But most people play alone most of the time. CCP employee said it, Arenanet dev said it...
If these are the stats/facts, as a realist, you have to make sure these people have something to do in your game. You shouldn't always need someone else to accomplish something.
Despite being MMORPGs, these games need to have a healthy amount of soloable content and activities which don't require you to be in a group or have a guild.
Making an MMORPG where group is required all the time, is just not going to work very well and that's why you're not seeing many of those.
Features like face-to-face trading instead of auction house which OP mentions, are such that they offer no value to a player who is not interested in trading. It is a huge inconvenience. Why should these players trade off to a feature that makes their experience worse? Nevermind how things "should be" in MMORPGs - that whole discussion is ridiculous - why would you put in a feature from which the bigger part of the market would turn away from?
But if you're chasing down a niché you're fine going with face-to-face trading. Go crazy, man. Put in all the shit you think "MMORPGs should have".
In Lineage 2 you could either face to face trade or buy form players' personal stores. I don't believe in Auction Houses, I have always preferred the personal stores. find an item you want? you can either look at other stores and compare prices and hope the first item doesn't sell or buy NOW.
Auction house is just a vending machine.
Yet, some player stores were monitored by the players and oftentimes they would offer deals or even package deals.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
But most people play alone most of the time. CCP employee said it, Arenanet dev said it...
If these are the stats/facts, as a realist, you have to make sure these people have something to do in your game. You shouldn't always need someone else to accomplish something.
Despite being MMORPGs, these games need to have a healthy amount of soloable content and activities which don't require you to be in a group or have a guild.
Making an MMORPG where group is required all the time, is just not going to work very well and that's why you're not seeing many of those.
Features like face-to-face trading instead of auction house which OP mentions, are such that they offer no value to a player who is not interested in trading. It is a huge inconvenience. Why should these players trade off to a feature that makes their experience worse? Nevermind how things "should be" in MMORPGs - that whole discussion is ridiculous - why would you put in a feature from which the bigger part of the market would turn away from?
But if you're chasing down a niché you're fine going with face-to-face trading. Go crazy, man. Put in all the shit you think "MMORPGs should have".
In Lineage 2 you could either face to face trade or buy form players' personal stores. I don't believe in Auction Houses, I have always preferred the personal stores. find an item you want? you can either look at other stores and compare prices and hope the first item doesn't sell or buy NOW.
Auction house is just a vending machine.
Yet, some player stores were monitored by the players and oftentimes they would offer deals or even package deals.
And what if people put in bots to handle their trading. Would it make a difference to you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Coincidentally, there are multiple MMORPGs in crowd funding development right now that are targeting those very niches. From large scale PvP to incredibly complex crafting, to increased interdependence between players- the MMORPGs genre has, is, and always will truly be a niche genre. WoW's success will fade, AAA developers will exit the genre, and the teams passionate about creating their visions will remain and find a way to bring those visions to life. It's already happening.
There's too many better-suited options for this supposed solo super majority to play that aren't MMORPGs. Folks that want PvP without the task of finding other players have MOBAs. Online multiplayer games like Marvel Heroes, Path of Exile, Destiny, and Diablo are there for folks who want to solo and just see players passing by. Those games are more focused towards that play style. And kudos to developers for focusing on that.
The niche of this genre (which it seems to be returning to, aside from WoW) has always focused on the first two M's in that acronym. Notice I say focused, as it isn't to the exclusion of solo able content. But neither is that it's bread and butter, as other genres can and do serve that purpose far better.
OP - you are not crazy - the issue is you are talking about MMORPGs - most newer games are MMOS which don't require strong communities.
Example Overwatch - its focused on small team play - you just need a handful of friends.
Or Destiny - it doesn't require a large community because the gameplay is focused on small team play.
Most newer online games are MMOs, that's the real reason why community is not priority because the focus is solo or small team play.
Actually community is a priority for those games, but efforts are concentrated where the communities are - and that's not inside the game world.
Not sure what your point is Loktofeit. Destiny is a shooter and Overwatch is sort of a lobby game if I am not mistaken. What does the community outside of the game have to do with socializing in an MMO?
I get your point - there aren't any hugfests in game. And this crowd will chinscratch til the cows come home because they don't want to acknowledge the real answer, which is that most people in most games aren't there to make new friends and meet new people. They're there to have fun playing a game for a while, and if the people around them aren't dicks, well then that's just an awesome bonus.
EDIT: Pepeq gave a similar answer, but from a really good angle - In most MMOs, the tools are there to build community, if that's what the playerbase wants to do.
Yes, I have to say, completely agree with the yellow. Whole paragraph actually.
Most of us probably would not be friends in real life. Why is it expected that we should all be friends in an MMO?
But always nice to run into someone of similar interests and such. That's the best I hope for.
You don't have to make lifelong companions in-game. But playing with others is what multiplayer games are about. Otherwise, they'd be singleplayer games.
It's one thing to not wanna tell a complete stranger online how your day went and what you've been up to. An entirely other thing to load up a multiplayer game and get angry if you have to, y'know, play together with other players.
Is FPS death match a single player game? -No. Grouping is not required for a multiplayer game. The one thing that is required, is that you share the game space with other players. So if someone wants to go about playing MMORPGs solo, they are not doing anything wrong.
Solo combat is only one aspect of community though.
The niche of this genre (which it seems to be returning to, aside from WoW) has always focused on the first two M's in that acronym. Notice I say focused, as it isn't to the exclusion of solo able content. But neither is that it's bread and butter, as other genres can and do serve that purpose far better.
You are still assuming that even with a focus on "the first two Ms" that most people grouped or did anything more than play alone together.
That term "alone together" is an important one, because it comes from a study done about a decade ago on player interaction in MMORPGs. If you have time, it's well worth a read:
I used to run surveys in the EVE Newsletter, and occasionally we'd focus on how people played EVE. EVE has an extremely social dynamic and is a very different game from WoW (the MMO used in the report linked above), yet you'll find several of the results very similar. Here's a link to one of those surveys: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour
The patterns of wanting to play in and around groups of people (but not necessarily group with them), including the pattern of guilded solo players staying longer than unguilded solo players, has been relatively consistent no matter the genre, type or style of the MMO.
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
The niche of this genre (which it seems to be returning to, aside from WoW) has always focused on the first two M's in that acronym. Notice I say focused, as it isn't to the exclusion of solo able content. But neither is that it's bread and butter, as other genres can and do serve that purpose far better.
You are still assuming that even with a focus on "the first two Ms" that most people grouped or did anything more than play alone together.
That term "alone together" is an important one, because it comes from a study done about a decade ago on player interaction in MMORPGs. If you have time, it's well worth a read:
I used to run surveys in the EVE Newsletter, and occasionally we'd focus on how people played EVE. EVE has an extremely social dynamic and is a very different game from WoW (the MMO used in the report linked above), yet you'll find several of the results very similar. Here's a link to one of those surveys: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour
The patterns of wanting to play in and around groups of people (but not necessarily group with them), including the pattern of guilded solo players staying longer than unguilded solo players, has been relatively consistent no matter the genre, type or style of the MMO.
That's a very interesting read, and I would not disagree with their findings (without more recent evidence of my own to refute it). However, there are a couple things of particular interest to note:
"We split characters into four bands of grouping ratio (e.g. characters in the 0-1% band were almost never observed to be in a group) and then plotted the average time it took them to complete a level across all the levels. As Figure 6 shows, characters who are never in a group consistently level faster than characters who group at any frequency. In fact, the former are about twice as efficient in leveling as the latter."
Before the era of WoW and mainstream success, it was reversed. Players that grouped up leveled significantly faster in older MMORPGs (so long as the group was efficient) than did players who played alone. This new paradigm actively discourages grouping. I've always been a proponent of "players take the path of least resistance." When soloing is obviously the most efficient route to progression, it discourages folks from grouping (note the solo player leveled twice as fast as the player who grouped at any frequency). This is the type of anti-social design the OP is talking about.
". . . that players in guilds spend more time in the game than others. . . " (cut out from scientific language on either side detailing the method by which they plotted the data)
This is of interest to developers, and is why they should be, from a business standpoint, encouraging grouping and interaction as much as possible. Players that find themselves part of organizations play more than players who do not. As a business, the more time folks use your product, the more important this product becomes to their daily lives. This is important to increase retention in sub games and becomes even more important in F2P games; the more time a player spends in-game, the more time you can advertise all your cool cash shop items and the higher the chance they will buy. You don't spend a few hours every day walking around a mall without picking up a few things here and there. This is, of course, assuming that F2P game is not searching for the quick buck and milking of whales with no real interest in creating a deeply and continually rewarding experience (where's TiamatRoar when I need him to give us the link to Jared what's-his-face's research on F2P?). In fact, Ducheneaut et al. posit something that I (and many others) have basically been saying...
"Considering the above, it is clear that players need more tools to help insure that their guild survive and prosper."
The developers have not explored fully the idea of designing for player interaction (including traditional organizations such as guilds). In fact, as is the case above with progression speeds, many developers have actively designed against it. Since we now know that players who participate in guilds (thereby increasing player interaction within the game) play more than those who don't (specifically, from the paper cited, playing much more, on average, at the highest levels), it becomes a boon for an MMORPG, as a business looking to continue profitability into the future, to encourage player interaction and the forming of social ties.
And though I do not disagree that many players spend much of their time "alone together," the paper shows that even the most solo-friendly characters spend almost a third of their game time grouping. And this in a game that actively discourages grouping by making it the slower form of progression. So, again, even players that rail against the idea of encouraged grouping spend a significant chunk of their time in-games grouping even though it actually slows their progress (if the evidence cited is to be believed and still applies today).
Originally posted by Loktofeit You are still assuming that even with a focus on "the first two Ms" that most people grouped or did anything more than play alone together.
That term "alone together" is an important one, because it comes from a study done about a decade ago on player interaction in MMORPGs. If you have time, it's well worth a read:
I used to run surveys in the EVE Newsletter, and occasionally we'd focus on how people played EVE. EVE has an extremely social dynamic and is a very different game from WoW (the MMO used in the report linked above), yet you'll find several of the results very similar. Here's a link to one of those surveys: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour
The patterns of wanting to play in and around groups of people (but not necessarily group with them), including the pattern of guilded solo players staying longer than unguilded solo players, has been relatively consistent no matter the genre, type or style of the MMO.
These are great reads and I wanted to say that I personally enjoy being around other players, not tied to them for my gameplay, so the "alone together" fits me to tee
The reason is simple to me: Other players provide unexpected content/gameplay. Some things that can not be scripted by developers. A player in trouble warrants my healers help. Maybe a player bit off more then they can chew, so my warrior jumps in to help (after asking first). A player needs directions, so if I know, I tell them.
Like the OP said, MMOs "should" make community a bigger priority. How they do this is up for grabs, of course
[EDIT] I wanted to point out that if an MMO is created with community in mind, the players seeking single player online experiences may avoid the game. Since I see the players as the root of the problem, I do not see the downside here. Of course, it is not the best of business practices
- 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
Far to many posts to quote that I do NOT agree with. Having tools to build a community does not innately give anyone a reason to make a grand community. Having forums and an ingame ability to make guilds does not give anyone a reason to join a guild or get up onto a forum.
With cash shops that allow a player to buy what they need to craft or to advance in adventuring or leveling etc. there is less need to jump on a forum or in game and spam your sales or what you'd like to buy. I do not even like an AH. Having to travel to where everyone is selling their wares is quite a thing to behold if you've never experienced it. Those not interested in such have ALOT of other gaming choices.
Necessity leads people to form groups, guilds and log into a forum. Good guilds of like-minded people succeed in games that make raids or large groups to tackle content a necessity. From experience, joining pick-up groups and raids usually ends up with little in reward besides experience. Joining a guild offers one a chance to advance in such a difficult environment. Games that are so difficult they require groups or at least, soloers who have learned how to manage tough encounters are much more likely to have thriving communities.
When gear can be had easily and universally regardless of one's preferred in game activity, it loses its luster and value. Thus, crafting does as well and what this does is make it easier for currency farmers to make alot of money. When in-game currency is difficult to come by, not just a matter of botting a toon, currency farmers are much fewer and far between.
What is really strange to me is that there are a few things that irritate most people who play MMORPGs. Rude people, gold farmers, bots, useless crafting and easy content. Yet alot of people are buying into games they know have these things and decry those people who appreciated games that by design, filtered out these things. Now, most of these are older but these concepts are still known and desired. If I spend hours playing an MMORPG, I don't just want the game to be fun, I want to also have something to shoot for. Goals that can't be completed in 2 weeks and a robust community.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
The niche of this genre (which it seems to be returning to, aside from WoW) has always focused on the first two M's in that acronym. Notice I say focused, as it isn't to the exclusion of solo able content. But neither is that it's bread and butter, as other genres can and do serve that purpose far better.
You are still assuming that even with a focus on "the first two Ms" that most people grouped or did anything more than play alone together.
That term "alone together" is an important one, because it comes from a study done about a decade ago on player interaction in MMORPGs. If you have time, it's well worth a read:
I used to run surveys in the EVE Newsletter, and occasionally we'd focus on how people played EVE. EVE has an extremely social dynamic and is a very different game from WoW (the MMO used in the report linked above), yet you'll find several of the results very similar. Here's a link to one of those surveys: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour
The patterns of wanting to play in and around groups of people (but not necessarily group with them), including the pattern of guilded solo players staying longer than unguilded solo players, has been relatively consistent no matter the genre, type or style of the MMO.
That's a very interesting read, and I would not disagree with their findings (without more recent evidence of my own to refute it). However, there are a couple things of particular interest to note:
"We split characters into four bands of grouping ratio (e.g. characters in the 0-1% band were almost never observed to be in a group) and then plotted the average time it took them to complete a level across all the levels. As Figure 6 shows, characters who are never in a group consistently level faster than characters who group at any frequency. In fact, the former are about twice as efficient in leveling as the latter."
Before the era of WoW and mainstream success, it was reversed. Players that grouped up leveled significantly faster in older MMORPGs (so long as the group was efficient) than did players who played alone. This new paradigm actively discourages grouping. I've always been a proponent of "players take the path of least resistance." When soloing is obviously the most efficient route to progression, it discourages folks from grouping (note the solo player leveled twice as fast as the player who grouped at any frequency). This is the type of anti-social design the OP is talking about.
". . . that players in guilds spend more time in the game than others. . . " (cut out from scientific language on either side detailing the method by which they plotted the data)
This is of interest to developers, and is why they should be, from a business standpoint, encouraging grouping and interaction as much as possible. Players that find themselves part of organizations play more than players who do not. As a business, the more time folks use your product, the more important this product becomes to their daily lives. This is important to increase retention in sub games and becomes even more important in F2P games; the more time a player spends in-game, the more time you can advertise all your cool cash shop items and the higher the chance they will buy. You don't spend a few hours every day walking around a mall without picking up a few things here and there. This is, of course, assuming that F2P game is not searching for the quick buck and milking of whales with no real interest in creating a deeply and continually rewarding experience (where's TiamatRoar when I need him to give us the link to Jared what's-his-face's research on F2P?). In fact, Ducheneaut et al. posit something that I (and many others) have basically been saying...
"Considering the above, it is clear that players need more tools to help insure that their guild survive and prosper."
The developers have not explored fully the idea of designing for player interaction (including traditional organizations such as guilds). In fact, as is the case above with progression speeds, many developers have actively designed against it. Since we now know that players who participate in guilds (thereby increasing player interaction within the game) play more than those who don't (specifically, from the paper cited, playing much more, on average, at the highest levels), it becomes a boon for an MMORPG, as a business looking to continue profitability into the future, to encourage player interaction and the forming of social ties.
And though I do not disagree that many players spend much of their time "alone together," the paper shows that even the most solo-friendly characters spend almost a third of their game time grouping. And this in a game that actively discourages grouping by making it the slower form of progression. So, again, even players that rail against the idea of encouraged grouping spend a significant chunk of their time in-games grouping even though it actually slows their progress (if the evidence cited is to be believed and still applies today).
I was kind of hoping that by presenting you with a respected paper on the topic plus some recent public data that... well, I guess that was crazy of me, eh?
All of your "Yeah, those are real numbers, but what I believe is..." aside, this line stuck out because it's something concrete we can discuss, and I am hoping that you can stick to facts and we don't drift into the realm of beliefs, diner analogies or other craziness.
"Before the era of WoW and mainstream success, it was reversed. Players that grouped up leveled significantly faster in older MMORPGs (so long as the group was efficient) than did players who played alone. This new paradigm actively discourages grouping."
Can you name some of these new MMOs where leveling solo is faster than leveling in a group or where grouping is discouraged?
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
"The ability to construct an identity as an “uber” or “elite” gamer is where MMORPGs are truly social worlds – grouping with others can be just a means to an end, which can be sidestepped depending on playing style [1, 26]. Put differently it is not “the people that are addictive” [14] but rather, “it’s the image of myself I get from other people.” "
This I fear is the sad state we are heading to in MMO's today. At least according to these forums. Its why so many would dismiss Foomerangs "Non combat" thread as pure folly.
Socialization in MMO's is not about having fun playing with other people. The only socialization going on is preparing for raiding so that we can acquire that rare loot or gear, in order to make ourselves "Uber!" After that it is "cya later alligator" and off we go solo, to strut and pose and show off our Uberness. This is the reward todays MMO player seeks.
The study showed how guilds generally only had enough active players grouping to create perhaps a couple of dungeon running groups. The rest of the players in that group either were not interested, or were not of suitable level or playing skill to participate.
So in other words, aside from dungeon running, what other reasons do MMO's give us to socialize? If rewards in an MMO are going to be geared towards leveling and status, then this is likely all it will amount to. And that is probably why there is such a large amount of solo players out there today.
We simply do not care about the Uberness of our toons. Give us other reasons, and perhaps you might see more socialization across the entire spectrum of MMO players, not just the hyper competitive " Uber Elites".
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
well even though i agree with you, i wont play a game that makes you deal with others. not anymore. gamers have changed and there seem to be way more asshats than friendly people. in this age.
K>If you mean that by design, you are "forced" to group up with random people via dungeon finders in order to find players of similar level, then I agree with you, I won't deal with the many jerks in games today.
I don't really agree with that. I remember lots of racist, sexist, rude, etc., remarks flooding the ooc chat in games like Ultima Online and EQ. K> You played the wrong games apparently, I started out in Lineage 1, DAOC, Lineage 2 and if anyone even mentioned another MMO, or made an inappropriate remark the online moderators would be chat banning in a heart beat, sometime for days at a time, or they'd take people out of the game entirely, I wish we could return to the days of active, firm chat moderation, kept things far more civil.
Originally posted by Nilden
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by Pepeq
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Sorry, but community is something that the players make. The developers have given you all the tools you need to make it happen... it's your choice whether you choose to make it happen. Sadly, the majority of the players choose not to.
Keep in mind, having a need for people to do something or help you do something is not *community*. A guild is not a community in and of itself. A community is a group of people who choose to hang out together doing whatever just for the hell of it. They aren't there purely to raid. Purely to build a castle. Purely to dominate the economy. That is just people playing a game. If said activities did not exist, they wouldn't even be playing the game.
So you see, *community* exists everywhere and no where... depending on your choice. Do you log in to a game and just hang out chatting with friends for hours on end, not really doing anything? Then you have a community. Do you log in just prior to a raid, park yourself near the instance all prepared to go, and wait for an invite? Then you don't have a community.
You don't need mechanics to force *community* because it doesn't work. *Community* happens despite the game mechanics... so just because there's a LFR or LFG or some other solo-izing mechanic in the game, doesn't mean you can't have *community*.
The water is there, it's up to each individual to decide whether to drink it. Problem is, everyone thinks it's someone else's job to make *community* happen... and that's why it doesn't... because it's a choice, not a mechanic.
I agree but I think developers make games anti-community. At some point if you're in your own isobubble 90% of the time what is the point of the game being an MMORPG instead of a single player or multiplayer game?
Yea it's a lot more like not leading the horse anywhere and saying, "if's he is thirsty enough he will find something to drink."
Yeah Pepeq and his supporters miss the mark entirely with this. They mistake the term "community" for the word "friend"
Sure, there are tools to make "friends'", as mentioned, but I'm not here to make friends with folks, I'm looking for people to help me achieve common in game goals, and you can't really do that if there are no in game goals really to speak of that require group cooperation.
At one time I used to raid, so I joined a raiding guild. In EVE I wanted to do large scale fleet warfare, so I joined a corp that had large scale fleet battles for sov, now I'm in a corp that rents space and lets other do the fighting, I just make ISK and stomp on NPC rats and chase the occasional camper away.
At no point did I ever stay with a guild, or a game for that matter because my "friends" were there. If I had different goals, or wanted to play a new game, I just moved, and made new "friends" who shared my goals.
So the more mechanics that developers put into a game that strongly encourage, screw it, force people to want to band together for survival, safety, to gain control of resources or for defense, the more likely people like me are to find common bonds with others and work together with them.
But this friend concept, ugh, one reason I hate most modern voice chats is everyone is talking about their real and personal lives, I don't care, keep that for your real life friends, I only want to chat about game related content, or at least something terribly interesting going on in the real world today, such as Zombie Apocalypse or something.
I only tolerate it now in EVE because I need the intel that comes from it when hostiles are on the way, or to learn more knowledge of the game, otherwise I'd tear the headset off and never join in.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
We simply do not care about the Uberness of our toons. Give us other reasons, and perhaps you might see more socialization across the entire spectrum of MMO players, not just the hyper competitive " Uber Elites".
Inspired by that and the old Chronicles of Spellborn motto - what is hidden must be found, I thought up a senses system. If the characters in a game are capable of sensing different parts of adventure then you have reason to group up together to form adventuring groups. Senses are like what we used to have with classes that weren't hybrids but instead they are like crafting - you learn senses and improve them over time. Ex. senses - someone with the ability to find treasure - someone with the ability to find breakable walls - someone with the ability to read ancient writing that leads to a quest. You get the idea. Senses give me one view of the world and you another and together we accomplish more or share a scenario that we created.
I could experience the same area with a different person and their senses could lead me down a different path and I could give them something they hadn't seen before. The reason I compare it to classes is because you rarely brought a group of 5 healers to a dungeon, you wanted just a main tank healer and someone to pick up extras but when a group is built because of a separate system it's not built as much around combat as the mainstay.
That's an intriguing thought.
Because the way I see it, there are only two classes in an MMO. Combat specialist and Crafter or builder. Everything else is just a branch of these. And all leveling relates to these skills as well.
It all makes today's MMO's pretty two dimensional, and its no wonder many get bored quickly. Its the same choices all the time for most people. Hmm.....will I be a warrior, mage or ranger this time? Crafter?......Never!!
Yea lets see some treasure hunters, Or engineers, or entertainers.... anything to break up the overused duo of combat / craft.
Whether all this is possible with todays technology, I have no idea though!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
well even though i agree with you, i wont play a game that makes you deal with others. not anymore. gamers have changed and there seem to be way more asshats than friendly people. in this age.
K>If you mean that by design, you are "forced" to group up with random people via dungeon finders in order to find players of similar level, then I agree with you, I won't deal with the many jerks in games today.
I don't really agree with that. I remember lots of racist, sexist, rude, etc., remarks flooding the ooc chat in games like Ultima Online and EQ. K> You played the wrong games apparently, I started out in Lineage 1, DAOC, Lineage 2 and if anyone even mentioned another MMO, or made an inappropriate remark the online moderators would be chat banning in a heart beat, sometime for days at a time, or they'd take people out of the game entirely, I wish we could return to the days of active, firm chat moderation, kept things far more civil.
Originally posted by Nilden
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by Pepeq
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Sorry, but community is something that the players make. The developers have given you all the tools you need to make it happen... it's your choice whether you choose to make it happen. Sadly, the majority of the players choose not to.
Keep in mind, having a need for people to do something or help you do something is not *community*. A guild is not a community in and of itself. A community is a group of people who choose to hang out together doing whatever just for the hell of it. They aren't there purely to raid. Purely to build a castle. Purely to dominate the economy. That is just people playing a game. If said activities did not exist, they wouldn't even be playing the game.
So you see, *community* exists everywhere and no where... depending on your choice. Do you log in to a game and just hang out chatting with friends for hours on end, not really doing anything? Then you have a community. Do you log in just prior to a raid, park yourself near the instance all prepared to go, and wait for an invite? Then you don't have a community.
You don't need mechanics to force *community* because it doesn't work. *Community* happens despite the game mechanics... so just because there's a LFR or LFG or some other solo-izing mechanic in the game, doesn't mean you can't have *community*.
The water is there, it's up to each individual to decide whether to drink it. Problem is, everyone thinks it's someone else's job to make *community* happen... and that's why it doesn't... because it's a choice, not a mechanic.
I agree but I think developers make games anti-community. At some point if you're in your own isobubble 90% of the time what is the point of the game being an MMORPG instead of a single player or multiplayer game?
Yea it's a lot more like not leading the horse anywhere and saying, "if's he is thirsty enough he will find something to drink."
Yeah Pepeq and his supporters miss the mark entirely with this. They mistake the term "community" for the word "friend"
Sure, there are tools to make "friends'", as mentioned, but I'm not here to make friends with folks, I'm looking for people to help me achieve common in game goals, and you can't really do that if there are no in game goals really to speak of that require group cooperation.
At one time I used to raid, so I joined a raiding guild. In EVE I wanted to do large scale fleet warfare, so I joined a corp that had large scale fleet battles for sov, now I'm in a corp that rents space and lets other do the fighting, I just make ISK and stomp on NPC rats and chase the occasional camper away.
At no point did I ever stay with a guild, or a game for that matter because my "friends" were there. If I had different goals, or wanted to play a new game, I just moved, and made new "friends" who shared my goals.
So the more mechanics that developers put into a game that strongly encourage, screw it, force people to want to band together for survival, safety, to gain control of resources or for defense, the more likely people like me are to find common bonds with others and work together with them.
But this friend concept, ugh, one reason I hate most modern voice chats is everyone is talking about their real and personal lives, I don't care, keep that for your real life friends, I only want to chat about game related content, or at least something terribly interesting going on in the real world today, such as Zombie Apocalypse or something.
I only tolerate it now in EVE because I need the intel that comes from it when hostiles are on the way, or to learn more knowledge of the game, otherwise I'd tear the headset off and never join in.
It does seem like talking about games and how to do things in game are becoming taboo in society since they are considered a waste of time by many. Most people I talked to in older games were talking about something in game. They might be giving a warning not go somewhere or to try something. They might be asking for if you could do something for them or if they could do something for you. Of course there were people who also tried to hinder you and said a lot of rude things, but that seems to be the way it is everywhere. That was also kind of fun and made it amusing. I think part of the reason people don't talk about in game is also that they are so easy until the very very end in most cases that you don't really need to talk about anything in the game.
well even though i agree with you, i wont play a game that makes you deal with others. not anymore. gamers have changed and there seem to be way more asshats than friendly people. in this age.
K>If you mean that by design, you are "forced" to group up with random people via dungeon finders in order to find players of similar level, then I agree with you, I won't deal with the many jerks in games today.
I don't really agree with that. I remember lots of racist, sexist, rude, etc., remarks flooding the ooc chat in games like Ultima Online and EQ. K> You played the wrong games apparently, I started out in Lineage 1, DAOC, Lineage 2 and if anyone even mentioned another MMO, or made an inappropriate remark the online moderators would be chat banning in a heart beat, sometime for days at a time, or they'd take people out of the game entirely, I wish we could return to the days of active, firm chat moderation, kept things far more civil.
Originally posted by Nilden
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
Originally posted by Pepeq
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Sorry, but community is something that the players make. The developers have given you all the tools you need to make it happen... it's your choice whether you choose to make it happen. Sadly, the majority of the players choose not to.
Keep in mind, having a need for people to do something or help you do something is not *community*. A guild is not a community in and of itself. A community is a group of people who choose to hang out together doing whatever just for the hell of it. They aren't there purely to raid. Purely to build a castle. Purely to dominate the economy. That is just people playing a game. If said activities did not exist, they wouldn't even be playing the game.
So you see, *community* exists everywhere and no where... depending on your choice. Do you log in to a game and just hang out chatting with friends for hours on end, not really doing anything? Then you have a community. Do you log in just prior to a raid, park yourself near the instance all prepared to go, and wait for an invite? Then you don't have a community.
You don't need mechanics to force *community* because it doesn't work. *Community* happens despite the game mechanics... so just because there's a LFR or LFG or some other solo-izing mechanic in the game, doesn't mean you can't have *community*.
The water is there, it's up to each individual to decide whether to drink it. Problem is, everyone thinks it's someone else's job to make *community* happen... and that's why it doesn't... because it's a choice, not a mechanic.
I agree but I think developers make games anti-community. At some point if you're in your own isobubble 90% of the time what is the point of the game being an MMORPG instead of a single player or multiplayer game?
Yea it's a lot more like not leading the horse anywhere and saying, "if's he is thirsty enough he will find something to drink."
Yeah Pepeq and his supporters miss the mark entirely with this. They mistake the term "community" for the word "friend"
Sure, there are tools to make "friends'", as mentioned, but I'm not here to make friends with folks, I'm looking for people to help me achieve common in game goals, and you can't really do that if there are no in game goals really to speak of that require group cooperation.
At one time I used to raid, so I joined a raiding guild. In EVE I wanted to do large scale fleet warfare, so I joined a corp that had large scale fleet battles for sov, now I'm in a corp that rents space and lets other do the fighting, I just make ISK and stomp on NPC rats and chase the occasional camper away.
At no point did I ever stay with a guild, or a game for that matter because my "friends" were there. If I had different goals, or wanted to play a new game, I just moved, and made new "friends" who shared my goals.
So the more mechanics that developers put into a game that strongly encourage, screw it, force people to want to band together for survival, safety, to gain control of resources or for defense, the more likely people like me are to find common bonds with others and work together with them.
But this friend concept, ugh, one reason I hate most modern voice chats is everyone is talking about their real and personal lives, I don't care, keep that for your real life friends, I only want to chat about game related content, or at least something terribly interesting going on in the real world today, such as Zombie Apocalypse or something.
I only tolerate it now in EVE because I need the intel that comes from it when hostiles are on the way, or to learn more knowledge of the game, otherwise I'd tear the headset off and never join in.
You don't have friends... you have customers... all you care about is a full group... they could be any idiot off the street for all you care... a warm body is all you require. That is not community... community rarely exists in MMOs anymore because everyone is merely a customer. This WHOLE thread is about the missing community. You are one of the people that do not care about community. Which is fine. But don't even for a moment think community is about filling out a roster. That sir, is not true.
Necessity leads people to form groups, guilds and log into a forum. Good guilds of like-minded people succeed in games that make raids or large groups to tackle content a necessity. From experience, joining pick-up groups and raids usually ends up with little in reward besides experience. Joining a guild offers one a chance to advance in such a difficult environment. Games that are so difficult they require groups or at least, soloers who have learned how to manage tough encounters are much more likely to have thriving communities.
This viewpoint clashes with my own personal experiences. Back in the pre-WoW days I joined a guild purely for social reasons. We did not group up regularly and we mostly did our own thing. Yet the guild grew really large, we had a lot of emergent content and we ended up with a thriving community despite not doing any difficult group or raid content. We continued to thrive even as we moved to WoW and played extremely casually.
It was only when decided to start doing the raids that our community started to fray. Raid scheduling and loot distribution started creating conflicts and factions formed with what was once a unified guild. A few months later the guild imploded.
Guilds formed in order to conquer difficult content tend to be exclusionary in nature and do not inspire loyalty. More laid back casual guilds are needed to get a thriving community.
Good guilds of like minded people succeed regardless of the content.
Bad guilds or guilds that have to many different communities in them (read to different minded I'd that makes sense) don't succeed regardless of the content.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Is there any reason Venge that you simply just don't edit your post to correct the error ?
I think people cannot be forced to socialize and in this day and age walk into any restaurant and look at everyone. They are all on their cell phones texting. Why don't they just speak to the person next to them?
Social interaction in games has nothing to do with guilds. Natural grouping based off of difficultly, removal of instances, and contested content are examples of social interaction with players. Small things like group downtime is another prime example of natural social interaction. Sitting around with guildmates talking about getting wasted last weekend while running in circles in a garrison is not social interaction.
I did not realise that I have never used my phone to read forums. Guess now I understand the reason why so many posters never find the edit button thanks for that.
Necessity leads people to form groups, guilds and log into a forum. Good guilds of like-minded people succeed in games that make raids or large groups to tackle content a necessity. From experience, joining pick-up groups and raids usually ends up with little in reward besides experience. Joining a guild offers one a chance to advance in such a difficult environment. Games that are so difficult they require groups or at least, soloers who have learned how to manage tough encounters are much more likely to have thriving communities.
This viewpoint clashes with my own personal experiences. Back in the pre-WoW days I joined a guild purely for social reasons. We did not group up regularly and we mostly did our own thing. Yet the guild grew really large, we had a lot of emergent content and we ended up with a thriving community despite not doing any difficult group or raid content. We continued to thrive even as we moved to WoW and played extremely casually.
It was only when decided to start doing the raids that our community started to fray. Raid scheduling and loot distribution started creating conflicts and factions formed with what was once a unified guild. A few months later the guild imploded.
Guilds formed in order to conquer difficult content tend to be exclusionary in nature and do not inspire loyalty. More laid back casual guilds are needed to get a thriving community.
Really, which game? If being social was all you were after, I'd say you were and are the minority. I was in several guilds, as a player or as an officer. In most games, even older ones like EQ had ample activities to do while alone. This is why the 'just joined to be social' thing worked in the first place. Your guildmates did their own thing but had something fun to do while chatting it up in Guild or friend chat during these activities that were fun, interesting and time-consuming. Games like Rift where everything is quick to do may have groups that socialize but it does not have a thriving community.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Originally posted by djcincy Social interaction in games has nothing to do with guilds. Natural grouping based off of difficultly, removal of instances, and contested content are examples of social interaction with players. Small things like group downtime is another prime example of natural social interaction. Sitting around with guildmates talking about getting wasted last weekend while running in circles in a garrison is not social interaction.
I think you have it backwards. Forced random socialization is probably the worst form of community a game can implement. Just look at the extreme end of that the dungeon finder. Would anyone really call what a random PUG from a dungeon finder does as socializing 99% of the time? And removing the dungeon finder doesn't fix that problem as most of the time people still don't talk to each other regardless of how they formed up in random groups. You build communities from the ground up, encouraging small groups to make larger groups and larger groups to create guilds which in turn creates server communities. You can do this not only though content and gear progression but also incentives for grouping and guilds over solo activities. It takes a light hand for sure as it's just as easy to go to far one way than the other. That doesn't mean you have to destroy solo content either just put the incentives and systems in place to encourage group's and let the communities build themselves.
The goal of building a community in a MMO should be to create a environment where people want to log in everyday to interact with their fellow players. If you can do that well than player retention isn't a issue because people will naturally stay around in your game even if it's flawed. Now one could argue that the mechanics of doing that go hand in hand with making the game less solo friendly and there might be some truth to that but it's not like newer MMO's released have gone out of their way to build strong incentives for building communities from the ground up either.
I think one could also make a pretty strong case that the business realities of F2P and healthy community conflict with each other as well in a lot of cases. There can be exceptions of course like TSW has these lock boxes where everyone in your group gets a item as well when you open them. They both create a group dynamic to these cash shop boxes and social pressure on people who don't participate to spend money they might not have otherwise.
"The ability to construct an identity as an “uber” or “elite” gamer is where MMORPGs are truly social worlds – grouping with others can be just a means to an end, which can be sidestepped depending on playing style [1, 26]. Put differently it is not “the people that are addictive” [14] but rather, “it’s the image of myself I get from other people.” "
This I fear is the sad state we are heading to in MMO's today. At least according to these forums. Its why so many would dismiss Foomerangs "Non combat" thread as pure folly.
Socialization in MMO's is not about having fun playing with other people. The only socialization going on is preparing for raiding so that we can acquire that rare loot or gear, in order to make ourselves "Uber!" After that it is "cya later alligator" and off we go solo, to strut and pose and show off our Uberness. This is the reward todays MMO player seeks.
The study showed how guilds generally only had enough active players grouping to create perhaps a couple of dungeon running groups. The rest of the players in that group either were not interested, or were not of suitable level or playing skill to participate.
So in other words, aside from dungeon running, what other reasons do MMO's give us to socialize? If rewards in an MMO are going to be geared towards leveling and status, then this is likely all it will amount to. And that is probably why there is such a large amount of solo players out there today.
We simply do not care about the Uberness of our toons. Give us other reasons, and perhaps you might see more socialization across the entire spectrum of MMO players, not just the hyper competitive " Uber Elites".
The same type of image cultivation exists in games without combat. Do you think the most renowned content designers in games like Second Life get zero satisfaction from players enjoying their content?
A lot of non-combat games are not only fun but pretty huge markets (The Sims), and that's without delving outside of videogames to boardgames, where probably over half of the games lack combat.
It's really weird of you to learn that image cultivation is "a thing" in MMORPGs from the study, and the immediately nose-dive into extremism "the only socialization going on is...to make ourselves uber". More socialization than that is happening, but it's in limited quantities. Join any guild and you'll consistently see players teaching each other the game, and just generally socializing for socialization's sake.
It's also really illogical for you to imply MMOs need to provide other reasons to socialize.
The more mandatory socialization is, the less it will actually be socialization.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
In Lineage 2 you could either face to face trade or buy form players' personal stores. I don't believe in Auction Houses, I have always preferred the personal stores. find an item you want? you can either look at other stores and compare prices and hope the first item doesn't sell or buy NOW.
Auction house is just a vending machine.
Yet, some player stores were monitored by the players and oftentimes they would offer deals or even package deals.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
And what if people put in bots to handle their trading. Would it make a difference to you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There's too many better-suited options for this supposed solo super majority to play that aren't MMORPGs. Folks that want PvP without the task of finding other players have MOBAs. Online multiplayer games like Marvel Heroes, Path of Exile, Destiny, and Diablo are there for folks who want to solo and just see players passing by. Those games are more focused towards that play style. And kudos to developers for focusing on that.
The niche of this genre (which it seems to be returning to, aside from WoW) has always focused on the first two M's in that acronym. Notice I say focused, as it isn't to the exclusion of solo able content. But neither is that it's bread and butter, as other genres can and do serve that purpose far better.
Solo combat is only one aspect of community though.
You are still assuming that even with a focus on "the first two Ms" that most people grouped or did anything more than play alone together.
That term "alone together" is an important one, because it comes from a study done about a decade ago on player interaction in MMORPGs. If you have time, it's well worth a read:
http://www.nickyee.com/pubs/Ducheneaut,%20Yee,%20Nickell,%20Moore%20-%20Alone%20Together%20%282006%29.pdf
I used to run surveys in the EVE Newsletter, and occasionally we'd focus on how people played EVE. EVE has an extremely social dynamic and is a very different game from WoW (the MMO used in the report linked above), yet you'll find several of the results very similar. Here's a link to one of those surveys: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour
The patterns of wanting to play in and around groups of people (but not necessarily group with them), including the pattern of guilded solo players staying longer than unguilded solo players, has been relatively consistent no matter the genre, type or style of the MMO.
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
That's a very interesting read, and I would not disagree with their findings (without more recent evidence of my own to refute it). However, there are a couple things of particular interest to note:
"We split characters into four bands of grouping ratio (e.g. characters in the 0-1% band were almost never observed to be in a group) and then plotted the average time it took them to complete a level across all the levels. As Figure 6 shows, characters who are never in a group consistently level faster than characters who group at any frequency. In fact, the former are about twice as efficient in leveling as the latter."
Before the era of WoW and mainstream success, it was reversed. Players that grouped up leveled significantly faster in older MMORPGs (so long as the group was efficient) than did players who played alone. This new paradigm actively discourages grouping. I've always been a proponent of "players take the path of least resistance." When soloing is obviously the most efficient route to progression, it discourages folks from grouping (note the solo player leveled twice as fast as the player who grouped at any frequency). This is the type of anti-social design the OP is talking about.
". . . that players in guilds spend more time in the game than others. . . " (cut out from scientific language on either side detailing the method by which they plotted the data)
This is of interest to developers, and is why they should be, from a business standpoint, encouraging grouping and interaction as much as possible. Players that find themselves part of organizations play more than players who do not. As a business, the more time folks use your product, the more important this product becomes to their daily lives. This is important to increase retention in sub games and becomes even more important in F2P games; the more time a player spends in-game, the more time you can advertise all your cool cash shop items and the higher the chance they will buy. You don't spend a few hours every day walking around a mall without picking up a few things here and there. This is, of course, assuming that F2P game is not searching for the quick buck and milking of whales with no real interest in creating a deeply and continually rewarding experience (where's TiamatRoar when I need him to give us the link to Jared what's-his-face's research on F2P?). In fact, Ducheneaut et al. posit something that I (and many others) have basically been saying...
"Considering the above, it is clear that players need more tools to help insure that their guild survive and prosper."
The developers have not explored fully the idea of designing for player interaction (including traditional organizations such as guilds). In fact, as is the case above with progression speeds, many developers have actively designed against it. Since we now know that players who participate in guilds (thereby increasing player interaction within the game) play more than those who don't (specifically, from the paper cited, playing much more, on average, at the highest levels), it becomes a boon for an MMORPG, as a business looking to continue profitability into the future, to encourage player interaction and the forming of social ties.
And though I do not disagree that many players spend much of their time "alone together," the paper shows that even the most solo-friendly characters spend almost a third of their game time grouping. And this in a game that actively discourages grouping by making it the slower form of progression. So, again, even players that rail against the idea of encouraged grouping spend a significant chunk of their time in-games grouping even though it actually slows their progress (if the evidence cited is to be believed and still applies today).
The reason is simple to me: Other players provide unexpected content/gameplay. Some things that can not be scripted by developers. A player in trouble warrants my healers help. Maybe a player bit off more then they can chew, so my warrior jumps in to help (after asking first). A player needs directions, so if I know, I tell them.
Like the OP said, MMOs "should" make community a bigger priority. How they do this is up for grabs, of course
[EDIT]
I wanted to point out that if an MMO is created with community in mind, the players seeking single player online experiences may avoid the game. Since I see the players as the root of the problem, I do not see the downside here. Of course, it is not the best of business practices
- 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
Far to many posts to quote that I do NOT agree with. Having tools to build a community does not innately give anyone a reason to make a grand community. Having forums and an ingame ability to make guilds does not give anyone a reason to join a guild or get up onto a forum.
With cash shops that allow a player to buy what they need to craft or to advance in adventuring or leveling etc. there is less need to jump on a forum or in game and spam your sales or what you'd like to buy. I do not even like an AH. Having to travel to where everyone is selling their wares is quite a thing to behold if you've never experienced it. Those not interested in such have ALOT of other gaming choices.
Necessity leads people to form groups, guilds and log into a forum. Good guilds of like-minded people succeed in games that make raids or large groups to tackle content a necessity. From experience, joining pick-up groups and raids usually ends up with little in reward besides experience. Joining a guild offers one a chance to advance in such a difficult environment. Games that are so difficult they require groups or at least, soloers who have learned how to manage tough encounters are much more likely to have thriving communities.
When gear can be had easily and universally regardless of one's preferred in game activity, it loses its luster and value. Thus, crafting does as well and what this does is make it easier for currency farmers to make alot of money. When in-game currency is difficult to come by, not just a matter of botting a toon, currency farmers are much fewer and far between.
What is really strange to me is that there are a few things that irritate most people who play MMORPGs. Rude people, gold farmers, bots, useless crafting and easy content. Yet alot of people are buying into games they know have these things and decry those people who appreciated games that by design, filtered out these things. Now, most of these are older but these concepts are still known and desired. If I spend hours playing an MMORPG, I don't just want the game to be fun, I want to also have something to shoot for. Goals that can't be completed in 2 weeks and a robust community.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I was kind of hoping that by presenting you with a respected paper on the topic plus some recent public data that... well, I guess that was crazy of me, eh?
All of your "Yeah, those are real numbers, but what I believe is..." aside, this line stuck out because it's something concrete we can discuss, and I am hoping that you can stick to facts and we don't drift into the realm of beliefs, diner analogies or other craziness.
"Before the era of WoW and mainstream success, it was reversed. Players that grouped up leveled significantly faster in older MMORPGs (so long as the group was efficient) than did players who played alone. This new paradigm actively discourages grouping."
Can you name some of these new MMOs where leveling solo is faster than leveling in a group or where grouping is discouraged?
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
From the WoW study linked by Lokto:
"The ability to construct an identity as an “uber” or “elite” gamer is where MMORPGs are truly social worlds – grouping with others can be just a means to an end, which can be sidestepped depending on playing style [1, 26]. Put differently it is not “the people that are addictive” [14] but rather, “it’s the image of myself I get from other people.” "
This I fear is the sad state we are heading to in MMO's today. At least according to these forums. Its why so many would dismiss Foomerangs "Non combat" thread as pure folly.
Socialization in MMO's is not about having fun playing with other people. The only socialization going on is preparing for raiding so that we can acquire that rare loot or gear, in order to make ourselves "Uber!" After that it is "cya later alligator" and off we go solo, to strut and pose and show off our Uberness. This is the reward todays MMO player seeks.
The study showed how guilds generally only had enough active players grouping to create perhaps a couple of dungeon running groups. The rest of the players in that group either were not interested, or were not of suitable level or playing skill to participate.
So in other words, aside from dungeon running, what other reasons do MMO's give us to socialize? If rewards in an MMO are going to be geared towards leveling and status, then this is likely all it will amount to. And that is probably why there is such a large amount of solo players out there today.
We simply do not care about the Uberness of our toons. Give us other reasons, and perhaps you might see more socialization across the entire spectrum of MMO players, not just the hyper competitive " Uber Elites".
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Yeah Pepeq and his supporters miss the mark entirely with this. They mistake the term "community" for the word "friend"
Sure, there are tools to make "friends'", as mentioned, but I'm not here to make friends with folks, I'm looking for people to help me achieve common in game goals, and you can't really do that if there are no in game goals really to speak of that require group cooperation.
At one time I used to raid, so I joined a raiding guild. In EVE I wanted to do large scale fleet warfare, so I joined a corp that had large scale fleet battles for sov, now I'm in a corp that rents space and lets other do the fighting, I just make ISK and stomp on NPC rats and chase the occasional camper away.
At no point did I ever stay with a guild, or a game for that matter because my "friends" were there. If I had different goals, or wanted to play a new game, I just moved, and made new "friends" who shared my goals.
So the more mechanics that developers put into a game that strongly encourage, screw it, force people to want to band together for survival, safety, to gain control of resources or for defense, the more likely people like me are to find common bonds with others and work together with them.
But this friend concept, ugh, one reason I hate most modern voice chats is everyone is talking about their real and personal lives, I don't care, keep that for your real life friends, I only want to chat about game related content, or at least something terribly interesting going on in the real world today, such as Zombie Apocalypse or something.
I only tolerate it now in EVE because I need the intel that comes from it when hostiles are on the way, or to learn more knowledge of the game, otherwise I'd tear the headset off and never join in.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
That's an intriguing thought.
Because the way I see it, there are only two classes in an MMO. Combat specialist and Crafter or builder. Everything else is just a branch of these. And all leveling relates to these skills as well.
It all makes today's MMO's pretty two dimensional, and its no wonder many get bored quickly. Its the same choices all the time for most people. Hmm.....will I be a warrior, mage or ranger this time? Crafter?......Never!!
Yea lets see some treasure hunters, Or engineers, or entertainers.... anything to break up the overused duo of combat / craft.
Whether all this is possible with todays technology, I have no idea though!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
It does seem like talking about games and how to do things in game are becoming taboo in society since they are considered a waste of time by many. Most people I talked to in older games were talking about something in game. They might be giving a warning not go somewhere or to try something. They might be asking for if you could do something for them or if they could do something for you. Of course there were people who also tried to hinder you and said a lot of rude things, but that seems to be the way it is everywhere. That was also kind of fun and made it amusing. I think part of the reason people don't talk about in game is also that they are so easy until the very very end in most cases that you don't really need to talk about anything in the game.
You don't have friends... you have customers... all you care about is a full group... they could be any idiot off the street for all you care... a warm body is all you require. That is not community... community rarely exists in MMOs anymore because everyone is merely a customer. This WHOLE thread is about the missing community. You are one of the people that do not care about community. Which is fine. But don't even for a moment think community is about filling out a roster. That sir, is not true.
This viewpoint clashes with my own personal experiences. Back in the pre-WoW days I joined a guild purely for social reasons. We did not group up regularly and we mostly did our own thing. Yet the guild grew really large, we had a lot of emergent content and we ended up with a thriving community despite not doing any difficult group or raid content. We continued to thrive even as we moved to WoW and played extremely casually.
It was only when decided to start doing the raids that our community started to fray. Raid scheduling and loot distribution started creating conflicts and factions formed with what was once a unified guild. A few months later the guild imploded.
Guilds formed in order to conquer difficult content tend to be exclusionary in nature and do not inspire loyalty. More laid back casual guilds are needed to get a thriving community.
Bad guilds or guilds that have to many different communities in them (read to different minded I'd that makes sense) don't succeed regardless of the content.
Is there any reason Venge that you simply just don't edit your post to correct the error ?
I think people cannot be forced to socialize and in this day and age walk into any restaurant and look at everyone. They are all on their cell phones texting. Why don't they just speak to the person next to them?
Really, which game? If being social was all you were after, I'd say you were and are the minority. I was in several guilds, as a player or as an officer. In most games, even older ones like EQ had ample activities to do while alone. This is why the 'just joined to be social' thing worked in the first place. Your guildmates did their own thing but had something fun to do while chatting it up in Guild or friend chat during these activities that were fun, interesting and time-consuming. Games like Rift where everything is quick to do may have groups that socialize but it does not have a thriving community.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I think you have it backwards. Forced random socialization is probably the worst form of community a game can implement. Just look at the extreme end of that the dungeon finder. Would anyone really call what a random PUG from a dungeon finder does as socializing 99% of the time? And removing the dungeon finder doesn't fix that problem as most of the time people still don't talk to each other regardless of how they formed up in random groups. You build communities from the ground up, encouraging small groups to make larger groups and larger groups to create guilds which in turn creates server communities. You can do this not only though content and gear progression but also incentives for grouping and guilds over solo activities. It takes a light hand for sure as it's just as easy to go to far one way than the other. That doesn't mean you have to destroy solo content either just put the incentives and systems in place to encourage group's and let the communities build themselves.
The goal of building a community in a MMO should be to create a environment where people want to log in everyday to interact with their fellow players. If you can do that well than player retention isn't a issue because people will naturally stay around in your game even if it's flawed. Now one could argue that the mechanics of doing that go hand in hand with making the game less solo friendly and there might be some truth to that but it's not like newer MMO's released have gone out of their way to build strong incentives for building communities from the ground up either.
I think one could also make a pretty strong case that the business realities of F2P and healthy community conflict with each other as well in a lot of cases. There can be exceptions of course like TSW has these lock boxes where everyone in your group gets a item as well when you open them. They both create a group dynamic to these cash shop boxes and social pressure on people who don't participate to spend money they might not have otherwise.
The same type of image cultivation exists in games without combat. Do you think the most renowned content designers in games like Second Life get zero satisfaction from players enjoying their content?
A lot of non-combat games are not only fun but pretty huge markets (The Sims), and that's without delving outside of videogames to boardgames, where probably over half of the games lack combat.
It's really weird of you to learn that image cultivation is "a thing" in MMORPGs from the study, and the immediately nose-dive into extremism "the only socialization going on is...to make ourselves uber". More socialization than that is happening, but it's in limited quantities. Join any guild and you'll consistently see players teaching each other the game, and just generally socializing for socialization's sake.
It's also really illogical for you to imply MMOs need to provide other reasons to socialize.
The more mandatory socialization is, the less it will actually be socialization.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver