The "Just Don't Use It" Fallacy.

[cforce]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. If you imagine a spectrum of difficulty from "press this button, and you win" to "will never be possible for anyone, ever", you can map out a 'fun response' alongside it, like this:

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating

The games that keep people playing the longest are the ones that oscillate back and forth in that Maximum Fun Zone: you need to have some periods of only Mild Challenge, with ramp-ups to extreme challenge, and so forth. Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.

I won't go into this in too much more detail, except to say that what I'm talking about here falls into the category of "generally accepted principles" in the game industry. If you really want to dig into the meat of the subject, I suggest reading material from Nicole Lazzarro, a respected game design consultant, found on her website here: http://www.xeodesign.com. Also, for a much prettier graphical representation of the "ideally fun game", check out slide 22 of her powerpoint presentation from AGC 2005: http://www.xeodesign.com/funmeter/xe...300n102805.ppt . I'll let her material speak for itself, and move on.

Now, where does balance come in? Well, the challenge varies based on whether or not you are using the more powerful items in the game. (Or, whether you have the best build, etc.) What this means is that there's some amount of distance between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" on the challenge scale. In an ideal case, it looks like this:

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-------------<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>----------------

By scaling the difficulty level, the dev team can move *everyone* on the spectrum. But, if the picture starts looking like this:

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>----------------

...you could increase game difficulty to challange the "Haves", but you end up here:

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-------------<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>---

...and you've got a balance problem. You can target the game difficulty to keep either the Haves or Have Nots in the fun zone, but not both -- if you get one 'into the zone', you push the other out. If the gaps grow wide enough, you can even be in trouble on both ends:

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>---

When part of the population spends too much time out of the fun zone, they leave. How does this affect you? If you're one of the players who gets pushed out the boring end or the frustrating end, obviously it affects you! The game is tuned for "not you", and it isn't fun anymore! However, even if you're *not* one of the players that gets pushed out, it increases player attrition. Fewer players means harder grouping, and less development budget. So, generally speaking, what's bad for some players is still bad for the whole community, in the long run.

"Game Balance", at its core, is just a shorthand for saying "we need to narrow the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots so that *neither* is falling of the end of the fun curve", which makes things better for everyone.

Can players self-regulate to maximize thier fun? On a case-by-case basis, yes: Permadeath is a great example of this. However, this is the exception rather than the rule -- in general, most people won't do this, so there's still a "balance problem" for the bulk of the player base.

Hopefully this gives people a little bit of a better idea of why "just don't use it" isn't a viable solution to balance problems. (I won't even bother getting into why, "...and don't group with anyone who does" doesn't work -- simply imagine trying to fill a LFM with 6 or 7 different exclusions listed, and you'll understand why such an approach is impossible.) If you've read this, and still think "just don't use it" fixes the problem... well, at least maybe I'll get some positive reputation .

[quintuss]

i think the f2p store may help to bring the "Have nots" a little closer to the "Haves" (Better but not top notch gear,maybe 32pt chars, etc.)... in exchange for real world coin of course....

[Guildmaster_Kadish]

An interesting post C-force, but I think you need to add repetition into the equation as well.

The first time one does a quest it will often be much harder, not knowing what to expect and not knowing how to prepare appropriately, makes it so. The more one does a quest the easier it becomes, even on different difficulties. I believe repetition of quests, more than the gear the "haves" vs the "have nots", leads to quests becoming boring and people losing interest in the game. I know some who get bored very fast, two to three times in a quest and that is it, while others will ransack quests or areas every week (which is generally done for a specific goal of getting some specified loot, either to sell or to use). Generally, once that goal is accomplished, boredom sets in as well.

People enjoy the challenge the first time through a quest, because it is new and different. They may do the quest an additional one to two times for the favor (which may give them a reward at the end). But if there is no reward in running the quest (favor, special loot, high income), then the quest tends to never be run again. I do not think this is totally due to a lack of difficulty, nor to the difficulty of it being too hard, simply if there is nothing to gain, repetition of that quest makes it boring.

The only way to remedy this for all is to come out with content much more frequently, and hopefully this new "model" (F2P) will help Turbine do just that.

Another thing that would help some would be to add to the loot tables something that makes it worthwhile to grind (repeat) the high level quests to get special items. This would keep some peoples interest, but not all. At least it would lengthen the time before people would get bored.

Anyway, there are a lot of things that are easy for me to solo in the game, and quite a few that are difficult, but I am bored of both of them because of the repetition, not the scaling difficulty.

[Samadhi]

i think the f2p store may help to bring the "Have nots" a little closer to the "Haves" (Better but not top notch gear,maybe 32pt chars, etc.)... in exchange for real world coin of course....

If I'm a casual player, though, do I care enough about the game to spend real world cash to "catch up?" Prolly not.

What if I'm a hardcore player with the money - for this player it is a nonissue to blow some cash on mneumonics just to make the quest quicker.

This would spread his curve, not shrink it.

[Gornn]

Alright, let me put it in perspective.

If you had to make this choice, what would you pick:

Go free to play/create the store/DDO:EU initiative or close DDO because it doesn't make enough money

What is your choice there?

You may say that this wasn't the choice they had to make but...games are produced to make money, for no other rreason. They are to generate revenue. If the revenue being produced doesn't meet expectations then why would investments continue to be made in the product?

I have real life experience with this.

I worked in a comic book store when I was a kid. The comic book store was great and in a great location. It didn't make a lot of money but it was fun. Rent was expensive.

The store moved to a more out of the way location where the rent was much cheaper but obviously wasn't nearly as prominent.

The store closed about 6 months later.

I once asked the owner why he'd moved from that great location because surely the other was better for business. He said if they didn't move, the store would have just closed instead.

Turbine is piloting this F2P model so they are going to give it a genuine test to see how the model can be applied to future games. So they're going to give it at least a year.

If the EU initiative gives me even 1 more month with my friends in this game, I'll take it.

I'll take the store, and the influx of F2P players, and everything that comes with it because the only thing you never get back is time. So I am cheering th success of EU and all that comes with it.

Because those last 6 months at that comic store were some of my best memories from my youth. And if EU gives me that extra time in DDO I wouldn't have gotten otherwise...I'll take it.

[Zenako]

Well one way to help broaden the range of challenges available in the game is to modify some of the proposed changes a bit.

The Store is here to stay, and you can self impose limits on that, much like Perma death players do for other things in the game. One can choose to run without using the store to access any gameplay affecting item whlie questing. (It would still be used to change hair colors, buy character slots, etc.)

The second main change - dungeon scaling, has not feature to toggle so there is no choice at present. Right now it scales the quests based on party size alone with some adjustment for normal, hard or elite. Unfortunately, that also means that you can no longer adjust the challenge effectively by trying to shortman quests, since the dungeon self nerfs when you do.

One way to handle that, would be to scale Normal settings as they propose. Remove any scaling from Elite (maintaining current challenge settings) and split the difference with Hard, putting in a lessened scaling effect. This broadens the spectrum a bit with a lot of overlap and allows the haves to continue to challenge themselves by running elite runs with fewer players if they want a greater challenge for completion.

[Angelus_dead]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up

Yeah, it's pretty tricky to respond to such a foolish assertion...

Can players self-regulate to maximize thier fun? On a case-by-case basis, yes: Permadeath is a great example of this. However, this is the exception rather than the rule -- in general, most people won't do this, so there's still a "balance problem" for the bulk of the player base.

That there is a variation of the famous Oberoni fallacy of RPG design: "The fact that some people can work around a game design flaw doesn't mean the design isn't flawed"

[Leyoni]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

Very nice presentation but you fail to address the argument -- If X is unbalancing just do not use it.

What you are discussing is a corporate level decision making model that applies to Turbine and its developers. As players we are completely limited by the product. We can be "Haves" and make every quest trivial. We can be "Have Nots" and make every quest extremely difficult or even impossible.

Or, we can choose to be something in between.

The onus for game design and balance lies on Turbine and its developers. The decisions on individual use of every optimal item and build rest on us as individuals.

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid. Moreso given your excellent explanation. If you, individually, desire to keep in the "maximum fun zone" then keep your characters balanced between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". I'd call those the "Have Somes" -- the characters that have some of the things that make them above the "Have Nots" but below the "Haves".

In any iteration of your model the "Have Somes" will remain in the "maximum fun zone".

[Angelus_dead]

The Store is here to stay, and you can self impose limits on that, much like Perma death players do for other things in the game. One can choose to run without using the store to access any gameplay affecting item whlie questing.

You can make that choice for yourself, sure.

But how are you going to also make that choice on all the other 5 or 11 members in your group? How are you going to enforce it not only while they're partied with you, but also before they joined?

And even assuming you can somehow restrict the behavior of your group like that, how are you also going to restrict every other player on every server to follow that rule? Because if you don't, then the content challenges will be balanced against characters who have more resources or advantages than you do, so that a boss who is difficult for them will be nigh-impossible for you.

For a specific example of the problem, look at monk-splash AC. Currently a ran15/monk1 is the preeminent tank against Suulomades or other strong monsters. Preexisting characters who were already 16, or who had low wisdom or were non-lawful simply can't obtain that combination of AC and DPS. Many players didn't enjoy that kind of game-design change, but what can they do about it? Excluding monk-splashes from your group is difficult, and it would mean nerfing your ability to beat elite VOD.

[Angelus_dead]

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid.

Do you have any explanation of how it could be valid?

[Leyoni]

Do you have any explanation of how it could be valid?

Yes, as in my post directly above your comment.

If the OP's point is "maximum fun" then that is achieved by being somewhere between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". And that is achieved by NOT having or NOT using things that are "unbalancing".

It is an individual person's way of staying in the "maximum fun zone".

The issues that you and OP are addressing are Turbine design staff and Turbine design philosophy issues. I completely agree with your earlier point that the "fact that some people can work around a game design flaw doesn't mean the design isn't flawed".

But that is not a player issue. The most that an individual player can do is to choose not to exploit the flaw.

If Turbine does not recognize the flaw -- and face it, some of the things that people have identified as game imbalancing are regarded by Turbine as working as intended -- then the only solution remaining to us as players is to choose not to use X, whatever X represents.

That could be Ranger/Monk. That could be dual-wielded mineral or radiance weapons. That could be a host of things -- all depending on what the individual player feels is unbalancing.

For me it was Halfling Ranger/Monks. I chose to build a Ranger/Rogue/Monk (thus diluting some of the build) and to make it Warforged (thus giving up some AC perks and dragonmarks). Cratesmasher is definitely not uber. But, he is quite capable on most quests in spite of not being completely in the "Haves" camp.

[Angelus_dead]

Here is a short list of a few key places this fallacious reasoning has been used in DDO's life. All of the following game-design problems have been defended with a cry of "Just don't use it if you don't like it"


Mod 4-7: Casters can solo Reaver, while warriors can only contribute as puzzle-solvers or cheerleaders.

Mod 5: Metamagic aoe spells melt any room of top-level mobs without needing to slow down.

Mod 7: Monk1 gives you more AC while opening the offhand for TWF.

Mod 1-8: Wounding Puncturing rapiers kill any non-boss living mob with no regard for his hp or DR.

Mod 3: An arcane caster with a stack of Heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric using spellpoints.

Mod 3: Heavy Fort renders rogue-based mobs harmless and PC-directed crits extinct.

Mod 5: Black Abbot is unkillable without exploitive puzzle techniques.

Mod 1: Vorpal Scimitars kill on a 15-20, or 8-20 on your 4th swing.


If you think about what it would take for a player to enforce "Just don't use it" against all of those problems, the fallacy of that argument should be apparent.

[Borror0]

Great post cforce.

Another point to note is that game developers typically use difficulty levels with greater rewards to balance the challenge as well. That is, they implement multiple difficulty setting where the loot gained in the hardest is better (or where the drop rates are higher) than the one in the easiest.

Thus, the "haves" play an harder game for better/more loot while the "have-nots" play an easier game with less loot.

[Leyoni]

Excluding monk-splashes from your group is difficult, and it would mean nerfing your ability to beat elite VOD.

IMO that is alright.

Remember OP's initial model and realize that in good game design there is a place for some content that is extremely difficult to complete -- just as there is a place for some content that is extemely easy to complete.

Korthos is easy button stuff. I can run Korthos thru elite without ever needing to go beyond L1. I can solo it on most of the characters.

It is alright because for some it will be challenging -- at least at first.

And, it is equally alright that I can't complete VOD on elite. It is at the top of the quest chain and on elite setting. It should be close to impossible to beat -- something that is a non-trivial challenge and leaves me with a "I get to brag about it" feeling.

[Borror0]

Go free to play/create the store/DDO:EU initiative or close DDO because it doesn't make enough money

What is your choice there?

There is no indication there is such a dichotomy.

[Angelus_dead]

Yes, as in my post directly above your comment.

Yeah, I expected that reply.

In lieu of an elaborate dissection, I'll ask a tiny question: What do you think the word "just" means?

[Phidius]

IMO that is alright.

Remember OP's initial model and realize that in good game design there is a place for some content that is extremely difficult to complete -- just as there is a place for some content that is extemely easy to complete.

Korthos is easy button stuff. I can run Korthos thru elite without ever needing to go beyond L1. I can solo it on most of the characters.

It is alright because for some it will be challenging -- at least at first.

And, it is equally alright that I can't complete VOD on elite. It is at the top of the quest chain and on elite setting. It should be close to impossible to beat -- something that is a non-trivial challenge and leaves me with a "I get to brag about it" feeling.

/agreed

I grind to become as uber as I can... I want to trivialize content, not be challenged. When I want to be challenged, I roll up a new toon and start all over again.

[Feyt]

great post cforce!

[Zenako]

My points were based on the fact that using the store takes a proactive effort to do so. Turbine has provided the opportunity to access this change, this new feature, but nothing (so far) requires you to do so.

The change to Dungeon scaling involves no choice. It is IMPOSED on you with no options, other than making sure you have a full group in the party to get back to the current experience.

A choice, an on/off toggle would be nice for that feature, or lacking that, something which enables us to retain a sembalance of the challenges we can not put ourselves into. No longer will you be able to try to solo something that gives a full party a challenge, since that challenge will automatically be reduced by the game to reflect you are a solo character in the quest.

Putting Scaling (normal), Semi-scaling (hard) and no Scaling (Elite) into effect restores some of the range of challenge for players on the high end (that will be getting taken away otherwise) while at the same time expanding the challenge range at the lower end to accomodate those who enjoy or need less of a challenge.

[Thanimal]

The fact that cforce only has a "neutral" reputation as of this moment proves that the favor system doesn't work yet.

(Yeah, he's my friend, guildmate, and business partner. But my above statement is still correct. )