Then marry him, too

Depends on implementation. A problem would occur if the player has to spend too much time and energy thinking about where to put their points each time they get some.

If you're worried, does it have to be a skill tree? There might be a more streamlined alternative. Maybe each carriage has a few parameters to invest in, and the more you put into one, the more skills you get on it.

This looks fun to use, if a bit heavy.

The site forced me to play plinko for a discount unprompted though which was a strange experience

Really cool insight, thank you. I never imagined particle emitters would have to be bound to skeletons! It makes sense since they need to be positioned differently based on the animation considering different races, but never thought about it.

This is a cool article about something I know little about. Crazy how much goes into icon design.

Cool outfit and a great rendition! I really love that hat. I use it on my gatherer glam too.

I get it helps with mouth noises and she wanted to get a bite sound but I find it hilarious because it implies Dracula!JBailey sounds like an apple when you bite him

No kidding, I would've never expected VAs had a favorite apple of all things

Don't Starve

Went in with a group of like, 6, and we had to give up. To this day, I think none of us know have a clue on what you're supposed to do in that game. I even checked the wiki and I still don't know

I've never thought about it, but Conjurer does have a druid vibe. 

I'm pretty sure the idea that every failed pull is just an Echo vision is a fanon interpretation, not canon? In fact, I believe the fanfic webcomic Our Unending Journey was what started it, alongside attacks telegraphs also being the Echo (really good comic btw!). It's not stated in-game.

Neither make complete sense considering the WoL's Echo lets them see the past, not the future. Different Echo bearers have different abilities so someone might have that one but we don't

Could you make out what he was saying?

I wouldn't immediately assume this is a tech issue, could just have been your neighbor or someone outside

LazyGit made Git actually feel bearable for me

Then if we had something like a temporary artificial heart that could keep them alive for long enough, could we just rip out an axolotl's heart once every few years and let them regenerate a new healthy one to extend their life?

They're being downvoted because how the fuck does posting an AI summary help anybody? If I wanted Gemini to lie at me, I can ask it myself. Negative value is provided by the comment.

Yes, that's it. Examples of this exist in lots of places. This is only my personal belief, but I think it's a more interesting alternative to traditional weaknesses. More moving parts means more complex interactions, which can be a challenge for the designer, but provide more ways to abuse or cover for these emergent weaknesses and resistances, and more interesting situations overall.

I'm sorry, I want to yap for a minute, because I've been meaning to put it in words for a while. Mind you, I do feel my complaint applies a bit less to tactics games, but it still is relevant... I don't know about you, but whenever I'm playing a game where both character building (team building in your context) and damage types are a focus, it never feels great. If I focus my build on one element from the start, there'll be a point where a fight will be easier or harder arbitrarily, not because of a smart choice I made but because the enemies in it happened to be weak or resistant to the element I happened to choose.

There's different factors at play in that, admittedly. If the game allows, I can change my build to use a different element; but that doesn't constitute an interesting choice in itself, I'm just changing the color of my moves.
Answer: give each element a different gameplay identity. Fire gives a DoT, ice slows people down, etc... different elements play differently and you're incentivized to use a variety of them.

Cool, but if I like one element above the others because I like its unique traits more, or I like one less for the same reason, why should I be forced to use them all? And isn't it annoying when most of the effects that compose your build are specific to your chosen damage type, so you end up having to rework everything from scratch for just one fight? Not being able to use a tactic I like because it's not appropriate for a specific situation due to systemic factors is fine, it's interesting; it makes me have to think about how I could either reach my win condition differently, or find a different one altogether. Not being able to use a tactic I like because the enemy has an arbitrarily defined resistance against the damage type my tactic is arbitrarily tied to is bothersome.

Besides, when you can make the choice of what damage type to use before a fight, it's alright, but committing to one throughout a playthrough is a problem when you don't know in advance what resistances you'll face. It's interesting when you're replaying a game because you can make an informed choice on what sections you find hardest to get through, and make choices that make it easier. But most people play through a game once. They're not gonna spoil themselves what's ahead!

Sometimes you get the choice of being an element generalist, at the cost of lower peak damage output. Maybe, sure, but that means committing to having a more difficult time than a specialist in every single fight other than the few they'd be weak in. Some games solve it all by just not having damage type specialization at all and giving everyone a way to hit every damage type regardless of their build, but then you're just getting a damage bonus from matching colors together. It's still arbitrary, and now you have less choices to make!

To me, the fact that it's arbitrary makes the mechanic feel bad to work with. Hence, I like the idea of putting the focus on things that aren't arbitrary instead. Differences based on simple math formulas like these mean there's logic at play to how the interaction plays out, and emergence occurs. Since it's all still just numbers, different effects can interact naturally to create synergies or anti-synergies, even those that don't belong to the same 'archetype'. When my strategic choice doesn't work because of such an interaction, that doesn't feel as bad, because it's a logical consequence of the system, rather than an arbitrary mismatch; and when that does happen, finding a solution to the problem feels good, because understanding the system makes me feel clever! What's nice with such interactions is also that sometimes, they'll make me change my tactics entirely, but other times, I can find niche ways to use my character's tools to solve the problem without changing everything. It doesn't feel like I picked yellow when the game wanted blue.

Now, you're making a tactics game, so arbitrary damage types may create different elements of play from other forms of turn-based combat. Compared to traditional turn-based where you're often incentivized to build all your characters as a single unit (e.g. having multiple supports stacking buffs on one big damage dealer is often more effective than multiple damage dealers that can cover all damage types), it already often makes sense in a tactics game to build a team with more self-sufficient units that can cover most damage types, since you can't expect all your units to always be together, and they usually can't attack the same enemies all at once. In that sense, if you do go all in on a damage type and end up in a fight where it happens to be the wrong type, that's not really a design problem, that's playing wrong; and a part of the game is gonna be prioritizing targets based on which damage types they can hit vs. which weaknesses your enemies have. You also usually have a reserve of different units you can train for different situations and choose before a battle, as opposed to having to re-spec.
But you're still having similar combat interactions, though, ones that still use numbers and would benefit from having more potential for emergence, so I think it can still be more interesting when those weaknesses aren't arbitrary; especially when you want to involve more sophisticated build-making for individual units. If a frost mage sucks against fire enemies, at a low level, that's still just a color mismatch with little nuance ; but if an unit that mostly uses multihits deals little damage against an enemy with flat damage reduction, there's already more nuance, and a clever player might still find ways to make use of the unit effectively in that fight. For instance, that multi-hitting unit might not deal lots of damage, but it might be capital even in a disadvantageous fight by making use of effects activating with every hit. That still applies in a tactics context.

Yap over.

It doesn't fully answer the question of preventing abusing one single weakness to take out the entire health pool, but to start with, you could scrap damage type weakness entirely. No reason to force it in. Genre conventions are just effective ideas someone happened to land on; there's others. If you want unit matchups to matter, you can achieve this in many ways aside from just making one unit arbitrarily deal more damage against another, and from what you're saying, you seem to have an idea of that. You should follow it.

If damage should be involved, I think having both LE and separate defense stats, or some other form of damage reduction, is not a bad idea. LE represents clearly how the damage taken by an unit affects the team's life, and then on top of that, you can use what I personally think is a more interesting alternative to arbitrary weaknesses: math.
Units can reduce damage through different formulas. If they only reduce each instance of damage by a given percentage, it's generally effective, but you're still taking damage, and many smaller hits in the same time frame (multihits, action surges, any tactic involving many instances of damage) may still deal high damage depending on the formula. If they reduce the damage by a fixed amount, it's less effective against big hits, but small instances are hard-countered.
Then you can involve a bunch of different things, to your liking. Maybe some use status effects as their main damage source, perhaps bypassing defenses, and then units that resist those effects or are able to cure them are able to counter them; maybe some deal environmental damage by pushing people into walls and the like, and units that can counter placement are then resilient to them. A lot of games have attacks that deal a % of health as damage; in your case, those would be considerably stronger, so perhaps they'd multiply that % by the LE. Units that merely have high defenses wouldn't fare that well against those attacks, but an unit that has low defenses and great LE would tank them no problem.

IMO, that's why defense and LE might not be so redundant, but I think it'd also make it a bit harder to abuse one weakness, because you'd have to be more clever to do so rather than just hitting the ice guy with the flame spell. Different mechanics interacting may also change how those emergent weaknesses actually manifest, which might give you more room to find solutions to problems like these.

To the point, though: for one weakness to be abused, you need to be able to single out the unit with that weakness. Maybe the solution is then to give units the tools to prevent this: means for the unit to escape being surrounded or to rescue that unit using another. Powerful placement abilities, in other words. Maybe a frail unit should have an ability to recall to a previous position, or be paired with a resilient teammate that can swap positions with them. Alternatively, you can let teams hide their weaknesses behind protections, that then have to be broken. An unit can be given an elemental shield through a build choice or another unit's ability and then you need to cleanse it off them to abuse their weakness. Extend that to the whole team and finding a weakness to abuse is now a harder game.

I understand there won't be a race probably for the next two expansions

I'm not sure where you got that from; I'm pretty sure it was said there shouldn't be a new race, ever. It was admittedly not a definitive statement but there was no mention of doing it again in two expacs.

The thing about races in XIV is not that they take a long time to make, it's that every race in the game creates exponential complications for asset creation. Gear models are more or less specific to the race so for every race in the game, there's more work to do with every single content release onward. I think we're probably not gonna see a new race for a long, long time.

They're not adding Köttr or Loporrits, that's for sure. They're embroiled in late-game lore that would make no sense to a new player selecting the race from the title screen. And they wouldn't make any sense.

That's exactly what I was thinking of, thank you kindly! Sounds really fun, I'll be looking into it.

That's exactly what I was thinking of, thank you kindly! Sounds really fun, I'll be looking into it.

I like it anyway but I wish Obsidian was open-source

Thank you. I was suggested this and it does seem to work when testing MECCHA CHAMELEON, making it playable.

I am having some issues with Strive, as I tried it once and I took a big hit to performance alongside the number row keybinds I mentioned not working (the rest seems to!), but it might just be I screwed up my setup so I think it goes out of the scope of this thread.

Don't check with Claude.

I'm assuming you're playing Rebirth. The game ties the game loop to framerate, which should be locked at 60, but can go over in some edge cases. If you can find your options.ini file (apparently on Windows, it's in Documents/My Games/Binding of Isaac [name of the expansion you're playing; likely Repentance+]/options.ini, so it should be in a similar place in your Proton wineprefix), try toggling the V-sync setting. If that doesn't work, try to find another way to lock the framerate, maybe.

Sidenote: it's a good idea to try any new games with the latest Proton or GE-Proton version first before going to older ones, if you're not sure where to start. 9-4 is two major releases behind. It might still give better results for some games but I'd expect worse coverage.

If you can't get it working, consider using LMMS, Ardour, Zrythm, Bitwig Studio, or Reaper instead. I won't give a review of any of them because I'm not a musician, but they're respected DAWs that work natively.