Recent update made the game more like an Operant Conditioning Chamber than ever before.

Spacemonkey

jaye63 wrote: »

Spacemonkey wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

And it's not me implying anything... it's a text from the professionals in the field saying that it's incorrect.

Are you arguing over that because you don't agree with the OP statement:

... But in actuality all it does, all they wanted it to do, was further reinforce the aspects of gaming that cause people to become addicted, ...

?

Perhaps you can bring forth arguments for this level up system?

New guy comes in... learning curve is high, makes a very gimp toon, gets booted from dungeons because he's gimp... this helps to make him viable. Not great but acceptable. I dont build pattern toons. It's boring to play some one else's build. Something like this would have shortened the learning curve.

Ideas that hadnt been considered. It's easy to get hyper focused on one thing. This gives multiple choices so that you can see something you may not have.

I currently find it annoying because I did my time screwing up and figuring it out thru trial and error and asking stupid questions and newb questions that got me trolled on a regular basis. So I can see the worth. I dont care one way or the other. The game will survive. The troubling thing to me is that this could be an indicator that the participation level is in decline. And maybe this is the actual reason people have an issue with it. They're afraid that it's an indicator that the game is dying and trying to cater to people who normally wouldnt or couldnt play it.

Have you checked the rewards though?

OP is not talking about the Skill advisor - that helps you in making build choices etc...
We are all talking about the Level up Rewards; I don't see how a mount, crown crates, gold, random gear, storage unit help you with the learning curve.

Taleof2Cities

SilverIce58 wrote: »

So, what's your point op?

The OP is plenty salty about level-up rewards not being retroactive ... and will start as many threads as possible (however tangential said threads might be) to make that change happen.

geonsocal

is it possible to be both foolish and naive?

man, this should have been a poll...

Hippie4927

geonsocal wrote: »

is it possible to be both foolish and naive?

man, this should have been a poll...

I can attest to the fact that it is possible to be both foolish and naive.

Twenty0zTsunami

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

So, what's your point op?

The OP is plenty salty about level-up rewards not being retroactive ... and will start as many threads as possible (however tangential said threads might be) to make that change happen.

Im not salty about level up rewards, I was in the process of leveling a new character as it was implemented and I have plenty of open slots. In fact I think the mount,t he crown crates, scrolls potions food-- They're all good ideas, but the method of implementation hearkens back to ***-tier free-to-play social media/mobile games that generate revenue by getting people hooked and then nickel and diming them to death.

If you can't conceive of why, on principle, this might be problematic then there's an easy explanation to your lack of understanding.

generalmyrick

they should make a movie about people getting too serious about a game...

Twenty0zTsunami

generalmyrick wrote: »

they should make a movie about people getting too serious about a game...

im sure you'd watch it. probably pay full price for the popcorn too.

There's a word for people like you

victoriana-blue

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

victoriana-blue wrote: »

It's not operant conditioning because the rewards stop at level 50. If it was conditioning, you'd see players have an extinction burst of levelling then give up for lack of reward.

What it is, is making the early game more sticky - there's a lot to learn in this game, but the rewards help. Most of the rewards are things like glyphs and green weapons, but even the big ones like the horse take away an irritation. Do you remember how much you wanted that first horse, or how silly you felt when you realized the importance of riding lessons later on? Those are irritations and too many irritations make people quit.

Are the levelling rewards a dopamine hit? Absolutely, but so is opening a chest or achieving something in-game. But they're not Skinner boxes, and neither are the levelling rewards.

Rewards stop at fifty but that doesnt mean it's not operant conditioning. The chamber merely changes, as does the method of operation.

Furthermore there's nothing to stop a player from rolling a new character to get those sweet sweet carrots *loot boxes, and you're daft if you think they didn't consider and intend for that very thing. My money's on the fact that they noticed NO ONE buys additional character slots.

The big rewards - the horse, the coffer, the crate - are once per account.

Go back to Wikipedia and read about behaviour extinction. In operant conditioning, when the reward stops the behaviour will eventually stop; when the levelling rewards stop, players continue to play.

If you want to argue that the game itself is a Skinner box, okay, fine, put that forward. I'd even agree that crown crates are designed with conditioning in mind. But the levelling rewards aren't.

Katahdin

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

Rewards stop at fifty but that doesnt mean it's not operant conditioning. The chamber merely changes, as does the method of operation.

Furthermore there's nothing to stop a player from rolling a new character to get those sweet sweet carrots *loot boxes, and you're daft if you think they didn't consider and intend for that very thing. My money's on the fact that they noticed NO ONE buys additional character slots.

The flaw is that the "good" and most highly desired rewards (mount, storage chest, costume, crown crates) are once per account. If you level another character, you won't get those again. So far the other rewards are Meh and do nothing to make me want to level yet another character.

I chose to level another character now to see how the system works/differs from before and to get the things from it that I don't have. Beyond that, I see no point.

GW2 has a similar level up reward system and that didn't make people eat to level additional characters beyond the normal desire some people have for making one if each class or role

jaye63

lagrue wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

krachall wrote: »

gamified

How does that kool aid taste?

It is not an essential part of a game. But it sure is a good business model, seeing as how no customer is as loyal as an addicted customer.

The research on operant conditioning was almost exclusively done with animals- rats, pigeons, dogs, and so on. One fundamental assumption of the model was that these principles would also apply to humans. This section describes why that assumption is incorrect.

Yeah uh... almost all psychological research is done on animals (I studied psychology). The fundamental assumption of almost every study done in psychology, is that they apply to humans. Operant Conditioning, Classic Conditioning, Attachment Theory, etc. All done on animals, and all very critical to the fundamental understandings of human behavior as well (because believe it or not, we're animals). Operant Conditioning is widely considered to be the way in which humans learn their most basic behaviours. The model very well applies to humans, especially in their early years - but like almost every other theory in psychology, it doesn't explain every behavior.

Studies done on humans; i.e. the Stanford Prison Experiment, have been deemed to be ridiculously inhumane, leave participants psychologically and emotionally damaged, and overall that poos all over the validity of the studies.

If you know the key system in which humans are conditioned to certain behaviours, perhaps write a letter to the APA and enlighten them all, rather than call people kool-aid drinkers on the forums.

Also -10 points for sourcing a psychology book, without providing proper APA to be validated, and for allegedly quoting a "basic" psychology book. You can tell you like to just quick google some trash and drop it on people.

-You are now eligible for a position as Armchair Psychologist.
.

The argument he made was invalid. Called some one a Koolade drinker. I threw the study in his face and returned the favor. Standing in a classroom, you can do an observational study that would have more validity than animal studies. We can sit and debate the validty of any study all day long on both sides of an issue such as this. But to start a thread based on pseudo psychology and equate that to the methods of the game manufacturers without the scientific study being complete, places that statement in the realm of idea that doesnt even really equate to a hypothysis let alone theory and definitely not fact in any way. He made the assuption. I just showed the folly. .And your pseudopsychological attempt to discredit my slap down of his illogical presentation via a single assumption, shows you're as lacking in factual data as he was.

Dont play with something your ill equipped to handle

Edit: Maybe in those psych classes you should have added in Logic. I did.

geonsocal

Hippie4927 wrote: »

geonsocal wrote: »

is it possible to be both foolish and naive?

man, this should have been a poll...

I can attest to the fact that it is possible to be both foolish and naive.

geonsocal

jaye63 wrote: »

lagrue wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

krachall wrote: »

gamified

How does that kool aid taste?

It is not an essential part of a game. But it sure is a good business model, seeing as how no customer is as loyal as an addicted customer.

The research on operant conditioning was almost exclusively done with animals- rats, pigeons, dogs, and so on. One fundamental assumption of the model was that these principles would also apply to humans. This section describes why that assumption is incorrect.

Yeah uh... almost all psychological research is done on animals (I studied psychology). The fundamental assumption of almost every study done in psychology, is that they apply to humans. Operant Conditioning, Classic Conditioning, Attachment Theory, etc. All done on animals, and all very critical to the fundamental understandings of human behavior as well (because believe it or not, we're animals). Operant Conditioning is widely considered to be the way in which humans learn their most basic behaviours. The model very well applies to humans, especially in their early years - but like almost every other theory in psychology, it doesn't explain every behavior.

Studies done on humans; i.e. the Stanford Prison Experiment, have been deemed to be ridiculously inhumane, leave participants psychologically and emotionally damaged, and overall that poos all over the validity of the studies.

If you know the key system in which humans are conditioned to certain behaviours, perhaps write a letter to the APA and enlighten them all, rather than call people kool-aid drinkers on the forums.

Also -10 points for sourcing a psychology book, without providing proper APA to be validated, and for allegedly quoting a "basic" psychology book. You can tell you like to just quick google some trash and drop it on people.

-You are now eligible for a position as Armchair Psychologist.
.

The argument he made was invalid. Called some one a Koolade drinker. I threw the study in his face and returned the favor. Standing in a classroom, you can do an observational study that would have more validity than animal studies. We can sit and debate the validty of any study all day long on both sides of an issue such as this. But to start a thread based on pseudo psychology and equate that to the methods of the game manufacturers without the scientific study being complete, places that statement in the realm of idea that doesnt even really equate to a hypothysis let alone theory and definitely not fact in any way. He made the assuption. I just showed the folly. .And your pseudopsychological attempt to discredit my slap down of his illogical presentation via a single assumption, shows you're as lacking in factual data as he was.

Dont play with something your ill equipped to handle

Edit: Maybe in those psych classes you should have added in Logic. I did.

TL;DR version:

jaye63

LMAO... sounds like *I know you are but what am I*. Doesnt change the fact that the OP is an illogical leap of logic with no theorectical testing to prove the statement. Plus, presenting it as fact means that the op is butthurt about something more. Low wages, unforseen costs that crept in limiting his ability to purchase things, mommy issues... who knows. The whole thread is illogical and not even remotely factual

DieAlteHexe

This thread is hilarious!

VaranisArano

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

victoriana-blue wrote: »

It's not operant conditioning because the rewards stop at level 50. If it was conditioning, you'd see players have an extinction burst of levelling then give up for lack of reward.

What it is, is making the early game more sticky - there's a lot to learn in this game, but the rewards help. Most of the rewards are things like glyphs and green weapons, but even the big ones like the horse take away an irritation. Do you remember how much you wanted that first horse, or how silly you felt when you realized the importance of riding lessons later on? Those are irritations and too many irritations make people quit.

Are the levelling rewards a dopamine hit? Absolutely, but so is opening a chest or achieving something in-game. But they're not Skinner boxes, and neither are the levelling rewards.

Rewards stop at fifty but that doesnt mean it's not operant conditioning. The chamber merely changes, as does the method of operation.

Furthermore there's nothing to stop a player from rolling a new character to get those sweet sweet carrots *loot boxes, and you're daft if you think they didn't consider and intend for that very thing. My money's on the fact that they noticed NO ONE buys additional character slots.

On that 2nd new character, you don't get additional crown crates.

If I'm leveling up a 10th new character after the 9th I'm making to get the rewards, its not because of the rewards. Its because I should be a member of Altoholics Anonymous. Seriously, if we count how many characters I've made and deleted...

lagrue

jaye63 wrote: »

lagrue wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

krachall wrote: »

gamified

How does that kool aid taste?

It is not an essential part of a game. But it sure is a good business model, seeing as how no customer is as loyal as an addicted customer.

The research on operant conditioning was almost exclusively done with animals- rats, pigeons, dogs, and so on. One fundamental assumption of the model was that these principles would also apply to humans. This section describes why that assumption is incorrect.

Yeah uh... almost all psychological research is done on animals (I studied psychology). The fundamental assumption of almost every study done in psychology, is that they apply to humans. Operant Conditioning, Classic Conditioning, Attachment Theory, etc. All done on animals, and all very critical to the fundamental understandings of human behavior as well (because believe it or not, we're animals). Operant Conditioning is widely considered to be the way in which humans learn their most basic behaviours. The model very well applies to humans, especially in their early years - but like almost every other theory in psychology, it doesn't explain every behavior.

Studies done on humans; i.e. the Stanford Prison Experiment, have been deemed to be ridiculously inhumane, leave participants psychologically and emotionally damaged, and overall that poos all over the validity of the studies.

If you know the key system in which humans are conditioned to certain behaviours, perhaps write a letter to the APA and enlighten them all, rather than call people kool-aid drinkers on the forums.

Also -10 points for sourcing a psychology book, without providing proper APA to be validated, and for allegedly quoting a "basic" psychology book. You can tell you like to just quick google some trash and drop it on people.

-You are now eligible for a position as Armchair Psychologist.
.

The argument he made was invalid. Called some one a Koolade drinker. I threw the study in his face and returned the favor. Standing in a classroom, you can do an observational study that would have more validity than animal studies. We can sit and debate the validty of any study all day long on both sides of an issue such as this. But to start a thread based on pseudo psychology and equate that to the methods of the game manufacturers without the scientific study being complete, places that statement in the realm of idea that doesnt even really equate to a hypothysis let alone theory and definitely not fact in any way. He made the assuption. I just showed the folly. .And your pseudopsychological attempt to discredit my slap down of his illogical presentation via a single assumption, shows you're as lacking in factual data as he was.

Dont play with something your ill equipped to handle

Edit: Maybe in those psych classes you should have added in Logic. I did.

You didn't even quote a study, you literally quoted a line from a single basic psychology book - huge, huge difference. If you can't even define your source properly, then I'm going to assume you're practicing confirmation bias and using it to try to defend your argument. You just looked up something that you believed agreed with your stance, and then regurgitated it to us without actually understanding or knowing what you're talking about.

There is no validity to contest. I found the source of what you wrote, and overall it does a poor job of backing itself up. You then decide to lambast us with your tirade of words which centers around calling everything "pseudo psychology." A very cheap copout to discredit everything around you. Hell apparently even my post is "pseudopsychological" - where you aren't even using it in a proper context. You just let the *** dribble from your mouth freely, it would seem.

Here's a tip for you - all psychological theory is just that - THEORY. It's all "pseudo psychology" if you really want to act like a moron about it... there is still commonly accepted theory and Operant Conditioning is among it. The only "fact" you're going to find in psychology is mostly pertaining to the biological aspects. Everything else is simply theory based in evidence.

-10 more points for trying too hard to feel relevant when you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not here to prove or discredit OP's point - I was just challenging your blatant lack of knowledge about psychology. If you're going to come here and act like an armchair psychologist, then you can expect somebody with actual education in the field to come challenge you.

The difference between you and I is that I went to university and specialized in psychology and psychiatry. You probably took a high school or college level class and deemed yourself an expert, and it really shows... probably just passed with a grade of 50 as well.

Also another tip for you - you can't stand there in a class and do a study. The human subject you're studying has to consent to be studied in the first place, and with humans that often leads to different behavior, often to try and subconciously meet the "expected" behavior. That is why there's alot more than standing there in a classroom involved... You need peer review, MULTIPLE studies, controlled environment (which a classroom will never be.) You need to be ETHICAL to your subjects, and so on and so forth.

Since you're the expert now, why don't you write to the APA and tell them how studies should be done. And then explain to them how one study or source is infallible evidence.

ak_pvp

I am not quite sure what is going on in this thread. But a TL:DR of my opinions.

It feels a little shady since its to entice you into buying, but imo its harmless if you have some self control. They are a business, they are there for money. If you don't like it, don't buy it and stop trying to change things. Lets ban adverts and fasdt food and free samples ya?

No.

geonsocal

geonsocal

lagrue wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

lagrue wrote: »

jaye63 wrote: »

Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »

krachall wrote: »

gamified

How does that kool aid taste?

It is not an essential part of a game. But it sure is a good business model, seeing as how no customer is as loyal as an addicted customer.

The research on operant conditioning was almost exclusively done with animals- rats, pigeons, dogs, and so on. One fundamental assumption of the model was that these principles would also apply to humans. This section describes why that assumption is incorrect.

Yeah uh... almost all psychological research is done on animals (I studied psychology). The fundamental assumption of almost every study done in psychology, is that they apply to humans. Operant Conditioning, Classic Conditioning, Attachment Theory, etc. All done on animals, and all very critical to the fundamental understandings of human behavior as well (because believe it or not, we're animals). Operant Conditioning is widely considered to be the way in which humans learn their most basic behaviours. The model very well applies to humans, especially in their early years - but like almost every other theory in psychology, it doesn't explain every behavior.

Studies done on humans; i.e. the Stanford Prison Experiment, have been deemed to be ridiculously inhumane, leave participants psychologically and emotionally damaged, and overall that poos all over the validity of the studies.

If you know the key system in which humans are conditioned to certain behaviours, perhaps write a letter to the APA and enlighten them all, rather than call people kool-aid drinkers on the forums.

Also -10 points for sourcing a psychology book, without providing proper APA to be validated, and for allegedly quoting a "basic" psychology book. You can tell you like to just quick google some trash and drop it on people.

-You are now eligible for a position as Armchair Psychologist.
.

The argument he made was invalid. Called some one a Koolade drinker. I threw the study in his face and returned the favor. Standing in a classroom, you can do an observational study that would have more validity than animal studies. We can sit and debate the validty of any study all day long on both sides of an issue such as this. But to start a thread based on pseudo psychology and equate that to the methods of the game manufacturers without the scientific study being complete, places that statement in the realm of idea that doesnt even really equate to a hypothysis let alone theory and definitely not fact in any way. He made the assuption. I just showed the folly. .And your pseudopsychological attempt to discredit my slap down of his illogical presentation via a single assumption, shows you're as lacking in factual data as he was.

Dont play with something your ill equipped to handle

Edit: Maybe in those psych classes you should have added in Logic. I did.

You didn't even quote a study, you literally quoted a line from a single basic psychology book - huge, huge difference. If you can't even define your source properly, then I'm going to assume you're practicing confirmation bias and using it to try to defend your argument. You just looked up something that you believed agreed with your stance, and then regurgitated it to us without actually understanding or knowing what you're talking about.

The difference between you and I is that I went to university and specialized in psychology and psychiatry. You probably took a high school or college level class and deemed yourself an expert, and it really shows... probably just passed with a grade of 50 as well.

AverageJo3Gam3r

Look at the bright side, the scammers have to come up with another scam than "I'm a new player. Can you give me 1k for a horse?"

Kiralyn2000

As if basic features of MMOs (and ARPGs, and RPGs, and...) since time immemorial weren't already this.

Hey kids, keep running VMA for another pull at that lever to see if you win the weapon you want.
Hey kids, get all the WoW Holiday achievements to earn a shiny mount.
Key kids, keep killing that Diablo boss to see if it drops the colorful loot you want.


Um, welcome to gaming since decades ago?

monktoasty

Who needs psychology when it's plain as day. Why else are games continually adding more levels passed the cap? Because that DING is addictive..once that DING is gone..slowly reality seys in and people stop playing

Aesthier

I don't mind it so much. Occasionally I get something free, doesn't mean I have to go buy anything else.

If there are people out there that get suckered into microtransactions just because of the advisor then I think that is a good thing.

They can continue giving money, learn a solid life lesson in return "don't buy stupid crap", and the game I enjoy gets the cash they need to continue years down the road while staying outta my pocket.

To me its wins all the way around.

starkerealm

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Filthy capitalist pigs.

SEIZE THE MEMES OF PRODUCTION!

starkerealm

krachall wrote: »

Uh...isn't that the entire premise of an MMO? Nothing new.

You're basically saying ESO gamified the game...which is circular logic at its best.

@krachall, usually it's a chatroom with added baubles to poke with sticks while being a smartass with your friends and strange people from around the world. So... yeah, pretty much.

Pops_ND_Irish

Typical Whine fest. Never satisfied.

Hate it so much, then leave !

AzraelKrieg

So because people wanted to be rewarded for levelling in the game since they felt that levelling wasn't rewarding enough and ZOS gave those people a more rewarding levelling system by giving away free things as players progress that wasn't there at launch you think it's some sort of experiment to get people addicted to the game? People that were already playing it regularly mind you. Amazing