Search results for query: confirmation bias

Patch 1.5.2: - Division anti air reduces damage to the division caused by close air support attacks, in proportion to the AA's ability to shoot down planes. Prior to that, divisional AA shared some defines/mechanics with ship AA. The values have not been rebalanced since.

Before CAS is less devastating. With BBA we can stack very high ground attack.

Did it always work this way? That might be a confirmation bias, but I recall receiving less damage with multiple AA (or SPAA back when they were actually good at their main role).

And I disagree with that original point. In play she gets plenty of shadow affinity through her tome selection, and having goblin barbarian minions is a lot more interesting to me than her being yet another dark elf ruler with a dark culture faction. Arachna's faction works for the written story...

...that the Spiderlings description could suit barbarians, but I feel it suits more a Dark culture. I also feel there is more confirmation bias in assuming the goblins are primitive barbarians because they are goblins and disgusting. Nonetheless, what truly matters is that the description of...

...but that still doesn't say that she fundamentally altered their basic culture. In order words, you're coming into this with confirmation bias. But undead are not part of the dark culture, which is what we're arguing about. She can have lower-case "d" dark servants without them being...

Hello all, I don't know if it is a confirmation bias, or if it is just a bad sample on my side. Thing is that in 1.35, I have the feeling the AI are more reluctant to declare wars. The game seems less dynamic and I want to give you the following example to explain my feeling. I played 3 times...

I think it is confirmation bias. The player doesn't notice when an AI enemy or neutral party does stupid things. In fact, the player often becomes annoyed when the AI plays the game too competently.

If you wish to defeat the AI you must become the AI. Jokes aside I do get the feeling the AI acts different when on the players team but it might be confirmation bias. You notice your allies mistakes more than your enemies.

Not to mention, it's not always in the AIs best interest to dedicate themselves to your cause. You're screwing them in the peace deal anyway, and I most often maximize my own benefit when I'm called in by my allies. It's a bit sad that the optimal way of using powerful allies is to have them do...

...and also have the right my arguments to be adressed instead of jumping into conclusions about my skill. @RichardOlcese Although confirmation Bias might be true it is in the same degree subjective to say that what someone is complaining for is because of confirmation bias. Because in fact you...

...happened to me at a certain time. When my AI allies made a mistake, or when the AI enemy was winning, I always thought the AI is stupid when it's my ally and that it's clever when it's my enemy. That's a sort of confirmation bias. You only pay attention when the AI doesn't help you / defeats you.

...game, yet it is not exactly a universal truth accepted by all. Can only give personal examples, though, so items loaded with own confirmation bias, but it is against another one that is in the quote. After all this deliriously long and unnecessary comment; the gist of it is that the...

...the League war, choosing "Christiana Pietas" instead. I realize only 4 bulls are available to most curia controllers, but I regularly choose the -50% curia powers cost. Never even seen the AI do that. Is this by design or confirmation bias on my end? Not a lot of info in the Wiki on this topic:

How are you still dying on this hill? Confirmation bias can’t be subjectively occurring. Someone either is or is not experiencing confirmation bias. The argument you’re presenting is: P1 there is some unknown modifier or modifiers, therefore C1 it is possible that said modifiers were...

I absolutely agree that it's best to be aware of any potential confirmation bias. Nevertheless, we shan't arrive at a statically significant result without statistically relevant data. The best arrival point: "observation" of <behavior> at [given current game-state] Given this game-example...

...a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be untrue. C1 it is not truly random therefore C2 I am not experiencing confirmation bias is an invalid argument. The premises are not related to one another. Advisor pools could be 100% scripted and you could still experience...

Okay thanks. Given that there exists at least one unknown variable, concealed to players, we can conclude that any forthcoming answer is a theoretical answer at best. Given that the "independent experiments" did not display any statistical evaluation methodology, did not disclose the value (or...

P1 A modifier exists, therefore C1 it is not truly random, therefore C2 I am not experiencing confirmation bias Does not follow. It is entirely possible for the premises to be true and the final conclusion false: a system could be semirandom or even not-at-all random and you could still...

You know the answer about priority advisors and the game's advisor-to-court mechanics? I'd be happy to learn. Please point me to the best resource to educate myself.