Originally posted by CactusmanX Which brings me to another point, developers have to pick a group to make the game for from the beggining and stick with it
Now that I agree with. One of the problems with games is that developers try to please too many different subsets of gamers all in one game. Soloers, small groupers, raiders, PvPers; you can't satisfy them all in one game because everyone has a playstyle they like best and whether they admit it or not they want their playstyle to be the dominant playstyle. Since these games are all based on progression (so far) that means that they want their playstyle to offer the highest, fastest, and longest continuing progression.
A game shouldn't start out focusing on one subset and then switch to a different subset at the endgame. And they really should give up on trying to please all subsets simultaneously because it can't be done. That's not to say a game can't have a variety of things to do, however, developers should make it clear from the start which subset they are building their game for and then stick to that and, yes, favor that specific playstyle throughout the game.
If they could get that through their heads then instead of trying to please everyone in one game they could build different games for the different major subsets of gamers. They could then tune and focus each game more specifically to please the intended subset and I think we'd all get somewhat better games. And maybe if all the major subsets of gamers each had games specifically tailored for their playstyles we might not be at each others throats so much.
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.
Could you explain why you feel that forced grouping, a questing mechanism, has anything to do with socializing and player interaction?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by Fibsdk 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.
Could you explain why you feel that forced grouping, a questing mechanism, has anything to do with socializing and player interaction?
Forced grouping extends beyond questing. It pops up any time a game has an activity that produces personal rewards that cannot be done solo. EverQuest is the canonical example because that game handed out experience, gear and cash for killing monsters while making it very difficult to efficiently kill monsters solo. It had nothing to do with questing, just killing monsters.
If making a sword required six players to craft, but only one got the sword, that would be viewed as forced grouping. Pick any activity in a game where you are after something, but you're required to get together with others to pursue it and you're looking at forced grouping.
Fibsdk's first statement above is close to truth. I would say that it is not the forced grouping that identifies people uninterested in being social, but the appeal of personal rewards. If your focus is on your character's progression through the world, then the game is encouraging anti-social behavior at a very fundamental level. Games with great emphasis on personal achievements are going to attract selfish-minded people (EverQuest and clones). Games with great emphasis on community achievements are going to attract more community-minded people (EVE Online).
Note that EVE Online still retains plenty of personal achievements, so it's hardly a panacea of community spirit. PvP games in general have a strong sense of community spirit because the largest group tends to be able to accomplish the most.
To understand how forced grouping can really bring home a sense of socialization and player interaction, you'd have to have played old EverQuest. Grouping was so forced in that game that players tended to bond very closely. Efficient killing machines were the fastest way to see new content, and we all wanted to see the next area. Efficiency requires communication, so we chatted. The game was structured such that we would kill for hours in the same group, so we chatted about a lot of stuff. We got to know each other.
That's why forced grouping relates to socialization and player interaction - if you force it for long enough, people get to know each other. I guess it's a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
It is very encouraging because I see a lot of posts, more so than ever really, about the need for
Community;
Innovation;
Customized Player-Housing, and
Other.
I hope developers are reading these posts and actually learning from them: the copy-and-paste sameness model is not working anymore.
Perhaps I speak for myself, but I not even subscribed to any MMORPGs; and I am a life-long gamer with the time, PC, and money to play. But I ain't got a game to play, or at least not one worth 15.00 a month. 15.00 a month is not a lot of money, but it is also an unwillingness to commit to an MMORPG that is lacking or totally missing the features that make MMORPGs great. Community, as this entire Topic points out, is one of those features.
Community are simply lacking and in some cases missing. Even negative sides of community such as personal name-calling are more prevalent today. It is the whole concept of gaming in which people do not value relationships, communities, group content, and cooperative-content. It is unfortunate how much community has been taken a slide.
Some games are simply doomed to have bad communities. As much as they struggle for change, it doesn't work, it can't be helped. An attempt to bring drastic changes into a game will only bring hatred against it, I agree with Neanderthal and Cactusmanx that developers should target their game at a specific type of gamer and stick to it.
Either way, everyone knows that there is a pattern for the average MMORPG nowadays, and this pattern promotes self-centerism. The average MMORPG is heavily focused on grinding and personal achievements, their players want to gain more levels, more items, simply to show off. In a game like this, every single person around you is a problem, is an obstacle in your journey to greatness, they are your enemies, they will steal your items and your experience. In a situation like this, it may be true that forced grouping might not change much. People don't really care to what others may think of them, everyone has a single objective which they will attempt to reach at any costs, excluding other people is a part of it.
The reason for what most MMORPGs nowadays have horrible communities is that they focus on competitive activities and give no importance to collective activities. It's not that you can't have any competitive activities, it is just important to give some importance to the community by counter-balancing the competitiveness with some group-oriented activities. Also, it doesn't matter if a game forces you to group with other people when it is simply competitive in every other aspect of it.
Either way, what makes of people assholes when accessing the Internet? Anonimity. Anonimity tempts you to be an asshole when you have no interest on giving a good impression to others. In other words, MMORPG gamers don't have interest in being a part of their game's community, or they simply feel that they have far too many opportunities of meeting new people, that disrespecting a single one wouldn't make a difference. This is why smaller communities are usually more friendly, since you aren't just another fish in the sea. Also, people don't often feel that they need to belong to a large group when they are satisfied in their smaller group of friends (guild).
What do I suggest? First and foremost, developers should think on this prior to releasing their games. This is a vital aspect of a game, and changing from a horrible community to a great one is nearly impossible after a high number of players have already stablished themselves in that specific game. They shouldn't neglect the opportunity of adding collective activities, as silly as they may seem, anything that brings players together for a common cause helps. Also, there should always be something that gives a large group of players a feeling of identity, the feeling that they belong to something much greater than their guilds, and that they should help it grow. Identity is usually what connects people in real life, it is what brings a bunch of strangers into a large stadium to cheer for their favorite soccer teams (for example).
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 disagree with you here. I think game design and mechanics play a huge role in community. A game designed where you can get to cap level easy without ever grouping, scripted content where you have to have X class, where PvP has no tie to the community as a whole, where you can have paid name changes, paid server transfers, and nothing in the World PvE wise that ties the community together all work against good communities.
Why do I need to be nice when I can just solo to cap level? Why do I have to be nice when I am a healer that actually heals, or a tank that actually tanks? Why do I have to care about the guild when I can just leave and change my name? Why do I have to help this low level guy when they should just be able to solo to cap or I don't need them since I already have a guild that gets me what I want? Why be nice to a PUG when I can just get a guild group? Why not ninja that item when I can just trandsfer servers? Why even try in PvP when I still get a reward for standing around? Why go stop the guys raiding the low level town when the NPC's will resspawn once they leave and I can get more PvP points by going to an instance? Why go help this guild defend there stuff when I can just get my guild to take it back and get more rewards? Why kill that enemy player when I get a bigger reward for letting him take it then I just take it back? Why fight the hard team, when I can fight a PUG and win in 5 min instead of taking 30 min to win against a challange?
All of the above are things I have actually heard in games out today.
Game design and mechanics play a huge role in community.
As for force grouping, well I think the key is to find a balance. EQ was very forced grouping. But looking at a game like say DAOC. You could solo to cap level, but it was a pain and took forever. It was much fasted and easier to group up.
That may be a hard balance to find, but it can be found. If you want to be a solo player, then you can, but you will have a much harder time then a player that is more willing to group up. This is where games like WoW went really wrong. In WoW, it is almost easier to solo to cap level then it is to group up. Likewise, there is little to no reason to be loyal to a guild or group since you can always just join another and get what you want.
I am at odds with a lot of comments here. Community will always exist in an MMO. It does right now. Single-player games have community. I can play a game and join a community but I cannot enjoy myself if I do not agree with what the goals of that community are.
The question is what kind of values do the current game mechanics encourage in virtual communities?
Linear playstyles. Highly achievement orientated advancement. There is only one way to be. Because there is only one goal. Become more powerful. And that is only one demensional.
So in order to make MMO's more community oriented they need to allow for the community to make a virtual difference on there server. Why can't there be clans, guilds, nations. Clans are semi-nomadic groups of players. Guilds are organizations of players who could aim to be the most feared bunch of mercenaries or the most sort after tailors, who actually own realestate. Nations could be larger guilds that actually own cities states.
That's why forced grouping relates to socialization and player interaction - if you force it for long enough, people get to know each other. I guess it's a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Wow.
We are talking about games and leisure time entertainment here, right?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I've had friends come to play with me and the same thing usually happens. I have to make a new character and start alllll over again. Then after a little while we find that our levels are so apart from each other that we can't play with each other at all anymore.
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.
That's fairly accurate and well worded.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by JB47394 That's why forced grouping relates to socialization and player interaction - if you force it for long enough, people get to know each other. I guess it's a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Wow.
We are talking about games and leisure time entertainment here, right?
We're talking about people and how they interact with others. You know as well as I do that people get worked up about these games. It is why they are of so much interest to sociologists, psychologists, biologists, economists and others who are interested in the way people operate in large group settings; people behave in games very similarly to the way they behave in real life.
I think there are some good examples now on how to properly build on community. However, I don't think these games are your typical mmorpgs. Ragnarok Online really pioneered the social mmo. Although it did not achieve full effect, at the time it was more then any other game. Other ones are the pvp/sports based mmo games that pit you against other players forcing interaction such as Nuren.
With the experience we now have about the successes and failures in the social environment with these types of games I think its safe to say how to community orient games.
Alot of players. No exception WoW won't cut it in this realm, you should be seeing and interacting with nearly 1000 players at a time. Servers that are capped at 3000 are too small. They should be capped at a minimum of 20k.
HUB cities. Dropping the level progression through cities would go a long way. You should have 1 or 2 central cities and all the leveling/quest/gameplay grounds branch away from this city.
Lower graphical settings to accomodate more players on screen at any given time.
Removal of Level Based System. The concept of a linear progression system instantly divides all players. A skill or PVP based system instead would be more beneficial.
Limited access guilds. Guilds that are too big can be problematic for fostering ties, ones too small do not have enough of an impact. Something around 64 players is the ideal amount for a guild.
Removal or reduction of hunting. Hunting is a very solitary task, and there are many other things the players can do like participate in PVP, guard caravans, or craft in city.
Rewards for staying logged out. Although it may seem wierd to reduce players this way, social games have been shown to be time-consuming, and giving benefits for only logging a certain amount of hours will help them be more healthy. A healthy player is a player who can pay for subscriptions.
for games that are being in development status , i think developers should not involve a community at that point at all. A serious company should have enough vision bout the product they develop and stick to their plan /pattern of how they want the endproduct to be.
While this is true, they also have to deal with investors and often times publishers that are more wishy washy when it comes to the largest possible audience and praise from the community. Games inherently get dumbed down because the majority of people are becoming dumbed down, and they want to appeal to them. Which is sad.
Developers need to then balance how to attract the largest audience, the community, while convincing them and or rather, converting them, to their vision. Easier said than done, but it must be done. Players have to learn to adapt to the games, rather than games to the people. Its the difference between a game becoming smarter, or a game becoming dumber.
The more complicated, the more challenging and deep a game is, the more it undumbs its playerbase. Just like schools teach math, history, reading and writing...ect they all exercise the brain. Smart gaming is one that does the same while making it fun. You will see people get smarter, and have more refined taste as a result.
Community within games is also interesting to look at... personally I feel that most mmorpgs should honestly look at how Second Life creates community, both young and old. Key features include player spaces within the world, player generated content, a garanteed way to be truly unique in your avatar, and many social spheres created by the players them selves. Right now mmorpgs are fairly limited in their social spheres and what players can and cannot do.
That's why forced grouping relates to socialization and player interaction - if you force it for long enough, people get to know each other. I guess it's a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Wow.
We are talking about games and leisure time entertainment here, right?
We're talking about people and how they interact with others. You know as well as I do that people get worked up about these games. It is why they are of so much interest to sociologists, psychologists, biologists, economists and others who are interested in the way people operate in large group settings; people behave in games very similarly to the way they behave in real life.
Because it is still fundamentally real life.
I never contested or questioned that it's still people at the keyboard. It is your "You WILL group, and you WILL like it!" apporach to community building that just ... yeah. I'm thinking that there are quite a few much better avenues that we can explore than a Draconian mandate.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by LynxJSA I never contested or questioned that it's still people at the keyboard. It is your "You WILL group, and you WILL like it!" apporach to community building that just ... yeah. I'm thinking that there are quite a few much better avenues that we can explore than a Draconian mandate.
Similarly, I never contested or questioned that forced grouping was a bad idea. I don't believe in grouping at all, forced or otherwise. If players want to do things together, then they should just do them together.
Groups are socially insular, cliquish constructs that really have no business being in an MMO environment. I'd prefer to see chat return to the Ultima Online model where you spoke, a chat bubble appeared over your head and players with characters near yours could see that bubble.
All that data about members of my group should also get dumped. If there's important information to see about people around me, show it in the game world. If there's too much to display that way, then stop putting so much crap into the game. If it's impractical to target individual characters without a group display, then stop requiring players to target individual characters. Give players area of effect buffs, heals and so forth. Or stop requiring buffs, heals and so forth during those frantic times.
Groups have become a focal point for all sorts of game mechanisms and I think that it's completely out of control. They were a bad idea to begin with and it has only gotten worse over time. Of course it all started with total emphasis on personal rewards in a group setting. Bad idea.
So I wouldn't suggest that people try to build friendships by being kidnapped by terrorists anymore than I'd suggest that developers try to develop community in an MMO by implementing forced grouping. They might produce the desired effect, but the cost and side-effects are rather significant.
I think somehow getting rid of levels might help. I've had friends come to play with me and the same thing usually happens. I have to make a new character and start alllll over again. Then after a little while we find that our levels are so apart from each other that we can't play with each other at all anymore. Levels suck as far as I'm concerned.
Level differences CAN be overcome, however. City of Heroes has their Sidekick/Mentor system that can erase any level disparity between friends:
It's also possible for higher level players to level down to their friends in order to erase any XP debt they might have, or they gain influence instead of XP if they don't have debt. Personally, that's been one of my favorite features of the game. Being able to play alongside friends and guildmates regarless of the actual level of my character is great.
I'd prefer to see chat return to the Ultima Online model where you spoke, a chat bubble appeared over your head and players with characters near yours could see that bubble.
I'd perfer that too, as it is one of the building blocks of community. To speak with others, you would need to congregate with others. Players would migrate towards the main hubs of activity. This works best when coupled with easy access to quick travel. UO's design also allowed for solid objects to block speech. As a result, people were able to function much the way they do in real life. For example:
A group in a tavern starts discussing politics, so the people not interested in that topic head outside so they are neither hearing nor talking over the other conversation. A rogue sneaks up to the window on the outside and listens to the conversation within while one player moves closer to another in order to whisper to him that a suspicious character has been at the window for a while. He in turn whispers back with instructions to head to the back room where they can speak freely as to how to deal with the fellow outside. Since all these people regularly gather here, others looking for adventure know to head to this location to find out what's going on.
YMCA, Kazola's Tavern, Serpent's Cross Tavern...
The other key element is that you need a crowd of people that sees logging in to interact as part of the gameplay. A common comment from newer players is that IRC is free and there's no reason for them to pay 15 bucks a month for a graphical chat channel. Levels are the worst offender in this field. as most MMOs with levels require you to keep pace with your guild otherwise you can quickly fall behind enough that you can no longer travel with them.
Even UO saw a similar effect when they added the "Power Hour." For one hour a day your character would have accelerated skill gain. This wouldnt have been so bad if players didnt immediately get a message when it was starting. In social circles across Britannia, there were people abruptly ending conversation and running off so that they don't miss their window of extra advancement.
Most of today's MMOs, especially the class-restricted level-based ones, are linear in design and have horrendous disparity between even the smallest gaps in advancement. Those MMOs reinforce that you need to level up or you will be left behind. Chatting is considered a waste of time. It's the reason for the necessity for solo play in those MMOs. Without it, the minute someone falls behind the only logical choice would be to cancel.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by LynxJSA As a result, people were able to function much the way they do in real life.
Agreed. MMOs are riddled with cell phones, where the people around you might be talking, but they're not talking to you.
Originally posted by LynxJSA Levels are the worst offender in this field.
Again, agreed. Levels are another means of social isolation. Apart from the Left Behind problem, there is the case of simply not being at the same level as someone that you might pass on the street. If you're not close enough in level, you're not in the same club. It's almost as if you needn't even be in the same game. With level-specific areas of the world, you essentially aren't.
I have to disagree about the levels fracturing the playerbase.
Reason is because I think it is the power difference between high level and low level that fracture the players, not the mechanism used for leveling. Even skill based games have large power differences, I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time. So I don't think it matters if you use levels or skills, it is the difference in power that matters, if the vet doesn't get so powerful that low level stuff becomes moot and nonbeneficial to them and the low level player can actually help the vet then they will be more apt to team. In fact you could drop vertical leveling entirely and have more horizontal progression that would level the playing field a great deal. The Battle Field games, not a MMO I know, have levels or ranks but they don't make you defacto better than lower rank players, as a result anyone can play with anyone else.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I have to disagree about the levels fracturing the playerbase. Reason is because I think it is the power difference between high level and low level that fracture the players, not the mechanism used for leveling. Even skill based games have large power differences, I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time.
1) Can you post which MMOs have minimal enough level disparity that is has not proven a barrier?
2) Can you post which skill-based MMOs where "a low level and a high level player can't group due to power differences?"
I'm not saying they don't exist, rather that I am not familiar with them and learning which they are would help in better understanding of your post.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I can't think of any game that has a low power difference, but I am speaking more hypothetically, one could be made, since there is nothing about levels that inherently demand large power curves.
But as for skill based games, SWG, Ryzom, Ashen Empires, Voyage Century and Runescape, the ones I played the most, but all had an issue where the larger the difference in skill levels the less ability people have to level together, as the player with the higher amount of skills would not get as much XP for killing lower level stuff if at all, not to mention that it is really easy and the lower level player can't fight the things that the higher level player could.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Originally posted by LynxJSA 2) Can you post which skill-based MMOs where "a low level and a high level player can't group due to power differences?"
Think of any game feature that relates to content gating. Levels are vilified because their purpose historically has been to give players a significant sense of accomplishment, to the point of elitism. They served as the key that opened the gate to new areas of the world.
Skills can easily work the same way. Imagine a movement skill (teleport, fly, tunnel, mountain climb, whatever) that some characters have and others do not. That will mean that those who lack that skill cannot reach the content that is accessed by teleporting, flying, etc.
Any PvE encounter runs the risk of demanding very specific skills of characters. Raiding in World of Warcraft makes such demands of gear. Trying to take on fire creatures without proper fire gear means that you're toast. So you're unable to join in on Molten Core runs for lack of gear. It could just as easily have been rooted in the lack of a skill such as having a high enough dodge or archery or almost anything. The designers can strucure encounters to be 'difficult' by selecting requirements of the characters that are out of the mainstream.
I think game designers might be latching onto the idea that their game content should be accessible. Technological advances have made it more possible for players to congregate, and that has reduced the incentives to isolate players into small groups, perhaps even into instances. I sincerely hope that designers can come up with games with minimal content gates where the only means of measuring difficulty is in how the player's skills are challenged. The community will be stratified, but not as widely, and for reasons that I think players can accept.
Comments
Now that I agree with. One of the problems with games is that developers try to please too many different subsets of gamers all in one game. Soloers, small groupers, raiders, PvPers; you can't satisfy them all in one game because everyone has a playstyle they like best and whether they admit it or not they want their playstyle to be the dominant playstyle. Since these games are all based on progression (so far) that means that they want their playstyle to offer the highest, fastest, and longest continuing progression.
A game shouldn't start out focusing on one subset and then switch to a different subset at the endgame. And they really should give up on trying to please all subsets simultaneously because it can't be done. That's not to say a game can't have a variety of things to do, however, developers should make it clear from the start which subset they are building their game for and then stick to that and, yes, favor that specific playstyle throughout the game.
If they could get that through their heads then instead of trying to please everyone in one game they could build different games for the different major subsets of gamers. They could then tune and focus each game more specifically to please the intended subset and I think we'd all get somewhat better games. And maybe if all the major subsets of gamers each had games specifically tailored for their playstyles we might not be at each others throats so much.
Could you explain why you feel that forced grouping, a questing mechanism, has anything to do with socializing and player interaction?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Forced grouping extends beyond questing. It pops up any time a game has an activity that produces personal rewards that cannot be done solo. EverQuest is the canonical example because that game handed out experience, gear and cash for killing monsters while making it very difficult to efficiently kill monsters solo. It had nothing to do with questing, just killing monsters.
If making a sword required six players to craft, but only one got the sword, that would be viewed as forced grouping. Pick any activity in a game where you are after something, but you're required to get together with others to pursue it and you're looking at forced grouping.
Fibsdk's first statement above is close to truth. I would say that it is not the forced grouping that identifies people uninterested in being social, but the appeal of personal rewards. If your focus is on your character's progression through the world, then the game is encouraging anti-social behavior at a very fundamental level. Games with great emphasis on personal achievements are going to attract selfish-minded people (EverQuest and clones). Games with great emphasis on community achievements are going to attract more community-minded people (EVE Online).
Note that EVE Online still retains plenty of personal achievements, so it's hardly a panacea of community spirit. PvP games in general have a strong sense of community spirit because the largest group tends to be able to accomplish the most.
To understand how forced grouping can really bring home a sense of socialization and player interaction, you'd have to have played old EverQuest. Grouping was so forced in that game that players tended to bond very closely. Efficient killing machines were the fastest way to see new content, and we all wanted to see the next area. Efficiency requires communication, so we chatted. The game was structured such that we would kill for hours in the same group, so we chatted about a lot of stuff. We got to know each other.
That's why forced grouping relates to socialization and player interaction - if you force it for long enough, people get to know each other. I guess it's a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
It is very encouraging because I see a lot of posts, more so than ever really, about the need for
I hope developers are reading these posts and actually learning from them: the copy-and-paste sameness model is not working anymore.
Perhaps I speak for myself, but I not even subscribed to any MMORPGs; and I am a life-long gamer with the time, PC, and money to play. But I ain't got a game to play, or at least not one worth 15.00 a month. 15.00 a month is not a lot of money, but it is also an unwillingness to commit to an MMORPG that is lacking or totally missing the features that make MMORPGs great. Community, as this entire Topic points out, is one of those features.
Community are simply lacking and in some cases missing. Even negative sides of community such as personal name-calling are more prevalent today. It is the whole concept of gaming in which people do not value relationships, communities, group content, and cooperative-content. It is unfortunate how much community has been taken a slide.
Some games are simply doomed to have bad communities. As much as they struggle for change, it doesn't work, it can't be helped. An attempt to bring drastic changes into a game will only bring hatred against it, I agree with Neanderthal and Cactusmanx that developers should target their game at a specific type of gamer and stick to it.
Either way, everyone knows that there is a pattern for the average MMORPG nowadays, and this pattern promotes self-centerism. The average MMORPG is heavily focused on grinding and personal achievements, their players want to gain more levels, more items, simply to show off. In a game like this, every single person around you is a problem, is an obstacle in your journey to greatness, they are your enemies, they will steal your items and your experience. In a situation like this, it may be true that forced grouping might not change much. People don't really care to what others may think of them, everyone has a single objective which they will attempt to reach at any costs, excluding other people is a part of it.
The reason for what most MMORPGs nowadays have horrible communities is that they focus on competitive activities and give no importance to collective activities. It's not that you can't have any competitive activities, it is just important to give some importance to the community by counter-balancing the competitiveness with some group-oriented activities. Also, it doesn't matter if a game forces you to group with other people when it is simply competitive in every other aspect of it.
Either way, what makes of people assholes when accessing the Internet? Anonimity. Anonimity tempts you to be an asshole when you have no interest on giving a good impression to others. In other words, MMORPG gamers don't have interest in being a part of their game's community, or they simply feel that they have far too many opportunities of meeting new people, that disrespecting a single one wouldn't make a difference. This is why smaller communities are usually more friendly, since you aren't just another fish in the sea. Also, people don't often feel that they need to belong to a large group when they are satisfied in their smaller group of friends (guild).
What do I suggest? First and foremost, developers should think on this prior to releasing their games. This is a vital aspect of a game, and changing from a horrible community to a great one is nearly impossible after a high number of players have already stablished themselves in that specific game. They shouldn't neglect the opportunity of adding collective activities, as silly as they may seem, anything that brings players together for a common cause helps. Also, there should always be something that gives a large group of players a feeling of identity, the feeling that they belong to something much greater than their guilds, and that they should help it grow. Identity is usually what connects people in real life, it is what brings a bunch of strangers into a large stadium to cheer for their favorite soccer teams (for example).
I disagree with you here. I think game design and mechanics play a huge role in community. A game designed where you can get to cap level easy without ever grouping, scripted content where you have to have X class, where PvP has no tie to the community as a whole, where you can have paid name changes, paid server transfers, and nothing in the World PvE wise that ties the community together all work against good communities.
Why do I need to be nice when I can just solo to cap level? Why do I have to be nice when I am a healer that actually heals, or a tank that actually tanks? Why do I have to care about the guild when I can just leave and change my name? Why do I have to help this low level guy when they should just be able to solo to cap or I don't need them since I already have a guild that gets me what I want? Why be nice to a PUG when I can just get a guild group? Why not ninja that item when I can just trandsfer servers? Why even try in PvP when I still get a reward for standing around? Why go stop the guys raiding the low level town when the NPC's will resspawn once they leave and I can get more PvP points by going to an instance? Why go help this guild defend there stuff when I can just get my guild to take it back and get more rewards? Why kill that enemy player when I get a bigger reward for letting him take it then I just take it back? Why fight the hard team, when I can fight a PUG and win in 5 min instead of taking 30 min to win against a challange?
All of the above are things I have actually heard in games out today.
Game design and mechanics play a huge role in community.
As for force grouping, well I think the key is to find a balance. EQ was very forced grouping. But looking at a game like say DAOC. You could solo to cap level, but it was a pain and took forever. It was much fasted and easier to group up.
That may be a hard balance to find, but it can be found. If you want to be a solo player, then you can, but you will have a much harder time then a player that is more willing to group up. This is where games like WoW went really wrong. In WoW, it is almost easier to solo to cap level then it is to group up. Likewise, there is little to no reason to be loyal to a guild or group since you can always just join another and get what you want.
I am at odds with a lot of comments here. Community will always exist in an MMO. It does right now. Single-player games have community. I can play a game and join a community but I cannot enjoy myself if I do not agree with what the goals of that community are.
The question is what kind of values do the current game mechanics encourage in virtual communities?
Linear playstyles. Highly achievement orientated advancement. There is only one way to be. Because there is only one goal. Become more powerful. And that is only one demensional.
So in order to make MMO's more community oriented they need to allow for the community to make a virtual difference on there server. Why can't there be clans, guilds, nations. Clans are semi-nomadic groups of players. Guilds are organizations of players who could aim to be the most feared bunch of mercenaries or the most sort after tailors, who actually own realestate. Nations could be larger guilds that actually own cities states.
Wow.
We are talking about games and leisure time entertainment here, right?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I'd go back to the multiplayer aspect of the MMO genre. Of course there isnt a good community in a game with focus on singe player stuff (eg wow)
I think somehow getting rid of levels might help.
I've had friends come to play with me and the same thing usually happens. I have to make a new character and start alllll over again. Then after a little while we find that our levels are so apart from each other that we can't play with each other at all anymore.
Levels suck as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------------------------
I blame gear progression.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
That's fairly accurate and well worded.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
We're talking about people and how they interact with others. You know as well as I do that people get worked up about these games. It is why they are of so much interest to sociologists, psychologists, biologists, economists and others who are interested in the way people operate in large group settings; people behave in games very similarly to the way they behave in real life.
Because it is still fundamentally real life.
I think there are some good examples now on how to properly build on community. However, I don't think these games are your typical mmorpgs. Ragnarok Online really pioneered the social mmo. Although it did not achieve full effect, at the time it was more then any other game. Other ones are the pvp/sports based mmo games that pit you against other players forcing interaction such as Nuren.
With the experience we now have about the successes and failures in the social environment with these types of games I think its safe to say how to community orient games.
for games that are being in development status , i think developers should not involve a community at that point at all.
A serious company should have enough vision bout the product they develop and stick to their plan /pattern of how
they want the endproduct to be.
While this is true, they also have to deal with investors and often times publishers that are more wishy washy when it comes to the largest possible audience and praise from the community. Games inherently get dumbed down because the majority of people are becoming dumbed down, and they want to appeal to them. Which is sad.
Developers need to then balance how to attract the largest audience, the community, while convincing them and or rather, converting them, to their vision. Easier said than done, but it must be done. Players have to learn to adapt to the games, rather than games to the people. Its the difference between a game becoming smarter, or a game becoming dumber.
The more complicated, the more challenging and deep a game is, the more it undumbs its playerbase. Just like schools teach math, history, reading and writing...ect they all exercise the brain. Smart gaming is one that does the same while making it fun. You will see people get smarter, and have more refined taste as a result.
Community within games is also interesting to look at... personally I feel that most mmorpgs should honestly look at how Second Life creates community, both young and old. Key features include player spaces within the world, player generated content, a garanteed way to be truly unique in your avatar, and many social spheres created by the players them selves. Right now mmorpgs are fairly limited in their social spheres and what players can and cannot do.
Wow.
We are talking about games and leisure time entertainment here, right?
We're talking about people and how they interact with others. You know as well as I do that people get worked up about these games. It is why they are of so much interest to sociologists, psychologists, biologists, economists and others who are interested in the way people operate in large group settings; people behave in games very similarly to the way they behave in real life.
Because it is still fundamentally real life.
I never contested or questioned that it's still people at the keyboard. It is your "You WILL group, and you WILL like it!" apporach to community building that just ... yeah. I'm thinking that there are quite a few much better avenues that we can explore than a Draconian mandate.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Similarly, I never contested or questioned that forced grouping was a bad idea. I don't believe in grouping at all, forced or otherwise. If players want to do things together, then they should just do them together.
Groups are socially insular, cliquish constructs that really have no business being in an MMO environment. I'd prefer to see chat return to the Ultima Online model where you spoke, a chat bubble appeared over your head and players with characters near yours could see that bubble.
All that data about members of my group should also get dumped. If there's important information to see about people around me, show it in the game world. If there's too much to display that way, then stop putting so much crap into the game. If it's impractical to target individual characters without a group display, then stop requiring players to target individual characters. Give players area of effect buffs, heals and so forth. Or stop requiring buffs, heals and so forth during those frantic times.
Groups have become a focal point for all sorts of game mechanisms and I think that it's completely out of control. They were a bad idea to begin with and it has only gotten worse over time. Of course it all started with total emphasis on personal rewards in a group setting. Bad idea.
So I wouldn't suggest that people try to build friendships by being kidnapped by terrorists anymore than I'd suggest that developers try to develop community in an MMO by implementing forced grouping. They might produce the desired effect, but the cost and side-effects are rather significant.
Level differences CAN be overcome, however. City of Heroes has their Sidekick/Mentor system that can erase any level disparity between friends:
wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Sidekick
It's also possible for higher level players to level down to their friends in order to erase any XP debt they might have, or they gain influence instead of XP if they don't have debt. Personally, that's been one of my favorite features of the game. Being able to play alongside friends and guildmates regarless of the actual level of my character is great.
I'd perfer that too, as it is one of the building blocks of community. To speak with others, you would need to congregate with others. Players would migrate towards the main hubs of activity. This works best when coupled with easy access to quick travel. UO's design also allowed for solid objects to block speech. As a result, people were able to function much the way they do in real life. For example:
A group in a tavern starts discussing politics, so the people not interested in that topic head outside so they are neither hearing nor talking over the other conversation. A rogue sneaks up to the window on the outside and listens to the conversation within while one player moves closer to another in order to whisper to him that a suspicious character has been at the window for a while. He in turn whispers back with instructions to head to the back room where they can speak freely as to how to deal with the fellow outside. Since all these people regularly gather here, others looking for adventure know to head to this location to find out what's going on.
YMCA, Kazola's Tavern, Serpent's Cross Tavern...
The other key element is that you need a crowd of people that sees logging in to interact as part of the gameplay. A common comment from newer players is that IRC is free and there's no reason for them to pay 15 bucks a month for a graphical chat channel. Levels are the worst offender in this field. as most MMOs with levels require you to keep pace with your guild otherwise you can quickly fall behind enough that you can no longer travel with them.
Even UO saw a similar effect when they added the "Power Hour." For one hour a day your character would have accelerated skill gain. This wouldnt have been so bad if players didnt immediately get a message when it was starting. In social circles across Britannia, there were people abruptly ending conversation and running off so that they don't miss their window of extra advancement.
Most of today's MMOs, especially the class-restricted level-based ones, are linear in design and have horrendous disparity between even the smallest gaps in advancement. Those MMOs reinforce that you need to level up or you will be left behind. Chatting is considered a waste of time. It's the reason for the necessity for solo play in those MMOs. Without it, the minute someone falls behind the only logical choice would be to cancel.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Agreed. MMOs are riddled with cell phones, where the people around you might be talking, but they're not talking to you.
Again, agreed. Levels are another means of social isolation. Apart from the Left Behind problem, there is the case of simply not being at the same level as someone that you might pass on the street. If you're not close enough in level, you're not in the same club. It's almost as if you needn't even be in the same game. With level-specific areas of the world, you essentially aren't.
I have to disagree about the levels fracturing the playerbase.
Reason is because I think it is the power difference between high level and low level that fracture the players, not the mechanism used for leveling. Even skill based games have large power differences, I have played skill based games where a low level and a high level player can't group due to the power difference cause someone will be wasting their time. So I don't think it matters if you use levels or skills, it is the difference in power that matters, if the vet doesn't get so powerful that low level stuff becomes moot and nonbeneficial to them and the low level player can actually help the vet then they will be more apt to team. In fact you could drop vertical leveling entirely and have more horizontal progression that would level the playing field a great deal. The Battle Field games, not a MMO I know, have levels or ranks but they don't make you defacto better than lower rank players, as a result anyone can play with anyone else.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
1) Can you post which MMOs have minimal enough level disparity that is has not proven a barrier?
2) Can you post which skill-based MMOs where "a low level and a high level player can't group due to power differences?"
I'm not saying they don't exist, rather that I am not familiar with them and learning which they are would help in better understanding of your post.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I can't think of any game that has a low power difference, but I am speaking more hypothetically, one could be made, since there is nothing about levels that inherently demand large power curves.
But as for skill based games, SWG, Ryzom, Ashen Empires, Voyage Century and Runescape, the ones I played the most, but all had an issue where the larger the difference in skill levels the less ability people have to level together, as the player with the higher amount of skills would not get as much XP for killing lower level stuff if at all, not to mention that it is really easy and the lower level player can't fight the things that the higher level player could.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Think of any game feature that relates to content gating. Levels are vilified because their purpose historically has been to give players a significant sense of accomplishment, to the point of elitism. They served as the key that opened the gate to new areas of the world.
Skills can easily work the same way. Imagine a movement skill (teleport, fly, tunnel, mountain climb, whatever) that some characters have and others do not. That will mean that those who lack that skill cannot reach the content that is accessed by teleporting, flying, etc.
Any PvE encounter runs the risk of demanding very specific skills of characters. Raiding in World of Warcraft makes such demands of gear. Trying to take on fire creatures without proper fire gear means that you're toast. So you're unable to join in on Molten Core runs for lack of gear. It could just as easily have been rooted in the lack of a skill such as having a high enough dodge or archery or almost anything. The designers can strucure encounters to be 'difficult' by selecting requirements of the characters that are out of the mainstream.
I think game designers might be latching onto the idea that their game content should be accessible. Technological advances have made it more possible for players to congregate, and that has reduced the incentives to isolate players into small groups, perhaps even into instances. I sincerely hope that designers can come up with games with minimal content gates where the only means of measuring difficulty is in how the player's skills are challenged. The community will be stratified, but not as widely, and for reasons that I think players can accept.