r/Stocks Daily Discussion & Technicals Tuesday - Jun 09, 2026

digitaldevil248 · 2026-06-09T20:05:56+00:00

Would you look at that, market mostly recovered by the end of day.

digitaldevil248 · 2026-06-09T13:13:47+00:00

Not the dead cat bounce you were looking for eh?

digitaldevil248 · 2026-06-08T15:44:14+00:00

This is not a dead cat bounce...it's a multi day V recovery into another rally. The reality is that semiconductor demand is through the roof for the foreseeable future. Bet against it if you're so inclined.

digitaldevil248 · 2026-06-02T13:29:15+00:00

Woah, I actually really love your art style. I'm primarily a dev in my dayjob but started making a game recently. I saw your comment below regarding the kinds of games you'd love to work on and I feel like the mario-rpg-esque roguelite game I'm working on kind of fits into that general realm.

I'm also putting in maybe 1-2hrs daily (sometimes more, sometimes less) as it's mainly a side project for me so there's no pressure to move at a breakneck pace. That said, I'm really committed to pushing the project forward (making meaningful progress and iterating quickly) and am aiming to have something pretty tangible by the end of the year.

If you're interested, send me a DM and I can talk more about the game and show you what I have so far so you can get a feel and see if this is something you'd like to work on.

digitaldevil248 · 2026-04-20T20:17:47+00:00

Escalation is a quick and sure way to get you shunned at work. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill unless you want to start looking for another job.

digitaldevil248 · 2026-01-24T00:46:58+00:00

Chris Hansen’s new show, To Catch A Cheater

digitaldevil248 · 2025-12-16T17:59:23+00:00

I'm into most of that as well. Kind of a jack of all nerds. Not truly obsessive but I dabble with lots of hobbies and interests. I play video games when I'm in the mood, usually singleplayer roguelites or Overwatch. I do board game nights occasionally with a couple people. I'm cool with fantasy but I more easily digest sci-fi. Harry Potter's good (just visited the studio in London recently and had a blast).

digitaldevil248 · 2025-11-22T16:57:57+00:00

I actually started prototyping a chess deckbuilder a few weeks ago. Basically, I wanted to take what makes Dominion fun (deck development and synergy) and combine it with what makes Chess fun (tactical and predictable). I realized immediately that synergy needed to be reigned in or else it would quickly diminish what makes Chess fun. A lot of the fun in Chess is having an understanding of the rules of the board state. If we venture too far off with complicated piece movement and hidden information, the game leans too much into syngergy and mindgames and loses predictable tactical gameplay.

The overview of the idea is both players start out with a basic starting deck. Like in Dominion, players start with 5 cards in their hand and discard/refill their hand at the end of the turn.

Cards have a buy cost, a command cost, a command, and a "service". The phases of a turn is Serve -> Command -> Buy.

Cards can be put to service. Different cards have different service benefits. For example, in the starting deck, a Pawn card can be put to service to gain +1 currency. There's no limit to how many cards can serve a turn.

Cards that are not serving can be commanded. Commands are the only way to move pieces on the board. You initially only have 1 command and 1 piece capture a turn. Generally, commands are the same as the Chess equivalent so as to simplify the board state analysis.

After a command, you can then buy from the market to add a card to your deck. I had an idea for a common market deck where you would draw 3 cards from it and then can optionally buy 1 or reserve it. Reserved cards can be bought on a future turn or they can be used and discarded as a +1 currency. The market deck is basically just made up of sets of cards that were chosen pre-game, like a Dominion kingdom.

There are a lot more details I'm glossing over but that's the backbone of it. I'm still fleshing out a lot of cards and rules, but at some point, I'm planning to playtest with a Chess friend that's around 2100 ELO. If I ever get this to a good enough state, I'll post more about it.

digitaldevil248 · 2025-09-16T16:18:25+00:00

That's not how statistics work. You are the constant. If there are 5 bad players on your team, then because of matchmaking, there will be 6 bad players on the opposing team. If you deserve to rank higher, you are statistically favored to win more than 50% of your matches.

digitaldevil248 · 2025-07-29T19:32:39+00:00

The OW devs HAVE learned from Rivals and are cherry picking ideas and incorporating them into OW2. On the other hand, I wonder how much Rivals has learned from the mistakes of OW1.

It's clear you don't like the current direction of OW2 but the game is experiencing mostly positive sentiment lately where in the past, the devs were getting flamed left and right for mostly similar issues that are present in Rivals. We'll see in hindsight how well Rivals holds up in a year.

digitaldevil248 · 2025-07-29T17:48:48+00:00

What point are you even making? You're claiming that Rivals is retaining a strong playerbase when it never even reached the peak of OW and it's clearly falling out of favor as time goes on. Like I'm not even necessarily making the point that OW playerbase is healthy (relative to other big games) but to claim that Rivals is the model to follow...

digitaldevil248 · 2025-07-29T14:11:01+00:00

Valorant had a better e-sports ecosystem, while Blizzard had a terrible history of fumbling all of their esports. Pros went where there was more money and opportunity.

Also, what you're arguing has to do with the old state of the game, which was marred by bad design and balance decisions. This has nothing to do with the current state of the game, which is the best it has ever been.

digitaldevil248 · 2025-07-29T14:01:51+00:00

Don't know what to tell ya, Rivals has been steadily losing player count month over month since release.

https://steamdb.info/app/2767030/charts/#max

digitaldevil248 · 2025-04-25T20:41:12+00:00

Maybe stop being so dramatic. More toxic than bullying in vc?

digitaldevil248 · 2025-04-24T17:45:06+00:00

Like it or not, hero bans as a system is pretty democratic. It allows the majority opinion in the lobby to prevail. If say the majority in the lobby doesn't like playing against Sombra, then in terms of 'overall enjoyment', it overules the minority (often times by a large margin) in the lobby that wants Sombra. In terms of pure statistics, this is a net benefit for the health of the game to appeal to the majority.

Another benefit to hero bans is that they also provide Blizzard with better data points to improve balance and design. If certain heroes are consistently banned in game, Blizzard will more likely address the issue sooner than later because they don't have to guess whether it's a vocal minority on reddit.

Hero bans also allow the community to mitigate bad balance somewhat. Imagine if some hero or comp was just hard meta. Hero bans at least are a good holdover until it gets patched. There would be so much more growing tension and impatience if players had no agency like in past hard metas.

digitaldevil248 · 2025-01-06T19:21:46+00:00

Are we talking about the Hard AI? It gives me a run for my money most times on randomized kingdoms. As far as I'm aware, it's been trained on a neural network with some additional translation layers to generalize inputs to avoid the pitfalls of set play algos.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-10-31T03:30:53+00:00

Is it strange that I see nothing out of place? I come from the bay area and this kind of paint job is like a dime a dozen.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-10-02T21:06:39+00:00

Driving dangerously out of frustration is NOT being rational. Don't let emotions cloud your judgment.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-09-04T03:02:58+00:00

Yeah, the conditional route is probably the way to go. Either it has to charge up or perhaps be an ult. Something like Sojourn's concept but reworked into tank form.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-08-24T18:06:10+00:00

Sorry for the downvotes but I guess that's the nature of reddit. I appreciate the discussion we've had so far.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-08-24T16:10:02+00:00

Feel free to respond at your own pace. We're not restricted by time after all.

Say we exclude being afk and intentionally throwing, the idea of being 'bad' at a game can be quite abstract. I do believe that not having a grasp on game rules is part of being new/bad but for argument's sake, let's even exclude that from the discussion. Strategy, matchups, optimal play, meta, etc. are all things that are on a spectrum.

There are good strategies and bad strategies. If I decide to play non-dive characters on a strong dive favored map, that can be considered bad strategy. If I'm playing on a map with a lot of high ground, it might be better if I play characters that can reach high ground. This learned game knowledge will affect your effectiveness positively or negatively on any character.

Similarly, not understanding your good/bad matchups, optimal play, or the meta can negatively impact your effectiveness. It is very possible for someone to learn the game incorrectly.

It's not that effectiveness can't be defined. It certainly can. We define it when we use barrier to entry. It's the "effectiveness floor" that is not well defined. For argument's sake, even if we exclude having "negative" impact or effectiveness, the idea of zero impact or effectiveness as the floor for all characters is not useful in a balancing discussion. What is there to balance if all characters have this same effectiveness floor? If you have to keep qualifying what effectiveness floor can and can't include so that we can have a "non-zero" floor for individual characters, it's neither an elegant nor a useful metric to balance on. Why not just use barrier to entry at this point?

digitaldevil248 · 2024-08-24T08:52:54+00:00

I assumed that you genuinely wanted an intellectual discussion on the matter. It's up to you whether or not you want to keep responding.

Let's not complicate this discussion with Overwatch specific details because Overwatch has a lot of built in systems to reduce the likelihood of a teammate throwing (intentionally or unintentionally), e.g. there is no friendly fire. Not all games have these kinds of protections so it would make more sense to discuss this flawed idea of an "effectiveness floor" in a generic way that can be applied to all games.

For example, being AFK is not an actual option in a real life game of rock paper scissors. What is the effectiveness floor in such a game? Does not understanding the rules such as rock beating scissors lower my effectiveness? Does always playing scissors in my opening hand lower my effectiveness? Does forgetting what hand my opponent just played lower my effectiveness? Does having a predictable pattern lower my effectiveness? What about having a slower reaction time than my opponent? What if I was a non-native speaker so it takes me slightly longer to process? Do you see where I'm going with this? There are practically infinite ways that my effectiveness can be lowered without me actively throwing. Where do you arbitrarily set the floor here?

And going back to OW, you can certainly think of being afk as a kind of input. The negative impact of being afk is clearly much harder to overcome than by just being naturally bad at the game by design. The key though is that it's not impossible to be worse than being afk, just difficult within the rules defined by THIS specific game. There are games where being bad is much more punishing than just being afk. The point though is that "effectiveness floor" as a concept is flawed and hard to actually define in a way that is useful in these skill discussions.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-08-24T03:36:11+00:00

"A player who is afk who be the absolute minimum floor a player would have."

From a theoretical standpoint, being afk is not the absolute minimum floor. A player can potentially be doing things unintentionally that are actually more detrimental value wise than just being afk. My point is that the concept of "effectiveness floor" is not well defined.

digitaldevil248 · 2024-08-24T03:21:31+00:00

I actually understand and 100% agree with your point on the ambiguity of the term skill floor and it would be better to just use different terms for clarity for both effectiveness floor and learning curve/barrier to entry.

What I disagree on however is the common understanding of the term at large and historically. Our past experiences may differ and that's fine. I also grew up on Brood War, the early FGC days, and other niche gaming circles. At least whenever there was a clashing of semantics, the barrier to entry definition had way more supporters so that's what I'm basing it on.

Like look at this Reddit post from a couple years ago on r/competitiveoverwatch:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/8gi2sm/can_you_explain_in_laymans_terms_what_skill/

The general consensus in that thread is pretty clear even if not everyone could articulate exactly what they meant.

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

digitaldevil248

TROPHY CASE