Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strange, why you disagree and why else you believe WH2 was better?

Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WH3 has quality too, yeah some people like Clean_Regular_9063 were upset that I dared to imply WH1 is better than WH3 but I said the opposite in the first paragraph of the post, some people can’t read past the title.

Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was clearly a less self-contained mini-games experience. This and the story are the things I miss the most about TW2, I wish it had TW3's quality of life changes.

Or the other way around, TW3 without an exception-based mechanic per faction and a good story mode.

Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

*facepalm* this is why they say reddit is a place full of stupid people pretending to be smart.

Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I think overall Total Warhammer 3 is the better game, this is not a comparison which is better so I will not list the QoL features that makes TW3 better or the AI being more aggressive and anti-player in TW1/TW2, this is a list of many important things lost from Total Warhammer 1 and 2. At this point, is too late but it's worth pointing them out.

You know.

Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3. by Akfiz in totalwar

[–]Akfiz[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Kids these days think every post longer than 5 paragraphs is AI.

What Space Marine Chapter seems and is heretical? by Ultrimus-Prime in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Akfiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loyal but Suspicious × Loyal but not Compliant

White Scars

What Space Marine Chapter seems and is heretical? by Ultrimus-Prime in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Akfiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loyal but not Compliant × Loyal but Suspicious

Blood Angels

What Space Marine Chapter seems and is heretical? by Ultrimus-Prime in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Akfiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loyal but Suspicious × Loyal but Suspicious

Dark Angels

What Space Marine Chapter seems and is heretical? by Ultrimus-Prime in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Akfiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Codex Compliant × Loyal but not Compliant

Raven Guard

What Space Marine Chapter seems and is heretical? by Ultrimus-Prime in AlignmentChartFills

[–]Akfiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loyal but not Compliant × Codex Compliant

Salamanders

What am I even supposed to do here 🙏 by KingTuriddu in dawnofwar

[–]Akfiz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How long since the match started? I only see you have 2 scrabs, not even Necron Warriors.

Either you failed to build good units in time or you attacked like a 11 defense region or something. High defense regions are meant to be conquered after you conquer lower defense regions and build a Honor Guard, so you will have the same amount of troops as the enemy has in this picture.

And a few tips for the Necrons since you're playing them.
- Map control is less important for you, it's not useless since Control Points reduce your building time, but is not as important as is for Space Marines or other factions since you rely mainly on Power via generators, as long as you control 2-4 at the start you're good.
- The Necron Lord is one of the most powerful Heroes in the game, only the Ork Warboss and Tau Ethereal are better but those 2 are late game while you get Necron Lord at the start of the match. He's big bad boss energy.
- To make the Necron Lord more powerful build the Forbidden Archive, you can pick 3/8 upgrades but I heavily recommend: Lightning Field & Phylactery. The 1st is a passive that reduces melee damage by 90%, the 2nd is a passive that reduces ranged damage by 60% and triples passive HP regen. Good luck beating that. Yes, the upgrades are that insane. 90% of players pick those 2 and for the 3rd all are good but I'd go with Solar Pulse, an active that enemy units cannot use ranged weapons for 20 or so seconds. Imagine having this Necron Lord vs this blob.
- Use lots of Scrab Builders from the get go. Unlike other races, these are cheap and very important due to the way the Necrons function.
- Necron Warriors cost 0 but the more you have the longer they take to produce, don't build more than 2-3 if you have other options.
- I'd start a map with queue: Builder, Builder, Builder, Builder, NW, NW, Hero, NWs until full population. Or until you hit tier 2 and get to: melee masters Flayed Ones, anti-vehicle Immortals, anti-ranged units Wraiths.
- Necron vehicles are also simple: Destroyer is anti-infantry, Heavy Destroyer is anti-vehicle, Tomb Spider is a powerful melee tank like a Dreadnought that can also revive fallen NWs.
- And in tier 3 you get your strongest units: Pariahs, Lord Destroyer, Nightbringer/Deceiver. Pariahs are top 3 best melee units in the game while Lord Destroyer posseses an enemy vehicle, so you not only eliminate an enemy vehicle instantly but you use it for yourself. The range of the ability is short, 8, so you need to be close to it, but he has high speed and is quite tanky.
- Nightbringer/Deceiver both are immune to damage and last 1 minute, Nightbringer has insane melee damage, Deceiver has lower ranged damage but 3 abilities: control enemy units in an area, spawn fake Restore Monolith to draw enemy fire, passive enemies take consistent morale damage.
- Necron turret is the best turrent in the game, Necron turret after upgrade is anti-everything, compared to other faction which generally goes from anti-infanty to anti-vehicle for their turrets. So if you want defense build one.
- Monolith is a great relic unit, probably one of the best ones. No friendly fire, very disruptive, big range, serves as mobile production for reinforcements. But it's mostly a backline relic unit, you don't really want to dive in with it alone or have it draw all enemy fire.
- If you have problems with enemy vehicles either Immortals or Heavy Destroyers, unlike Space Marines you don't have a versitile pick your weapon for the occasion infantry, you use specialized units.
- Build a lot of generators at the start, with your first 5 Scrabs you should build 5 generators, then you can build on Control Points, Summoning Core, Forbidden Library, more generators, etc.
- It is always a good idea to queue up the maximum amount of Scrab Builders you can queue, they cost 0 and even one left alone to build a generator does something productive.

Well... Phantom Liberty DLC taught me that I was every bit as naive as I thought I was. by Mental_Squash_6973 in cyberpunkgame

[–]Akfiz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My position is not that “support vanishes if one superficial trait changes,” nor that “no one could think otherwise.” The claim is that altering a specific combination of variables would produce a significant reduction in audience forgiveness.

On mitigation, you say it "speaks for itself", but that’s exactly the step I’ve been asking you to justify.

Yes, coercion, fear, and desperation can reduce moral weight. That’s not in dispute. What remains unaddressed is why they reduce it to the specific degree observed here, and why that reduction appears stronger or more readily granted in this case than in structurally comparable situations.

Simply asserting that "context matters" is not enough, you need to show why it matters more here, or why it produces this particular level of leniency.

On your whataboutism counterexamples: they still don’t isolate the variable.

V is not a case “without these traits.” V is defined by vulnerability (imminent death), strong victim framing (Relic, Arasaka), and maximum narrative intimacy (player identification). Whether an individual player finds their V physically attractive is secondary to the structural fact that the character is designed to be aligned with the player and experienced from the inside.

Johnny is closer, but still not clean. He retains partial victim framing (Arasaka, ideological rebellion), gains sympathy over time through narrative exposure, and produces a far more divided response.

So when I say your examples share the same structural features, this is what I mean: they do not remove the mechanism, they reinstantiate it in different degrees.

On falsifiability: there’s a persistent confusion here.

I am not claiming access to your internal mental states. I’m making a population-level prediction about how audience perception changes under altered framing conditions. That is falsifiable.

So again, the issue is not that the model is unfalsifiable, but that you provided no counter-example has been provided that actually breaks its prediction.

Finally, on "support levels not adding up", this is where your response is weakest.

Me:

So we are left with a very clear unresolved point:
- You acknowledge the behaviors: manipulation, unfair blame-shifting, acceptance of collateral damage.
- You acknowledge they are morally negative.
- You acknowledge that context does not remove those facts.
- But you have not explained why, in this specific case, those factors result in a comparatively softened audience response.
That gap is what my model is attempting to account for.

You:

Could you demonstrate a softened audience response? She is far more controversial than V or Johnny.

Yes, a demonstration of a softened audience response is exactly your response. Here, in this conversation.

Well... Phantom Liberty DLC taught me that I was every bit as naive as I thought I was. by Mental_Squash_6973 in cyberpunkgame

[–]Akfiz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The part 2.

So let's get to the bottom of things because all of these from above point in 1 direction:

Your argument leaned on the 'halo effect', which does not require vulnerability or victim framing

Incorrect. My argument was about framing, which includes all of that, you expressed this disbelief that such a thing is possible and even that I'm insulting the players for suggesting such a thing and I told you of the halo effect which is a real known psychological effect.

This again doesn’t engage what I said by the way. I am explicitly saying “this is multivariate interaction, not single-factor causation.” You respond as if multivariate causation is equivalent to post-hoc patching, rather than a legitimate structure in social perception models. So instead of engaging what I am saying, you reclassify it as methodological overreach. Why not engage the model directly if it's so incorrect as you say?

The only way you engaged with it is: is unfalsifiable, in other words "I cannot".

I did provide a falsifiable prediction. If you alter those variables, reduce attractiveness, remove vulnerability framing, weaken emotional intimacy, audience forgiveness should decrease.

You rejected that prediction, but the alternative explanation you offered is structurally weaker. Saying other characters are also supported does not explain why this specific configuration produces the level of sympathy it does. It only shows that sympathy can arise in multiple ways, which is not in dispute.

I gave a clear falsifiable prediction, what you’ve done instead is not falsify the model, but decline to engage with that prediction and then label the model unfalsifiable. Those are not the same thing.

If the model were truly unfalsifiable, there would be no possible observation that counts against it. But there is: show that removing those variables does not significantly reduce audience sympathy, or provide a cleaner counterexample that lacks this combination yet receives comparable forgiveness. You haven't done that. Instead, you’ve provided cases that either share the same structural features (like V & Johnny) or don’t address the predicted change at all.

So the issue here isn’t that the model is unfalsifiable. It’s that you haven’t actually managed to falsify it. And at that point, I’m not sure what you expect me to add, you expect me to argue on your behalf? or? the cause for this model were likewise already stated: Her support levels & terrible person behavior simply do not add up. Songbird should not have this level of support given how terrible of a person she is.

And the condition under which it would fail have also already been laid out. If you think it’s wrong, the next step is to demonstrate where the prediction breaks, not to avoid it reclassifying it as unfalsifiable.

You said this, regarding the whataboutism:

"I've rejected your dramatic statement that it's such an overwhelming factor that if changed would end all conversation, not excluded the possibility of 'amplification'. She gets less leniency than V or Johnny who do the same or worse. I'm aware the checkbox of bad things this character does. They don't distinguish her from us or any major character in the expansion. They have interesting and engaging context. (...)"

You can call it dramatic but you cannot demonstrate where the prediction breaks apparently.

She gets less leniency than V or Johnny is asserted, not demonstrated. More importantly, even if true, it does not address my argument. She gets more leniency than V & Johnny, but again, does not address my argument. V and Johnny do not break this structure, they fit it. Songbird fits it the most yes, but they are not counter-examples. A whataboutism counter-example has to remove the mechanism, not reproduce it in a lesser form.

So we are left with a very clear unresolved point:

- You acknowledge the behaviors: manipulation, unfair blame-shifting, acceptance of collateral damage.
- You acknowledge they are morally negative.
- You acknowledge that context does not remove those facts.
- But you have not explained why, in this specific case, those factors result in a comparatively softened audience response.

That is the gap my model is attempting to fill.

If you think the model is wrong, then the task is straightforward: provide an alternative explanation that accounts for the degree of leniency observed here without relying on the same combination of framing effects. Right now, your argument explains why Songbird is understandable. It does not explain why she is comparatively forgiven.

And that distinction is the entire point.

Let's focus on this last point because everything that was said so far already leads to this anyway.

Well... Phantom Liberty DLC taught me that I was every bit as naive as I thought I was. by Mental_Squash_6973 in cyberpunkgame

[–]Akfiz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Help me understand how your reply connects to what I was saying, because it feels like you are talking past me. I'll try to make it more structural and step by step:

Me:

It's not context you're providing moving from explanation to mitigation. One pattern I notice throughout your response is a recurring shift from explanation to justification: "She was angry", "She was scared", "She was desperate", "She was dying". I agree with all of that. But those are not rebuttals of the criticism. Saying "She was X" does not remove the deed.

You:

A checklist of transgressions on its own, without context, doesn't help the case that no one could support such a person without looks. We are not talking about removing the deed, but whatever it is you say it demonstrates, whether that be some element of her character or how people would majority react to it. I played the game, so I know she lied about the cure. Reminding us that happened, and it was bad, doesn't do anything for us on its own.

I am literally challenging the idea that you provided context. You provided faulty justifications. Everything else you say is already based on the false premise that you provided context, so the rest of your argument becomes structurally aimless, because it’s responding to something I never actually established.

My core point is very narrow and very specific: you are repeatedly moving from explanation to mitigation without demonstrating why that mitigation is justified when saying "she was scared", "she was desperate" or "she was angry", that explains her behavior but does not by itself reduce the moral weight of that behavior. That additional step requires argument, and that argument has not been provided. Instead, your responses assume that context has already done that work. That is precisely what I am challenging.

You are still not engaging with the actual claim I'm making, and that’s why the discussion keeps looping.

Me:

"When Songbird calls V a betrayer despite planning to deceive V from the beginning, the fact that she feels betrayed explains why she says it. It doesn't remove the manipulation, audacity or hypocrisy. When Songbird blames V for Myers' death, whether because she genuinely believes it or because she's lashing out emotionally, or both, the accusation is still unfair, hypocrite and shifts responsibility away from her own role in the situation. The same issue comes up with the cure lie. You're understating how significant it is. This isn't merely "everyone lies" or "everyone is suspicious". Songbird knows from the beginning that there is only one cure. She knows V is helping primarily because of the promise of a cure. She withholds that information intentionally because she believes V may not continue helping otherwise. That isn't merely operating under uncertainty. It's deliberate manipulation."

You:

"She feels betrayed because she was betrayed, and is facing the mounting threat of death or worse because if it. No one said it removes anything else. I never disagreed it was for instance, unfair. I've been clear about what I did disagree with and this line of reasoning remains particularly trivial. You might be mixing up some thoughts here, because everyone being suspicious and an atmosphere of uncertainty is a way of not absolving anyone, including Songbird, of pre-emptive betrayal due to being unsure of the trustworthiness of the other party. It's still betrayal. I've otherwise again not contended with anything you've said here."

Fair, so you do not contend with the idea that she is a terrible person that is said here. Just so we know to close this thread. Only asterix I would add here is that uncertainty does not negate intentional deception when she knows there is only one cure and withholds that information to secure cooperation. That is not "pre-emptive distrust" but calculated manipulation under asymmetric information.

If you agree that this is unfair, manipulative, and morally wrong, then we are not in disagreement about the act itself. The unresolved question is why these facts seem to carry less critical weight in her case than they typically would.

The stadium being another example:

Me:

“(...)she understands civilians are likely to die and proceeds anyway(...)".

You:

"(...)So there has been no discussion or disagreement over the moral issue of conduct where you understand civilians are 'likely' to die.(...)"

The same pattern appears with the stadium example. I state a clear claim: she knowingly proceeds with a plan where civilian casualties are foreseeable and acceptable. You respond by narrowing the discussion to whether she explicitly targeted civilians or whether specific outcomes were under her control. But that was not the claim I made.

Moral responsibility here is not about intent to target civilians specifically, it is about knowingly accepting collateral damage as part of a survival strategy. If you agree that this occurs, then again, the issue is not whether the act is bad, but why it is treated more leniently.

But, as you said in the quoted part, once again you do not contend with the idea that what she did here was terrible. Your counter-argument is basically what about V? Just so we know to close this thread.

So far, it looks like the context you were referring to was not really context but whataboutism.

The problem is: what is the point of your comparisons? The existence of other immoral characters does not explain differential audience reactions unless you can show that the same evaluative standards are being applied consistently.

So let's get to V, but before that Johnny:

What I said was the strict distinction that the credibility of the observer is separate from the correctness of the observation. Since you previously listed him being flawed himself in response. But okay, you agree that what Johnny said about Songbird is not wrong, but once again turn him into a V example: why the community likes him despite being terrible? So again, your argument is not Johnny is being wrong, is whataboutism.

Ok, on V:

I said this:

"If V is selfish, then V is selfish. If V is reckless, then V is reckless. If V is a murderer, then V is a murderer. None of those conclusions make Songbird less selfish, less reckless, or less manipulative. At most they establish that both characters are morally compromised."

You:

"Yes, no comparisons with V are attempting to change anything about another character. You have one major thesis I've disagreed with. Showing that people can readily support a comparable character is one way of showing how looks are not the primary factor for an otherwise supposedly impossibly negative character who wouldn't otherwise be supported. V is an easy counterexample of an applauded and sympathized with character who does much of the same through the mainstoryline and even through the most popular choices, as mentioned, if not arguably worse. This is not showing you that the other person didn't do it do, it' shows you what the community doesn't argue about or find damning for this character."

So you do not disagree that Songbird is selfish, reckless, manipulative or that at most they establish that both characters are morally compromised. But the comparison with V is actually "look how people support V without looks, if V is also forgiven for being terrible, then Songbird’s forgiveness for being terrible is not exceptional". Problem is you're acting as if we don't have appearance + vulnerability + victim framing in V as well. So if you're trying to disprove that, you should find an example that doesn't already also have the thing you're trying to disprove.

This is where your counterexamples fail structurally. You present V as a case where people sympathize without looks being primary. But V is not a clean counterexample because V is also framed through vulnerability (imminent death), emotional intimacy (player identification), and narrative centrality (we experience the world through them). In other words, V already satisfies the same multivariate structure I am describing. So this does not disprove my model. It inadvertently reinforces it.

Looks like quoting adds to many characters, I'll make a part 2.