109 replies to this topic

[Frakov]

Genesis, on 07 July 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Ah, the "incentive" word. In MMOs, "incentive" is code for either "obligated" or "stupid to turn down due to a material bonus." But yes, you are proposing "forced fun," but what you describe in the bold is what GW2 already provides through dynamic events. Requiring people to do anything more than that would be coercive on people's time commitments, which is antithetical to ArenaNet's GW2 design goals. The option to blow people off while questing or doing dungeons exists in every single MMO to date as well. What can you possibly add to the game that would change that and would not be twisting people's arms to do it?

"Forced fun" would suggest that GW2 is very linear when in-fact you have a lot of options depending on what you want to do. If the only way to experience the game was by talking to people then that would be forced. It's like how Guild Wars 2 has a crafting system. There is incentive to craft stuff, but players are not forced to craft stuff. In addition to satisfying that player's desire to craft, the player is rewarded with whatever he made along with exp. Likewise there should be added incentive for socializing which isn't necessary to play the game but enriches the experience.

Edited by Frakov, 07 July 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[Zephire]

I do think GW2 promotes social gameplay in a more natural an positive way compared to other MMO's for two reasons: Being around, on the same quest, or in the same group as another player isn't bad and there's no forcing people to group.

In other games, even while doing dungeons and raids, the positive aspects of being grouped with other players have negative counterparts to them -- sometimes the negatives even outweighing the positives. And in general, kill stealing, mob tagging, loot for only one player, resource node stealing, ninjaing, and otherwise griefing breeds a suspicion or dislike of other players. Friends and some guildmates are exempt from this (usually) but there's very much a fear of the "other" player.

GW2 elegantly put an end to pretty much all the negatives to interacting and being in the same area as other players. Without that wariness between players who don't know each other, there's a far better chance of people fostering friendships and in general building a positive community in-game.

As for my second point, forcing people to group when they don't want to, or with people they don't like, tends to breed resentment which doesn't make people want to be social. Sometimes forced grouping isn't bad and people can make friends that way, but if you don't want to group with someone, very little will change your mind. I think we can all recall a time when we were forced to play with a kid we weren't friends with, or a teacher assigned us to a group without any of our friends. Even if it wasn't bad, it wasn't usually fun and doing the project solo was even preferable in some cases. Forced grouping, at least for me, feels the exact same.

The social aspects of GW2 just feel so much more natural and organic. You can pick and choose who you talk with and don't ever need to form parties with anyone you don't want to outside of dungeons, and being in the same place as another player is only a positive experience. And sure there wasn't a lot of chatting going on in BWE1 due to the limited chat system at the time, but during BWE2 I noticed a lot more talking going on. And that was with less people than there will be during launch, and when people don't have a limit on how much they can play.

GW2 is very much an inclusive game and as such, I think fosters a lot more positive interactions between players. And if the BWE's are any indication of what the game will be like when it's released, it will be one of the friendliest gaming communities I've been a part of.

[HappyDragon]

"Social gameplay" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Is working together a social activity? I would say yes. In GW2, you're always on the same team with the people nearby, in a sense. Everyone who contributes gets their own drops. Everyone is capable of reviving other players and it's to their advantage to do so. More people equals more damage, more potential combo fields and more meat shields. In some areas of the game it's still vital to form a party. You can't do a dungeon run without a decently coordinated group.

[Rhydian]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

"Forced fun" would suggest that GW2 is very linear when in-fact you have a lot of options depending on what you want to do. If the only way to experience the game was by talking to people then that would be forced. It's like how Guild Wars 2 has a crafting system. There is incentive to craft stuff, but players are not forced to craft stuff. In addition to satisfying that player's desire to craft, the player is rewarded with whatever he made along with exp. Likewise there should be added incentive for socializing which isn't necessary to play the game but enriches the experience.

I feel like you should define what you mean by incentive, one persons incentive is another persons personal hell.

[Ghostwing]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

"Forced fun" would suggest that GW2 is very linear when in-fact you have a lot of options depending on what you want to do. If the only way to experience the game was by talking to people then that would be forced. It's like how Guild Wars 2 has a crafting system. There is incentive to craft stuff, but players are not forced to craft stuff. In addition to satisfying that player's desire to craft, the player is rewarded with whatever he made along with exp. Likewise there should be added incentive for socializing which isn't necessary to play the game but enriches the experience.

Let's take that crafting example. If GW2 required me to level crafting in order to access certain dungeons, crafting becomes forced. It is no longer just an incentive.

Right now, you have incentives to join guilds. There are boosts, etc, on top of social interaction. If they made content that required being in a guild, it's forced. That's just what it is.

[Frakov]

Rhydian, on 07 July 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

I feel like you should define what you mean by incentive, one persons incentive is another persons personal hell.

The incentive would depend on the idea. For example, earlier in this thread I put up a couple ideas which would provide added incentive:

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

I can think of two which may benefit different players:

1) A mentor/master and apprentice system. Players at a certain level can volunteer to team up with new players of the same class to teach them the game or just help them out in the beginning. GW2 does a fair job of guiding new players, but all the different mechanics can still be confusing for people transitioning from other games or people who are new to MMOs altogether. Basically the mentor/master gets paid by their race's respective government at a regular rate for however long they team up with the new player. To prevent people from exploiting this, the master/apprentice system would end upon the apprentice reaching level 20 or after the apprentice's /age goes past a certain amount of hours in-game. The apprentice could terminate at any time if (s)he doesn't find the mentor/master helpful or friendly which encourages volunteers to do their best in taking the system seriously. Two accounts would not be able to have a master/apprentice agreement more than once to prevent further exploitation.

2) Escort/Tour guide system. Similar to the above idea, two players could enter an agreement whereby the escort, or tour guide, will be rewarded karma for exploring and discovering new points of interest in a zone. The incentive to "hire" an escort/tour guide instead of a random person in General chat is the player knows that the other player is getting rewarded for his/her time and is therefore more likely to do the task efficiently. To prevent escorts/tour guides from wasting time just to accumulate more karma, they would be rewarded per square unit explored so the team would always be looking for new stuff to explore. Of course this arrangement would end at any time should either party becomes dissatisfied. The arrangement would eventually end up worthless to the escort after the other player has already explored most of the zones (since the escort is rewarded only as new areas are uncovered, not by time committed). This would encourage social interaction because it would be a long and lonely tour without any chatting (unless both players prefer it that way in which it would still be mutually beneficial).

This isn't the only way it could be done, but as you can see there are different possibilities.

Ghostwing, on 07 July 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Let's take that crafting example. If GW2 required me to level crafting in order to access certain dungeons, crafting becomes forced. It is no longer just an incentive.

Right now, you have incentives to join guilds. There are boosts, etc, on top of social interaction. If they made content that required being in a guild, it's forced. That's just what it is.

But I'm not suggesting they make joining a guild a requirement. In fact, I've hinted in this thread that GW2's current guild system needs a lot of work as it is before additional ideas are tossed around to bring it in another direction. I also don't think I advocated "forcing" people to do anything specific to play the game. In the post you quoted, I was showing how having incentive doesn't necessarily mean forcing people to do something which is what some people are concerned about.

Edited by Frakov, 07 July 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[Genesis]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

"Forced fun" would suggest that GW2 is very linear when in-fact you have a lot of options depending on what you want to do. If the only way to experience the game was by talking to people then that would be forced. It's like how Guild Wars 2 has a crafting system. There is incentive to craft stuff, but players are not forced to craft stuff. In addition to satisfying that player's desire to craft, the player is rewarded with whatever he made along with exp. Likewise there should be added incentive for socializing which isn't necessary to play the game but enriches the experience.

"Forced fun" suggests to me that you are twisting people's arms to talk to each other through in-organic coercion, which implies nothing about the linearity of the game. People are able to craft at their leisure and for a multitude of purposes, which provide minimal rewards for putting your time and effort into crafting, but crafting is a skill that is not inherently dependent on other players. Grouping does not necessitate talking or socialization, so we can rule out incentives for grouping. What do you propose then? That players be given exp or loot per word count for socializing with other players? This brings me back to my earlier point:

Genesis, on 07 July 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Ah, the "incentive" word. In MMOs, "incentive" is code for either "obligated" or "stupid to turn down due to a material bonus."

Crafting is there, but no one is forced or even necessarily "strongly encouraged" to craft. It's there and you receive rewards for dedicating yourself to crafting as you would leveling. But what you want is for people to socialize a certain way, which basically does require some arm-twisting.

[Ghostwing]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

This isn't the only way it could be done, but as you can see there are different possibilities.

Sure, they can have incentives, such as the ones you listed, in addition to the incentives they have now. Just because there can be more incentives to group up doesn't mean the game, in its current state, discourages social interaction. It has plenty of incentives to be guilded already.

[Frakov]

Ghostwing, on 07 July 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Sure, they can have incentives, such as the ones you listed, in addition to the incentives they have now. Just because there can be more incentives to group up doesn't mean the game, in its current state, discourages social interaction. It has plenty of incentives to be guilded already.

See edited version of that post you quoted. I had just read your reply after I posted it.

[Ghostwing]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

But I'm not suggesting they make joining a guild a requirement. In fact, I've hinted in this thread that GW2's current guild system needs a lot of work as it is before additional ideas are tossed around to bring it in another direction. I also don't think I advocated "forcing" people to do anything specific to play the game. In the post you quoted, I was showing how having incentive doesn't necessarily mean forcing people to do something which is what some people are concerned about.

I guess I'm lost. You said "Others have been saying that by removing the need for people to group and talk to each other, GW2 is actually discouraging people who would otherwise not talk to each other to develop any substantial relationships with other players" in your original post.

Having a need for people to group is forcing people to group.

There are plenty of incentives to group up and form guilds already. http://wiki.guildwar...fluence#Economy

As for the guild system being flawed...even if it is, how does the game in its current incarnation discourage people to group up other than not requiring them in order to access content, as per your first post?

Everyone else is saying it doesn't discourage people from grouping or guilding. It just doesn't require them to.

Edited by Ghostwing, 07 July 2012 - 08:34 AM.

[Frakov]

Ghostwing, on 07 July 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

I guess I'm lost. You said "Others have been saying that by removing the need for people to group and talk to each other, GW2 is actually discouraging people who would otherwise not talk to each other to develop any substantial relationships with other players" in your original post.

Having a need for people to group is forcing people to group.

There are plenty of incentives to group up and form guilds already. http://wiki.guildwar...fluence#Economy

As for the guild system being flawed...even if it is, how does the game in its current incarnation discourage people to group up other than not requiring them in order to access content?

What I was trying to say in my original post was that even though players "group up" naturally in the open-world there aren't systems in place which bring really different types of players into a social setting. When I said that the lack of a need to group was the reason behind this, I didn't mean to suggest that having players need each other is the only way to encourage social activity. As I mentioned in that post, I was trying to paraphrase what others have said in regards to the subject.

Personally I believe requiring players to do stuff together is the extreme way of doing it. The TV series, Lost comes to mind in which a bunch of strangers are stranded together on an island and end up developing relationships with each other in order to survive and cope. That doesn't mean getting yourself stranded together with a bunch of strangers is the best way to develop meaningful relationships with strangers. The examples I posted earlier of incentive are a lot more moderate I think and serve just as well. However there are probably still more possibilities.

Edited by Frakov, 07 July 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[AmelieBird]

Astralprojections, on 07 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I think this game has the potential to be very social. The game encourages you to group up with people and eliminates things that cause conflict. Personally during the BWEs, I wasn't talking much to anyone because I was learning how to play the game and the skills for my new professions. Also I was so excited to be finally playing this game that I was just running aound looking at new things more than wanting to interact with people. Once the "new game" excitement is over, I think people will start recognizing people they have seen before and start talking to others and making friends. I don't think the BWEs are a good way to judge what the social scene will be like when the game is more mature.

I agree with this quote, on a personal basis, as I was doing pretty much the same thing.  

I started playing GW almost 7 years ago and have loved all the interaction with people over the years (except for the trolls!) . But what I love so far with GW2 (and now miss a great deal in GW1) is coming across other players while travelling around. I Know other mmo's have this but I only play GW so cannot compare.
In the BWE I really liked  knowing that everyone was a noob, just like me, and that we were all discovering things for the first time. Once I had got the hang of the chat channel in the 2nd bwe, I was really able to make the most of chance encounters. I do agree that there could be more improvements with the chat channel too.

At release it will all be more relaxed and we will all, as a previous poster said, get the chance to hang out and chat more with people. Another thing I love is being able to say goodnight to the world!

[Ghostwing]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

What I was trying to say in my original post was that even though players "group up" naturally in the open-world there aren't systems in place which bring really different types of players into a social setting. When I said that the lack of a need to group was the reason behind this, I didn't mean to suggest that having players need each other is the only way to encourage social activity. As I mentioned in that post, I was trying to paraphrase what others have said in regards to the subject.

Personally I believe requiring players to do stuff together is the extreme way of doing it. The TV series, Lost comes to mind in which a bunch of strangers are stranded together on an island and end up developing relationships with each other in order to survive and cope. That doesn't mean getting yourself stranded together with a bunch of strangers is the best way to develop meaningful relationships with strangers. The examples I posted earlier of incentive are a lot more moderate I think and serve just as well. However there are probably still more possibilities.

Oh OK, thanks for clarifying.

I think in its current state, it offers plenty of incentives to socialize. It wouldn't hurt to have more, although personally I think it's unnecessary. The escort system you mentioned is nice because, like crafting, it comes with an opportunity cost.

[Hedge]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

The fun isn't forced. Fun is what may result when people... [..]

May. Fun is what may result. For others, as other people have stated, it is just a way of enforcing only one kind of gameplay. I like that there is finally a game that I can group with friends if I want to. I don't play this to make new "friends" or the like. I play it to enjoy the story, enjoy the events and enjoy a game I can play with my friends. I dislike games that are forcing me to interact with people whom I have no desire to group with, just for the sake of playing content. Now, you may say that I shouldn't play an mmo, because the game is inherently social, and I agree. But for once there is an mmo with a new take on social interaction, and I quite substantially prefer the way GW2 has implemented it. But to each his own, I guess.

And as others have stated, if you want to group, you can group. If you don't, then don't. Thank you, Anet. <3

[Craywulf]

Frakov, sounds like the social setting you are looking for is rather one-sided. I get the feeling you are looking for a way to prevent players from rejecting your request to interact with you, whether it's conversational or grouping up. If I need to group up, I'll have no choice to join your group. That's bribery and basically hands you all the power because it's your group and I have no other choice to join if I want to succeed. Calling that a positive for social gameplay is seriously flawed logic.

I'd rather the grouping be a mutual thing, guilds in GW2 are going be more like friends you hang out with, because you can join more than one guild. They aren't exclusively looked at as if they are teams or private clubs. But hey it's your choice if you wanna set up a guild like that, it's just going be a lot rejections if you start requiring certain statistical standards to remain a member of your guild. Simply because there isn't any mechanics in PvE that require you to be part of a guild to advance.

If you want your guild to actually grow, you're gonna have to be more social. ArenaNet isn't gonna do it for you.

Edited by Craywulf, 07 July 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[Red_Falcon]

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

Others have been saying that by removing the need for people to group and talk to each other, GW2 is actually discouraging people who would otherwise not talk to each other to develop any substantial relationships with other players.

I really don't see how the game could discourage relationships between players compared to any other MMO, what's the fundament behind that statement, if there is any?
In GW2 there isn't more or less need to socialize than in other games; people are still going to form guilds, team up for group content, etc.
There is nothing that I can see that could limit socialization somehow - I actually see an improvement in the fact that you don't constantly see other players as a threat (kill/loot stealers), so it actually pushes players to talk to each other.

As long as GW2 does not -force- socialization or rewards anti-social behaviors, I'm fine.
The game doesn't have not need to do anything to make me socialize, that decision is up to me as a player and person.
All it has to do is allow both solo and group play to be viable, and so far it's going in the right direction.

I feel that a good MMO should never make you dependant on others nor make others be a threat to you outside PvP.

Edited by Red_Falcon, 07 July 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Enforcer]

Arewn, on 07 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

Any detection methods for gold botting services through the mail would also work in face to face trading though. I've heard Anet wants to avoid trading because of scams, but scams can and will happen anyways, players just have to be informed and intelligent in trading.
And yea I've heard they want to implement duels after launch too can't wait to find all those nice dueling spots out in tyria, I've already seen a few me and my friend wanted to try out.

Like jumping puzzle? I have the same mind then xD

[Frakov]

Hedge, on 07 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

May. Fun is what may result. For others, as other people have stated, it is just a way of enforcing only one kind of gameplay. I like that there is finally a game that I can group with friends if I want to. I don't play this to make new "friends" or the like. I play it to enjoy the story, enjoy the events and enjoy a game I can play with my friends. I dislike games that are forcing me to interact with people whom I have no desire to group with, just for the sake of playing content. Now, you may say that I shouldn't play an mmo, because the game is inherently social, and I agree. But for once there is an mmo with a new take on social interaction, and I quite substantially prefer the way GW2 has implemented it. But to each his own, I guess.

And as others have stated, if you want to group, you can group. If you don't, then don't. Thank you, Anet. <3

Craywulf, on 07 July 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Frakov, sounds like the social setting you are looking for is rather one-sided. I get the feeling you are looking for a way to prevent players from rejecting your request to interact with you, whether it's conversational or grouping up. If I need to group up, I'll have no choice to join your group. That's bribery and basically hands you all the power because it's your group and I have no other choice to join if I want to succeed. Calling that a positive for social gameplay is seriously flawed logic.

I'd rather the grouping be a mutual thing, guilds in GW2 are going be more like friends you hang out with, because you can join more than one guild. They aren't exclusively looked at as if they are teams or private clubs. But hey it's your choice if you wanna set up a guild like that, it's just going be a lot rejections if you start requiring certain statistical standards to remain a member of your guild. Simply because there isn't any mechanics in PvE that require you to be part of a guild to advance.

If you want your guild to actually grow, you're gonna have to be more social. ArenaNet isn't gonna do it for you.

As I said in my previous posts, I'm not advocating forced grouping by which players would have to group up with people to do stuff, although dungeons do that to some extent already. I thought my previous post made that clear:

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

What I was trying to say in my original post was that even though players "group up" naturally in the open-world there aren't systems in place which bring really different types of players into a social setting. When I said that the lack of a need to group was the reason behind this, I didn't mean to suggest that having players need each other is the only way to encourage social activity. As I mentioned in that post, I was trying to paraphrase what others have said in regards to the subject.

Personally I believe requiring players to do stuff together is the extreme way of doing it. The TV series, Lost comes to mind in which a bunch of strangers are stranded together on an island and end up developing relationships with each other in order to survive and cope. That doesn't mean getting yourself stranded together with a bunch of strangers is the best way to develop meaningful relationships with strangers. The examples I posted earlier of incentive are a lot more moderate I think and serve just as well. However there are probably still more possibilities.

[Cruxisinhibitor]

Genesis, on 07 July 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Which is what happens now in GW2.

There's no reason for people to talk to each other in any MMO questing system. Sorry, but it's true.

Again, like most MMOs over time. I don't see how "circumstantial grouping" will change that.

You do realize that this is one of GW2's biggest selling point as that prevents class dependency?

It's to the point where one class doesn't really stand out against another, this breeds a lack of depth in the skill variety and combat teamwork. It may be a selling point to more whiny and casual MMO players, but in terms of design, it is very very bad.

[anzenketh]

I think a lot of the problem with lack of party that some pepole are talking about has a lot to do with it being a persistent open world and the requirments. You need to be able to play alone in a open world. You need to play in a party in a instanced world.

As for the social aspect. Just like in the real world. There is no way to get shy pepole to be social. I don't think that would be fixed even in a forced party.

For those that want to be social however. I think they will like this system a lot more. There are a lot more systems in place to ignore the pepole that do not encurage social encounters.

Oh and there are events in the world that may require parties. The group events at minimum will require 5 pepole. If it is a slow time on the server or there is no-one else around someone will need to get 4 other pepole interested in doing the event in order to complete it. At those times cordnation will be needed due to the group events are as hard as the bosses in the dungons. With less pepole then 10 it is a lot harder to complete.

Frakov, on 07 July 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

I don't know what the substance of those talks were with the groups you were with in the area, but after people have done everything in those areas time and time again, I expect there will be less talking and more just getting it done for the sake of doing it.

I think the opposite will happen. Why? Becouse pepole going into lower areas are not nessesarly farming or grinding for something. They are going down to the lower levels to hang out with the noobs or to complete a lower level area. The lack of difficulty in the lower level areas frees up both mind and hands for talking.

This part deserves repeating.

Zephire, on 07 July 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

snip....

As for my second point, forcing people to group when they don't want to, or with people they don't like, tends to breed resentment which doesn't make people want to be social. Sometimes forced grouping isn't bad and people can make friends that way, but if you don't want to group with someone, very little will change your mind. I think we can all recall a time when we were forced to play with a kid we weren't friends with, or a teacher assigned us to a group without any of our friends. Even if it wasn't bad, it wasn't usually fun and doing the project solo was even preferable in some cases. Forced grouping, at least for me, feels the exact same.

snip...

[Utility]

anzenketh, on 07 July 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

What systems would you recommend they implement to allow you to seamlessly enter with random people?
Furthermore what is the purpose of a actual group that is formed into a party?

Havn't read the remainder of posts so not sure if this is mentioned.

I would add a feature that autogroups you with others doing a specific DE or are in close proximity fighting the same critters.

To do this I would something like a dialog box in the chat pop up - saying something to the effect. "You are about to be grouped with XYZ... Click here to decline."

I only had time to play in the second BWE but noticed that once a DE was over a lot of people went in many different directions.

A system like the above would encourage more people to play together for longer periods and enhance the group dynamic.

I am sure a part of that was just because it was the BWE and people wanted to race around and find lots of different stuff.  Regardless, if the game is meant to be more community oriented if Anet implements something that gives players a push in that direction it would be helpful.

The problem is that because you are able to come and go as you please - do in part to the scaling of events and the fact you gain exp no matter how long you play an event through, there is less incentive to stay as part of a group.  

If, however, you are kindof autogrouped there will be more of a bond between the players and players will be more inclined to stay with each other through multiple events and areas.

[anzenketh]

Utility, on 07 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Havn't read the remainder of posts so not sure if this is mentioned.

I would add a feature that autogroups you with others doing a specific DE or are in close proximity fighting the same critters.

To do this I would something like a dialog box in the chat pop up - saying something to the effect. "You are about to be grouped with XYZ... Click here to decline."

I only had time to play in the second BWE but noticed that once a DE was over a lot of people went in many different directions.

A system like the above would encourage more people to play together for longer periods and enhance the group dynamic.

I am sure a part of that was just because it was the BWE and people wanted to race around and find lots of different stuff.  Regardless, if the game is meant to be more community oriented if Anet implements something that gives players a push in that direction it would be helpful.

The problem is that because you are able to come and go as you please - do in part to the scaling of events and the fact you gain exp no matter how long you play an event through, there is less incentive to stay as part of a group.  

If, however, you are kindof autogrouped there will be more of a bond between the players and players will be more inclined to stay with each other through multiple events and areas.

I could see this feature being a annoyance to some people.

[Dream Catcher]

I believe it does, I also believe it does it a lot better than any other Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, the key is in the genre name.

Edited by Dream Catcher, 07 July 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[Zephire]

Utility, on 07 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Havn't read the remainder of posts so not sure if this is mentioned.

I would add a feature that autogroups you with others doing a specific DE or are in close proximity fighting the same critters.

To do this I would something like a dialog box in the chat pop up - saying something to the effect. "You are about to be grouped with XYZ... Click here to decline."

I only had time to play in the second BWE but noticed that once a DE was over a lot of people went in many different directions.

A system like the above would encourage more people to play together for longer periods and enhance the group dynamic.

I am sure a part of that was just because it was the BWE and people wanted to race around and find lots of different stuff.  Regardless, if the game is meant to be more community oriented if Anet implements something that gives players a push in that direction it would be helpful.

The problem is that because you are able to come and go as you please - do in part to the scaling of events and the fact you gain exp no matter how long you play an event through, there is less incentive to stay as part of a group.  

If, however, you are kindof autogrouped there will be more of a bond between the players and players will be more inclined to stay with each other through multiple events and areas.

I could see such a system working, if it were opt-in and it would only allow instant grouping with others who have opted in. That way players who do want to form official parties with random people throughout the game can do so.

And I say opt-in because if it were opt-out it would mean a lot of windows popping up, and if someone doesn't see the window or click it in time, they might suddenly find themselves in the awkward spot of being in a group they don't want to be in.

And while I can't speak for others, forced/auto-grouping has never made me feel a bond with other players. If I'm not playing with a friend, guildmate, or helping someone out, odds are I'm grouping just because myself and some other random people have no other choice. And that's assuming I even feel like doing the content after learning I need to group with people I don't know. It can be pleasant enough if everyone's nice and polite, but all it takes is one bad apple to ruin the whole thing.

As I recall, 40% or 50% of people are introverts. Forcing introverts into situations where they need to or are expected to be social, especially with people they don't know, is not conducive to a social experience, either for the introvert or extrovert. Sure some introverts don't mind just like some extroverts don't like being with people they don't know, but the concept is the same that you're forcing someone to do something there's no need for them to do and the end result won't end up how you want it to be and it just ends up sucking for everyone involved.

Playing with others and helping others out without formally grouping up is a good thing, especially now that being around others is a positive experience that benefits everyone. And again, I can only speak from my experience, but during the BWE I noticed a lot of people not in a formal group still sticking together and going through a series of renowned areas and DE's. Sometimes there was talking, other times it was silence, but the fact that there's no pressure to socialize and you can walk away when you want without "Player X has left the party" allowed players to interact at a level they're comfortable with and had no repercussions if they decided to leave.

[Utility]

Zephire, on 07 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

snip

I agree.  I just threw that out there on quick thought.

Maybe even something simple like "enable autogrouping" in the options menu.

[Datenshi92]

"The same coin as always two sides".

It has good intentions but ofc, if you go deeper into it, there is always a "but"...

[Utility]

Datenshi92, on 07 July 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

"The same coin as always two sides".

It has good intentions but ofc, if you go deeper into it, there is always a "but"...

That's always the case...Just like the game...the DE and scaling has good intentions and as much as the dev's want to have a very social game the fact that there are not mandatory quests that require grouping can reduce the player interaction.

[Requiamer]

I always hated when my mom used to say "look this is your friend", say him hello" even though it was the first time i ever saw the kid. I don't need this anymore thank you.

I think that was my worst grip about themepark, all that "encourage socialization", more like forcing it tbh, but whatever. Nha thanks, i hope this is done for good.

I'll rather shut up with the kids, turn around him a bit, then go play some game if it sound fun, then ask him his name, rather than the mom, erk! no *ing way... I'm to old for this now

[RabidusIncendia]

I don't think there's a problem here.  If you're worried about incentive, the game will always be easier playing in a party of 5 with a guardian, it's a lot easier that way.  You just have the option not to do so here.  I didn't party in the BWEs but that's because I was constantly messing around with new chars, playing the market, and exploring.  If I were serious about leveling, I would party any day.

The only annoying thing I find about GW2 is it seems you can't do heart quests as a group very well.  If someone's still working on the quest, you have to wait for them to finish it before moving on, as opposed to party-wide quest triggers.

Also nitpick:

Zephire, on 07 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

As I recall, 40% or 50% of people are introverts.

Pretty sure it's as low as 20-25%.  You must've taken a personality test which functioned by saying x% are more introverted than you, which would of course mean the average person would have 50% of people more introverted than him.

Edited by RabidusIncendia, 07 July 2012 - 07:22 PM.

[Inquisitor]

Rhydian, on 07 July 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

I don't think removing forced grouping discourages social aspects at all. Frankly in those events, most of the interactions that go on are negative. Prison is also a forced grouping, sure they interact, but its not something they enjoy.

Sorry, but I have to mostly disagree with the above especially the light in which you're making in the bolded part.
I don't know about you, but myself and many others have enjoyed group aspects in games that have a Trinity system.  To say what you say bolded above may be your experience, but I don't think that's accurate to say on the whole.
Neither do I claim that most all experiences in grouping are positive.  There are simply pros and cons to it, but I think it's inaccurate to take a position like what you're saying bolded above.

Rhydian, on 07 July 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

By removing the forced aspect of grouping players can group, when they want to ,and not group when,... they don't want to.
If you are forced into a linear chain of events with people you may not want to associate with, its more of a form of punishment. That doesnt mean those players will not socialize, it means they will not socialize with you. People who want to run dungeons should do so if they want, but not be allowed to force other players to assist them.

It comes down to content designed towards groups.  Content that 'require' a group effort in order to complete.  Except, as I think you're probably implying, group content that has predefined roles (i.e. Trinity System) where people must be a certain role in order to be able to group and be able to do the content.  Which is yes, like being forced because the content requires a group that has the best chance of success IF there are the appropriate classes in the group.

There are tons of players out there that fall into the category of 'they don't want to.', or, they simply don't have the time.
Thus there needs to be a lot of solo content.  This has been an issue more and more in the MMO industry.
Simply, there are people who find it very fun to play in groups, to play content that requires groups, and YES, even to play such content within a role-based system like the Trinity.  There needs to be content for everyone, not just people who can/want only to solo.  An MMO is about social interaction, not FORCED or required.

So the challenge in this game is to still provide group/team orientated content that players can do if they want to.  I find it lacking in GW2 and in a sense I sometimes feel I'm being forced to not play with a close knit team/group, but rather I'm forced to always have to share my adventure and experience with everyone, and I can't keep it in within my group when I want to play the game that way.

I appreciate a lot of what GW2 has done, yet, there is some content that requires some close coordination to be successful and I've been witness and subjected to random people coming in where my team is playing, drawing agro as they come and basically wipe and cause us to fail.  Needing to regroup, increasing our repair costs and impacting us with downtime in order to regroup and try again.
It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens, and that is really frustrating.

Rhydian, on 07 July 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Dynamic events are an unforced group event, dynamically apposed to forced grouping. Having played the game the questing system alone is far more cooperative than anything WOW ever did. Believe me there is nothing social about that first dungeon run in the early levels, its a speed run to get some pvp and or leveling gear.

Yes, again there are a lot of things I like about GW2,  Dynamic Events, Hearts, Caravans, other content.  It's mostly pretty fun and I don't mind the random interactions.  Yet there are cases where it's possible to get trained, and someone to pull agro and help cause a catastrophe.  That doesn't mean I want 'forced' grouping.  It just means that I'm hoping there's more content included in the game where people who like playing together in a close knit team/group/guild can actually have that option of play without necessarily being forced to share that content with everyone else. I'm not saying deny content from people, but make various kinds of content to be experienced by various types of people who like various types of play style.
The GW2 core mechanic is fine.  I just think there needs to be some more additions.  I'm hoping to discover this and Anet to add this type of stuff going forward.

Edited by Inquisitor, 07 July 2012 - 07:26 PM.