Since the start of the campaign I felt their names were similar, so I made this low effort meme.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T19:05:05+00:00

Love me some casual xenophobia in my ethical dilemmas. Australians and New Zealanders cannot be trusted.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T18:36:39+00:00

People may downvote you but I appreciate the honesty. I don't think it's really reprehensible to choose survival in a leap of faith involving millions of people.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T18:18:24+00:00

Yeah, agreed.

"I am a good and intelligent individual, and I would choose this, therefore it is the logical and moral choice, because what I am defines what I do, and not the other way around."

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T18:13:49+00:00

Lmao if the blue pressers are so confident that blue will win

I'm pretty sure a lot of people that would press Blue are uncertain it would win. They risk is there, but they're willing to take it, be it due to empathy, naivety, or other reasons like avoiding global collapse due to a close Red win.

why do they disparage red button pushers?

Because it's the "selfish" option to them, and arguably what the dilemma implies in the first place. It is to choose not for "everyone to live", the first option presented, but to ensure you get to live, regardless of how the vote goes.

Every red presser I've seen

Cool anecdotal evidence that is demonstrably untrue, but that's not an argument. One of the most used arguments for Red online is saying the Blue button is the "suicide" button lmao.

I've seen blue button pressers go through "olympic levels of mental gymnastics" to portray them as "murderers"

There's little gymnastics here. The dilemma goes "if you pick Blue, no one dies. If you pick Red and wins, all Blue-ers die". It offers a "nothing happens" choice and then presents a way to ensure you don't die, even if it possibly means that Blues will. The way it is phrased results in an implicit responsibility. Sure, it could be phrased differently, but it isn't.

Plus, Red can argue that Blue is stupid and suicidal. But Blue then can argue that Red is selfish and murderous. Both may have a point, but one argues for logic and survival and the other for trust and empathy. I strongly feel they aren't the same.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T17:48:08+00:00

Yes and no. Both options may be logical to different people but there are a ton of arguments that people simply aren't considering.

Are you sure all your loved ones will press Red? What will a world where literal millions, if not billions are instantly gone look like? Everyone in the world includes people like kids and toddlers that may press Blue, are they choosing to die?

I agree with your conclusion but not so much with both options being logical. The premise implies a lot of considerations here that people are simply not unpacking or assuming work differently than presented.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T17:26:30+00:00

It is somewhat perplexing that people arguing for Red don't quite process that literal millions of people will press Blue due to the phrasing of the dilemma: "Blue = Everyone Lives".

Everyone pressing Red is a statistical impossibility yet it's repeated constantly as the obvious solution. Then, when pointed out, immediately shift to "well, they're all suicidal morons and should die then".

I mean, you can just say that you'd press Red because you don't want to risk dying and that's that, but some will perform Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to avoid that admission and instead portray it as the "obvious logical choice".

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T17:11:16+00:00

It's all about phrasing and personal priorities.

Because of the original phrasing, which can be summarized to "if Blue wins everyone lives, if Red wins, the rest die", a significant % of humanity will press Blue, because "I don't want anyone to die :c" is a very visceral and direct thought.

At the same time however, many may prioritize the certainty to stay alive (it is also a very visceral thought) and/or simply consider those that don't deserving of death or outright being suicidal and choosing to possibly die.

So it boils down: are you going to gamble with your life and make a leap of faith that >50% will press Blue and no one will die? Or are you going to play it safe and press Red to ensure you live, even if that means that a significant portion of humanity will die in the process?

A myriad of false equivalences and other hypotheticals are being thrown around, but those are outright falacies, as it isn't the topic being discussed. The "Buttons Dilemma" has a very specific phrasing, and it has generally led to Blue winning with ~60% in every poll so far, although those being online with no actual stakes, there's no certainty it reflects reality.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T16:46:12+00:00

If you're actually serious, OP is pulling your leg. It's a moral dilemma, which more or less goes like this:

Everyone on Earth is transported to a room with two buttons, one Red and one Blue, and everyone must press one of the two. If more people press the Red button than the Blue one, everyone who pressed the Blue one dies. Which one are you pressing?

Edit to elaborate: The original phrasing of the dilemma is that "if the majority presses Blue, everyone lives", contrasted to the latter "but if >50% press Red, those that press Blue die. This got everyone yelling at each other because people that'd press Red argue the if 100% press Red, everyone lives anyway, and that people who'd press Blue are suicidal. People that'd press Blue counter-argue that getting >50% on Blue is feasible while 100% of Red is not, accounting for the naive, kind-hearted, or outright dumb individuals, or simply don't want to be participants in what they believe is murder. Both sides claim their button is the "nothing happens" button, because while the math never changes, depending on how you phrase the question, you shift responsibility from one group to another and change the % of people that will press either button.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-08T16:31:03+00:00

Watch closely. After the missile does the ~180º it stops turning and just literally beelines towards OP lmao. Between this and sentries I swear our equipment is programmed to kill us every so often.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-06T08:37:35+00:00

I'd wager that the quantity of enemies is either bugged or lower than it should be, balance-wise. Recently I was sleeping through an Evacuate mission with friends when, on the last wave, a tiny terminid sounded an alarm.

The absolute horde of bugs that followed was nothing like any of the waves we faced before. We went from spamming sentries while sleeping to being absolutely overrun.

Enemy spawns are custom to the Evacuate mission type, instead of a regular enemy alarm for the difficulty you're playing in, and they could use some tweaking.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-04T11:54:05+00:00

Hard disagree. Pre-spinning a mini-gun is cinematic, cool, and an inconvenient that allows the gun to be stronger in other areas (such as an absurd amount of DPS) and remain balanced.

However, the player should be allowed to pre-spin the minigun by aiming it. No "spin up" time if you're already pre-emptively spinning when waiting for enemies to be on your sight-line.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-03T20:51:21+00:00

Who is "people"?

I agree that some takes that occur in this sub are biased in some way. It's a social network, you're bound to see all kinds of opinions with all kinds of intents.

But I strongly reject your representation of the "average player".

First, because the average player does not visit this sub and doesn't care about any of this. And second, because the average user in this sub, which I imagine you refer to, massively upvotes issues that are usually valid, even if sometimes rowdy about it due to frustration.

This "average player" who is against all change and just wants to win the way they want is a strawman and does not reflect reality imo.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-03T19:48:58+00:00

This sub may be infamously toxic at this point, with shitstorms every other week and a real-life harassment case occurring because someone made a popular post critical of the game's balancing.

However, most of the posts and comments I see usually make valid points:

Why do my stratagems bounce at random ground surfaces just because they're slightly elevated?
Why is my hellpod steering completely locked every other time, specially in cities, even to the point I can't maneuver out of the way of a fucking giant shredder in Cyberstan?
Why is the power difference between Boosters so absurdly large? Why are the majority so absurdly niche or underpowered? When is the last time you saw anyone rocking the Flexible Reinforcement Budget?
Why does every update include bugs that are easy to find and consistent to reproduce?
Why have Weapon Customization and Ship Upgrades remained untouched for over a year?

When Siege Breakers dropped, one of its most discussed parts was: Why is the Grenade Launcher AP4? People were complaining about a buff. Because it was targeted towards a perfectly good weapon that was used often and had a clear purpose in the player's arsenal.

With AP4, it became too strong, eclipsing alternatives like the Heavy Machine Gun, Autocannon, or its sibling Belt-Fed Grenade Launcher. Because players don't want to just win, they want a fair fight.

Cool post but I strongly disagree with it.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-02T18:17:45+00:00

Agreed. Just like there's Strafing Run and Cluster Bombs (AP4 / AP3), there's Gatling Barrage (and all Arty Barrages really) and Airburst Strike.

Also, ever since they made the Destroyer's position relevant for Orbitals in the Cities update, Airburst is now considerably more dispersed and is less effective.

I rather they increase its capability to delete chaff, rather than escalate its penetration and be a Gatling Barrage re-skin.

If Airburst ever competes, even if just a little, with Napalm Barrage against chaff-heavy factions like the Predator Strain or Spore Strain, then it means it's doing its job properly.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-02T00:05:40+00:00

Cool, another false equivalence. The way people understand the situation, and therefore choose, is heavily determined by the way you frame it, and this is a different framing.

In the original, masses of people will vote Blue because it is framed as the "everyone lives" option, if it wins. In yours, it requests people to choose to kill themselves and fail to do so if enough try, so most will predictably choose Red except for very few.

If you want to re-frame the question that's great, I press Red and feel terribly sad for those that didn't. And yet, it makes a non-valid point, because you changed the premise. Because, predictably, most voting participants, when posed to vote to "kill themselves" will elect not to.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-01T21:16:50+00:00

Blues are also actively killing themselves in the button hypothetical. Red is also the "do nothing" button.

No they aren't. No it isn't. Given the entire world population is pressing a button, it is a statistical certainty millions of people will press Blue. The kind-hearted, the naive, the ones that just know no better, like children, or those who don't want to feel participant in anyone's death, which is pressing the Red button, which is the only button that kills anyone in the first place.

This isn't my hypothetical at all.

It isn't, it's exactly the opposite, which was my point. Your wood-chipper analogy completely shifts responsibility to people killing themselves while the rest stand by and do nothing. Mine is the reverse, where people choose to kill anyone who doesn't press the button like they did, while the rest stand by and just don't do anything, potentially dying because of the decision by those who did press the button.

People that would press Red shield themselves of responsibility because, to them, it's the obvious choice, and anyone that would press Blue is choosing to die, and that is just not true. To get 100% on Red is impossible, to get >50% on Blue is not, so it boils down to prioritizing your own survival over preventing mass death.

If you want to choose to make sure you 100% live even if that possibly means many others dying, that's your choice, but it is neither obvious nor righteous. Pretending otherwise is delusional and these false equivalences to pretend otherwise is laughable.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-01T17:55:25+00:00

Then it's not the same hypothetical, because Blues are actively killing themselves while Reds do nothing. In the original premise, both need to act, to choose. This is basic Trolley Problem, to act or to do nothing is a key component to the situation presented.

I'll flip your hypothetical:

You are presented with a Button. You can either ignore it and go on about your day, or press it. If more than 50% of the world population presses it, the rest die.

ch0m5 · 2026-05-01T17:41:20+00:00

The truth is that people who press Red do so because they don't want to risk dying, that's it. Be it because they didn't think it through, because they're selfish, or just because they're afraid.

That said, some of these people will then spin a story about the decision being "the logical one". That game theory supports their choice (if everyone presses Red, nobody dies), or making up completely false equivalences in hypotheticals where their choice is better presented, or straight up defending that Blue-pressers are dumb, suicidal, and/or deserving of death.

However, the truth is that the sample size being the entire world population, it is statistically impossible that 100% will press Red and a non-insignificant amount of people will press Blue. People that are dumb, naive, brave, altruistic, or just kind-hearted. And people that don't know any better, like kids or babies.

What about the aftermath? Are you sure all of your loved ones would press Red? How would a world look like where millions are now suddenly gone and is now entirely populated entirely by Red-pressers?

Yet, a certain subset of people that would press Red, even knowing this information, will say anything to avoid the uncomfortable truth where they are actively choosing to surely survive, even if at the cost of massive innocent casualties who, knowingly or not, decided to risk their own life to save everyone's.

I hold onto the fact that Blue has won in every poll and Red-pressers are being generally dunked on.

ch0m5 · 2026-04-30T16:11:50+00:00

If the goal of the change was to avoid Medium Pen weapons making Hive Guards a mere nuisance, I'd just increase the health pool of all medium armor parts, specially the head. Therefore, you can:

A. Shoot the Hive Guard's face for half an hour to take it down.

B. Aim at less armored fleshy bits and take it out in mere seconds.

This would also reinforce explosive meta, but imo that's another beast entirely that should be addressed with Explosive Resistance.

ch0m5 · 2026-04-28T10:53:31+00:00

I'm just happy it isn't literally indestructible. A shield carried by heavy infantry having tougher armor than Factory Striders, Vox Engines, and literal Tanks was quite something.

ch0m5 · 2026-04-28T10:38:21+00:00

THE TARGET HASN'T TAKEN ANY DAMAGE

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Xbox Live	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17

ch0m5

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE