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!

My epiphany on the irony of solo-favored mmos.

24

Comments

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Novusod
        Really wish some game would try mandatory  Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.

    OMG yes this would be awesome. The market is starved for this type of MMO.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • GreyfaceGreyface Detroit, MIPosts: 390Member

    Interesting post.

    This problem is really a result of several deeper design flaws that are so widespread that no one even notices them anymore. 

    Look at the way character progression works in 90% of MMOs.  Rewarding people who level in groups seems like a good way to encourage community, but it really only works in newer games.  In more seasoned games, the majority of players are going to be clustered toward the top of the levelling curve.  This leaves newer players/characters with limited options for grouping.  I remember when I decided to switch realms (i.e. factions) in DAoC.  The game was still pretty healthy at that time, but the newbie area was a ghost town. 

    GW2 tried to address this by scaling player levels to the zone they're in.  The execution could use tweaking (high-level gear still makes the content trivial, for example), but I think it was a step in the right direction.  Another approach would be flattening the power curve -- UO, for example, didn't have a problem with empty low-level zones because there wasn't a huge difference between newer and more advanced characters.

    Another problem is the forms the groups themselves take.  In most games, you need a tank and a healer for a group.  This leads to a catch 22: No one can get a group because there aren't any tanks/healers, no one plays a tank/healer because they're bad solo, everyone solos because they can't get a group. 

    Multi-specs (in WoW and other games) are one way to address this, but in practice I'm not a fan.  Until max level, you're going to spend most of your time with a different set of abilities than the those you'll use in a group.  This means that most healers and tanks won't know what they're doing early on.  And that leads to a problem that dual specs can't solve: healers and tanks will take the lion's share of abuse when things don't go perfectly.  Besides solo-ability, this is probably the biggest reason why so few play these roles.

    Personally, I'd prefer to see MMOs move beyond the trinity, and even beyond fixed groups.  Most games penalize you for helping another player/group by assigning ownership of mobs.  I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  It's preferable, I think, to dumbing down the difficulty so that everything is soloable.  I'm a fan of public quests as well.  WAR, Rift and GW2 all have their own version and (in my opinion) it's the best thing about all three games.

    Fixed group size is another trope that should be left behind.  Look at WoW:  each zone is intended for a solo player at a specific range of levels.  If you group up, going beyond your approved zone level is still a death sentence.  Even if you manage to survive, you still can't take quests or use the loot you get because everything is level-restricted.  I think it would be more fun, for example, to create a 25-player raid made up of 15th level characters and go to a 30th level zone.  Or stay in an on-level zone, and destroy it.  Who cares if it's not the way the developer intended the game to be played?  If people are playing together and having fun, everyone wins.  Anyone else remember level 1 Hogger raids?  

     

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Asheron's Call was one of the First Big 3 that got the ball started for the MMO genre and it supported and incintivized solo play just as much or more so then any current MMO.  Food for thought.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Novusod
     

     

     

     

     

    Really wish some game would try mandatory  Forced grouping again. It has been a decade since a game really forced players to group up. No solo content at all so people like the OP don't even bother setting foot in this game.


     

    OMG yes this would be awesome. The market is starved for this type of MMO.

    MOre like this type of MMO will starve in the market.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,676Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Asheron's Call was one of the First Big 3 that got the ball started for the MMO genre and it supported and incintivized solo play just as much or more so then any current MMO.  Food for thought.

    A lot of the early MMOs were like that. For some reason the EQ crowd seems to think that EQ = everything MMOs were, and their view of how MMOs should be is colored by that assumption.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • bunzagabunzaga Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 30Member

    I don't want to be egotistical, but for me, it is more about the level of competance, than anything else.

    I do my best to 'learn my class', min/max and play at a high level, and it is annoying for me to group with people who aren't as... into the game as I am.  For example, a healer who wasn't paying attention, or the guy running after the ore node, instead of helping fight, or the tank who doesn't watch for adds, or DPSers who don't realize it's better to all focus on the same target or thinks it is fun to out-aggro the tank, or that dip shit who broke a crowd control mob, ending in the group being wiped.

    Not to mention the long drawn out time it usually takes to group.  Back in my DAoC days, it would take a long time to form a proper roaming group.  We would have 7 people waiting around for that certain class which was missing (usually a skald or a healer).

    Most 'good' groups require the use of TS3 ( after all they wouldn't be using Mumble or Vent if they're good right? ), which is a little bit of a hassle.

    Add to this the fact that I have 4 kids, so I could get called away at any moment to handle a situation at home.

    So yeah, I usually end up soloing most of  the time, unless I absolutely need a group.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Greyface
    I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  

    Best approach! I should check out TSW. Now they just need to automatically randomize loot based on how much aggro each player generated (by damaging mob or healing its enemies, etc).

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Greyface
    I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  

     

    Best approach! I should check out TSW. Now they just need to automatically randomize loot based on how much aggro each player generated (by damaging mob or healing its enemies, etc).

    Just random private loot like in WOW LFR or D3. You don't have to base that on anything. Since player A's loot won't impact player B .. there will be no dispute.

    And players have the incentive to help kill faster to get more loot anyway.

  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon

    I have a love hate relationship with grouping.  When I'm in a group.  Its the most fun I have in an MMO.  My issue is the mechanic itself is fustrating.

    If you play a game after launch and the starter (and mid) zones are empty.  How exactly am I supposed to group? The harsh reality is I either have to coordinate to play with someone else, or I have to sit and wait, or I have to skip the content all together.  Speaking as a gamer who is married and has a full work schedule I only get 3 hours a night to play.  I can tell you I do NOT feel like waiting for someone just to experience something.

    I do like the LFG/LFR mechanic as it serves two purposes for me.  One I can queue and continue one with whatever it is that I am doing and then take part in the group dungeon when it is ready.  My experiences vary but for the most part it is amicablefriendly.  I DO care about the people I group with.  Even though I dont know them I dont want them to die and have many times given up my loot from rolls if it worked better for someone else.  I dont understand the point of being mean or selfish in those instances but I chalk it up to immaturity. 

    Second purpose is it allows me to see the content (which is what I am most interested in).  Its fustrating that I can't complete a quest line or see specific content because I am unable to find a group when Im ready to run the instance.  I do like the idea of having different versions of the instances so solo people can run them at a higher difficulty but at least a means to complete.

    I understand the  "MMOs are social and you should group" argument, but no one really is speaking to how that mechanic is supposed to work across all different play and lifestyles. Until the mechanic changes solo'ing will always remain a viable alternative.

    image
  • PainlezzPainlezz Laguna Hills, CAPosts: 620Member Uncommon

    Problem is simple...

     

    A select few (sadly very small compared to the other group) want to "force" grouping on people... Ok...  But this same group also does NOT want Looking for Group / Group Finder tools... So basically they're saying they want to force people to group, not have any useful tools to help them find groups, and expect everyone to have friends or guilds lined up and waiting...

     

    Guild Wars 2 and WoW have the two systems that are needed for modern MMO's and Grouping...

     

    GW2 = Automatic grouping at all times... Allowing people to do more difficult content automatically if in the same area.  No fighting over spawns, no spamming eachother for groups...

    WoW = Solid and functional group finder that allows you to run around questing, crafting, or whatever while waiting for a group to be formed.

     

    SWTOR was an epic failure for group content because to had NO way to find a group outside of spamming LOCAL channels.  This means you not only had to spam chat, but you had to do it while sitting in a specific zone.

    Many other games that did not release with a group finder tool suffer from the same problem.  Plus, by the time these games added the feature (LOTRO is a great example)... No one uses it.   New players join LOTRO, play for 20-30 levels solo, fire up the group finder tool in hopes of experiencing some group content, only to find hours have passed and no groups still.

     

    Simply put, you can't force or require grouping (and expect the majority of players to enjoy it) if you don't provide a system that makes it easy.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Arclan  

    Originally posted by Greyface I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  
      Best approach! I should check out TSW. Now they just need to automatically randomize loot based on how much aggro each player generated (by damaging mob or healing its enemies, etc).
    Just random private loot like in WOW LFR or D3. You don't have to base that on anything. Since player A's loot won't impact player B .. there will be no dispute.

    And players have the incentive to help kill faster to get more loot anyway.


    If those games roll loot per player instead of per mob, I think that's pretty awesome too! Never knew that! So long as not too much loot is given out.

    Re: the grouping issues, I think a lot of it can be solved by slowing down the pace at which players level. It's gotten out of hand.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Malcanis
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    One thing I like about EVE is that it makes very few concessions to the solo gamer. If you want to be the lone wolf type, then you are free to do so, but you'd better be aware that everyone else is free to group up and overpower you if they can.

    That is possible in virtually any game that allows PvP.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • botrytisbotrytis In Flux, MIPosts: 2,567Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Greyface
    I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  

     

    Best approach! I should check out TSW. Now they just need to automatically randomize loot based on how much aggro each player generated (by damaging mob or healing its enemies, etc).

    GW2 has the same thing.

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Alberel

    What do players in PUGs have to do with the difference between players who voluntarily group and players who are forced to group? Most people in PUGs only do it because they are forced to do so to achieve certain goals; beyond those ends they solo exclusively. This means they fall into the first group I was talking about, which means what I said was correct. The players who group voluntarily tend to do so in isolated groups with the same people on a regular basis, because they're well aware that PUGs are almost exclusively formed of soloers with no desire to group, but feel forced to do so to complete certain content.

    No, no they don't.  Everyone in a game groups voluntarily, nobody is holding a gun to their head and making them join a group.  That's why games like WoW came up with their LFG system, to allow people who wanted to group, specifically into PUGs, to do so more quickly and efficiently because people were complaining that it was too difficult and took too long.  The majority of groups going on in any game at any given time are PUGs, groups put together specifically to do certain content and then go their separate ways.  What you describe, where people form groups which will stay together for days or weeks on end, are extremely rare.

    The OP was attributing immature behaviour to players who choose to group voluntarily. I was explaining that it is the opposite; it is usually soloers who feel forced to group for some reason that are a detriment to the experience of all in that group as they are usually excessively negative and just use the group as a means to an end. I thought this was obvious...

    Which is everyone.  All you're saying is that a minuscule number of people are doing it "right" in your opinion, as opposed to the massive majority of everyone else, who actually keep the game afloat, who you think are doing it "wrong".  The vast majority of people who are going to have any kind of grouping experience in these games is going ot have it in PUGs because that's what the vast majority of people in these games play in.

    Good for you, what does that have to do with the discussion in this thread? We're talking about behaviour of people in groups here... if you never group then how on earth could you have an input to this discussion?

    Yet someone brought up end-game and the fact that much of end-game content is group-based.  So what?   The assertion was that people who have played solo have to learn how to play in a group.  No we don't.  In fact, a lot of us refuse to do so for the same reason we refused to play in groups the whole time we were leveling.  People in groups generally suck and they don't get any better after level-cap.

    Why are you attacking me with snide remarks like that? It almost makes you sound like one of the immature players you're complaining about...

    Why do you insist on taking everything as an attack?

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by botrytis

    People are solo-oriented. Games can force you to group, it doesn't mean people want to be social.

    I don't even know that's true.  The problem with the pro-groupers is they simply refuse to acknowledge that the genre and it's playerbase has changed over the years, they think that it's possible to reset things and it will go back to the way it used to be.

    The reality is, back in the day of UO and EQ, the majority of people playing MMOs were the geeks and the nerds, they were the only ones that had access to high-end machines and broadband Internet.  Therefore you already had a group of people who fundamentally had a lot in common outside of playing the game.  It wasn't horrible to get caught with nothing to do once in a while because no matter who you were with, you probably had something to talk about.  There probably wasn't a group I was in back then that  couldn't quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail from memory.  There was an actual community because virtually everyone playing the game belonged to the same social group.

    Enter the broadband explosion and now *EVERYONE* has access to these games.  Instead of one single unified community, you have dozens, even hundreds of different communities with different interests, different tastes, different goals.  Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game.  That's why people started playing solo because it avoided those uncomfortable encounters.  Everyone played for their own purposes and their own goals and if they could hook up with a couple of people who shared their interests and were on at the same time, great.  If not... you played alone.  Games changed to reflect this new reality.

    The fact is, even if you did go back to forced grouping, you'll never go back to the same feeling of community that games once had.  Those days are simply gone, at least unless you restrict games to a single social group, which no one is going to do.  I'm sure people want to be social, they just want to do it with people that they share common interests with.  It's just not that easy to come by in modern games, or in modern online life.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Arclan  

    Originally posted by Greyface I like TSW's approach, where everyone who participated in a fight gets equal credit, even if there's no actual group.  
      Best approach! I should check out TSW. Now they just need to automatically randomize loot based on how much aggro each player generated (by damaging mob or healing its enemies, etc).
    Just random private loot like in WOW LFR or D3. You don't have to base that on anything. Since player A's loot won't impact player B .. there will be no dispute.

     

    And players have the incentive to help kill faster to get more loot anyway.


     

    If those games roll loot per player instead of per mob, I think that's pretty awesome too! Never knew that! So long as not too much loot is given out.

    Re: the grouping issues, I think a lot of it can be solved by slowing down the pace at which players level. It's gotten out of hand.

    Yeah .. the drop rate has nothing to do with the system. The private loot system is designed to do away with ninjaing, and loot drama. There is zero of those in D3, and WOW LFR.

    The drop rate, obviously need to be tweaked based on progression curve and stuff like that. And you can run the same system with low drop rate or very high ones.

  • vandal5627vandal5627 Jersey City, NJPosts: 586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Alberel
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Alberel

    This doesn't make much sense to me... the ones who voluntarily group tend to be the better members of the community from my experience. It's the ones who hate grouping but are forced to who tend to be the most immature or incompetent.

    Not remotely true.  Now granted, I'd argue that 95% of everyone in most MMOs are immature and incompetent, but in my experience at least, most PUG groupers are only in it to use other people for their own advancement.  They want to throw other people in front to take the hits first, throw more firepower at more powerful targets, get free healing, so they can get better drops and more XP.  They don't give a damn about anyone else in the group, they're just cannon fodder that they'll never see again.

    What do players in PUGs have to do with the difference between players who voluntarily group and players who are forced to group? Most people in PUGs only do it because they are forced to do so to achieve certain goals; beyond those ends they solo exclusively. This means they fall into the first group I was talking about, which means what I said was correct. The players who group voluntarily tend to do so in isolated groups with the same people on a regular basis, because they're well aware that PUGs are almost exclusively formed of soloers with no desire to group, but feel forced to do so to complete certain content.

    When a game has a mix of solo and group content you tend to find the soloers who don't want to be in groups are the real problem. In a game with nothing but 100% group content you don't get this problem as those soloers don't touch the game in the first place. Go see FFXI pre-Abyssea for a good example; groups in that game were exceptionally positive experiences, and if someone was excessively negative or did something to deliberately annoy they simply wouldn't get any groups again as the community would blacklist them.

    How is that a problem?  A soloer who doesn't want to be in a group with you affects you how, exactly?

    The OP was attributing immature behaviour to players who choose to group voluntarily. I was explaining that it is the opposite; it is usually soloers who feel forced to group for some reason that are a detriment to the experience of all in that group as they are usually excessively negative and just use the group as a means to an end. I thought this was obvious...

    The irony of solo-oriented MMOs is that they invite one type of player with solo content during the levelling process whilst endgame almost universally is group content that doesn't appeal to those soloers. This problem would be fixed by making grouping so attractive at low level that players get used to it before the cap... it doesn't have to be 100% forced grouping, just make it so rewarding that soloing is seen as a last resort if you can't find a group.

    Lots of us don't play end-game content at all.  For me, once I hit level-cap, I retire the character.  I don't raid.  I don't PvP.  Game is over.  Either re-roll a new character or go find a different game.

    Good for you, what does that have to do with the discussion in this thread? We're talking about behaviour of people in groups here... if you never group then how on earth could you have an input to this discussion?

    Do try again.

    Why are you attacking me with snide remarks like that? It almost makes you sound like one of the immature players you're complaining about...

     +1

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by botrytis People are solo-oriented. Games can force you to group, it doesn't mean people want to be social.
    I don't even know that's true. The problem with the pro-groupers is they simply refuse to acknowledge that the genre and it's playerbase has changed over the years, they think that it's possible to reset things and it will go back to the way it used to be.

    The reality is, back in the day of UO and EQ, the majority of people playing MMOs were the geeks and the nerds, they were the only ones that had access to high-end machines and broadband Internet. Therefore you already had a group of people who fundamentally had a lot in common outside of playing the game. It wasn't horrible to get caught with nothing to do once in a while because no matter who you were with, you probably had something to talk about. There probably wasn't a group I was in back then that couldn't quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail from memory. There was an actual community because virtually everyone playing the game belonged to the same social group.

    Enter the broadband explosion and now *EVERYONE* has access to these games. Instead of one single unified community, you have dozens, even hundreds of different communities with different interests, different tastes, different goals. Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game. That's why people started playing solo because it avoided those uncomfortable encounters. Everyone played for their own purposes and their own goals and if they could hook up with a couple of people who shared their interests and were on at the same time, great. If not... you played alone. Games changed to reflect this new reality.

    The fact is, even if you did go back to forced grouping, you'll never go back to the same feeling of community that games once had. Those days are simply gone, at least unless you restrict games to a single social group, which no one is going to do. I'm sure people want to be social, they just want to do it with people that they share common interests with. It's just not that easy to come by in modern games, or in modern online life.


    Wait, are you suggesting now the 'cool' people are playing MMOs? Kinda funny. I've never met a cooler group of people than I did in EQ around 1999. Met several of them IRL; all cool, good looking, successful people with personalities. I was shocked.

    Gaming today is different. MMO companies fail to offer gameplay that many vets enjoy; so we aren't playing. What's left are probably mostly folks who like to solo. But just because companies have failed to capture vet's attention, it doesn't mean they should count them (or their money) out. It's a big opportunity for a company that gets it right.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     

    Gaming today is different. MMO companies fail to offer gameplay that many vets enjoy; so we aren't playing. What's left are probably mostly folks who like to solo. But just because companies have failed to capture vet's attention, it doesn't mean they should count them (or their money) out. It's a big opportunity for a company that gets it right.

     

    Yet for a  lot of vets, the only way to "get it right" is to completely throw away 95% of the market in favor of old-school gaming.  That's not going to happen and until the vets get it through their heads, nobody is going to make a game that they're  going to like.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Forced interdependance tends to breed more polite behavior simply because people who act in an anti-social fashion get selected against (e.g. do worse). People are therefore acting in thier own enlightened self-interest by being nice to others.

    However this does get mitigated to a very large degree when dealing with much larger communities where there are very low odds that you'll ever need to interact with the same people in future.

    So if a player is in a game community of 1,000 people and they know they are going to need to interact with those people in future (interdependence), they'll tend not to act like jerks because in the long run they'll be hurting themselves by doing so.

    If the same player is in a game community of 100,000 people even with forced interdependance there is not a very strong push to avoid acting like a jerk because the odds of needing to interact with any of those people they are jerks to in future is low...thus not much disincentive.

    If there is no forced interdependance then there is no consequence to acting like a jerk whether it's a community of 1,000 or 100,000. There is not much rocket science to it.

     

     

     

     

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,676Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Forced interdependance tends to breed more polite behavior simply because people who act in an anti-social fashion get selected against (e.g. do worse). People are therefore acting in thier own enlightened self-interest by being nice to others.

    However this does get mitigated to a very large degree when dealing with much larger communities where there are very low odds that you'll ever need to interact with the same people in future.

    So if a player is in a game community of 1,000 people and they know they are going to need to interact with those people in future (interdependence), they'll tend not to act like jerks because in the long run they'll be hurting themselves by doing so.

    If the same player is in a game community of 100,000 people even with forced interdependance there is not a very strong push to avoid acting like a jerk because the odds of needing to interact with any of those people they are jerks to in future is low...thus not much disincentive.

    If there is no forced interdependance then there is no consequence to acting like a jerk whether it's a community of 1,000 or 100,000. There is not much rocket science to it.

    The part of your non-rocket science that you are missing is that you are basing acceptance and rejection on your view of societal norms; views that may or may not be mirrored in the online world you are in. If the norm is speaking in textese, sending group invites without asking first and regularly using profanity, then the polite gentleman is the pariah.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • botrytisbotrytis In Flux, MIPosts: 2,567Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by botrytis

    People are solo-oriented. Games can force you to group, it doesn't mean people want to be social.

    I don't even know that's true.  The problem with the pro-groupers is they simply refuse to acknowledge that the genre and it's playerbase has changed over the years, they think that it's possible to reset things and it will go back to the way it used to be.

    The reality is, back in the day of UO and EQ, the majority of people playing MMOs were the geeks and the nerds, they were the only ones that had access to high-end machines and broadband Internet.  Therefore you already had a group of people who fundamentally had a lot in common outside of playing the game.  It wasn't horrible to get caught with nothing to do once in a while because no matter who you were with, you probably had something to talk about.  There probably wasn't a group I was in back then that  couldn't quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail from memory.  There was an actual community because virtually everyone playing the game belonged to the same social group.

    Enter the broadband explosion and now *EVERYONE* has access to these games.  Instead of one single unified community, you have dozens, even hundreds of different communities with different interests, different tastes, different goals.  Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game.  That's why people started playing solo because it avoided those uncomfortable encounters.  Everyone played for their own purposes and their own goals and if they could hook up with a couple of people who shared their interests and were on at the same time, great.  If not... you played alone.  Games changed to reflect this new reality.

    The fact is, even if you did go back to forced grouping, you'll never go back to the same feeling of community that games once had.  Those days are simply gone, at least unless you restrict games to a single social group, which no one is going to do.  I'm sure people want to be social, they just want to do it with people that they share common interests with.  It's just not that easy to come by in modern games, or in modern online life.

    During UO - the geeks and nerds only way to socialize was through gaming. Sad but true.

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game. 

    Isnt it more a testament to the shallowness and simplicity of the games if players dont feel the need to talk about them and exchange information and opinions about them?

    I dont talk politics in clan chat, do you?

    Flame on!

    :)

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,622Member Uncommon
    Grouping is an illusion. It's always just you in your basement with your catheter and feeding tubes image
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by Cephus404

     Nobody wants to get caught in these uncomfortable silences caused by downtime because they have nothing in common with the people they are playing with, except for the game. 

    Isnt it more a testament to the shallowness and simplicity of the games if players dont feel the need to talk about them and exchange information and opinions about them?

    I dont talk politics in clan chat, do you?

    Flame on!

    :)

    There's quite a difference between "I like this game because of X" or "I don't like this game because of Y" and "I hate all games because they aren't catering to a niche audience that I happen to fall into, developers need to make a game for me!"

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

Sign In or Register to comment.