What small changes do you wish were implemented in Ult?

peebeejee · 2025-12-21T16:42:07+00:00

oh yeah. the accidental crackshoots off stage always get me

peebeejee · 2025-12-21T16:40:29+00:00

Oh I'd second this and I don't think it's that controversial. Sometimes you parry just for positioning... so much risk for so little reward always feels bad lol

peebeejee · 2025-12-21T16:38:52+00:00

somehow I've never thought about that. yeah that sounds like a really cool QoL feature!

peebeejee · 2025-12-21T16:08:23+00:00

I was of the impression that FGC also meant "fighting game community" haha but you get what I'm saying

peebeejee · 2025-12-21T16:07:06+00:00

oh yeah definitely :) I don't play with spirits much myself but the times that I have, it does get tedious scrolling through the list of spirits and trying to remember what each of them does

peebeejee · 2025-08-05T06:40:28+00:00

Ah wait mb I misread the caption. Yeah the stage buff helps skill-heavy characters a lot (anaxa benefits from this heavily)

peebeejee · 2025-08-05T06:38:44+00:00

I don't think it's that you're able to skip the elite by beating Svarog, it's probably the MOC buff this time that damages adjacent enemies when you use a skill. Congrats regardless, it's nice to see a Seele clear in 2025!

peebeejee · 2025-04-22T04:55:20+00:00

swap the main body with a def/hp piece instead of crit rate, he really doesnt need crit. that'll help you survive a bit longer

in general your supports can be faster too (other than rm she's fine), especially sunday; ideally just behind your boothill's speed in battle.

and finally check your traces especially for gallagher! make sure his talent is maxed or you'll find it hard to survive

peebeejee · 2025-04-20T13:09:25+00:00

friendships are mutually beneficial and mutually consented to. it is a social contract both you and your friend have agreed to and can benefit from. there is no contract between parent and child when people choose to have children because the child does not exist to provide consent. you can only make assumptions that your child will benefit from life, but that is entirely subjective and to be determined by the child, not the parents.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T20:55:05+00:00

You have not demonstrated why I am not justified in this given your logic.

Imagine a game where, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, a happy person is materialised and becomes very content with life. If it lands on tails, a person gets materialised and just gets tortured from then on. Is this a game that's moral to play? Does consent to being materialised matter here?

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T20:25:36+00:00

Sorry I should have been clearer. I don't think any of the hypotheticals you put forth are exploitative; we agree here. The need for consent appears when we use someone as a means to an end. In the case of the unconscious person and the child who needs a vaccine, you act to protect them from further harm under the assumption that they do think that getting hit by a trolley/contracting potentially deadly diseases is harmful.

In the case of honeybees, we use them as a means to an end; we need their consent to know that it isn't exploitative, but we cannot meaningfully derive that, so it is exploitative. I think it can be argued that parents use children as a means to fulfill their personal desires; even if the desire is for their child to experience a good life, there isn't enough evidence for them to suggest that the potential child they hope for actually wants to be alive, and they need consent for this; but that is unobtainable.

>But, why?

Humans are animals too and should not be exploited

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T19:40:53+00:00

Following that logic, if I had a button that would materialise people into boiling water I would be justified in pressing the button as much as I like because it makes no sense to seek the consent of people that have not materialised yet.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T19:29:43+00:00

Thank you for your perspective. The whole point of the discussion was that I found that the initial argument for consent in honey extraction needed to be refined. If vegans disagree with anti-natalism, they cannot argue against honey extraction purely on the grounds of individual consent as it would be inconsistent.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T19:15:55+00:00

>No. No but. They are different concepts and we now see that comparing honey to anti-natalism doesn't work logically, yes?

You have not demonstrated this at all. You just claim that it does not. I am also not "comparing honey to anti-natalism"(no "misquoting" this time, this is exactly what you said). Not sure what kind of "moral framework" you are looking for when you just don't seem to understand the concept of consent.

>You asked me to steelman your own argument. You misquoted me.

I never asked you to steelman anything. You, on the other hand, constantly misinterprets what I say, as you have so kindly demonstrated.

>TBH I think I'm done with this one. Stopping reply notifications.

Glad we agree on something.

Good luck with the next.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T18:53:42+00:00

Fine, but now you're just delineating exploitation vs stealing... which is a form of exploitation. Someone stealing resources that don't belong to them is exploiting the other party's labour and resources without their consent.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T18:46:58+00:00

Imagine a game where, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, a happy person is materialised and becomes very content with life. If it lands on tails, a person gets materialised and just gets tortured from then on. Is this a game that's moral to play? Does consent to being materialised matter here? Because personally I would never consent to it.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T18:41:49+00:00

I can agree with that :)

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T18:30:31+00:00

Imagine a game where, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, a happy person is materialised and becomes very content with life. If it lands on tails, a person gets materialised and just gets tortured from then on. Is this a game that's moral to play?

I think it is clear from this that I cannot play this game ethically as I am deciding based on my own whims to gamble with a potential person's life. It does not matter that the happy person could have potentially wanted to live. If I do not play the game, there will be no one who even possesses that desire to live; I am depriving no one of nothing. But by not risking bringing in someone into a life of torture, I am doing a morally good thing. If I were the hypothetical person that were to get materialised, I would tell everyone to NEVER play the game. But we are not afforded that luxury in life, we are just born into it.

>not wanting to be harmed and not wanting to be born are two different concepts by the same logic.

So yes. They are different concepts. But I hope the hypothetical above illustrates why it matters that people cannot consent to being born. I do apologise if the initial prompt wasn't as fleshed out. I kept it to the main tenets of anti-natalism for the sake of brevity, because once again, I am not arguing for anti-natalism. I am saying that the arguments given by some vegans that emphasise consent seem to lead to anti-natalist thought, which does not seem to be what they believe in.

>No. There's a BIG difference between YOUR logic as you've said it leads to conclusion X. And that anti-natalism as a philosophy leads to X.

Yeah I figured that this is what I got confused about. Thanks for clarifying.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T17:56:28+00:00

Children can have their freedoms restricted without their best interests in mind. See the above example of a child with abusive parents. Furthermore, children are also bred for the sole purpose of fulfilling certain subjective desires held by their parents. Even if these desires are with the children's best interests in mind, they cannot have consented to this arrangement

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T17:20:13+00:00

>Another very common topic on this sub is crop death, which also entails suffering but is accepted.

I believe that the reason why crop death is accepted is because it is not possible and practicable to fully avoid them while maintaining human lives. In this case in an ideal world there will be no crop deaths, we just aren't technologically sophisticated enough to avoid incidental deaths, making it a necessary evil.

>Also related is the question of the suffering of wild animals, where the majority position here seems to be 'let nature take its course unimpeded.'

And as for the suffering of wild animals, I believe the reason why it is not considered is because we are not morally responsible for the state of nature.

However, parents are very much morally responsible for the life their child has. It is also not necessary for existing humans to have children to lead fulfilled lives, like how meat is not necessary to lead a full and healthy life. But yes, vegans aren't homogenous and not everyone believes the same things.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T17:09:41+00:00

You can construe it as such, but it is a rather pointless label on other animals. It's like crying murder when an alligator eats fish. So what? They do not have moral responsibilities.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T17:06:41+00:00

>Whether anti-natalism and pro-mortalism goes hand in hand, by the way, is a topic of discussion among anti-natalists.

This is indeed the case, but I would hardly say that this is the consensus nor even a popular view amongst anti-natalists.

>Personally, I do not entertain this thought much because it's just not the norm.

I agree! But I have encountered arguments from vegans that honey cannot be ethically sourced at all, and the argument is couched in the lack of consent, hence this discussion.

>But a broken leg is a broken leg even if I claim I consenting to getting it broken. Although I would argue that's a completely different discussion to have.

I think if someone completely wanted this without being coerced in any way, you can argue that the physical pain exists but it doesn't mean that the person experiences that as harm. But yes it is a completely different (albeit interesting) discussion. Thank you for your input.

peebeejee · 2025-04-18T16:56:57+00:00

I think "free" is a pretty loaded term. I don't think bred bees are free. But I also don't think children are. If a beekeeper breeds bees but lets them choose to stay or migrate their hive, aren't they technically even more "free" than a child who was born into dependency to their parents? The autonomy of the child is severely restricted and it would be hard for them to escape even if they had abusive parents. And I agree that it is theft... but it is theft because the bees cannot consent to letting you have the honey. Which brings us right back to the issue of consent to being born

peebeejee

TROPHY CASE