u/B_bI_L

By manually, I mean, for example, using recursive directory picker that sets project where you would like. So this would work kind of like zoxide + nvim where you do `cd project; nvim`. I mean, you get more search options, but on the other hand when you want to work on something once, maybe you would still like to take advantage of projectile/project.el features

So, is ability to set project once without making that file and adding it to project cache some kind of antipattern? Or why there is no obvious way to do it (or i am missing something)?

I know YOLO on any tank leads to death in most cases. What I want is tank that allows you to jump into action and take on enemy with more health or multiple enemies. For example, Tiger 2 lets you do that sometimes. Of course, you have to weight risks or it gonna end up poorly. And I want something similar, to give me those "Rambo" moments

I got a core concept, but now I have a question, how do you make in-battle rogue different from, say, barbarian and warrior? Like, I feel most battles will be "I attack him" but worded differently.

Does cortex give tools for that? For example, should they have about 5 cheap/no cost SFX for solving this? Or maybe step up/down die when PC tries to take advantage of enemy weakness/surrounding/some already existing asset? Or maybe something else entirely? Or Cortex is not that much about fights?

P.S. small questions not 100% relevant:

- conflict is like "I kill the bad guy" or "I try to swing and bad guy defends"?
- how heavily should i use SFX? Like, should I make one for every character feature, like night vision and ambidextrous or limit to couple signature abilities?

I GMed RISUS game recently, and got a request for more interesting combat. I already did add advantage to combat to make it a bit more flexible, but that is still kind of not it.

I look at Cortex Prime, but from what I see, all combat skills will behave the same. Say, I do set of traits for attack type, like punch vs slash vs push vs whirlwind, and those will mostly be same for same dice size, unless i add sfx, but I am not sure those would fit.

I look into some system that will allow you to approach combat in different ways, even (actually desired outcome) if those ways are still combat and not avoiding it. For example, in roguelike games you can use some skill to push enemy into chasm or some potion enemy has weakness to, or aoe attack.

I get it, it is hard to get simple yet detailed system. What I am willing to put load to is GM having tools to lower/increase effectivness of specific interaction based on logic (like, throwing flying creature in a chasm is kind of hard)

Should I try Cortex anyway or it is not a good fit for combat focused games? And if not, what will be my best bet for game that lets you built some different characters, that each has multiple different ways of solving combat? (and preferably core game system should be pickable by gm in couple of days or less)

TLDR: game features in order of importance:

- each character can approach combat encounter in different ways
- some character variety
- system relies more on GM to monitor stuff than on big book of rules
- still ok non-combat interactions
- streamlined and uniform system
- not tied to specific genre
- more or less popular I guess

https://preview.redd.it/3d1hx26zncfh1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab080e9de387345b4e5e8a942b16722284c574ae

I really like how RISUS gives you a way to make skills, instead of specific skills, and overall game is very uniform. But I want a bit less basic conflict resolution. And the problem is, most systems instead of just giving you more complex conflict resolution and deeper characters try to lock you in "here we have these specific skills, spells and stuff, learn these 50+ pages to git good"

Closest to what i want is Mini 6, but it still has decent amount of stuff baked in, maybe there is something a bit lighter but still with ways for GM to make different tasks have different differently

TLDR: I want system that is basically a freamework that lets players chose their skills instead of looking ton of stuff up

I want my laptop monitor to be enabled only when no other monitor is connected, so i made this:

local function toggle_monitor()
hl.monitor({ output = "eDP-1", disabled = hl.get_monitor("HDMI-A-1") ~= nil })
end

hl.on("monitor.added", toggle_monitor)

hl.monitor({
output = "eDP-1",
mode = "1920x1080@60",
mirror = "HDMI-A-1",
position = "1920x0",
scale = 1.25,
disabled = false,
})

But each config reload after that resets workspace on main monitor and may crash some apps. can i avoid this?

When i set kernel to zen or cachy, tlp not able to set threshold. It will say:

Driver usage:
* natacpi (asus_wmi) = inactive (laptop not supported)

But when i manually write threshold to /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/charge_control_end_threshold it becomes:

Driver usage:
* natacpi (asus_wmi) = active (charge threshold)

When i set kernel to zen or cachy, tlp not able to set threshold. It will say:

Driver usage:
* natacpi (asus_wmi) = inactive (laptop not supported)

But when i manually write threshold to /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/charge_control_end_threshold it becomes:

Driver usage:
* natacpi (asus_wmi) = active (charge threshold)

Namely World of Tanks Blitz. Most annoying thing is that it happens specifically when battle starts and not on launch or whatever. Feels like some other event is treated as request to exit fullscreen.

Another problem is that after reentering fullscreen manually, clicking mouse is also treated like moving it along x axis for some reason (unless i float game window and put it in the center of the screen)

This is probably related to XWayland among other things

Crysis 1 has non-linear levels, what if i try to rush past missions without completing objectives? Or even without triggering them, instead silently going around cutscene trigger areas?

(also, unrelated, btw, when there is first helicopter after mission with you taking out 3 tanks with rocket launcher, where were you supposed find launcher for this heli? there is simply not enough)

Yes, I know similar question was asked multiple times. But emacs side always brings "os, not an editor" argument. But I already have an OS, I just need a text editor. (ok, not just editor, IDE)

Basically, if we strip org mode part and not leaving emacs part, what it has as IDE vs Neovim/Lazyvim?

Some context (not relevant to general question, only to my case): I am ok with need to invest some time in it. Idea to come to emacs rose from the fact that you start needing terminal multiplexer, but this is extra level of abstraction. I kind of want to make neovim+neovide also my terminal multiplexer, but it feels like I am stepping into emacs territory here a bit