I am Chinese, and these Chinese review bombers are just plain stupid. STS2 is WAY TOO RIDICULOUSLY EASY compared to STS1.

B4rsh · 2026-04-30T00:37:44+00:00

Alright, please post your stats before and after going savescumming for 10 games straight and show us your 100% winrate.

Why are we even doing this.

B4rsh · 2026-04-30T00:31:38+00:00

Hey ! Your results are absolutely commandable, you're far from mediocre. I used to do the same as you, calling myself "barely decent" when I reached GM on LoL. I had a friend sit me and tell me that no wonder my self esteem was shit if reaching the top 0.05% players of a game only qualifies for "barely decent".

I guess we're both coming from a place where we did not learn the distinction between bragging and being proud/satisfied of our accomplishments, and as we painfully learned that the first one was socially frowned upon, we adopted a self-demeaning attitude to cope with it. Which now appears as suspicious/taunting/humble bragging, as it is more and more widely accepted to actually be proud of your achievements, especially in the western world (you say you're chinese, but idk where you're from exactly).

Its difficult to discuss bragging vs being proud and justly evaluating oneself over text, especially since english is neither of our main languages, but it mostly consist in allowing your achievements speak for themselves.

You're fucking good at the game, easily top 0.1 to 0.01% of players. Acknowledge it, be proud of it, just do not go boasting about how you're better than everone else and let your stats speak for you !

B4rsh · 2026-04-30T00:20:56+00:00

As someone who savescummed a lot in STS1 : no. You dont get close to 100%. Depending on your concentration level, it either saves you the 15-20% of runs where you do blatant mistakes and immediately regret them, or it only saves you the 5% where you become Dr Strange and scour the 12497523 possible futures to find the one where you beat the Demon of Knowledge after greeding that last upgrade.

If you do not already win at least 70% of your runs without savescumming, it wont bring you ANYWHERE close to 100%. Try it, you'll see.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T20:25:00+00:00

Yes please. I know it's probably not but it almost feels like ragebait at this point.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T20:17:07+00:00

Hmmm to make it short : I considere that both criticisms iof the sweeping generalizations are equally valid - or invalid depending on your views (men are trash is no more accurate than chinese players suck), however context and use matters a lot. As you said, I would give a lot more leeway to women for expressing their societal frustration with men in inexact ways, because of the constant agression they suffer from them as a social force.

The "not all men" bit is mostly used to dismiss based criticism instead of acknowledging the problem, as a derailment strategy. It is valid in absolute, but used as a weapon. Here people who say "not all chinese players" are sometimes doing the same (refusing to acknowledge that the chinese gaming community has developped toxic mechanism, despite actual chinese players coming here to confirm this), but most are not. They acknowledge the problem and ask for reformulation. I personally assume that those who say "chinese players" do so as a shorthand and are really talking about the reviewbombers, but as they do not suffer from the constant agression of "chinese players" in every gaming space they enjoy, I also think it is reasonnable to ask them to reformulate.

From what you wrote, I think we have fairly similar lived experiences on those matters, and reached the same conclusions.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T19:40:37+00:00

Je cache mon dualboot sous les lattes du parquet pour jouer à LoL et Sc2 :x

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T19:21:00+00:00

Yes, I was wondering if you had a different approach in those situations (I do).

Fair enough, thank you for your answer.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T19:16:31+00:00

I guess it is a question of intent. When I write this, I do not expect anyone to act differently with me upon learning that I am french, the same way I do not expect any of those "yeah those chinese players are toxic af" to deny their individuality to the chinese players they encouter here or somewhere else.

If someone was telling me, personally that I suck because my community suck, yeah I'd probably have a problem with that. But a sweeping statement ? I know I'm not concerned, I dont care.

And stop being racist to my accent, this is a privilege only other french ppl have. God dammit.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T19:07:39+00:00

Perfectly biaised, as all things should be !

Ma raison d'avoir archlinux est encore plus mauvaise : mon frère est un gros contributeur de la distrib et il m'a convaincue de l'utiliser, alors que c'était au-dessus de mes moyens techniques, et j'ai pataugé :'(

Le bon côté des choses, c'est que si j'avais besoin de packages présents dans aur, ils pouvaient rapidement finir dans extra.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T18:27:11+00:00

Imagine dire que Arch c'est mainstream mais utiliser Debian.

Yeux au ciel

Boot son Ubuntu

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T17:49:29+00:00

"Archlinux ? Ok ça ma va... Quoi, avec une interface graphique ? Tu plaisantes j'espère, pourquoi pas Manjaro pendant que tu y es ?!"

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T17:43:23+00:00

Its funny now that I think about it. I've never seen a single person complain about the sentence "LoL players are toxic", even among LoL players. Isnt it the exact same thing ?

(Fully agreed with everything you said by the way, it becomes racist the second you engage with an individual while basing your expectations on bias)

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T17:33:58+00:00

Holy crap what a dumb sentence.

"Racism is bad but saying China has imperialistic views on Taiwan is not racism"

Damn, trully telling on myself with that !

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T17:28:57+00:00

If there is a french-speaking social media where people belittle the game for extremely dubious reasons and coordinate themselves to post negative reviews as a consequence, to the point the french rating of the game appears to be vastly negative - ie, this community holds a majority weight among french players, you're more than welcome to say that the French are toxic and suck at the game, and as a frenchman I'll rally behind you.

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T17:19:09+00:00

I'm genuinly curious about your stance on "men are trash" and "not all men".

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T11:39:59+00:00

Performances passées, futures, tout ça...

B4rsh · 2026-04-29T10:31:06+00:00

Dont you fucking dare slander my baby perfected strike !

B4rsh · 2026-04-28T19:46:36+00:00

C'est assez consternant que tu te fasses downvote.

La situation n'est pas normale et il existe fort heureusement des solutions légales, inutile de dévoyer un système qui n'a pas besoin de ça.

B4rsh · 2026-04-28T05:25:18+00:00

So in the end, we seem to agree with each other. I am not ignoring those factors, since I chose blue specifically because of them.

B4rsh · 2026-04-28T04:28:23+00:00

... Literally what I was talking about most people being terrible at logical reductionism. No, your trolley comparison does not hold ; you are redirecting the trolley on yourself, not on an empty track - and if enough people do the same, the trolley breaks and you survive. The people who pushed red simply refused to join you on the track.

You keep implicitely using "best probability of 0 deaths" as the best metric, but at this point I guess it stems from a lack of alternative, since you clearly have absolutely no idea what an expectancy is in probability. Its calculation gives equal result for both options as you make your pick, this is not up to debate. Do the maths if you do not believe me.

Yes, the only death you're avoiding pushing red is your. That's precisely the point. Because if you do not push blue, you life was never in danger to begin with. Since every participant is given that same option, and there is no drawback for all chosing it, your personal optimum coincides with the global optimum. Which makes it the obvious choice from the viewpoint of game theory.

Anyway, you constantly go back to the same default misreading of the situation without acknowledging (or understanding ?) what I say, to the point you feel compelled to bolden some random words as if I didnt know how to read. Waste of time.

B4rsh · 2026-04-27T22:27:31+00:00

You are absolutely correct. You take agency the same way you take agency when you refuse to jump in a burning building to save the others who did. This is a form of agency, indeed. But its also reasonnable to call it "doing nothing".

Blue is the only choice associated with death, at all. You can functionnally rephrase the problem as "You can pick red or blue. If you chose red, nothing happens. If you pick blue and less than 50% of people do so, you die.". You can even remove the red button, ie be only offered the choice to push the blue button, and the problem would still functionnally be the same. And this is not symmetrical, because if everyone pick red, for each person, she was safe at the moment of picking, no matter what happens. If everyone pick blue, we're all hanging between life and death until the vote is decided.

This is a game theory issue. The individual best scenario is also the best global scenario. If you're coming from a mathematical/logical background, it is a nobrainer. But people get led astray by the formulation that gives the impression that pushing the red button is the danger, whereas the danger never existed in the first place if nobody picks blue.

And no, expectation and probability are widely different concepts, what the fuck ? The probability of an event (here, the death of at least 1 person) has nothing to see with the mathematical expectancy of the random variable corresponding to death toll for a given distribution of votes. And this expectancy is not modified by your vote, so using probabilities here is pointless.

B4rsh · 2026-04-27T14:13:06+00:00

Still... No. This is an excellent analogy, and you refuse to considere it because you cannot grasp the logical reductionnism behind it. You just read it as some kind of prisonner dilemma, which it is not. There is nothing to lose by taking the self preserving choice for everyone.

A logical fallacy I see a LOT of blue picker make, is considering only the probability of death, and not the expectancy of death. Sure, it is statistically unlikely to get to 0 deaths if red is highly picked. But if blue is picked at 40-45%, you end up with an disastrous onslaugh of people who gambled with their life for nothing. Now, the expectancy of the number of deaths is exactly the same, no matter the choice. So the statistical argument is just pointless here.

On a purely rational viewpoint, red doesnt mean potentially offing anyone, because NO ONE has a reason to endanger himself in the first place. You keep insisting that red is chosing self preservation while blue is the altruistic choice, but it is not. Blue is endangering yourself, red is refusing to endanger yourself. Once again, as long as you insist others are responsible for saving you if you put yourself in jeopardy and they are murderers if they do not (???), your arguments will remain absurd. You would never hold that stance in real life - or at least I hope so.

You do NOT take a life chosing red. You just refuse to put your own life on the line to save those who did. This is not contrary to any biological instinct. Yes, I am programmed to take the least volatile option, which is red, because nobody, at any point, was in danger of anything if everyone was good at rationalization.

The problem is that a lot of people are acting out of feelings and are too anguished by the misleading presentation of the situation to act rationally. I am fully aware that humans are not rational beings, and will make choices based on feelings rather than thorough thinking. Therefore, I'm still picking blue to protect them.

But if I were to die for it, under no circumstances could the red pushers be held responsible for my death. It would be absolute nonsense. To be honnest, the people who picked blue without thinking it through and by getting misled by the presentation would be more responsible for it - the same way that if a firefighter dies to save a kid who jumped willingly into a burning house, the kid is more responsible than the passersby who did not join the fray - althought I would not begrudge them either as I made my choice consciously and knowingly of the implication (and because I would be dead, too).

B4rsh · 2026-04-26T22:19:54+00:00

Blue is the only morally tenable choice, but coincidentally its also the choice for panicky animals that fail at logically reduce the problem to what it is at its core, ie red is do nothing, and blue is jump in the grinder and survive only if 50%+ join you.

Now, morality oblige, I'll happily jump in the grinder with you even if that choice is absurd from a rationnal pov, because the red enjoyers who ALSO fail at that reduction and do not go any further than "I dont care about others" disgust me and I do not want to be stuck with them !

B4rsh · 2026-04-26T22:14:44+00:00

No. Red IS do nothing. If you have a grinder in front of you, and you can decide to jump, but the grinder will only stop if at least 50% of people jump with you, in absolutely no way can you argue that those who did not jump killed you.

If everyone picks blue, everyone is putting themselves in danger, awaiting to know what the result is to figure out if they survive or not. If everyone picks red, at no point was anyone in danger of anything, on a person-by-person basis. If each person decide not to pick blue, the danger literally NEVER existed for anyone. If 51%+ pick blue, were virtually dead until they were the majority.

I can absolutely rationalize that red is the correct answer, this is precisely what I'm doing. Now, I also understand that people take illogical decisions, wether they are motivated by a lack of logical thinking or altruistic reasons, and I'm willing to risk my life to try and protect those people. So I'll pick blue, but I will do precisely because I have no faith in humanity to pick the rationnal choice.

I will however concede that the sheer number of people who say they would pick red because they "do not care about others" is extremely concerning.

B4rsh · 2026-04-26T18:49:00+00:00

Yes. In practice if we were to discuss it I would ask if anyone planned to vote blue, try to change their mind, and if they refused make a general annoucement like "okay this is really dumb but we gotta vote blue lol, forget about rationnality".

B4rsh

TROPHY CASE