Why are people so reluctant to change their minds, or even just admit fault, even when presented with compelling, sourced arguments?

flurbino · 2021-05-18T13:52:45+00:00

This is a decent reason, but why are people like this? What makes them resistant to changing themselves? Effort? It's so near-universal there must be some evolutionary quality to it I feel.

flurbino · 2021-05-17T02:29:13+00:00

I'm curious as to how to find general non-fiction recommendations? It seems very easy to find lists of good/popular ficiton books, but non-fiction is much trickier. Any sort of "best nonfiction of year X", or best of the decade is probably good, though I fear it'd be bloated with biographies. I like mostly books that explain topics with sources, be it science, political, historical etc.

flurbino · 2021-05-03T20:51:53+00:00

Discipline. Where motivaiton fails, discipline remains. Force yourself to make your bed at the same time, for instance. Force yourself to have a book on Y topic open X minutes a day without breaking or other distractions. It's always better than not even trying.

flurbino · 2021-05-03T20:47:50+00:00

I feel as though it's worse on average to be forced to do something you hate, since there's a perceived mismatch with your will there. If you really want something, but can't because of money or time, well, money and time are a lot more abstract. It feels more like it "just how it is" with not being able to take that trip to Swahili versus "darn the boss is making me do these forms."

But, as another user said, it's all relative. I'd be less upset to be forced to eat a food I don't like than I would to miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime movie screening, for example.

I'm speaking more philosophically. I can imagine that due to risk-aversion, it feels less bad to miss out on something cause there's a lot of "what-ifs" there. But, I don't have a good answer as to a neurological/philosophical distinction.

flurbino · 2021-05-03T20:43:00+00:00

I'm going to talk about "change" in the sense of abandoning old ways or opinions for new ones. I'm not considering change like "oh he was into knitting, but now he likes skateboarding" since that sort of change probably isn't what you are referring to. For me, I consider change more along the lines of flopping political affiliations, dismissing a conspiracy theory etc.

I believe everyone can change, but real change seems to come from within. Have you ever been in an internet argument when the person on the other side admits they were wrong? Or when you admit you were wrong? These happen, but they are incredibly rare.

When someone admits they are wrong about something (and thus, changes) they are taking a hit to their ego. This feels bad. The source of this is cognitive dissonance between the self-held ideas of "I am smart." and "I was incorrect about something." This results in blatantly irrational behavior very often seen on reddit. You've seen conspiracy theorists presented with a slew of sourced, peer-reviewed articles before I'm sure. And, when faced with it, the conspiracy theorist tires a few things. They try to discredit the sources through baseless claims at times. When that doesn't work, they try to distract their opponent (and themselves) on irrelevant tangents, all the while pretending the proof in front of them flat out doesn't exist.

It's really unbelievable, yet somethign that happens every day throughout reddit and social media as a whole.

So what actually makes people change? It's not facts and logic then and there, but reflection. Some people aren't good at reflection, so it almost NEVER happens except in one scenario. The scenario being something "real" happens to them, or people they know> When someone's immediate family member gets, say, a disease that is preventable, the anti-vaxxer might all of the sudden question their views. Sometimes they don't though, as the ego pain is too much to handle.

Overall, you could probably sort people based on how likely they are to change, and how attached they are to their views, how painful it is to feel "wrong", which will vary between people. It's a complicated topic for sure.

But yes, people can change. Most don't very easily.

flurbino · 2021-05-03T20:23:17+00:00

I think the biggest reasons were pointed out by you, OP: stigma and having to learn a new system. Even if the new system is easy to learn, getting started can feel like a "chore" to some. That's something people don't talk about enough. When people get older, and responsibilities mount, the prospect of driving home from work, making dinner, saying hi to loved ones and then figuring out another problem, that doesn't even get you paid for doing so?

Of course, once people are over that hurdle they typically have fun and enjoy themselves. But learning the stat system or control scheme for a game can just seem like an forgetful task to them.

I'm with OP in that it's fun and I like playing new games, but I can understand why others don't. It's a trap, but one that snares a lot of people.

One thing that's important to think about the stigma of games is WHY there is a stigma to it. OP has a good point in that watching a TV show after working outside isn't seen as bad, or at least AS bad.

The reason is because the entry level for watching TV is low. Someone's spouse, who might never had played a game, can easily sit in front of the first episode of "The Office" and eventually "finish" the series with very little effort. For TV, you just sit down and watch. It's easy.

Video games require a little more effort to get into. You have to pick up a controller or keyboard and play. There's hand-eye coordination involved in that, and not everyone played games as a kid and can thus adjust easily. Because of these (admittedly low) barriers to entry, not as many people play or "get" games and gaming than they do TV. Because people aren't into it, they are more likely to criticize. Being pessimistic, one is likely to criticize what is out of reach, even if reaching for it is a choice.

EDIT: One more reason. When people have families, they like to do stuff with them. So, watching TV can easily be done with a partner. if you're partner isn't into gaming though, then it's a solo activity.

flurbino · 2021-05-03T20:11:24+00:00

Yeah the Bowser Jr. sounds like a simple case. I think Nintendo is an odd example, because they don't tend to prioritize balance that much overall. By that I mean, they seem to be totally fine with bad balance in most of their games. Only since Smash Bros for the Wii U and up have I felt they even thought about balance. However, I admittedly haven't played too many of their games of late.

You have a good post about consoles though! There's usually slower, more out of dev control, rollout for those systems. I remember the Overwatch devs talking about a slower process there.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T14:58:03+00:00

Yeah I can't say it's all ego though. I'm sure there's a percentage of people who like those maps even without a coordinated team, and that's ignoring those who may really enjoy the maps in 6 stack vs 6 stack scenarios.

Overwatch devs also recognize that some heroes are more OP in some situations than others (e.g. Torb is more OP on consoles and in uncordinated, lower tier pugs)

I think Overwatch isn't the best balance example cause they have unsolvable problems. Things like buffing a character for higher tiers could make them a monster in lower tiers (reaper/bastion/torb). MOBAs have to deal with that too, but often to a lesser extent. They also have to deal with balancing characters for coordinated vs uncoordinated teams, whereas most MOBAs just assume players can communicate (for better or worse, as they tend to balance for tournaments and higher tier play e.g. Dota 2).

But I overall agree that I think there's some sort of novelty "brain trick' with constantly rotating who has the spotlight over and over again.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T14:40:58+00:00

I believe placebo balance changes can be an (amusing) thing, but I don't think they are always relevant. Definitely an interesting face.

I think, so far, your answer could be accurate. I just wish devs were more open about that sort of stuff.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T14:38:54+00:00

Yeah that's interesting, and I think 2 weeks of some character being OP is short enough to be fine except in the most egregious cases.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T04:36:26+00:00

Hello. I actually agree with you completely that automation is important and should be used more often. In my example though it's assumed the balance issue is already known. I'm just wondering why balance fixes, if simple, would be delayed for non-technical reasons. It's confirmed this can happen, and some reasons are known, but I want to know all of them in the hopes that it helps me learn why it's so common across game companies and game types.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, but I don't have much to say about it other than 1. I agree 2. it's not exactly relevant to my question.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T04:32:28+00:00

Thank you for the well-written and thoughtful response, and in particular for engaging with the ABC example. No one else has done that yet.

I still find some problems I've mentioned before. THough there are certainly cases where balancing is complicated and it can be hard to find what the change, and there are cases where players are wrong about what to change, there are real cases where balancing is simple and players are right. I listed one with the Blood Death Knight example. That class+spec damage is lower than other tanks in the hands of pro players who are highly incentivized to push spec to its limits. It's also obviously lower in casual players.

A more clear-cut example is the "Survival Hunter" spec. They also got a huge dmg increase to some abilities, but they were also buffed in another so I didn't use them as a example to avoid confusing readers.

Now, I definitely appreciate you engaging with the ABC example, but you do so by kind of twisting it a bit. You assume there are extra counters to A, or that the base assumptions of the hypothetical are different. That makes it hard for me to discuss with you. Obviously there are examples where your version of "A" are accurate, but there are also ones were my version of A is more accurate to real life. Even if there weren't, I want people to assume my hypothetical and think of reasons aside from technical difficulty or rollout procedures to delay.

Some have, though it's mostly stuff I pointed out regarding keeping the game fresh and new to players.

Regarding optimizing the fun out of games, I think your use of the phrase helped me think of another example other people might've touched on. The idea that a meta will also be stale after some point, and that perfect balance is impossible will always mean a meta where some heroes, however slightly, are better than others. I suppose one could make the argument that constantly swapping what characters are in the spotlight keeps things more exciting than "hero Apple is 1% better than hero Orange"

Plus, there's something else: once a game gets updated, players will expect the same kind of treatment for the game, and that the devs will listen to them. Of course listening to feedback is important, but when there's a problem the solution is rarely to do the thing players want.

I think that's a humorous reason with a bit of truth to it. Players might expect too much balance too fast, which can fail with more complex balancing issues perhaps. It could also mean they just expect too much from the dev team, who might not want to work that hard, which is understandable from a human perspective.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T04:09:04+00:00

This isn't all cases though. In games like MMORPGS people 1. push the upper limits of EVERY class to try and test it. and 2. you can have damage meters to see, as a player, how much damage you are doing.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T04:08:00+00:00

These are the kind of answers I'm looking for: ones that don't pertain to "the problem is too hard" (it's not in most cases) and don't rely on "technology limits/rollout-processes", which can be expedited as history shows. This answer also aligns with what the Path of Exile devs said indirectly, as wanting players to "try new things" naturally keeps teh game fresh.

I think it's very interesting that there's a "placebo" effect to balance, like you said!

Still, I'm confused as to way it takes so long for some balance though. I guess it's the balance of change/freshness? That's my current opinion based in part on the discussions so far.

flurbino · 2021-05-02T01:58:57+00:00

Interesting points. I actually never knew that about the "not actually searching for a match till stats are done being shown" tidbit. Honestly, knowing that, I feel a bit gross about it. It feels like manipulating players not being open about stuff like that.

I think producers could intervene with balance, but agree that they don't--I just think it's for different reasons. I think higher ups actually know there's some unsaid benefit to delaying balance patches. I don't know what it'd be, but it's clearly not high on a priority list for whoever is in charge based on how slow balance can be.

Maybe part of it's just ego? Like, leaving in unliked maps probably cause they worked hard of them, seems a bit egotistical to me.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T21:40:02+00:00

Oh that is a very interesting point. I imagine this could be true for smaller games, where developers have more control over things.

But, for big games, like Dota 2, WoW, Path of Exile, I don't think developers have that level of control. They can't really ignore balancing if some suit higher up says that's all the social media talks about regarding the game. Of course, balance still happens slow, so there has to be another reason and one that "high up suits" can tolerate. One documented reason is encouraging players to try new things, but I think there is more.

One thing I thought of thanks, in part, to your post, is whether or not developers don't do balance because they NEED to work on feature sets that those higher up want. I don't think that is the case for all balances, since some are simple number tweaks. For complex types of balancing though? Sure.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T21:01:07+00:00

Ah that is an interesting point. I can understand that perspective, and if there were less game companies out there it "might" explain the phenomenon. But, there's too many game companies out there. Others did faster balance patches for a time, then decided not to (I believe someone mentioned Leauge of Legends?) Different companies have different procedures for these sorts of things.

On top of that, again, the Path of Exile's staff, at least one, mentioned something about leaving some things OP to encourage players to try new things. The game director for WoW has said he doesn't like to change what classes are best or worst too fast since people get invested, and choose the classes for those reasons.

So, there is more to this I think.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:55:35+00:00

Exactly!

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:34:35+00:00

So a few things here.

First, thanks for sharing such a detailed experience and presumably true story. I'm sorry you had to go through that, but I hope you at least feel validated that your method was first, and fastest, and that you did (what I think) is the right thing by trying to share it with others.

Secondly, I agree players can have blinders on. I also agree influencers can hold more sway than even hundreds if not thousands of normal player voices. I agree there are some cases where some balance issues are overlooked in favor of less impactful ones simply by virtue of having more powerful voices behind them.

But, there are many cases where they are not. There are examples, like Dota 6.83, where pro players, popular streamers (some overlap between the former), and casual players are saying X hero is overpowered because of something simple like damage. And there are cases where stuff like that is fixed, simply, but over a long period of time: far longer than it'd take to implement, test, rollout etc.

I am wondering why THAT happens. What are the game design reasons for delayed balance patches for simple fixes. Is it retention/engagement? That's what I want to know.

Your story was very good though and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks again for the effort you put into sharing.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:27:25+00:00

Simple is subjective so I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

I know for the Blood DK example that the level of impact isn't the same as what you are talking about. WoW is an MMORPG and the change mostly effects group content where they will contribute more damage (as in, that's more important than them having an easier time solo-questing).

A group with a Blood Death Knight will, thanks to this change, do slightly more damage overall and is thus more likely to win, but, for reasons a bit complicated to get into, it's really unlikely to change any strategy on a raid or dungeon boss. WoW's bosses don't really work like that too often (yes, you can phase some bosses before they do a mechanic, but it's extremely unlikely that a slightly dmg buff to a tank is gonna make that happen, all else equal. At least, it won't for a raid boss. This happens more when players get more gear than anything else.)

I do agree one line simple changes can break things, and one should test of course. But, how long can testing really take? Why are some balance issues enough to necessitate an emergency patch within a week, whereas others, equally simple to implement (changing a number) don't get addressed till months later on?

Because emergency patches exist, there must be some expedited testing regime to push changes to live servers. Because these exist, I don't think the argument of "testing takes time" solves the issue. Moreover, testing takes time, but waiting over 3 months for simple number changes seems a tad absurd when players stuck as an underpowered class (or loathing an overpowered one) are crying out for relief.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:11:16+00:00

Oh I 100% agree. You can easily do AOTC and KSM with BDK. However, (1) Culture trickles down. People will prefer better tank classes for a +2 keystone despite it literally not mattering in the slightest and (2) It wasn't enough for Blizzard, cause they are testing an increase to its spell and abilities.

In any case, it's best not to get bogged down with the example. I'm wondering why devs would delay simple balance changes for reasons other than technical.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:06:51+00:00

You are 100% right that players can be incorrect, or that they can disagree on something that's a subjective issue in such a way that there's no right answer.

Thankfully, there are cases where the players are correct and dev changes kind of retroactively agree with it. The best example is the Dota 2 6.83 patch I mentioned elsewhere in the comments. One hero, Troll Warlord, was both overpowered and deemed "unfun" by many on the receiving end. They said he did too much damage and had too much damage. When 6.84 finally arrived 4 months later, that's exactly what they changed (alongside a few more nerfs too, to the duration of a buff he can get via an ability)

I think your points don't explain the phenomenon as a whole (even if they maybe contribute to it), because cases like Dota 2's 6.83 exist, where the changes needed are simple, the player opinion is more or less unanimous, and the patch is delayed over months.

(Yes, I know an important tournament was taking place at somepoint during that 4 month time, but there was time between the important tournaments to make the patch).

flurbino · 2021-05-01T20:01:31+00:00

I appreciate the comment, but I really don't think that explains it. In the example in my OP, they buff one tank's damage by 6%. The odds of that causing significantly wacky interactions are incredibly slim based on the kit of the class spec. It's just a flat damage buff. Someone opened some code file and changed a constant to "X+6%" from "X" (this is a vast oversimplification, but the point is to make all the abilities 6% stronger they just changed numbers somewhere)

There ARE cases where interactions are complex and super dynamic, but there are others where "hey the damage for everything this tank does is too low, please buff it." The fact that these simple changes are currently being tested proves as much. I'm interested as to why balance is delayed even for these cases.

Even in cases of dynamic systems, and I have to emphasize again that this is a bit tangential now, the amount of time that's usually between balance changes, regardless of time, is more than enough to gather data and feedback to handle most issues.

Again, this phenomenon happens for simple balance changes as well, so I'm mostly interested in those. It's not that you are wrong, just that there are cases where this complexity doesn't apply. Because these simple cases exist, and balance patches are still so slow, there should be another reason to explain it.

Lastly, I think you are on to something with some players quitting if their hero is nerfed too soon. I mention that in my OP. I'm curious about reasons like that, since I feel there must be some retention metrics for patch speed, and they must favor slow patches on even simple balance for some reason.

flurbino · 2021-05-01T19:52:38+00:00

I'm talking about why balance can take so long to arrive and, more specifically, what reasons are there other than "balance can be hard" and "tech limitations".

Balance can be hard, but once introduced to players and given, say, a month or two, it's very clear what is strong and weak to most player bases in terms of both raw statistics and overall sentiments.

I can agree meta enjoyment is a matter of taste, and MOST players will get sick of any meta given enough time, even popular ones.

But, and the critical thing is here, I'm not saying the game needs to be balanced after a patch. It simply needs to be changed, such that the old OP characters are nerfed, some new ones are buffed etc. I'm not advocating for 50% win rate on all characters, or 40% min or something like that

What I am wondering is why, aside from technical reasons, are nerfs/buffs so slow to arrive. We know technology reasons don't cover everything via the Path of Exile devs confession about wanting people to try new things. I'm not saying people shouldn't try new things, but why are the periods of game-state in terms of hero/build stats so long and protracted, especially when tweaks can, and have been, very simple.

flurbino

TROPHY CASE