I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Here is Merriam websters defination of Coersion
1: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
Generally to force someone to do something they rather not do, in this case group, it really depens on what the rewards are.
If it's a +10 armor of godlyness that you need to progress then you are being forced to group to get it when you normally wouldn't.
If it's a piece of armor that raises your chances of wining a multiplayer dialog however you aren't being coereced because that peice doesn't effect someone who doesn't do multiplayer dialog.
The system itself isn't coerceing you, it's the rewards for using that system, and as we know nothing about that yet...well hard to judge if it's doing it or not.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
That's the part that matters, the yellow part. Whether it's regarded as involuntary or not or as something that people will do even if they dislike it. That's also when people start using terms as 'grinding', namely if they do activities that doesn't actually provide them as much fun as other activitites.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
I am not stuck with any textbook definitions, I just recognize that I am making a CHOICE to play the way I want to play. If I choose to team up and get some extra benefits for it then that is good for me. I don't DESERVE those extra benefits, but I won't complain about getting them either. If I choose to instead play solo, which is anywheres from 25% to 40 % of the time, then I will not get the extra benefits and I am making a CHOICE to play that way as well. Again since I don't DESERVE those benefits, not getting them won't bother me in the least. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a reward system in place to encourage teaming. As a matter of fact, I think it is an absolutely SUPERB idea. This way there is no loser, you simple get what you earn according to the decisions you make. Excellent, give me more!
The problem I have with your argument, especially that last one highlighted in green, is it stinks of the idea that "everyone deserve the same things in life" and in gaming. I do not believe this and never have. People deserve what they earn. Sometimes to earn things you have to make hard decisions, it's that simple.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
Missing out on what? Leveling faster- if so then it seems even more appropriate as it gives the solo players more time to pursue their prefered style of playing before inevitably hitting the endgame and being forced to group in order to progress. Grouping players should hit endgame faster because they prefer a grouping playstyle which is all there really is at endgame.
I would have loved to have slower solo progress in Rift- once I hit 50 I still had an entire zone's worth of quests to complete and although I did finish them because I wanted to read the quests and see what was happening they were all very easy for my level and no rewards I got for completing the quests was useful. The scenario you've brought up wouldn't have players missing out on something, in fact it would reward them with more of what they enjoy already.
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
I am not stuck with any textbook definitions, I just recognize that I am making a CHOICE to play the way I want to play. If I choose to team up and get some extra benefits for it then that is good for me. I don't DESERVE those extra benefits, but I won't complain about getting them either. If I choose to instead play solo, which is anywheres from 25% to 40 % of the time, then I will not get the extra benefits and I am making a CHOICE to play that way as well. Again since I don't DESERVE those benefits, not getting them won't bother me in the least. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a reward system in place to encourage teaming. As a matter of fact, I think it is an absolutely SUPERB idea. This way there is no loser, you simple get what you earn according to the decisions you make. Excellent, give me more!
The problem I have with your argument, especially that last one highlighted in green, is it stinks of the idea that "everyone deserve the same things in life" and in gaming. I do not believe this and never have. People deserve what they earn. Sometimes to earn things you have to make hard decisions, it's that simple.
What players of a game do and do not deserve have nothing to do with this. Those comments were made to show what a player who prefers solojg may think of this idea.
My point is and has been, that Bioware feel grouping is important to their gaming experiance. So important that they are willing to create an entirely new reward system just to encourage this behavior. Which reguardless of how you spin it is really a way to discourage soloing. Which because Bioware feels the need to create a new reward system to discourge must be the way the majority of gamers wish to play. Read back through my posts on this thread. I find the "alone together" attitude of MMO gaming anooying and counter productive to online games. Apperently so does Bioware or they wouldn't taken steps to discourage this kind of behavior.
What bothers me about this issue is that I rather play with people who group up because they like to group rather than because they are getting payed by the kilometer. Fairweather friends I do not need, as I've already played too many games where group endever has been turned into an unfun quest for personal enrichment rather than entertainment.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
What bothers me about this issue is that I rather play with people who group up because they like to group rather than because they are getting payed by the kilometer. Fairweather friends I do not need, as I've already played too many games where group endever has been turned into an unfun quest for personal enrichment rather than entertainment.
Sorry, can't agree with you here. I played Everquest, one of the games that had enforced grouping. Still had great groups with often complete strangers that you got to know better. According to your idea that would have been the worst thing to happen, having players in group that were in there purely because of the quick xp and that soloing became a snail place to nearly impossible for some classes.
In fact, I think that what BW is planning is the best way to go at it: no enforced grouping because MMO gamers have become so spoilt/facilitated (call it however you like) that enforced grouping would cause an uproar and wailing that'd reach the heavens. But also not a purely solely oriented focus where all the benefits lie with solo questing/leveling with hardly any benefits or incentives to grouping at all. Equal opportunities, make it so that both ways feel rewarding and not as if you have to sacrifice something, but make both paths feel fun and rewarding for different reasons.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it. Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it. While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
Missing out on what? Leveling faster- if so then it seems even more appropriate as it gives the solo players more time to pursue their prefered style of playing before inevitably hitting the endgame and being forced to group in order to progress. Grouping players should hit endgame faster because they prefer a grouping playstyle which is all there really is at endgame.
I would have loved to have slower solo progress in Rift- once I hit 50 I still had an entire zone's worth of quests to complete and although I did finish them because I wanted to read the quests and see what was happening they were all very easy for my level and no rewards I got for completing the quests was useful. The scenario you've brought up wouldn't have players missing out on something, in fact it would reward them with more of what they enjoy already.
This is a great answer. It doesn't go after the social points issue, but straight to the playstyle. And if more games would cater to both in this matter. It would go a long way for gamers. And if somehow that continued at end game, things could be a lot different. But that opens a whole other can of worms.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Carrot. Stick. Both imply the developer thinks of the consumer as an ass.
Very few games I have played have ever treated the player as an intelligent individual:
Eve, maybe, and Lotro (in my opinion). Not many others spring immediately to mind.
I'm a cynic, in my opnion they are and I can understand why a MMO developer might think so as well considering the BS they have to put up with day in and day out.
I hate the carrots and the sticks. Mmos should have player run economies, with rigorous enforcement and banning of gold sellers. I loved the way loot worked in DAoC. In the old days with a really good small team, 3 or 4 people, you could farm pretty much any loot you wanted, and nothing wos BoE or BoP, (two of the most insulting game mechanics ever). In housing you could buy pretty much any item you could find in the game, which gave you a myriad of ways of obtaining gear you needed.
Another things that mmos should have that they no longer seem to possess, is player crafting that matters. Again in DAoC, even after expansions that gave some really good dropped loot, (which was always sellable and tradable), almost no one had a suit that didnt have at LEAST two pieces of players crafted gear.
Ive said it before and ill say it again, gear grinding has no place in mmos. These are games that are supposed to inspire, and fire the imagination, not put us on a treadmill. Treadmills belong in the gym, with guys who lift things up and put them down.
Carrot. Stick. Both imply the developer thinks of the consumer as an ass.
Very few games I have played have ever treated the player as an intelligent individual:
Eve, maybe, and Lotro (in my opinion). Not many others spring immediately to mind.
I'm a cynic, in my opnion they are and I can understand why a MMO developer might think so as well considering the BS they have to put up with day in and day out.
These days a new kind of user is emerging who prefers to be treated as a paying customer, not someone who will swallow whatever BS some developer house is trying to pimp this week. These consumers prefer more sophistcated incentives. Let's hope the next generation of games will be made for them rather than the 'I'm an ass' -crowd.
I'm not convinced there's any truth in this. Instead I believe that type of user has always been there but like now has always been a minority. In fact I think they are more of a minority than ever. It's sad, but a fact of life, that MMO developers have to develop with the lowest common denominator in mind. That said they tend to work it in in such a way that it's not really that bad.
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
I am not stuck with any textbook definitions, I just recognize that I am making a CHOICE to play the way I want to play. If I choose to team up and get some extra benefits for it then that is good for me. I don't DESERVE those extra benefits, but I won't complain about getting them either. If I choose to instead play solo, which is anywheres from 25% to 40 % of the time, then I will not get the extra benefits and I am making a CHOICE to play that way as well. Again since I don't DESERVE those benefits, not getting them won't bother me in the least. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a reward system in place to encourage teaming. As a matter of fact, I think it is an absolutely SUPERB idea. This way there is no loser, you simple get what you earn according to the decisions you make. Excellent, give me more!
The problem I have with your argument, especially that last one highlighted in green, is it stinks of the idea that "everyone deserve the same things in life" and in gaming. I do not believe this and never have. People deserve what they earn. Sometimes to earn things you have to make hard decisions, it's that simple.
What players of a game do and do not deserve have nothing to do with this. Those comments were made to show what a player who prefers solojg may think of this idea.
My point is and has been, that Bioware feel grouping is important to their gaming experiance. So important that they are willing to create an entirely new reward system just to encourage this behavior. Which reguardless of how you spin it is really a way to discourage soloing. Which because Bioware feels the need to create a new reward system to discourge must be the way the majority of gamers wish to play. Read back through my posts on this thread. I find the "alone together" attitude of MMO gaming anooying and counter productive to online games. Apperently so does Bioware or they wouldn't taken steps to discourage this kind of behavior.
What bothers me about this issue is that I rather play with people who group up because they like to group rather than because they are getting payed by the kilometer. Fairweather friends I do not need, as I've already played too many games where group endever has been turned into an unfun quest for personal enrichment rather than entertainment.
It seems to me more that BioWare recognizes that the reason to play an MMO is because of the player interaction more than anything else. I personally do not buy that idea, but I can understand why people would see it that way. This game, like most MMOs, seems to be designed around that idea and I have no problem with that. IF you CHOOSE to play a game in a way that it was not designed to be played, then you should not get all the benefits of someone who is playing it that way. I have no problem with that. Considering I solo a good deal, I will fall into that later category often and that is my CHOICE.
Your argument doesn't wash with me, and never will for that matter, because you refuse to see that YOUR choices should and do MATTER.
As for your comment on teaming. I too like to mostly group with friends and other people I know. The strange thing is though, only by grouping with people you don't know will you end up meeting NEW friends in the game. It's unfortunate in my opinion that I meet about 6 jerks for every good person I meet, but that too is ok with me. At least then the good people I do meet stand out and that reinforces my desire to play with them in the future.
The really funny thing about this whole argument is that in any game out there teaming is always more lucrative than soloing. Larger teams means larger groups to kill and normally at a faster rate. More enemies killed means more experience, cash and drops. So someone who soloes is getting less experience, less cash, and a much smaller chance of the good drops. Again, a choice is made and you gain or suffer by your decision.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Comments
I put both and here is why. I have no problem with some content being designed for groups only. I don't want to see a lot of that, but raids and such can be a lot of fun. The carrot approach though, for people like me who like to team about 75% of the time, is a nice little benefit and will be enjoyed.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I didn't really have instances and raids in mind. I just assume all of those will be group content in most MMORPGs. This poll is referring to open world content specifically. I can see people wanting both but I definitely prefer the carrot over the stick in terms of encouraging grouping.
I don't really get why people are saying neither tho. I don't really understand that line of thinking. Do these people just not want to group up period, or do they believe people should group up by default? Since I tend to prefer to solo while questing I can understand the former, but the latter is just unrealistic. People in the west, especially the US, just tend to be much more individualistic and need to be encouraged to group up. Even in world elite quests where grouping is needed there will be those who solo that content if they can.
The reason you have so many people pcking neither is because you gave them the option. In any case where a test has a multiple choice answer, there is always a certain number of people that will pick the dumbest possible answer. I don't understand the psychology behind why it is done, but it is. This particular question really only rates three answers, in it's most simplified form, yes - no - both. Neither is an answer that simply can not work with the question.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I really have to disagree with your assessment. What I feel the people who chose neither meant, is that they do not wish to be threatened or coerced into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy. Social points fall into the coercion category because they are offering a reward to players for world grouping. While social points do not seem sinister to me, not everyone may see them as I do. Since so many MMO players prefer the soloist approach to leveling these days, they are not comfortable with the idea of someone trying to force them out of their comfort zone, even if it is done in a positive and rewarding manner.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Not a big surprise that we disagree here. I can see your point I just don't agree with it. The coersion would only happen if you were forced into teaming, if somehow you were penalised for not teaming. That is not the case here. Giving an incentive to team is completely different from being coerced.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
A bribe to make someone act in an involuntary manner, E.G. people getting paid to group when they prefer to play solo, is just as much coercion as a punitive measure.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Here is Merriam websters defination of Coersion
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
Generally to force someone to do something they rather not do, in this case group, it really depens on what the rewards are.
If it's a +10 armor of godlyness that you need to progress then you are being forced to group to get it when you normally wouldn't.
If it's a piece of armor that raises your chances of wining a multiplayer dialog however you aren't being coereced because that peice doesn't effect someone who doesn't do multiplayer dialog.
The system itself isn't coerceing you, it's the rewards for using that system, and as we know nothing about that yet...well hard to judge if it's doing it or not.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
That's the part that matters, the yellow part. Whether it's regarded as involuntary or not or as something that people will do even if they dislike it. That's also when people start using terms as 'grinding', namely if they do activities that doesn't actually provide them as much fun as other activitites.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Giving someone a bribe to do something still leaves them with a choice, so you invalidate your own argument. There is no COERSION, there is no FORCE, and there is no PUNISHMENT.
If I want to go see a movie in a theater, am I being coerced into paying? No I am making a decision. Am I being forced to see the movie or pay for it? No, I am making a decision. Am I being punished if I decide to not pay for that movie and therefore do not go and see it? No, I am making a DECISION!
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
carrot of course (click me!)
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
I'd advise not getting to caught up in text book definitions and instead pay attention to the idea I am attempting to convey. MMO.Maverick got it.
Let me put it another way. Paying players that group up even when they would rather not currency they can use to buy items not availible to those who decide to just stick to what they enjoy and solo level, is just as IMMORAL as penalizing players because they prefer solo leveling. E.G. When game makers tell someone "You get twice the xp for doing quests as a group" sure it sounds positive, but what they are really say is "You only get half as much xp for performing the exact same tasks solo as grouped players", usually putting forth even more effort, because you choose to lone wolf it.
While both choices my be just that, choices, both still mean those that play the way they wish to play (at least if they prefer non group activites) end up missing out on something.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I am not stuck with any textbook definitions, I just recognize that I am making a CHOICE to play the way I want to play. If I choose to team up and get some extra benefits for it then that is good for me. I don't DESERVE those extra benefits, but I won't complain about getting them either. If I choose to instead play solo, which is anywheres from 25% to 40 % of the time, then I will not get the extra benefits and I am making a CHOICE to play that way as well. Again since I don't DESERVE those benefits, not getting them won't bother me in the least. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with a reward system in place to encourage teaming. As a matter of fact, I think it is an absolutely SUPERB idea. This way there is no loser, you simple get what you earn according to the decisions you make. Excellent, give me more!
The problem I have with your argument, especially that last one highlighted in green, is it stinks of the idea that "everyone deserve the same things in life" and in gaming. I do not believe this and never have. People deserve what they earn. Sometimes to earn things you have to make hard decisions, it's that simple.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Missing out on what? Leveling faster- if so then it seems even more appropriate as it gives the solo players more time to pursue their prefered style of playing before inevitably hitting the endgame and being forced to group in order to progress. Grouping players should hit endgame faster because they prefer a grouping playstyle which is all there really is at endgame.
I would have loved to have slower solo progress in Rift- once I hit 50 I still had an entire zone's worth of quests to complete and although I did finish them because I wanted to read the quests and see what was happening they were all very easy for my level and no rewards I got for completing the quests was useful. The scenario you've brought up wouldn't have players missing out on something, in fact it would reward them with more of what they enjoy already.
What players of a game do and do not deserve have nothing to do with this. Those comments were made to show what a player who prefers solojg may think of this idea.
My point is and has been, that Bioware feel grouping is important to their gaming experiance. So important that they are willing to create an entirely new reward system just to encourage this behavior. Which reguardless of how you spin it is really a way to discourage soloing. Which because Bioware feels the need to create a new reward system to discourge must be the way the majority of gamers wish to play. Read back through my posts on this thread. I find the "alone together" attitude of MMO gaming anooying and counter productive to online games. Apperently so does Bioware or they wouldn't taken steps to discourage this kind of behavior.
What bothers me about this issue is that I rather play with people who group up because they like to group rather than because they are getting payed by the kilometer. Fairweather friends I do not need, as I've already played too many games where group endever has been turned into an unfun quest for personal enrichment rather than entertainment.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Sorry, can't agree with you here. I played Everquest, one of the games that had enforced grouping. Still had great groups with often complete strangers that you got to know better. According to your idea that would have been the worst thing to happen, having players in group that were in there purely because of the quick xp and that soloing became a snail place to nearly impossible for some classes.
In fact, I think that what BW is planning is the best way to go at it: no enforced grouping because MMO gamers have become so spoilt/facilitated (call it however you like) that enforced grouping would cause an uproar and wailing that'd reach the heavens. But also not a purely solely oriented focus where all the benefits lie with solo questing/leveling with hardly any benefits or incentives to grouping at all. Equal opportunities, make it so that both ways feel rewarding and not as if you have to sacrifice something, but make both paths feel fun and rewarding for different reasons.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Neither. I would like the game to give me the choice if I want to solo or group.
Missing out on what? Leveling faster- if so then it seems even more appropriate as it gives the solo players more time to pursue their prefered style of playing before inevitably hitting the endgame and being forced to group in order to progress. Grouping players should hit endgame faster because they prefer a grouping playstyle which is all there really is at endgame.
I would have loved to have slower solo progress in Rift- once I hit 50 I still had an entire zone's worth of quests to complete and although I did finish them because I wanted to read the quests and see what was happening they were all very easy for my level and no rewards I got for completing the quests was useful. The scenario you've brought up wouldn't have players missing out on something, in fact it would reward them with more of what they enjoy already.
This is a great answer. It doesn't go after the social points issue, but straight to the playstyle. And if more games would cater to both in this matter. It would go a long way for gamers. And if somehow that continued at end game, things could be a lot different. But that opens a whole other can of worms.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
The carrot
I want random loot. Items, random items.
Not like Wow, where you have pre-determined items. More like Anarchy Online; or better: Diablo 2.
I want more randomly generated loot. Random is not balance, but random is fun.
erm...in my opinion.
I'm a cynic, in my opnion they are and I can understand why a MMO developer might think so as well considering the BS they have to put up with day in and day out.
I hate the carrots and the sticks. Mmos should have player run economies, with rigorous enforcement and banning of gold sellers. I loved the way loot worked in DAoC. In the old days with a really good small team, 3 or 4 people, you could farm pretty much any loot you wanted, and nothing wos BoE or BoP, (two of the most insulting game mechanics ever). In housing you could buy pretty much any item you could find in the game, which gave you a myriad of ways of obtaining gear you needed.
Another things that mmos should have that they no longer seem to possess, is player crafting that matters. Again in DAoC, even after expansions that gave some really good dropped loot, (which was always sellable and tradable), almost no one had a suit that didnt have at LEAST two pieces of players crafted gear.
Ive said it before and ill say it again, gear grinding has no place in mmos. These are games that are supposed to inspire, and fire the imagination, not put us on a treadmill. Treadmills belong in the gym, with guys who lift things up and put them down.
I'm not convinced there's any truth in this. Instead I believe that type of user has always been there but like now has always been a minority. In fact I think they are more of a minority than ever. It's sad, but a fact of life, that MMO developers have to develop with the lowest common denominator in mind. That said they tend to work it in in such a way that it's not really that bad.
It seems to me more that BioWare recognizes that the reason to play an MMO is because of the player interaction more than anything else. I personally do not buy that idea, but I can understand why people would see it that way. This game, like most MMOs, seems to be designed around that idea and I have no problem with that. IF you CHOOSE to play a game in a way that it was not designed to be played, then you should not get all the benefits of someone who is playing it that way. I have no problem with that. Considering I solo a good deal, I will fall into that later category often and that is my CHOICE.
Your argument doesn't wash with me, and never will for that matter, because you refuse to see that YOUR choices should and do MATTER.
As for your comment on teaming. I too like to mostly group with friends and other people I know. The strange thing is though, only by grouping with people you don't know will you end up meeting NEW friends in the game. It's unfortunate in my opinion that I meet about 6 jerks for every good person I meet, but that too is ok with me. At least then the good people I do meet stand out and that reinforces my desire to play with them in the future.
The really funny thing about this whole argument is that in any game out there teaming is always more lucrative than soloing. Larger teams means larger groups to kill and normally at a faster rate. More enemies killed means more experience, cash and drops. So someone who soloes is getting less experience, less cash, and a much smaller chance of the good drops. Again, a choice is made and you gain or suffer by your decision.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"