How to Communicate Meaning Through Writing
Have you ever noticed how difficult it can be to communicate exactly what you mean through text? When we speak to someone, meaning comes from more than our words. Tones of voice, facial expressions, pauses, volume, and body language all help communicate whether we are joking, angry, sarcastic, or completely serious. Writing removes most of those tools. The writer has to recreate them using diction, punctuation, sentence structure, organization, examples, and tone. This becomes especially important when a company communicates with a large online community. A vague statement, unexplained decision, or poorly worded announcement can easily create confusion. Even when the company believes its intentions are obvious, players may interpret its actions very differently.
Marvel Rivals provides a useful example of this problem.
I cannot claim to know everything happening behind the scenes at NetEase, nor can I know the reasoning behind every decision made by the development team. What I can examine is the message those decisions communicate to players. Whether intentional or not, a pattern of unclear balance changes, inconsistent community moderation, and uneven cosmetic distribution can create the impression that certain concerns are being ignored.
This demonstrates one of the most important rules of communication:
Meaning is not determined only by what the writer intends. Meaning is also shaped by what the audience receives. In the case of Marvel Rivals, the communication problems can be divided into three major areas: game balance, community management, and cosmetic distribution.
What Are We Actually Balancing?
Game balance is difficult.
A hero shooter contains characters with different health totals, damage outputs, mobility options, abilities, roles, and team interactions. Every change can affect several other parts of the game. As the roster expands, perfect balance may be impossible. That does not mean balance decisions should feel random. One of the biggest communication problems occurs when developers announce a change without adequately explaining the reasoning behind it. Players see that a character has been weakened or strengthened, but they may not understand the data or design philosophy behind the change.
This creates an information gap.
When an audience does not receive an explanation, it often creates one. Imagine a patch note that simply says:
> Hero A's damage has been reduced by 15%.
Players who use Hero A may immediately think the developers dislike the character. Players who regularly fight Hero A may celebrate. Other players may wonder whether the hero had an unusually high win rate. Now imagine the same change being explained like this:
> Hero A has maintained an unusually high win rate at upper competitive ranks, particularly when paired with Hero B. We are reducing Hero A's damage slightly while monitoring whether the adjustment affects performance at lower ranks.
Even if players disagree with the decision, they now understand the reasoning. That distinction matters. Good communication does not require everyone to agree with you. It requires the audience to understand what you are trying to accomplish. The same issue appears in discussions surrounding the three major Marvel Rivals roles: Vanguard, Duelist, and Strategist. Some Vanguard players feel their role receives too little appreciation. Some Duelist players believe their characters are frequently targeted by nerfs. Some Strategist players believe they receive disproportionate criticism from teammates while simultaneously feeling that their characters need enough power to survive constant pressure.
These viewpoints often conflict. That means developers need to communicate not only what they are changing, but why. For example, if Strategists are given stronger self-sustain abilities, the developers might explain whether the goal is to reduce frustration from being repeatedly targeted or to encourage more players to choose the role. Without that explanation, other players may interpret the buffs as favoritism. This is an important rhetorical lesson.
Silence communicates too.
If a company does not explain its decisions, audiences will often interpret the decisions themselves. This does not mean every patch needs a twenty-page essay. A short explanation can still provide useful context. The formula can be simple:
Problem → Evidence → Change → Intended Result
For example:
> Strategists are being eliminated too quickly during coordinated dives. Internal match data shows that certain Strategists have unusually low survival rates at high ranks. We are increasing their defensive ability cooldown efficiency to give them more opportunities to reposition. We will monitor whether this makes them too difficult to eliminate.
That explanation gives the audience something concrete to evaluate. Players may still hate the change. But at least they know what the developers were trying to accomplish.
Community Standards Have to Be Communicated Clearly
The same principle applies to player behavior. Toxicity has existed in online gaming for decades. Players insult teammates, harass opponents, spam voice chat, use slurs, intentionally throw matches, and generally discover impressive new ways to ruin someone else's evening. The question is not whether developers can completely eliminate toxic behavior. They cannot. The more useful question is whether they clearly communicate what behavior is unacceptable and whether the consequences are consistent. A community learns its standards partly by observing what happens when those standards are violated. If harassment consistently receives only minor consequences, players may conclude that the behavior is tolerated. If punishments are unpredictable, players may not understand where the boundaries actually are.
This is why moderation systems are also communication systems. A clear moderation structure might include escalating consequences. For example:
First offenses involving abusive communication might result in temporary communication restrictions.
Repeated offenses might result in longer account suspensions.
Severe behavior, such as targeted harassment or repeated use of racial slurs, might result in substantially stronger penalties.
The exact length of each punishment can be debated. The more important principle is consistency.
A rule that exists only on paper is not much of a rule.
The company must establish what behavior is unacceptable, explain the consequences, and then enforce those consequences reliably. This leads to another major principle of communication:
Your actions must reinforce your words.
Imagine that a developer publishes a statement saying:
> We are committed to maintaining a welcoming and respectful community.
That sounds positive. But if players repeatedly encounter harassment without meaningful moderation, the statement loses credibility. The company's actions begin communicating something different:
> We say this behavior is unacceptable, but apparently not unacceptable enough to stop it.
That difference between stated values and observed behavior creates distrust. Writers face the same problem. If an essay claims something is extremely important but gives it only one sentence while spending five paragraphs discussing something else, the structure contradicts the argument. In both writing and community management, emphasis communicates priority.
Tone Can Strengthen an Argument or Distract From It
Another important part of written communication is tone. Anger can be effective. Sarcasm can be effective. Humor can be effective. Profanity can even be effective in certain contexts. However, every rhetorical choice has a cost.
Calling a balance decision "a pile of dogshit stuck to the bottom of my shoe" certainly communicates frustration. It may also make the sentence memorable.
But it does not explain why the balance decision is bad. Strong language works best when it supports analysis rather than replacing it. Compare these two statements:
> The balance team has no idea what they're doing.
and:
> Several recent balance changes appear inconsistent because characters with similar performance statistics have received very different adjustments, while the developers have provided little explanation for the difference. The first sentence communicates emotion. The second communicates an argument. A writer can combine both.
For example:
> At times, the balance philosophy feels less like careful adjustment and more like someone throwing darts at a character roster. The problem is not simply that certain heroes are being nerfed. It is that players are rarely given enough information to understand why similar characters are treated differently. Now the metaphor communicates frustration while the following sentence explains the actual criticism. This is one of the best ways to use humor in argumentative writing.
Make the joke, then make the point. Otherwise, readers may remember the joke and forget the argument.
“No, Britney, Being Toxic Is Not a Good Thing”
Headings can also communicate tone. A heading such as “Community Moderation” is clear but emotionally neutral. A heading such as “No, Britney, Being Toxic Is Not a Good Thing” immediately communicates personality and attitude. Neither approach is automatically better. The correct choice depends on the audience. An academic essay usually benefits from direct headings. A personal essay, editorial, video script, or blog post may benefit from humorous headings because they make the writer's voice more recognizable. The key is making sure the reader can still understand what the section is about. Personality should enhance clarity rather than replace it.
The same applies to insults.
Calling toxic players “Neanderthals” or “the dregs of society” communicates intense disgust, but it may also distract from the stronger underlying argument: online communities become worse when abusive behavior is tolerated. A more persuasive approach is usually to attack the behavior rather than the person's humanity.
For example:
> Players who repeatedly use racial slurs, harass teammates, or intentionally sabotage matches should face serious consequences because their behavior makes the game less enjoyable for everyone else.
The sentence still takes a strong position. It simply makes the reasoning easier to engage with. This is particularly important when trying to persuade people who do not already agree with you. If your audience feels personally attacked, they may stop evaluating your argument.
Cosmetic Distribution and the Importance of Evidence
The final major communication issue involves cosmetic skins. Players frequently debate why certain characters receive more cosmetic content than others. One common explanation is popularity. Popular characters presumably receive more skins because more players are likely to purchase them. That explanation is plausible. However, if someone wants to argue that cosmetic distribution is unfair, the argument becomes much stronger when supported by measurable evidence.
For example, instead of writing:
> The developers never make skins for Black characters.
a writer could examine several categories:
Number of skins per character
Skin rarity
Release frequency
Character pick rate
Length of time since the character's last cosmetic
Whether skins are sold directly or placed in battle passes
Whether comparable characters receive additional customization options
Now the argument can move from perception to analysis. Suppose a character has been in the game for twelve months and has received two premium skins, while several similarly popular characters have received six or seven. That does not automatically prove discrimination. But it creates a pattern worth examining. That distinction is extremely important. Evidence can demonstrate unequal outcomes more easily than it can demonstrate motive. A writer may be able to show that certain characters receive fewer cosmetics. Proving why the developers are making those decisions is much harder unless there is direct evidence. This is where careful wording matters.
Consider the difference between:
> The developers are racist.
and:
> The distribution of premium cosmetics appears unequal, particularly among several Black characters, and the developers have not publicly provided an explanation for that pattern.
The second statement is narrower, but it is also stronger because it makes a claim that can actually be investigated. Good argumentative writing distinguishes between what the evidence shows and what the writer suspects.
The Storm Example
Storm provides a useful case study in how players interpret developer priorities. If players observe that multiple characters receive highly detailed legendary cosmetics with extensive customization while Storm receives a lower-rarity cosmetic with fewer options, they may interpret that disparity as evidence that the character is being treated differently. If the developers later acknowledge complaints and promise improvements, that communication creates an expectation. Once that expectation exists, the company has created a new rhetorical obligation. It must either deliver the promised change or explain why the plan changed. Otherwise, the original statement begins to lose credibility. This illustrates another important principle:
Promises are part of communication.
A promise does not end when the statement is published. The audience continues evaluating it based on what happens afterward. This is true whether the promise comes from a game developer, politician, teacher, employer, friend, or writer.
Words create expectations. Actions determine whether those words remain credible.
Comparison Makes Arguments Stronger
The wedding skins provide another useful example. Marvel contains several well-known romantic couples represented in Marvel Rivals. If some couples receive elaborate matching cosmetics while another receives simpler versions, players naturally compare them. Comparison is one of the strongest tools in argumentative writing because it gives the audience a reference point.
Instead of saying:
> Storm and Black Panther's cosmetics are bad.
a writer can say:
> When two couples receive matching legendary wedding cosmetics with extensive customization while another established couple receives simpler cosmetics of a lower rarity, the difference invites questions about how cosmetic resources are being distributed. The comparison gives readers something specific to evaluate. This technique works in almost every type of argumentative writing.
Do not simply say something is large. Compare it to something smaller. Do not simply say something is expensive. Compare it to a similar product. Do not simply say treatment is unequal. Show two similar situations being treated differently. Comparison turns abstract complaints into observable differences.
Intent Is Not Enough
The larger problem connecting all three issues,balance, moderation, and cosmetics, is communication. Developers may have perfectly reasonable explanations for their decisions. Players cannot evaluate explanations they have never received. That is why intent alone is not enough. A writer may intend to sound sarcastic and accidentally sound cruel. A teacher may intend an instruction to be obvious while students find it confusing. A company may intend a balance patch to improve competitive play while players interpret it as favoritism. Communication occurs somewhere between intention and interpretation. The writer controls the message. The audience controls how the message is received. Strong communicators try to reduce the distance between those two things. They explain their reasoning. They provide evidence. They anticipate misunderstandings. They organize ideas clearly. They choose their tone deliberately. And most importantly, they recognize that what they leave unexplained can sometimes communicate just as much as what they say.
Writing With Anger Without Losing the Argument
There is nothing inherently wrong with writing while angry. Some of the most memorable essays, speeches, articles, and political writings in history were written because someone was furious. Anger can give writing energy. It can reveal what the writer values. It can make an audience understand that the issue matters. But anger works best as fuel. It should not be the steering wheel. If every sentence insults someone, exaggerates something, or assumes malicious intent, the reader may begin focusing on the writer rather than the issue.
A useful editing method is to ask four questions.
First:
What am I actually claiming?
Second:
What evidence supports that claim?
Third:
What part of this sentence communicates information, and what part only communicates emotion?
Fourth:
Do I want the reader to laugh, agree, become angry, understand the issue, or some combination of those things?
Once the writer knows the intended effect, rhetorical choices become easier. Sometimes the ridiculous metaphor should stay. Sometimes the profanity should stay. Sometimes the sentence should be rewritten completely. The goal is not to remove personality. The goal is to make personality serve meaning.
Conclusion
Writing is not simply transferring thoughts from one person's brain onto a page. It is the process of constructing meaning for someone who cannot hear your voice, see your expression, or immediately ask what you meant. That makes clarity important. It also makes tone important. And when writing persuasively, evidence becomes essential. The communication problems surrounding Marvel Rivals demonstrate what happens when audiences receive decisions without enough explanation. Players begin constructing explanations themselves. Some assume incompetence. Others assume favoritism. Others assume financial motives or bias. Some of those interpretations may be correct. Some may be completely wrong. The problem is that weak communication leaves space for all of them. Whether someone is balancing a hero shooter, moderating an online community, designing cosmetics, or writing an argumentative essay, the same principle applies:
Do not merely know what you mean. Give your audience the tools to understand it.
