Thread: .3 Second Positional Update Delay (Requesting Dev Response)

Originally Posted by Goreth

I'm sure this will at least be addressed before 3.0, have some faith.

To avoid double-posts, here's a link to my most recent take on this in another thread.

Short story: it should be sooner rather than later, it may be hinted at very subtly.

As for 3.0 I think that's a realistic target for a complete overhaul for the netcode, but they would need to address the issue sometime well before that, in regard to player retention. Better have some players leaving for a while with a positive opinion on the future of the game, than many leaving without ever thinking of looking back.

Bump so this doesn't get buried under the 2.1 threads. Clearly decoys.

Originally Posted by DomoNeeko

I'm pretty sure Tupsi has the issue, though he doesn't want to admit it or fails to comprehend what it is. […]
Some people have adapted to this problem. Some adapted to it a long time ago. But because this is now a natural reaction to the problem for them, they don't see it as a problem at all. That is delusional, illusional, denial thinking at it's finest.

There are actually a number a cognitive biases that could explain this. A few that come to mind:

• Selective perception: The tendency for expectations to affect perception.
• Subjective validation: Perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true.
  Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
• Mere-exposure effect: The tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.

Note that some work both ways.
—> We could very well be subjectively validating that there is an issue when there is not, and probably do to some extent in situations when it didn't happen but we think it did, because we believe the issue exists. Essentially at this stage of awareness, we look for it and thus tend to see it probably more often than it manifests itself. Of course, in the netcode case, I think there's no doubt that it exists (objectively), but it may not always be the reason why we failed a dodge.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the Mere-exposure effect is what, by essence, builds fandom and white-knighting. The more you are exposed to something, the more you like it, that's just the way it is. Marketing is very much based on this cognitive bias—hearing bits of a song 10 times a day makes you like it, and induces the need to hear it again, thus making you buy the song. However, it's not just a bias, per se, I think that's a strong incentive underlying our appreciation of things: we constantly strive to reinforce our appreciation of things we do genuinely like in the first place (songs, places, and of course people, anything/one that "you just can't get enough").

Selective perception, on the other hand, is pure evil to me. It makes you 'think' that something should be better because it's more expensive for instance. It makes you generally 'think' that something is good because it bears "the right property", such as the right name (this is true with brands such as Apple or Google which have their fans; this is true with people that you like, when they say things you would actually not agree with if anyone else said so, etc.) The only way to avoid that bias, even when you're aware of it, is to do "blind testing", especially with subjective tastes: for instance comparing audio systems just with your ears, not knowing at all which is playing, you may find out that the more expensive isn't necessarily the one you prefer; likewise with food (beware, that could make your mother's or your spouse's cooking not as good as you thought it were ^^; ).

The power of the mind!

Let's just hope that SE's devs aren't subjectively validating that their netcode is great… Or selectively perceiving it as good because it would have been expensive to write, and done by-the-book… That's why it's excessively hard, nigh impossible to assess your own work for these biases are all over the place in your mind. That's why the most sensible 'makers' and managers, short of objective numbers or analysis on which to base their assessments, rely on feedback more than their very own perception—they actually base their decisions on the bulk of the feedback even if they don't personally agree with it. Even if that means making the mind gymnastic of forcibly altering their own perception, so that it fits with what most people say about something—there's a lot of empathy, humility and selflessness in that; it may be among the noblest world visions one can assume.

Sorry, slightly off-topic —but just slightly!… Couldn't resist.