1. Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central

Cross-Realm Blues

Discussion in 'Gaming Arena' started by Yakzan, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. Alverad

    Alverad Well-Known Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yes, sadly it seems they are caving into to LFG request, as understandable as it is ( pretty sure one of the devs mentioned that somewhere on the official forums).

    I'd love for a dev to push it further then GW2 did regarding lower level zones, but it's most definitely a step in the right direction. As Wildstar will have dynamic events of some sort, lets hope they go way beyond what's available in GW2.

    Funny, making an MMO with so much competition on the market seems to be hard, millions are accustomed to the genre now, and where there is two people there can easily be three opinions lol, yet at the same time, many devs do ot learn on others' mistakes, following what has already proved, not to be a great solution; instead of searching for their own way of tackling the issue. Here is me again, with hope for Wildstar. But then, no matter what they do, there will always be people that don't like what's been implemented.

    If only the game community could be a reflection of communities such as this one, where the majority is able to have interesting, even heated discussion that's constructive and pleasant to be a part of, accepting that what you think is the perfect way, is not necessarily so for others, and that it is the variety that makes human interactions interesting, in-game life would be heaven :D Frankly, I'll give the game a shot regardless of the choices made, even if they are totally against what I think is 'good'. It might just turn out, that the content is so engaging and fun, the method of delivery is secondary :D
    Yakzan and Joukehainen like this.
  2. Joukehainen

    Joukehainen Well-Known Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Agree with you there, Alverad, I'll try MMOs even if their design ethos isn't really what I'm looking for because hey, you never know.

    I really feel though that MMOs should stick with a niche and not try to appeal to everyone. Dungeon-finder for those who want it, and not for those who don't, linear short dungeons and big sprawling dungeons, open pvp and not open pvp, cross-server and not cross-server, yeesh. It's untenable. Like Yakzan said, if you try too hard to even out the valleys and peaks you risk ending up with a flatline.

    If devs went for a specific flavour instead of trying to appeal to everyone we'd have maybe 15 markedly unique MMOs, not 15 WoW-clones. :p And good points mentioned about "evolution" as well - a relative term. Dungeon-finders are an evolution of LFG chat, yes, but don't have to be the only evolution anyone ever comes up with.
    Alverad likes this.
  3. Lethality

    Lethality "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    While a game-wide "community" is a nice idea, the truth is the systems in these games don't scale well to support it, especially on a personal level. You *might* be able to make an argument for a game-wide economy, but even then.

    Other than logistics of getting that many people talking to each other and is that... these games require more than just warm bodies to function properly. The content is best played when in familiar team (or against one) as it adds that personal element to it.

    The technology barriers are mostly removable at this point, but I feel the boundaries of a server structure are still important for the social dynamics of these games.
    Yakzan likes this.
  4. Veckna

    Veckna Well-Known Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    It's a tricky one - the convenience/speed of cross server matchmaking is a nice benefit, especially for those with limited time or further down the games lifespan for those levelling alts.

    On the other side a single server community where people gain fame/notoriety and allies/opponents know each other is a much better envirnment (in my view anyway).
    I've been literally in tears laughing at group PvP with well known opponents with the friendly banter flying back and forth, been embarrassed by people seeing the guild tag and doing the whole "OMG you're in xxx guild!!" and proud when people you've grouped with ask you if you're free for something because they remembered you not being a dribbling idiot.

    With the cross server matchups you don't get that. Also with the cross server anonymity you tend to get more people who act like twats (if you'll excuse the expression) because you know, it's the internet and we can all act like we want without consequence :rolleyes:.

    Maybe they could try for a hybrid LFG system as I think has been hinted at previously in this thread - one where by default it looks for a group only from your server but has the option to search for cross server matchups as well if the player desires. That way those who prefer to wait a little more for a more solid community experience can take that approach and those who want faster queues/don't really care about grouping with familiar faces can opt for the faster cross-server matchup.
    I say leave default as same server simply to give new players (who probably won't look at LFG options until they've had some experience) a better chance of a 'nicer' grouping experience (certainly not guaranteed though).

    Just my 2c (plus change :)).
    Joukehainen likes this.
  5. Lethality

    Lethality "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Just to add - an LFG tool is a good thing, but a "dungeon finder" is not.

    The difference in my mind? One is designed to bring like-minded people together to do content, the other is a tool that brings people that want to do content together who in almost every case are not otherwise like-minded,
  6. Ingsoc

    Ingsoc Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I have never actually seen anyone argue that this game must have a group finder, at least, not on these forums. I do remember Jeremy Gaffney saying it's a bad idea for a game to launch without one nowadays, during the MMOFTW Live interview.

    Not every feature that some players dislike is being added to the game because of pestering requests from the unwashed, uninformed masses. Sometimes developers include things simply because that is the way the genre has evolved, as Hope said a hundred times more eloquently than I ever could.

    "The gunslinger watched as the world moved on.”
  7. SiegaPlays

    SiegaPlays "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denmark
    I know it does, as much as did the old way to make groups of strangers with. Depends on your willingness to build it. Those I got to know was through guild/friend raids and guild/friend groups pugging, which is basically the same today as back then, with the difference that now my community extend to a crossrealm friends friendslist, a couple of them even from using dungeon finder.

    You could say, that my community is those I am connected to up to a third degree through guild/friends list, and usually not the people, who are just very vocal in public chats.
    moneda and Yakzan like this.
  8. Sick

    Sick Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I want to go on record as saying Cross-Realm is one of the worst ideas ever created. The ONLY way Cross-Realm could ever work is if you could have Cross-Realm guilds.

    It's ridiculous to have people running around in your world that aren't really "there". Either let them do EVERYTHING with you, or don't do it at all. Putting restrictions on stuff is stupid, divisive and un-fun.
    Yakzan likes this.
  9. Karl Pedder

    Karl Pedder Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2013
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    But this is in many ways the problem sure for more social players it might be truly better but for those who are less inclined it has just made it so easy not to.
  10. Joukehainen

    Joukehainen Well-Known Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Like I said, though, dungeon-finders are an evolution of LFG chat, yes, but don't have to be the only evolution anyone ever comes up with. They also come with some unintended consequences.

    Veckna's comment about an LFG tool that lets you select whether you wish to be matched-up only with players from your own server, OR searching cross-server if you so please might be a simple and effective way of making a dungeon-finder more bearable for those of us that dislike them.
  11. Yakzan

    Yakzan "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Iceland
    Again, I'd love to reply individually but keeping track of what's going on is difficult for me so I just noted things down, sorry.

    The point that the "lobby" approach already existed. I'd have to agree and disagree. Of course, one the issues with these arguments is that we go off of anecdotal evidence and speculation rather than scientific facts, so our views on these things will be skewed, so don't kill me, please. I'm going off my experience from TBC until the Dungeon Finder. I just wanted to say that yes, that is true to a point. Pre-cross-realm matchmaking 'lobbyism' existed before with people standing in cities, but I believe that's mostly due to errands going on there, just relaxing, or not having anything they wanted to do out in the world (which goes back to promoting people go to back into the world.) A global LFG chat did exist then up until the introduction of the Dungeon Finder and was heavily used by my server until then. People did use the city Trade and General but I generally saw messages appear there after the LFG channel.

    I'd also like to clarify on my "lobbyism" point. I don't believe in pre-Dungeon Finder times people stood around in cities looking for dungeons constantly to level, at least not to the degree of how it is now, because it simply wouldn't have been as feasible in terms of the eternal XP/Hour struggle. I, at least, hadn't heard of such a thing happening. I just want to emphasize that there are huge amounts of players now compared to pre-Dungeon Finder times that use this feature to level up because of it's convenience. Their entire "journey" is queuing up in matchmaking systems. I tried to do it myself but I couldn't stomach the sheer depressing atmosphere of these runs. Now, this is a purely subjective thing but to me a big part of the MMO Journey to Cap is exploring the world, meeting new people doing that content, then using everything I've learned and the connection base I formed to do the level cap group content. I've heard many a story of how this Journey helped develop bonds and foster community interaction, rather heartwarming stuff. I don't hear any of these stories from post-Dungeon Finder times. :(

    Forgot to add what I read from SiegaPlays about her experience with developing a cross-realm network of friends. This is something that in my mind only existed in theory and thought wouldn't be widespread. Does anyone else have more stories or experiences of this nature they'd like to share? To date, this is the only time I heard something develop in a cross-realm matchmaking service. In any case, while it does exist, it has nothing encouraging it beyond sheer force of will by players. Could developers encourage this interaction somehow? Due to how high the server walls are (Server transfer fees, time required, etc) I don't see how this builds a server's community as a whole, though, because of the cross-realm nature. I'm not saying what's going on is wrong, on the contrary I find it heartwarming and encourage more of it, but rather it could be better.

    Then comes the idea whether server communities are outdated and that large-scale game communities are the new thing. I think this is purely subjective and should be judged on a game-to-game basis. It really depends on the game and it's overall community. There are clearly some people who are not really for this 'server community' mentality and that's fine. There is still a hankering for 'server community' however and this ties in strongly with cross-realm functionality and finding the balance of convenience vs community. Pleasing both sides is something I rather not try to wrap my head around until a later day.

    Again, I see the word "evolution" being thrown about. This may be me biased but I still insist that it's an invalid term. It's a different feature, a progress in one direction, but it doesn't suit everything. This can be argued over many genres, the FPS genre and Halo/CoD still being a hot topic even to this day. You may consider this evolution, I just see this as a different way to do this, but not the right one for every game.

    Anonymity is also something I see being brought up. Anonymity can be great for some things, but it can cause a lot of toxic behavior. This is a serious issue of cross-realm matchmaking and one, of many and not the only one, solution is try to strip away this anonymity in some way. I'm not meaning Blizzard's bizarre attempt at sticking real names out in the open. Other ideas should be explored. Perhaps a return to the Battlegroup system? It had it's flaws with server population management like with single server management, but perhaps measures could be taken. This is at least one idea because it helps close the circle. It's a larger pool of players but the chances of repeated 'sightings' of the same people increases and helps develop a 'Battlegroup' community. However, I just go off of some anecdotal evidence and this was mostly done for PvP matchmaking, something I was little a part of, which brings me to...

    PvP matchmaking. The general mentality towards this seems pretty different than the mentality to PvE matchmaking. People are more content with cross-realm, or at least battlegroup, matchmaking here. I honestly cannot give much in the way of first-hand experience on this because it was never my kind of thing in WoW. Do give your thoughts on this. The best I can give is that the idea of the battlegroup seems much better than simply cross-realm and because of the constant queuing nature of battlegrounds having just a single server doesn't work. However, I know there are seperate PvE and PvP communities so people jumped around servers for the PvP rather than PvE back in the day before cross-realm PvP matchmaking. Perhaps if the Battlegroup system were to be used then to have seperate types of battlegroups for PvP and PvE content? Just a thought and not something I can weigh heavily on.

    Now comes the next topic I wanted to talk about: Cross-realm zones. I'm not sure how to feel about this myself. I've heard a lot of horror stories and not much in the way of good. I did level a few characters in MoP and I felt it didn't do much for me. I saw people on other servers but due to things like no world group content what-so-ever and knowing, "Oh, he's on a separate server" didn't cause a lot of social interaction, so I honestly don't get the point. And from that onto:

    Tagging systems. Good point about how WoW's closed tagging system doesn't work in these kind of games. It worked better in vastly more group orientated games like EQ and DAoC but for different reasons. These MMOs are a lot more solo orientated so the popularity of open-tagging has increased immensely and for good reason. It prevents the mentality of not helping others because not only does it help both parties but because it doesn't hinder either party either. Regardless of any cross-realm functionality, this is something I'd like to see in Wildstar, personally.

    Now, I wanted to bring up the only cross-realm feature that actually caught my eye properly. It's the guesting/cross-realm grouping feature. I haven't experienced GW2's guesting first hand but I have in WoW. It was very nice that I didn't have to transfer server to play with my friends in just world shenanigans or content matchmaking. It was very seamless as well because as soon as I grouped I'd be phased into their server. I think something like this would be beneficial because it solves one problem, "Hey, you play too? What server? Oh, that isn't mine, too bad." without opening a lot of issues which cross-realm tends to have. This is because of the closed nature of the system. It requires pre-engagement with the people grouping up, which tend to be friends from wherever adding each other to a list and grouping up this way. There is no anonymity involved and the issues that follow it. To date, this is the only cross-realm feature I can stand 100% behind, but again, that's just me.

    Another idea Sick brought up is cross-realm guilds, which also made me think of cross-realm guild matchmaking. Perhaps guilds across servers could 'group up' for premade PvP or raids? I've mentioned on the guild alliance thread about a guild registry for guild matchmaking purposes, so this could perhaps be used? It's just an idea.

    Sorry if I come across as "You're wrong, I'm right" or anything like that. If I do, I apologize and mean no offense. I guess I'm just like other people and have strong opinions, just like you, so I hope you can forgive that.
  12. SiegaPlays

    SiegaPlays "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denmark
    I agree, a community needs more than warm bodies, it needs the vocal people, who set the trend of how people in the server community acts, sets the standard of communication.

    So the people, who are verbal in public server chats, are the server community, since that is where everyone on the server can talk with each other. I would almost call it inclussive, since everyone have access, if the server community (the vocal people) weren't as standoffish with new people as they are.

    They not only act like they own it, they discourage others from joining in.

    I would go so far as to say that the reason server community is not better than what it is, it is not due to dungeon finders and crossrealm features. It is because it is only as good as the people, who are visible in its public chats and forums, the people whose welcome to the chats define how likely someone will return after a first time introduction and what attitude they will bring to the chat.

    Maybe that is where dungeon finder have an effect -- though it did not have to if the server community choose it -- since before DF happened, people at least would share a common topic about making groups, group destinations, group experiences - not as in experiences with the people in the group, though some tend to, but experiencing content as a group -- while now there is more talk about the experience with other people (and usually not the good kind), rather than sharing anecdotes about the game content. People still do the content, but it is more tantalizing to talk about people, especially since it is a free for all to backstab anonymous from other server, how likely are they to hear about it - though I freequently see people, who does it with same server people too.

    Now the type of "on-topic" chat is limited to guilds pugging 1-2 people for their raids/groups, world raid pugs (both pve and pvp) and people asking for more for the group quests (and sometimes getting told to ask their guild for help and boss off).
    The standard of the rest of the chat is mostly garbage - though maybe that part was in the game before dungeon finder also, but it is now more visible, because the type of chat worth sticking around for in the city is less. Not that sticking around in the city was ever worth much, unless doing AH or crafting business at the same time.

    Scratch that, people found facebook and twitter, so now they do not need to sit around in a city for access to a public chat to roar. Maybe social media is the reason public chats, the megaphone for the server community, lost integrity and game communication. Those likely to use it found other outlets with a potentially bigger audience. They started making podcasts, forums, social media statuses and blogs about games, about server communities, rather than try to take the talk in game and fill the ingame community communication experience with some quality discussions.

    What I am saying it, that more than dungeon finders happened since 2005, that helped deteriorate server communities and the communication - besides "it's the internet" behavior. People also got older and had less time to spend sitting in cities and chatting, the social media megaphone is more accessable.

    Yes, I can understand that the appearance of dungeon finder makes the type of people, who were sought out before for their tanking healing or damage dealing skills ar placement in top guild before, loose a chunk of their ingame heroic community persona, and that it sucks to be them for that reason. It have to suck. Being a sought out community persona feels good, and dungeon finder took that away from them, because those depending on them for grouping went independent, stopped needing to sit around and wait for them to log on.
    Maybe a server community needs role models to look up to as an identifying treat. Some of those willing to put in that extra focus to be exceptionel may need the community attention to motivate them to do so and to stay around, so on that part the community lost out as a whole.

    But for especially those who did not like to or had not enough time to sit around the city to get a group to experience game content and did not have a large active guild community to rely on (maybe for the same reasons), dungeon finder at least added content to spend time on.

    On a off-topic node, I wish more games split up their chats like EQ2 does, though it is hampered by most people still only using the 1-9 level chat, because that is where they get the biggest audience. EQ2 chats have chat channels for classes, level ranges, zone chats, newbie chat (help chat), auction, and a couple of more. I also wish more than zone chat were accessible, while out in the world, because having to sit in the city to talk is detrimental to server communities.

    Why can we not do game content while communicating, why do we have to choose one over the other?
    Dragnog and Yakzan like this.
  13. Yakzan

    Yakzan "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Iceland
    I want to clarify yet again that with cross-realm functionality isn't the arch-nemesis of server communities, nor did I say it was the only factor. It is one of many changing aspects of MMOs and their communities. Server communities have had a lot of issues in the past and action needed to be taken to change this. Like SiegaPlay says, the community is only as good as it's people. This is something I wanted to talk about in another thread at a later date, but I'll touch on a bit now. While I feel that cross-realm matchmaking is counter-productive to producing a strong server community, other actions must be taken to help foster positive interactions, prevent it from being nothing from 'closed groups' of people and discourage toxic behavior. One idea that I brought up earlier is to give the community more power over their server with some sort of way to communicate with the developers and help bring changes on their server as they need and desire rather than what the developer feels is best. Again, cross-realm matchmaking is just a feature that I felt was a step in the wrong direction in trying to create strong communities so we need to take a step back, take a look around, and see what other opportunities there are and there are many.
  14. Dragnog

    Dragnog Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I personally feel that the automated looking for group systems are a result of design constraints rather than a separate feature set that was added. In fact the whole of the concept of "server community" is a by-product of a design constraint rather than a conscious design decision for most games that have a built in looking for group system.

    The design of servers mostly seem to be because of a limitation in hardware rather than a conscious design decision. It is something that developers seem to live with because it is just the way it is and they can not get around certain constraints.

    If there had never have been this constraint would we even be having this conversation?

    I think that there are basic design concepts that promote what some would call anti-social behaviors. People are not rewarded by the designers for the quality of their interaction but for interacting at all.

    I personally much prefer a silent group that says nothing the whole of a dungeon run. The reason for that is that people are much quicker to chastise than praise. When someone says thank you for the run that is enough communication for me. There is two reasons for this:
    1. While you are running the instance I would rather have people concentrating on what they are doing rather than chatting away. I actually think that is more of a distraction and does not show respect for the other people that you are grouping with.
    2. If someone thanks me at the end - this is an appropriate time to communicate but also it means that they actually had a good time.

    I don't understand why some individuals expect that peoples preconceptions of strangers are going to change suddenly when they enter a computer game - in fact I think that peoples opinions are really brought to the forefront in an MMORPG.

    From my experience of cross-realm lfg systems - I have found that eventually you get to know the people you are running with even in a cross realm setting. The reason for this is that the number of people who are logged at the same time as you with similar goals to you even over a number of servers is limited and you will eventually make relationships.

    I would like to see more control over who I can choose to group with. If there are individuals who I would rather not run with again I would like the ability to not run with them again which I am not sure is currently built into a lfg system.

    I personally think from listening to most of people's issues with cross realm lfgs it is not the system itself that is the problem, it is not having any control over who you group with.

    Most systems that I have seen for lfg are a one-size fits all, not because that is the best approach but because it covers the most number of people. Developers are going to spend most of their time doing things that support the largest number of people and that is what is going to take priority. I for one understand this approach and it makes the most sense to most people.

    I am sure developers agonize time and time again about features that are just not going to make it, but it is going to be the things that effect the largest number of people that are going to take precedent. I do not envy them their job at all.

    If the constraint for server size still exists and the game focuses on the acquisition of gear to improve your character from group play involving particular roles also exists then there will need to be a cross-server lfg to allow for a reasonable length of time for ongoing game play through the life of the game. I would think for the majority of those who find this unpalatable that the addition of options to allow them to choose who they group with would resolve most issues.
    SiegaPlays, Ingsoc and Yakzan like this.
  15. Lethality

    Lethality "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    My feeling is that the hardware and infrastructure limitation was a part of it, but I also believe it was a conscious design decision to keep a segmented population.

    For one, think of the design of the world and playspace... the scale of things, areas for questing, etc. How do you keep enough players but without making it feel like Wal-Mart on Christmas Eve while you're out hunting boars, waiting in line for them to spawn? So I think the world size and population cap were as much a product of game design as any sort of tech limitations.

    Also, think about the systems and interfaces that players use to communicate with other players and systems in the game. A larger scale, and some of them would break - imagine a game-wide general chat channel... things would scroll by so quickly, they would be un-noitced. So players would likely segment them off manually somehow.

    WoW has all but done away with the idea of servers, except to keep it as your home-base for a) chat b) economy and b) end-game community (not counting LFR). It has worked out pretty well, so it can be done but there are key elements that have to remain on a smaller "server" scale for them to work will, I believe!
    Yakzan likes this.
  16. SiegaPlays

    SiegaPlays "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denmark
    The topic is subjective, so every post is the truth to the poster. Can't really say anyone is right or wrong, just that their experience is not the same experience one self had.

    One could say that they choose to play their way, but I am more inclined to think this is a lack of balance in rewards, the xp in dungeons is too good for the time spent than questing is.

    I have been levelling alts a lot lately, since my mother accepted refer a friend. 3 sets of toons we quested all levels, not a single dungeon. However, one set of toons, the last one, is intirely levelled with dungeons from lvl 15 and up. We have done some of the "epic" levelling quests, like the blood ring types, and the opening quests for new xpacs, but other than that, it have been all dungeons. It have been efficient xp, and for my mother a way to experience with the lower level dungeons, she did not have with the other sets. So you could say she got more experience with game content and lore doing it this the last time around. We already did the content multiple times (myself 10 times, and it was my suggestion we did the last set through dungeons).

    For some people games is all about max level, everything before then needs to be efficient, including group members. While some of us may find they are missing out and want to implement enforced lore experience, it is more likely to chase them off the game.

    Anonymous battletag friend requests through right clicking a person in group and adding a note. Right now I do not feel inclined to try adding people - even if they seem very much like minded - without asking them first, and most groups part ways right after the last boss kill, those I have are people I stayed in the dungeon with, because the group passed by their quest objectives, and I like to help, when I know the answer.

    I do not want to share my battletag without knowing first that the other end of a request is inclined to accept. If it were anynomous, a person can view pending request when back on their own server again.

    I believe they are outdated mastadonts that only emerged due to technical limitations. Alternatives have exsisted, but without a proper toolset to support them, it takes a lot of work on the community leaders part to keep together.

    The new communties could for instance be tied to guild co-op/alliances instead, with the addition of friends list. Cross realm guild alliances would work too with the appropriate alliance toolset, since it is not the realms, but the alliance that is the focus. Something that kind of works like the battletag for crossrealm friends grouping.

    Those not guilded could have no-guilder public alliance to form a no-guilder community, if they are so inclined. I know, it is not perfect, but it is the start of an idea that could work with some tweaks to initial "baby" issues.

    But an alliance toolset could definitly be used to replace server community with a community where members have a stronger sense of belonging. Maybe even add toolsets not just the element of faction vs faction and guild vs guild challenges, but also the element of alliance vs alliance encounters.

    I agree. The anonymity is a problem bonded with the "it's the internet" effect on people behavior, and also Blizzards real name were not a good solution. I did not mind, but I know a good number of people, who did. Battletags btw is the more anonymous realname ID replacement, still even I am hesitant at sharing it with any stranger I just met without talking first. Unfortunately cross server whispers outside group and batteltag friended is not an option as far as I know.

    But there are solutions to the anonymity problems, some of them posted here on these forums, and at least one reference to an article by "our own" Gazimoff on the topic of dungeons finders and how to handle this particular issue.

    I believe it is because of the competitve effect. Those entering as pre-made are usually same server or guild and they go against "the others", those that are not "us". So crossrealm battlegrounds actually help the pvp community on a server to identify themselves as a community, because it provide an almost unlimited access to opponents.

    Acting like jerks is also tolerated better, if not downright expected.

    My ignore list is btw purely from adding crossrealm pvp'ers to it, that spend more time whining about the group they are in, rather than trying to do their best to win. I prefer to listen to constructive commentaries, so I ignore those who fail to be up to my standard of expectations. I am such an elitist :rolleyes:

    Those solo queuing do so for efficiency, to get over with their daily points for gear, kind of like the majority of dungeon finder people. Removing pvp gear progression might change the pvp solo queuer landscape.

    Of the things to improve on pvp matchmaking would be to make matches by how much pvp power they have (wether or not this comes from pvp gear progression /sigh).

    Premades should be matched by the average power in group with an added penalty for group synergy, to make up for the better organisation premades usually have. Solo players should be matched by the pvp power alone.

    If queues are long or faction balance wonky, matching teams against same faction teams of same pvp power level should go before matching different types of pvp power levels to get a faction vs faction encounter.
    Like pretty much all of the crossrealm topic, crossrealm zones are subjective. I have not experienced any ill effects from it from a community point of view. There was some horrible technical issues with the implementation, like my mother getting parachuted off my passenger mount everytime we passed a crossrealm zone line. That was quit annoying, but we learned to laugh at it rather than grief.

    I agree fully on the crossrealm grouping potential for friends. Some of my friends have alts on other servers and we are still able to group, done more than a couple of sha runs together too. It is awesome, and while Trion solved this particular problem with free server transfers, which is more flexible than paid transfers, I do like Blizzards solution with crossrealm grouping a lot more, because it makes servers obsolete, when it comes to grouping with friends, and you do not have to uproot your connection to your guild and friends community to do it.
    Yakzan likes this.
  17. Ingsoc

    Ingsoc Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I can't speak to other games, but WoW does currently have this functionality. If you put another player on your ignore list, the LFG system will not group you with that player again. I do not know if this extends to LFR, but I would presume it does.

    On the other side of the argument, it's easy to ask someone you enjoy playing with for their Battle Tag, and add them to your friends list. From what I have personally observed though, most players rarely do this.

    The ability to make new, cross-server friends and group with people again is there, but very few people take advantage of this. I don't think we can blame the system for that.
  18. SiegaPlays

    SiegaPlays "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denmark
    Any idea if it does for PvP matches? I would definitly be more encouraged to use ignore there, than I am already am, if I knew it would decrease repeated matches with toxic personalities.
  19. Dragnog

    Dragnog Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ironically on day one you still feel like that but it is a fleeting thing. I still see this as a constraint where the concept of dynamic sharding was not feasible at the time. Now I think that we are starting to see a change in this especially with concepts such as the mega server.

    Yes I agree and I feel that is the right way round. instead of the developer having to put in an artificial barrier groups will form by themselves.

    Thinking back to the night when we all played Tera the most common thing for most people to do immediately was turn off General Chat. I wonder what the percentage of players who that immediately in a game is? Is general chat even a useful tool for creating community?

    I agree that if you feel community is important then it should be somehow catered for but I feel that the onus to create community needs to come from the player base.

    For a game that seems to be focused on the players having a say it is going to be interesting to see what tools they have in mind for us!
    SiegaPlays and Yakzan like this.
  20. Yakzan

    Yakzan "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Iceland
    I think we're going into trickier waters here and related to something else I want to discuss at another time (Communities, their types, reputation, etc) which is completely understandable and nothing wrong with it because the most frustrating and fascinating things about MMOs is that all these systems interweave so deeply that each one affects the other in vast ways.

    I'd like to mention one story about how the 'sharding' server structure came about, in terms of how hardware limitations effected this. UO was originally going to have a single-server but there was so much interest there was no way the server could handle them. Thus, the idea of having separate servers came about and the term 'shard' came from Richard Garriot using a part of Ultima lore where a crystal shattered and each shard was a different 'dimension' of the same world. It was something like that, at least. In any case, server communities evolved from this which is an aspect of emergent gameplay. That's just one MMO design that emerged from necessity. It doesn't always apply, and I'd like to emphasize for the millionth time to make sure it's out there, that each design doesn't always need to apply to each game. EVE is an example of a mega-server that works and has it's own massive community, but the game is entirely designed around this. Since these times, MMOs have, whether due to UO or not, used 'sharding' for a reason. One reason would be the inherent design of the game simply could not support massive populations. WoW would never work with it's entire playerbase on a single server because of how the world is built, regardless of hardware. Of course, TESO's proposed approach of instancing is one way to handle it. In the end, it'll appeal to that crowd while people who like server communities will go to other games that support it.

    I'd just want to put out there that I feel that server communities are far from outdated. It's just that new forms of communities are being formed from the changing landscape of MMO features and their communities. Also, server communities does not necessarily mean niche and large-game communities does not mean mainstream. Server communities could also be viewed as sub-communities of the large-game community. Personally, I wouldn't like to see one type discouraged in place of another. Each type has it's place but it's a question of when and where. Like SiegaPlays said, it is highly subjective. What I mostly disagree with is that server communities are outdated because it's only one type of community, which some people want, while there are the large-game communities which other people want, and that's fine. Back to the analogy of the big city and the small towns. Some people get around better in big cities with their sub-communities while others prefer the small town vibe. This is perfectly okay. I just don't want different designs dismissed because you look unfavourably towards them. I personally don't like the large-game communities that have emerged from current MMO design and communities, but I cannot deny they have their place and they belong as much as server communities do.

    Regardless of the community structure, robust tools should be made to accommodate. Cross-server guilds is something GW2 has done to some success, for example. Cross-server alliances is showing some support as well. In the end, it's really up to the developers how they want to handle it. If they want "old school" server communities, they'll design the game around this and provide for that audience. If they want to embrace the newer, large-game MMO communities, then they'll design around that as well. What I'm seeing is that they're trying to find a compromise between the two. This is extremely risky and potentially dangerous but the payoff could be huge if they manage to succeed. As long as everyone has their place and they're happy with it, then mission accomplished.

Share This Page