EverflowingRiver
EverflowingRiver
About
- Username
- EverflowingRiver
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,184
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Nicholas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1366058#Comment_1366058
You're right, SDYT means to force or compel you to accept endure or consider something. Your majoritarianism point actually works in reverse, a good society recognizes that need to put the majority population on "alert" about minorities and other classes of persons. This includes basically saying exactly what you stated. It's a broader issue from the "compassionate but disagree" people, they consider everything as SDYT and often want to shield their views behind a desire to keep X out of the discussion. If you're X, stay in the shadows, etc.
A good society makes sure the minority has equal rights, it does not mean I need to be "alerted" to anything. Otherwise everything is an alert and the individual is supposed to too toe around everything.
I'm not trying to be ride, but I think you missed my point. My last post was saying Boone cares if you put a gay couple in a commercial. Campbell soup did it a couple years ago and guess what, they still sold soup. They didn't go on Twitter and say " look at our new commercial featuring two dudes kissing, aren't we inclusive."
@HollowsGrief said:
Pandering of any kind annoys me. People's right to be represented doesn't trump my right to not be force feed other's opinions and preferences. People can be what they want and like what they want, they can also dislike what they want and I dislike pandering. I find it to be fake and no different than a lie. A good person does what is right because it is right, not so they can announce it to people for virtue points. But hey that is just my opinion and like ALL other opinions it stinks. :)
This dude said it perfectly. Do something because it's right, not because you want attention.
-
@Nicholas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346424#Comment_1346424
Sexual orientation. It's always interesting that people say that but yet society and media shove heterosexuality down our throats. But apparently that's okay, it's just an issue when it's other sexual orientations. You see it in commercials all the time, opposite-sex couples kissing making out hugging in bed, no problem! But a same-sex couple in the same exact commercials? They're shoving it down my throat, it's in your face! With that said I do think it's important to have more representation. And who's to say that the characters are gay or lesbian or bisexual but the information just hasn't been made known yet? It happens in other games and movies and media platforms. Sometimes characters are simply in the closet and they weren't ready to identify themselves. It's not always about trying to retroactively adhere to demands or expectations to change or alter characters. There's also the issue of maybe they were lying or in denial? Even in real life you run into that, there are people who have denied their sexual orientation for decades.
People are not using the phrase "shove down your throat" properly. Statistically, most people identify as heterosexual so from a marketing and communication standpoint, most ads or media will depict straight relationships. That's not shoving anything downs anyone's throat. When a commercial features a gay couple kissing, that is not shoving anything down people's throat either, unless the whole point of the ad is to show you "look, we have gay people." That is the issue here
-
@SewerSwans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1348607#Comment_1348607
Ah, here we go, 'the SJWs'. That's what I was looking for. ... Corporations don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts or pure Artistic Integrity, man. They eat and breathe money. Dollars. Wealth. I'm sorry your introduction to this concept is tinged with gamergate terror of a fictional flock of fanatical feminist queers, but of course it's a mix of PR and marketing; so is everything companies do.
"This is pandering!" is the conclusion of someone who can only pierce the veil and see beneath the act when they're hopping mad about gays. It's all marketing, dude. This is the pink dollar. All the Japanese outfits? Laser-targeted at the weaboo dollar. This game? It wants dollars, mine and yours. Welcome to capitalism. Enjoy your stay.
You are exactly the type of sjw I was talking about. "Agree with what I say or you are a bigot!" Did anyone here say they would stop playing cause a homosexual character is introduced? No, they did not. All they said was that there should be no Nobel prize awarded for doing it. You are looking for bias that isn't there.
And what's your point about corporations. 99% of them don't give 2 craps about the consumer.
In regards to the cosmetics. Japan has a bigger market for games than East Africa so yeah, there will be Japanese cosmetics.
-
@SewerSwans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1348499#Comment_1348499
Haven't seen any criticism lead with them backpatting on Twitter. It's always phrased in terms of "adding things into the game that don't need to be there", "pandering", "keep characters neutral", etc. If you're saying a gay character is fine, I think you're the only one. And you're not who I'm talking to when I speak harshly.
That said, I've experienced open hostility over my gender & sexuality more or less constantly over my life, ever since I was a little trans kid. This was less "abstract idea of gays mocking JK Rowling" and more "I thought I deserved to die for over a decade, starting when I was about 6 years old", so that's what hostility around queer issues means to you vs what it means to me.
I am usually quite a softly-spoken person, but this is not a subject I speak softly on. Trying to got me nowhere.
The Twitter post and pandering go hand in hand. Many see this as a move to appease the SJW crowd on social media
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1348499#Comment_1348499
The tweet was not to pat themselves on the back and I don't know why you're reading it that way. The tweet served a two-fold purpose:
- Announces what they're going to be adding (perfectly reasonable, they do it all the time).
- Serves as a sort of apology to the LGBT community.
See, initially, they said they wouldn't confirm any character's sexual orientation. However, since the Nurse, characters have had explicit relationships written about in their lore. The LGBT community got shafted in that regard - all the relationships are heterosexual and the characters are presumably heterosexual as well. To amend this, they want to "out" all the survivors and killers (I'm guessing via the rift), instead of just the heterosexual ones.
Now, which part do you take issue with?
Apologize for what? The fact that either they need to apologise for not having an openly gay character? For giving someone a straight relationship without adding a gay one to balance it? Clearly they felt the need to publicize their wokeness even though the game was doing fine as is and would continue to be fine by simply adding a gay character without shouting it from the mountain top.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1348343#Comment_1348343
I hear you. Even if some people who're objecting don't mean it that way, that's what it comes across as. To those of you who think they're being accused of being bigots, here's an example.
- His ex has moved on and she doesn't want to see his face.
- His ex has moved on and he doesn't want to see his face.
The first one implies a heterosexual relationship and the second implies a homosexual relationship. Other than that, those statements are functionally identical. If you object to 2 but not 1, what are we supposed to conclude, except that your issue is with homosexual relationships?
This has been going on since forever. Every time someone brings up adding LGBT content into a game that already has explicit and overt heterosexuality, these same arguments are brought to the table.
If you don't want characters with defined sexual orientations, that's fine. However, if you're OK with having one sexual orientation in your game and not the others, are people supposed to believe your issue is with sexual orientations overall, or just some sexual orientations?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not calling anyone a bigot, homophobe, or whatever. I'm genuinely asking you to do some introspection, put yourself in our shoes (and by "our" I don't mean LGBT, I mean everyone whom you think is calling you a bigot), and try to understand why your comments come across in a certain way.
No reasonableperson has a problem if the company wants to add language like that. You and others seem to be missing the main point that people have a problem with. By all means add a gay character. Don't get on Twitter to pat yourself on the back for doing it.
And you might not be calling anyone a homophobe but when other people talk about insulting JK Rowling, it comes across as openly hostile.
-
No, selling special cosmetics based in group identity is a slippery slope.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347364#Comment_1347364
Given that there are gay torture camps still active to this day, I welcome the explicit acceptance and assistance some people and companies provide, as opposed to passive acknowledgement without any assistance. If that creates a divide between normal people and bigots, so be it.
Yeah, the extremists in countries that have gay torture camps are going to change their minds because dbd introduced a homosexual character...
I think most people assume bhvr and other companies in the West are for equality. Spelling it out on Twitter doesn't change anything, and when done improperly leads to chaos like the 4+ threads going on
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347290#Comment_1347290
I'm sorry that you feel people were calling you a bigot. I can assure you nobody was doing that.
I never said I felt that at all. I haven't been called any names here implicitly or explicitly. Some other posters in other threads though I feel have been basically accused of not wanting gay people in the game when they are simply questioning the method of the addition.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347283#Comment_1347283
Indeed. They realized that their actions hadn't matched their words, so they admitted that and said they would no longer just be adding heterosexual relationships because they want to add more non-heterosexual relationships since that's their current vision for the game. I'm glad we agree that they're not trying to pander to non-heterosexuals.
No, the fact they announced it on Twitter proves it was pandering. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.
-
Que the people coming in and subtextually calling you a bigot for questioning the devs motivation.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347279#Comment_1347279
And I'm guessing you're a mind reader or will hook the devs up to a polygraph (that actually works)?
I don't have to be. The devs made their motives clear by the Twitter post.
-
@hahadrillgobrrr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347254#Comment_1347254
I'm sorry, I don't follow what you mean by playing a game run by a sheep?
If the devs are only adding the character because they want to pander to a certain group or be accepted by the 'woke' culture, that makes them sheep. If they want to add a character because they created a neat story line, then be my guest.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347173#Comment_1347173
Since any time LGBT and/or black people are added to a game it's complained about as "virtue signaling", I say let them virtue signal their asses off. Whoever doesn't like it can leave.
Funny how no one complained when any of the black characters were added to the game though. It was done organically which is why it was accepted.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347131#Comment_1347131
Why are you trying to make this thread go off-topic?
Pro tip: gas lighting me won't work. You started this side debate.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347111#Comment_1347111
I pointed out a tiny error in someone's comment that they acknowledged and said would correct. You're the one still talking about it like I advocated genocide or something.
I pointed out the error in your attempt to point out his "error" and you responded trying to monopolize science
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347086#Comment_1347086
Nobody brought up abortion, it's simply a well-established fact that people cannot choose their sexual orientation.
Bro you've officially driven this thread off topic. I was giving you an example how just saying "science is on my side" doesn't mean science is on you side. There are plenty of people who can make the case that sexual orientation is a choice. Just because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't change this fact.
Also, it used to be established fact that the earth was the flat center of the universe.
This all detracts from the topic at hand of if/how character lore should be created.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347067#Comment_1347067
Science isn't political, even if certain parties would like it to be.
It is when science is questioned. I'm not even saying I disagreed with your point; your point just added nothing to the conversation. Science is used to support both sides of the abortion argument, doesn't mean it needs to be brought up here.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347028#Comment_1347028
Pro tip: sexual orientation is not a choice.
Way to insert politics even more into this thread chief.
-
If the argument from people is to play a character they identify with, doesn't this mean some people might not be able to enjoy playing a character they previously mained if the character is changed to not represent them?
-
@EverflowingRiver said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346569#Comment_1346569
Yeah, we need more causes in games. What if someone wants a Christian outfit, or a Republican/Democrat for the U.S. political parties? Where does it end? It's best to let a game be just that, a game. Not everything needs a cause, no matter how well-intentioned.
And that first sentence was sarcasm btw
-
@LALYTHIA said:
If you really don't care about a character's sexuality, then why does it matter how they change the lore to feel more inclusive of different people? By the same logic you're using, it shouldn't.
Every step toward progress or inclusivity can be touted as pandering, that doesn't make it so. Change has to start somewhere. If every effort someone makes to cultivate change is brushed off as shallow and insincere - the alternative is no effort at all. Not really the better option.
If the sexuality of characters isn't important to you, then this shouldn't matter to you.
Also, you have a good idea in terms of them making LGBTQ supportive cosmetics. It would be cool if they offered 'cause' cosmetic packs and donated the proceeds to organizations that support that cause.
Yeah, we need more causes in games. What if someone wants a Christian outfit, or a Republican/Democrat for the U.S. political parties? Where does it end? It's best to let a game be just that, a game. Not everything needs a cause, no matter how well-intentioned.
-
@Mister_Holdout said:
People need to understand that if hit boxes were smaller it would be very hard to land shots due to map design.
While I understand it can be frustrating, I think it's for the best to leave Huntress as is.
Besides, Huntress is not a free win killer. There is a lot of skill involved.
🙏 Preach my man
-
@BigBrainMegMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1344925#Comment_1344925
Except there aren't smaller hitboxes.
There hasn't been a smaller hitbox in months, so your post is completely invalid.
I've been getting hit from 3-6 feet away from my actual body, how is that fair? How is that skill?
Lol you didn't say one thing that made my point invalid. I'll say again, give huntress players their fair share of credit for hitting you and chalk up the strange hits to bad luck and the limitations of the game in terms of hit boxes.
-
@BigBrainMegMain said:
Yeah, I lost all respect for every and any Huntress main because she obviously gets carried by Hitboxes.
I've been told it's not their fault, but it's been months, and months since people have complained about her, lag, latency and hitboxes and I've seen more VPN users abusing her as well.
She gets carried by hitboxes.
This post completely takes away credit from skilled huntress players. Sure, there are times where they might get a lucky hit from a generous hit box, but most huntress mains worth their salt could hit you with a smaller hitbox if they wanted.
-
@caz_ said:
i keep listening and reading about Killer mains saying Survivors have to many second chance perks, that everyone use only meta perks. but i also read and listen to them saying "nerf this and that perk" example Mettle of Man.
When mettle of man came out for the first time it was Broken af but after the first nerf it was pretty good but somehow killer mains still complained about how broken it still was when you needed 3 unhooks to get that perk activated.
now i listen to people saying the upcomming perk is to strong for the new survivor what will give you the BT effect and they again ask for a nerf. now the real question is.. are you really sick of people using only DS,Adren,BT or do you just want them to use these perk? if you really want them to use something different why you want everything to get nerfed? that is not how it works. you cant ask all the time for a nerf and then complain about "every survivor use the same build" well maybe because of that reason?
Anyways i took a look ingame to the perks of survivors and i saw exactly 20 useful perks you could use in rank1 against rank 1 killers.
then i went to killer perks to see how many useful perks killers have and i count 36 + all different killers you can play + synergy of some builds.
for survivors you dont have the choice if you wanna win. means no meme builds. with the +50survivor perks you can maybe do 3-4 synergized perk builds what will help you to win.
now here are the perks if you're intersted on my list.
Survivor
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1IJ1Q5BZ2GAO/20200610144851-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JIZ2C4IASQOJ/20200610144852-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/BQZWWV7550OW/20200610144855-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/SVW6UU3OPFBI/20200610144857-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/M3IN02M6KFC2/20200610144859-1.jpg
And here the Killer perk list.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/COU21GKDSX9N/20200610144743-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/MIVV1CHA3A26/20200610144745-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/KGJ1ADLCUXAT/20200610144747-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z2059YR8A53D/20200610144750-1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/52QXBY8TC5IB/20200610144753-1.jpg
Now the question here is do you really want people to use perks like Streetwise, Vigil, Autoditact (what is never working because of RNG) or lightweight? or do you really want to ask all the time for a nerf for a good perk so survivors are forced to use the Meta to have a chance or fun in a game?
Killer mains need to stop with thinking every game is against a SWF. you maybe wont belive it but there also people like me who play solo, or duo. so do everyone a favor and stop asking for a nerf and maybe ask for a buff for the bad survivor perks and maybe people start using them? i guess that is enough ranting against the MAIN player.
maybe change your mind and try the opposite side? you'll get more understanding about everything.
This thread should probably be closed purely based on the survivor perks you crossed out and the killer ones you didn't.
Seriously, how many times have you lost a game because of blood warden?
-
@Erk said:
Well, I don't think the Mending is the problem, the problem is that Legion can get to you VERY fast. You have nothing against a good Legion since they will never get stunned and you can't wait her power out since she's faster than you. I think the Frenzy mechanic should get a nerf, like Legion can still vault, but vault as fast as a slow vaulting survivor or just make it a little bit slower.
There is no way to avoid Legion, so this would make it a bit more fair.
So you want to nerf what many consider to be one of the weakest killers in the game? You aren't supposed to avoid him easily.
-
@Blueberry said:
Most would agree Legion needs improvements and that Deep Wounds can be quite underwhelming.
What would ya'll think about if while afflicted by Deep Wounds survivors would be Oblivious?
The tick down is attached to movement and not TR anymore like in the past, so I simply see this as forcing a survivor to pick more carefully when they decide to Mend instead of basically Mending in your face which is what we get right now. Would allow for some potential mind games and more careful decision making on both sides.
Obviously this would also affect BT but that seems quite fine seeing as BT is already a top tier perk that is arguably too strong anyway.
Just wanting to hear some thoughts about this idea. Too strong, too weak, sounds interesting?
Seems pretty good to me. But I will always say the stun duration needs to be shortened before anything else.
-
Fixing legion is simple. Reduce stun time after FF ends and allow FF hits to apply sloppy butcher again.
No need to thank me and the advice is free.
-
Even after all his nerfs, legion is not bottom tier. How can you out death slinger above huntress and how can you put them in different tiers? Deathslinger is a different version of huntress with a less dependable power.
-
@NinjaDette1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/157166/ummm-excuse-me-can-you-not-thanks
I disagree with you’re childish post.You can not demand that people from other parts of the world not play the game even if they are from countries we are at war with they are still allowed to be here. And secondly if you have issues with playing with people from around the world.Then you shouldn’t even be allowed on anything that involves being on a public online game that allows people worldwide to play the same game. I have a friend who is from a third world country and he is the nicest person I’ve been friends with since elementary school. If you can’t handle people playing with you who are not from America well then you shouldn’t even be allowed in any country if you’re gonna disrespect people and their ethnic backgrounds.
Way to go overboard responding to obvious bait. He never insulted anyone's ethnicity. He just questioned their priorities if they are playing games on a bad connection.
-
@CashelP14 said:
The gen went fast but that can happen. The massive map made it tougher for him but he still won. Stbfl helped him but if he had a better build he he would have done better.
Instead of surge he should have run pop. You need good slowdown gen perks and if you don't have any then you can't complain if the gens are done quick.
So what you should really take from this video is. Should I run corrupt and pop? I would say on Clown yes.
What would pop have done in this case. Gen slowdown perks are not the issue here. Maybe corrupt could have helped, but this is the result of the ruin nerf.
-
This is ridiculous. Why not just start every survivor with an item and add ons and eliminate the bloodweb altogether then. Lose the add ons and move on.
-
@Jukenobi said:
Stop caring about piping and 4k's and you will have a much more enjoyable time. Just have fun, it will make it much better. Rank means nothing,
No, if you sit at the low ranks the games are too easy and that is no fun either.
-
@meatisadelicacy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1090130#Comment_1090130
UWU what about all the BP I've lost from killers DCing when we power the gates? People are still going to DC. If they don't want the timeout, they'll die on the first hook. I can't imagine that's great for your pipping. And if they DC and get the timeout, some will go play other games. I know my survivor queue is long enough without people quitting the game
If they suicide on hook I at least get credit for that. It is still a whiny survivor move though. And Idc about survivor fun. What fun is playing killer if 2 gens pop by the time you walk across the map. You say the killer still gets to play, but not in that scenario.
-
@meatisadelicacy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1089353#Comment_1089353
Oh please. Like killers didn't dc too. And I didn't even care when other teammates dc'ed as a survivor. It happens in every game and always will. What do you care as a killer if a survivor dcs? You lose one of your BBQ stacks? Must be tough to only get a 75% bonus every single game.
How about the fact if a survivor DC I can't get hooks for emblems and I don't pip or depip. It also makes the remaining survivors play stupid.
-
This is what happens when survivors DCed at everything they didn't like. It sucks but decisions have consequences.
-
@Warlock_2020 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1088722#Comment_1088722
YOu are trying to generalize the point I made. The point I made was that many people who focus on camping don't care about punishments. They are only there to harass. I've seen enough of them talk in post chat to know. They enjoy harassing other players. There are also survivors that like to do the same thing. No amount of punishing will stop them.
My point is that punishments do nothing. There is no point to it. How you get from my post that I'm for banning everyone is quite a reach. The best thing to do is ignore them and move on because this game is built in a way that feeds these types of players.
I don't believe I said you want to ban people but if that is what you thought I said, then I apologise for not being clear.
The whole reason I started arguing with you is because you said camoingb from the start isn't a strategy and is only toxic. This is false. If I build bubba to camp hooks I'm basing my play off of common survivor instinct to unhook. It's no different then a hunter in a tree stand with bait. However unethical it might seem, it gets the job done
-
@Warlock_2020 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1088624#Comment_1088624
No, it does not. Someone who enters the game just for the purpose of harassing others is exactly that, harassment. Bullying is a form of harassment. I've seen it plenty of times in this game. Just like depip'ed SWF groups that purposely lower to rank 18 so they can bully new killers. You can call it whatever you want, but it does not change what it is.
That's a 10 ply attitude bud. Kill is in the word killer. If someone wants to camp to kill, good on them. Just because it is different then your desired play style doesn't mean it is harassment.
Let's go with your definition though for a second. Flashlights and crouching need to be banned then along with sfw. All these promote "bullying."
-
@Warlock_2020 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1088476#Comment_1088476
Problem is, camping players don't care about BP or pips. They only care about griefing other players. They want to make you upset. It is nothing more than a form of bullying. There are times where it is a legitimate part of a strategy, such as when the gates are open, but camping from the beginning is nothing more than griefing.
Bullying? Really? How about it's just a game and you shouldn't take it personally. It cheapens the word when it is thrown around so recklessly.
-
@PigMainClaudette said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1088502#Comment_1088502
You want to know what I do in this situation? Target the person who unhooks them for being overly altruistic.
But that's not fair either by your logic. Why ruin the survivor's game because he wanted the unhook?
-
@PigMainClaudette said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1088411#Comment_1088411
It's going out of your way to ruin another's game. It SHOULD be penalised severely. Same with tunnelling.
You sound so entitled. If I hook someone and see other survivors in the area, I'm going to stay put. It's their choice to be overly altruistic. Just because it's not a free escape doesn't mean I'm ruining someone's game. Leaving the hook knowing an unhook is seconds away ruins my game.
-
@ClickyClicky said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1086878#Comment_1086878
Oh please not the “vAlId StRaTeGy” line again.
It’s a lazy way to play used by bad players.
Never said it was a good or useful strategy. If you liken it to Dcing though you need to rethink your position.
-
@Sleephartha said:
I’m seeing quite an increase in the number of games against The Plague suddenly. My theory is that everyone, including myself, hates playing against her and so we used to DC against her a lot. Now with the penalties I have to at least stay until I get hooked. I’m seeing teammates suicide on hook but I’m guessing games with her are at least lasting a bit longer since the penalties. Can any killers confirm they are playing plague now for this reason?
So you admit to conforming to the baby survivor stereotype
-
One is a strategy, another is throwing a baby fit.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1081980#Comment_1081980
Your analogies are consistently flawed. This discussion is not going to go anywhere as long as you keep bringing up random professions that have nothing to do with one another to try to prove a point. Tradespeople don't design products for other people to use. You need to be competent at your job as a designer in order to make a good product - you do not have to be masterfully skilled at using the thing you're designing.
My analogies are fine, you brought up building. Overall you are wrong and I can't fix that. If you don't have a clue how what you are designing works then you are going to end up with a bad product. A game designer can have an idea in their head of one thing but it might not work in reality. Unless they play and experience it they will never know. You are wrong if you think trades people don't have an input into the design of things.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1081648#Comment_1081648
And a single developer doesn't usually build an entire game. Plus, the builder himself does not and is not expected to conduct those inspections. So the analogy still stands.
The electrician who puts in the conduit and wires tests their work, the plumber tests his work. Every tradesmen is tests their work to make sure it functions well. When it comes to games, you need to be competent to test it's true functionality.
-
I ever said they eat meals at a time, but I do believe any place worth it's salt tastes their food before serving it.
When devs don't spend any significant amount of time playing the game, they don't realize the negative impact of the changes they make. IDC if they spend 1 million hours testing and coding a single change in a vacuum if they don't see the impact once that change goes live.
That construction argument doesn't make sense. A builder doesn't build a whole house, and houses once they are complete go through inspections each time they are sold.
-
@Fibijean said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1081512#Comment_1081512
That is literally exactly how it works with most competent commercial cooks.
Go to any restaurant that isn't your standard chain, I guarantee the cook tastes what he makes before it hits your table. I don't expect the worker at Denny's to taste his food but that's why he works at Denny's
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1081512#Comment_1081512
tbh, I think the Devs have more knowledge of the game than 99,99% of the playerbase. Including everyone writing in this Forum.
Good one.