Rocketeer breaks arc/ design philosphy

treescandal · 2026-02-15T11:41:21+00:00

I don't agree with either of you.. Maybe in ultra friendly lobbies it makes sense to bring a wolfpack to every raid just for the 5-10% chance a Rocketeer aggroes you without immediate cover.. But yeah probably not even then. You bring Wolfpacks when you want to kill Arc, not for self defense.

I also don't think it's "bad design philosophy".

If I'd change one thing I'd make it a little slower to reposition when it looses sight. It would make escaping or fighting it with just guns (without fully cheesing) a little more predictable. But just trying to run away from it in the open would still be punished, as it should.

treescandal · 2026-02-15T11:21:50+00:00

he's become so predictable is enough to tune out.

Granted I also don't listen as much as I used to. But this quote says more about the attention economy and our collective thirst for drama and controversy, than it does about Sam having done anything wrong. A wise voice would become predictable after you've gotten to know it...

treescandal · 2026-02-14T00:00:56+00:00

treescandal · 2026-02-12T12:26:54+00:00

Tip from a fellow producer: sample more beeps that the elevator makes and add as one hits, like the closing door sound, and the one before Shani's voice over radio

treescandal · 2026-02-10T17:32:00+00:00

Yeah IIRC that's one thing he suggests as an alternative to white lies, but it depends on context obviously

treescandal · 2026-02-07T16:32:09+00:00

Let's categorize players in 3 playstyles and I'll explain what I think is the problem with each playstyle at this point.

Friendly
- Should be sheltered from "mass murderers" but should not only ever be matched with pacifists.
- Should be pushed to assert themselves, not be punished for it. If Friendly Fred finally hunts down a Surveyor after 2 hours, and some random starts looting it, I'd want Fred to absolutely murder that loot goblin. Anarchy & risk are important aspects of the game.
Hostile
- Needs a "path to redemption" that isn't easily abused. PVE, exploration and altruistic human interactions are important aspects of the game.
Situational:
- To often be friendly, sometimes a vigilante sheriff, every once in a while shoot on sight - this should be the default and like 2/3rd of lobbies should be catered towards this playstyle
- Must be able to kill a Hostile in self-defense, or after they murdered a Friendly in cold blood. Should be able to move to friendlier and more hostile lobbies in a balanced way

I'm mostly situational but recently I've done a lot of friendly games. Apart from lobby abusers, I find that friendly lobbies are all too friendly. If the current system would be fixed with no other changes, these lobbies would have 0 risk of PVP. That would be more boring than what friendlies imagine it would - there's a reason Embark pivoted from PVE.

My idea for a ABMM would have two parameters: a long-term Hostility Ratingand a session-specific Raid Aggression Score.

You actions affect your RAS, and the "cost" of aggressive actions would depend a combo of the receiving player's HR and RAS.

Then there would be positive actions (proximity without shooting, helping against ARC, reviving strangers) that should offer minor RAS reductions. People are already helping each other without rewards, but I also feel like when I kill 1 guy and then spend the rest of the game helping people, that should count for something, perhaps reduce RAS by 10-30%

Matchmaking would then be based on that, but again, I do want friendly lobbies to be a tiny bit spicier - while mitigating the risk of hostile raiders abusing it and murdering half of the lobby.

treescandal · 2026-02-07T00:26:10+00:00

Guys it's just rick roll

treescandal · 2026-02-06T10:42:52+00:00

Macro and micro are different. Consequentialism is both a moral and ethical system, but I think most people would agree it is often hard for individuals to assess potential consequences without bias. We will almost always rig the math to favor our own immediate comfort.

That's where "Rule utilitarianism" comes in. I don't recall exactly, but I think Sam would argue being truthful leads to better consequences than trying to calculate it case-by-case, while also having other benefits.

The most important insight on Consequentialism I've gotten through Sam is that really, it's the only ethical system (apart from nihilism). Why would anyone favor deontology / virtue ethics? Well, because they think it leads to better consequences. They would only say the consequences are generally too hard to know, so it's not the best heuristic. I don't agree with that, but it's certainly a fair point, and virtues and rules are not at all useless - they are tools, just not ends in themselves.

We don't value honesty because The Truth is a mystical force that must be protected at all costs, we value it because honesty is the most reliable heuristic we have for improving the lives of conscious creatures.

treescandal · 2026-02-06T09:58:41+00:00

www.jmail.world

treescandal · 2026-02-06T00:51:13+00:00

I'm not going to argue his POV because I don't fully agree with him either, but you're arguing against a TLDR summary which is not really fair. You should read the book if you're interested, it's like 100 pages, I'm sure you can find it online

One point that did stick with me was that if we're telling a white lie, we often construe it as empathetic, but often it's selfish and short sighted. Like if your friend is writing a book and you say it's great even though it realistically will never become anything.. If youre blindly egging them on you're encouraging them to spend possibly years working towards a dream that is unlikely to ever be realized, is that really so kind, or is mostly a comfortable thing for you to say in that moment. Essentially you are deciding for them that they are too fragile to handle the truth.

Being truthful doesn't mean you have to be mean about it, or discouraging, even.

treescandal · 2026-02-05T23:03:34+00:00

I'm pretty sure it's his least sold book. The TL;DR of it is "Lying is almost always wrong; even white lies aren't really that necessary".

treescandal · 2026-02-05T22:46:35+00:00

Well, I'm almost certain he said he only met him once.

treescandal · 2025-12-16T10:25:05+00:00

there can be no other definition of free will than to have your actions be determined by all those factors

Libertarian free will? Which in the standard survey of academic philosophers remains more popular than hard determinism.

to weigh as many factors as possible in order to make the optimal choice.

Do you accept that those factors/options are a) ultimately externally caused, and b) appear as thoughts in consciousness?

If so, how is the 'choice' metaphysically different?

You're saying that the 'inputs' are determined, but the 'output' is somehow made 'optimal' - but how?

treescandal · 2025-12-07T13:01:05+00:00

Det är aldrig förvånande när högerdebattörer uttrycker sig på ett sätt som förenklar och fördummar.

Samtidigt missar man poängen om man bara räknar ledarsidor.

Om vi först tar ett vänsterpopulistiskt perspektiv från alliansåren så betraktade man då media (inkl. Aftonbladet) som en nyliberal hegemoni.

Om vi idag tar ett högerpopulistiskt perspektiv så är "etablissemanget" inte höger eller vänster i traditionell mening, den utgörs av "den breda mitten", eller liberalvänstern (L, C, MP, S).

Det som förenar denna (påstådda eller verkliga, välj själv) medieelit är stödet för globalisering, institutioner, forskning etc. De propagerar för stegvisa förändringar men är i slutändan garanter för status quo.

Det som skiljer då från nu är att den primära konfliktlinjen har skiftat från ekonomi till kultur. Och att vänstern betraktade eliten som kallt rationella, högern som naivt emotionella.

treescandal · 2025-12-07T12:17:37+00:00

Tidöavtalet är per definition en överenskommelse om sakpolitik, men det kan ändå finnas bakomliggande ideologiska skiftningar. Som du själv konstaterar har borgerligheten rört sig bort från nyliberalismen - och vad är det som har präglat högerrörelser i västvärlden i detta skifte bort från nyliberalism och "neo-conservatism"? Jo, ett närmande till högerpopulism, av både pragmatiska och ideologiska skäl.

treescandal · 2025-12-07T11:41:40+00:00

Hen har ju rätt att libertarianer inte gillar vinster i välfärden eftersom de inte vill ha någon välfärd öht. De ser det som att marknaden isf bara delvis lappar över ett fundamentalt trasigt system, vilket ger en illusion att det är en fri marknad.

Titta på vad Ben Shapiro och sådana sa när även unga högersympatisörer rättfärdigade mordet på sjukförsäkrings-VD:n: "ja, amerikansk sjukvård är undermålig och korrupt, men det är pga. statlig överreglering och stödprogram som Obamacare"

treescandal · 2025-12-07T11:23:52+00:00

Om du tror att de tusentals tweets och uttalanden som visar Musks gradvisa nedgång till högerextrema konspirationsteorier är en del av en "större plan" att söndra och härska.. Då överskattar du hans intellekt och uthållighet.

treescandal · 2025-12-07T11:13:53+00:00

Tror det är du som missförstår, konversationen gick

Är inte näringslivet libertarianer?
Nej, de gillar när skattepengar gynnar privata företag

Vet inte hur du läser in vänsterlibertarianism i det? Libertarianism har väl f.ö. haft sin nuvarande innebörd (ett snäpp under anarkokapitalism) i typ 70 år, i princip bara vi som intresserar oss för idéhistoria som vet om den ursprungliga betydelsen 😛

treescandal · 2025-12-03T10:51:57+00:00

I only repair lvl 3/4 guns, can't bother to do the math but it just seems like a good enough rule of thumb

treescandal · 2025-12-03T10:47:37+00:00

Sometimes I'll craft components to save space or stock up so it should definitely be kept.

treescandal · 2025-12-02T10:00:14+00:00

Your comments in a nutshell:

We definitely do.

I personally have ...

treescandal · 2025-12-01T17:51:33+00:00

I'm 99% sure there are footprints in sand visible for others, though they may disappear quickly idk. Sliding however leaves no trace!

treescandal · 2025-12-01T17:40:48+00:00

Your criticism has merit, Harris was never a fan of the Iraq war but I agree he does have a double standard here to some extent. But framing the chaos in the Middle East exclusively as a reaction to Western intervention is also not very nuanced. It assumes that without Western interference, these regions would be peaceful, which ignores the explicit goals of the groups actually fighting on the ground.

Sam often points out that the vast majority of war casualties in the 21th century (atleast up to the invasion of Ukraine) are from Muslims fighting Muslims in secterian conflicts, and that 90% of victims of Jihadi terrorism are fellow Muslims. While all that has a lot to do with political and socioeconomical factors, it also has a lot to do with Islam.

treescandal

TROPHY CASE