what “position”? I said the reasoning is obvious. It’s a tweak ti quickwalling which inplies that I think there’s a potential for improvement of the current mechanic. And I pointed out 2 major reasons for why I want to tweak it. Which you also cited later, acknowledging that indirectly.
Your initial post was implying I did this without any reasoning, quite bluntly. So I responded also in a blunt and harsh way, that there indeed WAS a reasoning you ignored. And if you do so, you have to take that critique. It’s NOT defensive, it’s just a blunt and harsh response to a blunt indirectly accusating question that doesn’t reflect the reality, that I actuall DID point out my reasoning.
Ofc you can say you don’t agree with my reasoning. But claiming there wouldn’t be is actually a misrepresentation which I have the good right to point out. There is nothing defensive about that.
My reaction of you post was also actually the lesser way than I could have done. I could also just directly have gone towards “You intentional misrepresent my post, trying to bring me in a defensive position.” An gave you the opportunity to say something like “sorry, I thought the bottom part was just some kind of disclaimer”. And I chose the blunt and harsh response because your initial question was blunt and harsh in the same manner and had an accusating tone to it. I just returned the “favor” in this sense.
I surely could have phrased differently, but that’s how I handle these situations usually. I find this is actually the best way to come to the conclusion if someones is actually interested in a healthy conversation or not. Sometimes it needs some further posts, but often these situaiton then solve immediately. And I have no issue with saying: “sorry i was a bit too harsh at the beginning”. It’s actually a good way then to “even” the state when needed.
I didn’t miss anything. Quite the opposite. I decided to not overload the initia post with TOO MANY aspects of my tweaking concept, just pointing out the 2 most important to me.
Why should I try to diffuse anything if I haven’t done anything I was wrongly accused for? In fact, as described above I gave you the opportunity to redirect your wrong accusations.
Also: Defensiveness isn’t a thing. You can be put in a defensive position which are several healthy ways to continue out of, evening the tides. Or you can react “defensive”. But there is no “defensiveness” that can be put on someones shoulder he has to somehow “diffuse” or what you actually mean “crowl back” from. And if you wanted to load that on me, I just have to inform you that this doesn’t exist. Yes, you brought me in a defensive position several times. But none of my responses was “defensive”. I just pointed out your mistakes - like claiming I wouldn’t reason my tweak idea. Which you later actually acknowledged I actually DID.
A bit too blunt and harsh possibly though.
Yes because it’s currently not in the realm of possibilty to make quickwalling reliable with selecting more than 1 vill.
No, I only responded to that cause I didn’t use that word and was wondering why you so explicitely called it as if I was using it. With the named initial perception of being misrepresented I wanted to clarify that I don’t accept new categorizations put on my motivation than I used myself.
This would be fine. You could also just say: “I don’t see what you want to achieve here” and ideally then either referring to my reasoning and saying you don’t see the issue or asking for a bit more elaborate explanation or more points.
Which I then did and I think we will both agree that the other part of the conversation wasn’t really necessary (or healthy).
IDK. like 95 % if the time, possibly even more. But sometimes it’s not and that’s what I refer to and what I want to address with the change. Because it’s really messed up if a mechanic works perfeclty fine 20 games and then for some reason in one game the hell breaks lose because it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the poistioning and exact timing caused it to break.