Howdy, Stranger!

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

Encouraged to group, but not forced. The key to a good MMORPG

2

Comments

  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member UncommonPosts: 174
    I think there was a difference between the "forced grouping" of modern MMOs and what people are calling forced grouping with DAoC.

    Modern MMOs almost auto group people in an area to complete a task. Chances are, if you hang out for a bit, someone will pop by that needs the quest as well.  Each person does what they would normally do, there just happens to be others nearby that also need credit... hence it's "forced".

    Games like DAoC requires more of a community mindset. To level, a lot of quests and mobs can be solo'd. There's more to the game that quests to level.  You can't just randomly go to the dragon and hope people pop by that also want to kill the dragon.  It takes planning, the right mix of characters, everyone knowing and performing their task.  This is a choice people make to get that feeling of epicness and the chance to roll for a great drop. They aren't forced.  They can buy dragon drops on the merchants if they don't feel like grouping.

    I'm fairly sure this is what the OP meant.


    MadFrenchie
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,944
    The best design is , you can do it solo but it fun and more casual when do it with other .
    Any content that "you must group up with other to do it" is bad bad .

    Good MMORPG is a social simulation game with everyone chilling around  instead of challenge of combat where people blame other for mistake.
    Ungood
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,758
    iixviiiix said:
    The best design is , you can do it solo but it fun and more casual when do it with other .
    Any content that "you must group up with other to do it" is bad bad .

    Good MMORPG is a social simulation game with everyone chilling around  instead of challenge of combat where people blame other for mistake.
    This just so happens to be how DDO, works. You can solo most of the content (Even some Raids), but it is just much easier and more fun to do it with a group.

    Fun game really.. little old and dated, and all that jazz, but, really have a lot of well done features.
  • LithuanianLithuanian Member UncommonPosts: 389
    Forced grouping is bad. Thou shalt not kill that monster solo, no matter level: gather another 23 players! - sounds not fun.
    Istaria had one nice item: xp reward in group. Kill bug, get 20 xp, kill bug while in group, get, say, 24 xp.
    I would advocate simple solution: each monster is soloable, BUT:
    1) it may take you longer to kill. Example: solo version - 20 minutes, using tons of health and power potions, 3-man group version - some 5 minutes;
    2) xp is bigger while in group by, say, 20%.
    3) rewards are better while in group.*
    *should be obtainable in solo version, just could be harder to get.

    Example: Grumpy Red Bug, lvl.50. Solo player kills Bug within 20 minutes, gets 100 xp, loots some lvl.50 armour and 1 non-rare weapon (which drops only from named monsters and on-level).
    Same player finds 2 friends. Kills Bug within 5 minutes, gets 120 xp, loots some lvl.50 armour, 1 non-rare weapon and 1 rare jewellery (which drops only from named monsters and on-level).


    MadFrenchie
  • ThaneThane Member RarePosts: 3,334
    just had that talk with a friend some days ago, and quite frankly, there HAS to be content only doable in groups.
    otherwise the mmo would have like no challange at all, or rather: be no mmo.


    you don't like it that you can't do raids solo? yea, suck it up, buttercup. that's how mmos work. there are enough single player or coop RPGs too
    AlBQuirkyultimateduck

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 11,498
    "Games like DAoC requires more of a community mindset."

    That's the game ****ed then. :)

    -----

    DAOC was not forced grouping, it was grouping pure and simple, otherwise I am going to call every co-op game "forced grouping"!
    MadFrenchie

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • MisterZebubMisterZebub Member LegendaryPosts: 3,567
    Thane said:
    just had that talk with a friend some days ago, and quite frankly, there HAS to be content only doable in groups.
    otherwise the mmo would have like no challange at all, or rather: be no mmo.


    you don't like it that you can't do raids solo? yea, suck it up, buttercup. that's how mmos work. there are enough single player or coop RPGs too
    While I tend to agree, I also remember a little game built around this premise called Wildstar. Hmmm look how well that went.
    MadFrenchie

    "He was a slob, did you ever see him eat? Starving children could fill their bellies on the food that ended up on his beard and clothes. Dogs would gather to watch him eat. I never understood gluttony, but I hate it. I hated that about you. He enjoyed disgusting people, being disgusting, the thrill of offending people and making them uncomfortable.
    . . . . You will not be missed."

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,254
    Also, another poster mentioned this today, and I just experienced it- all the edit buttons have disappeared.
    As one who often edits his posts to correct errors I also can confirm,  driving me crazy not to be able to fix them.
    MadFrenchie

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,254
    Thane said:
    just had that talk with a friend some days ago, and quite frankly, there HAS to be content only doable in groups.
    otherwise the mmo would have like no challange at all, or rather: be no mmo.


    you don't like it that you can't do raids solo? yea, suck it up, buttercup. that's how mmos work. there are enough single player or coop RPGs too
    While I tend to agree, I also remember a little game built around this premise called Wildstar. Hmmm look how well that went.
    Never played WS but from what I've read the grouping mechanics were not the only or least of its many issues.
    MadFrenchie

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    Kyleran said:
    Thane said:
    just had that talk with a friend some days ago, and quite frankly, there HAS to be content only doable in groups.
    otherwise the mmo would have like no challange at all, or rather: be no mmo.


    you don't like it that you can't do raids solo? yea, suck it up, buttercup. that's how mmos work. there are enough single player or coop RPGs too
    While I tend to agree, I also remember a little game built around this premise called Wildstar. Hmmm look how well that went.
    Never played WS but from what I've read the grouping mechanics were not the only or least of its many issues.
    I did play WS, and the mechanisms they had in place to "encourage" grouping were so lopsided and ham-fisted that people who didn't group all the time were at a huge disadvantage and might as well just quit.

    And so they did.

    The only problem for player retention that was larger, IMO, was the difficulty of that group content they were trying to "encourage" everyone to do.

    $50+ million bucks down the drain, in part because developers couldn't wrap their heads around the very topic of this thread. Which many of the people in this thread--some of whom are undoubtedly game developers--still can't wrap their heads around.

    It's funny, in a gallows-humor kind of way.
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Funny thing that you should mention reality here as your finishing move. You know the one place where humans don't get artificial bonuses for grouping?

    Reality.

    The natural benefits of grouping have to be enough on their own in the real world. And they are--people form groups all the time for entertainment's sake. Not because they must depend on each other but because humans, it turns out, are inherently social animals and spending time together is fun.

    Of course, that ceases to be true when you must have skill X and you must have skill Y and omg why is anyone using skill Z and there's a team boss who controls all the loot that you'd better keep happy when they issue the orders and if the phone rings for one player everyone has to stop and imaragequitbecauseyouallSUCK.

    Because humans may be social, but that doesn't mean they like to be forced into a box.

    If you need the bonuses to get people to play together, the play you're trying to get them to do together isn't the play they want to be doing.
    Gdemami
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,540
    I support having mobs that are so tough you need a group to kill them. At least until you are a much higher level Sherry.

    I don't support having a check retirement that says unless you are grouped you can't attempt to kill them or even enter the area.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,540
    People who like to group  regardless of the rewards. 
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,540
    Err that should say will group
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Funny thing that you should mention reality here as your finishing move. You know the one place where humans don't get artificial bonuses for grouping?

    Reality.

    The natural benefits of grouping have to be enough on their own in the real world. And they are--people form groups all the time for entertainment's sake. Not because they must depend on each other but because humans, it turns out, are inherently social animals and spending time together is fun.

    Of course, that ceases to be true when you must have skill X and you must have skill Y and omg why is anyone using skill Z and there's a team boss who controls all the loot that you'd better keep happy when they issue the orders and if the phone rings for one player everyone has to stop and imaragequitbecauseyouallSUCK.

    Because humans may be social, but that doesn't mean they like to be forced into a box.

    If you need the bonuses to get people to play together, the play you're trying to get them to do together isn't the play they want to be doing.
    <sigh>. The XP bonus for grouping, from an RP sense, would be equivalent to learning new or improved techniques from group members.  Y'know, like coaching or monitoring one another for proper form.  This is a core tenet of what makes a team in real life.  I shouldn't have had to explain that to you.  Additionally, games quite literally always held to real-life circumstance, because that would be boring as fuck and generally not very fun.


    And no, you're spiel about being social creatures doesn't change the fact that humans are quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so..  Like, say, an adequately more efficient progression rate for waiting and putting in the effort to coordinate a group endeavor when they could consistently progress without that extra time and effort.  Amazeballs!
    Gdemami

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Sentence should read: "Games quite literally aren't always held to real life circumstance. . . "

    @SBFord any news on what's up with the Edit button?

    image
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    aummoid said:
    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Funny thing that you should mention reality here as your finishing move. You know the one place where humans don't get artificial bonuses for grouping?

    Reality.

    The natural benefits of grouping have to be enough on their own in the real world. And they are--people form groups all the time for entertainment's sake. Not because they must depend on each other but because humans, it turns out, are inherently social animals and spending time together is fun.

    Of course, that ceases to be true when you must have skill X and you must have skill Y and omg why is anyone using skill Z and there's a team boss who controls all the loot that you'd better keep happy when they issue the orders and if the phone rings for one player everyone has to stop and imaragequitbecauseyouallSUCK.

    Because humans may be social, but that doesn't mean they like to be forced into a box.

    If you need the bonuses to get people to play together, the play you're trying to get them to do together isn't the play they want to be doing.
    <sigh>. The XP bonus for grouping, from an RP sense, would be equivalent to learning new or improved techniques from group members.  Y'know, like coaching or monitoring one another for proper form.  This is a core tenet of what makes a team in real life.  I shouldn't have had to explain that to you.  Additionally, games quite literally always held to real-life circumstance, because that would be boring as fuck and generally not very fun.


    And no, you're spiel about being social creatures doesn't change the fact that humans are quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so..  Like, say, an adequately more efficient progression rate for waiting and putting in the effort to coordinate a group endeavor when they could consistently progress without that extra time and effort.  Amazeballs!
    Don't know where you got that "fact" about humans being "quite literally" wired to take the path of least resistance, but I'm going to guess it's pulled from the planet between Saturn and Neptune.

    There's plenty of ways in which we waste massive amounts of our time and energy doing things we don't have to do without any substantive benefit. I'm sure you can think of an example or two just by looking at the URL for this webpage.

    And without that "fact", your argument is gone in a cloudpoof of Amazeballs.
    Gdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,254
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Funny thing that you should mention reality here as your finishing move. You know the one place where humans don't get artificial bonuses for grouping?

    Reality.

    The natural benefits of grouping have to be enough on their own in the real world. And they are--people form groups all the time for entertainment's sake. Not because they must depend on each other but because humans, it turns out, are inherently social animals and spending time together is fun.

    Of course, that ceases to be true when you must have skill X and you must have skill Y and omg why is anyone using skill Z and there's a team boss who controls all the loot that you'd better keep happy when they issue the orders and if the phone rings for one player everyone has to stop and imaragequitbecauseyouallSUCK.

    Because humans may be social, but that doesn't mean they like to be forced into a box.

    If you need the bonuses to get people to play together, the play you're trying to get them to do together isn't the play they want to be doing.
    <sigh>. The XP bonus for grouping, from an RP sense, would be equivalent to learning new or improved techniques from group members.  Y'know, like coaching or monitoring one another for proper form.  This is a core tenet of what makes a team in real life.  I shouldn't have had to explain that to you.  Additionally, games quite literally always held to real-life circumstance, because that would be boring as fuck and generally not very fun.


    And no, you're spiel about being social creatures doesn't change the fact that humans are quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so..  Like, say, an adequately more efficient progression rate for waiting and putting in the effort to coordinate a group endeavor when they could consistently progress without that extra time and effort.  Amazeballs!
    Don't know where you got that "fact" about humans being "quite literally" wired to take the path of least resistance, but I'm going to guess it's pulled from the planet between Saturn and Neptune.

    There's plenty of ways in which we waste massive amounts of our time and energy doing things we don't have to do without any substantive benefit. I'm sure you can think of an example or two just by looking at the URL for this webpage.

    And without that "fact", your argument is gone in a cloudpoof of Amazeballs.
    Maybe he read about it on the internet?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-gen-y-guide/201703/were-wired-take-the-path-least-resistance

    Amazeballs.
    Gdemami

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    Kyleran said:
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Funny thing that you should mention reality here as your finishing move. You know the one place where humans don't get artificial bonuses for grouping?

    Reality.

    The natural benefits of grouping have to be enough on their own in the real world. And they are--people form groups all the time for entertainment's sake. Not because they must depend on each other but because humans, it turns out, are inherently social animals and spending time together is fun.

    Of course, that ceases to be true when you must have skill X and you must have skill Y and omg why is anyone using skill Z and there's a team boss who controls all the loot that you'd better keep happy when they issue the orders and if the phone rings for one player everyone has to stop and imaragequitbecauseyouallSUCK.

    Because humans may be social, but that doesn't mean they like to be forced into a box.

    If you need the bonuses to get people to play together, the play you're trying to get them to do together isn't the play they want to be doing.
    <sigh>. The XP bonus for grouping, from an RP sense, would be equivalent to learning new or improved techniques from group members.  Y'know, like coaching or monitoring one another for proper form.  This is a core tenet of what makes a team in real life.  I shouldn't have had to explain that to you.  Additionally, games quite literally always held to real-life circumstance, because that would be boring as fuck and generally not very fun.


    And no, you're spiel about being social creatures doesn't change the fact that humans are quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so..  Like, say, an adequately more efficient progression rate for waiting and putting in the effort to coordinate a group endeavor when they could consistently progress without that extra time and effort.  Amazeballs!
    Don't know where you got that "fact" about humans being "quite literally" wired to take the path of least resistance, but I'm going to guess it's pulled from the planet between Saturn and Neptune.

    There's plenty of ways in which we waste massive amounts of our time and energy doing things we don't have to do without any substantive benefit. I'm sure you can think of an example or two just by looking at the URL for this webpage.

    And without that "fact", your argument is gone in a cloudpoof of Amazeballs.
    Maybe he read about it on the internet?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-gen-y-guide/201703/were-wired-take-the-path-least-resistance

    Amazeballs.
    Maybe he--and you--should read more carefully. And definitely the Psychology Today folks should learn to write more carefully.

    The study that blurb is talking about is about subconscious biases in decision-making that can be introduced by changes in effort that are so small that the user isn't even aware they're happening. The effect is strong enough that it can bias a decision in the wrong direction a small but resolvable percentage of the time (<10%).

    This study is about how we're "moderately inclined to subconsciously prefer the path of least resistance". It most definitely is not about how we're "quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so."" Emphasis there was not added by me, but it certainly helps make my point.

    We are not clockwork oranges, no matter how much some people would love to believe that we are. And this should be obvious to anyone trying to discuss this in good faith.
    Kyleran
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    Kyleran said:
    Maybe he--and you--should read more carefully. And definitely the Psychology Today folks should learn to write more carefully.

    The study that blurb is talking about is about subconscious biases in decision-making that can be introduced by changes in effort that are so small that the user isn't even aware they're happening. The effect is strong enough that it can bias a decision in the wrong direction a small but resolvable percentage of the time (<10%).

    This study is about how we're "moderately inclined to subconsciously prefer the path of least resistance". It most definitely is not about how we're "quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so."" Emphasis there was not added by me, but it certainly helps make my point.

    We are not clockwork oranges, no matter how much some people would love to believe that we are. And this should be obvious to anyone trying to discuss this in good faith.
    Holy shit, did you really just imply that because that because I didn't use the exact phrasing in the study, it's not applicable?


    /facepalm


    Since you wanna be a stickler for wording, I'll just quote the abstract of the study I referenced: "This demonstrates that the cost to act can influence our decisions beyond the context of the specific action."  I further included the anxious uncertainty that stems from other uncontrollable variables being added (other people, many times strangers), and that's about the only portion of my post that went beyond the specific idea purported by the study.  However, fear is well-documented to have a large effect on our decision-making, and the uncertainty of social situations contributes to creating such fears (also well-documented).  These are all negative factors that impact our perception of the choice to group by increasing the perceived potential and/or known cost of grouping.  The study provides evidence that supports the idea that the resistance we encounter in pursuing an action or decision can actually influence the way we see the situation itself and, therefore, how attractive we view one decision as opposed to another before a decision to pursue one decision or another ever even occurs.  But this specific resistance used in the study is still just a variable used to manipulate effort in pursuing a specifically tested choice.  In our gaming situation, the idea of finding group members, due to both the social anxiety associated with such an endeavor and the actual time and effort we would spend on it that is eliminated completely by merely soloing, alters our perception of the cost of the action (we perceive grouping as requiring more effort than soloing, generally, due to the logistics present for grouping that are completely eliminated by soloing, and the social anxiety introduced by the uncertainty of involving other human we commonly don't know increases the perceived cost potential in a similar manner).  Consequently, that alters our perception of the attractiveness of that choice as opposed to another choice (merely heading out on our merry way, solo).  Both the fear associated with social anxiety and the additional effort of the logistics contribute to resistance in making the decision to group.  All of that, taken as a whole, increases the perceived effort (and, therefore, overall perceived "cost") of deciding to group.  To claim otherwise is to imply that facing an anxiety-inducing unknown requires less perceived effort than avoiding it by merely skipping the logistical effort of grouping altogether, which seems (and, I submit, is) ludicrous.

    Considering all of this, it makes sense that developers would look for ways to counterbalance that perceived additional cost through things like streamlining logistics (group finders and dungeon ports) and increasing reward potential (dungeon boss loot and XP bonuses).

    Which brings me back to my original point: developers recognize the multiple factors that negatively impact the perceived attractiveness of random strangers on the internet cooperating towards a shared goal, and choose to counteract them in a multitude of ways, including increased reward potential.  The more popular paradigm in modern multiplayer games has been to reduce the logistics of finding those members, largely eliminate the need to interact with strangers socially to achieve success as a group, and to insulate the population from bad actors that would serve to further negatively alter the players' perception of grouping.  This helps to both alleviate the fear of the social interaction involved with grouping as well as the effort required by grouping logistics.  Regardless of which side of the coin they choose to focus on, the underlying principle remains the same: an attempt to increase the overall attractiveness of grouping, as a choice, so that players engage in that activity, whether that be by increasing reward potential, or decreasing the cost of the action, because all other things being equal, most players are gonna make the choice that presents the least amount of resistance (resistance, here, including both weathering the social anxiety and putting forth the effort towards logistics).  Your assertion that an XP bonus for grouping is ludicrous ignores this completely, and that's just ignorant.
    GdemamiJean-Luc_PicardKyleran

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    <sigh> The edit button thing needs to be fixed, ASAP.  One of my sentences seems to contradict itself because of a typo, and I can't edit it to correct the typo and clarify the idea.

    "These are all negative factors that impact our perception of the choice to group by increasing the perceived potential and/or known cost of grouping." should read "These are all negative factors that impact our perception of the choice to group by increasing the perceived potential cost and/or known cost of grouping."
    Kyleran

    image
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,238
    I find myself often astounded by game players' need for "rewards" for playing a game. Achievements are the most obvious of these, but rewards for exploring, crafting, and grouping come close. Are we all so jaded now?

    The "inherent rewards" for grouping is faster leveling (more mobs killed per minute) and the social dynamic of meeting other players while learning how to work/play with others. But that's not enough anymore. The "Gold Star for showing up" mentality has invaded video games now.

    I want to group because it is fun to do. There is no mechanical way to do that. It is 100% dependent upon other players.

    As for the "path of least resistance" comments, it is not 100% all the time. Ask any athlete if they work out with the lightest weights, or jog about the track, or walk around the hurdles. Ask mountain climbers if that small hill in the road is "good enough" to satisfy their desires. Then, there are the cheaters, who want the end reward for the least amount of effort, just for false bragging. We humans are not "hard-wired" for much. Survive by eating, sleeping, and reproducing in order to survive and thrive. And sometimes even that wiring fails, as people just give up and kill themselves.

    In entertainment, many times "the path of least resistance" rules, but not always. Some movies and shows that make us think or make us uncomfortable are popular. Some video game players seek out the "road less traveled" to challenge themselves.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,621
    Some interesting ideas here of what forced grouping means..
    Forced grouping to me means that the game block you from progressing a significant part of the game, unless you group. How much "a significant part" covers is up for debate and each individuals expectations of progressing in the game.

    We have the extreme case in upcomming Pantheon and Saga of Lucimia (as far as we know) where they apparantly don't want any nongroupable content. Then we have oldschool Everquest that at a glance has similar construct, but in reality a great number of players are working around it by boxing, so that it mitigate the "forced" effect. 

    Then we have the WoW types with only dungeons and raids being forced grouping. That might be considered a significant part of progressing and playing the game, because "endgame" has become the main content.

    Then we have something like GW2 that has almost no forced grouping, though in order to achieve that they also remove roles. These are called Zerg combat games, which is pseudo grouping because it has minimal co-op mechanics in form of roles and synergies, so everyone just do their own thing, you could say that everyone plays dps. Many modern and Asian games go with this model.

    My dream is a free system of encouraged grouping, where grouping is more an efficiency construction. This require dissolving the idea of tank&spank mechanics as the only way to group. I don't want the removal of roles because as seen in modern mmos that makes the game really bland (for me) - Instead I want a design that allows for high versatility in role setup, making it possible to take on the same enemies whether you are a 6 person tank&spank group or a smaller group or one person utilizing other tactics. I am not sure this makes sense to someone who hasn't played Everquest and seen/tried the multitude of tactics emerging, that made it possible to work around the tank&spank design by kiting, charming, rooting, various pet tactics, active aggro management, and much more (I am sure other oldschool mmos without the modern strict controlled game design can list some too).
    The point is that a two person group (or even a skilled solo player) should to a high degree be able to do the same content as a 6 person group, just much less effeciently time wise, safety wise, success rate wise and other-wise.
    I DO NOT WANT SCALING in any form because that in m opinion destroys the integrety of the game world (another discussion).
    In addition I want players to be able to change roles so group composition can change freely and adapt, so that the old issue of needing specific roles (tank, heal, cc, etc) is removed or diminished.
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,885
    AlBQuirky said:
    I find myself often astounded by game players' need for "rewards" for playing a game. Achievements are the most obvious of these, but rewards for exploring, crafting, and grouping come close. Are we all so jaded now?

    The "inherent rewards" for grouping is faster leveling (more mobs killed per minute) and the social dynamic of meeting other players while learning how to work/play with others. But that's not enough anymore. The "Gold Star for showing up" mentality has invaded video games now.

    I want to group because it is fun to do. There is no mechanical way to do that. It is 100% dependent upon other players.

    As for the "path of least resistance" comments, it is not 100% all the time. Ask any athlete if they work out with the lightest weights, or jog about the track, or walk around the hurdles. Ask mountain climbers if that small hill in the road is "good enough" to satisfy their desires. Then, there are the cheaters, who want the end reward for the least amount of effort, just for false bragging. We humans are not "hard-wired" for much. Survive by eating, sleeping, and reproducing in order to survive and thrive. And sometimes even that wiring fails, as people just give up and kill themselves.

    In entertainment, many times "the path of least resistance" rules, but not always. Some movies and shows that make us think or make us uncomfortable are popular. Some video game players seek out the "road less traveled" to challenge themselves.
    Easy because in general MMORPG is more work than fun in its mechanics.  Thus if the work is not rewarding why do it?
    AlBQuirky
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    aummoid said:
    Kyleran said:
    Maybe he--and you--should read more carefully. And definitely the Psychology Today folks should learn to write more carefully.

    The study that blurb is talking about is about subconscious biases in decision-making that can be introduced by changes in effort that are so small that the user isn't even aware they're happening. The effect is strong enough that it can bias a decision in the wrong direction a small but resolvable percentage of the time (<10%).

    This study is about how we're "moderately inclined to subconsciously prefer the path of least resistance". It most definitely is not about how we're "quite literally wired to take the path of least resistance, unless there's an overwhelming benefit to not doing so."" Emphasis there was not added by me, but it certainly helps make my point.

    We are not clockwork oranges, no matter how much some people would love to believe that we are. And this should be obvious to anyone trying to discuss this in good faith.
    Holy shit, did you really just imply that because that because I didn't use the exact phrasing in the study, it's not applicable?


    /facepalm
    Nope. Nice straw man, though.

    The study isn't applicable because the effect it describes is tiny and only present when the extra effort involved in shifting perception is too small to be consciously perceived. It's one of many small perceptual biases that exist, none of which is remotely strong enough as an effect to require some huge extra reward for grouping.

    As for the rest of your post about anxiety and grouping in the context of MMORPGs, you're now making an argument that people should be actively incentivized into doing something they literally are afraid to do because it's such an unpleasant and overcritical experience.

    Remind me again how that extra EXP bonus isn't about forcing people to do something they don't want to do?
Sign In or Register to comment.