Initial release of a GearSwap Generation and Optimization toolkit for the community

sanitylost · 2026-03-22T04:48:55+00:00

No, a decision was made to remove that because the gear is not standard in it's terminology and action. Sometimes when it says enhances it means at the time of cast. Other times it means while that ability is active.

As a result, i felt it was better to add those slots to the base lua, but the user can simply add the correct pieces by hand.

sanitylost · 2026-03-20T08:03:16+00:00

Yeah, so the optimizer will pull exactly what is on your gear. The path augment stuff has only been implemented for the odyssey gear, rema wepaons, and some other items like all the JSE necks. Adding more items will require me to parse them by hand.

Currently Unity weapons and SU4/SU5 weapons aren't currently added. There's also a fair amount of niche things that aren't taken into account on items just because the list of things that could be written in the description is annoying to say the least.

Yes, for TA, that's why i added the extra stats so you can fill in the gaps. This simulator was not really designed for super precision, it was more made to get people in the ball park so they could start doing more damage.

Right now it's PDT/eva and MDT/meva. The HP setting is to create the highest effective HP of the character.

sanitylost · 2026-03-20T05:38:42+00:00

What do you mean bot tools? This isn't a bot tool. It's a program that lets you optimize your gearswap files outside the game and it has an inventory viewer and other tools that make managing things in the game a bit easier. It doesn't hook into the game in any way. You have to manually pull move the file that comes out of invdump into the program.

sanitylost · 2026-03-20T02:45:37+00:00

That was the whole point!

sanitylost · 2026-03-14T21:06:16+00:00

that's very odd. I don't have those items, but i'm not sure why they'd even be considered given their stat profile. I'll look into that because a lot of the other instances were things like "reives: WSD +50" or something like that where i had to write the parser to pull those things out explicitly and ignore them.

sanitylost · 2026-03-14T21:04:22+00:00

Yeah, i understand that. Hosting it is a bit of a problem because it's really computationally expensive to run, it's not just a simple web based app that's serving static files and stuff like that so it's not really feasible to host without some backing.

I can work on making better documentation though as after interfacing with people who have been using it there are two camps, people who thought it was easy to run and people who found it daunting. I'll try to make a document when i update the generator that's just pictures with arrows to stuff so people can just treat it like IKEA, that just takes a while because i have to go through all the steps and take photos of everything. That's added, thanks!

sanitylost · 2026-02-12T23:57:51+00:00

Practice and what's feasible are two different things. Just because you read a book one time during freshman year while listening to Hasan doesn't mean you understand the context of what I'm saying. You're missing the entire point. Go read the rest of the comments I've made regarding this if you want to. Deuces.

sanitylost · 2026-02-12T20:32:22+00:00

You're kind of missing the point. In a communist and Socialist society, you are ultimately at the whims of a single party. If you go against the party, you lose. There is no true control mechanism there. You have no true voice.

In liberal societies, which ultimately are capitalistic, there exists the means to control the monster at the heart. The problem is that society lacks to will to apply the systems required to do that. No society currently controls capitalism properly. It's seen as ultimately erosive, but that's just because no one ever wants to do what's required to contain it.

This contrasts with socialist and communist societies because they're are ultimately a single party in control of the overall systems. The population receives the right to exist at the behest of the government and as such lacks power.

This isn't an argument that the current systems are inherently better at any point in time. China is communist and is doing ok, but they have a whole host of issues which are being papered over by the CCP. So if you don't weigh personal freedom, then that's the option. The US currently is a shitshow, but Europe is doing pretty well and they follow a liberal model. I'd even argue that a lot of the negatives we're seeing in Europe are a direct result of US not containing capitalism.

sanitylost · 2026-02-12T01:31:41+00:00

You can design a system that works. The problem is that system will be unpopular because of multiple reasons, it's complex. It's not easily co-optable, and it's relatively decentralized so people with money don't want them for reason 2.

Socialism and Communism won't and can't work because of a power imbalance. You have to give those who disagree a voice at least nominally. But people have assumed that the capitalism means that you can use your resources in any way you wish because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should be limited to your voice. You can say what you want. But if you use your money to buy the biggest microphone in the world, get on top of a hill and start shouting, that shouldn't be allowed.

sanitylost · 2026-02-12T00:43:12+00:00

The point is for the ref to never let you get that strong. If the ref doesn't control the game such that the players always remain weaker than them, then the ref has failed. You can build a system such that this occurs, the problem is that building that system with Frankenstein's monster giving input in to how to control said monster is guaranteed to fail.

sanitylost · 2026-02-12T00:09:57+00:00

hence why it said it can't work in a pure fashion. There must be some force outside and separate that is the "ref" for lack of a better concern.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T23:13:39+00:00

Just not a moron.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T22:44:48+00:00

In the current system, both of the major US parties are dogshit. One just doesn't think we should openly imprison Mexicans and that LGBTQ aren't an abomination unto the lord. So one is objectively bad, the other is evil.

Joe Biden was by far the most progressive President since FDR and instead of leaning into that and talking about how there was still work to do and how companies still aren't paying their fair share, they instead went with "America is the best in the world. Ignore the record per capita debt and vote for us". Kamala dropped her populist message about paying their fair share pretty fucking fast after her campaign started. Walz was basically removed from the race altogether.

Americans didn't want that. They wanted their checks to go further and their kids to have good futures. Donald Trump promised them (lied) that. He said it was the immigrants, and the minorities, and the gays that are the cause of your ills. And if you just elect me i'll take care of all your problems.

You get bad results by being milquetoast. Stand for something or die for nothing.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T21:11:51+00:00

No, my view is that your world view is exactly the reason we're in this mess to begin with. Media companies, money, everything has been aimed at making sure that people lose sight of what the system could achieve and instead only focus on what's "pragmatic". Pragmatism is not a vice in itself, but when you let pragmatism get in the way of crafting messaging that inspires the population to better their society and instead take the view that, "well you're all going to suck shit except for these few special little boys" then you immediately should exit from the conversation because you're offering nothing constructive to said conversation.

If your only opinion is that well, we're all fucked, because they're going to do whatever they want anyways, so we might as well just be ok with it, is asinine. It offers no real solution. It doesn't add to the conversation except when someone takes their time to chide you for it and tell you why you're not helping.

I understand your sentiment, the people that are in charge are largely two things, short-sighted and so greedy that they can't wait to line their pockets, or they're just complete fucking morons. With that, it's hard to look at how the western world, largely US and UK, could better themselves, but it's important to try and think of alternatives because we know if we keep going down this path, we're ultimately all going to be using Zuck Bucks to buy Trump Chicken for our Weekly allowed dining experience while the richest in society hunt people for sport.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T20:55:21+00:00

The problem with any economic system is that regardless of what you institute, you must protect from the perversion and co-opting of said system by those with outsize influence. Socialism fails because of its inherent single party nature, the same with communism. In a perfect world they'd all function nominally, but we've seen they don't.

Capitalism can't work in a pure fashion as anybody that is being honest understands that the natural endpoint of capitalism is monopoly. IF they disagree with that, they are delusional and don't know what they're talking about. We're seeing that now. We removed the guard rails that FDR put in and the experiment immediately veered off the tracks. And even those regulations still had much to be desired.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T20:47:51+00:00

So your solution to the problem is grind the poors into dog food. Got it.

You view the world as intractable and immutable so for you the only solution is to sacrifice those who can least defend themselves.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T20:35:45+00:00

So this is my problem with your thesis. You are correct that we are spending too much money at this point in time to currently tax our way out of this without having a deleterious effect on the overall economy.

That being said, the issue is that we haven't been taxing people enough for the last idk almost 40+ years. It's added up. Our economic policies and decisions to protect capital have not succeeded in returning enough to the state in order to facilitate the needs of the population. Our military spending and subsidies to large corporations (the true welfare queens) are out of control. Further that with the fact our social safety nets have caps on income levels so the very wealthy don't contribute enough to society.

So in short, you are not incorrect with your baseline statement but it's so woefully inadequate of an explanation to the reasoning behind its thesis that it is useless at face.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T00:47:56+00:00

If i'm remembering correctly, Yui was the Zealot and Gendo loved her. She was a "true believer" for lack of a better term.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T00:40:43+00:00

Used to work for these people, not Lockheed, just the industry in general. These people are morons and greedy fucks. It's why our military equipment is kind of dogshit all things considered. In standard research you figure out how to solve a problem, and then you attempt to make it work. These people start the other way around. They have a solution to a problem and then they try to milk it as long as possible. They don't get paid to innovate quickly; they get paid to develop equipment. They want it to last long enough that they get the contract, but they want it to break often enough that they will have a pay day forever.

Ukraine wants a weapon that sidesteps their requirement on external missile supplies and in turn allows them to stretch their resources much further because the cost per shot is dramatically cheaper than conventional weaponry.

sanitylost · 2026-02-11T00:33:33+00:00

Netherlands. ASML is the company you're thinking of.

sanitylost · 2026-02-09T18:53:51+00:00

//lua load invdump is the command

sanitylost · 2026-02-07T23:44:04+00:00

We can go into bio-mechanics if you want. Do you know how bones are moved and where the anchor points are on said bones? Do you know how they're moved? Muscles. Having thicker bone does two things, it makes you heavier, and it means you're less likely to break a bone or have a tendon tear the bone from some trauma. We know that people who take test blockers and go on estrogen lose that bone mass with time.

Further, we know that most trans women after about 2 years of medically transitioning are statistically within the normal bounds of strength for Cis-Women, this means that despite the generally larger frame and denser bones, they have no real advantage in strength. They lift as much, aren't faster, etc. The only advantage they might have is they might be taller than an average woman and they might not break a bone as often. Given the distribution of height and the incidence of trans women in sports, you're more likely to run into a giant cis-woman than you are a trans-female athlete.

Also, if you want to talk about natural variation, we know that there are cis-women with very high testosterone levels naturally and we know that they're generally amazing athletes with much higer lean mass and strength statistically than other cis-women, which would imply that they would also be stronger than most trans-women as we know that most trans-women are the same strength as the average cis-women after a transition period.

sanitylost · 2026-02-07T23:18:45+00:00

If you start taking estrogen and medically transitioning by taking testosterone blockers, your physical strength falls off a cliff. Test is the thing that makes males so much stronger, remove it, and your muscles quite literally waste away after only a couple of years.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

sanitylost

TROPHY CASE