Cadence on rive needs to go

[Psojed]

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.

[Folks]

@Psojed

I can read the title, thanks.
The “needs to go” is also open to options - for example “needs to go” from that position, “needs to go” away from the third strike damage nodes…

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…

[Psojed]

@Folks

Except, OP didn’t say any of those things…

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?

@Folks

he simply stated “it needs to go because it makes no sense”. That’s what we get after reading the title and his post.

No, OP asked a question.
When you read the title and his post, you get the “Why?” question, not a “remove this” final statement.

@Folks

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.

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?

@Folks

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…

My suggestion was about changing paths leading from the Cadence node, so topic “Cadence on Rive needs to go” is appropriate for it.

[Llama8]

@Psojed

The title doesn’t say “needs to go from the game/sentinel/rive skill tree”. You guys arbitrarily decided that.

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.

[Psojed]

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:

@DiceDragon

The answer shouldnt be “remove cadence” which is what OP is implying. Because their tiny brain cant fathom a world where you have to make a choice between a slower pay off for bigger pay.

Anyway, glad you guys enjoy this off-topic about word meanings, intent and comprehension. Keep it coming.