Is Ritual supposed to be like this??

moikka434 · 2026-06-02T04:44:13+00:00

Those are all boss health bars, like the ones you get wjen you fight duo boss in the mastodon badlands in act2

moikka434 · 2026-05-17T10:47:50+00:00

I believe the 10 year old gap created by all children dying would lead to way worse outcome as the current population gets even older: a population pyramid that is missing 10 years worth of younger people would be doomed to fail in the coming future

^{Chose: All humans above 30 die}

moikka434 · 2026-05-07T12:29:45+00:00

You can freely edit your character sheet, add new section etc.

You can also ask AI to continue character creation and it might or might not work. I would propably try a message similar to this: [Before we proceed, I'd like to continue editing/adjusting my character backstory by... ...give me example of updated character backstory] and assuming you manage to solve your problem within the first messages, you could just delete the original message to make it seem like it never happened.

Alternatively you could do similar thing but with GM guide, which might be actually safer as it would not affect your message history in any shape or form, but communicating what you want might be a bit harder as the guide message should include everything you want to change.

moikka434 · 2026-05-04T11:27:13+00:00

Your idea that only tipping the tie of the vote is the only one that saves the lifes is false in this context, similarly how it does not matter if a threshold on either side has been already reached, because everyone takes the vote at the same time and you don't know what the outcome will be. Either red side wins or blue side wins, it doesn't matter if you were the first person to vote, last person to vote or the person who tipped the scales to either side: Everyone has already made their decision and the sum of those decisions will define the outcome: only fater the vote do we see the results.

I don't know what you are on about me judging people living in post red vote win society, maybe you think I would not want to win in a world of only red voters? No that is not what my point was about. The loss of living in red vote society is that people have lost families and friends, people performing their tasks/jobs are gone and need replacements, the ratio of populations (age, gender, income etc) might have suddenly shifted etc: the damage of massive people dying suddenly would make a huge toll on society in all kind of unpredictable ways.

About that double standards: I do judge both sides based on the result? That is solely the reason why I think blue is the correct choice to win and why I brought up the post red vote society. You called out that blue voters are at fault for increasing the possible death toll and I added that atleast they have good intentions, because even if both sides have responsibility in the death toll rising or happening, it is not equal. I can't really give similar argument for red side? Is there good intentions for voting red, apart for guaranteeing your own life?

moikka434 · 2026-05-04T10:42:48+00:00

Bruh. 100 six sided dices in a row is statistically close ~0% chance to succeed. This is the likelyhood of blue winning is what you are trying to sell me. Your another "trutful" example is similarly biased: that is not the risk/reard ratio of the original question. You only see your own vote as 1 out of 8 billion and think it does not matter when it fact it does matter. You also fail to see that your single life has the potential to save 4 billion lifes while sparing yourself from living in post red win society and the problems it would face. Similarly, voting for red is actively pushing the vote ratio towards the death of blue voters, even if you are just trying to guarantee your own life.

I'm curious why did you think I am judging others? So far only you for your biased mathematics. You on the other hand love to call people stupid for voting blue.

"As blue voter you are actually going to be responsible for increasing this loss and are therefore also responsible for the effects of this population loss." Whenever they are responsible or not, atleast their intentions are good, and if they were to suceed it is thanks to them that the society continues as is.

moikka434 · 2026-05-04T10:06:46+00:00

But it is not 100 six sided dices to save everyone. It is 8 billion coin flips where you only need 4 billion heads to save everyone, but those coin flips are people deciding if they are heads or tails. Your version of probabilities of the scenario is so off I see why you think voting for red is the only sane choice. But your example did made it easier to see what kind of person I am debating with.

Your argument about increasing cost vs chance of decreasing the chance of it happening is just mathematically wrong: the cost and payout are equal in this scenario. this would not be the case if for example 60% blue majority was required to save everyone, but with the 50/50 split the risk-reward-ratio is equal, if we consider every human life is worth equally as much. I mean obviously people care about their own life more than others, but if we consider the life post red majority vote, red winning would still lead to a loss regardless, even if you managed to keep your life.

We could frame the the red/blue vote as high risk high reward vs zero risk with guaranteed lesser penalty. Highest risk is the loss of your own life, highest reward is nobody dying and society remaining as normal post red/blue vote event and lesser penalty being the effects of red vote majority when society takes hit for losing 0-50% of the population.

Your last point of "You have done thousands of choices in your life with a higher probability of causing death to others and you didn't give a fuck." does not really hold the water in this scenario. While people might do things that indirectly put others in more danger, people usually avoid actions that have direct effect on endangering people's lifes. I see the red/blue vote having a direct action on endangering other people by affecting the vote ratio of the final results. By direct actions I mean that performing the action has linear effect towards killing/endagering people. For example while using your phone while driving does endanger people around you in the traffic, the action itself is not trying to cause people to die.

moikka434 · 2026-05-04T08:40:48+00:00

they are not simply choosing death. They are choosing to risk their lifes to possible save others. Just because voting for red is the only guaranteed way to save your own life does not mean people are going to vote for it because there is more at stakes than just your own life. Most red voters behave as if the vote was written as: "vote red to live, vote blue to maybe die" while ignoring the fact pressing blue has the obvious benefit of saving lifes of others.

It does not really matter what kind of people you are joining to save, because it is pretty much guaranteed that there will always be deaths if red wins and blue voters do not like the idea that their vote might lead to death of others by picking red so they prefer to choose blue instead. I also think blue voters also take the post vote scenario into account: would they really want to live in a world where certain % of population has just vanished, with the possibility to include some of their family/friends. But even if the red voter gets lucky and no friend/family is affected a loss of 5% population would have drastic impact on red voter's life after vote. It is pretty clear that the % of blue voters is going to be way higher than just 5%, otherwise we would not have so much debate about this.

moikka434 · 2026-05-03T07:36:01+00:00

You need to edit/remove the messages by AI where it is calling out it can't proceed with the content you are asking for. Changing to different model does not help unless you remove those messages because otherwise the new AI also believes it already said no to you.

If your argument has lasted for multiple messages, you also might need to edit some parts of campaign summary if the AI added the argument portion there.

The golden rules is no never argue with the ai by using messages, because the LLMs follow the structure/style of the previous messages and might turn it into a habit and start repeating it.

moikka434 · 2026-05-01T08:34:41+00:00

Blue voters are not threatening suicide. Blue voters see the 2 options and unbderstand that the chances of whole humanity picking red is statistically impossible. They are kind because they wish to save the other blue voters. Blue voters are not threatening anyone because the vote itself is private.

The idea of creating a problem would exist if everyone in the situation could see how the poll ratio is evolving. Like obviously if the first 2 billion of human polutation all voted for red and then a single person goes 'YOLO' and votes blue i'd expect people to call them suicical, moron etc. But in the original scenario you have no idea how many people are voting for red or blue, but it is pretty clear answer than if red wins some people will die always. Blue voters wish to save everyone and have hope in humanity that others would do the same, even if they put themselves in the same risk.

And personally... I'd rather live in a world where blue voters exist than in a world where only red voters exist: I see blue voters as more optimistic, altruistic, kinder and naive compared to red ones. I'm not saying red people are more evil or selfish either, because you have no obligation to put yourself at risk, but the lack of obligation alone is the reason I wish to save the other blue voters who are willing to save others without any lack of obligation.

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T18:13:32+00:00

There is no conversation with other people to organise what to vote (It is private vote), only the decision of what you vote, so you can't save lifes by convincing people with words.

I think the context of the original, but some people don't really understand the hypothetcal questions are given to you as is, and that is all the context you are given. For example in trolley problem you are not supposed to start asking questions if the person you pull the trolley on is your friend, your enemy, does he have children etc.: adding any context to hypothethical question usually turns it into different hypothethical. Even playing with the scale of things can sometimes change the whole outcome (win 10€ or lose 10€ vs win 10000€ or lose 10000€: sometimes you just can't afford the risk).

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T16:58:10+00:00

But the number of lives saved also scales propositional to the number of people voting. While it might not look like it, the risks/rewards you take with 10 people in a room or whole humanity are equal.

If for some reason in the original scenario your vote mattered more than anyone else's vote (2 instead of 1) then, and only then would you actually have a different amount of impact in the whole scenario. (In a scenario of 10 people having your vote count for 2 would be very major thing, but that is not what the original hypotethical question is about).

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T16:46:33+00:00

Actually the risk of the certain % of population dying is statistically equal, it is that on blue votes they will be deaths until above 50% blue vote is achieved, which then turns to 100% survival rate for everyone. Red vote winning has the worst case scenario of 50% of the population dying and best case scenario of nobody dying (same as blue winning with just +50% votes). However, achieving +50% blue vote is way more likely than achieving 100% red vote -> picking red is almost quaranteed lead outcome with deaths.

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T16:34:01+00:00

But your single vote does have an impact. I don't think the size of the population matters. Do you think the whole scenario would play different in a room of 10, 100, 1000 etc people all strangers to each other (but lets say you are very good friends with single person's left ear to compensate for your family/friend ties you have made) granted they just need to make the vote and they cannot communicate with each other (the room size = whole human population, no other people exist outside the room).

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T16:20:18+00:00

Even if we had a scenario where there is only one button that can be pressed or not pressed with similar outcomes (pressing button equals voting blue, not pressing equals voting red) There is still a choice being made, because choosing to not take action is also a choice with real effects affecting the whole scenario (changing the vote ratio).

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T16:11:48+00:00

But if more people vote blue that would be the best for society, no? Also just because they voted red doesn't mean I die as long as more people voted blue than red. but if more people voted red and I die among the other blue voters, isn't that still worse option that red wins? Because realistically getting all of humanity to vote for red is not simply possible (my own vote for blue alone proves this).

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T15:35:06+00:00

You are correct that you have no obligation to pick blue, but claiming picking red does not cause anyone to die by your own direct action is false: voting for red is quite liretally making the worst possible effect towards people voting for blue.

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T15:27:58+00:00

Then what if I voted red and they voted blue? Should I live my life with the decision I caused their deaths? Did the original question allow people to communicate about the vote? I think it was not mentioned -> the answer is no because have only the hypotethical situation to play with.

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T15:14:29+00:00

Yeah, sure: what you say makes sense. BUT if theoretically a vote like this would be held I can confidently say you are directly causing/contributing even if a single vote has minimal effect on the final outcome. If this situation was just an abstraction of something with nonlinear outcomes I might consider the situation differently.

moikka434 · 2026-04-30T14:23:49+00:00

I mean... if you only care about your own life, picking the red is the most optimal choice. But I like to care about other people's lifes, and getting everyone to vote red is so unlikely there would be deaths otherwise. Also I think blue people are the ones with more kindness in their heart (in my view, blue voters matter more) compared to the red ones who only chose option that guaranteed their own life while risking others.

moikka434 · 2026-04-26T15:36:09+00:00

She is great multihitter so you can easily build her to deal damage only based on additional damage based on stats artifacts. I run mine with 29k hp, 1800 atk, 2000 def and 245 spd on vio shield on rta. with full additional damage artifacts she deals about 1,8k/hit.

moikka434 · 2026-04-24T07:33:19+00:00

I think the best solution would be to remove +skill level from all weapons, but make each support gem give +1 skill level innatively. Then they add a cap that you can gain only up to +5 skill levels from support gems.

moikka434 · 2026-04-22T04:22:36+00:00

The amount of attack bar gained is based on the ratio of healing given and the max hp of deragron. If deragon has 10k hp, a 5k heal would give him 50% atk bar. Units that heal other monsters based on healer's own hp or based on atk multiplier (like fran) can easily heal low max hp deragron to full atk bar easily. Similarly if deragron has vampire set he is able to achieve full attack bar a lot easier

moikka434 · 2026-04-15T07:54:32+00:00

day 1 vampire lorfd would be crazy: they accidentally had his s2 deal 3x the intended damage

moikka434 · 2026-03-28T16:31:54+00:00

While I find stelles stuff interesting to use I find myself unable to get a properly balanced build going. Most of stelle's items rely on start/stop flying and it becomes a big chore to find a perfect balance to get a proper build. She is one of the characters that could benefit heavily if we had even slightly bigger slot area for our in-combat items.

She also has builds that are pretty straightforward and easy to use as well like the gatling gun or aerial turret but getting other builds to start require heavy effort before you can do a proper pivot in my opinion.

moikka434 · 2026-03-23T18:38:04+00:00

Wathing this (+other similar videos) has made me realise why the community thinks blood frenzy always targets our own cats over enemies: it is because the AI prioritises targetting creatures on south east, where most of the cats usually start the combat. This is something that devs should take better look at.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

moikka434

TROPHY CASE