I’m not expecting anything from you 
You replied to me, and I replied back. It’s not my concern if you reply to replies or not. You do you. Readers will draw their own conclusions from that.
But when you do comment, please try to comment on topic.
Except, OP didn’t say any of those things… he simply stated “it needs to go because it makes no sense”. That’s what we get after reading the title and his post.
It is technically a feedback, but not a valid one for the purposes of these “Feedback and Suggestions” sub-forums. Just saying something makes no sense without giving any suggestions.
Anyways, I see you got some good points for addressing that node, so I believe it would be best if you’d make a feedback thread yourself pointing those out…
1 Like
Yes, finally! OP didn’t say shit.
The two examples you quoted were said by me.
And “remove cadence” was said by you and DiceDragon.
Are on the same page now?
No, OP asked a question.
When you read the title and his post, you get the “Why?” question, not a “remove this” final statement.
What are you talking about? 
If you don’t like something and want to tell the devs about it, that’s feedback. There’s no obligation to provide a solution, not having one doesn’t make your feedback “invalid”. What’s next? You gonna ask players to submit code snippets for bugs they report? 
My suggestion was about changing paths leading from the Cadence node, so topic “Cadence on Rive needs to go” is appropriate for it.
Yeah, but it’s hardly such an unreasonable thought to focus on one of the possible meanings. Y’all just need to chill a little.
Should I really need to be the one saying this or is this a harbinger of Orobyss the end times? It certainly feels like the end of days.
Yes, it’s perfectly fine to focus on one of the possible meanings.
For example, you could say “I don’t think Cadence should be removed, because reason” - that means adding your opinion/reasoning on one possible meaning.
It’s not fine to say “X implied removed, I think that’s not the answer, X implied this because reason” - that’s putting words in someone else’s mouth.
DiceDragon then used ad-hominem as the reason:
Anyway, glad you guys enjoy this off-topic about word meanings, intent and comprehension. Keep it coming.
trade offs are fine but not when they result in such a huge nerf that it doesn’t end up being worth it. the gains you get from the two 3rd strike nodes end up getting cut in half, meaning its always a better choice to choose something else. if you weren’t so busy being a smart ass and took a minute to consider basic math you might have realized this.
Thats because the values are wrong. That does not mean the values cant be made correct.
Just like if you considered that they can rework it, keeping with the theme, you would know its just a value prospect issue. if its “Delaying my 3rd hit damage for 5 hits instead of 3, for a bigger pay off” and the answer is always “thats not worth it” then the value needs to be shifted.
People need to stop trying to ham fist over any design space that isnt “click directly here for massive more damage”
its a room temp iq take, and would make every skill just more damage more projectiles more chains, no downsides, no thought.
2 Likes