Those of you that think dependancy or hard content (aka limited solo play) build a strong community are dead wrong. Oh it builds community alright....a GATED community. Dependancy in the form of combat oriented content will lead to nothing but elitisim as it always has since the dawn of themepark mmos. A strong community can only be built if ALL players are seen as equal and helpful. The only time you'd want to alienate someone is because they are acting like an asshole, NOT because they cannot dps fast enough, tank good enough or heal the right way.

 

In a combat driven community even a player with the personality of a asshole can become king if he keeps his mouth shut and does his job correctly. But this is NOT the way things worked in UO. In UO if you wanted to be self reliant that was cool. The community part came when players were able to be creative when it came to designing shops, homes and roles for themselves. A game like FFXI works back then because of the draw to the name FINAL FANTASY. The only way you could live in that universe was to conform to it's rules and that included accepting the hardcore dependancy. But it also limited FFXI's growth as well. It did well, but if it was good enough they wouldn't have attempted to make another one.

 

No I think community and social aspects of gaming need to take a page from the real world. We are connected to others NOT because we need to fight for our lives, but because of common connections we share. I'd like to see a a mmo that take things like drinking, farming dancing, crafting, taming, cooking, music playing, etc. and turn them into a kinda social aura around your character. If a player gets into the aura of someone else with the same interest then they both get a boost to their ability or exp gains. Once players start hanging out with one another, they'll make their own connections if they see fit.

 

Dunno maybe that doesn't make sense to you guys but combat shouldn't be the main reason we want to be around others.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

That is just a community that is either a.  not a good one.  or b. you don't like.

It is however still a community.  So in that essence he is 100% right.

Don't even know what you mean. You seem to love to disagree with me just to disagree, so I won't even bother this time sorry.

He stated, "All games gather a community. They don't have any specific features in them. Its just elitist to pick which is a "real community".

Your stated, "This is totally 100 percent false."

I stated he is right, all games gather a community. Stating one is real, the other is just elitist.  All that implies is your particular preference for one over the other, not the legitimacy of one over the other. 

edit - having been there, most of the people in that pic were likely afk, and 1/3 were probably waiting for an mgb.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Those of you that think dependancy or hard content (aka limited solo play) build a strong community are dead wrong. Oh it builds community alright....a GATED community. Dependancy in the form of combat oriented content will lead to nothing but elitisim as it always has since the dawn of themepark mmos. A strong community can only be built if ALL players are seen as equal and helpful. The only time you'd want to alienate someone is because they are acting like an asshole, NOT because they cannot dps fast enough, tank good enough or heal the right way.

Not sure if who you are referring to, but since I wrote down dependency I feel I need to clarfiy something after your statement.

For me dependency and hard content are not the same thing.

Dependency requires synergy between players, it requires the help of others to accomplish something, it requires you to engage with other people.

I do not put dependency and difficulty in the same bracket. There are a lot of team sports that are played with many people but can still be played casually. The fact you depend on others doesn't make the gameplay any harder, it does require you to engage with others and be social, but it doesn't have a direct impact on the difficulty of the group content.

It also does not limit solo play directly, EQ for example had a lot of group play that required groups, but a lot of solo play also. The group play in EQ was also not that hard, the penalties were harsh, but the group play itself was at times (depending on the era) relatively casual, EQ had a lot of casuals.

I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

I'm wondering if it actually did  though.

We do know that having people work together to accomplish a task can create a good community.  No doubt.

But in EQ's case what was the biggest factor. 

a.  The content was harder?

b.  That grouping was the most effective means of progressing?

c. That the community was smaller and more like-minded than today's games?

Personally I think if you want a game with good community you will need to tackle all three, unfortunately that means a smaller audience (as is needed for c).

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results. If developers really wanted or cared about strong communities in their games, there would be no group finders, instant world questing, or auction houses, however controversial it may be to say. The only way a community can exist and be created is by the direct actions and interactions of players with one another, particularly through expressed thought. Much like in real life, the creation of Facebook or MySpace doesn't make the community of the world any stronger or more viable, it actually takes away from real human interaction, in an absolute and physical sense. Much like a dungeon finder allows players to hop between groups without interaction to discover the pacing or lackthereof they're seeking, so do electronic social networks allow individuals to simplify their relationships in such a manner that makes them less attached.

 

In stark contrast to the recent trend in video gaming, community isn't an easy or time efficient variable to become engaged, and I'm unsure it was ever intended to be, if one could prove intent existed.

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results.

If you're saying that a community can not be encouraged or stimulated I will need to disagree.

Someone already mentioned the bus scenario, but Ill use it since it's such a good example.

 

Someone who rides a bus is very likely to talk to another person, riding the bus myself for years, I have actually made friends doing just that.

On the other hand, someone riding a car on their own, is discouraged to ride with others, they share no common goal and destination, while car pooling is possible, most people do not engage in it.

 

The fact the people riding the bus had a common goal, allowed them to be in the same place and the way a bus is desinged allows you to commincate with others. The environment directly stimulated and fostered socialising.

 

There are also things in the bus that discourage community building, for example the use of cellphones, which is very similar to how voice chat in MMO discourage engaging with strangers.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results.

If you're saying that a community can not be encouraged or stimulated I will need to disagree.

Someone already mentioned the bus scenario, but Ill use it since it's such a good example.

 

Someone who rides a bus is very likely to talk to another person, riding the bus myself for years, I have actually made friends doing just that.

On the other hand, someone riding a car on their own, is discouraged to ride with others, they share no common goal and destination, while car pooling is possible, most people do not engage in it.

 

The fact the people riding the bus had a common goal, allowed them to be in the same place and the way a bus is desinged allows you to commincate with others. The environment directly stimulated and fostered socialising.

Naturally, for community to exist, there must be an environment which allows interaction. That bus wasn't designed to promote or stimulate interaction, though provided the space for it to take place.

Venge

Those are good points as A refered to everyone and B was definite for me as a Paladin :)

C is a bit trickier I think. While EQ's fanbase as a whole was smaller so were the amount of servers. The players sharing the same server is/was about as much as any given WoW server I would think.

Like minded? Certainly but more important I think was the group prefered play. In EQ grouping was the main vehicle for advancement and being a jerk to others was not as simple as dropping group and requing. You gained a reputation and if you didn't play good with others that followed you.

That's why I think that a little group required content is good in MMOs and their community because it passive aggressively keeps people in line that need it :).

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results. If developers really wanted or cared about strong communities in their games, there would be no group finders, instant world questing, or auction houses, however controversial it may be to say. The only way a community can exist and be created is by the direct actions and interactions of players with one another, particularly through expressed thought. Much like in real life, the creation of Facebook or MySpace doesn't make the community of the world any stronger or more viable, it actually takes away from real human interaction, in an absolute and physical sense. Much like a dungeon finder allows players to hop between groups without interaction to discover the pacing or lackthereof they're seeking, so do electronic social networks allow individuals to simplify their relationships in such a manner that makes them less attached.

 

In stark contrast to the recent trend in video gaming, community isn't an easy or time efficient variable to become engaged, and I'm unsure it was ever intended to be, if one could prove intent existed.

I have to strongly disagree with you about that for the fact that you can't compare Facebook to a dungeon finder tool. Maybe a friend's list but not a dungeon finder. Simply because the dungeon finder tool is meant to accomplish a overall goal. Facebook and friend's list are both meant to encourage socializing. But where a friend's list fails is when it stops at adding a name. If it could be changed to give it more usefulness then it could become a feature that does exactly what you says it cannot. I'll give you an example.

 

Say I had a friend's list that allowed  me to categorized my friends by the activities they are currently doing. Now say that each friend that's added to that category, say fishing, gives me a bonus to fishing if they are actively fishing. So I click on their name and I'm transported to where my friend is and I start fishing. I get a bonus, he gets a bonus and we a socializing by talking and fishing together. And soon more players could join us and all of a sudden we have a few dozen players all fishing together. Is that community enough? I say that's where it starts.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results. If developers really wanted or cared about strong communities in their games, there would be no group finders, instant world questing, or auction houses, however controversial it may be to say. The only way a community can exist and be created is by the direct actions and interactions of players with one another, particularly through expressed thought. Much like in real life, the creation of Facebook or MySpace doesn't make the community of the world any stronger or more viable, it actually takes away from real human interaction, in an absolute and physical sense. Much like a dungeon finder allows players to hop between groups without interaction to discover the pacing or lackthereof they're seeking, so do electronic social networks allow individuals to simplify their relationships in such a manner that makes them less attached.

 

In stark contrast to the recent trend in video gaming, community isn't an easy or time efficient variable to become engaged, and I'm unsure it was ever intended to be, if one could prove intent existed.

I have to strongly disagree with you about that for the fact that you can't compare Facebook to a dungeon finder tool. Maybe a friend's list but not a dungeon finder. Simply because the dungeon finder tool is meant to accomplish a overall goal. Facebook and friend's list are both meant to encourage socializing. But where a friend's list fails is when it stops at adding a name. If it could be changed to give it more usefulness then it could become a feature that does exactly what you says it cannot. I'll give you an example.

 

Say I had a friend's list that allowed  me to categorized my friends by the activities they are currently doing. Now say that each friend that's added to that category, say fishing, gives me a bonus to fishing if they are actively fishing. So I click on their name and I'm transported to where my friend is and I start fishing. I get a bonus, he gets a bonus and we a socializing by talking and fishing together. And soon more players could join us and all of a sudden we have a few dozen players all fishing together. Is that community enough? I say that's where it starts.

I won't argue semantics. Facebook may or may not be a proper relation dependent upon your definition of community, but the point I was trying to make is that the development of tools to increase the ease of interaction actually separates people more than it brings them together. I'd also pose a fairly vital, perhaps philosophical, question regarding the nature of community: does it actually exist if the entire process is undergone through means inhuman, or artificial?

I like the expanded friends list even if it only states what activity the person is engaged in. A teleport button? Eh, okay fine that's not a huge deal as we're dealing with magic right?

What doesn't sit well with me is the reward part. If you do that it ends up being more about the shiny than what the intended good is supposed to be.

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities? What is your view of the communities in Free Realms and Wizard 101?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities? What is your view of the communities in Free Realms and Wizard 101?

 

Are you calling those games "newer solo centric themeparks"? I'm not sure if those games have good communities or not but I was posing the question to those that play them.  There's an opinion that you don't need forced grouping in order to build a good community, which I agree with, but I'm interested to know how effective it really is compared to group centered MMOs.  EQ had grouping that if not forced was advisable and my server had a good community.  On the other hand I have played WoW and though it wasn't a horrible community did not even come close.

 

When you are "forced" into something it never sounds good, I get that.  I'm just wondering how solo centric MMO communities stack up against group centric MMO communities.

Good communities arise as a result of players either needing to talk to one another to accomplish something or being strongly encouraged to do as a result of game mechanics.

The reason more modern MMOs have lost the positive communities of old is because there is a certain segment of the playerbase that needs everything to be faster and more convenient:

• Some people couldn't be bothered to find groups for things, along comes the dungeon finder tool and suddenly no one ever needs to communicate to get a group. This usually also leads to no one in the group actually talking to one another whilst playing.
• Next came the cross-server dungeon finder... suddenly all the arseholes become incredibly bold because they know they'll never see these players again and there will be no repercussions for negative behaviour.
• Some people think downtime 'sux' and slow, tactical combat is 'lame' compared to button mashing and following rotations on GCD. The result? No one actually has time to talk to one another because they never have a chance to type anything.
• Some people hated needing to buy things off of other crafters in order to make something themself. Devs started making crafting professions entirely self-sufficient. The result? No one ever has to communicate as a crafter. Either run around solo farming mats and hit 'craft' or just buy them off the faceless auction house.
• Ah yes, the auction house... good in concept, bad for the community. Very few face-to-face trades and no mutual trading relationships are built.

Originally posted by Aelious

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities? What is your view of the communities in Free Realms and Wizard 101?

 

Are you calling those games "newer solo centric themeparks"? I'm not sure if those games have good communities or not but I was posing the question to those that play them.  There's an opinion that you don't need forced grouping in order to build a good community, which I agree with, but I'm interested to know how effective it really is compared to group centered MMOs.  EQ had grouping that if not forced was advisable and my server had a good community.  On the other hand I have played WoW and though it wasn't a horrible community did not even come close.

When you are "forced" into something it never sounds good, I get that.  I'm just wondering how solo centric MMO communities stack up against group centric MMO communities.

So, Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities? What is your view of the communities in Free Realms and Wizard 101?

 

Are you calling those games "newer solo centric themeparks"? I'm not sure if those games have good communities or not but I was posing the question to those that play them.  There's an opinion that you don't need forced grouping in order to build a good community, which I agree with, but I'm interested to know how effective it really is compared to group centered MMOs.  EQ had grouping that if not forced was advisable and my server had a good community.  On the other hand I have played WoW and though it wasn't a horrible community did not even come close.

When you are "forced" into something it never sounds good, I get that.  I'm just wondering how solo centric MMO communities stack up against group centric MMO communities.

So, Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities?

 

No idea, never played any of them. But I did play several of the early MMORPGs that strongly encouraged player interdependence and their communities were far more social than games of today. Heck, even WOW had a much more social community it's early days, pre-BC, and declined steadily over time. Haven't found a solo-centric MMO since 2004 that could compare.

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Community isn't something you can design features to inspire, or mechanize to produce results.

If you're saying that a community can not be encouraged or stimulated I will need to disagree.

Someone already mentioned the bus scenario, but Ill use it since it's such a good example.

 

Someone who rides a bus is very likely to talk to another person, riding the bus myself for years, I have actually made friends doing just that.

On the other hand, someone riding a car on their own, is discouraged to ride with others, they share no common goal and destination, while car pooling is possible, most people do not engage in it.

 

The fact the people riding the bus had a common goal, allowed them to be in the same place and the way a bus is desinged allows you to commincate with others. The environment directly stimulated and fostered socialising.

Naturally, for community to exist, there must be an environment which allows interaction. That bus wasn't designed to promote or stimulate interaction, though provided the space for it to take place.

 

Riding a bus is a great analogy. Sure most times there is an opportunity for interaction, and while some very social people will interact together, most others will ride in silence because there's no need for interaction. But just imagine if that same bus had 50 calibur machine guns mounted on all 4 sides and the bus riders had to fight their way through the zombie hordes just to get home. You'd see a hell of a lot of more interaction and socialization than you do today.

Edit: Except for Narius and Quirhid, they'd be the guys riding solo on motorcycles outside the bus saying "We don't need no stinking social interaction" 

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Aelious
I think the better question is how important a GOOD community is. Forced grouping through hard content may not sound warm and fuzzy but it worked. With the plethora of newer solo centric themeparks how many have showed the same signs as EQ did?

Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities? What is your view of the communities in Free Realms and Wizard 101?

Are you calling those games "newer solo centric themeparks"? I'm not sure if those games have good communities or not but I was posing the question to those that play them.  There's an opinion that you don't need forced grouping in order to build a good community, which I agree with, but I'm interested to know how effective it really is compared to group centered MMOs.  EQ had grouping that if not forced was advisable and my server had a good community.  On the other hand I have played WoW and though it wasn't a horrible community did not even come close.

When you are "forced" into something it never sounds good, I get that.  I'm just wondering how solo centric MMO communities stack up against group centric MMO communities.

So, Is it your contention that UO, Puzzle Pirates and AC didn't have good communities?

 

No idea, never played any of them. But I did play several of the early MMORPGs that strongly encouraged player interdependence and their communities were far more social than games of today. Heck, even WOW had a much more social community it's early days, pre-BC, and declined steadily over time. Haven't found a solo-centric MMO since 2004 that could compare.

Earlier than UO and AC?

 

You seem to be making the same false assumption that Aelious is making - that because there was forced grouping through hard content and good community in EQ then forced grouping and hard content is what makes community happen. This has led to your false conclusion that the solo nature of the current games is what leads to lack of community.

 

UO and AC were around the time of EQ. They both had great communities and they both offered predominantly solo gameplay. There's no logical or historical connection between tethered PvE mechanics and the quality of the community in a game.

 

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by Quirhid
All games gather a community. They don't have any specific features in them. Its just elitist to pick which is a "real community".

This is totally 100 percent false.

Going from a game like EQ which was a community marvel where everyone literally sat around and talked to each other, to games like WoW where no one bothered to say a word to another person was like night and day difference. And it's much worse in current games even.

I couldn't believe when I played Guild Wars how literally no one talked, the reason I uninstalled the game was for that reason only. The game had no community whatsoever.

The way a community, or lack thereof, acts, is very dependent on the game mechanics.

 

 

This is Everquest where people literally sat their character down to talk to others. People sitting down on that picture and many standing, are not AFK but they are there to chat to others. It's a shame you can't see the UI or you would see people talking.

Tell me again how it doesn't depend on the game. In current games people don't say a word to strangers.

 

Seriously, if you want to know what makes a community in a game a real community, ask any EQ player who played EQ anywhere from the beginning to where they introduced the guild lobby. They know.

EQ was a community marvel, saying it doesn't depend on the game is false. I have played enough MMO to know not every game has a real community. A few strangers walking around never talking to each other is not a community.

This is a community:

[removed the image]

Then how come I formed relationships that lasted years beyond just Guild Wars, knew a dozen of other guilds and played with them in other games aswell? GW1 had a very healthy RP community too which is a proof that a community (and RP) can form and thrive with or without instances. I've never had a friendlist as long as I had in GW. The fansite forums were also quite lively.

No community my ass... Maybe only because you weren't in it.