Dana Massey Asks Why Not?: Build Better Social Bonds in MMOs
People. It's what keeps people playing, no matter how clever the mechanics. It's why EVE grows, while others shrink. This week, Dana talks about how MMOs need to build stronger bonds between its players.
Developers and fans of MMOs always ask why EVE Online continues to grow, while most other MMOs slowly fade over time.
Some people say it’s the constant, free expansion packs. Others say it’s the fact that there is very little competition in the space MMO genre.
I believe the answer is more fundamental than that, and likely a lot more accidental on CCP’s part.
Every game has an “end” and every MMO needs to find the perfect end-game solution if they want to keep their players around for years, not months. For weeks, I’ve written about ways to improve the journey and argued that a more directed experience is the way to go. The logical hole, as many of you on the forums have gleefully pointed out, is that eventually people run out of content. As well done as Fable 2 was, no one plays it forever.
;)
There's nothing more social
than the void of space, apparently.
This brings me back to why EVE has thrived, while others tapered off. Simply put, EVE Online is engineered to bring people together.
Most MMOs, in some way, build on the same premise as CCP. Developers cannot produce content faster than players consume it, it’s a fact of life, so most rely on the players themselves to be the end game content.
This usually means PvP conflict and in most MMOs, this has been successful to some degree.
To sum it up in a sentence, EVE’s end-game is player faction driven PvP war. It’s simple and clearly a lot of people learned that one line lesson. Warhammer Online and Age of Conan’s end games can be summarized with the same sentence. Clearly, though, they’re not having the same kind of long term growth.
The truth is that there is far more to it than that.
Maybe it’s just the space-faring nature of EVE, or the fact that it’s far more of a virtual world than a game, but when you talk to a CCP developer vs. one from another MMO, there is a fundamental difference on how they approach the player on his or her way up the ladder.
Most games spend their time focusing on the newbie experience, then the first so many levels, etc. Whether or not I agree with the approach of games like WoW and WAR, there is no doubt that they pay attention to the curve and relentlessly seek out points where players drop off. They try and balance the content to keep people playing all the way until the end.
By sheer data, that means the lower level you are, the better your experience in a game is likely to be. Everyone plays a level one character, not everyone plays level 40. So, when it gets down to launching a game, you better bet those first 10 levels get a lot more time under the microscope.
;)
See this Orc? He's lonely.
They always say they’ll get to those higher levels and they eventually do, but remember that no developer can keep up with a player. It’s why MMOs right after launch tend to have some pretty big hiccups in the mid-levels.
By contrast, CCP doesn’t talk about the journey nearly as much. Sure, like everyone else, they want to improve their newbie experience. EVE is damn overwhelming for a new player and, while I don’t have their data, I would bet my left arm that they drop more players inside the first hour than at any other point.
Now, let me disclaimer what is to follow. I am speaking from my general experience talking to CCP developers over the years. I may be wrong, and I am not trying to put words in their mouth. This is just the impression I’ve come away with over dozens of meetings.
It seems to me that their focus is not getting players “through the game,” without issue, but getting them into a corporation.
This is partly the nature of the game, of course. Leveling up is basically automated and has very little to do with the reason people log in day to day, thus it only makes sense that the focus has to be on something else.
But whatever the reason they chose to focus on this, it is – see I can get back to that point I raised off the top – the biggest reason, in my opinion, their subscriber count continues to steadily grow, even years after launch.
The fact is that people keep people in games, not clever end-games, not polished leveling experiences, not pixel shaders. People.
Sure, the game has to not suck. That’s key too, I am not saying abandon the “game” itself, but the focus of MMOs has shifted so far towards mechanics and “the experience” that grouping and guilds have become secondary, in some strange way.
For example, most modern traditional MMOs make grouping so damn easy that I don’t even need to talk to people.
At the risk of picking on Warhammer again – and I only pick on it because I’m playing it at the moment, so don’t take it personally Mythic! – I recently joined a Warband that was running around the open world RvR area killing anything that moved. It was great fun.
And while it’s cool that I could hit three buttons and teleport across the world and join this warband as they killed some Destruction, Mythic had made it so easy that I never actually in the three hours I ran around with these people typed a single word into my chat window. Not one.
Maybe I’m an anti-social bastard, or an a-typical user… but, “Hey, can I join your group” is a good ice breaker.
I never would have done this in an older MMO. Even if I didn’t care about my pickup group, I would have to say hello and “Do you need an Armsman?”
Modern mechanics have made pickup groups so easy that you don’t ever need to talk to anyone. That was fine for hermits, but when you can experience all the content, in groups, without ever saying a word, the pendulum has shifted too far in the other direction.
;)
Not a single UI in sight...
and people are talking to each other!
Think of it this way. If when you walked into a bar, there was a menu on your table of the people in there and what they had in mind for the rest of the evening and all you had to do was touch a button beside their name and voila, you were off… well, let’s just say the marriage rate in the United States would drop really freaking fast.
What’s the point of making long term connections, if you can get what you need – in this case levels, sicko – without having to say a word?
;)
"The future of the
human race depends on it!"
Remember who plays MMOs. It’s nerds. We’re not exactly always the most social creatures. Make it easy and people stop socializing.
And if people stop socializing, the long term relationships required to be the glue of a community are never made.
What’s that mean?
It means the only thing standing between Bob and the Cancel Account button is the quality of the user experience.
…and no one wants that!
More Dana Massey Asks Why Not? Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
Each Thursday, he asks the question "Why Not?" about some element of MMOs.
What really amazes me too is how drastically the idea of socializing with other players in a MMO so quickly turns to a "I don't want to be forced to group" by so many players. I never once felt I was forced to group in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, DAoC, etc. I knew full well, though, that there was some content (note, some) that it would be prudent to group up, though.
Most people, and I'd dare say you will see them try to do it in this thread, try to go absolutly extremist when someone mentions this topic in trying to defend their "right" to solo play and solo play in every aspect of the game. To me, that's what single player games are for. MMOs were created in part so that people could team up and face challenges together. Created those relationships, good or bad, with other players was, in my mind, another form of content!
I agree completely and will add that one of the things many newer game designers seem to have missed is the concept of "down time". There is a direct relation between the amount of chat and socialization going on in EVE and the fact that I (as a player) do not have to be constantly pounding hotkeys, using mouse controls etc the entire time I am playing to accomplish anything.
Because my skill gain isn't tied to anything but time, I can chill in a station and actually chat. There are lots of low-click game activities that I can be engaged in while chatting - salvaging, mining, exploration - even to some degree PvP ops such as scouting or lookout duty. (and many others of course)
Also, EVE encourages socialization because it can be hard and ruthless. Recovering from that one big mistake is a heck of a lot easier with a corp of friends to support you - not to mention being less likely to make that mistake in the first place with decent friends and advice.
Lastly, EVE encourages socialization because the PvP model favors numbers in many ways. (Just ask Goonswarm)
The first paragraph was great but the second one almost seemed as if the true meaning of the first was lost.
The main thing above solo and group and everything is the ability to be an entity. In AC and UO, you joined a group of people heading out to hunt because of what you as a person brought to the table. There really wasn't a reason to ask you to come along other than the safety in numbers and the social aspect of it. In the past 5 years or so of MMOs, you'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs where people aren't just their class and nothing more. YOU aren't needed in today's MMOs, your class is. The games are designed that way at the core.
In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.
The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.
The only Korean MMO I've ever been able to play for a decent amount of time was Nexon's Dark Ages, for exactly the reasons mentioned. Several features were included that fostered social networking, and even provided in-game rewards for making friends with others. The game still has many of the flaws of the standard hack-and-slash structure of a Korean game, and the isometric 2d was quite often difficult to use, but I was able to overlook those problems thanks to the unique opportunities the social features allowed.
For instance, when it is time for a fledgling player to chose their first class, that player must seek out a mentor of the same class to accompany them through a shrine to speak with the deity in charge. A 3 way dialogue ensues between the NPC god and both players, which cannot be completed unless both players participate. Once this is complete, the two can go their seperate ways if they choose, but the game has recorded their mentor-student status, and if they meet up again, from then on they are rewarded with exp and occasional items once a week. Yes, the game rewards people for keeping in touch with someone.
The game also had a political system, allowing the players to become citizens and run for office in several towns. Anyone who wanted to become a guard, sheriff, burgher, judge or mayor could go out and campaign for it to gather votes. Admittedly, this encouraged harassment for some, but more often you would find some erstwhile politician standing in the town square delivering a stump speach. Rewards for the various positions varied, at lower levels players were granted some authority over dispute resolution and the ability to grant custom costume changes to other players. At higher levels, players voted on laws for the city, enforcable by the guards and sheriffs inside the city limits and any attached dungeons.
Dark Ages maintains a system for religions as well. Players are encouraged to seek out one of the 8 temples in the land, each dedicated to one of the world's pantheon of gods. Each church provides different rewards for it's supplicants, and joining one of the congregations increases the rewards and the frequency with which you can get them. Progressing in the ranks of the church will continue to increase the rewards gained, and can be done by participating in the churches activities, and by pleasing the priests of the attached deity. Priests, in particular, gain additional powers based on their deity, and how many followers they have helped induct into the church. And again, social gatherings are made relevant with simple rewards, as the higher priests gain a spell that can grant free exp to all present, and while they could just cast the spell and go, most won't grant the bonus to any player who doesn't actually attend a sermon.
There were other touches as well - quest chains that require two or more players to act in tandem, for instance - but the basic idea boils down to something pretty simple. In all RPGs, experience and loot is used to reward a player for doing what the game wants you to do. In most MMOs, those rewards are granted for killing and doing queests that require killing, so it's not difficult to deduce that killing is what the game wants the player to focus on. To create a social experience, all the game has to do is reward social actions, and the bonds that those actions create will follow naturally.
If you need proof - I haven't played Dark Ages in years, but I still remember this 2d level-grinder that would look at home on an SNES more fondly than many of the super-high tech slick 3d visual games of more recent years.
The first paragraph was great but the second one almost seemed as if the true meaning of the first was lost.
The main thing above solo and group and everything is the ability to be an entity. In AC and UO, you joined a group of people heading out to hunt because of what you as a person brought to the table. There really wasn't a reason to ask you to come along other than the safety in numbers and the social aspect of it. In the past 5 years or so of MMOs, you'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs where people aren't just their class and nothing more. YOU aren't needed in today's MMOs, your class is. The games are designed that way at the core.
In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.
The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.
I was addressing the the extremist view in the second paragraph and not those who are as you detailed. It may have not come out right, it seems. I blame that on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I was watching an E3 video of it as I was typing. I think I did well not to subconsciously type "oh my god, that's awesome" over and over, lol.
Building on what you said, but not trying to infer where you were going or put words in your mouth, at a base level having a "class system" seems to contribute in a major negative way to this. As demeaning as it may sound, I'd much rather be added to the group because I'm the next "warm body" than because I picked the "right class/spec" for this chance encounter. It would seem to me having only the warm body requirement would lead to more grouping opportunities. It would also seem that, through building a relation with those in the group by, I don't know, talking to them, would create further opportunities to group with them. So the worrying about getting a group becomes non-existent. And in part this goes back to having constructive down-time in certain areas and as well as building mechanics and systems that get people to chatting.
I'm still on a Modern Warfare 2 high so if the above didn't make sense, I apologize, lol!
You know, you might have something here. If this is true, that current MMOs have made the grouping/solo issues an afterthought, then would it also mean that current MMOs are too easy to play?
I look at this and say, "Yes. Sense current MMOs does not requirement a commitment to other players either by gathering groups or bonds between fellow players because of the ease of achievement, then the MMO game itself is easy."
Massey's article states that because interactions between players are no longer needed by the ease of grouping then the players feel no commitment to the game other than to reach a specific goal for him or herself. Once people do things for themselves, specially for a game, they really ignore others unless it benefits them in some way in reaching their goals.
It will be interesting to see the ramifications of the current MMO industry in 10 and 20 years down the road.
That's a rather cool feature. :)
See, funny thing about game Devs. They watch what players like, and they expand on hose concepts while abandoning others.
The shift in focus came because of a shift in the concept of roles.
In EQ for instance, unless you were 1-2 certain classes back in the day, you had to group to level. But, you didn't NEED a certain group makeup. A tank was nice, but things didn't hit so hard that it was required. Healing sped things up, but you could get by with bandaged and moving a bit slower. A puller was needed, but half the classes in the game could do that to some extent. Damage is always needed, but specific types (melee, magic, ranged, whatever) were never an issue. Buffs were NEVER required, just helpful. And people like it that way. But they began to realize they could do better by having an optimal group with the 4 roles (puller, tank, dps, heals) there, and with certain buffs. So they began looking for those things specifically. So the next gen of MMOs comes out, the devs look at what happened in EQ and go "well, they like assigning roles and optimizing groups. So we'll pigeonhole everyone and tailor the fights to make those roles necessary" And now you have WoW's grouping structure. Mobs hit so hard, and non-tank health/def pools are so low, that all group encounters MUST have a tank. health recovery is so poor without one you MUST have a healer.
Now players look at THAT, and work out which of the few classes for each role are optimal for which encounters. So now your groups are even MORE limited, and certain classes just sit by the wayside. It's a vicious cycle.
A "warm body" system can help ease grouping, but that alone isn't enough. It makes grouping far quicker and simpler (no more I need this class/spec), dropping the LFG times (which can be a large intrusion on play time) to almost nothing. I wonder though how much the game would become "easy mode" as a result. Sure you'd get some of the "I hate grouping" people to be more happy about grouping, but IMO you'd lose many of the "I don't mind grouping" players as the challenge of group content would be lessened (most likely).
IMO, games need to get off the gear treadmill. This alone would would 1) reduce the time to become "effective" at cap, 2) forces the players to work together in a more regular basis (instead of the we can always get another <insert class/role>) since gear wouldn't cover for bad play or a lack of teamwork. This also leads to less pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" on gear, leaving time to socialize without it being "wasting time".
Careful shipmate, the anti-gamers will be all over you for starting a cult and the next thing you know they will bring up the Doom Deal right next to “playing Stairway to Heaven” backwards to hear Satin. Lol.
Yes, I am a big believer in the power of a games community and the importance of clan relationships as they form into bonds. In Eve you just don’t go around announcing recruitment in general population and last long with soo many elements involved such as alliances, wars and/or security levels. There is a unity involved in Eve where the members have to rest assured against spies, traders, thief’s in order to assure solid membership unlike some other games. I think Eve’s ability to grow is based much on the online gaming relationships that form in the game at least that is what I experienced.
There is a common element in Eve as other games, for example, that feeling of numerous members preparing and riding off to battle intensifies the enjoyment of victory or defeat. There is something really neat that happens when I group with 20-50 other players that I have been investing travel and look around to see the support. This is where I believe Eve is unique, that is, I am not on a mount rather I am in a spaceship and my learned/earned abilities will be beneficial in the conflict. All of which concurs to your write-up regarding a better social bond.
Finally, that “bond” does not just develop with time, it must be earned by investment and trust which IMO maintains the loyalty of the corporations members. In short, I have not experienced a corporation that allows access to the entire juicy items one can get, you have to prove yourself in Eve. Perhaps it is those strong bonds that are so enticing to players and draw people in however; I believe that this is only one important element that results in Eve’s growth. Neat write-up.
Wow.. that's a fantastic write-up, Dana. I couldn't agree more with its entirety.
I think the socialisation you mentioned is what ultimately kept me playing SWG for 4 years (something I have still never managed to acheive in any one of a dozen MMOs I have played since it went down the crapper).
The socialisation in SWG enabled me to create something with other players. Roleplay, cities, the game aside, I built friendships, and we all built community. And that kept me coming back every single evening.
Socialisation in SWG was often forced, or at least mildly co-erced, and while some might have argued about not wanting to be forced into socialisation, I think, as Dana has stated/implied, socialising helps to build communities, and the glue that binds it all together, turning an evening's button-mashing into an enriching social experience. Having to visit entertainers and medics to heal mental and physical wounds; travelling the multitude of player cities (all crafted) for the right store for that particular item (again, all made by the players); etc, etc, etc... It was all circular, binding, and only served to heighten the experience and the immersion. Even the asshats.
Is socialising needed? No. You could be a hermit if you want, but why would you want to live half-naked in the woods, having to catch fish with your barehands every day, when you could become part of a community and enrich your existence? Hell, you can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good idea! (Chris Rock)
I think Dana has really hit the nail on the head with this one. Modern MMOs just lack the social aspects; the reason to keep coming back, even when the content has dried up. Back in the old days of SWG there was very little to almost zero content. And it was a few years before they introduced anything really tangible. But it didn't matter, because people were building communities together, physical or otherwise, whether crafting, social or even for pvp. Players didn't just click a button and get insta-ported to a pre-set, unchanging battlefield. They made bases just so that they could fight over them (and for faction benefits). Player communities constructed cities and outposts in defensible positions.. I could go on...
AoC has these great-looking player towns, but what use are they socially? Absolutely zero. There aren't even chairs to sit on.
Anyways.. great post, Dana, thanks for the read.
It made perfect sense. I'd avoid the word downtime though, lest any reading devs get the impression that people want to actually sit on thier ass for 5 minutes after each encounter. Removing the emphasis on leveling inherently creates downtime because people spend more time exploring the rest of the game's features instead of chasing a big bold number in the upper right or left of their screen. It seems players view level in level based games and skills in skill based games very differently, even though they are both essentially the same thing. This may be because of the extreme disparity we commonly see in level-based MMOs or it may be a psychological thing. Either way, there is an urgency to reach max level, but not an urgency to meet max skill. In skill based games, people focus on raising a few select skills and have a "neh" attitude towards the others. Gameplay seems to become more casual when advancing the secondary skills. Even with the primary skills, many will raise them just to a level they are comfortable with. With level-based MMOs, people can't do that. If you start slowing down at level 30 and the rest of your guild reaches 50 or 60, you have effectively removed yourself from being able to get together with your guild. That puts a certain amount of strain on the social interaction because, due to the game mechanics, you have now been removed from a certain level of the interaction.
If it sounds like I am saying levels and classes are often a detriment to socializing and community in MMOs.... well, it's not the popular view, but that's exactly what I am saying.
I'll put forth a more simple answer. EVE retains more players because the slower play style (some would call boring) and downtimes give players more time to chat.
Older MMO's like DAOC had significant downtime between fights, which gave players a chance to talk to each other now. Most modern games have us scurry like rabbits from task to task, and there's no time for real social interaction.
EVE has mining, ratting, and crafting, which on the surface appear to be boring, mindless activities. (well, they are of course). But they also provide a player plenty of time to chat to his corp mates, or even in local, and makes for greater social bonds.
I'm currently messing around a bit with ROM as a break, and I never speak to anyone, nor does anyone speak to me. Sure, there's a bit of zone chatter, but nothing like used to happen in games like DAOC or Lineage.
By providing players with more to do, with less downtime, developers have actually worked to destroy the social fabric of MMORPG games.
Another nice article, Dana. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I just want to be brief with my comment this time. I completely agree that online games become less social and more automated. Most of latest Free to play games are so automated that you can level up your character without ever saying 'Hi' to anyone.
I think the time of Everquest when you had to wait for a ship for 20 minutes are over. Games are faster paced and it seems that developers actually promote this urge for players to run through the content and levels to do the end game as soon as possible and brag about highest level elite equipment on chat channels. Mid level content becomes less polished, less fun. It seems that a lot of developers these days pay a lot of attention to beginner content and an end-game since players rush through the content so fast.
I hope this will be different in SWToR for example. Its already different in LOTRO, but they have been leaning towards end-game loot focused system lately which I don't like. I hope there will still be couple games that will let us to enjoy the whole journey and put aside the urge to level up as fast as humanly possible by skipping all the fun.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong side of things. You're looking for the inclusion of downtime in the leveling, when that's really just a bandaid. Reducing the focus on obsessively leveling to cap removes the need for such a band-aid. An EVE player doesn't have to go out and grind levels, so they don't have to stop 'working' to enjoy the game... it's all game. The same with UO.
Adding downtime just puts a patch on an intrinsically flawed system - leveling. It's been flawed since PnP RPGs and the problems are exacerbated when you introduce such massive level ranges and a persistent world where people are joining at different times.
Your guild starts one of the mainstream fantasy MMOs this week. Next week you get to join them in the game. Well, immediately you are already in 'catch up' mode where you are just playing to level and not to have fun. You pretty much have to do that in order to be able to adventure with them and be of any value to the group. If it's a PvP game, then since your guild and , more importantly, your opponents started before you, you definitely have to spend your time grinding away if you want to take part in the PvP. In games like ATITD, EVE, UO, and Puzzle Pirates the level disparity is not there, the class restrictions aren't there and the immediacy to 'work' instead of have fun isn't there. The removal of levels greatly contributes to the chances of a player taking time out to socialize. Instead of putting a bandaid on a problem, fix the problem.
Levels are a very distinct and rewarding way to indicate progress, but in a persistent multiplayer virtual world they have a direct and negative impact on both socializing and community building.
Quite possibly the single best post I have seen in more than two years on any gaming forum.
The quoted portion describes exactly why I often solo, even in MMOs: for my own part, I recognize that the tank, healer, village idiot - you name it - is a real, live, actual person sitting at a keyboard, just trying to have a little fun. Besides the fact that, if you try talking to the person (not the class whose help you require to get through a quest before you drop group and go off to do something else), you might actually find yourself enjoying the company and making a friend... ;)
It made perfect sense. I'd avoid the word downtime though, lest any reading devs get the impression that people want to actually sit on thier ass for 5 minutes after each encounter. Removing the emphasis on leveling inherently creates downtime because people spend more time exploring the rest of the game's features instead of chasing a big bold number in the upper right or left of their screen. It seems players view level in level based games and skills in skill based games very differently, even though they are both essentially the same thing. This may be because of the extreme disparity we commonly see in level-based MMOs or it may be a psychological thing. Either way, there is an urgency to reach max level, but not an urgency to meet max skill. In skill based games, people focus on raising a few select skills and have a "neh" attitude towards the others. Gameplay seems to become more casual when advancing the secondary skills. Even with the primary skills, many will raise them just to a level they are comfortable with. With level-based MMOs, people can't do that. If you start slowing down at level 30 and the rest of your guild reaches 50 or 60, you have effectively removed yourself from being able to get together with your guild. That puts a certain amount of strain on the social interaction because, due to the game mechanics, you have now been removed from a certain level of the interaction.
If it sounds like I am saying levels and classes are often a detriment to socializing and community in MMOs.... well, it's not the popular view, but that's exactly what I am saying.
Lynx, have you ever considered that maybe this "urgency" to reach max level and stay on the same level with your guild/friends comes from the fact that levels separate the users by content? It seems to me that almost every MMO with levels has segregated all of the users by their levels. What I mean by that is a Lvl 2 character cannot fight along side a Lvl 30 character because the Lvl 30 character gets no benefit from fighting challenging enemies for a Lvl 2 character and a Lvl 2 character provides nothing in a fight against a Lvl 30 enemy.
I find that, typically, in skill-based MMO's a newer character can still provide some assistance to a veteran. For example, in Eve, a lot of the encounters (even the harder ones) have frigates that a new character can help to fight against and, also, they have a low chance of getting hit by the huge battleships that roam the field.
My point is, people don't have to "catch up" in most of the skill-based MMO's I've experienced so theres no rush to do. In level based games, it is traditionally very different. I don't think it has anything to do with the nature of the system (Asheron's Call being an example of a game with levels and without the need to catch up). It's just something worth considering.
Good article, Dana.
When I was more passionate about MMORPGs (and devoted more time to playing them and thinking about them) I would've had something significant to contribute to the thoughts in your article.
I noticed, however, that your article is written with an emphasis more on the regular player than on the casual player. I believe your article applies to casual players, too.
Casual players do want immediate access to content by making it simple for them to group and to travel directly to combat or other content. However, so many games offer this that it becomes easy, even attractive, to change games regularly and experience what they all have to offer. And this instant gratification comes at the expense of long-term content and, for the player, long-term goals and long-term relationships. Casual players want this instant gratification but they also want something more.
Building relationships with other players with a view to long-term, complex and difficult goals is an emotional investment. The pay-off is immense and the pay-off is also long-term, even for casual players. I am a casual player who plays EVE. EVE isn't for everyone but this post, like your article, isn't about specific games but about what aspects of game-play best result in a growing subscriber base. I won't leave EVE soon because I am, to some extent, emotionally invested in it. If I leave, I sever relationships.
I've always said that a game's community makes or breaks a game, but your article has put this thought into perspective for me as a game must encourage, not just facilitate, player relationships. To pick up on other posts in this thread, I don't mean forced grouping. Grouping is a short-term commitment.
It doesn't seem as though any game has struck the correct balance. WoW has done supremely well but WoW clones haven't bested it. Why? EVE is still growing but cannot boast the subsciber base mainstream MMORPGs want. As the article hints, too, we cannot truly put a finger on why most MMORPGs fizzle whilst EVE grows. It's a fact that EVE grows and others don't and certain game-play aspects are causing this. What are those specific game-play aspects, what features should a new game include to attract a large base and grow as EVE grows? Don't know for sure but it seems to me that this article is speculating in the right direction.
Great article, Dana.
I just hope people aren't so stubborn that they keep believing features like WAR's Public Groups are actually the future of MMOs.
I don't see where it would lessen the challenge. The way you see alot of content made you have to have the holy 4 of classes (tank, DPS, Magic user, Healer) when engaging significant enemies. I don't think it's too hard to just do away with that approach and instead...well, ok, Asheron's call is an example of what I'm saying. If you didn't get a chance to play it, or UO...they basically both allowed all players to be able to heal themselves and to armor/protect themselves in a significant way that you didn't have to exclude people because of a class choice.
The Olthoi Dungeon surely wasn't (in early AC times) an easy place to go as well as a bunch of other places. AC used levels and I think they used them just as identifiers for relative creature strength. The character's true talent came in the form of their skills. If you put points in either Life Magic or Healing and could heal yourself, then how you chose to hand out damage didn't matter so much, especially to a point people would not group with you.
Oh, and talking about getting people to interact, Asheron's Call's Allegiance system deserves face time as well. It got people to interacting with each other and rewarded them for doing so. The vassal (if lucky) got knowledge in exchange for a little XP being passed up to their lord. Course, the system could use a little tweaking as some folks found a way to abuse it. But, overall, it was a system that was certainly worth exploring a little more as a great social tool.
It made perfect sense. I'd avoid the word downtime though, lest any reading devs get the impression that people want to actually sit on thier ass for 5 minutes after each encounter. Removing the emphasis on leveling inherently creates downtime because people spend more time exploring the rest of the game's features instead of chasing a big bold number in the upper right or left of their screen. It seems players view level in level based games and skills in skill based games very differently, even though they are both essentially the same thing. This may be because of the extreme disparity we commonly see in level-based MMOs or it may be a psychological thing. Either way, there is an urgency to reach max level, but not an urgency to meet max skill. In skill based games, people focus on raising a few select skills and have a "neh" attitude towards the others. Gameplay seems to become more casual when advancing the secondary skills. Even with the primary skills, many will raise them just to a level they are comfortable with. With level-based MMOs, people can't do that. If you start slowing down at level 30 and the rest of your guild reaches 50 or 60, you have effectively removed yourself from being able to get together with your guild. That puts a certain amount of strain on the social interaction because, due to the game mechanics, you have now been removed from a certain level of the interaction.
If it sounds like I am saying levels and classes are often a detriment to socializing and community in MMOs.... well, it's not the popular view, but that's exactly what I am saying.
I share this view 120%. Social interaction is a key tenant most developers are overlooking. It seems like most companies are bending over backwards to make games solo friendly. I just wonder why they aren't just making single player games, spending way less money and possibly making a more polished product.
If you're going to make a Massively Multiplayer game, the name in itself intimates interaction amongst the players. Your systems should reflect that and guide players to activities that are meshed with that. Not point them in separate directions.
The first paragraph was great but the second one almost seemed as if the true meaning of the first was lost.
The main thing above solo and group and everything is the ability to be an entity. In AC and UO, you joined a group of people heading out to hunt because of what you as a person brought to the table. There really wasn't a reason to ask you to come along other than the safety in numbers and the social aspect of it. In the past 5 years or so of MMOs, you'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs where people aren't just their class and nothing more. YOU aren't needed in today's MMOs, your class is. The games are designed that way at the core.
In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.
The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.
Interesting observation. I offer a different analysis.
I use WoW, but any game can be modelled in, for illustration. In WG, where raids are formed to zerg each other, they take everyone, anyone, if a raid fills up they form another. In open world PvPs where the side with more wins, they recruit anyone, any level. Even a level 10 can help out in the barrens, if just as a healer, a distraction, a cannon fodder.
When there is a limit to the size of a group and only 1 group is allowed, aka instances, your observation is very true. In open world conflicts, or exploration, or open word raids (where you can cheat by having more than one raid nuking at the same boss), this consideration becomes less apparent.
So maybe, its more due to the use of instancing, than classes, that leads to meticulous choice of classes and spec and gear and player experience. After all, you only have 5 in a heroic, and only 1 healer. If that healer sucks, you know the rest.
In EQ, its not instancing per se, but the fact that each group of 6 controls a room of spawns, and in a way works like instances. However there was once, in my live as a druid that I was asked to help out 2 camps. Basically I run between the 2 camps, regen the members, snare the mob and so on. Yes its a mess, but when you can do it, you break the curse of instancing, and it becomes possible to run a team without a snarer (nightmare in EQ1), if there is a druid nearby to run over and help.
Whether it is due to classes, I dare not conclude. One more memory comes to mind and I would try to share it here.
SWG, before the big CU and NGE. Yes I know the game is classless, but I want to say, that alone is not the whole story.
People are truely dependent on each other, not just in raids or instance runs. Fact is, 90% of my life in SWG is semi soloing, but I never for once feel the ability to ignore the rest of the community. Actually I am in closest contact with everyone else than any game since, Even more than DAoC.
The key lies in the design. As a rifleman, I need guns, obviously. Not so obviously, is that I also need medical supplies (bandage), splicing (smugglers), mental buff (dancers), body buff (doctors). In turn, even soloing, I can farm whatever favour of the week materials in exchange. So this week I kill this animal b/c its meat is best for a certain supplier I know in person/game, who puts up ad in his house saying $50 per item in his vendor machine. This, essentially is what makes the game tick.
So we are always enthusiastic about meeting more people, who knows when and where you found another great gunsmith, or hear about a batch of unsurpassed guns only available this week or next. It is always possible for you to run into a merchant who is buying something previously no one wants. So the endless search for people, endless list of things to talk about, to overhear.
Its in the game design. Its in the way people's role in the game is ironed out. In WoW every blacksmith is the same. Every guild need 1 blacksmith, 1 scriber, 1 this 1 that. 5 healers 15 dps, 3 tanks and so on. In SWG, everyone is unique, and their contribution also variable over the time. Supplies vary, resources quality varies... endless combination, and never an ending state for things to settle down. Not just classes, but everything is unique in a way.
WOW! I though that what you have wrote is common knowledge for years now. I have been playing EVE for more then 5 years and community is the only thing keeping me in the game. During that period I have tried almost all major and many minor mmos but I never stayed longer then first "10 levels". Games like WOW and AoC are too socially shallow, and as you put it, perfect for hermits.
There is a spot where I need to disagree with you. Average gamer is not a nerd any more. It's a guy with a job and a credit card most of the time, accompanied by a wife (WIFE AGRRO!!) and at least one child in most cases. Gaming has gone past that "socially isolated only" level and has become much more. This is where companies making "old style" mmos fail, they have remained nerds themselves and are making games for nerds. Yet nerds are mostly gone.
To justify my claim I will have to use another gaming example: Wii vs PS3 + XBOX. Nintendo realised that gaming is much more then nerdy bussines and this is where Sony and MS fail miserably. PS3 is super cool machine that is fun to only about 0.5% of the world's population but Wii is a <sarcasm>poorly designed super-uncool gadget</sarcasm> that 70% of us would love (Wii is just about the best toy I ever bought for my kids to be honest).
Apart from that I agree with the rest of your article, you hit the nail on the head when you tackled the social issue. I also need to add that EVE has flourished DESPITE CCP's total incompetence to handle player relations. It is now out of their hands, a universe developing on it's own.
I think it's because a lot of devs haven't figured out what the solo player really wants. I mean, it's an industry where "alone together" was some massive revelation for many, despite it being standard human behavior. An MMO is a virtual bar, club, arena... there is little difference other than the physical presence of each human being. To encourage interaction there is a need to emulate what it is about popular gathering places that people inherently like. To make those ingame locations or environments and those other players real to the player the key isn't shaders and specular lighting and whatever other cutting edge tech is out at the moment - it's creating an environment where players are cognizant of the presence of other players.
Let's use the bar as an example. You look at any current fantasy MMO and the bars will always be the same - the rustic look, the bottles and steins to indicate that the room is a bar, the mounted heads on the walls. It's like they took a picture of a cool bar and said "Let's put this ingame." But that crap is just what makes something look like a bar, not what makes it a gathering place.
That's the stuff that makes people gather at a bar. Not the mounted boar's head, not the exposed beams and not the bottle laying down on the table next to the passed out guy that hasn;t moved once in the two years that you played the game.
IMO a tavern in an MMO with just half that stuff in it would be a place that players would automatically start gathering in. From what I've experienced in UO, Puzzle Pirates, Second Life and other social interaction-focused MMOs, environments like that is what makes people log in occasionally with the sole purpose of interacting with others instead of logging in every time to move that bar along a fewmore millimeters.
That's a darn good point there. :)
first time i've been compelled to reply to a thread so consider yourself honoured Dana -
I tend not to play other MMOs other than Eve for the simple reason I don't have time, however if it weren't for the social side, and players wanting to help each other rather than themselves I wouldn't have gotten past the first month. Their experience, and willingness to help me out got me past that initial "ok i've done the basic training, what next?" stage, since then I've made some solid friends that I speak to OOG and totally OT. I've helped one guy change his career through my RL experience, I've made some strong in-game bonds too, and am now in a corporation with guys I have "flown" with on and off for my entire Eve-Life.
Imagine the senior structure (bar a couple) of an Eve Corporation gathering from all over the UK to decend upon a British Seaside town... That's what happened a couple of weeks ago, we may be nerds, but we're not totally antisocial people. (although i think Eve leans less to the classic nerd and more to tech-nerds - we have an honest to God rocket scientist in team).
I never said being a nerd was a bad thing ;)
I freely admit my nerdhood - although if anyone asks, it's OK because I've clearly "turned pro" - but let's be honest here. What's really changed here is the definition of a nerd. Lots of nerds lead entirely normal lives, but they still wait up for BSG on Friday ;)
The point in the article is that the natural inclination of an MMO player is to avoid social situations when presented with a better alternative. It doesn't apply 100%, but it's a safe generalization.
Not trying for a derail here, but EVE does seriously benefit from the "what else would I be playing" effect.
Just by comparing the choices in a genre: I am primarily a Fantasy gaming fan, I got my start in D&D and EQ was my first MMO. In the years since, in the fantasy genre I have played DAoC, EQ2, Vanguard, AoC, WoW and I am currently playing LotRO. I've bounced back and forth between them several times too and will do so again if I get sick of my current game.
Compare that to EVE - sci fi spaceships....I get sick of EVE specifically and I can go play what? Some single player games? EVE really is in a niche all by itself, hence why it can stagger on without too much trouble.
Back on topic: "Downtime" is a badly used term, I agree. Certainly no one wants games with pointless time sinks and mechanics that waste time for the sake of wasting time.
But, what EVE has and many newer games lack is "hands free time". Despite the growth of voice chat, most people still socialize in MMOs via text, especially at first. If a game design has you soo busy pounding hotkeys, queuing actions and pressing arrows that you cannot type, you will not socialize. There need to be periods in game where you can be *accomplishing* something with your character - doesn't matter if it is crafting, harvesting, training or fighting - but some time in built into the game mechanics where you can be free to chat.
Now, in an ideal game of course there is some benefit to exploration or scenery soo impressive you just chill for a bit and watch the flowers..but most modern games seem designed to be played by a hyperactive gerbil on a rodent wheel.
Some of my best memories from games past are of long chats waiting for or riding a boat in EQ. Sitting at my ranger camp in SWG just chilling out and chatting with passing hunters/prospectors. Standing look out on the ramparts of a castle in DAoC looking for the next enemy probe or attack. Heck, late night humor while playing hide-n-seek in a cloaked recon cruiser with some enemies in a corp war in EVE.
I never said being a nerd was a bad thing ;)
I freely admit my nerdhood - although if anyone asks, it's OK because I've clearly "turned pro" - but let's be honest here. What's really changed here is the definition of a nerd. Lots of nerds lead entirely normal lives, but they still wait up for BSG on Friday ;)
The point in the article is that the natural inclination of an MMO player is to avoid social situations when presented with a better alternative. It doesn't apply 100%, but it's a safe generalization.
The only thing wrong with waiting for a new BSG episode is that the series ended :)
To be honest I don't consider myself being nerd for playing online games, loving spaceships, or finding nr.6 hot. In fact my social skills surpass those of guys who never play mmo games by far, which is constanly proven at work, in the shops and restaurants. And mmo games have contributed a lot to that.
Keep writing, you are on the right path when it comes to creating a sucesfull mmo in the long run. And lay of the nerd thing, I heard that coolest cats in Korea are famous gamers, so gaming is becoming mainstream and those who do not play anything will be nerds of the future:) You will see that you are wrong when it comes to your conviction that people run from each other in mmos. They run from each other only if games make it hard for them to communicate (instancing, bad or lack of chat windows and techniques...), the point of mmos is to play it with others, if you are running from people you meet you might as well play single player games.
Opinions are like 4rs3s, everyone has one :)
I agree that social content is neglected in newer MMO releases. I played FFXI for years. (Some people loved it some hated it) The linkshell i was in was always chattering away which made even mundane task in game a social outlet and people would easily be able to get help, advise or form up a party fpr almost anything. That game focused on party play and I enjoyed that part of it. SE took it a bit too far in FFXI but games like WOW went just as far the other direction, my guild had 200 or so people in it, 20-40 on at a time and rarely does anyone speak in guild chat and i can go days without a single person saying anything to me. (I'm a healer spec, resto Druid, if anyone should get asked to parties you would think it waould be a healer!)
Anyway, the whole mmo concept was to play with and against other people, that seems to be something that developers have declined to incorporate into most games these days and the games have suffered a drop in quality as a result.
There are many other factors that make Eve thrive other than the social factor. Freedom to play your character as you like, not be straightjacketed in a restricted character class.
Eve actually forces you to join a corporation as grouping with unknown players is highly dangerous.
The formula is the same formula that classic EQ used until SOE changed the game and ruined it. EQ was popular for years and continued to grow because of the social interaction until SOE focused more and more on raiding to the detriment of freedom of play and casual gameplay.
What you are saying Dana, without labeling it, is that EVE is succesful because it is a sandbox, and I agree. It has to of course also be a quality game as you mentioned, because a crappy sandbox is just a sandbox filled with poo.
Dana you do contradict yourself at first by suggesting succesful games need direction which of course is the opposite of EVE and a sandbox environment. The inherent direction of being succesful, by leveling, raising skills, mastering a craft, exploring a large world etc. is enough to motivate a player.
Theme park games are completely directed and linear which you correctly identified as not needing interaction and therefore not binding players while sandbox games foster freedom and interaction to accomplish goals by not scripting a path.
I must be the anti-Dana Massey, I almost always disagree with what he writes.
In this case, there's some small parts I agree with, but I have a better answer as to why Eve keeps "growing" (albiet, VERY slowly):
1) Huge time sink, you don't want to give up what you've done so far, as you've invested tons of time most likely.
2) It has a fairly robust economic system.
3) Its the only "real" space game (Sorry SW:G fans), even if the "space" part of its fairly not realistic, and point and click...
4) The game "grows" by encouraging multiple accounts like no other game does. Its no longer even slightly suprising to meet people with 3-4-5-6-7-8 accounts. I myself have two, and I'm a "casual" player.
The "end game PvP" doesn't even draw that many people into 0.0 space, as can be seen from their quarterly reports, something like 70% of characters never leave empire space. So it isn't the "pvp action!" that draws people, PvP in eve is usually "Gank" or "Blob" style fights that leave no doubt who the victor will be before the first shot is ever fired. The "ooh wow!" alliance vs alliance fights are few and far between (in even numbers), and are so rare they actually make the "news".
A lot of people in this thread seem to want to go back to the bad old days of massive down time or /shudder, AC1 where being a warm body was enough (because there were only 3 templates that people used anyways)...
If the downfall of socialization is why MMO's all die, then why is WoW still as popular as it is? It's made grouping easy, you don't have to speak, etc...
Then again, you didn't have to speak in EQ1 groups either... most people read books or watched tv during the downtimes (that's uh, a "bad" thing if you are a game developer).
I thought it was a good thought provoking article...in the least was to make the point that things are moving from a socialization to a game mechanic on the slider scale...I think we need to bring back some more socializations IMHO...there's a fine balance in between there somewhere...
Wow, I put on the extreme for mechanic....SWG (Pre-ALL) I would put on the other extreme for the socialization side....
to put those 2 games side by side, for me, I played 4+ yrs of SWG...and enjoyed it until I couldn't enjoy it anymore (i.e. the changes).....I played wow for 6 months and had max leveled numerous characters...I didn't really find it that fun through most of it so I quit...
Actually, that was not at all what I said. I said EVE was successfully retaining players because they channeled their players into social groups and that was the key to retention. Any game, sandbox or theme park, could do the same thing. It just so happens that EVE is the major one doing it.
And I only contradict myself if you assume what I said is what you said, which of course it wasn't.
Great article!
I think you're hitting on a larger topic in MMOs in general: removing the second M from MMORPG. I've been writing and talking about this a while myself. We're going to be playing MORPGs shortly if we're not careful.
In my long time playing these games I've seen guilds go from the all important organization that you defended like a Nation to "things" that you put on and discard as you would make-up. This is equally true for grouping.
Everyone has such a violent reaction to the idea of forced grouping and guild content that if you write an article about wanting more group content in general you're bound to get buries or hate mail. It is all perceived as an attack on soloing. Don't get me wrong, I believe we should all be able to solo. I don't, however, believe soloing should be the most effective way to level. Sadly, in most games it is. We are penalized for grouping. Why bring this up though?
If you don't really need to find a group why do you need a guild? The organization is only good for socializing, raids and large scale PvP. If that guild doesn't do something the way you like it leave and find another one. Loyalty is simply out the door. We're more concerned about "me" instead of "us."
I was a proud member of my EQ1 guild for over four years. When I retired from that game I was still considered a member. I am to this day. When I moved to EQ2 I helped build a guild for over two years and eventually turned that into a multi-game organization. The point is, I see the guild before anything else and so do my core members. That feeling is not common in our community anymore. We are all, to put it truthfully, old. Younger (I'm not talking about actual age here either) games don't seem to get it. They're from the WoW culture. Things are done differently now.
By creating so much solo content, reducing down time to zero, and making it possible to group without any communication we've lost a big piece of the MMO experience. I'm sure this post alone will draw a decent amount of disagreement but I miss how things used to be. Grouping was a social function that allowed you to get work done at the same time. It might have been tough but sitting all night, grinding in Lower Guk or one of a hundred other dungeons, talking to your friends and guild mates was great. The action wasn't going every single moment. We talked, we laughed, we complained and you better believe we loved it.
Great article, and I agree entirely. In my experience, soloing is the most viable option for me based more on not wanting to be added for my skill in the game, or lack thereof, but because people actually want to meet and become friends. As Dana stated, the niche that MMOs fill is giving nerds a social outlet. However, because we are nerds, we are, by definition, socially stunted in one way or another, and the severity of it can vary greatly. It's difficult to BE social in that kind of environment, because social deficiencies tend to limit social effectiveness. My game of choice for a very long time was City of Heroes. I chose a higher than average population server to play on recently, and did my best to interact positively with others. Still, I found time and time again that social ineptitude made trying to chat with others a frustrating process filled with misunderstandings and a general lack of interest in much more than grinding out content. I DID meet a few extremely nice people, but in the end I found myself soloing more often than not, and the pleasantries that were exchanged were for that one task force only. It's difficult to socialize during combat in CoH, and rare was the team that would just stop and talk for a bit, to create some mood, some context, some humanity in the midst of knocking down nicely shaded polygons. I don't exclude myself from these criticisms, either. I have my biases and my pet peeves, as well. As others have said, SWG was probably the best in terms of creating great social arenas (I had immense fun in cantinas, and with guildies).
In the end, though, I think the social aspect of these games needs much more focus, because in this digital age, we are losing touch with one another, and we're losing the tools that allow people to really know and understand each other by becoming more selfish and self-reliant because of how we see others behaving ("Look out for number one, because nobody else will."). I still see generous, humble, gracious souls in MMOs, but not nearly as many as I used to, and that bothers me greatly...
I think it's because a lot of devs haven't figured out what the solo player really wants. I mean, it's an industry where "alone together" was some massive revelation for many, despite it being standard human behavior. An MMO is a virtual bar, club, arena... there is little difference other than the physical presence of each human being. To encourage interaction there is a need to emulate what it is about popular gathering places that people inherently like. To make those ingame locations or environments and those other players real to the player the key isn't shaders and specular lighting and whatever other cutting edge tech is out at the moment - it's creating an environment where players are cognizant of the presence of other players.
Let's use the bar as an example. You look at any current fantasy MMO and the bars will always be the same - the rustic look, the bottles and steins to indicate that the room is a bar, the mounted heads on the walls. It's like they took a picture of a cool bar and said "Let's put this ingame." But that crap is just what makes something look like a bar, not what makes it a gathering place.
That's the stuff that makes people gather at a bar. Not the mounted boar's head, not the exposed beams and not the bottle laying down on the table next to the passed out guy that hasn;t moved once in the two years that you played the game.
IMO a tavern in an MMO with just half that stuff in it would be a place that players would automatically start gathering in. From what I've experienced in UO, Puzzle Pirates, Second Life and other social interaction-focused MMOs, environments like that is what makes people log in occasionally with the sole purpose of interacting with others instead of logging in every time to move that bar along a fewmore millimeters.
Very good illustration.
They put the bar in thinking "hey, it's a bar, people will socialize" but they don't put the bar in the game mechanics. The bullet points you listed should, in my opinion, all be able to be done, or "played and played by", by players. Many of those you listed in those bullets were doable in SWG.
Which speaks to my point (not sure if I made it in this thread) that developers seems to only worry about the interaction/connectivity of systems as it relates to combat. Others had stated, and rightly so, that that one aspect of gameplay doesn't keep players around as effectively as the people they know who play the game.
Hammering nails into roofing shingles in the hot Texas sun sucks royale with cheese and if given the option to do it daily for average pay I'd probably decline. But if I'm doing it with a good friend then most likely I would do it once, probably a few times.
excellent read !
QFT ,i would like to add unique skill system to list ,you dont need to grind and kill thousands snakes/rats(of course you need money for ships/mods/skills) you are not limited to a race/class .But social bonds in my eve bringing growth ?No way ,eve's number one rule is '' trust noone '' and it actually works agains it
I would like to add the bar analogy someone posted earlier is an excellent example, and probably THE key element that many MMOs don't develop enough. Sure, most games have meeting places such as bars, taverns, or at least geographic areas that look more like places to socialize than to take down mobs. The problem is that there is no game mechanic that rewards such things. All it would really take is a CSR who was paid to watch said areas and trigger rewards based on actual social interaction, or conversely penalize those who go out of their way to destroy the social experience for others. This could be related to how well someone roleplays, or perhaps on how well they create a sense of community and do their best to involve anyone who comes to interact. I would hesitate to think an automated system could do this effectively, unless there was a class or job designed to enhance such an area (like musicians and dancers in SWG). I still think that human beings are needed to foster and promote true, healthy social interactions, though, and I think the first game that does this effectively is going to be our true WoW-killer, assuming all the other elements are done reasonably well, also.
THIS is exactly one of the main reasons I loved having a crafting-only toon in Star Wars Galaxies. When I got sick of combat or exploring, I could log into my crafter and chat with my guild and other friends while crafting. Not only was SWG's crafting much more involved than modern games, it also gave you a chance to have some good down time. Sometimes I would just head to one of the popular cantinas where there were entertainers (a purely social player class that many people loved), and people getting heals/buffs from the entertainers. I would pull out my crafting R2 unit, and start crafting while chatting everyone up in the cantina, and making new friends. Sometimes I would get word of big group adventure that I wouldn't have ever known about without being in there socializing.
This just scratches the surface of what a game with greate community features and non-combat/social player classes can bring to an MMO. These non-combat classes and features bring different kinds of people to the game world. People who would be more inclined to log into SecondLife than WoW. Even though many people do not care for this type of game play, some of the most interesting people I ever met in SWG couldn't have cared less about the PvE or PvP content. Those people made the game world interesting, and breathed life into it. If you were into SWG, you had no problem suspending disbelief immediately after logging in, and fully immersing yourself into the game world.
Having non-combat focused classes and skills such as scientists and poiticians was awesome too, and it made for lots of player created content. Massey hits at a point many of us "sandbox" guys have been saying here for a long time now. If your game is open ended, and you give the players the mechanics and tools to make their own content, they will. This is what kepy SWG going despite the myriad of problems with the game. No one cared about the lack of quests and content, because we players were the content. The game allowed us almost total freedom to do so.
Still though, you cannot have one with out the other in my opinion. You cannot have an open ended MMO that is focused 90% on combat and 10% in social/non-combat play. There needs to be a blance to pull it off. It can't be easy and as Massey said, EVE got lucky in this respect, as they probably didn't think about it while designing the game. The same can be said about pre-cu SWG. They did not plan for this rich community to happen, but the game facilitated it.
I think the social bonds could be much improved, and I agree with a lot of the article.
Something has changed....the people I was in my first guild in WoW with, just after release, are still on my MSN and email, and we say hi and catch up, even though I havent been guilded or played with them in over 3 ½ years.
There were acquaintences on that server, that I have run into on other games, years later, and we instantly strike up the friendship again.
I even met my better half in that guild eventually!
Now, I have been in a load of guilds, and felt no connection, there is no need to do things as a guild any more in most games, aside from the odd raid...there is very little interaction, everyone has alts providing stuff, so you dont need to help each other out, there is no travelling all across the world in any game to help someone (unless someone in the guild is being particularly annoying "Wtf, why wont you boost me ffs"
I played Eve, among many games, and I did enjoy the corps there.
Having said that, I am against forced grouping for several reasons:
1) Are you sure you want to be forced to group with Joe random? You know, the one that thinks a tank has instant aggro on a whole group so he unleashes his AOE, or, the one that thinks warriors tank perfectly fine in a bikini and uber dps stance? Or the healer that thinks he can heal with his totem...or the one that has a tantrum when anyone else dare even think about needing something.
2) I suffer from Social Anxieties, among other psychological issues. These sometimes manifest online as well as IRL. I have spent many month not wanting to join with a PuG, and pulling out of guild runs at the last minute, as well as randomly leaving my guilds and deleting all my chars in various games....so, I do not want to be forced to group if I cannot.
When I solo, why do I not play a solo game?
Well, that answer is simple, online games also function as a chatbox, and when I am having an insane anxiety episode, logging into a game, killing some time grinding and chatting in general chat is an amazing distractor for me.
CCP walked with no shoes on broken glass for a long time , with their policy getting the ppl softly introduced into a open and mean gameworld (i still remember the days i started ,every morning there were officials in the chat to give you limited help and hints without being dicks/cunts ) worked out perfectly being the' most into touch with its playerbase' company i know . Took me 6 month to realize this wasnt my game , but the time i played it it was fun fun fun ..i went off without any bitter thoughts ,cuz i knew the problem was on my side
You have a medical issue, so you want these MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online games to cater to your needs, to provide you with a single player game with a chat room. Interesting. I'm curious to know how your social anxiety affects you in the animated game world but not in chat where the real interaction is happening.
Don't feel too bad though. There are lots of people, I would dare say most of the people who play these modern MMO's are really looking for a single player game with a chat room. Ironically, most of them never end up talking to anyone anyway,
I could not agree with this sentiment more. I always felt like I was alone in this factor. I hate to use this as an example but when I'm playing a game like WoW I really don't like that I have to pound on so many of my darn hotkeys when all I'm doing is mindlessly grinding out quests for you guessed it "experience". Of course I'm not really sure what I'm experiencing other than a massive headache.
I REALLY think these games, if they're going to evolve are going to have to learn to incorporate downtime. You just hit the nail on the head for me.
You have a medical issue, so you want these MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online games to cater to your needs, to provide you with a single player game with a chat room. Interesting. I'm curious to know how your social anxiety affects you in the animated game world but not in chat where the real interaction is happening.
Don't feel too bad though. There are lots of people, I would dare say most of the people who play these modern MMO's are really looking for a single player game with a chat room. Ironically, most of them never end up talking to anyone anyway,
You can play almost any single player game with MSN messenger running in the background, or ICQ, or whatever it is you use for instant messaging. If playing team games is such a hassle for you sometimes, then you could just adapt, instead of asking the devs to adapt the game rules for you.
There should be solo content in these games - sometimes we don't have the time to go out and set up a group or chat up the guild into a quest and those things, but even then the majority of the content should be geared towards group play (that is, if the genre's name still has any meaning). Why? Because these types of games are way more fun when played in community. And since games are quite a lot about fun, then this should be the main focus.
I used to remmeber daoc when the colour scheme meant if you could kill a orange con mob you were pretty slick and if you saw a red or purple unless you were grouped you ran for it.
i remmeber the days of soloing with my bard killing blue con and green con mobs because the bard was pretty weak to do yellow or higher.
I remmeber sitting around waiting for mana or hp to go back up after a fight and chatting away with folks then it would be "everyone ready" and everyone stood up and we started again. You joined a guild because you were invited too and you respected your guild leader, very few people ran guilds it was very close nit, even the few people who were in elite specifically built rvr groups were still part of that comunity even if they didnt talk much or turned up to save the day.
Slowly though i think the game changed from Realm Vs Realm and having faith inyour home realm to a ME vs everyone else, where you competted against your fellow realm mates to get the most Realm points or the Most exp or epic loot and artifacts.
The days of defending a keep for the fun of it were gone because it didnt give much rps you had people berating you because you ran into their 1vs1 vs their personal enemies (who they chatted too over irc). You had people constnatly complaining that fights were ruined OR such and such is a noob for zerging.
I think social bonds in Daoc were destroyed when the end game fight changed into a personal one man campaign.
To be blunt, If I cannot solo/duo well in a game, I will not play it.
I think we see less freeform play, classless systems and such, is, it is harder to force you into a group, if you can do more then one narrow role.
Raids seem like lazy programing. Instead of making an instance adjust to the amount of people in a group, one or more, you need mass amounts of people. Each person with limited roles. We ended up with roles that take over classes. Tanks better tank, and so on.
I work, juggle family, and play. I might be playing for an hour, or two. If I get a day off and get to play for a whole day, I don't want to waste it, searching for groups, getting into a group were my "warrior" has one task, stand there and spam hate skills.
I want to get some levels, do some mining, do some crafting. But, if the scripts for crafting come from a raid, or a componet is only found in a group instance, Well, I will not be crafting.
It comes down to, the more a game forces me into a small role, and a large group, the less I will be there. The social aspect for me, is global chats, market channel, buying and selling on a market. If someone needs some help, grouping with them to help them out, then going on my way.
I cannot be called casual, I generally have two to six accounts going at any one time. Two in one game, couple other games and such. Tend to play an hour or so at night, and most of the weekends.
I played EnB untill gate raids. I played COH untill you had to have a group to get a respec. I played SWG untill you had to raid to make BH armor. Played eq2 recently, till they started talking about making classes more dependant on each other, and getting Tanks back to being Tanks. I don't play tanks, I play fighters. So bye eq2. Lotro same problem. When conan starts nerfing solo/duo play, I will leave it as well.
If MMO's go to total forced social group games, that is fine with me, I will simply not play them. I will not be hampered by , people randomly quitting groups, bio breaks that go on forever, The I only have 30 minutes till school so don't read the quest text people, the reasons go on and on for me.
Last note, It really bugs me when people say, Oh yeah you have to have a group for that quest, but you can get a group easy and do it. I might be able to, But I am not going to. Or, your not grouping with the right people, once you do you will like it. No, I will not.
BRAVO BRAVO tats exactly wat i had in mind too:P
The post tells the truth of MMOs
But i sure think that the author can also see from another perspective :
If a person is not able to find a helping group then he looses interest in the game when he comes.... So being independent is all essential as the group... Gammers should not feel obligated to take help for every thing... as said the basic urge of a WINNER is what the gaming community offers... That said we must have periodic intervals in the gme where gamers need to come together to play side by side and build bonds.. BUT TOTAL dependence on other players guidance for ppl to play is difficult
MMO's need to work on this. Its not about forced grouping, its about putting in game dynamics that promote or encourage positive player interaction.
A great example of this was in SWG pre-nge, in addition to leveling up your skills from a skill trainer NPC, any other player who had the skill could teach it to you. Some did it for money, others just to be nice. It was such a small thing but many of the friends I'd made in SWG were from either having someone teach me, or teaching someone else.
I enjoyed that part of SWG. Also crafters making house items. Thats another social aspect of MMO's I enjoy. There are many areas that can be social and interactive besides requiring group combat.
I enjoyed that part of SWG. Also crafters making house items. Thats another social aspect of MMO's I enjoy. There are many areas that can be social and interactive besides requiring group combat.
Image Designers were good too. LoTRO has npc barbers if you want to change your hair color/stye. Why not make it a player skill? Anything to promote or encourage positive player interaction. So much can be done without talking about grouping for pve.
ROTFL. Your post reminded me of an interview with Robert Pant I heard years ago where the interviewer asked him about subliminal "backwards" satanic messages on Stariway to Heaven. He said [I'm paraphrasing], "No, but if we thought any of that worked, we wouldn't have wasted time with satanic messages. We would have put something on there like buy the next album"
O.k so being forced to group in a mmorpg to improve the character you are playing sucks.
That's pretty much the generalization of it. People want to choose when and how they group. Then why doesn't companies like Blizzard ect understand this ? Ccp seems to understand this philosophy.
Originally posted by Torchwood
To be blunt, If I cannot solo/duo well in a game, I will not play it.
I think we see less freeform play, classless systems and such, is, it is harder to force you into a group, if you can do more then one narrow role.
Raids seem like lazy programing. Instead of making an instance adjust to the amount of people in a group, one or more, you need mass amounts of people. Each person with limited roles. We ended up with roles that take over classes. Tanks better tank, and so on.
I work, juggle family, and play. I might be playing for an hour, or two. If I get a day off and get to play for a whole day, I don't want to waste it, searching for groups, getting into a group were my "warrior" has one task, stand there and spam hate skills.
I want to get some levels, do some mining, do some crafting. But, if the scripts for crafting come from a raid, or a componet is only found in a group instance, Well, I will not be crafting.
It comes down to, the more a game forces me into a small role, and a large group, the less I will be there. The social aspect for me, is global chats, market channel, buying and selling on a market. If someone needs some help, grouping with them to help them out, then going on my way.
I cannot be called casual, I generally have two to six accounts going at any one time. Two in one game, couple other games and such. Tend to play an hour or so at night, and most of the weekends.
I played EnB untill gate raids. I played COH untill you had to have a group to get a respec. I played SWG untill you had to raid to make BH armor. Played eq2 recently, till they started talking about making classes more dependant on each other, and getting Tanks back to being Tanks. I don't play tanks, I play fighters. So bye eq2. Lotro same problem. When conan starts nerfing solo/duo play, I will leave it as well.
If MMO's go to total forced social group games, that is fine with me, I will simply not play them. I will not be hampered by , people randomly quitting groups, bio breaks that go on forever, The I only have 30 minutes till school so don't read the quest text people, the reasons go on and on for me.
Last note, It really bugs me when people say, Oh yeah you have to have a group for that quest, but you can get a group easy and do it. I might be
QFTMFT, I couldn't say it better myself. If i group i want to group on my terms not the games.
I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "EVE Only encourages joining a corporation because its so dangerous to group with unknown people"
Even in safe space, grouping with someone can merly be a trick to find your location.
in addition, since the new player experience is utter tosh in eve its often easier to ask questions and get a human reply than it is to figure it out for yourself, hence you often spark a debate as people fall over themselves to help you.
I should also point out that the growth of eve is often players buying additional accounts and paying for them with in-game money, I have two accounts myself now, but only because I can afford it, and I have friends who have grown their accounts to over 10. If you like Eve then its practically the norm that you would have multiple accounts not long after starting.
I doubt that there is much genuine growth on Eve.
Its incredibly easy to join partys in City of Heroes too, and yet that is one of the few mmo's that I can jump into at any point and be instantly botherd by people wanting to form a party, rather than every other mmo where i genuinly prefer to solo, even if I wanted to party you can shout LFG all day with out a whisper.
I think this is because CoH is one of the few mmo's where after a certain level its very difficult to solo, and the advantage of teaming so vastly out weighs any advantage of soloing that it just doesnt happen. And CoH like all mmo's has seen a decline over the years, not a steady growth.
In conclusion, I disagree or highly seceptical that EVE's growth is associated with its socialism, it may contribute but paying for subscription using in game money is more likley the reason.
In addition, I doubt making grouping "too easy" is destroying MMO's on the contrary, its the fact that they make them too easy to solo. We appear to be in an age where people demand Massivly Multiplayer games who then demand them to be soloable.
in any case, your theory doesnt explain why Wow (a very typical mmo in reality) continues to see growth,
Excellent article.
I think you are correct. The new games just don't make you feel neccesary. Any 10 year old can fill your shoes....that's just annoying. (Nothing against 10 year olds).
It's one of the things that kept me playing EQ for so long, at least it used to matter that you took along someone who actually knew how to play their class. Not all healers were the same and it made a big difference if you had made a name for yourself.
Today they have dumbed it all down so much that you just need another body to fill the slot. It makes it easy to group but takes away that feeling of being wanted and needed. I remember many nights playing as a cleric that if I wanted to log it was going to break the group. I lost a lot of sleep to the begging of others, LOL. We burned a lot of time just getting the right group set up but then we rocked it for hours.
Today, if you log out it's no big deal, they can get anyone else.
I would ask, what's the point of playing an MMO if you are not integral to the experience of others? You may as well play a single player game, the story is almost always better and you are the hero of the whole story. Plus, you have a pause key.
Of all the games I have played for any time EVE is one of the few that I would consider going back to. I think the only reason I quit was I burned myself out mining while trying to fill a contract my little corporation had.
I am not currently playing any MMOs because I'm waiting for something great to come along. I am tired of all the same old thing copies of one another. You would think nobody has any imagination the way fantasy MMOs keep churning out. It's almost like they way every automobile looks the same if it was made by the big 3. No wonder they are doomed. (I hope that's not true but...)
I can make Torchwood's words mine, if he don't mind, OFC.
About EVE, and why it is growing (as slowly that CCP is focused in another project right now) I have to disagree with the author. As someone already said, rule number 1 in EVE: "Don't trust anyone". I've played it for the last (almost) 4 years and I still remember the Bio of one guy when I was in the trial period: "Welcome to the Internet, the place where guys are guys, girls are guys and children are FBI agents". I did not gave credit to that words... I was robbed, betrayed (more than once) and ended with my 3 accounts, 9 characters in a Corporation with 9 members.
You can ask: But what made you play the game all this time? I really don't know, maybe complexity, maybe the freedom to change but more than nothing I never got the End Game. Reaching cap level and asking yourself - Now what? Never happened in EVE, even to those 100+ characters that have 100,000,000 skill points.
About the necessity to grind, as mostly MMO, in EVE you have to grind or either buy your isk with RL money. You can't even train your skills if you don't have money to buy them 1st, not to talk in use that said skils to fly something, no isk, no ship. Oh you lost your ship? Was insured? Hope you didn't fit it with fanction/deadspace/officer mods...
I still love that game, don't ask me why, but is not because social interaction as I had much, much more playing LotRO with only one character that I had in EVE in that (almost) 4 years with 9.
Sorry for my english, is not my native language and, OFC, I'm not the "Holder of the Truth".
I love this thread. Great thoughts from everyone!
I agree whole heartedly with everything you said Dana in this post (other than about the bar menu being a bad idea). Things such as 'a virtual world not a game', 'social interaction' and 'player made content' I couldn't agree more on. My only problem is that a few weeks ago you told us what a hit Star Wars TOR is going to be. While Bioware are going to produce a wonderful polished world with great story content for the single player in an MMO, it also seems to me that TOR will do just about everything different to Eve. It is definitely the WoW/WAR model. So what exactly do you believe is the right recipe for success because you seem to be hedging your bets?