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

13»

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    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?
    <Sigh> because apparently you have no fucking clue that there's a difference in definition between the word "encourage" and "force."


    I can't help you if your vocabulary and reading comprehension is really that bad, dude.
    Kyleran

    image
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,839
    I don't mind grouping up in games. I just don't like being at the mercy of others for progression. Especially when I log-in and just want to explore and do things at my own pace. 

    In MMORPGs I think challenges that require group coordination should be for bragging rights and rare cosmetic rewards. I do not think story advancement or character strength should be attached to this style of play.

    That's not to say grouping shouldn't exist, it absolutely should but PUGs should always be a well supported option no matter how rotten they can turn out.

    Developers need to be mindful of this as games can die just from folks not being able to find a party to do something the rest of the community has moved on from or have no desire to revisit.
    KyleranAlBQuirky
    Raging Demons for all flowchart "Kens". This is a metaphor.
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    aummoid said:
    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?
    <Sigh> because apparently you have no fucking clue that there's a difference in definition between the word "encourage" and "force."


    I can't help you if your vocabulary and reading comprehension is really that bad, dude.
    Awww, now I'm sad. You're trying so hard to help me! If only I had better comprehension!

    On the other hand, maybe not. If I had better vocabulary and reading comprehension, I might understand the concept of a euphemism, and then the distinction between "encouragement" and "forcing" might seem like one of those.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    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?
    <Sigh> because apparently you have no fucking clue that there's a difference in definition between the word "encourage" and "force."


    I can't help you if your vocabulary and reading comprehension is really that bad, dude.
    Awww, now I'm sad. You're trying so hard to help me! If only I had better comprehension!

    On the other hand, maybe not. If I had better vocabulary and reading comprehension, I might understand the concept of a euphemism, and then the distinction between "encouragement" and "forcing" might seem like one of those.
    And yet, you're still wrong.  An XP bonus falls far short, and there's a distinct difference between encouraging a behavior and forcing one.


    You can continue to ignore it (and misapply euphemism while doing so), but it doesn't change the fact that there's a substantial difference between those two ideas, because we have very clear examples of the two in the genre today, and they aren't at all the same. /Shrug

    image
  • MisterZebubMisterZebub Member LegendaryPosts: 3,567
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    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?
    <Sigh> because apparently you have no fucking clue that there's a difference in definition between the word "encourage" and "force."


    I can't help you if your vocabulary and reading comprehension is really that bad, dude.
    Awww, now I'm sad. You're trying so hard to help me! If only I had better comprehension!

    On the other hand, maybe not. If I had better vocabulary and reading comprehension, I might understand the concept of a euphemism, and then the distinction between "encouragement" and "forcing" might seem like one of those.
    And yet, you're still wrong.  An XP bonus falls far short, and there's a distinct difference between encouraging a behavior and forcing one.


    You can continue to ignore it (and misapply euphemism while doing so), but it doesn't change the fact that there's a substantial difference between those two ideas, because we have very clear examples of the two in the genre today, and they aren't at all the same. /Shrug
    Fine so let's change the language, positive enforcement, i.e. incentivizing a player for grouping with better rewards for doing so, more xp, loot, etc, and on the flip side, negative enforcement punishing the solo player with much less xp, loot, etc, and even the chance of being unable to experience the game content at all as they are just to weak to complete it alone.

    Now if you'll notice, these features can be both encouraging or discouraging, rewarding or punitive based simply upon their severity. Every individual will see how it effects them differently. Some will feel they are being rewarded for grouping, and therefore encouraged to do so, and others will feel punished for not wanting to group and therefore feel forced to do so. So this little kerfuffle over forced vs encourage is rather a pedantic waste of everyone's time.
    aummoid

    "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."

  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 987
    Is there a game that does the following:
    - Allows you to get the same rewards via solo or group play, but takes a factor of 10 times longer to get it via the solo option
    - Allows your class to toggle between its solo template and its grouping template with a push of a button

    The closest I can think of is Diablo 3.

    EQ2 had Solo Heroic Dungeons.

    Solo content should not give the same rewards as group content.  Group content comes with many extra requirements that make it a volatile experience.  What if half your group decides to leave, or gets disconnected, etc?  Group content is harder by default.  There is NO WAY to make Solo Content equal in difficulty to group content - it is not possible, unless you dumb down the classes like in Guild Wars II.

    EQ2 also lets you toggle between solo and group template with the push of a button...

    I wouldn't touch a game that met what you're talking about.

    Diablo III isn't that.  It's an ARPG loot grinder.  There is really no such thing as group content in D3.  All content is just content, and the Game just scales damage and HP based on the number of players in the party.  It doesn't have to account for things that many MMORPGs do - like the fact that a healer may have poor surviveability in direct combat, and very low DPS.

    If you're going to make i.e. an EQ Dungeon that is soloable by a Cleric, than it is likely to be trivial to classes like Paladin, Necromancer, Druid, Magician, and Shaman immediately.

    This is not a good way to design content, and only leads to countless rants on forums from players complaining that their class is getting the short end of the stick.
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 987
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    The difficulties of higher level mobs are not a "challenge to grouping", because grouping makes fights easier, not harder. There are many types of mobs that would be very difficult for a single player that are easy for a group. Mobs that are easier for single players than groups, not so much.

    If the logistics of grouping are so burdensome that nobody wants to do it even though it allows those better and easier opportunities, that's bad game design.

    Completely incorrect.  Grouping makes fights harder, because it increases the amount of variables in the equation.  When the content is designed for group combat, and to actually be a challenge (cause this is often not the case), you have to depend on more than just yourself.

    If you figure out the strat in a solo fight, the fight is won.

    If you figure out the strat in a group fight, but you tank hasn't... you're still going to wipe.  This is why trash mobs are often trivial to parties in hard group content, but they fail at teh bosses and many groups just break up.  It's why PUG raids fail so often, even though guild runs with players of lower average gear quality succeed more often (unless the PUG laughably outgears the content).

    The coordination and working together necessary in a group increases the difficulty of the content.  The fights don't get "easier" until people start trivializing them either through gear, or over time (having done it so many times that it's a cakewalk).

    And that's assuming everyone stays in the party through the [for example] dungeon run.  It's assuming people are as good at the game as you presume yourself to be.  Your main healer may be playing with 500 ping and 20-25 FPS...  It's assuming people have the gear for the level for content they're running (DPS/Heal Checks, etc.).

    Group fights are actually harder.  They require coordination and communication; working together with multiple other players.  Solo fights are just pull and spank, for the mosts part.

    Anyone who thinks group content is easier simply by virtue of having more people have likely not gotten anywhere near end-game in any MMORPG they've played... and probably haven't played many MMORPGs, period.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    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?
    <Sigh> because apparently you have no fucking clue that there's a difference in definition between the word "encourage" and "force."


    I can't help you if your vocabulary and reading comprehension is really that bad, dude.
    Awww, now I'm sad. You're trying so hard to help me! If only I had better comprehension!

    On the other hand, maybe not. If I had better vocabulary and reading comprehension, I might understand the concept of a euphemism, and then the distinction between "encouragement" and "forcing" might seem like one of those.
    And yet, you're still wrong.  An XP bonus falls far short, and there's a distinct difference between encouraging a behavior and forcing one.


    You can continue to ignore it (and misapply euphemism while doing so), but it doesn't change the fact that there's a substantial difference between those two ideas, because we have very clear examples of the two in the genre today, and they aren't at all the same. /Shrug
    Fine so let's change the language, positive enforcement, i.e. incentivizing a player for grouping with better rewards for doing so, more xp, loot, etc, and on the flip side, negative enforcement punishing the solo player with much less xp, loot, etc, and even the chance of being unable to experience the game content at all as they are just to weak to complete it alone.

    Now if you'll notice, these features can be both encouraging or discouraging, rewarding or punitive based simply upon their severity. Every individual will see how it effects them differently. Some will feel they are being rewarded for grouping, and therefore encouraged to do so, and others will feel punished for not wanting to group and therefore feel forced to do so. So this little kerfuffle over forced vs encourage is rather a pedantic waste of everyone's time.
    It's not.  Being literally unable to down a boss or water a dungeon scenario without a group is forced grouping.  It's simply not realistic to complete the content without grouping with others.  That's very obvious.


    An XP bonus has zero effect on your chances to progress or complete specific content.  It literally affects nothing other than the potential progression rate.  That fails to qualify as "forcing" players to group by any rational definition of the term.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Enter* a dungeon scenario.



    This edit button needs to return, like, yesterday.
    KyleranEponyxDamorAlBQuirky

    image
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    Darksworm said:
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    The difficulties of higher level mobs are not a "challenge to grouping", because grouping makes fights easier, not harder. There are many types of mobs that would be very difficult for a single player that are easy for a group. Mobs that are easier for single players than groups, not so much.

    If the logistics of grouping are so burdensome that nobody wants to do it even though it allows those better and easier opportunities, that's bad game design.

    Completely incorrect.  Grouping makes fights harder, because it increases the amount of variables in the equation.  When the content is designed for group combat, and to actually be a challenge (cause this is often not the case), you have to depend on more than just yourself.

    If you figure out the strat in a solo fight, the fight is won.

    If you figure out the strat in a group fight, but you tank hasn't... you're still going to wipe.  This is why trash mobs are often trivial to parties in hard group content, but they fail at teh bosses and many groups just break up.  It's why PUG raids fail so often, even though guild runs with players of lower average gear quality succeed more often (unless the PUG laughably outgears the content).

    The coordination and working together necessary in a group increases the difficulty of the content.  The fights don't get "easier" until people start trivializing them either through gear, or over time (having done it so many times that it's a cakewalk).

    And that's assuming everyone stays in the party through the [for example] dungeon run.  It's assuming people are as good at the game as you presume yourself to be.  Your main healer may be playing with 500 ping and 20-25 FPS...  It's assuming people have the gear for the level for content they're running (DPS/Heal Checks, etc.).

    Group fights are actually harder.  They require coordination and communication; working together with multiple other players.  Solo fights are just pull and spank, for the mosts part.

    Anyone who thinks group content is easier simply by virtue of having more people have likely not gotten anywhere near end-game in any MMORPG they've played... and probably haven't played many MMORPGs, period.
    You're comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about the effectiveness of groups vs. solo players against the exact same opponents, and the group is so much more obviously effective there that you couldn't even entertain the possibility that's what we were talking about.

    Do try to keep up.
  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,608
    edited February 10
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 
    I never thought of EQ as forced grouping and loved leveling my character for literally years. Played WoW and EQ2 on their opening days and was disappointed severely. EQ2 was really bad with it's monster difficulty icons with "group only" versions. So bad.
    Have to agree here. It didn’t seem forced at the time, as there were no other options. Its like having a ship and needing a crew to run it. Once the ship is able to run itself, its more efficient and convenient, but also cold, lonely, and shallow.

    I guess I could still invite people onto the ship, but at that point, why be on a ship at all? Id rather be at the beach and just hire someone else to be on the ship.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

Sign In or Register to comment.