Dungeon Token System: WHEN?

Phinix1

I wouldn't go so far as to say lack of separate balance for PVE and PVP will keep me from buying Morrowind, or even subbing, though this current patch proposal is WAY over the top and far too much at once to balance smoothly, which will just lead to unnecessarily protracted frustrations.

But what WILL continue to kill this game for more and more people is the current pure-RNG system for BoP gear drops in dungeons and trials, where you get a random drop, with a random trait, and no guarantee of EVER getting the piece you want.

It is the biggest cause of people's extreme resistance to otherwise adaptable changes. The fear of "having to do that grind all over" if the gear cap ever goes up, where even if they get the drop they want, they never really win, because they know one little change and it is back to never-ending randomness AGAIN.

That is a TERRIBLE design that leads people to give up. It is demoralizing, depressing, and if they honestly think it makes people run the content MORE, they need to have a very close look at the use data and do a professional sit-down with whoever is still pushing that notion.

Being able to trade items with the group was a good start but it wasn't enough to quell the real problem which is the PERCEPTION OF ATTAINABILITY. Random is still random.

A simple token system, where you earn currency for the current dungeon, and have enough to buy 1 piece of any BoP set that drops in that dungeon with the trait of your choosing after say 5 runs, would give people a cap on the "time to acquisition" that WOULD keep them POSITIVE and RUNNING CONTENT, both of which I believe are your goals as well and what is best for the life of the game.

That is the solution I have proposed for the better part of 2 years now.

This is having the opposite effect as intended, ZOS. Ask Deltia what the biggest burnout for him was. The patch notes was just the nail in the coffin from what I gather.

Why are you still fighting us on this? We ALL want the game to succeed. Just say it was something you were planning all along. It may even be true!

@ZOS_GinaBruno

Phinix1

Nowhere is this problem more evident than with the vMA weapon grind, where trading with group members isn't an option.

Perhaps we need to consider the use data in a broader scope? Sure the average person MAY run vMA over and over (and over and over and over...) trying to get the right drop, but what maybe isn't being considered here is what impression that leaves them with afterwards.

How willing do you think they will be to do that grind again after that experience?

How happy with the design do you think they will come away feeling? What will that feeling do to their overall long-term enjoyment of the game? Will it lead them to tend to expect the best, or the worst? (Very relevant to the present debacle.)

These more subtle considerations are the ball that ZOS psychologists and marketing are presently dropping with this design. A token system is simple to implement and would have a MASSIVE positive impact on the long term health of the game.

Make it so, number one.

S1ipperyJim

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

Lord-Otto

Number 1 reason for my old day 1 Destiny buddies was the awful RNG grind. This is what almost killed WoW.
You'd think gaming devs would learn...

FUN FACT!
RNG is not random. It malfunctions a lot (cluster problem). The amount of multiple SAME drops I got RIGHT AFTER EACH OTHER during my 13 hours farming the last three days showed that impressively.

Phinix1

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

I don't buy that at all, and that analogy is flawed.

People go to Vegas because their primary goal is to gamble. People play MMO's because their primary goal is to advance their character, explore the world, compete with other players, and HAVE FUN. RNG is just something that happens to exist along the way. Completely different motives (even though I do suspect someone in ZOS management is a gambling junkie with a REAL problem).

World of Warcraft, for all it's faults, realized the psychological and marketing advantage of a dungeon gear token system back at the end of TBC. There are REASONS that game continues to appeal to such a broad demographic of loyal long-term gamers, and not living in denial of these basic psychology benefits is one of them.

ZOS should take the lessons of what past MMO's got right as FREE MARKET RESEARCH instead of taking the stance that they have to be "unique for the sake of it" even when that means not learning from others' past mistakes.

That is a stubborn and self-defeating attitude that isn't winning them any points.

kargen27

It will happen on a Tuesday.

S1ipperyJim

I'm not saying I enjoy the RNG, it's a pain point for many of us, however I disagree with:

Phinix1 wrote: »

RNG is just something that happens to exist along the way

Everything is put into the game for a specific reason, especially game mechanics. For an interesting article on the psychology of RNG in games, why RNG drives players to interact more with a game - and even why it could be argued to be good design practice, this is an interesting article:

http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2013/08/the-psychology-of-rewards-in-games.html

Phinix1

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

I'm not saying I enjoy the RNG, it's a pain point for many of us, however I disagree with:

Phinix1 wrote: »

RNG is just something that happens to exist along the way

Everything is put into the game for a specific reason, especially game mechanics. For an interesting article on the psychology of RNG in games, why RNG drives players to interact more with a game - and even why it could be argued to be good design practice, this is an interesting article:

http://www.mostdangerousgamedesign.com/2013/08/the-psychology-of-rewards-in-games.html

...and before the advent of antibiotics, many books were written extolling the virtues of bloodletting.

But clinging to one dogmatic formula (which is arguably obsolete and so flawed it assumes conscious thinking humans have the same primary motives as lab rodents), and in light of PRACTICAL DATA of a current problem with the psychology of your players, when the "dogmatic automatic" following of that model clearly ISN'T WORKING and is actually having the opposite of the intended effect on the burnout and loyalty of your players, and when competition has already had greater success with a completely new and mutually exclusive strategy that gives HUMAN subjects the "perception of attainability" (which this archaic model completely fails to consider)...

Well, it would be about as unhealthy as outlawing antibiotics as anathema because you personally have faith in the great wisdom of leaches.

Humans are quick to conflict and slow to change. I'm not going to be the McFly that does Biff's homework for free on this one but clearly, if THIS is the guy they are copying off of, it looks like they'll be waxing cars for the foreseeable future and we can expect many more Deltias. Just saying.

These latest patch notes put a lot on the players to adapt to. I would suggest perhaps management might consider trying a bit of objective adaptation as well, because as I said, this is clearly NOT working as intended.

S1ipperyJim

Phinix1 wrote: »

...and before the advent of antibiotics, many books were written extolling the virtues of bloodletting.

I linked you to an article which cites specific scientific evidence that people are more motivated by RNG than a guaranteed reward system. Attempting to argue the opposite in order to force reality to fit your preconceived bias, based loosely on your general feeling with zero actual evidence to disprove the hard science is in fact like going back to the dark ages of non scientific blood letting and flat earth thinking, which was only disproved through actual real science and experimentation.

As I said, I don't enjoy the RNG either, although that's only part of the problem with VMA since many people can't complete it at all.

I'm just being objective and pointing out the science behind why devs like ZOS deliberately put multiple RNG systems into their games.

Fingolfinn01

A token system would be nice +1 to the op

Phinix1

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

I'm just being objective and pointing out the science behind why devs like ZOS deliberately put multiple RNG systems into their games.

And I am trying to explain that is an OBSOLETE PLAYBOOK.

The whole idea of the Skinner Box has been extensively debunked in modern gaming psychology. WoW figured it out, and they have 10x the loyal customers and market success than ESO at it's best times.

One of the most frequently sited reasons former ESO customers give on surveys and posts on community forums for leaving the game is "burnout due to over-reliance on RNG."

No one is suggesting removing ALL RNG. It is the EXCLUSIVE OVER-RELIANCE on RNG with no safety net system granting a "perception of attainability for time investment" that is turning people away.

But one can choose to ignore all this feedback and say that until some specific entity with a specific qualification signs off on the "science" then all evidence of this being a failed model "doesn't count" and should be stubbornly ignored, as ZOS clearly does. But then, THAT would be a biased assessment as well, and clearly, not good for business.

I think the flaw with the Skinner Box model can be summed up thusly:



The entire premise assumes the primary motives of conscious human beings are identical to unthinking lab rodents. I'm not sure how anyone could ever take such quack "science" seriously in the first place with such a ridiculous assumption, but remember, bloodletting and alchemy were once the operating "scientific" paradigms of the day as well.

People today treat the word "science" almost like past generations treated the word "God." Unquestionable and sacrosanct, regardless of intervening advances and evidence directly contradicting their assumptions. So long as it's got "science" in it though, well it MUST be right.

I think that is disturbingly ironic.

I am reminded of a line from Stargate SG1, spoken by the character Nyan: "When one of my theories is disproved, it is as exciting to me as if it were confirmed. Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance."

This particular science of "man as rodent" is about as relevant as bloodletting.

S1ipperyJim

Phinix1 wrote: »

The whole idea of the Skinner Box has been extensively debunked in modern gaming psychology.

No it hasn't.

Phinix1 wrote: »

The entire premise assumes the primary motives of conscious human beings are identical to unthinking lab rodents

Experiments on non human subjects is a long standing scientific norm, however please note that experiments were also cited using human subjects with the same results.

bloodletting and alchemy were once the operating "scientific" paradigms of the day as well.

No, it wasn't. Bloodletting was a practice used 2,500 years before the Skinner Box was invented. The Skinner Box was invented several decades after notable scientific breakthroughs such as the General Theory of Relativity.

If you have evidence directly contradicting RNG as a motivational factor then I'd be happy to look at it, otherwise I just don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to game theory and motivational psychology.

Phinix1

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

Experiments on non human subjects is a long standing scientific norm, however please note that experiments were also cited using human subjects with the same results.

Perhaps, when testing things like pharmaceuticals or the side effects of other chemicals on not-human mammalian analogs, but NOT when it comes to making grossly inappropriate inferences about matters of the MIND using UNTHINKING lower animals.

The entire premise is ludicrous.

S1ipperyJim

Phinix1 wrote: »

NOT when it comes to making grossly inappropriate inferences about matters of the MIND using UNTHINKING lower animals

Again, you are very, very wrong. Especially the part about animals not thinking.

***And I notice you deliberately ignored the human experiment I referred to***

Further reading which specifically mentions rats as subjects for psychological experiments and why they are similar to humans, and the many breakthroughs resulting from animal experiments with very real benefits to humans:

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/august/why-research-using-animals-important-psychology

TLDR:

"Based on the above evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that although the human brain, even in the highly complex prefrontal cortex, is more complex than those of any laboratory animal model in many ways, there are a substantial number of homologies between species. These homologies not only make mammalian models relevant to humans, they also make the development of increasingly complex models possible, creating the possibility of understanding complex cognitive processes."

ButtersEP

A token system would be sweet, May talos help us if cap gets raised with out a token system

Phinix1

Not sure there is any constructive point relevant to this topic in continuing this little exchange we have going here. If you honestly believe that rat brains are analogous to the conscious thinking motives of humans, there is nothing I or anyone else could say to dissuade you. We will just have to agree to disagree.

However, from your own link:

How transferrable to humans is data from animal studies? (They spelled 'transferable' wrong, but then this was taken from the OPINION section of the website you linked, if you hadn't noticed.)

As with every experimental methodology, there are disadvantages to using animals in experiments. A common argument against the use of animals in experiments is that animals are not good models for humans, based on the observation that we are not simply larger versions of lab rats – our bodies (and minds) work differently. Interestingly, biology shows that rodents are actually rather good models of the human body. (Emphasis mine.)

All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Some controversy, however, comes with the study of the mammalian brain in psychology and neuroscience. This is one organ that does differ in some aspects, particularly in terms of cortical volume, quite substantially between species. Despite this, there are many common characteristics between all mammalian brains (e.g. basic cytoarchitecture and structure and neuronal physiology).

Also:

To carry out these experiments using human babies would have been highly unethical and impractical.

But why would that be the case, if their capacity for CONSCIOUS THOUGHT AND SELF AWARENESS was truly analogous?

Using rats to study aversion to pain, community structures, and other instinctual impulses is one thing. But to make claims about the psychological motives of THINKING SELF-CONSCIOUS BEINGS based on rat behaviors IS ludicrous, as are assumptions about human behavior in modern MMO's based on this near half-century-old study on rat reward mechanisms (the Skinner Box).

Rats do NOT pass the mirror test. This is not a judgement against them or any form of life which hold intrinsic value simply in what they are, but there ARE things that they simply and obviously are NOT. Rats are not self-conscious beings in any sense that could be compared to humans, or used to infer the conscious thinking motives of humans. Your apparent need to assume so to support your arguments strikes me as rather close minded.

People don't play MMO's because their unconscious instincts tell them to.

Yes, we ARE influenced by subconscious impulses to an extend, but our conscious thought process influences our entertainment choices more than our unconscious biological programming does. To assume to predict the whole of human behavior, art, culture, and interest based on a minority relevant analogy to unconscious animal impulses and survival-based behavior patterns is irresponsible and bordering on pseudo-science.

It is a best guess model only and since it clearly isn't working, there is no rational cause to hold it up as infallible.

zaria

Lord-Otto wrote: »

Number 1 reason for my old day 1 Destiny buddies was the awful RNG grind. This is what almost killed WoW.
You'd think gaming devs would learn...

FUN FACT!
RNG is not random. It malfunctions a lot (cluster problem). The amount of multiple SAME drops I got RIGHT AFTER EACH OTHER during my 13 hours farming the last three days showed that impressively.

Non randomness in computer rng calculations is well known, however it does not affect stuff like dungeon drops who is spread out over days while other uses the rng all the time.

However random is random, if you are after something with an very low drop chance say 1/100 you can easy run 300 times without getting it. Not to say anything about loot tables and how they are set up.

S1ipperyJim

They spelled 'transferable' wrong

Did you know that Albert Einstein was known to be notoriously poor at spelling, both in English and his native German? I guess that disproves all his scientific theories and discoveries then....

looks let's agree to disagree shall we, I'm glad you were open minded enough to read the articles i linked even if you don't accept their conclusions

Marabornwingrion

When? When ZOS will find a way how to make money on it.
Creating token system will take them huge amount of time and work, and they will have no profit from it. Also, getting gear that you need faster than now, will make you play less = less money for them.

Runschei

*Insert Britney Spears give me give me GIF*

OrdinatorInMourning

"WHEN?"
Never.
If you want to have bis equipment you need to deserve it. Patience (dungeon sets, overland sets) and skill (epic and legendary jewelry from vTrials, MSA weapons). Try or chose something weaker.
Close thread.

MCBIZZLE300

Phinix1 wrote: »

Nowhere is this problem more evident than with the vMA weapon grind, where trading with group members isn't an option.

Perhaps we need to consider the use data in a broader scope? Sure the average person MAY run vMA over and over (and over and over and over...) trying to get the right drop, but what maybe isn't being considered here is what impression that leaves them with afterwards.

How willing do you think they will be to do that grind again after that experience?

How happy with the design do you think they will come away feeling? What will that feeling do to their overall long-term enjoyment of the game? Will it lead them to tend to expect the best, or the worst? (Very relevant to the present debacle.)

These more subtle considerations are the ball that ZOS psychologists and marketing are presently dropping with this design. A token system is simple to implement and would have a MASSIVE positive impact on the long term health of the game.

Make it so, number one.

VMA is literally killing my love for this game, close to quitting the whole thing because of it. I know its stupid but i have to have VMA weapons to compete in group trials.

Robvenom

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

Phinix1

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

They spelled 'transferable' wrong

Did you know that Albert Einstein was known to be notoriously poor at spelling, both in English and his native German? I guess that disproves all his scientific theories and discoveries then....

looks let's agree to disagree shall we, I'm glad you were open minded enough to read the articles i linked even if you don't accept their conclusions

Didn't mean to be the grammar police (LOL I hate that). Was more wanting to point out the article was in the opinion section, and so to be taken with a grain. But I am glad we can agree to disagree respectfully.

If I sounded terse it was only due to my own tendency to want to extrapolate at length my reasoning on this particular subject, but also not wanting to for various reasons. It doesn't really offend me that people in "scientific" circles would use rat or animal models to describe human behavior, so much as IT WORRIES ME GREATLY.

So many times in our history one group has condescended to and dehumanized another. I would hate to think that "science" would be invoked to rationalize stooping to such base exclusive judgement as has led in the past to racism, slavery, even genocide.

So, I am exceptionally defensive when anyone even suggests using rat behavior to describe more complex aspects of our conscious interaction, motivation, and entertainment.

I can't remember who it was that said "if you can dehumanize someone, you can justify doing ANYTHING to them."

Magdalina

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

That analogy is rather flawed though. A casino profits from a person not winning, because if they do win, the casino gets to pay real money to them. For ZOS, it would not cost a cent to give every single person in the game a sharp fire vMA staff(I'm not saying they should do that, would be a bad idea but still), they profit from people staying in the game and spending money on the game. The question is, when are people more likely to stay with the game and feel content with the game enough to spend more money on it, when they run same content that they're long bored of for literally hundreds of hours instead of doing something they enjoy, or when they actualloy have a reasonable chance of doing what they enjoy in the near future?

It'd be a bad idea to have absolutely guaranteed drops because it'd destroy the sense of achievement, but at the same time hundreds and hundreds of runs and getting na da after them is not fun either, it makes a lot people quit, even that guy-who-shall-not-be-named that everyone's so freaking out about now. Token system sounds like a reasonable alternative where something would still take relatively long to obtain if rng gods don't favor you, but at the very least you'll know that after <x> time, you WILL get what you're after. They can make it a very long time too, people will still take it and praise them at this point because current system gives them a chance to literally NEVER get what they're after.

Personally, I've been farming SotH dungeons a great lot lately, it's become my favourite activity in the game. I do actually enjoy them, they're fun and mechanics are interesting, and I like that there's still a challenge to them even with a good team, but you know why else I run them? Motifs. 100% drop in vet hm. Not only I've learnt them all myself but I'm making very nice profit selling them. Best part? I don't have to pray to rng gods anymore, I know that if me and my team are good enough, we WILL get a motif chapter and it's great. And it hasn't dropped the economy either because even with guaranteed drops the content is hard enough that the supply is still much lower than the demand and chest chapters go for up to 90k(pc na). I feel that was a really great adition and really awesome idea - the guaranteed drop is locked behind content difficulty, but it is there, there IS a way to get 100% drop, even if it's not easy and might take a while too. It's not a token system but it's along the same lines of having a guaranteed way to acquire something eventually.

AzraelKrieg

Random bolding and CAPITALISATION of words doesn't help you get your point across.

Phinix1

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

Random bolding and CAPITALISATION of words doesn't help you get your point across.

No, but non-random bolding does. Helps cut through the attention deficit of the average modern internet dweller.

Sort of like bullet point summaries mid-paragraph.

Kodrac

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

Kinda sounds like skee ball. Get 3000 tickets and all you can buy with it is the afro wig that cost 6 bucks at the Halloween store.

craftycarper73

reading this is like watching sheldon and leonard on big bang theory lol when does the comedy start though?

zaria

Phinix1 wrote: »

S1ipperyJim wrote: »

It's like saying casinos should implement a token system whereby every time you pull the lever in a slot machine you get a token then after 100 tokens you can claim the grand prize and make it rain money. RNG in all its forms in games (random drops, good and bad traits, crown crates, undaunted chests etc) is added based on psychology and statistics showing it keeps more people playing longer. After people reach the set number required for enough tokens they would stop playing the requisite content.

I don't buy that at all, and that analogy is flawed.

People go to Vegas because their primary goal is to gamble. People play MMO's because their primary goal is to advance their character, explore the world, compete with other players, and HAVE FUN. RNG is just something that happens to exist along the way. Completely different motives (even though I do suspect someone in ZOS management is a gambling junkie with a REAL problem).

World of Warcraft, for all it's faults, realized the psychological and marketing advantage of a dungeon gear token system back at the end of TBC. There are REASONS that game continues to appeal to such a broad demographic of loyal long-term gamers, and not living in denial of these basic psychology benefits is one of them.

ZOS should take the lessons of what past MMO's got right as FREE MARKET RESEARCH instead of taking the stance that they have to be "unique for the sake of it" even when that means not learning from others' past mistakes.

That is a stubborn and self-defeating attitude that isn't winning them any points.

Yes, wow created an token system People ended up grinding random dungeon for the 5 raid gear tokens they got.
Its another way to get players play

In ESO its not hard getting an armor set if you accept some junk traits then do it more to get better traits.
Getting divine monster sets in the right weights is hard, spesific sharpened weapons is very hard as in don't try.

For an token system I would make it harder to earn than in wow, its supposed to fill in holes in builds nothing more.
say 15 dungeons to get an token, you can trade down so if you done 10 normal and 15 veteran dungeons you could buy an normal dungeon item and have 10 veteran tokens left. Perhaps making weapons more expensive.

An issue that people would farm wayrest sewer for tokens, we know this will happen

Kodrac

You do realize a token system won't magically reduce the grind right? It's systematic grind vs a random grind. Token systems are even more of a grind usually because they impart one token grind into another token grind. Run dungeon 100 times to get get one token. get 100 tokens get a ring, get 200 tokens get chest piece, etc. Hell no.

Random might be frustrating but I'd take it over a systemic kick in the nuts every time I log in. Some people see a token system as light at the end of the tunnel, but I see it as depressing knowing exactly how much time I'm going to have to waste to get that one shiny.