Skip to content
  • 1 Topics
    5 Posts
    J
    I hope this works. nodeBB uses mongo instead of SQL and markdown instead of HTML for rich text. code blocks look like this links are easy to insert This emoji sucks. This picture rules. [image: 1767265105907-jimjimijimini.jpg] Jim Jimi Jiminy What about quote blocks?
  • 4 31
    4 Topics
    31 Posts
    S
    By now, you guys have seen my "I got a plan, Stan!" comment in our Line thread. Some of it was discussed last Sunday with Josh. I intend to elaborate here and answer any questions. What the plan is: A road map and checklist that will expand and amplify our perceived value beyond just the possible future revenue of a game we want to publish. Why the need for a plan like this: Publishers of board games invest hundreds of thousands of dollars between marketing, manufacturing, and distribution on a single game title alone, so obviously they don't willy-nilly take just any board game on as an investment project. They want as close to a "sure thing" as possible and as much of the "hard" work done for them before even considering a new game and whether or not it fits in with their existing product line and company mission. So our plan, in a nutshell, is to not only do that work for Kred, but to establish that we are in a position to offer services that help aspiring game creators, as well as small to mid-sized publishers, with "road to publish" services. What the plan is not: It is not any specific commitment, long-term or otherwise. This plan does not require much more effort or work than we are already doing for Kred. The fact that we offer services does not mean we get any takers. If we do, we'll price accordingly when the time comes. For now, that is not the point. What is the point? Imagine yourself as a game publisher. You're always on the lookout for that next big title that will translate to a decent profit and add further value to your product line. You're running a booth at a board game event and suddenly you are cold-approached by some guys with a game that looks interesting and possibly might fit with what you're looking for. Maybe they seem to have crossed their t's and dotted their i's, brought a nice prototype, a sell-sheet, etc., and even present well — but you don't know anything about these guys. You're probably thinking you don't have time to look into their game in detail. Then one of them hands you a business card and says they offer development phase services for creators of tabletop games. Instantly, what does this tell you? I won't make a list here, but suffice to say it answers a lot of questions about these four guys. At the very least, you know they've invested a lot — time, work, and money — in their game development already, they've done their homework, and most likely know the position a publisher is in. These guys are not here to waste your time. You just may give their game a deeper look when you get home. What's happening here? At the very least, networking. Exchanging business cards can lead to further contact down the road for other projects, referrals to other publishers, and even a source in the business that can be contacted for inquiries. In the best case scenario, a relationship with a publisher and possibly an exchange of services. Regardless of publishing our game, publishers we build relationships with can send us a bit of business when someone prematurely pitches a raw, underdeveloped game to them and is in need of some of our services. What else are we doing at the Osaka event? Whether or not we get Kred looked at by any publishers, let's emphasize that we play games — a lot of games (we can prove it by showing our stat-app page) — and invite them to contact us if they need playtesting of any games they might have in development. This we'll offer free of charge. Our webpage for our services should speak volumes about who we are and what we do. Josh and I have said we are willing to put our mugs on the site in the developer profile page. Hopefully you guys are as well. https://montoyahome.com/tfdstudios/index.html (The website is merely a placeholder with a general scaffold. No need to nitpick on words and design just yet — there's lots to be done here!) In order to get Kred on the proverbial map, we're going to need to make our presence known through social media, participate in several tabletop game communities, and make a good name for ourselves. Branding is important, and filling a niche with "development phase" services under the TFD name makes our quest to publish Kred more achievable by establishing credibility, growing our audience, and creating value long before the game reaches the market.
  • 10 160
    10 Topics
    160 Posts
    S
    This has been a word document (actually a LibreOffice doc) for a few years now. Unfinished, unpolished and quite frankly, I didn't feel compelled to finish it. Cody gave us all a copy of DD's book some time ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it but at some point at a game day at Cody's house, I remember the convo heading into "free will" territory. More often than not, I don't tend to assert myself as much as I'd like when we're physically together because there are 4 of us vying for speaking time simultaneously on any given topic. So I started writing the following down with the intention of giving it to you all. But "this and that" put it on the back burner for more than a few years. Anyway, I decided to get it done today. (The only AI used was as a thesaurus. The entire post is my writing)...
  • 9 22
    9 Topics
    22 Posts
    S
    As I said in Line, I generally don't take any major issues with what Maher is saying in the video. The main issue I DO have is the context in which he ignores; that is that antisemitism is not the same as being critical of the Israeli government's handling of the war in Gaza. He seems to conflate criticism of a government of a country as antisemitism. There's enough antisemitism without this conflation already, so I don't know why he does this. Pre-1940's, the Jews didn't have a country, so his analogy of that time, compared to now falls kinda flat. But his overall points are fine. Israel has a right to defend itself. There are people out there that hate Jews AND Israel, but those people blatantly identify themselves. Maher appears to work a little too hard to add people like me in his Ven diagram section of antisemites. I can say in the same breath that I disagree with the tactics Netanyahu is currently using in Gaza, but agree with the initial actions taken that fateful October. The majority of critics out there on the left are similar to me. Not pro-Israel, not anti-Israel. Simply calling balls and strikes as we see them.
  • 3 15
    3 Topics
    15 Posts
    No new posts.
  • 1 8
    1 Topics
    8 Posts
    No new posts.
  • postHere = isRelevant(yourTopic) ? true : false;

    4 108
    4 Topics
    108 Posts
    S
    Google just launched Gemini 3.5 Flash to mixed reviews. One of the main criticisms is it’s not as cheap as advertised and is much more expensive than 3.1 Flash. While true, I think they weren’t trying to replace 3.1 “Flash”. They were trying to replace 3.1 “Pro”, and I think they achieved that. I’ve been on Google’s ¥2900/month plan for the last month and have been on Claude’s and Codex’s paid plans before too. My assessment, even after different models have been coming out, is kind of unchanged and easy to explain. Not sure if you guys agree but I see the three like this… Claude Code (Opus and Sonnet)– Best for starting completely new projects from ground zero. It understands and follows through on entire PRD’s the best of all three in this area. Opus 4.7 seems to go down rabbit holes though, often eating more cookies than I wanted to feed it. Codex (GPT 5.4. Not sure about 5.5)– Absolutely the best for hunting down bugs efficiently. Usually one-shots the fixes. Although it seems efficient(don’t think I ever hit my daily limits), it’s slower to finish its work. Gemini 3.1 Pro & Google Stitch – Most cost effective of all three. Best front-end designs period. Has Google search at its fingertips when you want it to check for options for feature building. As of today, 3.5 Flash is supposedly as good as 3.1 and is 4 times faster. I can verify the speed for sure. However, it seems to eat twice as many cookies as 3.1 for the same job. Price per token in/out, while cheaper, makes it a wash. You get the same job done by both 3.1 Pro and 3.5 Flash, roughly the same price, but I guess 3.5 Flash gives you extra speed. Summary...The worst part of Gemini models is that the only way it can one-shot hard bug fixes is to give it pictures, and to explain the step-by-steps the user did to encounter the bug. Codex didn’t need any of that. I could just say the shit don’t work and it fixed it while I watched a YouTube video. Claude was decent at fixing shit but seemed to try too much other shit in the process. I mean, why was Claude attempting to start a game of Kred? It can’t do that without multiple players! Lol. Codex may be the most well-rounded of the three with regard to coding. It’s not great at design. It’s not great at keeping all of my intent on new projects. But in brick-by-brick mode(which includes bug fixes), it’s the best. Claude’s 5-hour limits are infuriating but the models are super smart(they seem to get and keep my intent no matter what). Gemini is the jack of all trades, in the sense that the pro plan gives you access to the entire Google AI ecosystem (Nano Banana, Stitch, Antigravity, NotebookLM) but needs refined/detailed prompts. For now, I’m gonna go for one more month with Google then see how Anthropic is treating their customers. I might go back to them. Not sure I’ll go back to Open AI just yet. Fast bug fixes are great, but not worth it based on just that. One thing that I keep in mind is that I build games. I am not trying to solve complicated math or science problems. Sonnet, GPT 5.4 on medium, Gemini Flash have gotten shit done for me in the past. Cranking up to Opus, GPT 5.4 high and Gemini Pro models for shit in the weeds has worked out fine too, meaning I don’t necessarily need to pay for the model that out-benchmarks all the others. It’s not the models...it’s me and how I learn to use the models to their strengths.
  • A place to talk about anything that doesn't fit neatly into another category.

    11 95
    11 Topics
    95 Posts
    S
    Because the amount of writing that I feel needs to go into this, I will do it in installments or volumes and, for my enjoyment, it will be written in a legal format which is designed for a jury’s consumption. A.I. (Google Gemini) was used for data and references, as well as clarifications I needed, but not in writing of the following “explanation”, as Cody would put it. “We” is used throughout as I am representing We the people of planet Earth in the prosecution of the case against Trump. Is Donald John Trump worse than Adolf Hitler was? Yes. I am convinced that indeed he is. Executive Summary While Adolf Hitler is undeniably responsible for the most horrific deliberate atrocities in human history, this submission argues that Donald Trump represents a mathematically and existentially greater objective danger to the world. This argument establishes a rigorous methodological distinction between historical evil (malice and past body counts) and danger, which must be measured by a leader's capacity, scale, and potential to cause total global destruction. We demonstrate this modern threat through three main pillars, beginning with the apocalyptic scale of nuclear volatility, highlighted by the Doomsday Clock's unprecedented advancement during his tenure. Second, we analyze his deliberate acceleration of the climate crisis which as a pan-generational threat that, unlike mid-20th-century conventional warfare, holds the capacity to end all organized human life. Finally, we examine his model of 21st-century transactional imperialism. Evidenced by his attempts to purchase Greenland and the unprecedented January 2026 military abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during "Operation Absolute Resolve", we argue that his blatant disregard for international sovereignty actively destabilizes the post-WWII global order and creates a "might-is-right" paradigm that risks catastrophic wider conflicts. Ultimately, this brief concludes that modern technological and ecological capacities elevate contemporary geopolitical threats far beyond the destructive limits of the 1940s.
  • Got a question about the site or how to use it? Got a suggestion for how to improve it?

    0 0
    0 Topics
    0 Posts
    No new posts.
  • Blog posts from individual members

    0 0
    0 Topics
    0 Posts
    No new posts.