A serious question

Elencha · July 2014

Okay. I have a question. I’ve asked it before, in other threads, but I think it was taken as rhetorical, because I haven’t been able to get an answer. Maybe no one actually knows. Maybe it’s one of those things that are the way they are because they always have been. Either way, I am honestly asking. I’m not sniping and it isn’t rhetorical.
All over this forum, in various conversations I have seen comments that say essentially, “x has to be this way to encourage/force people to interact with each other.” I’ve seen it given as a reason for the forced artificial scarcity of certain racial motifs, tempering agents and recipe ingredients, for the difficulty of VR content, for the lack of personal and bank inventory space, for the need for more forced group content… And, interestingly, this reason is taken as a given, it seems.
So, here’s the question: Whence comes the need for a game mechanic to encourage, much less force, player interaction?
Don’t misunderstand me, here. I am not advocating anything be implemented to encourage or force solo play either. In fact, in my mind, “play the way you want” means I am not ever forced to play solo or in a group in order to experience content. And I’m not addressing the issues that foul up grouping. I think most of us can agree that those things need to be fixed ASAP. What I am asking is, why isn’t the way you want to play the way you want to play regardless of external incentives? By this I mean, if you are a person who wants to interact with other people, won’t you interact with other people even if you don’t have to? And if so, why is it accepted that some things need to be harder in order to do alone to “encourage” you to do what you already wanted to do in the first place? And if you are a person who doesn’t want to interact with other people, why should there be mechanics that attempt to coerce you into doing so?

Aett_Thorn · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

So, here’s the question: Whence comes the need for a game mechanic to encourage, much less force, player interaction?

In short: because it's a multi-player game. There needs to be some sort of reward for deciding to do things based in a team environment versus solo. If there's not, and everything can be done solo and the game is based around that, then it might as well be just a single-player game.

In any MMO, there needs to be a variety of content that caters to both people who want to solo and people that want to team up. Because both types of players are going to decide to join the game. But if there are no decent rewards or even encouragement to team up, then you tend to lose those players over time.

A game should, however, never FORCE player interaction if the player doesn't want to. However, that does not mean that you will be able to do EVERYTHING in the game solo. There should be places where a team is needed, as long as those places don't interfere with any player's ability to get to top level, they are fine.

A great MMO offers at least two parallel tracks for character advancement - solo quests (usually that can be done as a team if desired) and group content (which can sometimes be done solo if you're really good). If the game only offers one or the other, it tends to die a slow death.

MongooseOne · July 2014

An interesting question and one that will get as many different answers as people answering it.

I myself come from a long history of MMOs where solo gameplay was damn near nonexistent. I don't much mind solo content but I certainly haven't forged any long lasting friendships in this game where as 15 years after Everquest I still have weekend gatherings with those I met in game.

I think the new wave of gamers are far too loner style players to sustain a healthy MMO environment so Developers have to 'force' teamplay to try and make a healthy social world.

This is of course my initial thought after reading your post and I could be way off.

Elencha · July 2014

@Aett_Thorn‌ But, again, isn't the desire to do things together incentive enough for those who came for that multiplayer experience? That desire seems rather strong, judging by the comments I've seen around the forums. I play regularly with someone else. Because I want to. I would play with him even if I did all my own provisioning. I do it because I want to, not because I don't have enough bank space to support potion-making.
@MongooseOne‌ That's an interesting observation.But maybe it is that this game is new yet? I've met some pretty cool people with whom I'd like to keep in touch and I'm about as solo-minded as it gets when it comes to video games.

I would also submit that a healthy social world isn't fostered by forced interaction. That is how you build resentment.

vyndral13preub18_ESO · July 2014

One point you are over looking in the difficulty of content department. If i want to group and actually have the game challenging, i need content designed for that. And any content that is designed that way will more then likely force soloers to group to play it. Yes i can run solo content in a group but it is slower and a walk in the park. I might not want that.

freespirit · July 2014

I am by nature a 'solo' player, when put in a group situation I tend to panic and forget my normal play style...... leading inevitably to many deaths!!

However in the days since ESO went live I have begun to learn how to be a 'team' player.

Firstly I have a group of Guildies who are non-judgemental and encourage me to give things a go, without the oft present derision in other MMO's.

Secondly the way the game is atm, if I want to complete certain quests/world bosses/dolmens I need other players present if not always as part of a group.

For me this has been a good thing, I have enjoyed my interactions with other players, often across language barriers and presently have a fairly healthy list of contacts/friends, something that has eluded me in other MMO's

The thing is I probably could have still reached the level my main is at without these interactions BUT I am much happier as a player for knowing that there are people playing who are happy to join up against a common foe

MongooseOne · July 2014

freespirit wrote: »

I am by nature a 'solo' player, when put in a group situation I tend to panic and forget my normal play style...... leading inevitably to many deaths!!

However in the days since ESO went live I have begun to learn how to be a 'team' player.

Firstly I have a group of Guildies who are non-judgemental and encourage me to give things a go, without the oft present derision in other MMO's.

Secondly the way the game is atm, if I want to complete certain quests/world bosses/dolmens I need other players present if not always as part of a group.

For me this has been a good thing, I have enjoyed my interactions with other players, often across language barriers and presently have a fairly healthy list of contacts/friends, something that has eluded me in other MMO's

The thing is I probably could have still reached the level my main is at without these interactions BUT I am much happier as a player for knowing that there are people playing who are happy to join up against a common foe

This is exactly the reason why Developers push players in the direction of grouping, in hopes that it brings the community together thus building an enjoyable experience people will continue coming back to.

Forcing no but encouraging yes.

Shaun98ca2 · July 2014

Thing about it is people will always take the path of least resistance.

Grouping in itself is already a barrier of resistance.

YES many people have a desire to be in groups for group play but when the game doesn't encourage it then general human nature will discourage group play.

Back in EQLive days of "Forced Grouping" there was still a LOT of resistance as finding a group and keeping a group was a chore in itself.

First I have to find the group then get to the group. Now I find the group isn't even completed we need more people. Now I find im in the group but we don't have a healer so now the group is next to wortless.

So all this time spent dealing with grouping is actually taking away from gameplay. It sounds horrible....but when actually getting a good group is where things really shine.

EQLive allowed a LOT of free time during group so there was plenty time for socialization and RPing WHILE in combat. Made for VERY nice group setting as seeing EVERYTHING happening in combat live was easy as well as holding 3-4 conversations at once.

Todays gaming doesn't allow any of this so grouping is now even more of a chore than it was back in EQLive days with more barriers to grouping than ever seen before. So Devs NEED to take into consideration grouping needs incentives.

Elencha · July 2014

That is actually an excellent point, @vyndral13preub18_ESO‌. I hadn't actually thought of that. At least not in those terms. I was really thinking more of overall deliberately gimped mechanics, like the shortage of inventory space and FArtS (forced artificial scarcity).
I really wasn't expecting to get such excellent answers as I have gotten from you guys. You've made a pretty good case for incentives to group. I think my point stands, but adjusted. Perhaps incentives to group need to be there, but what about about the other inducements to interaction. Like punishment for self-sufficiency and forced scarcity?

MongooseOne · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

That is actually an excellent point, @vyndral13preub18_ESO‌. I hadn't actually thought of that. At least not in those terms. I was really thinking more of overall deliberately gimped mechanics, like the shortage of inventory space and FArtS (forced artificial scarcity).
I really wasn't expecting to get such excellent answers as I have gotten from you guys. You've made a pretty good case for incentives to group. I think my point stands, but adjusted. Perhaps incentives to group need to be there, but what about about the other inducements to interaction. Like punishment for self-sufficiency and forced scarcity?

I'm not sure I completely understand where you are coming from. If by punishment for self-sufficiency you mean being unable to do group content alone thus not being able to reap the rewards from said content...so you think something should be done about that? If so then I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that point.

And forced scarcity msg be above my IQ because I have no idea what you mean by that.

freespirit · July 2014

Three points about the present grouping available in ESO........ from my perspective.

1:- The group finding tool is very restrictive, it does not allow for flexibility in level when trying to form groups for dungeons. If you are above the 'set' level for a particular dungeon it will not let you search for a group.

2:-On the flip side of 1, if you are a member of a guild you can form a group of four VR level players and do any level 1-50 Dungeon you fancy just by resetting the difficulty in the group finding tool. We had great fun the other day rampaging through low level dungeons so Guildies who hadn't got the achievement pre VR could get it . Trust me it was FUN!!

3:- I am atm involved in what is intended to be a complete play through with one other person. We are presently at level 16 and so far running as a group has caused us no issues with phasing/instances at all and again we are having fun. Obviously we are aware there are aspects of the game we need to solo, which so far has involved saying 'laters' at the entrance and regrouping on exit.

Things are what you make them, if it doesn't work, figure out a way round it

Aett_Thorn · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

@Aett_Thorn‌ But, again, isn't the desire to do things together incentive enough for those who came for that multiplayer experience? That desire seems rather strong, judging by the comments I've seen around the forums. I play regularly with someone else. Because I want to. I would play with him even if I did all my own provisioning. I do it because I want to, not because I don't have enough bank space to support potion-making.

True, many people will come here to play together, and they can do that already. However, there should be an incentive to do that, otherwise even those people won't do it. That incentive can be harder content, faster leveling, faster quest progression, etc. depending on the person in question.

Basically, let's say that you and I are friends in real life, and we decide to play this game together. We team up, but find that it doesn't help us in any way over the two of us playing separately and just whispering to each other to talk. Would we group up? Or would we just each play at our own times and when we're on together, would we just talk to each other? Even if we did play together just for the heck of it, most people won't, and you certainly won't get strangers doing it and possibly forming friendships.

I, myself, am mostly a solo player. When I do have time to play, it often gets interrupted by real-life things. So I don't want to keep slowing a group down or being constantly behind them in whatever they're running. So I tend to go it alone.

However, if I know that I am going to have an uninterrupted time-frame in which to play, I will gladly group up to do group dungeons or content - as I do find it fun to make friends in a game and share experiences. But there needs to be something drawing me to do that over just soloing stuff, or it really doesn't make much sense for me to do it. Skill points, loot, faster leveling, etc. If that's not there, then why wouldn't I just do my own quests?

Elencha · July 2014

No, @MongooseOne‌, I've conceded the point on actual content. I get that group encounters need to be difficult to justify the group experience and that even if one wants to group, doing so is a giant pain in the butt, so incentives need to balance that.
By self-sufficiency, I mean being able to, for instance, master all eight crafts without having 7 alts just to hold materials. And by forced artificial scarcity, I mean the rarity of, for instance, tempering agents and provisioning ingredients.These things aren't scarce by their nature, they only exist as code. They could hypothetically be infinite.
And, @Aett_Thorn‌, I would say, yes we'd play together still because we've been wanting to play together. And even if we don't play together, and we play alone and just chat in /guild or something, the game doesn't implode, we're still there together in the same world, by choice, enjoying each other's company precisely to whatever extent we desire. Why wouldn't you just do your own quests? Because you like my company. Or because my avatar is uber-hot.

Edited because I had to...

freespirit · July 2014

@Elencha, my main has all eight crafts maxed, well they are all lvl 50, I have only one bank mule and that is entirely because of the sheer number of provisioning ingredients, she currently has an 82 slot inventory. The rest of the stuff is either in my shared bank or I carry it with me.

MongooseOne · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

No, @MongooseOne‌, I've conceded the point on actual content. I get that group encounters need to be difficult to justify the group experience and that even if one wants to group, doing so is a giant pain in the butt, so incentives need to balance that.
By self-sufficiency, I mean being able to, for instance, master all eight crafts without having 7 alts just to hold materials. And by forced artificial scarcity, I mean the rarity of, for instance, tempering agents and provisioning ingredients.These things aren't scarce by their nature, they only exist as code. They could hypothetically be infinite.
And, @Aett_Thorn‌, I would say, yes we'd play together still because we've been wanting to play together. And even if we don't play together, and we play alone and just chat in /guild or something, the game doesn't implode, we're still there together in the same world, by choice, enjoying each other's company precisely to whatever extent we desire. Why wouldn't you just do your own quests? Because you like my company. Or because my avatar is uber-hot.

Edited because I had to...

Ah ok I understand what you mean now that you explained. Scarcity of motifs for example is that way to promote uniqueness, granted eventually everyone will have all the motifs but the rarity of them will prolong that happening.

The reason they are SO rare is because there are players that will sit in an Inn for hours doing nothing but long in/out looting a nightstand and ZOS decide to work around that problem by adjusting rarity even further.

Even though I am now an older gamer with limited game time and getting those rare items will take me forever I am ok with it. If everyone had a "Sword of a 1000 Truths" it just won't be very special.

Oh and I can think of no better reason to play with someone than because they are uber hot.

freespirit · July 2014

[quote="MongooseOne;

Oh and I can think of no better reason to play with someone than because they are uber hot.

[/quote]

+1

Elencha · July 2014

@freespirit‌ Okay, you suck.

I'm kidding, but seriously, I use these only as examples because I have in both cases seen the necessity of forced interaction given as the justification for the way these things work. So, while some can pull it off, according to some, these systems are specifically in place to prevent self-sufficiency. I ask why, and I get answers such as "to encourage interaction." I ask why this is necessary and I get the forum equivalent of blank stares. Hence this thread.

SirAndy · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

By this I mean, if you are a person who wants to interact with other people, won’t you interact with other people even if you don’t have to?

Exactly! Which is why i have no friends ...

AlexDougherty · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

So, here’s the question: Whence comes the need for a game mechanic to encourage, much less force, player interaction?

Encouraging interaction is always good in an MMO, interaction is the backbone of MMOs.

If it's overdone or forced then it's a negative influence, and damages the game. It's a delicate balance that needs to be maintained, where interaction is beneficial but not forced.

LongHammer · July 2014

The game gives plenty of single player action levels 1-50. The game also has some group friendly action including PVP, and VR content and trials ect.

To complain that as a single player you cannot do VR areas, or the instances, I think is stupid. Why would you want to do that content as a single player when the content was placed there for those who group.

If they make all the VR levels solo, where is the justification for a paying customer like myself that enjoys grouping up?

Face it, it's an MMO, not a single player game. Sure I love to play solo as much as I do love to group, but I do both.

I am glad to hear they reduced the grind, but to lower the difficulty to me was a shame.

If you want to experience other areas as a single player you have every option to roll a new character in a new area and experience that all alone that you wish to be.

Just may take on it.

GreySix · July 2014

Elencha wrote: »

Okay. I have a question. I’ve asked it before, in other threads, but I think it was taken as rhetorical, because I haven’t been able to get an answer. Maybe no one actually knows. Maybe it’s one of those things that are the way they are because they always have been. Either way, I am honestly asking. I’m not sniping and it isn’t rhetorical.
All over this forum, in various conversations I have seen comments that say essentially, “x has to be this way to encourage/force people to interact with each other.” I’ve seen it given as a reason for the forced artificial scarcity of certain racial motifs, tempering agents and recipe ingredients, for the difficulty of VR content, for the lack of personal and bank inventory space, for the need for more forced group content… And, interestingly, this reason is taken as a given, it seems.
So, here’s the question: Whence comes the need for a game mechanic to encourage, much less force, player interaction?
Don’t misunderstand me, here. I am not advocating anything be implemented to encourage or force solo play either. In fact, in my mind, “play the way you want” means I am not ever forced to play solo or in a group in order to experience content. And I’m not addressing the issues that foul up grouping. I think most of us can agree that those things need to be fixed ASAP. What I am asking is, why isn’t the way you want to play the way you want to play regardless of external incentives? By this I mean, if you are a person who wants to interact with other people, won’t you interact with other people even if you don’t have to? And if so, why is it accepted that some things need to be harder in order to do alone to “encourage” you to do what you already wanted to do in the first place? And if you are a person who doesn’t want to interact with other people, why should there be mechanics that attempt to coerce you into doing so?

you advocate player choice?

Heresy! Burn him!!!

Elencha · July 2014

LongHammer wrote: »

The game gives plenty of single player action levels 1-50. The game also has some group friendly action including PVP, and VR content and trials ect.

To complain that as a single player you cannot do VR areas, or the instances, I think is stupid. Why would you want to do that content as a single player when the content was placed there for those who group.

If they make all the VR levels solo, where is the justification for a paying customer like myself that enjoys grouping up?

Face it, it's an MMO, not a single player game. Sure I love to play solo as much as I do love to group, but I do both.

I am glad to hear they reduced the grind, but to lower the difficulty to me was a shame.

If you want to experience other areas as a single player you have every option to roll a new character in a new area and experience that all alone that you wish to be.

Just may take on it.

Again, I have already conceded this point. My question is not regarding specific content as much as overall game design philosophy. And specifically not as regards actual content such as fight geared to groups, but rather to other mechanics which are meaningless outside of the motivation to "encourage interaction."
In point of fact, I kind of agree with you on VR content. I can play through with an alt rather than going through VR content so the content isn't actually, and never really was, gated. I did hear it was grindy and annoying, though.