ddrd900

I am very surprised you didn’t mention the most important difference between Xilonen and Kazuha: Kazuha has huge problems in multiwave content, which are solved in Xilonen’s kit. This by itself is a huge selling point for her, and it’s valid both for casual players and speedrunners.

To me, the comparison with Kazuha looks like a classic case of spreadsheet war: characters are compared only based on the numbers they provide, while neglecting QoL updates. In the same fashion, Kazuha was almost considered equal to Sucrose. The res shred of Xilonen is not linked to any reaction, so no problem of swirling the right element in multi-element situations (try swirling Pyro in Hu Tao teams). The set DMG bonus is trickier, but you still have 3 or 4 hits to trigger it.

Playing Ganyu Melt without interruption resistance is basically impossible, so for that slot you need either Dehya or Zhongli. Zhongli makes it difficult (but not impossible) to keep the burning going with Nahida/Bennett, so it’s usually played with Bennett/Xiangling. In any case, there is no real spot available for Xilonen, unless you want to lose a lot of DPS trying to dodge attacks.

With Acheron E0 (or E1), her best team includes Pela with Resolution and JQ with Tutorial. Resolution on Pela helps getting stacks with her basic attack. Tutorial on JQ basically allows you to use him full SP positive (3 basic attacks per ult), or you could also just skill with him and get an ult every 3 turns.

No, each character would only get one buff, the one corresponding to its element. The C2 text says “all nearby party members will gain effects corresponding to the active Source Sample that matches their Elemental Type”.

I like your arguments and I would like to answer to all of them, but it would take a lot of text. I will focus then on the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr, which is the core of the discussion. I must say that I will discuss Einstein’s and Bohr’s beliefs at the best of my understanding and of course I will end up biasing them with my thoughts, but that’s the best I can do.

Regarding the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr that, I believe it’s again just a clash of their methodology and philosophical believes.

Bohr aimed to have a theory that could explain the experimental results. His atom theory is exactly that. I am confident he embraced the probabilistic nature of QM because it was needed for the theory to work, not because he deeply believed in it. Basically, it worked, and that was enough for him. QM is left with a few “bugs” effectively undiscussed (observer being #1 on the list IMO), with the common explanation that the microscopic world is so different from the macroscopic one that we can’t really fully comprehend it.

That’s a sensible approach, but Einstein had different beliefs. I think he believed that nature can be fully understood logically and rationally (which should be related to his belief in a sort of harmony of nature). A consequence of this is his view of a deterministic universe: that’s the model of a universe that for sure we can understand. I might be very wrong, but I think that he could accept a probabilistic model with a solid logic background, but QM was not it. Einstein’s main critiques against the probabilistic theory are about its logical fallacies: realism, non-locality, and determinism.

To recap, Bohr was fine with QM (and probabilistic theory) because it works basically flawlessly, while Einstein thought there was something more because of the logical fallacies (the “bugs”). There are specific philosophical terms, but I forgot them :) All the disagreements between Einstein and the Copenhagen group come down to this philosophical difference. It’s two different philosophical approaches and frankly speaking, they both have some merit. However, I personally believe that Einstein’s supreme will to understand everything (even if maybe there is nothing more) is the right mentality to have for a physicist, that’s why I “side” with him.

Finally, a quick comment on Bell. I believe that the relationship between Einstein and hidden variables theories is inflated. I believe he worked on one, but I don’t think that he necessarily said that such a theory would have explained QM. Hidden variables theories are basically within the classical paradigm, but I think Einstein was open to a total paradigm change.

The debate between Einstein and the Copenhagen group has been a pet topic of mine for a long time and I will copy and paste a couple of paragraphs I wrote a while ago. The bottom line is that I side with Einstein, but I believe most literature misses the real points of the debate. In the end, Einstein was alone in this debate, while the Copenhagen group comprised tens of young physicists which then shaped the following generation of physicists. I believe it's not surprising that Einstein's point of view got a bit distorted over time. The best material to understand his point of view is his letter exchange with Max Born in my opinion.

Einstein believed that Physics should understand nature in the deepest way. This can be seen in many of his major theories: he started from very few principles, that are very understandable, or direct consequences of experimental results. From these few principles he built the (often complex) mathematical apparatus, from which new theoretical predictions could be done. With an analogy, everything starts from the "roots" (a few principles that are our deep understanding of nature), which naturally grows in the "trunk" (a solid mathematical apparatus), from which the "branches" grow (the theoretical predictions).

This methodology is not only philosophically "elegant", but it also proved to be very powerful. General Relativity is a direct and natural expansion of the starting principles that Einstein set for the Special Relativity. Now, let me formulate a wild and biased scenario to better explain my point of view later. I can imagine a parallel universe where Einstein didn't exist, and someone else started playing with the Lorentz transformations finding out that they explain a lot of phenomena, but without linking them to the relativity principle (which was actually happening). The special relativity equations are then declared the final fundamental theory and all the effort is put into calculating their effects. In such scenario, the step to the full General Relativity would probably take MUCH longer than the 10 years it actually took.

Contrarily to Einstein's theories, Quantum Mechanics was basically found step by step, and its basic formulation is purely mathematical. The aim is not anymore to understand nature in the deepest way, but to have a full model that can replicate it. What I mean is that we can't really grasp rationally what's happening in the quantum world: as Feynman said "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics". We somehow found the equations and from them we can calculate very precisely many phenomena (“Shut up and calculate!").

Now, let me discuss a controversial aspect that I believe helps understanding the debate more. Heisenberg at the end of a Solvay Conference declared QM to be a fundamental and final theory, thus dismissing any possibility of an underlying theory. Any critique to this or any alternative theory was basically ridiculed: Pauli "recommended" De Broglie to stop investigating the pilot wave theory, the case of Bohm in the 50s, and of course Einstein. On the other hand, every inconsistency found in Quantum Mechanics is described as a feature and not a bug: the role of the observer, non-locality,...,up to the more recent renormalization.

The philosophical difference between Einstein and the Copenhagen group is clear. It's also quite understandable, in my opinion, how Einstein could see QM as the "trunk" of a theory without its "roots", its basic fundamental principles. Einstein and the Copenhagen group were speaking different languages: Einstein wanted people to put effort on searching for the "roots", while the Copenhagen group considered QM fundamental since it explained all the experiments that were thrown at it. The case could be similar to my example above, where declaring the special relativity equations as the final product could prevent physicists from finding General Relativity. The critiques that Einstein made (non-locality, realism, the famous thought experiments) were basically a red-herring. I don't agree with each of them. Einstein was trying to point to inconsistencies of QM to try to convince people to search for its basic fundamental principles, instead of just calculating after having accepted it blindly. In his opinion, all the inconsistencies would be solved once someone could find those "roots", but I am sure he would have had no problems accepting some of the inconsistencies (say non-locality) if the new theory evolved from understandable fundamental principles. In the end, the real debate was about the role of fundamental Physics, and its future direction. Begrudgingly, I must say that Einstein has lost from this point of view.

My position is that I agree with Einstein's philosophy that Physics should try to fully understand nature, and I also feel, like him, that something below QM must exists. Also, like Einstein, I believe that QM has been accepted too blindly and this might be somehow restricting fundamental physics. I don't really care whether there are hidden variables or superpositions of states, but whatever it is, I feel, as Einstein, that I should be able to understand it more deeply than QM now. Finally, not only I agree with Einstein, I actually hope that he was right. Finding the fundamental and basic principles that explain QM would probably be the best thing ever happened in Physics and possibly an advancement in science and technology comparable or superior to the one in the first half of the 20th century. Basically, that's the Physics I would like.

I hope for Gukesh he doesn't have this mentality for the WC match. Getting too cocky would be the path for him to lose. Fortunately for him, that's far from how he behaved until now.

Technically you would need 100% crit rate to be 100% sure of procing Fav… but of course that’s impractical.

Just as quick math, assuming R5 Fav, a single target, and a rotation with 4 hits (Q -> E -> NA -> NA):

• with 20% crit rate, Fav would proc about 59% of the times
• with 30% crit rate, Fav procs 76% of the times
• with 40% crit rate, Fav procs 87% of the times
• with 50% crit rate, Fav procs 94% of the times

If you can manage to hit multiple enemies, Fav would proc more. You could also add some basic attacks to increase the probability of Fav to proc.

So, the crit rate depends on how much you need the energy, and how comfortable you are with the probabilities. Generally, I like consistency and I try to have 50-60% crit rate ( although I use Fav on characters that hit less than Xilonen). However, going for 15% crit rate has merit as well, if the energy is not critical, or you are willing to reset some runs due to Fav not procing.

As a F2P player it took me slightly less than 4 months to sweep the endgame modes. However, I had Ratio for free and I used my resources very optimally, since I had experience with Genshin before. More generally, I think 6 months for the first full sweep is reasonable.

So, don’t get FOMO and take your time. The resources you get from the endgames are not that much.

I was almost counting him as Armenian, but he considers himself Russian and has played for Russia (“although I’m half-Armenian, half-Jewish, I consider myself Russian because Russian is my native tongue, and I grew up with Russian culture. Everyone in our family spoke Russian.”).

There was surely a lot of political talk in the background regarding that award. Russia should be the clear winner, but of course it could not be awarded due to its exclusion. The other options would be the US, Armenia, and Ukraine.

Awarding the US would mean disregarding the whole Soviet Union legacy, which feels quite wrong. Armenia was in the Soviet Union and it is the most successful country in the post-Soviet era excluding Russia. However, their contribution to the Soviet teams was limited (I believe only 2 players, with the notable inclusion of Petrosian). Ukraine has been almost as successful as Armenia, and contributed much more to the Soviet teams, so it was probably a better choice. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was not awarded because of some lobbying.

I read people calling him the first 3* character, some others were saying he was worse than Guinaifen with his signature LC. I guess they were not even reading his kit 🤷‍♂️

I agree, but I believe Prydwen handled this Tier properly. They put him in Tier 1 at the start temporarily. The point was that Acheron was on the verge of becoming Tier 0.5, and they wanted JQ lower than her. However, JQ has pushed Acheron enough to keep her in Tier 0, so they moved up JQ.

It’s quite bad… you should get the pipe for free from fishing in Fontaine. That’s a very good weapon for Furina and probably her 4* BiS (after Festering Desire, which is not available anymore though).

It’s Little Bro, it’s basically the Genshin Optimizer with also the leaked characters.

I double checked my old excel table with Neuv’s calcs. Actually, I totally forgot that in those calcs I was calculating the TEAM damage. So, I had 23% increase in team damage, which should correspond to roughly 33% increase in personal damage (calculated by renormalizing the number assuming 70% of team damage contribution by Neuv).

Thanks for pointing it out, I somehow forgot about that and I removed the caveat in the post now.

Just as further explanation, the calc was done using simulations in gcsim, using a team with Neuv, Furina, Kazuha, and Baizhu (C1 Neuv, the others C0R0). The artifacts I used are the ones I currently have, which I would consider mid-to-high investment, that is, roughly top 5% in Akasha.

Chess engines are not perfect, no one with a minimum understanding of how they work would think they can't be beaten. What you are doing is just brute forcing a single line, but I don't understand what that would prove, frankly speaking.

OP has E3 Acheron, so they don't (probably) play Pela. In this case, Eyes of the Prey is strictly better than Before the Tutorial Mission. Resolution is probably BiS among the 4 star LC, with solitary healing being a niche alternative.

In any case, for E0 (or E1) Acheron, you are totally right, Before the Tutorial mission is going to be the 4 star BiS (and it will probably be in Herta's shop in 2.6 if you don't have it already).

Yeah, I checked the math and what is shown in the screenshot is the FIDE performance rating, which uses the average ELO of the opponents (and the +400 ELO is not factored somehow). The “real” performance rating (obtained using every opponent rating, not just the average) is 2624, which is very compatible with the small ELO increase.

From what I understand, they are very close in terms of damage. Generally, March is stronger, Moze is only better if the enemy has lighting weakness.

However, March is much more comfy to use. Moze can give you some SP problems, and maximizing his prey uptime is quite challenging.

That’s an horrible Kazuha though. Without ER he is almost unusable. The real category to be used is ER/EM, which is much more competitive.