"It is not the game/company, it is the community itself"-mantra

[MoanaLisa]

The game is the game and can only provide options. As a matter of fact, I want the game to provide only options, not force me into behaviors that I don't want to do.

That said, my opinion about this is as follows:

• The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave.
• How a player decides to contribute to 'community' is up to them.
• Players are responsible for their own behavior. Acting badly is a choice.
• Anyone who resists being a part of any community is on there own but if it makes them happy, then that's fine.
• If a player doesn't wish to be included in a group activity, the groups that form should consider whether or not they want anyone in the group that doesn't want to be there.
• The smaller the community, the more likely it is that people will be mindful of how they behave.

Community is up to players. It is sad that Blizzard, in their efforts to make guilds more attractive to the non-guilded, nearly destroyed social guilds with the perk system but it's done now. Their decision to leave some of the perks in place continues to be a detriment more than a benefit as too many players join the guilds for the perks and not for the companionship and community of the guild itself.

The best thing that Blizzard could now do to start to rebuild community from the ground up is to rethink guilds, remove the perks and allow people to form group relationships without being constrained by the monogamy that is now imposed on guild membership.

Social engineering through forced social interaction won't work, will drive people away who might later be willing to join a community to their liking, and is a complete waste of time. If you want a better community, be a better member of that community.

[RoxyBlue]

The game is the game and can only provide options. As a matter of fact, I want the game to provide only options, not force me into behaviors that I don't want to do.

That said, my opinion about this is as follows:

• The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave.
• How a player decides to contribute to 'community' is up to them.
• Players are responsible for their own behavior. Acting badly is a choice.
• Anyone who resists being a part of any community is on there own but if it makes them happy, then that's fine.
• If a player doesn't wish to be included in a group activity, the groups that form should consider whether or not they want anyone in the group that doesn't want to be there.
• The smaller the community, the more likely it is that people will be mindful of how they behave.

Community is up to players. It is sad that Blizzard, in their efforts to make guilds more attractive to the non-guilded, nearly destroyed social guilds with the perk system but it's done now. Their decision to leave some of the perks in place continues to be a detriment more than a benefit as too many players join the guilds for the perks and not for the companionship and community of the guild itself.

The best thing that Blizzard could now do to start to rebuild community from the ground up is to rethink guilds, remove the perks and allow people to form group relationships without being constrained by the monogamy that is now imposed on guild membership.

Social engineering through forced social interaction won't work, will drive people away who might later be willing to join a community to their liking, and is a complete waste of time. If you want a better community, be a better member of that community.

Couldn't agree more!

[Roadblock]

• The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave.

It is sad that Blizzard, in their efforts to make guilds more attractive to the non-guilded, nearly destroyed social guilds with the perk system but it's done now.

I'm confused... or more likely you're confused.

"The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave".

Proceeds to point out a game system put in place by the game creator that has a direct effect on social structures
"the perk system nearly destroyed social guilds".

So which is it?
Do the gods of the game, that control everything from physics to reward structures affect player behavior or is it entirely neutral?

[Zoldam]

I remember talking to people since there was a lot of stuff that couldn't be soloed and it required communication (And those that could were often a huge time saver to group anyway). There was also not a queue system for a pre-made group where each person knew their role and don't need to talk. Made a lot of friends that way.

The game DOES effect how the community acts. Vanilla would of been just as bad (Lazy/bad community standpoint, other aspects are another story) if the ease and convenience was the same as now, maybe *slightly* better because the game was new and people were excited, but not much.

[MoanaLisa]

I'm confused... or more likely you're confused.

"The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave".

Proceeds to point out a game system put in place by the game creator that has a direct effect on social structures
"the perk system nearly destroyed social guilds".

So which is it?
Do the gods of the game, that control everything from physics to reward structures affect player behavior or is it entirely neutral?

The perk system did a lot to undermine guilds. It did nothing at all to cause players to be assholes. The game should make forming small or even larger communities easy and flexible. That's not the same as dictating how you decide to behave. Social structures are not the same as your choice to be helpful or difficult, be AFK in LFR or contribute. That's on you. There is little worse that I can think of than being a player looking to get into some sort of social situation in the game and being frustrated by rules and restrictions. Again, however, the fact that it can be difficult to form relationships or enter a social guild is not permission to engage in insults, flaming, trolling trade with anal spam or other stuff that in itself is about as anti-social as it comes.

[Glorious Leader]

The game is the game and can only provide options. As a matter of fact, I want the game to provide only options, not force me into behaviors that I don't want to do.

That said, my opinion about this is as follows:

• The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave.
• How a player decides to contribute to 'community' is up to them.
• Players are responsible for their own behavior. Acting badly is a choice.
• Anyone who resists being a part of any community is on there own but if it makes them happy, then that's fine.
• If a player doesn't wish to be included in a group activity, the groups that form should consider whether or not they want anyone in the group that doesn't want to be there.
• The smaller the community, the more likely it is that people will be mindful of how they behave.

Community is up to players. It is sad that Blizzard, in their efforts to make guilds more attractive to the non-guilded, nearly destroyed social guilds with the perk system but it's done now. Their decision to leave some of the perks in place continues to be a detriment more than a benefit as too many players join the guilds for the perks and not for the companionship and community of the guild itself.

The best thing that Blizzard could now do to start to rebuild community from the ground up is to rethink guilds, remove the perks and allow people to form group relationships without being constrained by the monogamy that is now imposed on guild membership.

Social engineering through forced social interaction won't work, will drive people away who might later be willing to join a community to their liking, and is a complete waste of time. If you want a better community, be a better member of that community.

Yea No I'm not as willing to forgive them as much as you are nor do I agree that design can't play a role in shaping peoples interactions. It's too easy and convenient to give them a pass. When you provide people outs for bad behavior, when you provide people with thin layers of difficulty for them to form cliques essentially ignoring or not needing anybody else you're gonna empower more assholes. That's not to say they weren't there before but the design of systems can be done in such a way so that it's clear such behavior is detrimental. Essentially the game and the developers get the community they deserves. The entire game is an exercise in social engineering from lvl 1 onwards.

[Seefer]

I'm sure they do and I'm sure the devs ignore most of it and do whatever they think is best ostensible because they think they know better. No matter how you square it players don't make decisions

Need proof the community is shit to Blizz? Look at the horrible crap they did when a raid test was down due to issues, hard to get feedback with a community like that.

[Deleted]

That is just so wrong.
Forcing never made it better.

It is entirely down to players, as it is their choices.
Not everyone chooses to take the most efficient route.

Never huh?

Such hybris. Declaring that you personally know everything about what other people want.

No, not everyone chooses the path of least resistance, just the overwhelming majority do.
The everlasting argument that flying ruins the immension because you can evade the danger of wpvp and other hazards is an example.
Because it made the overwhelming majority take the path of least resistance, those who did not, like players interested in wpvp all lost their reason to play.

Please one part, and you will alienate another, that's how it works.

I played on Nostalius, within the first minutes there was lv1 twinks vs hordes of starter players, totally did not expect that and it was more fun then the last 6 months i played retail.
It is not unsuprising that it was mostly wpvp players playing on that server, considering Blizzard pretty much told that type of player to "#¤% off by giving everyone free teleports to whatever instance they want and flying mounts.

Pickup groups now, you could replace them with bots and nobody would been any wiser.

Why bother helping other players?
You will after all never meet them again, a complete waste of time, an endless hamster wheel of meaninglessness.

Atleast in WoW it is, currently hooked on a Mobile Gacha game called Dragon Blaze, great community where everyone knows everyone pretty much, like WoW once was in Vanilla.

[Vaelorian]

The game is the game and can only provide options. As a matter of fact, I want the game to provide only options, not force me into behaviors that I don't want to do.

That said, my opinion about this is as follows:

• The game is entirely neutral as to how people behave.
• How a player decides to contribute to 'community' is up to them.
• Players are responsible for their own behavior. Acting badly is a choice.
• Anyone who resists being a part of any community is on there own but if it makes them happy, then that's fine.
• If a player doesn't wish to be included in a group activity, the groups that form should consider whether or not they want anyone in the group that doesn't want to be there.
• The smaller the community, the more likely it is that people will be mindful of how they behave.

Community is up to players. It is sad that Blizzard, in their efforts to make guilds more attractive to the non-guilded, nearly destroyed social guilds with the perk system but it's done now. Their decision to leave some of the perks in place continues to be a detriment more than a benefit as too many players join the guilds for the perks and not for the companionship and community of the guild itself.

The best thing that Blizzard could now do to start to rebuild community from the ground up is to rethink guilds, remove the perks and allow people to form group relationships without being constrained by the monogamy that is now imposed on guild membership.

Social engineering through forced social interaction won't work, will drive people away who might later be willing to join a community to their liking, and is a complete waste of time. If you want a better community, be a better member of that community.

Sorry Mona but seriously.... while you say it more eloquently then most mmo-c posters, you also lay blame with the community or individuals.
And ofcourse I am not saying that it is not up to each and everyone NOT to act like complete and utter twats. I mean regardless of the tools in place, you won't see me act like an asshole. Atleast not intentionally, never.
But then again, I am not 12 either. I am 37 and while a higher number as your age does not automatically warrants good behavior, the chances of you acting like an ass are severely diminished in general. Internet/the game just provides a lot of freedom to those 12 year olds. Freedom away from the rules of their parents and social circle perhaps.

"Don't force me into behaviors that I don't want to."
I don't understand this comment. If the game rewards good grouping/social behavior, would you not want this? From your previous postings on mmo-c I can deduce that you are a decently balanced person with a good sense of common knowledge and generally friendly. So if the game rewards good behavior, wouldn't you want the game to "create" more people who act like yourself?

Currently the game works more neutral (I wouldn't say the other way around.. because that would mean that the game wants you to act like an ass, which it does not). Neutral means in this case means that people are not punished for being an ass. While before this used to be a problem for people who act like that.
1. no name change
2. no server/faction change
3. reputation on a server down the shitter
4. no anonymity
5. more difficult group quests were in place where you better be a nice person otherwise you won't be able to complete the quests
6. grouping was done manually ergo if you weren't nice you weren't invited (again)

So now that these things are in place or changed you can act however YOU want to. So in that regard you are right. I never said otherwise.

But if the game would make grouping up more valuable and lessening anonymity, the behavior of a lot of players would improve.
Assholes will never dissapear, period. Just like people in real life still break the law even though they know what will happen if they get caught. But without certain boundaries or incentives (social or otherwise) a lot more people will be assholes. Just because they can.

Like I said before, Blizzard is somesort of parent. Without an incentive or enforcing of rules, people will be tempted a lot more to respond with negative emotions towards one another when something happens.

[Raiju]

Valid points, and I really dont want to use this example but lets be mature and not derail the thread with it;

A perfect example of a community returning to its roots again is a certain server that was recently shut down, with a sample size that large it proves that there is some degree to which design choices influence the social aspect of an MMO.

Definitely a community working together but it's hardly an example of a well fostered one :X

[Levyan]

No.

Just...

Just... No.

The company is not responsible for what people do beyond the doors of the building. Ever work somewhere? Have a job? Ask your employers how far their control of employees goes. Once an employee is outside those doors, what they do is their business. Same thing with anything else. Same with when people come over to your house. While they're in your house, they follow your rules. But once they leave, you have no more control over them than you have control over the sun.

Please try to understand this. It's very simple.

I would compare it to something like public school. Is it the school's fault that cliches form? Did the school create the noncomformists? Is it the school's mission for such things or are those things a composite of the school's organization, the staff, the students' lives outside of school, the environments the students are exposed to outside the school, the students' ignorance and their own choices?

Communities aren't made just by those who lead them, but everyone inside and other individuals and communities that they interact with.

I also feel that everyone is too fixated on the "rails". Even when devs make a sandbox, people get focused on effeciency. This includes both the players and the devs. Over time the devs and the players tunnel in on efficiency over sandbox. Wow was only loosely railroaded originally. Now we have rails everywhere. Everywhere there isbt, we just see it as bad

[QuiksLE]

The community has no responsibility towards the game's development. It is all on the developers.

But are the developers responsible for the communitys development?

I think not.

[Vaelorian]

No.

Just...

Just... No.

The company is not responsible for what people do beyond the doors of the building. Ever work somewhere? Have a job? Ask your employers how far their control of employees goes. Once an employee is outside those doors, what they do is their business. Same thing with anything else. Same with when people come over to your house. While they're in your house, they follow your rules. But once they leave, you have no more control over them than you have control over the sun.

Please try to understand this. It's very simple.

The company is indeed not responsible for what people do beyond the doors of the building. I agree fully!
Fact is that "the building" in this case is their game.

"Ever work somewhere?" - you ask
Employers give you an incentive to behave properly within the bounds of your job. Outside of that they ofcourse cannot "control" you. Atleast it depends on the situation. If you are working at a bank and outside of your daytime job you are a criminal working at a meth lab, when found out, they will fire your ass. Same with teachers being fired for starring in "pron" movies.

"Friends coming over to your house"- you say
When friends behave in your house within the boundaries of your rules, that is to be expected. If they do not you won't befriend them anymore I guess.
When friend behave in a certain way outside of your house in a manner that displeases you, you will likely not be friends with them for very long...

Your examples do not hold up.

[Vaelorian]

But are the developers responsible for the communitys development?

I think not.

The developers ARE responsible for knowing beforehand (or should know) how the community (or just people in general, because it boils down to human behavior) will react/respond/act when the developers create something that will impact the social structure of the game.

- - - Updated - - -

How about it swings both ways?

The game offers LFR, normal, heroic and mythic raiding. But it is ENTIRELY the game's fault if guilds break apart and people chose LFR? You as a person have no say in it? Especially with all these threads on how important community is? What are we all? Sheep?

You as a person ofcourse have a say in it. But people in game are in general weak willed. Choosing the path of the least resistance/or most efficient way to get what they want. So yes they choose, they always choose. But if you don't facilitate those choices...

[Doomchicken]

So to sum it up, basically earlier on the games history you were "forced" not to be assholes and now that you're not forced to not be assholes you've reverted back to your naturally assholish state but it's the designers fault and not the fact that you were assholes to begin with? Seems like solid logic to me.

[QuiksLE]

The developers ARE responsible for knowing beforehand (or should know) how the community (or just people in general, because it boils down to human behavior) will react/respond/act when the developers create something that will impact the social structure of the game.

Yes, I agree with that and I think they do consider it.

I believe they have better understanding of the community than the community has itself.

The community is all the playerbase, not just the thousands of people on the forums.

Usually people who don't like something are the most vocal, but they might be the minority.

[tankbug]

The developers ARE responsible for knowing beforehand (or should know) how the community (or just people in general, because it boils down to human behavior) will react/respond/act when the developers create something that will impact the social structure of the game.

- - - Updated - - -


You as a person ofcourse have a say in it. But people in game are in general weak willed. Choosing the path of the least resistance/or most efficient way to get what they want. So yes they choose, they always choose. But if you don't facilitate those choices...

If people are weak, lazy, greedy there isn't anything Blizzard can do other than gradually make the game more rewarding for less effort as interest in the game naturally drops. They don't really have a choice if they want players to stay.

[Vaelorian]

So to sum it up, basically earlier on the games history you were "forced" not to be assholes and now that you're not forced to not be assholes you've reverted back to your naturally assholish state but it's the designers fault and not the fact that you were assholes to begin with? Seems like solid logic to me.

Without being sarcastic, yes you got it!
Altho not 100%. As people do not start out to be assholes. Just like people do not start out as thieves.
There is opportunity aswell. If it is rewarding for your to instead lash our against other players without any form of repercussion, chances are that instead of "talking it out like a mature person (which takes a lot of time vs lashing out)" you will more likely act like an ass. Because it is easier.
And ofcourse people who tell you that your mother is a !@#$ for no other reason then because they somehow believe you are inferior to them, have issues in the real world. But maybe that person wouldn't have lashed out like that and instead kept silent if it was rewarding for them to do so. Rewarding in this case for not lashing out and gaining a bad reputation on the server and being invited again by others for group objectives.

- - - Updated - - -

If people are weak, lazy, greedy there isn't anything Blizzard can do other than gradually make the game more rewarding for less effort as interest in the game naturally drops. They don't really have a choice if they want players to stay.

So you are saying that players have a changed in the last 30 years to entitled brats?
And by not catering to them Blizzard loses out on money.
And because people are brats to eachother, players leave the game because they no longer enjoy it.
Less people ingame makes the game even more less meaningful to play.
But Blizzard keeps adding stuff to cater to the entitled brats?
Good business model I guess.

[tankbug]

So you are saying that players have a changed in the last 30 years to entitled brats?
And by not catering to them Blizzard loses out on money.
And because people are brats to eachother, players leave the game because they no longer enjoy it.
Less people ingame makes the game even more less meaningful to play.
But Blizzard keeps adding stuff to cater to the entitled brats?
Good business model I guess.

Well, that's the impression I got from your post. And IF that's true, Blizzard doesn't have a choice IF they want to keep as many players as they can.

Personally, I think that communities are best when people are exited about the game. It means that it has to offer something which stimulates them, often the quest to explore and learn the game. At this stage the developers can be forgiven for certain imbalances, things that don't make sense in story, pacing, over-grinding etc. They will refine the game, but players also get more critical once the exhaust the game and learn it to the core. When players don't think doing "whatever" is fun anymore, the community breaks down. Nobody helps with content if they can't get a shiny reward for themselves at the end of it. And even now in WoW, the challenge is not worth the reward anymore. Time is a big enemy, and I have yet to see a developer that wins the fight against age. There is no hope for this game to blossom or feel like it did in the start. Faction pride/competition? Gone! Recognition of guilds/players? Gone! Admiration for players' feats? Gone! People just don't care. All they can do, is to give the remaining (and bored) players some shiny stuff at a faster/easier pace, so they feel they get something out of the hours the put into it. So I don't think that players are always lazy, greedy dicks with no willpower as a default, but when they're not interested anymore, they are not interested in sacrifices. I think the decline of the WoW community is inevitable, and I don't blame Blizzard for their design decisions.

[Glorious Leader]

But are the developers responsible for the communitys development?

I think not.

Yes. Every decision the developers make impacts how we play the game and ultimately how we treat each other. You can implement systems that encourage and reward socially good behavior or you can do the opposite. The game is an exercise in developing and engineering player behavior. The developers do social engineering all the time.