https://preview.redd.it/2s0kyuebm3ah1.png?width=645&format=png&auto=webp&s=2e364b1af5525c70110de5d001a506eb6835460f

Every map seems to be "we have placed 4 groups of enemies, one in each far corner, rush them down or get punished by the time limit; also they wont move towards you".

​

On top of that, it's "play over 1 1/2 hours THEN pay 120 endurance; no steps inbetween.

​

I like roguelite games, but those two simple already ruin the experience for me.

... or QoL that was intentionally worsened to promote sales (e.g., purchasable inventory slots).

What comes to my mind is e.g., Lost Ark where players were actually forced to buy freaking HEALING POTIONS, with real world cash or be very restricted in how many they can gain each day in addition to extreme cash shop dependency for upgrading gear... (in a game based around high difficulty raids). It had some other flaws that were highly monetization based, but from the class design it's easily amongst my favorite games of the last decade.

Meaning that you can freely drag gems into your skill slot, and it'd have the corresponding amount of sockets. This would help especially help minion / companion builds where it is not feasible to experiment, due to the high cost of leveling gems for most casual players (especially in early to midgame).

Imho, resources should not be so sparse that you are forced into following build guides, especially for minions or companions you can't simply math craft either.

Would this change significantly impact the orb and gem economy? Surely, but in my eyes for the better. It's okay to chase for optimized gear stats, but chasing to validate a base-skill set-up seems over the top.

It's been quite a while since Genshin allowed us to break the former lvl 90 cap. Now, I wonder was there any character where those 10 level really made a difference for you? Or any investments you particularly regret?

^("You want to kill me? How is that working out for you?")

Decoy:

• Added - Decoy is invincible for 3s when placed. Damage received during this time is transformed into Overshields for both Decoy and Loki.

Goal: Increase Decoy's durability in higher leveled content and grant Loki an extended layer of protection for stray hits bypassing his stealth.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

^("That's a neat trick. Mind if I copy it?")

Switch Teleport:

• Added - When targeting an Eximus unit steal their aura. Only one stolen Aura can be active at once. Lasts 60s

Goal: Fun! (...and utility). Inspired by the corresponding hound ability.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

^("Is this yours?")

Radial Disarm:

• Restore 5% maximum ammo per enemy hit. Ammo restored this way will refill your magazine.

Goal: Opens up synergies with high ammo-consumption weapons. Can work well with rather wasteful high RoF/Status application weapons.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: I do have some ideas for his passive, but they're more complex. Let's discuss in the comments!

Half of them is super situational "Only works against A", then has to lock on, then is useless because flares have essentially no CD, or lock is lost because the pilot just reduced height by a handwidth..... If it hits once in a blue moon? Repaired in less than 3s. Or they just break LoS.... or well, they just kill you.

RPGs? They used to work, with a bit of skill you could actually hit somebody. Now? It feels like even infantry can outrun them, if you do hit they randomly decide whether they glitch through the target or don't deal dmg.

Honestly? It seems like they deliberately made vehicles immune to infantry. I really miss old BF titles where you had less rockets, but their hits actually made an impact. Right now, no class feels less rewarding than trying to play engineer as an anti-tank/heli

For context - I wrote my Master's thesis on the use of AI in an economical context, years before ChatGPT became popular. I am aware of the deep technical aspects as well as the faults of modern models. These days I work as an IT auditor in a company providing critical infrastructure whose directors strongly push AI often in areas where high accuracy is required, but low accuracy is delivered.

Yesterday my SO and me went for a bike trip. Half way, we met another biker on a gruesomely slow traffic light, and ended up chatting and doing a part of our tour together. He was a CEO of a local company that was somewhere between IT and engineering. When he learned that both, my SO and I, were both working in IT/Software Engineering related field, he instantly drifted to the topic of AI:

"With AI, we don't need good software engineers anymore, we need good prompters".

OUF

Let's just say - that was not a topic for a bike trip with a stranger you just met, but it highlighted a widespread issue that I face on a daily basis: People don't understand AI and LLMS (Language Learning Models) in particular. That's okay, we can't be experts at everything, but it also leads to dangerous situation of overreliance.

I'll skip the technical details to remain r/WorkReform friendly, so let's summarize as - AI has a certain amount of inaccuracy that no training will improve, simply because the underlying algorithm is working through estimating correlation (how does A effect B?), instead of using 100% accurate mathematical rules (which we already know). Language Learning Models such as ChatGPT add another layer of "lost in translation" to it.

Having "good prompters" can reduce the issue of "lost in translation" and excessive training can improve the likelihood of an accurate response, but it doesn't guarantee it. In the foreseeable future having an expert in the field who knows what mathematical formulas to use and when, might not be quicker, but it will deliver better results.

Now, why is accuracy that important? Why am I writing here?

5% inaccuracy ins't much, is it? Well, 5% means "in 1 out of 20 cases". Now imagine, if that's an elevator ride. 1 in 20 elevators failing and crashing sounds freaking scary to me...

So, to come back to the headline and to the CEO statement that drove me to make this post, no we don't "just need good prompters", you can put these to HR and to marketing, but not into engineering for lord's sake! At least not without somebody who understand the outputs.

We need experts more than ever... But also - how do we get experts if rookie positions are being abandoned in favor of AI?

What is supposed to be "a technical revolution" is driven by people who are uninformed and short-sighted, and that's damn scary.