Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

I need your opinions: What ways do you feel that games can improve their communities?

TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member

Dear MMORPG.

     A make or break for my MMO/Multiplayer gaming experience is the community of players. I know that the larger and more mainstream a game gets, the more likely you are to have a lot of unsavory folks involved (the argument made commonly for World of Warcraft).

My question to you all: What game mechanics exist that contribute to a positive MMO/Multiplayer game community? What mechanics could be invented/would be nice to see to make communities stronger, friendlier, and a better experience overall?

Thank you for your time and your thoughts!

«1

Comments

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon

    "Forced" grouping and no group / dungeon queue.

    Grouping to create an interdependence on others and lack of queue to make people go out and search for players while reducing the risk of getting grouped with one of those total douchebags that you routinely get using cross server LFD which will hopefully put more focus on someone's reputation not letting them just queue up for the next dungeon with random people you won't see again allowing the douchebagery behavior.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member

    Take a page from UO. Create a Virtual World. Thats about all you truly have to do. I new my neighbors in UO, I saw them often enough so we got to know each other and adventured together. We'd go over and visit with each other and play board games in our respective houses. 

    No forced grouping worked well as well. People weren't sitting around lfg all day. You grouped if you wanted to with whom you wanted to group with. People would go off and adventure, gather resources, complete collection quests for actual achievements and meet people along the way. Each group in UO had it's own community. Tamers run into each other all the time, help each other out, compete with each other, teach and help new tamers, share what they've learned with each other. Same with crafters and same with any group in UO. 

    PK's would try to kill players doing dungeons in fel while others would try to protect them. Different communities formed but for the most part we considered ourselves as part of the larger community. 

     

     

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon

    the problem is very easy to analyze.

     

    a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

     

    So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

     

    Answer this question and you have your answer.

     

    I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

     

    1) Cause - related.

    -The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

     

    2) Effect - related.

    - To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

     

    -----------------------

     

    in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

    image

  • MadnessRealmMadnessRealm Montreal, QCPosts: 2,716Member Uncommon

    Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

     

    Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

    By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

    As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

    ------
    Your daily dose of common sense since 2009!

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,551Member Uncommon

    There is a chat block in most games.  I think if more than 25 players have someone on chat block the blocked should be sent a warning.  If more than 50 the blocked should be banned for a day.  If more than 100 the blocked should be banned for a week.  If repeat offense they should get the IP Block.

     

    This is mostly anti gold spamming measures which would improve community chat.


  • kevjardskevjards carlislePosts: 1,463Member

    make the content a lot harder..force peeps to group.afterall its an mmo.also crafting..do it like vanguard where you can group to get resources ,especially rare stuff..more peeps gathering means more resources to make the goodies.what is the point of having solo shit in an mmo..i just dont get it.saying that though i,m guilty of playing these solo type games.

    pvp also should be banned from pve servers totally.  mainly because all most pvp'rs do is bitch and moan about how their class is always being nerfed and everyone else is overpowered.nothing to do with the fact the guy that just kicked your fuckin arse is better than you.(i dont do pvp can you tell ).if the guys wanna pvp do it on a pvp server.if the game does'nt have it then tough.

    dont mean to offend anyone..its just my opinion guys.

    p.s the whole idea of an mmo is that you most times work has a team and by doing that it makes the community better.just my 10 cents or pence

  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member

    Originally posted by MadnessRealm

    Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

    Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

    By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

    As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

    Originally posted by Robokapp

    the problem is very easy to analyze.

    a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

    So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

    Answer this question and you have your answer.

    I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

     

    1) Cause - related.

    -The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

    2) Effect - related.

    - To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

    -----------------------

    in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

     

    Would these things appeal to make a stronger community?

    • The existence of world bosses, almost like Notorious/Rare Monsters in FFXI/WoW/etc that would require a large group to fell, also requiring coordination and strategy. They would have a rather large loot table, from unique-looking equipment to unique materials for crafting recipes/quests.
     
    • Group crafting/Group crafting quests: Crafting quests with large or rare materials that are part of a main storyline/progression. Players would also have a designated area to look for group crafting/questing together.
     
    • "Less self-sufficient classes": Classes have specific functions and can't do everything so you have certain roles, but are they limited to a specific profession as well (i.e. all Wizards are also Potion-makers only)? Open all professions to players, or limit the amount of professions and have players choose?
     
    • A way to have what you've achieved in-game affect later content.
     
    • Most content is group content.
     
    • Many important crafting resources to be scarce and found in difficult areas. 
     
    • Guild bonuses based on activity as well as longevity
  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member
    Originally posted by TheStarheart

    Originally posted by MadnessRealm

    Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

    Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

    By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

    As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

    Originally posted by Robokapp

    the problem is very easy to analyze.

    a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

    So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

    Answer this question and you have your answer.

    I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

     

    1) Cause - related.

    -The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

    2) Effect - related.

    - To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

    -----------------------

    in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

     

    Would these things appeal to make a stronger community?

    • The existence of world bosses, almost like Notorious/Rare Monsters in FFXI/WoW/etc that would require a large group to fell, also requiring coordination and strategy. They would have a rather large loot table, from unique-looking equipment to unique materials for crafting recipes/quests.
     
    • Group crafting/Group crafting quests: Crafting quests with large or rare materials that are part of a main storyline/progression. Players would also have a designated area to look for group crafting/questing together.
     
    • "Less self-sufficient classes": Classes have specific functions and can't do everything so you have certain roles, but are they limited to a specific profession as well (i.e. all Wizards are also Potion-makers only)? Open all professions to players, or limit the amount of professions and have players choose?
     
    • A way to have what you've achieved in-game affect later content.
     
    • Most content is group content.
     
    • Many important crafting resources to be scarce and found in difficult areas. 
     
    • Guild bonuses based on activity as well as longevity

    lol No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques". 

    Look back at all the MMO's that people have complained about for having a lack of community. 

    You'll notice those games tend to have forced grouping, less self sufficient classes, most content was group content. 

    The bosses in FFXI kept the community in competition and in conflict with each other. It was a hinderence to the community. Many have come to verbal blows with each other over camping specific NM's.

     

    Everyones going to have different ideas about what is going to breed a strong community so my advice is to research the games that actually did and look at the games that didn't. Try to find the differences and commonalities. 

    You will have better luck doing that than asking the community. 

  • KingJigglyKingJiggly Simpsonville, SCPosts: 777Member
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    Pretty much the opposite of this.

  • StonesDKStonesDK SomewherePosts: 1,805Member
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,916Member Uncommon

    Two from my perspective.

     

    Eiliminate guild perks / rewards completely.  The reason for guilding should be people, not perks.

     

    Eliminate automatic guild rankings.  Reputation with a guild is based on how the guild itself feels about a person, not by how many quests they complete.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member

     

    "No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques"."

    I personally felt FFXI had one of the best communities out there. What has failed from those things?

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member
    Originally posted by Starpower
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

    Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

     

     

  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    Two from my perspective.

     

    Eiliminate guild perks / rewards completely.  The reason for guilding should be people, not perks.

     

    Eliminate automatic guild rankings.  Reputation with a guild is based on how the guild itself feels about a person, not by how many quests they complete.

    I'm not sure I'd really have rankings, but I think it would be nice for people to be rewarded for having a long-standing, active Guild. Whether it be just some cosmetic things or not.

     

    My intention would not be to have any guild or PvP warfare at this point.

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by Starpower
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

    Because sandbox generally means more interconectedness between players, eg crafting and economies.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79
    Originally posted by Starpower
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

    Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

    Couldn't you do the level-syncing method from FFXI, or exemplar/sidekicking method from City of Heroes/Villains to allow people to party together in a themepark even if they're at different stages?

  • LadyEupheiLadyEuphei Indianapolis, INPosts: 223Member
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal

    There is a chat block in most games.  I think if more than 25 players have someone on chat block the blocked should be sent a warning.  If more than 50 the blocked should be banned for a day.  If more than 100 the blocked should be banned for a week.  If repeat offense they should get the IP Block.

     

    This is mostly anti gold spamming measures which would improve community chat.

    This is easily exploitable by a large guild

    image

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member
    Originally posted by TheStarheart

     

    "No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques"."

    I personally felt FFXI had one of the best communities out there. What has failed from those things?

    FFXI have a revolving clique system not really a community. What community it did have was disjointed and scattered. The main reason is in almost ever aspect of the game, most other players were your enemy. That healer wants my spot in PT, they RDM needs the same piece of gear I need, that Bst is attempting to camp the same NM I am camping, that Party is taking all the mobs in this area and we were here first... that kind of stuff. 

     

    I made a lot of friends in FFXI, but it was more on the lines of the begining of the community decline in games. 

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member
    Originally posted by TheStarheart
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79
    Originally posted by Starpower
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

    Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

    Couldn't you do the level-syncing method from FFXI, or exemplar/sidekicking method from City of Heroes/Villains to allow people to party together in a themepark even if they're at different stages?

    Ahh but where is their carrot on the stick for going to lower level areas to group with people they have level synced with? FFXI did ok with level sync because the main goal was xp, but most western MMO's focus on the "phat lewts" which are typically more abundant in higher level areas. 

  • LadyEupheiLadyEuphei Indianapolis, INPosts: 223Member
    MAny people are talking about forced grouping and such, which is not what I see happening. I see people starting to be held accountable. If a player can rank a team mate and say, "hey, this guy was really helpful" the community swarms to that. If you make it beneficial to be a nice person the game community becomes even better. Take League of legends for instance. They always had the ability to report and players were down right nasty to eachother. Since the release of the honorable opponent system, you have really seen the LoL scene clean up. Games need to remember that there are 2 sides to the story, if you focus on punishment people will turn evil for some reason, if you focus on rewarding the nice players, people will be nice. 

    image

  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79
    Originally posted by TheStarheart
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79
    Originally posted by Starpower
    Originally posted by grimal

    Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

    No solo play.

    Increased difficulty.

    Sandbox.

     

     

    +1

    The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

    Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

    Couldn't you do the level-syncing method from FFXI, or exemplar/sidekicking method from City of Heroes/Villains to allow people to party together in a themepark even if they're at different stages?

    Ahh but where is their carrot on the stick for going to lower level areas to group with people they have level synced with? FFXI did ok with level sync because the main goal was xp, but most western MMO's focus on the "phat lewts" which are typically more abundant in higher level areas. 

    I would say for group crafting/questing requirements, guild quests/activities, that sort of thing. If your game isn't heavily gear-based than it shouldn't really be an issue who you pick up.

  • MadnessRealmMadnessRealm Montreal, QCPosts: 2,716Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TheStarheart

    Would these things appeal to make a stronger community?

    • The existence of world bosses, almost like Notorious/Rare Monsters in FFXI/WoW/etc that would require a large group to fell, also requiring coordination and strategy. They would have a rather large loot table, from unique-looking equipment to unique materials for crafting recipes/quests.
     
    • Group crafting/Group crafting quests: Crafting quests with large or rare materials that are part of a main storyline/progression. Players would also have a designated area to look for group crafting/questing together.
     
    • "Less self-sufficient classes": Classes have specific functions and can't do everything so you have certain roles, but are they limited to a specific profession as well (i.e. all Wizards are also Potion-makers only)? Open all professions to players, or limit the amount of professions and have players choose?
     
    • A way to have what you've achieved in-game affect later content.
     
    • Most content is group content.
     
    • Many important crafting resources to be scarce and found in difficult areas. 
     
    • Guild bonuses based on activity as well as longevity

     

    I don't think challenging PvE content should be limited to (field) bosses or 'elite' mobs. You need the average monster encounters to be more challenging than they currently are in MMOs today.

    Taking Chronicles of Spellborn as an example, monsters would often be grouped up in 2-3 or more mobs. You'd have some warrior mobs and a caster mob. Their AIs were designed so that the warriors would act as tank, trying to be in the way of your abilities while the caster would prepare his spells to attack you.  (It should be noted that CoS was not a tab-targetting game, you had to aim your skills and attacks).

     

     

    Group-oriented crafting is a great idea, but they're usually more of a Guild-type of thing than group ones. Building a city is more commonly 'reserved' for Clans where players would work together to acquire all the ressources necessary to build their city. DarkFall is an example of that. ArcheAge (albeit not released yet in Korea, let alone North America) also has more 'group-oriented' crafting (where several players are needed to greatly hasten the process of building a house, ship or city) . But this does indeed encourage communities to come together more, so more group-oriented crafting could be a great idea.

    FFXI and FFXIV, although does not have group-craft, did have many recipes (if not most) that would require the ressources created by several other crafter jobs. So for example to craft a spear, I might need a pole created by a woodworker, a blade crafter by a smith, and a cloth by a leatherworker. Each of which would require ressources of their own, so it would develop a pretty solid network of crafters, harvesters and fighters that would exchange ressources to create more items.

     

     

    By less self-sufficient classes, I refer to how classes today have all become Tank/DPS/Healer in some ways. It's made solo-oriented gameplay that much easier by removing the necessity to rely on other players to fulfill areas you are lacking. Using FFXI again as an example, the White Mage had very little in terms fighting capabilities, but were pretty much a 'must' for any parties hunting mobs. Battles were relatively long (in comparison to today's standards) so sustainability was important.

     

     

    On point number 4, I'm not sure how you'd do that unless the game was a  Sandbox. Because those later content  would technically be impacted by all other players as well

     

    Point #5, most content should indeed be more group-oriented. Solo play should still exist however, but it should be nowhere near as viable as grouping is.

     

    Point #6  Yes and No. Depends on the MMO in that case I would say.

     

    Point #7 As far as Guild Bonuses goes, I don't view them as necessary. I'd prefer to see more horizontal development (guild housing, activities, etc) rather than vertical ones (bonuses to xp gain, stats, etc) for Guilds. Give players a place to be together as a guild, and give those places some purpose higher than to act simply as a meeting place to encourage players to visit them (Access to certain Vendor NPCs, crafting stations, etc) but that's just personal taste in this case.

     

    ------
    Your daily dose of common sense since 2009!

  • TheStarheartTheStarheart Farmingville, NYPosts: 368Member
    Originally posted by LadyEuphei
    MAny people are talking about forced grouping and such, which is not what I see happening. I see people starting to be held accountable. If a player can rank a team mate and say, "hey, this guy was really helpful" the community swarms to that. If you make it beneficial to be a nice person the game community becomes even better. Take League of legends for instance. They always had the ability to report and players were down right nasty to eachother. Since the release of the honorable opponent system, you have really seen the LoL scene clean up. Games need to remember that there are 2 sides to the story, if you focus on punishment people will turn evil for some reason, if you focus on rewarding the nice players, people will be nice. 

    I like this concept. Ways to reinforce grouping together, ways to reinforce doing good things/being helpful. The question is just how to incorporate this well into a multiplayer / mmo design. I'll also need to look more in depth into this honorable opponent system.

  • LissylLissyl Peru, INPosts: 271Member Common
    Originally posted by LadyEuphei
    MAny people are talking about forced grouping and such, which is not what I see happening. I see people starting to be held accountable. If a player can rank a team mate and say, "hey, this guy was really helpful" the community swarms to that. If you make it beneficial to be a nice person the game community becomes even better. Take League of legends for instance. They always had the ability to report and players were down right nasty to eachother. Since the release of the honorable opponent system, you have really seen the LoL scene clean up. Games need to remember that there are 2 sides to the story, if you focus on punishment people will turn evil for some reason, if you focus on rewarding the nice players, people will be nice. 

    Thank you so much.

    I agree completely.  I don't think we can have, community-wise, a better game until we have a better gamER.  While there have always been outliers to behaviour patterns, the earliest MMO's were -not- populated by the kind of acerbic trash-spewing infantile 'gamer' that populates them today.  Until something is done about this - be it the LoL method or something new and innovative (and other than a heavy banhammer, I must admit to not having much in the way of ideas) - there can be no real 'community' improvement no matter what tools/resources you use. 

    Simply recreating the structures of the past doesn't recreate their conditions.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.