Why do people want things that don't impact them and that they can easily avoid to be changed?

[grm9]

3 hours ago, goatt said:

At least, you seem to admit you are subjective and lack of empathy and disregard others' legitimate opinions without good reasons

not even what i said

[Swiyss]

I think you lack an ability to differentiate a BUG from a boss CHEESE.

Cheeses are intelligent and very clever strategies used to speed up boss fights and tasks, and make them casual.

Using bugs to achieve the same casual/faster results is objectively wrong and even considered a motive for you to get a WARNING in the forums for encouraging said behaviour.

If I was you, I would consider changing views. Maybe after a fix and solution patch you'll understand how it can improve gameplay.

Edited February 26 by Swiyss

[grm9]

1 hour ago, Swiyss said:

I think you lack an ability to differentiate a BUG from a boss CHEESE.

Cheeses are intelligent and very clever strategies used to speed up boss fights and tasks, and make them casual.

Using bugs to achieve the same casual/faster results is objectively wrong and even considered a motive for you to get a WARNING in the forums for encouraging said behaviour.

If I was you, I would consider changing views. Maybe after a fix and solution patch you'll understand how it can improve gameplay

is this some sort of sarcasm?

[arubaro]

3 hours ago, Swiyss said:

Cheeses are intelligent and very clever strategies used to speed up boss fights and tasks, and make them casual.

If you mean the guy who discovers the method yeah, but i dont see any intelligence in searching a tutorial in youtube to faceroll a boss... most likely the opposite

Edited February 26 by arubaro

[Castiliano]

It's the first time I've seen such staunch defenders of bugs/errors in a game. Sounds like a comedy sketch script.

[Evelo]

I know this thread is a little old but the whole "If doesn't affect you, why do you care" argument has always irked me. I am not great at expressing my thoughts for numerous reasons so I decided to look up a supporting argument and found one here. This website is sketchy to me so I would avoid clicking it, but in the Spoiler section below is the transcript verbatim.
 

Spoiler

The fallacy of "It doesn't affect you"

"If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a person justify their behavior by saying that "It doesn't affect you," I'd probably be a rich man. This is one of the favorite excuses of people living in our "enlightened" world: The idea that if a person's activity doesn't impact me personally in any obvious way, then therefore that person has the right to engage in such activity and I shouldn't try to stop them or even complain about it because it has no bearing on my life. However, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen people using this excuse promptly turn around and try to get other people to do things (or not do things) which "don't affect them," I'd be even richer. The reality is that everyone tries to influence the behavior of other people, and the idea that you should turn a blind eye to everyone's activities is one which I've never personally seen anyone actually adhere to.

Hypocrisy isn't the biggest problem with this idea, though; hypocrisy is something that you can ignore, because the reality is that even if someone doesn't practice as they preach, that doesn't invalidate the things they say--it just means that they don't actually take their own advice. The real problem with this idea is that it absolves people of all social responsibility. If you really accept the idea that your own personal actions don't have an effect on other people as long as those actions don't consist of something direct and obvious like punching someone else in the face, then you are suffering from a major failure to understand how human society works.

The reality is--and here's a statement which I'd like everyone reading this to think about for a moment--all people are connected in some way, and the actions which you take with your life will impact other people in ways which you will not foresee. Like any other principle, this idea can work for both good and bad: If you do something good with your life, you may improve the lives of other people, and if you do something bad with your life, you may negatively impact the lives of other people. One interesting thing about this principle, however, is that people only seem to want to bring it up when it makes a positive, happy-sounding point. People speaking out against racism, for example, point out that we're all joined because we're all one species. That's nice; it sounds warm and fuzzy. What people don't like is this idea being used to restrict what they can do.

A pertinent example is things which affect someone's personal health in a country with socialized health care. In many countries around the world, public health care is largely funded by the national government, which means that people's medical expenses are paid for by taxes. This means that when you go get medical care in such a country, everyone pays for it. In other words, the maintenance of your personal health is paid for by other people's money, which they are forced to pay up so that your health can be looked after. In such a country, this gives other people the right to restrict what you can do with yourself, because your health is quite directly their own financial responsibility: The less healthy people are, the more other people have to pay into medical expenses, and the more healthy people are, the less healthcare costs the entire nation. In such a country, I personally have the right to criticize other people for smoking cigarettes or driving a car without a seal belt, because they are costing me, personally, money by endangering their own health and safety. Don't say that it doesn't concern me or affect me; that's not the case. If I'm paying for it, it concerns me directly, and I have grounds to try and force other people to modify their behaviors. If you don't agree with this, then you need to campaign to abolish public health care, because that's the only way that your own health can become solely your own concern.

Even in countries without socalized health care, people's lives are interconnected in so many other ways that the idea that what you do doesn't impact other people is an idea borne of pure ignorance and selfishness. Several people have asked me, for example, why I complain so much about people who use Apple Mac devices. Sure, I have the right to my own opinion, but why is it my problem if people decide to use Macs? I might not like Macs personally--and it is certainly my right to have my own set of likes and dislikes--but if other people like Macs, then what is the problem? Why should I concern myself about that? The answer is very simple: People buying Macs impacts me quite directly and significantly. For starters, from an economic perspective, it skews the market: The more people use Macs, the less the market is oriented toward people like me who use real computers, which means less software available for real computers, less hardware accessories for real computers, less community support for real computers, and less cultural representation for people who use real computers. As I've written in the past, the spending of money is more than just a purchase and a sale; it's also a vote for a particular product or service, because it encourages the seller to produce more of that product or service. By buying Macs, Mac users are changing the landscape of the computer industry for the worse. It also happens that I work as a tech support guy in a technology company, and it might interest some people to know that although Mac users are only about 10% of my company's overall user base, they generate about 50% of our serious technical issues. Every day, I have to talk to some cranky Mac user who is upset because they bought an inferior computer with no documentation available, and listen to them complain to me about how upset they are because their computer which they paid three times too much for isn't working properly, not taking a moment to recognize that the problem is of their own creation due to the fact they they're using a product which is inherently inferior. If Mac users simply obtained Macs through a sterile process which did not impact the larger econony or technology industry, and thereafter disappered into an invisible space in which they never talked to anyone else about their Macs, then the existence of Mac users might bother me less. Until that happens, people buying Macs is very specifically my problem, because I have to talk to them on a daily basis and listen to them explain how they expect me to fix the problem created by their poor purchase decision. And this isn't only my problem; it happens to tech-support staff around the world, who are saddled with the responsibility of supporting people's terrible products. Until that process stops happening, I cannot in good conscience redact my statement that Mac users should have their Macs confiscated.

Stepping away from very specific examples like those about healthcare and technology, what kind of sense does it make to simply throw up one's hands and say something like "I don't run the world, and therefore what happens to other people is none of my business?" If that were the prevailing social attitude, then charities could not exist. If what happens to other people is none of our business, then why do people concern themselves with poverty, hunger, and disease in impoverished countries? Why do people try to stop child abuse and animal cruelty? Why do people care about the wars happening in foreign countries if those events "don't affect us"? The idea that these things don't directly impact our lives and we should therefore ignore them is ludicrous; it is nothing short of sociopathic. If you ended up being one of those people who lived next door to a Jeffrey Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy, if you found out that your next-door neighbor had kidnapped people and tortured and killed them, wouldn't that bother you even though it "didn't affect you"? If you can honestly answer no to this, then you are one of the few true sociopaths with no sense of social responsibility; for the rest of us who would answer yes (and although I'm fairly antisocial, even I have enough of a sense of humanity to say yes to such a question), the argument that we shouldn't be bothered with things which don't affect our lives is absurd in the extreme.

In a less physical and more ideological sense, suppose that someone aired a television show or screened a movie which promoted something thoroughly disagreeable. Think of one of your pet peeves. Maybe it's racism, maybe it's multiculturalism, maybe it's homophobia, maybe it's gay rights, maybe it's atheism, maybe it's creationism, maybe it's pro-life, maybe it's pro-choice... Doesn't matter what it specifically is, just think of an ideology that you find intolerable. Now imagine that someone is promoting it with a major media production. Would you find it outrageous and speak out against this media production, or would you shrug it off and say "Ho hum, the opinions of someone else don't affect me and so I'll just ignore it because it's none of my business?" Any person who believes in anything would not hesitate to speak out against something which they disagree with strongly. This reality belies the hypocrisy in people's words. If people don't like something, they will fight it; only if people like something will they try to pass it off by saying "Why do you care? It doesn't affect you." Once again, "It doesn't affect you" is revealed as another lazy excuse that people make to justify something which they like; "It doesn't affect you" is actually a code-phrase meaning "I like this, and so I'm going to pretend to use a logical argument to justify it, when in reality I'm just trying to deflect people from criticizing something which I happen to personally like."

Some people say that I worry too much about the lives of other people because I'm a maniac with no sense of humanity. I see it precisely the opposite way: I concern myself with the lives of other people quite specifically because humanity is important to me, and I deplore people's urgent rush to debase that humanity in every conceivable way possible. If you're doing something to harm yourself, that is my concern; don't tell me that it isn't. If you're doing something to harm someone else, then that is doubly my concern, for you're involving two people (yourself and the other person) in a crime against humanity. If you're doing something which actively corrupts and destroys humanity's shared society, culture, and livelihood, then you are not merely an "enemy of the state" but an enemy of humanity itself, a threat to people's health, safety, and happiness, and that's not something which anyone can claim doesn't affect me. Don't say that it doesn't affect other people. It does affect them: It affects me, and it affects you. Don't be stupid and pretend that the lives of other people don't affect you. What other people do affects us all. If, after reading this, you can still honestly say that you believe the lives of human beings don't affect each other and that people shouldn't get worked up about things which don't directly affect them, then you are a sociopath and deserve to be removed from the human society which supports and sustains you."

It's long and a lot more well spoken and accurate to how I feel, mostly. Hopefully this addressed the reason why someone would care about something as minor as a bug like voidwalking or other intentional features like the Celestial Portal, Skillsets, etc.

[Mike23Ua]

To answer your question, Most games (such as Minecraft or “insert any MOBA here”) allow the player to host a world that has its rules & settings applied. You can’t just “Say” using this character or item is “Banned” from use, because even though you & a friend might abide by that rule: That doesn’t mean everyone else who is playing or joins will. This is why games like Smite have Character Ban settings, so if you don’t want players using any Healers- You can disable their ability to even pick any of them.

In short: It cuts out the whole “please don’t do this, that or that…” and you just sitting and HOPING players do it, it instead FORCES them to abide by your rules.

Just like if I could for example Disable the ability to craft a Shovel or BS Shovel in DST then the only way for players to obtain and relocate things like grass tufts and berry bushes outside of their naturally spawning biomes, would be to use some other method besides a Shovel (such as picking them up when they randomly get struck by a meteorite, or Bearger rampage)

If I don’t want players building the Great Wall of China around Dragonfly to exploit her A.I. Pathfinding, then there could easily be a world Gen setting where players can’t build structures while in her biome.

Instead of “begging” players not to do something, I now have the power to FORCE them into not being able to do it.

And for players who still want to use the wall method, the default setting to be able to place structures could still be applied.

As an added Bonus: the biome itself could look different based on if you have building in the area enabled or disabled, such as the floor turf resembling more of a Shipwrecked magma volcano biome and the ground being considered too “hot” or “unstable” to place structures.

Because believe it or not- How you play your game when your playing with other people, can & does impact their enjoyment of the game. Which is why games like Smite have options to ban the use of certain items & characters.

Heck the Mobile game I’m playing right now Otherworldly Legends I think it’s called- It’s a RogueLite IOS game that has a machine where the player can “Ban” the use of certain relics in their own dungeon runs.

This will prevent the player who finds a certain relic too OP, from ever encountering it in their runs.

Or in DST language- Thermal Stone & Eyebrella are OP ways of dealing with Winter, Spring & Summer- Banning their use would force players to use more “unconventional” methods to try to survive with, such as Bunny Earmuffs, or regular umbrellas.

[grm9]

51 minutes ago, Evelo said:

I know this thread is a little old but the whole "If doesn't affect you, why do you care" argument has always irked me. I am not great at expressing my thoughts for numerous reasons so I decided to look up a supporting argument and found one here. This website is sketchy to me so I would avoid clicking it, but in the Spoiler section below is the transcript verbatim.
 

  Hide contents

The fallacy of "It doesn't affect you"

"If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a person justify their behavior by saying that "It doesn't affect you," I'd probably be a rich man. This is one of the favorite excuses of people living in our "enlightened" world: The idea that if a person's activity doesn't impact me personally in any obvious way, then therefore that person has the right to engage in such activity and I shouldn't try to stop them or even complain about it because it has no bearing on my life. However, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen people using this excuse promptly turn around and try to get other people to do things (or not do things) which "don't affect them," I'd be even richer. The reality is that everyone tries to influence the behavior of other people, and the idea that you should turn a blind eye to everyone's activities is one which I've never personally seen anyone actually adhere to.

Hypocrisy isn't the biggest problem with this idea, though; hypocrisy is something that you can ignore, because the reality is that even if someone doesn't practice as they preach, that doesn't invalidate the things they say--it just means that they don't actually take their own advice. The real problem with this idea is that it absolves people of all social responsibility. If you really accept the idea that your own personal actions don't have an effect on other people as long as those actions don't consist of something direct and obvious like punching someone else in the face, then you are suffering from a major failure to understand how human society works.

The reality is--and here's a statement which I'd like everyone reading this to think about for a moment--all people are connected in some way, and the actions which you take with your life will impact other people in ways which you will not foresee. Like any other principle, this idea can work for both good and bad: If you do something good with your life, you may improve the lives of other people, and if you do something bad with your life, you may negatively impact the lives of other people. One interesting thing about this principle, however, is that people only seem to want to bring it up when it makes a positive, happy-sounding point. People speaking out against racism, for example, point out that we're all joined because we're all one species. That's nice; it sounds warm and fuzzy. What people don't like is this idea being used to restrict what they can do.

A pertinent example is things which affect someone's personal health in a country with socialized health care. In many countries around the world, public health care is largely funded by the national government, which means that people's medical expenses are paid for by taxes. This means that when you go get medical care in such a country, everyone pays for it. In other words, the maintenance of your personal health is paid for by other people's money, which they are forced to pay up so that your health can be looked after. In such a country, this gives other people the right to restrict what you can do with yourself, because your health is quite directly their own financial responsibility: The less healthy people are, the more other people have to pay into medical expenses, and the more healthy people are, the less healthcare costs the entire nation. In such a country, I personally have the right to criticize other people for smoking cigarettes or driving a car without a seal belt, because they are costing me, personally, money by endangering their own health and safety. Don't say that it doesn't concern me or affect me; that's not the case. If I'm paying for it, it concerns me directly, and I have grounds to try and force other people to modify their behaviors. If you don't agree with this, then you need to campaign to abolish public health care, because that's the only way that your own health can become solely your own concern.

Even in countries without socalized health care, people's lives are interconnected in so many other ways that the idea that what you do doesn't impact other people is an idea borne of pure ignorance and selfishness. Several people have asked me, for example, why I complain so much about people who use Apple Mac devices. Sure, I have the right to my own opinion, but why is it my problem if people decide to use Macs? I might not like Macs personally--and it is certainly my right to have my own set of likes and dislikes--but if other people like Macs, then what is the problem? Why should I concern myself about that? The answer is very simple: People buying Macs impacts me quite directly and significantly. For starters, from an economic perspective, it skews the market: The more people use Macs, the less the market is oriented toward people like me who use real computers, which means less software available for real computers, less hardware accessories for real computers, less community support for real computers, and less cultural representation for people who use real computers. As I've written in the past, the spending of money is more than just a purchase and a sale; it's also a vote for a particular product or service, because it encourages the seller to produce more of that product or service. By buying Macs, Mac users are changing the landscape of the computer industry for the worse. It also happens that I work as a tech support guy in a technology company, and it might interest some people to know that although Mac users are only about 10% of my company's overall user base, they generate about 50% of our serious technical issues. Every day, I have to talk to some cranky Mac user who is upset because they bought an inferior computer with no documentation available, and listen to them complain to me about how upset they are because their computer which they paid three times too much for isn't working properly, not taking a moment to recognize that the problem is of their own creation due to the fact they they're using a product which is inherently inferior. If Mac users simply obtained Macs through a sterile process which did not impact the larger econony or technology industry, and thereafter disappered into an invisible space in which they never talked to anyone else about their Macs, then the existence of Mac users might bother me less. Until that happens, people buying Macs is very specifically my problem, because I have to talk to them on a daily basis and listen to them explain how they expect me to fix the problem created by their poor purchase decision. And this isn't only my problem; it happens to tech-support staff around the world, who are saddled with the responsibility of supporting people's terrible products. Until that process stops happening, I cannot in good conscience redact my statement that Mac users should have their Macs confiscated.

Stepping away from very specific examples like those about healthcare and technology, what kind of sense does it make to simply throw up one's hands and say something like "I don't run the world, and therefore what happens to other people is none of my business?" If that were the prevailing social attitude, then charities could not exist. If what happens to other people is none of our business, then why do people concern themselves with poverty, hunger, and disease in impoverished countries? Why do people try to stop child abuse and animal cruelty? Why do people care about the wars happening in foreign countries if those events "don't affect us"? The idea that these things don't directly impact our lives and we should therefore ignore them is ludicrous; it is nothing short of sociopathic. If you ended up being one of those people who lived next door to a Jeffrey Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy, if you found out that your next-door neighbor had kidnapped people and tortured and killed them, wouldn't that bother you even though it "didn't affect you"? If you can honestly answer no to this, then you are one of the few true sociopaths with no sense of social responsibility; for the rest of us who would answer yes (and although I'm fairly antisocial, even I have enough of a sense of humanity to say yes to such a question), the argument that we shouldn't be bothered with things which don't affect our lives is absurd in the extreme.

In a less physical and more ideological sense, suppose that someone aired a television show or screened a movie which promoted something thoroughly disagreeable. Think of one of your pet peeves. Maybe it's racism, maybe it's multiculturalism, maybe it's homophobia, maybe it's gay rights, maybe it's atheism, maybe it's creationism, maybe it's pro-life, maybe it's pro-choice... Doesn't matter what it specifically is, just think of an ideology that you find intolerable. Now imagine that someone is promoting it with a major media production. Would you find it outrageous and speak out against this media production, or would you shrug it off and say "Ho hum, the opinions of someone else don't affect me and so I'll just ignore it because it's none of my business?" Any person who believes in anything would not hesitate to speak out against something which they disagree with strongly. This reality belies the hypocrisy in people's words. If people don't like something, they will fight it; only if people like something will they try to pass it off by saying "Why do you care? It doesn't affect you." Once again, "It doesn't affect you" is revealed as another lazy excuse that people make to justify something which they like; "It doesn't affect you" is actually a code-phrase meaning "I like this, and so I'm going to pretend to use a logical argument to justify it, when in reality I'm just trying to deflect people from criticizing something which I happen to personally like."

Some people say that I worry too much about the lives of other people because I'm a maniac with no sense of humanity. I see it precisely the opposite way: I concern myself with the lives of other people quite specifically because humanity is important to me, and I deplore people's urgent rush to debase that humanity in every conceivable way possible. If you're doing something to harm yourself, that is my concern; don't tell me that it isn't. If you're doing something to harm someone else, then that is doubly my concern, for you're involving two people (yourself and the other person) in a crime against humanity. If you're doing something which actively corrupts and destroys humanity's shared society, culture, and livelihood, then you are not merely an "enemy of the state" but an enemy of humanity itself, a threat to people's health, safety, and happiness, and that's not something which anyone can claim doesn't affect me. Don't say that it doesn't affect other people. It does affect them: It affects me, and it affects you. Don't be stupid and pretend that the lives of other people don't affect you. What other people do affects us all. If, after reading this, you can still honestly say that you believe the lives of human beings don't affect each other and that people shouldn't get worked up about things which don't directly affect them, then you are a sociopath and deserve to be removed from the human society which supports and sustains you."

It's long and a lot more well spoken and accurate to how I feel, mostly. Hopefully this addressed the reason why someone would care about something as minor as a bug like voidwalking or other intentional features like the Celestial Portal, Skillsets, etc

the entirety of it is about trying to prove that things that people say don't affect others affect them, but in indirect and often extremely unimpactful ways and the only way voidwalking could impact you that way is through people wanting more stuff like voidwalking but then you're pretty much setting up a debate on how are people supposed to have fun and why the way you think they should have fun is the right way and why you think that doing what you suggest will bring the most positive impact for everyone, especially the devs, since they'll spend effort and will have consequences because of doing what you suggested and i doubt that removing celestial portal, skill trees etc. will have a positive impact for more people in comparison to how many people it'll have a negative impact on, there's also that a lot of people simply won't listen and you'd need to force them to do something you think is better and trying to convince them will be wasted effort, which is why not bothering with telling people about things that you think they're doing wrong is a good idea, often they'll just get annoyed, not listen to you and try to avoid or negatively impact you later, negativity of voidwalking's impact is subjective because people have fun differently, would you want people that like voidwalking to keep trying to convince you that you're playing wrong and that you should like voidwalking and ask devs to keep it because removing it will negatively impact more people than it'll impact positively?

Edited March 6 by grm9

[Yuuko]

51 minutes ago, grm9 said:

the entirety of it is about trying to prove that things that people say don't affect others affect them, but in indirect and often extremely unimpactful ways and the only way voidwalking could impact you that way is through people wanting more stuff like voidwalking but then you're pretty much setting up a debate on how are people supposed to have fun and why the way you think they should have fun is the right way and why you think that doing what you suggest will bring the most positive impact for everyone, especially the devs, since they'll spend effort and will have consequences because of doing what you suggested and i doubt that removing celestial portal, skill trees etc. will have a positive impact for more people in comparison to how many people it'll have a negative impact on, there's also that a lot of people simply won't listen and you'd need to force them to do something you think is better and trying to convince them will be wasted effort, which is why not bothering with telling people about things that you think they're doing wrong is a good idea, often they'll just get annoyed, not listen to you and try to avoid or negatively impact you later

I think it relates a little differently then that.

Consider someone has been playing the game for a bit, and they are looking into how to tackle AFW.  Every video and streamer shows either telepoofing or voidwalking to the atrium.  This new player learns this is "the way" to get to the atrium.  Ironically it is not, voidwalking is a glitch.

This can effect public perception - if this player is not one that wants to exploit glitches their perception of DST may go down for this.

Its not about players using or not using voidwalking though.  Glitch exploitation is a thing that will *always* happen, and especially in speed running or other extreme plays glitch exploitation might become central mechanics.  But in normal play we'd expect that not to be the case.

Klei is very UNlikely to fix voidwalking.  I doubt they've accepted it as an "intended effect" or whatever, but its just that fixing out of bound issues is not easy.  They exist in practically every single game.  The way Klei would "fix" this is by addressing the intended method to reach the atrium providing some way to get there that is less rng and more engaging.  A puzzle similar to the Archives puzzles that teleports you there would be much better, and a lot quicker.  This would lead more players to use the intended method simply because they want to, and only people who see an extreme play need - like speed running - would use void walking.

The bottom line though is - Does Klei feel voidwalking is detrimental to the perception of the game?  My guess is no.  We can find guides on how you should reach the Atrium without voidwalking, and telepoofing exists to bypass it which isn't glitch exploitation either.  If either of these were a problem I'd think in all of the years since the Atrium was added to the game SOME fix would have been implemented forcing the Atrium to spawn further away from the main land, or preventing telepoofing, or reworking the tentapillars so voidwalking was not as common.

The quote @Evelo shares is not a judgement, saying everything is good or bad regardless - I think its more an observation.  Saying "don't presume just because you can / cannot do something that it does not have greater consequences."

Ironically this is why @Mike23Ua's continued suggestion to make every single line of code a togglable feature on world gen is bad.  The goal of such a change is allegedly to open the flood gates of creativity so the devs can throw every good and bad idea at the game and let the players play chose your own adventure with it.  The problem is the game's perception is going to be based off of an accepted experience, where most players exist.  Most players are going into the game with all intended mechanics in place.  If some "super random kill you b/c lol" feature is added and is part of the regular settings then the game is judged by it even if players have the choice to turn it off.  Indeed IF a feature is commonly disabled it really means the feature should just be removed / reworked (read: disease.)  If the feature is off by default, then the reverse is true.  If players find turning it on makes the game better, then it should just be a feature of the game - BUT - if players ignore it, then it was a waste of dev time and resources that could have made something that actually contributed to the game.

Also - Smite's pick / ban phase is not about "we want a game with no healers."  Its about "this character hard-counters me" or "this character is OP from last balance patch."  For the majority of pub games this is a nearly static list of pub stomping champs.  Its not customizing their experience at all, its more a balancing feature.

Also - I'm not familiar with Otherworldly, but item ban systems in these types of games are often a method of progression.  By removing items you recognize as bad you are able to progress better with less rng hate.

Edited March 6 by Yuuko