Spacemonkey 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.
SilverIce58 wrote: »So, what's your point op?
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.
generalmyrick wrote: »they should make a movie about people getting too serious about a game...
The big rewards - the horse, the coffer, the crate - are once per account.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.
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.
Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »
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.
.
Hippie4927 wrote: »
Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »
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.
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.
Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »
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.
Twenty0zTsunami wrote: »
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.
The_Brosteen wrote: »Filthy capitalist pigs.
SEIZE THE MEMES OF PRODUCTION!
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.