Even in the stereotype there’s always the truth. The issue isn’t so much that people are genuinely this set in stone. But there are people who are self proclaimed X mains who make absurd Y requests. There are people who play one nation because it’s not only cheaper but it’s also more logical to stick to one tree considering the nature of the game.
But I think the biggest issue with the community is that they don’t know how to take a joke, criticism or just don’t know how to handle disagreement in general.
I wouldn’t call it tribalism purely because it’s more along the lines of being uneducated, inexperienced and biased. However you yourself fuel this fire by sticking to one side of an argument and never calling out people on your side of the discussion who do this exact thing.
This constant need to feel “superior” to others by bellitling and putting them down, labelling everyone under pejorative terminology to antagonise them
This feels more like a low handed projection more than anything.
There is no objective proof on what tastes better, it’s a subjective matter, a personal preference.
A preference is what you’re supposed to base your decision on subjective matters.
Bias are other reasons you base your decision on, often malicious in their nature.
Bias exists both in objective and subjective decision making. It’s worse when it’s supposed to be an objective opinion.
In the context of the APHE changes you are supposed to base your decision on aspect like realism, fun, gameplay and balance, not what benefits your favourite vehicles.
If the decision here is purely taste, then it doesn’t matter what anyone’s biases are because the outcome is taste regardless. In fact it makes more sense for me to vote for what I like to play.
This is not true. Even when I take a stance/side, I call out when someone is being unreasonable. For example; I support Abrams fixes and improvements, but if someone starts demanding unreasonable changes, I am the very first to:
I didn’t say bias is taste, but if the poll is a question of taste then the outcome is still one of taste. There is no way to insert objectivity into a question of taste.
This is simply not true. For example; I support Abrams fixes and improvements, but if someone starts demanding unreasonable changes, I am the very first to:
I was talking more so about the people screeching in pain about “US haters” or people claiming that others have a negative bias towards the US.
I wouldn’t say the disagreements that we have in the game are just minor disagreements. They tend to feel like the other side doesn’t want you to exist.
When I like heavy tanks and the opposing side wants heavy tanks to be penetrated with ease, or in cases like Maus they would rather have it literally removed, than put up with balancing it, then how am I supposed to handle that disagreement.
Whenever I think there was a change that was unfair to the other side, I tend to point it out. Especially when I often have played on the other side or want to play it, even though I play one nation more than the others.
They tend to feel like the other side doesn’t want you to exist.
What? I’ve been having discussions on this game for years and I’ve never felt this way even when the person is hurling the most disrespectful things in the book. I think you might want to remove your own emotion from the discussion if you feel this way.
When I like heavy tanks and the opposing side wants heavy tanks to be penetrated with ease, or in cases like Maus they would rather have it literally removed, than put up with balancing it, then how am I supposed to handle that disagreement.
You can start handling it by realizing everyone has an opinion? By not getting emotionally invested? Just think “Okay, they think that’s the way it should be, cool.” The Maus debate is a hilarious one because the best way to fix it is to keep it exactly where it is.
they are not, however your tastes lead you to have a bias;
the fact that you PREFER realism, leads you to be biased towards it when it comes down to making a decision e.g. this vote
You just refuse to accept that preference is different from bias.
It’s just circular logic at this point.
“Everyone is biased, because everyone has a preference, and everyone’s preference is due to the fact that they are biased.”
you have it backwards, everyone is biased because they have preferences, I’m not arguing this anymore.
Just because you cannot understand basic english concepts, does not make you unbiased
Okay but quick question. What is the point of meticulously accurately modeling a vehicle then putting it in a completely make believe game mode with made up parameters?
That’s incorrect. In a question of taste, the subject only relies upon their own perception of goodness, not on an objective method of determining what is objectively good. It follows then that any subjective method which the subject uses must be proper. Therefore bias and preference are interchangeable in a question of taste, or, as I said at first, preference doesn’t exist in a question of taste.
I’m not a dev, you should ask them. It is however a game, and in my opinion, a game and its aspects should however be enjoyable, even to an extent to the cost of realism.
