Discussion in 'WildStar News' started by Zap-Robo, Jan 21, 2013.
Yeah, less people would group.
I've always been one of the first people to say the same thing, but more and more I've been thinking about this hatred towards cross-server LFG systems and wondering whether there's any actual evidence that this is true. My gut says it is, and obviously lots of other people feel the same way too, but do we know that it's actually accurate?
Server communities can be the difference between wanting to log in and play a game, or not. A great community can encourage you to meet and play with new people, to help total strangers, or to participate in public events. A terrible community can leave you wanting to keep to yourself, shop for a new game, or go watch TV instead.
For the most part, it is up to the community to regulate itself. The addition of features like reporting tools are a good place to start, but in order for people to actually use them they must believe that it will accomplish something. Otherwise, no one bothers.
Something I have not seen in any game is the ability to report good behavior, in addition to bad. When I see someone helping another person in Zone chat, I'd love the ability to give them a "kudos" as easily as I /ignore or /report someone else for spamming.
I believe the main reason why people behave so poorly in most modern MMO's is the lack of consequence. People can, for the most part, behave as anti-socially as they wish without repercussions. If there were in-game consequences for receiving too many negative reports, maybe people wouldn't be as tempted to be jerks behind the mask of anonymity. If there were in-game incentives for being nice and helpful, maybe the good people wouldn't be afraid to come out of the shadows and be themselves.
I guess I am describing a "community rep" system of sorts. While I know it would take a lot of work to minimize abuse and manipulation, I think a way to recognize and encourage the good, as well as discourage the bad, would be a great place to start.
I don't have any physical or virtual evidence to say that x-server LFG systems hurt a community. I do know that the less chance people have of interacting with others, the more willing they are to act poorly towards them. In WoW, I remember knowing about the trolls that had ruined a group because the people screwed over would inform everyone in the major cities.
When there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions, in general he will attempt to get away with as much as possible.
All that being said, you're absolutely right, I don't have any evidence excepy my own, albeit limited, experience.
The problem with cross-server LFG systems is the lack of anonymity that comes with it. People know the chance of meeting again is so low that they can afford being jerks. Character on your own server will have to earn a certain reputation. We all have our blacklists of people who acted like jerks and who we don't want to play with anymore and we are sharing those lists with each other in guilds as well. This works the other way around as well.
This is a quote about trolling, it's not exactly the same, but it gets my point of anonymity across.
Maybe some sort of reputation system coupled with the player's account would be a solution. It's a tough subject and hard to find the right answer for.
If it is in particular related to a dungeon finder feature, it could be a up- and downvote feature, or scaled from good to bad, that people can use everytime they stop grouping with a person. Maybe a random pop-up, so it is harder to abuse, and maybe limited to having grouped at least 15 minutes.
Not just an overall vote that implies skills, but specified to social behavior, like helpful, friendly, language.
However what it can be used for and how, no idea. More dungeon finder options when queuing up? Only friendly players with a nice language need apply?
With all my alts and such I use it plenty in WoW atm.
For most parts, if you go in with an open mind and a friendly attitude, it is not all that bad.
Yes, there is suck groups that mainly fail socially because one person is an annoying profane retard, that should have been stopped by a condom. But I can count those times on my hands and feet, which makes a very little number out of the total times I have run. Unfortunately it is the times one remembers.
Some times they are the best dps in group, sometimes the tank, sometimes the healer. Pretty much always people, who thinks they are untouchable, because they have "leet skillz" and a needed role - they just fail as people. Though in my experience, healers who think the group needs to l2p just leave the group, the tank does the same after either pulling (well, seen a healer do it too) or telling everyone they fail.
Gear level requirements assure that the undergeared underskilled person in need of a carry does not queue up and ruin the chances to finish for a maybe just barely ready group. Unfortunately it also stops the skilled one to queue up undergeared, but imho it is worth it, unless some other sort of qualified gating to dungeons are implemented. Removing gear level requirement and instead adding a minimum average group gear level could do it - kick the low gear level player just means you aquire a new low gear level player, so using kick to only get a leet group is not an option.
Also the time of the day effects the chances of a good group greatly. Playing on US servers at European noon/afternoon, I find less of the socially inept people, and more of the social ones, who says hello upon entering and stick through mistakes and delays, than during server peak hours. Skills are pretty much the same.
Later in an xpac also has an effect. Some people, who knows the instance after doing it for a couple of months are not considerate with people, who just hit the dungeon queue maybe for the first time.
Dungeons are just something they want to get over with for the daily valor points, they are in a hurry. Someone slowing it down is inconvenient to them - could be avoided through programming some sort of filter, so a person has priority in a group with people, who (accountwide) did the dungeon the first time around the same time +/- a month.
I do believe that making a truly great dungeon finder, that can make both the for and against people satisfied would require a good deal of programming and player option filters.
You always write with a lot of good experience and you articulate exactly what you getting across. So thanks for that.
The quoted part amuses me greatly coming from you though. I can't find the posts, but you often come across as someone who is against the "elitist" mentality that is prevalent in a lot of MMOs. I understand the reasoning behind having a gear score, but I feel like this only perpetuates the elitist mentality, it just hides it so that you don't have to see it. "Oh you can't come because your gear score is only 4300 instead of 4500." It puts a number attached to your toon which depends on luck and amount of time spent by the toon.
I realize you don't want this, but like you said, having a gear score is often required by dungeon finders. And you can't say "just don't use dungeon finders when you're looking for a group". The average player will use dungeon finder if there is one, which means that your pool of getting another person for your team is significantly decreased.
To sum up, a gear score ends up feeling like you're just running a spreadsheet. You won't find a a group if there is a dungeon finder, unless you use it. A "good" dungeon finder relies on gear score.
To me, if the game is fun enough. I will use the dungeon finder. But, it will have to encourage communication by players in a different way if there is one.
What if 4500 was the minimum for a skilled player to perform well against the chosen content.
Meaning a bad player would maybe need 5000 to do 1/5 of the work, but can still queue at 4500.
But the requirement of 4500 makes sure that the bad nor the skilled player at 4300 does not get in?
The gear level is really only totally bad, if it is set way too high, which I do not feel is the case in WoW. Players would require 5000, if it were up to them.
One thing I have talked about BlackWolf about is if you premake a group and can't queue for the convenience of the transport there, because one of the group members is not up to snuff gearwise. Obviously a full group should be able to queue as is - as long as it stays together for the full run, one goes at the start of the run, all goes. Otherwise it can be abused.
I have nothing to really back it up with aside from my own experiences but I feel that you lose that sense of a community when cross server features are implemented. Since WildStar will be having a two faction system I look forward to those rivalries and faction pride which often goes along with it. PvP guilds going at it against each other, Raiding guilds trying to progress through content faster than one another.
Once cross server features are introduced the pool of players and guilds significantly increase so those rivalries and such start to mean less to me. If WildStar was a single faction MMO I may view things differently but with two factions I like keeping things within the server.
I know what I am about to say will likely be controversial but...
On the subject of cross-realm dungeon finders, I believe the system could be improved by rankings. I've thought this for a long, long time. Anonymity = reduced social responsibility. When players don't have to answer to the people on their server it encourages loot thieving mongrels. Instead of punishing players (we all know reward systems work best), reward players for progressing through segments of a dungeon by adding points to their rating, or allow players who were in the dungeon to positively rate the others they played with. (Allowing players to negatively rate someone could be abused.) Say - at the end of the dungeon force a player to give one other player in the group a "gold star" for dungeon MVP (disallowing the player from voting for his/her self.) And of course, ensure the player cannot receive any votes he/she might get until they have voted for someone else. Make it anonymous. Then, put similarly ranked people in groups together. Players care about numbers and they care about rewards! (I forgot to add, this type of system would probably need to have a decay over time, with a cap. In order to stay at the cap, you have to keep running dungeons.)
Secondly, I'd like two dungeon finder queues for one dungeon. One for people who are learning a dungeon (first timers etc; ) and another for people who are familiar with it and ready to storm the castle. Often, these competing goals are what makes a group fall apart and incites players to rage at one another. I have seen plenty of people willing to step up and say, "Hey, its my first time in this. Help me!" And then I have seen other people in that party unwilling to explain, begin chain pulling, and then dropping group the moment things head South. I think developers would find that players are more than willing to admit to a lack of experience running a dungeon, and willing to group with others in a similar boat. And on the other side of the coin (cause I've been here too), not forcing those who are experienced with a dungeon to explain mechanics, but grouping them with players who have a similar level of experience. Moreover, you could encourage players who are familiar with dungeons to queue with less experienced players by offering a mentoring system that gives the player increased rewards for helping out.
Third, I don't know if anyone at Wildstar has experience playing Rift, but in my opinion, Instant Adventures are one of the best things to ever happen to the genre. I like that its a daily. I like that it automatically puts me in a group with other people on my server, and that it automatically teleports me to the location of the quests. Its an alternative to quest grinding that I have found exceedingly enjoyable, and it makes leveling feel less like a solo event. Its somewhat like the dynamic events in Guild Wars 2 in that it requires people to group up and play cooperatively. Nice change.
The ability to give positive rating to party members reminds me of League of Legends recent positive-behavior/honor system. From what I initially heard, it had a very positive overall effect of improving the behavior of players. I know there'll still be jerks, but maybe something like that could help sway some to be a bit more lenient and helpful?
Of course, it's sad that we have to think of incentives to get people to behave like decent people. But such is the nature of things!
I like this idea.
People give their choice of player in the group a golden star, but only those spending their vote can actually receivethe votes on themselves, when it it tallied up.
SWTOR use something similar for PvP warzones, I always found that a nice little feature.
They did? Are you talking about the MVP votes? Cause all that did was give people more honor...
I did say something similar. Yes, being voted MVP rewarded more honor, but that is an incentive too. Could reward group mvp 1% more of whatever currency per vote, could be something else.
I like the idea, but I see it getting abused this way. Like, I vote for you, you vote for me!
Both players will keep their 'rating' artificially high(er) this way. I think it's better that the game itself decides who you are able to vote on, not the player. This all randomly generated. Like loot roll system, only on players.
What about limiting voting to once. You can't vote the same player twice, that way you and your jerk buddy can't mutually up-vote yourselves ad infinitum.
Sorry I thought you were asking for something that provided a lasting effect. The MVP vote was just for that particular game.
That's an interesting idea.
But, how would a forced random vote be representative of who I believe performed best in a dungeon? That would be equivalent to the system automatically giving points to a player's rating for simply making progress through a dungeon - because how a player acted towards others or performed in the dungeon is irrelevant. A ratings system where players vote for other players allows the community to filter (much like a forum moderator would moderate posts) out players who aren't playing "nice." I like to tank - a lot. And when I have an excellent healer, who I see healing DPS that are standing in fire and still managing to keep me alive, I know it. The same goes for DPS when they manage to pop off a CC on an add that was charging after the healer, or someone who patiently explains a mechanic to someone who has never been in a dungeon before. When someone does an outstanding job like this, I'd rather be allowed to give my rating vote to that person, than be forced to potentially give it to a DPS who stood in fire the entire time and kept screaming in caps, "PULL," because he was the only person I was allowed to vote for.
Yes, there are flaws.
I have been in PUGs where absolutely no one in the group stands out as deserving MVP. And, with this system you'd be forced to give MVP to at least one player, whether you felt they really deserved it or not. But, if I manage to make it successfully through a dungeon (which is the point where I would be allowed to vote for an MVP) and A) I still have the same people in my group that I started with and B) none of them took loot that wasn't applicable to their class and C) none of them started a flame war - I see that as a win because this was the point of my queuing in the LFG system. The point was not to find me players that I would be 100% compatible with in terms of personality or play-style. The point was to find me players I could group with that would be willing to engage in the content, free of loot thievery, and capable of being respectful. Like... getting on a bus with four other strangers, feeling confident no one is going to steal my purse, and people having the decency to not scream at me or the other people on the bus for walking slowly to my seat. We can do it in the real world! How nice would it be in a virtual one!
And yes, a rating system could be abused by players who are in a relationship with one another, or best friends, or in a guild with one another. I think the easiest solution for this would be coding which disallows you from voting for people you queue with. After all, the intent is to make LFG a better experience for people who are pugging entire groups, not necessarily for people who enjoy and stick to guild groups anyway.
Could that not be "easilly" countered by removing the option to vote on people you queued with?