109 replies to this topic

[Dream Catcher]

Personal story, Dungeons, PvP, quite a lot of the game is solely available to structured groups if you choose it to be. Open World PvE is rightfully open to everybody at all times.

[Tetan0]

My opinion is this is most social friendly MMO i played and i played like 10 mmoes so far in 7 years.

This Game feels like it is made for 2+ people i found it way more fun to group and explore do events with friends or total strangers(that are polite) than solo

[Tamora]

Flashman, on 07 July 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

It's comparing apples to oranges, clearly.

Playing together socially and creating substantial relationships are two radically different things.

No wonder there are two sides opposing each other over this; they are arguing different things.

i think that sums it up pretty much. why not make a poll? but keep the difference between interaction of players and substantial relationships in mind.

i think interactions of players are encouraged by the gw2 game design. why shouldn't u rez someone next to u, if it's possible? and if noone rezzes u, u can still rez at the next waypoint. imo substantial relationships are not encouraged by the gw2 design. at least not in the pve part of it. relationships might even be less likely, since they are not needed. just like swtor, the pve part of the game is pretty much entirely soloable.

[Frakov]

Tamora, on 07 July 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

i think that sums it up pretty much. why not make a poll? but keep the difference between interaction of players and substantial relationships in mind.

i think interactions of players are encouraged by the gw2 game design. why shouldn't u rez someone next to u, if it's possible? and if noone rezzes u, u can still rez at the next waypoint. imo substantial relationships are not encouraged by the gw2 design. at least not in the pve part of it. relationships might even be less likely, since they are not needed. just like swtor, the pve part of the game is pretty much entirely soloable.

I considered making a poll for this thread, but I think that would dumb down the issue too much. I think leaving a poll out encourages people to actually discuss the matter and put their opinions forth instead of being tempted to just vote "yes", "no", "somewhat", "in some cases", etc.

Also, I agree with your second paragraph.

[Genesis]

Cruxisinhibitor, on 07 July 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.

I have an idea, how about I insult players like you simply to compensate for a weak ego just like you did here? Nah, I'll just let the more whiny and arrogant MMO players complain about it being very very bad in terms of design. The professions are built around their central playstyle. If you can't see differences between how the classes play then you aren't looking.

Edited by Genesis, 07 July 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[Soothsayer]

People either want to be social or they don't. You can't change a persons personality. Some people are shy or lack confidence so they find it hard to interact with others. Even when you are forced to group together you'll always get people who never say a word and that's just the way it is.

The option is there to group if you wish to do so, and many people will do that. For those who want to be the loner then they can do that as well. I don't see why anyone should be forced to be constantly interact with others. As long as a game doesn't discourage social behaviour (like other mmo's) then that's the main thing, and GW2 actually encourages it without forcing it, so it seems to strike a good balance.

I met a lot of nice people in GW and remained friends outside of the game. I even met one woman in real life because we lived near each other. I'm sure I'll meet plenty of people in GW2 as well even though you don't have to group, but GW2 can still be as social as you want it to be, it's all up to you, remember that.

[DarkWasp]

I think the idea of lasting relationships is almost totally external of game mechanics.

I mean break it down to its simplest form:

Step 1: Two people acknowledge each others existence
Step 2: They communicate
Step 3: They move beyond procedure and small talk

Raids, instances and partys bring you up to step 2 (if you're lucky), but step 3 is up to the individuals.
Then there's GW2's content.
DEs, grouping for personal stories, dungeons and puzzles/mini-dungeons also bring you to step 2 (again, if you're lucky).

Now having to team-play strategically may bring a step 1 person up to step 2. (In other words, they prefer not to communicate, but they do to coordinate the mission) However, a step 1 person stretching to reach step 2 is likely not going to reach step 3. On the other hand, there are people who are easy to relate with, they jump to step 3 after the first few sentences. They'll find you in chat, they'll find you in the world, anywhere. They don't need traditional group content to reach out to you.

Now GW2 does remove a lot of the reasons to hate other players. So mechanically it won't be as difficult to be nice to them (provided you ignore map chat) . However, it still depends on the individuals.

Not building friendships because nobody is talking during DEs? Question, are you talking during DEs? Lets say you are, and they aren't responding. Well that's their fault. That's the result of hardened MMO gamers (or anyone who has spent a day in EVE) keeping their heads down.

TL;DR
You can force coordination on many people and they'll talk, but that's about as far as they will go. Relationships aren't built from coordination alone.

Why are people afraid to chat in the open world and during DEs. Because of what past MMOs have done to them. Or they disabled chat because the community has left a bad impression on them.

GW2, provides less reasons for the rage and name calling. However, its too late to even come close to avoiding it. The internet community has gone too sour.

[Zephire]

RabidusIncendia, on 07 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

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.

Hmm, I got the 40%-50% from a psychology class several years back (I rate way too high on the introversion scale using the Myers-Briggs test to mistakenly get the number from there ), but I just googled it now and it seems like there's never been a proper survey on the matter. Some places do cite 20%-25% like you said, but others that have calculated the numbers from Myers-Briggs tests go as high as 51%. I think 20% would be more the number of more extreme introverts, since introversion-extroversion is on a scale and there are introverts out there who can get along just fine in social situations if they have to, and can even enjoy them.

In any case, it's still a large chunk of players either way and not even all extroverts like being stuck in a group of people they don't know

[LOCOMOFO]

Cruxisinhibitor, on 07 July 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.

You don't think classes stand out against each other?  Have you actually played the game?

Yeah it's a selling point that there's no more trinity, but to say that all classes are pretty much the same is, well, wrong.  Very wrong.

[98percentcute]

I'm actually worried that it will be too group oriented and not have enough content for soloists out there.

[dss_live]

I found that it really depends on the player more than anything while playing the last beta's. Other MMO's often push people together by creating a need for each other through the holy trinity but at the same time push them apart with kill steals and the likes. What you get in guildwars 2 is that you're not pushed together due to a 'need' for eachother (in the open world) but you're also not pushed away from eachother due to the disappearance of kill steals and the likes. It depends on how social you choose to be. It doesn't force conversation, you must make it yourself. You, the player, must reach out because nothing is going to force you to do so.

Personally, I'm very much a wreck in social occasions, but by following a DE chain and helping each otehr, rezzing when needed, taking the heat, i got to know people and i teamed up with them. Complete strangers and if my client hadn't crashed i probably would have actually gotten to know them. That simply by fighting side by side. There was no need for us to team up, nor did we need to fight together, but we did so because we chose to, we wanted to play with people. Isn't that the purpose of an MMO? You cannot force social interaction, it must come from the player itself. And i believe that Arenanet, with Guildwars 2, found a way to let the community be formed by each other and not by the game mechanics. To let people socialize without forcing them to.

Next time you feel like it's too silent in chat or no one is talking, start a conversation. Team up with a complete stranger. Reach out and see what will grow out of it.

[Syncline]

Genesis, on 07 July 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

I have an idea, how about I insult players like you simply to compensate for a weak ego just like you did here? Nah, I'll just let the more whiny and arrogant MMO players complain about it being very very bad in terms of design. The professions are built around their central playstyle. If you can't see differences between how the classes play then you aren't looking.

It's not the casuals who've been whining about this game, yeah. In fact, the most vocal contingent has been the 'hardcore' gamers bitching that this game isn't more like WoW.

The classes do play differently. Everyone knew going in that all classes would be hybrids, why are folks still 'whining' about the DPS/control/support overlap now?

[Inquisitor]

98percentcute, on 08 July 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

I'm actually worried that it will be too group oriented and not have enough content for soloists out there.

Oh no!  Take it from someone who's played in the Betas.  There's lots of stuff you can do on your own if there's no one else around.

[justaguy]

Here is my take on it -

Every time you rezz someone, you are being social.

Every time you see a large group doing an escort quest or tackling a champion mob and join in, you are being social.

Every time you toss out group boons such as quickness/protection/aegis, you are being social.

Every time you drop a ground targeted AOE or other affect that allows combos, you are being social.

On each of these fronts, the game encourages positive social interactions in ways that few games have done in the past. You actually like seeing other players.

Just because we dont see alot of people talking away in chat doesnt mean people arent being social and having fun playing alongside one another.

That said, Im sure we will start to see alot more chatter going on not long after launch. Betas, with limited populations, limited playtime and people still trying to learn every mechanic, are different beasts from active games.

Edited by justaguy, 08 July 2012 - 01:12 AM.

[suyin]

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

*resists urge to talk about GW2's own likely causes of internal guild drama*

*COUGH!*

uh, alright. that's not exactly a thread related to what I was talking about at all.
btw read it long ago.

[Aodan]

As stated, the counter argument I find to be not true.

As players go through content, both PvE, WvW, Spvp, players will need to eventually use other players and their professions.

If you want to do a dungeon, you will need a group.
If you want to do a outside boss or Dynamic event, more players SHOULD = more efficiency or a more fun event.
If you want to play in Tournament, you will need people to play with.
If you want to do or make a movement/difference in WvW, you will need to develop social relationships within the game to accomplish the major goal.

Especially in WvW, people will have to be social even if they are just following.
In team/group dynamics, communication is needed, the bigger the goal, the more communication/social interaction is needed.

[Strawberry Nubcake]

I was participating in DEs, helping people kill stuff when I saw them struggling, resurrecting people and even taking the 2 seconds it takes to type "thanks" when they were kind enough to help me or scrape my useless pet off the ground.  (Ok... so I would have spent most of my time saying "thanks" if I said it every single time someone resurrected my pet but you get the point!)  I even used map chat to answer questions or participate in conversations a few times.  I didn't need to be in a party for any of that and that's awesome!

I have no problem with needing a party for more advanced things like dungeons or PvP, but for general PvE?  No thanks!  More often than not I prefer to do my own thing.  I would probably be rich if I had a dollar for every time I joined a party and someone said "OMG you guys are too quiet!" or something like that.  Some of us don't join groups to chat.  We join them because we need a party to complete a mission or quest.  It's not like that in GW2 unless you're doing dungeons or PvP.

Making new friends during my adventures is great, but I definitely did not buy GW2 or any other MMORPG because I was hoping to meet new people and chat all day.

In my opinion, being "social" in GW2 feels natural and dare I say... almost enjoyable.  

[MrIllusion]

In the other thread, the issue of social interaction exploded a screenshot of TERA was posted, followed by a vid from Mists of Pandaria, showing players waiting in line to complete a quest. That probably sparked off the "this is better than this argument".

If I allow my own biases to set in, I'd say that traditional MMOs do a poor job of encouraging social interaction. The links shows players waiting in line to complete content, instead of grouping up.

But I really like this comment:

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?

If we think about the purpose of grouping up in an MMO in the context of social interaction, it becomes a chicken-or-the-egg question.

(1) I group up to do content; I get the opportunity to interact with other players as a side effect.
(2) I group up to interact with other players; we get to do more challenging content as a side effect.

In traditional MMOs, (1) is more common during the level-up phase. How often do you ask to group up with random strangers just to chat or without any specific destination in mind? Usually you want to group up for some specific quest that you can't handle alone.

(2) becomes more common during the "endgame" phase. You apply into guilds, make friends, then if the guild thinks you are ok, you get invited into their raiding schedule. Depending on team dynamics, the raid leader decides which raid to attempt.

I think that's where the apples-to-oranges comparison starts. At first glance, it looks as though (1) and (2) don't really apply to GW2. (1) won't happen often because of GW2's grouping system, and (2) won't happen often because there are no raids.

But as far as social interaction goes, dungeons perform the same function as (1) in other MMOs. People will still have to group up for Acalonian Catacombs or whatever. Arguably, WvW/SPvP can perform the same function as (2).

TL;DR: Social interaction in GW2 is about the same as in other MMOs. What GW2 removes actually contributes very little to interaction anyway.

Edited by MrIllusion, 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Da-Noob]

I don't see this being too much of an issue.  There was a lot of socializing going on in GW1 even after they introduced customizable heroes, which in a game that is instanced per area and no open world to meet people, I'll admit that towards the end of Nightfall and Eye of the North I was just loading up my heroes and running everything solo because I found it a lot more efficient to manage my heroes to form a coherent strategy than it was to try and PUG.

In GW2 however there is an open world in which there is no kill stealing and running into someone doing something and helping them out is encouraged.  If that person seems to be competent and sociable then there will be a decent chance of meaningful social interaction as opposed to the random PUG of  "Insert class role LFG" and then the group disbanding after the dungeon/raid/ and/or quest.  So sure there is plenty of activities that are doable solo and loners will do it solo, but I don't see GW2 having any less social interaction than most other MMO's on the market today.

[Syncline]

MrIllusion, on 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

In the other thread, the issue of social interaction exploded a screenshot of TERA was posted, followed by a vid from Mists of Pandaria, showing players waiting in line to complete a quest. That probably sparked off the "this is better than this argument".

If I allow my own biases to set in, I'd say that traditional MMOs do a poor job of encouraging social interaction. The links shows players waiting in line to complete content, instead of grouping up.

IE, the usual MMO standard encourages a solo mindset. Which is why it's odd when people complain about Guild Wars; if people aren't joining together in the usual groups anyway, what's so bad about the format GW is using? People don't have to click 'join' but they're still doing the content together instead of refusing to group and waiting one at a time.