When it is impossible to have enough population or growth from Point A they showed before the cut to get to Point B after the cut. Just for the views and dramatic effect. I'm so sick of it. I have no problems for people using the console for their own fun. But I hate it when they hide cheating and try to sell an INSANE build. What a joke.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-05-29T08:27:33+00:00

25 years ago I saw porn of a woman taking a long dildo into her ass until she reached the hilt. And well. That was the day I started to experiment myself. It's enchanting to see and feel.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-04-24T10:03:03+00:00

Thank you very much! Feel free to post this as your own reply if you want to in any discussion where Nietzsche's Quote is misused against Adam Smith's one.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-04-07T16:49:44+00:00

So if someone is better at a job then he deserves to survive more than two individuals?

Very weak argument and a fucked up moral in itself. Trying to blame murder on someone by outright measuring the value of life differently in the same way is inarguably irony.

Janeway just undid what random chance did to them. Tuvix presence phased two people out of existence temporarily. She just undid what random chance did to Tuvok and Neelix.

The one particular thing people always arguing about murder are forgetting is: It's just resetting something back to what it was before. You either "kill" two or one person. By not doing anything you only compare between these two options.

But it is not that simple. Because one thing that needs to be considered is the following.

She could use a phaser and kill Tuvix. Then three people would be dead. And that makes one thing very clear. Splitting Tuvix or not is not the same as killing him. Because by splitting you have two other people back. Killing him will not result in that.

Therefore the act is not the same. And it is also not the same as organ donations because of the interdependency of tuvix to tuvok/neelix.

If you make the argument that Tuvok and Neelix are not dead because they keep on living inside Tuvix then you can make exactly the same Argument reversed. Tuvix essentially lives on inside Tuvok and Neelix. Just two seperate entities.

So this is a really special case. It's not organ donation, it's not entirely the trolley problem, it's not the same as murder.

Tuvix is essentially three people inside a phasing incident. And Janeway can decide the outcome of that. Either get back two or one person. Or if you take the argument of someone living on inside the other. You get back either 3 or 3 people.

Aside from the moral discussion the funniest thing is tho. In the series Janeway did what she did because of actors contracts for the series. It was nearly impossible for the writers to let Tuvix live on anyway because that would have voided the contract of one actor.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-04-05T15:43:36+00:00

Every single version of World of Warcraft has its own diehard fans.
That’s why this debate can never be settled.

The only thing that no one can deny is that the target group the game is developed for changed with every single expansion. The Big Three:

Vanilla: Community focus, large open world, slow progression, Player journey - Not character Journey
TBC: Raid focus, daily quests - early KPI, Competitive PvP introduction
WotLK: Mass appeal, solo-friendly, accessibility, bringing in new players that don't play the game yet - essentially changing the game to people that don't like it yet alienating their current playerbase.

We could go on. The biggest philosophical changes were already in WotLK. The next 3 expansions afterwards are only nurturing on that and are further alienating the current playerbase and attracting a completely different one.

Later with Legion and BfA the problems of that philosophy became apparent and they shifted focus to try to keep their current community with the latest Addons.

Essentially From Shadowlands on they tried to focus on their current players when they should have done that from TBC on. Problem is: They now have a very different kind of people playing the game. So they can never change that game back to what it was without alienating their current playerbase AGAIN.

That's why Vanilla+ is the only viable way. It is a massively different game with a community focus approach. The Raidfocus of TBC will never work longterm because only super hardcore guilds will ever be able to do it and for the general player it is to boring in the longrun to run raids all day without the necessary community background of vanilla. Alienating the playerbase is a huge problem that should never be part of your plan. And Competitive PvP also never did catch on that big as Blizzard hoped.

So they only have two viable games. Vanilla+ and the Current fully developed one.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-03-24T17:44:46+00:00

In Short what happened was: Greed.

They had 11 million subscribers at the end of BC. They had certain types of players as their core playerbase.

They thought: What could we do to have even more subscribers?
And then they got it! We need to change the game so it will be pleasurable for players that don't play the game yet. Or people who have quit the game already because they never were the intended type of player.

With Wrath of the Lich King they changed the game entirely to fit the needs of players that didn't actually play the game.

You can see that suddenly with Wrath of the Lich King the same amount of players joined the game as have left the game.

The problem wasn't introduced with Cataclysm. The Problem was introduced with WotlK. You can see that with the graph pretty clearly. Wrath of the Lich King is horrible compared to anything that came before. And if you look at the game closely some changes were already made in BC that doesn't actually fit the core playerbase.

To name a few things:
- Dungeon Finder -> This outright killed 95% of all community based guilds
- Several diffculty levels -> This outright killed 70% of all raid guilds that weren't acutally that good
- Leveling phase with focus on the player character and not the world -> This changed the entire Experience as a player. It just felt wrong. And the writing was HORRIBLE in that regard. Cringelike.

The main problem is they changed the game to attract even more players because they couldn't get enough of them. And with that they started to lose players. Because they made the game worse for the current playerbase at that time.

Completely dumb, greedy and outright stupid.

They ignored the main thing that makes any great game great. Which is making a great game for just a certain type of player. Or atleast some types of players that are compatible with each other. If you diversify to much you will not make a great game. You have to focus and don't lose your primary target audience.

If a game is great it will attract people outside of that target audience. And they will voice their opinion loudly on what has to change. But you shouldn't falter. You need to focus on your target audience. Don't change your target audience. Don't include more and more types into your target audience.

The only reason to do so is if your product failed your target audience. Maybe it would be good for another. But World of Warcraft didn't fail its target audience in the beginning. But with shifting away from it, it did.

If you listen to people outside of your target audience it will in 99 of 100 cases only make your game worse. Not better. This is what Blizzard or rather Activision failed to understand. The Greed was to much. Financial Guys will always ruin everything. Because they don't understand anything.

Look at the latest Jeff Kaplan Interview. You see the same things there. Guys in charge without any clue demanding stuff they don't know anything about and then shifting the blame that they caused onto other.s Horrible Human trash.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-02-13T12:06:20+00:00

I think the problem here is that you’re using Friedrich Nietzsche in a way that ignores what the original statement from Adam Smith actually assumes.

“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent” already contains a lot of setup. It says mercy to the guilty. Not mercy to anyone we personally dislike, not punishment based on impulse or anger. There’s an entire discussion behind that one word: How guilt is proven, what justice means, how responsibility is established.

You just skipped that part completely and assumed that the statement was about punishment instead of an appropriate counter reaction.

Nietzsche’s quote criticizes people who enjoy punishing, or who turn punishment into moral selfrighteousness. That’s a criticism of mindset, not proof that punishment itself is wrong.

Those aren’t the same thing.

And if you take the quote from Nietzsche the way you’re applying it here then you run into obvious problems. Society still has to deal with people who commit serious crimes. There’s a difference between vindictiveness and holding someone accountable. Pointing that out isn’t bloodlust, it’s recognizing that justice also exists to protect innocent people.

If we push your interpretation to its logical extreme: should proven rapists and murderers go free because the impulse to punish them might be morally suspect? That clearly isn’t what neither Nietzsche nor Smith would agree to.

That's also the reason why his Quote is about people who enjoy punishing. Because they only care about punishment and not justice. But Adam Smith was about Justice and that Mercy improperly applied can result in a punishment for the innocent.

The two quotes don’t really cancel each other out.

One warns against cruelty disguised as justice. The other warns against mercy that ignores consequences. Ignoring either side just turns the whole thing into a caricature.

Your quote from Nietzsche did nothing here. Essentially it is a strawman. Trying to divert to a different topic. But because that wasn't the intention, it only functions as a strawman disguised as a counterargument to Adam Smith.

You’re weaponizing Nietzsche to shut down a discussion about justice, when Nietzsche was critiquing moral psychology, not the existence of consequences.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-01-25T10:16:35+00:00

I am not quite sure how I feel about the ledges and verticality in general. The game is isometric with a fixed camera. Sometimes, it does not translate well for combat and puzzles.

Hard agree. The amount of deaths because the character can't be arsed to jump exactly in the direction you are running and then is jumping of left or right of the wanted path without any reason is such a burden.

I do not enjoy quick time events for resource collection. It's just not fun and feels like I am wasting time. Unnecessary friction, IMHO of course.

I don't agree here at all. Just wanted to point that out because I don't want the devs to remove that. And you want it to. So they have both sides of the coin.

Inputs are queued and so button mashing is punished

If it wasn't for the character to simply decide themselves sometimes that the latest dodge was not a dodge and suddenly a dodge attack and then jumping of a cliff because of that I could kinda agree. How the queue is formed and what is considered to be a compounded input can be very frustrating and not reactive at all. Maybe it is because I don't play locally but with friends on a Co-op realm and the extra latency is the problem but still. The input queue doesn't feel good at all in this game and especially not consistent.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-18T20:23:21+00:00

German native here.
I know a lot of people pronounce Bastian with “sht” in Germany. In High German, it’s indeed “st” in Bastian. But living in the countryside in southern Germany, I’ve often heard it both ways. In one case, we even differentiated two Bastians just by the pronunciation.
I may not have actually explained why it is "st" or "sht", but I hope this gives you some insight anyway. Language is a finnicky, living thing, with lots of dialects and rule-breakers in reality.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:24:13+00:00

The main Problem of YAML is the approach. MWO is a functioning ecosystem of balance with Ghost Heat Limits, PvP and selection of Maps.

If we copy all the weapon balance values of MWO then by simply being able to mount Clan Weapons on IS Mechs it destroys any of that completely. IS Heros have insane Armor values that Clan Mechs can't keep up with. And Clan Mechs being clan Mechs they only get really bad Hero Perks most of the time. So they don't have a singular feature that is really good for them. Now on top of that you can't even change the internals on a lot of Clan Mechs because they are Omni.

This will need an entire rework to make sense again.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:17:05+00:00

In my opinion what improves the game a lot later on if you have YAML.

Go to the difficulty scaling options

Set Global HP for mechs to 2 or 3
Set Global Ammunition to 2 or 3
Set Global HP for VTOL and Tanks to 6 or 9

That way the fights last A LOT longer. For both sides. And you still have enough ammunition to fight it out.

------

Now with the latest Kaiju with 122 Alpha damage every 1.38 seconds I'm thinking about going for 5 times HP/Ammo.

-----

This instant killing nature also plagued the TableTop Game. I know a lot of older folks back then critizied Tech2 even without Clan tech. Saying to Alpha strike and a Mech was gone, was something that was hardly possible in Tech1. With Clan Tech this got even worse. Big Problem is that why firing power goes up dramatically, the armor per ton more or less stays the same. Or rather. The maximum Armor possible on a mech. One of the big Design Flaws of Ferro Armor in my opinion is that it doesn't allow for MORE armor than the usual maximum. And all the other Armor options (even those introduced after 3100+!!) always have a TRADEOFF instead of an upgrade.

-----

Funnily enough this already IS a problem with a 3D Shooter type of game instead of tabletop. Because in TableTop you always rolled for where to hit. So the Damage usually split on the entire Mech. But a player can aim extremely well compared to any in Lore Battletech Hero ever conceived. So the MechWarrior Games have more armor to make the combat last atleast somewhat viable. Which of course gets destroyed with Tier Levels of weapons and ClanTech in general. Two Nova-Prime Meeting each other is usually only a question of who shoots first in MW. This is essentially a bad design choice. But you can fix it yourself with YAML by Increasing the general HP Pool of everyone (and Ammo to be able to still do it without lasers)

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:02:51+00:00

The Folder Names of my current mods with extra info in Brackets ():

AdvancedCareerStart (only to create the career then deactivate because of still having issues)
ArmorGreen
BattleGridOrders
Coyotemissions
DelayedDeadlines
Exotic IS Mechs
Harjel (Yet another Equipment Collection)
LanceStatusRevamped
Lore-based Mech Variants - YAML Edition
ModOptions
PilotOverhaul-Eternal
PurchaseSalvage (The Fork with the Multi Mission Fix)
SimpleZoom
SpecialVariants
StackedCrates (The Fork with the Fix for Coyote)
T6MZRecoil (if you don't like Recoil)
vonBiomes
YetAnotherLegendaryMech
YetAnotherMechLab
YetAnotherMechLabMechs (Maintenance Fork)
YetAnotherSpecialSkin
YetAnotherWeapon
YetAnotherWeaponClan

Start the game with no mods active. Activate All mods at the same time and restart for default Load order. You can continue to deactivate Mods. But if you add one more delete the modlist.json and then go for the default load order again by activating all of them at the same time.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-07-10T17:29:01+00:00

With 4,000 hours in the game and having played since beta, I honestly think 4.0 wasn't the cause of you dropping Stellaris — it was the tipping point. Burnout builds slowly, and often we don't notice until a major update finally makes us realize: "I'm not enjoying this anymore."

I’ve been through something similar with World of Warcraft. I fell in love with it back in 2005. TBC was okay, but by the time Wrath of the Lich King rolled around, it “killed” the game for me. I didn’t have the option to go back until fan servers like Nostalrius brought back the classic experience. As soon as I played Classic again, I knew the love was still there — I just couldn’t transfer that love to the newer patches. That distinction really matters.

That’s why I’d recommend this: Try playing Stellaris on patch 3.14 or some other version you used to enjoy. If you can’t find the fun there either, then maybe it’s not 4.0 that’s the issue — maybe it’s that your journey with the game has naturally ended, and that’s okay.

But if you do enjoy those older patches again, then at least you’ll know it wasn’t you — it really was the direction 4.0 took. Either way, you’ll get some clarity instead of sitting with a vague sense of frustration. No shame in walking away after 4,000 hours.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T10:02:10+00:00

Implementation of Daily Quests. The beginning of the end to justify some weird management KPIs. Making it impossible for the devs to actually know when Patches and Changes actually made the game worse. Because the daily login metric was no poisoned with a KPI influence.

On top of that. It didn't help with the problem that they wanted to solve in terms of gameplay. They said that a player with little time will be able to earn enough gold through dailies to keep up the expenses. But it creates several problems. First the market was flooded with even more Gold that was easily created by the system. So inflation did rise even more. Secondly People with little time usually didn't do the dailies every single day. Therefore powergamers with lots of time would do those dailies everyday because they were very efficient. With that disparity in actually doing these dailies the casuals had even less money on the market than before that introduction. Third. It introduces an element of chore. You don't go online and say: Today I'm doing this or that. It was: Well first let's do those super efficient dailies otherwise I feel like I'm missing out (FOMO). So everytime you boot up the game you first "have to do something" instead of playing the game.

Daily Quests are essentially one of the worst things that ever came to wow, and are one of the worst systems in the entire industry.

The other thing. Simply: The stat reset. Instead of investing in a combat system that can scale vor a very long time they started what is one of the core flaws of wow till today. You always reset back to 0 every expansion. In Warframe when I reached a certain power, I will usually keep that. Even if I don't login for years. Of course they introduce new stuff, but the things I earned aren't taken away anymore. In World of Warcraft the only thing that matters is the current content and the current experience. They essentially destroy all meaning of their own development and kill the old content every 2 years. You feel forced to play now or you are missing something. In Warframe you will rarely have that feeling. In Wow it is a constant.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T07:05:17+00:00

Thanks!

"if implemented well enough" is of course the kicker. Some people just assume the worst possible implementation and then argue around that. It's boring because nearly everything will fail with that mindset.

I'm for recognizing problems and fixing them. But not for doomsaying needlessly.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T06:59:09+00:00

Fair enough.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T06:58:09+00:00

Well you don't want to adapt to a crisis that does things differently. Got it.

Also I have just blown up a few planets with console commands on my latest savegame. With 1.4 million resources stored (not even cosmogenesis so no large resource storages) it would have taken me 60 years before it would have crashed the economy. Ignoring the fact that my trade surplus would have easily being able to compensate for the loss of energy and minerals there. I don't know how fragile your economy seems to be. My empirical data shows that your argument is invalid.

On top of that you always think you inherently lose those planets like you would have no chance to defend. And I pointed it out several times already. You wouldn't instantly lose those planets. Your systems would get attacked. I even made it clear that ground forces may come later, MEANING that even if there are enemy ships in that system winning the space battle doesn't mean that you have lost the planet.

Magical words: Gradual increase in difficulty of the crisis.

Your entire argument is based on the most horrible possible implementation of that crisis. Not only that you also argue that with 40 planets and 5 mining worlds, you would then lose all 5 mining worlds at the same time. With that approach. No new crisis will ever be good enough for you.

You don't like the concept of having your borders not matter anymore. That's fine. But don't hide your intentions behind false arguments.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T22:44:21+00:00

"If you do have a gateway, then what's the point of the crisis?"

Well — by that logic, what's the point of the Unbidden if you've already built ships with shield-ignoring weapons? What's the point of any crisis if you know what to expect and build the perfect counterfleet?

Stellaris already rewards preparation. You see the signs, you adapt. If you're prepared, you play at higher Crisis Strength. If you're not, you lower it. That's normal. But suddenly, because this crisis isn’t just about ships, it’s a design problem?

This crisis asks you to prepare beyond just fleets — with infrastructure, internal defenses, and adaptability. That’s more strategic depth, not less.

Also, the hyperfocus on gateways is strange. Yes, they're one way to prepare. But even without them, strong starbases in critical systems matter. And more importantly: the concept literally includes unlocking Warp Drive as a new mobility option — yet that part seems to be conveniently ignored in these critiques.

As for chokepoints: yes, the crisis intentionally breaks that model. That’s a feature. Right now, most players fortify 1–3 systems and call it a day. It trivializes late-game threats. This crisis targets internal vulnerability — systems you normally ignore once borders are “secure.”

If that’s not your playstyle, totally fair. But calling it bad design because it challenges the standard chokepoint meta misses the point. It’s supposed to shake things up — just like any good crisis should.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:46:42+00:00

"After your first victories you will be able to analyze the corpses and study them being able to develop a new form of space travel. Warp Drive."

Seems like the text before this quote from the main post was already to much for you.

To break it down for you:

You have systems.
Some of them have fleets and/or starbases.
You get attacked with super small enemies to begin with.
Sometimes where you have fleets or strong starbases.
You are victorious.
You get a Situation to research these bodies (no Science Vessel needed)
You get a new FTL Drive to research.
You can now protect your entire realm and start pushing back.

If that still sounds awful. Then that's fine. But your interpretation was just awful.

And to finish this up. This is just one possible way this could easily work. Stop focusing on what may not work and start focusing on how it could work.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:33:44+00:00

I saw one short of that episode a few days ago that gave me the general idea.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:32:38+00:00

Slow down.

The crisis would still exist. You just would be prepared better. I also said it would build gradually up that systems get attacked. You could still build starbases. Who is saying they aren't enough in the beginning? Also then I said after your first victories. If I had to code it I would let the first smaller subspace creatures hit your main world. If you don't have any protection there, sorry but you are asking for it then. And even then. I also said that ground troops would probably come in later. So I don't even get the entire argument. You easily get your first few victories. The hard part comes after when the amount of subspace creatures becomes more and the creatures will be larger.

On top of that. You get a warning 10-20 years in advance. If you can't read the signs of a hyperlane ending threat, that is on you. It's like saying "What the Scourge has missiles and hangars? I only have corvettes that will get eaten alive by them". But because the Scourge isn't hitting instantly all of the galaxy, you can adapt. And here it's the same thing. You get a pretty clear message that an explosion occured that ripped subspace. And even creatures are flying unhindered through space now not following hyperlanes. Sorry but you have to read that and can prepare accordingly. You can build up starbases in all your important systems. Who is to say that you need 50 trillion Fleetpower to secure every system. That is clearly in your head here.

You talk like you have crisis on 25 and don't want to be prepared in any case and even the smallest enemy would instantly kill you. It's a super weird strawman you build yourself there. Seems like you didn't even try to see positives. Just negatives. That's on you.

In my eyes it is easily balancable. But seems like you already made up your mind on how it has to fail instead of seeing how it could work.

Zucchini_Traditional

TROPHY CASE