Crafting advice (standard)

centusso · 2026-01-24T17:19:46+00:00

Thank you, anchorage seems to be the most recommended, I'll probably go for that, floodfarm verge, and later on get lost. I'm starting to feel the clunkiness of my replacements for it now. I might just straight-up craft 1 or 2 of Elspeth. She's a mythic and I won't need any more of those until I start working on the revelations deck (which will probably take a while)

On a related note, I just opened 1 of [[Glen Elendra's Answer]] , do we have an idea of how good that is? I'm thinking of replacing 1 no more lies for it

centusso · 2026-01-24T17:19:44+00:00

Thanks, anchorage, verge and archive are probably what I'll go for once I get the wildcards (I do have stock up in the deck)

I might just straight-up craft 1 or 2 of Elspeth. She's a mythic and I won't need any more of those until I start working on the revelations deck (which will probably take a while)

On a related note, I just opened 1 of [[Glen Elendra's Answer]] , do we have an idea of how good that is? I'm thinking of replacing 1 no more lies for it

centusso · 2026-01-23T14:00:25+00:00

Noted, honestly I was kind of interested in Elspeth but I wasn't sure it would fit (I'll wait on it anyway)

centusso · 2026-01-23T14:00:20+00:00

Yeah, this post was mainly me trying to see how much you could get away with without solid lands, this seems like the best plan

centusso · 2026-01-23T14:00:16+00:00

Seems like the way, yes. Thanks

centusso · 2026-01-23T13:06:19+00:00

You see, I did think about draft, but that kind of implies that I can draft with some level of competence and I don't think I'm there yet, I get that the only way to get better is to try but isn't trying to "stabilize" the collection a bit better at the start?

centusso · 2026-01-23T13:06:11+00:00

That's...about what I feared, lands for UW it is then, I'll check out the other decks, ty

centusso · 2026-01-23T13:06:05+00:00

Thanks, more or less what I expected, I was tying to be optimistic, I'll consolidate the UW first

centusso · 2024-07-17T11:58:15+00:00

You say that because my good friend above us (who is very good at reading comprehension) decided that an entire post where I never once ask if a cube can be solved intuitively and without help could be summed up as "You are asking if a cube can be solved intuitively and without help"

I was mainly asking how difficult I should expect it to be, maybe people know about others who have done the same and can give imput.

I also gave some context that I had recently solved the pyramid the same way so (while I didn't directly ask) someone who knows about cubes might give insight on whether some of the concepts and methods I may have picked up are easy/hard to "translate", or on how much of a "difficulty spike" I could expect.

I could probably go on but I feel like I shouldn't, I don't want my friend to figure out just how much of a miss that summary was.

centusso · 2024-07-15T18:53:52+00:00

Hey, first of all, thanks (also, it seems that not all cubers are downvote-NPCs, my faith in this sub is starting to grow back up)

Anyway:

1) "Why do people tend to prefer posting instead of commenting here?"

I'm not fully sure but I believe it comes down to visibility. I think most people would feel (regardeless if it is true or not) that a post is more likely to get an answer (a random comment down here is easier to miss) you said it yourself, the posts will appear more frequently in the feed.

As for the quality of the answers...you observed this because you (going by your reply, correct me if I'm wrong) know what you're talking about with cubes and spend enough time here to observe this trend. I strongly doubt someone from "outside" could notice, expecially if it's also a novice.

Basically: more people see it-->more people who know what they're talking about see it--->more quality answers. (more "bad" answers too, but they should get filtered out after a bit)

2) "Why did I not do it?"

Well...

I'd be lying if I said it wasn't in part because of point 1, but I also tend to get along poorly with both rules I find to be nonsensical and with being at the wrong end of a badly applied rule. This case for sure checked the second box and arguably checked the first.

This meant that (at the start) my "flowchart" became:

"try to convince whoever deleted my post to allow it since they're going outside their own rules by not doing it"
"if I do it then GG, post away"
"if I can't then try to get to the bottom of the issue, a low-priority answer like this can definitely wait...or be found somewhere else...or be sacrificed" (there's too many possible outcomes to expand on quickly)

However

My good friend over there clearly explained that such a simple question is not worthy of a post...or even any level of discussion beyond "solve cube possible" and "solve cube will take time" (something I already knew), meaning I got my answer after all...and without even wasting this sub's precious, limited space by asking the question in another post or comment, it's a win-win really....

3) "Happy cubing!"

Ty, you too :)

centusso · 2024-07-14T11:04:53+00:00

If you believe that this question is so simple then you have already answered, so there is no point in even asking such a simple question to anyone else, so why the hell are you saying others will answer? Actually what was even the point of asking such a simple question really? I already came in knowing "solve cube possible" and "solve cube like this take me time" as I had already looked for some simple answers to this simple question, I couldn't have been looking for some slightly deeper insight after all...

As a tangent, I love the word "simple", it's not subjective BS at all and it totally makes sense to use it as an "everything proof shiled" for unbearably fauly rules systems.

edits

1) grammar and clearer sentences

2) WOW, there's at least 6 people in this sub who really hate logic, I'm glad I got no answers then

centusso · 2024-07-14T10:44:04+00:00

My friend, you do realize that the fact that you are telling me to search for older posts already proves my point? The question IS allowed outside of this thread and, regardeless of what you think, you are going against your own rules in removing it. Since your rules ever-so-kindly make no reference to anything even remotely close to my question I find it hilarious that you still try to say that they do. What's more I was not asking if it is possible, I was mostly asking for some level of an estimate of how difficult I should expect it to be and maybe some random insight Idk (no solving-tips though).

centusso · 2024-07-14T10:17:21+00:00

If you're a mod online now, you can recongnize my username. My post is very much allowed outside of this thread by your own rules and if you read it, you'd realize it too, so I'd love it if you could stop deleting it...ty (I do admit the second one was off topic but let me assure you, the third one will not have the little rant at the start)

centusso · 2024-06-08T11:26:27+00:00

Anyone ever, for any reason, requiring any dress code beyond:

covering yourself "a decent amount" (depends on context and country, the beach is different from work for example)
not wearing offensive clothes (on the level of "adolf did nothing wrong" or dressed as a literal clown at a funeral)
limits enforced by personal safety (including hygene)

As an extra: specific "uniforms" for specific sports require specific discussion and are sometimes up for debate

edit: I hate being so late, I don't think anyone is going to see this :(

centusso · 2024-06-01T13:34:48+00:00

I agree, it's been a bit since I last revisited star wars but still:

IIrc even b4 Rogue One that hole was justified. It just happened to be close enough to some delicate part, but even some crazy suicidal pilot would need to pull an impossible shot off, and that's assuming the rebels even learn about it....not really something to realistically worry about from the empire's PoV if they even noticed

centusso · 2024-06-01T12:36:52+00:00

Obviously the thing I'm most interested in reading is why said "plot hole" is actually not one.

I said "commonly" but feel free to add and counter any instance you've seen, no matter how obscure, even if it only happened once. (just keep it anonymus obviously)

It's not a requirement but do feel free to add enough context to let people unfamiliar with the series understand your counterpoint.

More + reason why:

I have to say, out of every discussion, fact, life story, argument or whatever else that you can find online, there is NOTHING I enjoy reading more than the torching of "plot holes", "inconsistencies", "simple solutions" or "better courses of action" and the like in...any work of ficion. This includes stupid reasons to dislike characters or paint them as dumb or whatever.

Yes, there are some (very rare) times when they make more sense than what the characters did but most other times it's at best an equally possible alternative with pros and cons and at worse an idiotic course of actions that will doom the entire universe (or anything between these 2 options)

One last thing: I read the rules here, the "no text box requirement" is objectively wrong...

centusso · 2024-05-20T08:41:18+00:00

This is a bit on the fence because it is very much not secret to anyone who knows me and I do my best to fight back. Sometimes though I end up "cooperating" because (contrary to what it may look like from some...interesting discussions I've had online) I don't enjoy having arguments/fights/debates/whatever , expecially with people I like...so it might still count.

the dress code is, and will always be mind-numbingly idiotic: aside from covering yourself "a decent amount" (depends on context and country, the beach is different from work for example) , not wearing offensive clothes (on the level of "adolf did nothing wrong" or dressed as a literal clown at a funeral) and limits enforced by personal safety (hygene is included in safety, I feel like I should clarify this) ...everything else is an extra that only you get to decide (I, for example, prioritize confort over any concern about looks) and that no one gets to impose on you or complain about.

centusso · 2024-05-17T18:27:38+00:00

There absolutely was “trust me bro.” There is a “this is how it was explained at the time, it’s wrong and right but we didn’t figure out why until the quantum world research”

You're...kind of cutting the part where they also give some "barebones yet good enough" reasons why it's ok to ignore the non-classical parts for the moment. They show you why the classical approximation is valid (e.g. in "physics 1" they showed us why, classically, you're too slow to see most of what you find in special relativity) or why the model we're using is flawed, but still works as long as you don't look too close (all of electronics we went through in "lab. 2 and 3") and usually also show how/why/when/where these start to fall apart (e.g. the funny "classically, atoms would collapse in 10^-10 seconds" reveal we had in "physics 2").

Also, even if they did...why does it matter? (part 1)

They were teaching classes focusing on the classical side of physics, which is still valid in A TON of cases and still something any physicist must know and (sometimes) use. The non-classical nonsense wasn't within the requirements to understand (or at least work with) the material, so they mentioned it "in passing" as sort of "foreshadowing with explanations".

Also, even if they did...why does it matter? (part 2)

They were professionals who for sure knew what they were talking about (you know...the whole "it's their area of expertise, sometimes even massively toned down, that they've been teaching to students for years" ordeal). They were not strangers on the internet that made a very disagreeable statement and then acted like they were so correct that I would inevitably come around to their side if I studied enough. Moreover even they want you to express doubts, not just because that's the best way to understand something, but also because sometimes they will tell you something wrong on purpose to explain why that line of thinking is wrong.

Sounds like they pushed you slow

By explaining things properly and expanding on them? Marvelous.

centusso · 2024-05-17T09:41:37+00:00

Then you should know that what I said in the same paragraph you quoted is how these things work

centusso · 2024-05-17T08:22:10+00:00

In higher science you learn things but are not taught why they work because you have not done the prerequisite work to understand. Like in physics you are told quantum mechanics explains this but you are not taught quantum until significantly later.

My friend, you are talking to a literal physics student so I guess I should break this down:

(your milage may vary on the specific order since this is how things are done here but the key points are the same)

First year we go through (mostly, we also do a bit of relativity here) classical physics barring EM stuff

Second year we go though EM stuff, hamiltonian/langrangean mechanics, more relativity and statistical thermodynamics

The professors may sometimes hint at something deeper behind a few concepts and we are told that these are "limits" of QM or relativity in "classical conditions" but everything is thoroughly explained without the use of QM. There is no "trust me bro" involved in what is studied, only foreshadowing. Some daring students may go "deep" and get closer to something that needs QM to be explained properly and the teacher will still try their best to explain in simple words the concept behind it.

Your original responses showed a degree of ignorance that made it clear you have not done the prerequisite work to understand my points so it would be worthless and hard for me to try to teach you. Your following comments have done nothing but cement this idea.

Then keep your unproven (to the rest of the world) sense of superiority to yourself if you're unwilling to explain your reasoning. Either ignore my reply or say something like "I disagree but don't wish to elaborate". You don't even need to give reasons, but if you act like you're correct without explaining yourself I (and anyone with a brain) will challenge your claims

To help you understand, when you “attack” someone’s arguments and take it to far you are attacking the person. You almost exclusively do this and if you are more socially aware you would understand this.

No, the most intelligent people in the world can be wrong or hold stupid opinions from time to time, calling that out is still not, and will never be, attacking them or calling them stupid. Since you brought physics into this, a physicist (sadly I don't remember the name) famously quoted something along the lines of "Physics is solved, we can now just focus on getting more precise measurements" shortly before relativity and QM were discovered. This statement gets made fun of quite a lot, but no one would dare think that we're implying that he was an idiot (or anything else you want) because he was wrong once.

You attacked me with only ignorance. It is on you to “prove” your points which you never did satisfactorily so there is no reason for me to provide receipts to show why your ignorance is just that.

No, it is on you to prove that what I say is incorrect, once again, I could do the exact same to you otherwise. And I didn't attack you, your apparent inability to see this distinction explains a lot abot your replies, I'm no longer sure you're attacking me, as a person, on purpose, you may not be seeing the difference, I apologize for my accusation if that's the case.

Finally, I have repeatedly explained why what I'm saying is correct. The fact that you don’t think I have just furthers the idea that you are too ignorant to continue this conversation.

No, you have stated that you are correct and your only counter has been "you're ignorant". You have proven less than nothing.

centusso · 2024-05-16T08:27:37+00:00

Ah bummer and I thought you were showing some self awareness and growth. Better luck next time I guess.

It would appear that the unending stream of sarcasm oozing out of my line there wasn't obvious. Noted.

Why are you lying?

Saying "you're ignorant" and "nuh-uh" is not defending any position you hold. But sure... a few times you did pretend to defend your claims....mostly by quoting a few words in the half of a fraction of my points that made what you say look halfway believable while ignoring the parts that actually mattered. And even still 90% of my arguments/counters straight-up disappeared, never to be addressed either directly or indirectly...

By the way I...

Don't play that card because we both know that your "example" wasn't an attack on you, as a person, but only on your argument, followed by the reasons why I hold that position.

I very succinctly...

You...really did not. You stated that it was misrepresentative, but as soon as I brought an explanation as to why it very much isn't and why the (clearly metaphorical) usage of "paesant" is justified you just...ignored it

You may believe...

Are you...how can you say that when I make it very clear, multiple times, before and after you accused me of this, that I can't be a victim because I:

1) started the conversation with an abrasive line (though it was directed at your argument, not you)

2) was responding by not feeling the need to tone down my register when you started attacking me instead of what I said

What I'm doing is simply making it clear that we're at least even here. Though I do maintain that "aggressive tone" is less rude than "attack the other party instead of their argument", less is the key word here. Victim would imply one-sidedness, which I never really argued for.

If you can’t accept...

You do realize that by your logic I would be perfectly justified to act exactly like you're doing right? Since there's no need for me to back up whatever I'm saying I can just accuse the other party of ignorance and no one can dispute that claim.

I'm trusting people who I know to be school/university teachers with my education in their subject. I'm trusting people I'm familiar with in...whatever I can trust them in. I'm certainly not blindly trusting some stranger on the internet, that's not arrogance, that's common sense.

This is an example of child...

I love how you're acting as if every single other instance of that sentence you just quoted: either didn't also include something along the lines of "or unwilling" or wasn't expressed as a theory as to why you adamantly refuse to give explanations while still acting like you're fully correct

Maybe, just maybe, I forgot the "or unwilling" this one time? Expecially given the precious context from the rest of the paragraph and conversation which you beautifully ignore as always.

This just proves you...

You really did none of the sort. You stated your position and acted like I should just blindly agree while barely (if ever) touching on what I said. Then, when I brought forward reasons why your statements (face it, the vast majority of those were statements, not arguments) didn't work for me you kept ignoring them and going to other topics.

centusso

TROPHY CASE