clearly skoottie doesn't

i thought i commented without realizing it , but ur pfp is a different character

GFD

I think that's just a consequence of doing a seeded run

@@voidspace662 Or int overflow if best hand uses int32

@@michasokoowski6651 int overflow is e308 so no

Looking at the source code shows this is true ​@michasokoowski6651

How long did it take?

@@FayezButts Close to an hour. He also set up a macro so that he didn't have to click continuously.

Good thing he had a macro cuz that's over 4000 clicks

32 bit int max is 2-4 ish (signed vs unsigned) BILLION, not trillion. Hafu's winning hand from the invitational was actually above the signed 32 bit integer max

He got a low million score earlier in the stream that said best hand was 0

Yeah it says 0 cause it's seeded run

What if he would’ve gotten those 2 extra dollars from selling the tarot card?

it overflowing wouldn't cause it to show 0, considering how many times it would be overflowing the end score would just be somewhere in the 32bit integer value range

id say make it copy but like in 0/3 state and to make it useful make it create 2 in this case but idk might be too convoluted

​@@ilovehumongoushonkersyeah it copying the card but not the charges solves the problem while keeping some fun

​@@darkpuppetlordfulTbqh making it not copy the charge of the card would make it less interesting with all the other Jokers. It would suck if copying a charged-up Obelisk just got you one that had a 1x multiplier. Making it so that it can only turn into a copy of another Joker makes way more sense imo.

@ysqure3 I mean they could easily program it so it can copy build up from obelisk but not the charges from itself like they are likely two different values in the code that can be differentiated

@@darkpuppetlordful Sure, but I also would want to minimize the number of exceptions and special cases associated with the card. "Invisible joker creates an exact copy of a joker, except it can't copy invisible joker" is pretty simple. Making it so that it copies some aspects of a joker but not other aspects would make it much harder to understand. Making it so that the rules for which parts it copies depends on the card is even more complicated.

We saw him failing to turn it off tho 😂

so the ideal hand with 4 polychrome hacks and a polychrome bull would be 5 glass 5's of a kind with red seals, with the rest of your hand being steel 2, 3, 4 or 5's with red seals. potential boons being having negative jokers that add to the total and the voucher that increases hand size.

Hack says each PLAYED 2, 3, 4, or 5

Oh... and the second one is even bigger. 450 trillion, absolutely ridiculous.

Ok, got it. I thought invisible copies a random jokers ability. But it copies a random joker upon sell.

the blue value they provide barely matters considering bull is a thing, all 2s is 80 blue with this deck, all 5s is 200

an extra dozen or so points doesn't matter when the bull's giving 10 thousand lol

it should work, some things are still rng based tho

yeah, still not better than another hack

It still gets the intended effect of you losing all your jokers just to get polychrome on a joker. I agree with you that they should just have let you select which joker you wanted to save tho. as I was typing this, I realised that selling all the other jokers would still be the better play since you get money for it. I have no idea why they did what they did.

That just means there's an optimal way to play the card. Nothing wrong with that.

I’d write, “If you have 1 joker, give it polychrome” or something to that effect

​@@SolarPoweredAlien i don't think theres any other effects that have you select a joker, thats probably why i was thinking it would make more sense for it to just say "sell all other jokers" so you don't have to do it yourself, but also that would cause issues with things like invisible joker (and maybe other sell triggers) so honestly just destroying is probably the simplest

Bull adds chips not mult

@@anitagofradump5195 oh yeah my bad

if you look closely at the order the hacks triggered in, they don't activate when the joker row triggers, they activate when the *card* triggers, meaning a "adds x mult" joker would activate after all the cards had triggered no matter where it was (but an "adds x mult when y card is played" joker would be different, since it triggers when the cards do)

Yes he literally says that at the start

it doesn't matter where it is, so long it's not in the first position, that would mess up the combo a little it would double the chips, but at the cost of not triggering the glass cards again, which would be 2^5 multiplier missed to the bull's 2 if moved in the first position.

@@mihaiioc.3809 fair enough

"x2 mult" is basically the same as multiplying the whole thing by two, since multiplication is commutative [i.e. (2x(1000x5) is the same as (2x1000)x5] a second bull would multiply the end result by two once (by doubling the chips), a second hack multiplies the end result by two _five times_ (by doubling the mult once for each glass 2)

@@eden3669 Ah okay that makes sense.

not a bug, it's probably unintended but it ain't a bug

What bug

@@virtualmartini not really a bug, but a design flaw. Invisible joker gets duplicated with their round values, making it possible to sell infinitely.

He had, at the outset, miscellaneous jokers plus one that, on arrival at a specified condition, copies a random joker on sale. The apparent "intended use" of this joker is to, likely early in a run, copy a valuable joker to compound the effect; however, consummated prerequisites are copied in addition to the other attributes of the card. At the bottom of the screen was a tarot card which duplicates a random joker alongside and satisfied conditions. If only a single joker exists, the random effect necessarily targets it as no other option exists. Selling all the aforementioned miscellaneous jokers left the player with only that which duplicates as its exclusive function. The tarot card is, then, played necessarily, as the player owns only the single joker, duplicating the card whose only function is to duplicate on sale another joker. This leaves the player with exactly two identical jokers with the following property: when this card is sold (bearing in mind that a sale actually provides the player with funds), duplicate a random (bearing in mind that the only other joker itself duplicates when sold) joker. When the first joker is sold, two events occur: the player accrues funds, then the other joker (which also duplicates on sale) is duplicated. This provides the player with the funds and an additional joker that can be sold for funds and a copy that serves it's own function. This works because there are exactly two copies of the duplicating joker. If any card apart from the duplicating joker exists, the chance exists that it, rather than the duplicating joker, will be copied leaving the player with two identical non-duplicating jokers and a single duplicating joker on whose sale, now, a third copy of the non -duplicating joker will be provided. If, on the other hand, the player only has a single duplicating joker, the sale will catalyze the duplication effect with no other card to duplicate providing the player with only the sale price. Looking at it slightly more abstractly, what you will see is that the balance of a sale mechanism in a game is the severance of ownership (principally alienability and use) is compensated by the provision of funds as in a real-world market. In the typical case, the player loses ownership interest in a mundane object, such as a multiplicative modifier in the case in this game, in exchange for the funds; however, in this situation, the player is provided two sorts of funds in exchange for alienation: the money as well as a card of equal value indistinguishable from the card sold. The player can now sell the replacement object just as it had the first.

wtf you blabbing about

auto pets@@Qyubij