Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What would you like to see developers do to help make the mmos more community oriented?
Gorakkh
Member Posts: 694
I really think developers should sit back, think and meditate about how they can re change the structure of an mmorpg to help the game have more of a strong feel of community without putting back the penalties of oldschool. Since it isn't really viable to make oldschool style mmos anymore, since they are not as lucrative, it would still be nice to see them cater to the community gamer, which I believe is inside of all of us who play, or atleast most of us.
Comments
There are many games out right now, that are community oriented, and or have nurtured good community's.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
You know what mrbloodworth, you know what, you've helped me see the gates of hell. Moderators please delete this thread as it is evidently no use considering the condemnation of this thread by Mrbloodworth.
If you make games that cater to anti social behavior and highly focus on solo content then you will see less socialization, thats just a fact. Then you will have games where guilds are the only social interaction you will have since everybody pretty much avoid contact with the outside world in the game.
If you want a game to be more community oriented and more social you need to focus more on group content instead of trying to please both groups. There is a reason why barrens chat is so notorious in WoW. People have no consequences for mouthing off because they can easily go and solo to their max level and get the best PvP gear on their own. Games that highly promotes solo will see a decline in a quality community. People avoid pickup groups, stay in ventrillo or only chat and play with their guildies. If that's the kind of socialization you are referring to when you speak of community driven games then we already have it left and right.
That is absouletly not what I'm referring to. What happened to people being open? There's no more character left in the mmorpgs developers are putting out anymore. It feels more like a multiplayer SRPG experience, and if I wanted that, I could go play SRPGS that deliver that exerpience 10x better than mmorpgs. MMORPGS should be made with their strengths emphasized, instead of catering to people who want SRPG with multiplayer tagged on. It is truly the parasite of this genre, as far as I am concerened, the way the developers have been creating games to focus on what doesn't define an mmorpg but what defines a SRPG with multiplayer options.
Make a well-rounded online world vs the current practice of making an accessible online game. Fleshed out worlds tend to have more social interaction systems than the combat-oriented/focused/horseblinders online games being made today. Combat is a good part of the equation, sure, but it's not the most important in my opinion.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
You know what mrbloodworth, you know what, you've helped me see the gates of hell. Moderators please delete this thread as it is evidently no use considering the condemnation of this thread by Mrbloodworth.
I'm sorry you cant see the forest from the trees. I'm just stating, your using blanket statements as if there are simply NONE. this isn't true.
You could take a look at those, and see what they did. But ill tell you right now, it has nothing to do with the game, its design, or its mechanics, and has everything to do with those community mangers and developers, and the tone they set and continue to enforce if necessary.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
You know what mrbloodworth, you know what, you've helped me see the gates of hell. Moderators please delete this thread as it is evidently no use considering the condemnation of this thread by Mrbloodworth.
I'm sorry you cant see the forest from the trees. I'm just stating, your using blanket statements as if there are simply NONE. this isn't true.
You could take a look at those, and see what they did. But ill tell you right now, it has nothing to do with the game, its design, or its mechanics, and has everything to do with those community mangers and developers, and the tone they set and continue to enforce if necessary.
I gave you the benefit. I said your right and that I'm wrong. What more do you want from me?
Mr.bloodsworth is one of the most highly commercialized people I have ever seen on this web page, and he (Mr.) takes it personally when you talk about "change" or "community" and "innovation." It makes reasonable discussion nearly impossible.
The question you raised is a brilliant one, and it requires a lot of work. It cannot even be answered using this text; it involves a lot of discussion, and thinking outside of the box, and idea generation.
First, above all else, communities cannot be forced. A community is a group of individuals who the same or similar value system, and I might not value raiding; or PvP; or anything else. It is not about a big tent guild with all of those members, but about many, varied, and diverse communities.
The lack of opportunities to log-in and socialize in ways other than a dungeon, raid boss, etc. is what undermines "community" in today's MMORPG. The content is so controlled; they want us to log-in, group, do content, log-off, log-in tomorrow, and repeat; but real and genuine communities do not grow that way. Online relationships (no sexual undertones, please; and people like Mr. Bloodsworth have tendencies to read beyond the plain and clear language) are meaningful. MMORPGs could do much more than that by providing the tools so communities can develop in ways other than killing things or PvPing. It is about, ultimately, creating a bizarre and fascinating world; and developers are increasingly unwillingly to do that and want to create fixed and limited worlds where our gameplay is linear and controlled.
We want freedom; freedom to communicate; freedom to form communities in ways not designed by developers.
Give us the tools, and we will create our own communities.
Player empowerment is key; it is about redefining the MMORPG experience within certain reasonable limitations.
That is absouletly not what I'm referring to. What happened to people being open? There's no more character left in the mmorpgs developers are putting out anymore. It feels more like a multiplayer SRPG experience, and if I wanted that, I could go play SRPGS that deliver that exerpience 10x better than mmorpgs. MMORPGS should be made with their strengths emphasized, instead of catering to people who want SRPG with multiplayer tagged on. It is truly the parasite of this genre, as far as I am concerened, the way the developers have been creating games to focus on what doesn't define an mmorpg but what defines a SRPG with multiplayer options.
I have a theory about it which may or may not be true.
The average gamer has an introverted asocial personality which manifest themselves in the games they play. Not all but enough for these game companies to target them with solo content and features that allows you to play without ever having to interact with anybody. Why else chose a genre that has more timesinks than any other genre that requires you spend more than 5 hours a day to progress. People go as far as playing 8-12 hours in one sitting being psudo social over the internet when they could be socializing in the real world. You have to be a little asocial if you prefer playing games for 8 hours straight day in and day out than face to face interaction in the real world.
Whenever i see a poster here advocating solo over group content that's the image i get. Somebody who doesn't want to play with others but want to feel like they are at Times Square during rush hour. Holy trinity and unable to spend 30 minutes looking for a group are all poor excuses to cover up the fact they don't really want to socialize. The game companies knows this group is large which is why we see more catering to solo aspects of games. We used to be dependent on eachother for buffs and travel..we used to meet strangers in dungeons and helped people recover from bad pulls. All these things has or is being killed off to cater to the anti social gamers out there that refuses to acknowledge what they are.
I'm social because I'm in a guild and go on raids!!. That doesn't really tell me you are social. It tells me you prefer hanging with cyber peers than doing any kind of real interaction. There is nothing wrong with that but lets call a spade a spade shall we?. Now that we have established that MMO's are huge timesinks not aimed at a person only able to spend an hour online but more like 8. If you prefer MMO's then you prefer to invest a large borderline huge amount of time playing and progressing ..otherwise you would be playing a flash game instead. Now that we have concluded that MMO gamers in general invest large amount of time playing these games i feel it's safe to say the average gamer is a bit anti social. Unless we want to argue that online games = real socialization. It isn't and it doesn't.. Its an escape from civilization, your job, your wife or your girlfriend unless they happen to be gamers themselves, your family etc etc etc.
Very well said. Reputation does not matter in modern MMO's therefore people can do they want. Because players are not dependent upon each other they are no repercussions for being anti-social.
If you want mature and healthy communities you need players to be dependent on each other for success. It would help if idderent p[laystyle spheres are dependent upon each other as well.
I would love to see more community dependent events like Horizons had at launch. Adventurers and crafters both needed to tunnel out caves to reach new areas and content. Massive building projects that take the entire community weeks or months to complete. The problem with such events is making them worthwhile and worth the effort.
In modern MMO's the most progressive community feature I have seen was Warhammer's Public Quests. They really are a great way of bringing strangers together for a common cause. It is a shame they did not take the next step and introduce progression raiding into the game. I would love to see more games adopt PQs as an addition to gameplay.
In the current fast food MMO culture it is very hard to build communities. As everything has to be quick and easy, flashy and eye catching and activities that require thought, patience and time are often hated by a vocal segment of player bases. Add in the perception that newer games must appeal to these ADHD type gamers to succeed and content that actually builds communities is something not looked upon as a priority or even fondly by big budget MMO Devs.
But by and large Horizons community crafting projects were something all MMOs should consider. These projects like the rest of Horizons was unfinished and incomplete but it really showed the untapped potential of community projects. Horizons in all other aspects other than crafting was a horrible game. But many many people loved it solely because of the community aspects of the game.
You know what mrbloodworth, you know what, you've helped me see the gates of hell. Moderators please delete this thread as it is evidently no use considering the condemnation of this thread by Mrbloodworth.
I'm sorry you cant see the forest from the trees. I'm just stating, your using blanket statements as if there are simply NONE. this isn't true.
You could take a look at those, and see what they did. But ill tell you right now, it has nothing to do with the game, its design, or its mechanics, and has everything to do with those community mangers and developers, and the tone they set and continue to enforce if necessary.
I gave you the benefit. I said your right and that I'm wrong. What more do you want from me?
Nothing, i was just pointing it out, your acting as if i attacked you. You were also attempting to put forth that "old school" community's were better, while this may be true, the internet, and MMO's were less assessable as a whole, so in no way does not even relate to modern situations.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I actually enjoy the Times Square effect, but I like to think that I enjoy a fun time with other players far more.
As I see it, the fundamental problem with socialization is that the games are entirely structured on players pursuing personal goals. Why would I go through the effort of finding a group when everything in the game is structured to encourage me to pursue my personal goals? Groups are an annoyance because while they afford me the opportunity to achieve my personal goals, they themselves are just an annoyance.
In EverQuest, the PvE content almost demanded groups. Players hated it and complained quite a bit about it. They complained about groups, but the problem was the personal goals. Give players group goals and they'll happily find other players to help with them. Everyone in the group would gain by achieving those group goals, and other players are viewed as an asset instead of a burden. (This is 'group' in the sociological sense, not the game mechanic)
PvP players already know this. Play some EVE Online and you can see it in action. "I want to build the best mercenary outfit in EVE." "Me too. Let's do it." Shared goal. That, as opposed to "I'm going to be the best mercenary in EVE" "You can try, buddy, but I'm going to kick your..."
This pattern hasn't been developed very far with PvE content. The best I can think of in current big name titles is groups that raid heavily and want to be the first to take down a given raid. They're motivated towards a common goal and I'm sure that those guilds can be very social. But that's not enough. PvE games need far more than that.
So I'd like to see levels and gear and all this personal achievement stuff heavily muted. I'd like to see large-scale challenges put to the players by the gamemasters so that the players have something to shoot for.
Imagine EVE Online as a PvE game - with the gamemasters actively running the enemy alliance(s). They don't fly individual ships, but they can throw AI ships at the PvE corporations whenever they want, in whatever numbers they want, as often as they want. The goal would be to challenge the players and give them reasons to seek each other out for mutual support and for the pursuit of shared goals.
You'll notice that personal goals still exist in EVE Online, but they are not the backbone of the game. Players are pursuing more capable characters because they are trying to contribute to their player group, whatever its goals might be.
Well said.
Group oriented content is where we need to head if we want more community. Nothing wrong with personal goals if the game promotes you seek out your personal goals in groups like you said yourself. The game just need to be designed around bringing people with personal goals together instead of letting them wander off to complete them on their own.
The games most noted for having, to one degree or another, healthy player communities are
- UO
- SWG
- EVE Online
Grouping and community have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all. Forced grouping dynamics bring out the worst in people in each game that has them.
What facilitates healthy player communities is the provision of tools to allow players to build their communities. We have seen that consistently for a decade now. Forced grouping does not now and never has in the past been a catalyst to community building.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
and LOTRO.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Completely disagree. You were more or less forced in EQ and people remembered your name if you were a dick. Suddenly you had a hard time finding spots in guilds, groups and pickup raids
Your name would spread wide and fast. EQ had one of the most close knit communities i have experienced in a MMORPG to this day. Hell even Vanguard was generally more mature then most of the new MMOs out there. I contribute that to if you lack social skills your progression would be seriously hampered. Back to WoW and Barrens Chat where those types can advance again.
It's pretty logical if you are forced to socialize with others in form of grouping you need to behave or people will simply not group with you.
I agree with your choices but I would also add EQ pre LDoN. EQ had a great community when I played all the way up to LDoN atleast as far as my experience is concerned.
I guess FFXI isn't worth mentioning because of the elitist attitude that many of the end-game players give off. Although there still was some pretty good people and I would say the game had somewhat of a healthier community then many other mmorpgs on the market.
Honestly exclusion, the more inclusive of different playstyles the game is the more different types of people it will attract, and "worse" the community will be.
The key is to make a game that only appeals to a small group of people, and since they all have the same mentality they will get along better and want to talk and group more etc.
Forcing interdependance and grouping will not do it, unless you like that to begin with, because even if the game requires down time and has slow paced combat and requires a group to do things, a person that doesn't care much for idle chit chat will not be compelled to do so now.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
In EverQuest, the PvE content almost demanded groups. Players hated it and complained quite a bit about it. They complained about groups, but the problem was the personal goals. Give players group goals and they'll happily find other players to help with them. Everyone in the group would gain by achieving those group goals, and other players are viewed as an asset instead of a burden. (This is 'group' in the sociological sense, not the game mechanic)
PvP players already know this. Play some EVE Online and you can see it in action. "I want to build the best mercenary outfit in EVE." "Me too. Let's do it." Shared goal. That, as opposed to "I'm going to be the best mercenary in EVE" "You can try, buddy, but I'm going to kick your..."
This pattern hasn't been developed very far with PvE content. The best I can think of in current big name titles is groups that raid heavily and want to be the first to take down a given raid. They're motivated towards a common goal and I'm sure that those guilds can be very social. But that's not enough. PvE games need far more than that.
I strongly agree with this. Societies evolve when multiple people have similar goals and band together to achieve them. Societies break apart when their members have different goals yet are forced down a path that some of them do not want to go down.
Forced grouping can create societies by limiting the available goals until players playing the game have to pursue the same goals because that is the only thing to do. Those that do not like those limited goals simply quit the game. This is what happened in EQ or the 'raid or die' parts of WoW.
As soon as you expand the options you run the risk that people will have differnt goals and thus will not band together as much. What this means that creating viable social groups actually takes work. You have to accept that people will want to different stuff than you and instead of figuring out ways to force them to do the stuff you want, you will have to come up with ways in which you can cooperate so that all of you can achieve your varying goals faster and easier. However, when you manage to accomplish that the experience will be more satisfying and longer lasting then if you were just forced to work together because your choices were limited to a few basic goals.
I agree with your choices but I would also add EQ pre LDoN. EQ had a great community when I played all the way up to LDoN atleast as far as my experience is concerned.
I guess FFXI isn't worth mentioning because of the elitist attitude that many of the end-game players give off. Although there still was some pretty good people and I would say the game had somewhat of a healthier community then many other mmorpgs on the market.
I agree about EQ, as well. EQ built its community because the original EQ players were mostly the PnP DnD crowd. It was a group of relatively likeminded players inasmuchas they were logging in with the intent and desire to form an adventure band and go slay monsters much as they had been doing for years with dice (or even LARPing) before that.
It was a playerbase that logged in for the purpose of playing together. After all, the early MMOers were playing because grouping was the selling point. I think if you asked gamers back them if they would pay monthly to play a game solo online they'd think you were crazy for even asking. It's a very different audience now.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
A person that doesn't care for idle chit chat or small talk is more likely an introvert. It's one of the major points of introvertism. Extroverted people love chit chat. They have big mouthes and small ears in regards to using them while introverted people have big ears and small mouthes also in regards to using them before some stoner comes in and tells me how size has nothing to do with personality.
I really can't see a game with grouping aspect completely absent from the game would have a healthier community because it attracted all the players that only wants to solo. All likeminded having the type of gameplay they prefer. Either you will have a very silent chat or a chat much worse than what you see in WoW if unmoderated. The reason for this is obvious. No consequences and accountability
The point is forced grouping doesn't change peoples behavior and make them act in a certain way, it just drives those that don't like forced grouping away, leaving only those that do, which is why they get along, I actually don't think it has to do with consequences. Kind of like how looting doesn't make people see PvP as meaningful, it just drive those away that don't like it, leaving only those that find looting valuable. So the feature doesn't change the community it narrows it down to those that like the feature.
Because you can have a thriving community of assholes, just look at 4chan, as long as the majority act that way.
Or you could have a more introverted community that only talk and group on occasion.
What constitues good is really subjective to how you would like other people to act, it is when you have a game that has extroverts, introverts and 4chaners togethers is when everyone will say that it is bad.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
The point is forced grouping doesn't change peoples behavior and make them act in a certain way, it just drives those that don't like forced grouping away, leaving only those that do, which is why they get along, I actually don't think it has to do with consequences. Kind of like how looting doesn't make people see PvP as meaningful, it just drive those away that don't like it, leaving only those that find looting valuable. So the feature doesn't change the community it narrows it down to those that like the feature.
Because you can have a thriving community of assholes, just look at 4chan, as long as the majority act that way.
Or you could have a more introverted community that only talk and group on occasion.
What constitues good is really subjective to how you would like other people to act, it is when you have a game that has extroverts, introverts and 4chaners togethers is when everyone will say that it is bad.
You could argue that the people driven away by forced grouping is the same kind of people who does not want to socialize to begin with. Which would be the point towards creating a more social community. Driving people away that doesn't want to socialize would be a good solution to the problem if you ask me.
The only way i see a community getting away with acting like Aholes is if they have no reason to fear any consequences for it. If they would get backlisted and it would hinder their progress they would act differently. Those that would still act like Aholes would find themselves not seeing most of what the game has to offer and their progress haltered. EQ Showed us this so did EQ2 and Vanguard. Any game that forced you into grouping has basically proven this point. In WoW you can ninja loot and be an ass and people will forget your name moments after you leave the group. You couldn't get away with the same in games past that relied heavy on the grouping aspect. People remembered your name back then if you made a fool of yourself. I would be more inclinded to be open to your point if experience hasn't taught me different.
You cant change an asshole. You can however give his action a consequence he would find it hard to live with. One of those that has worked in the past is shun them from the community in games heavily relient on the community itself.
To be honest i would rather play a game with forced grouping with a less of an ambitious goal around the 500k sub mark than a game catering to soloers with an 11 million sub base.
That was kind of my point with the exclusion thing. Forced grouping would make for a good community if you like grouping a lot but the way it does it is buy excluding all those that do not like it.
Most people get the causation backwards and say things like, "if WoW required more groups the community would become better," the thing is the rule doesn't change the behavior it just causes all those that don't like it to quit. People who play forced grouping games are not nice to each other because the game demands it but because they all want to group up. And changing the rules mid game to try to alter behaviour will just cause the community to deminish, like SWG.
Which brings me to another point, developers have to pick a group to make the game for from the beggining and stick with it
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
That was kind of my point with the exclusion thing. Forced grouping would make for a good community if you like grouping a lot but the way it does it is buy excluding all those that do not like it.
Most people get the causation backwards and say things like, "if WoW required more groups the community would become better," the thing is the rule doesn't change the behavior it just causes all those that don't like it to quit. People who play forced grouping games are not nice to each other because the game demands it but because they all want to group up. And changing the rules mid game to try to alter behaviour will just cause the community to deminish, like SWG.
Which brings me to another point, developers have to pick a group to make the game for from the beggining and stick with it
You can see in FFXI that it still had It's share of elitist pricks and aholes but they were far and few inbetween. Overall the community was a hell of a lot better and nicer then many other mmorpgs on the market.