Raids: What are the dynamics?

[UD_Delt]

FWIW, life itself makes it clear that the time all of us spend on MMOs is trivial, no matter what we're doing.  Some We-Deserve-Better-Because-We-Spend-Time raiders might try and kid themselves on that, but a conversation or two about their raiding with someone who doesn't play MMOs at all (A group of people I would henceforth refer to as 'people better than us') should dispel any such illusions.

No clue what you're saying here. You go from saying that playing a video game is a trivial activity (no shit) to saying that people who don't play video games are better people? Then something thrown in about person A talking to person B about something person B is totally unfamiliar with. This would make person A a douchebag regardless of whether they are talking raids, football, baseball, physics, or politics.

I don't get it your point at all and I'm not even totally sure you even have one.

[Chenghiz]

I like raiding. So shoot me?

[Nebu]

I like raiding. So shoot me?

If you like to raid, you don't need any more punishment.

[Chenghiz]

Isn't this really more of an 'to each his own' thing? I can understand why raiding would be frustrating to someone who only does it for the loots, but quite frankly, raids are a lot of fun for me because it's a time to accomplish shit as a team and shoot the breeze in Vent. Sure, it may not be fun for some, and it's not fun if you aren't in a fun group of people, but why just make a flat generalisation? People enjoy different things.

[tazelbain]

Isn't this really more of an 'to each his own' thing? I can understand why raiding would be frustrating to someone who only does it for the loots, but quite frankly, raids are a lot of fun for me because it's a time to accomplish shit as a team and shoot the breeze in Vent. Sure, it may not be fun for some, and it's not fun if you aren't in a fun group of people, but why just make a flat generalisation? People enjoy different things.

Accept in many games, past a certain point all the content is raid.  So if raiding isn't your thing, you are SOL. 

[Lantyssa]

Just to clarify, I'm saying "you could come up with something more 'meaningful' in a way", not "you'd have something that everyone would like better".  Secure trade is the gold standard now because most everyone seems to like it.  But as is the case with so many things, when something becomes popular and easy, oftentimes something more intangible is lost in the process.

Yeah, like fuckwits.

[Telemediocrity]

Isn't this really more of an 'to each his own' thing? I can understand why raiding would be frustrating to someone who only does it for the loots, but quite frankly, raids are a lot of fun for me because it's a time to accomplish shit as a team and shoot the breeze in Vent. Sure, it may not be fun for some, and it's not fun if you aren't in a fun group of people, but why just make a flat generalisation? People enjoy different things.

But the problem is, we're fighting for a piece of the same pie.  If I'm playing WoW, and I want to be able to run an aimed-at-level-40 version of BWL that's about right for 5-10 people, I can't under the current system, because the raiders have insisted that's "content just for them".

If at level 60, I want to run a version of BWL that's balanced for someone to solo or duo, and receive the same rewards for doing so as a 40-man raid - I can't, because the raiders have staked out that piece of the pie.

Again, once the raiders win their battle that the devs should abide by a false equation of "greater risk / difficulty equals greater reward", from there all bets are off, it's all rent-seeking, and you can never just 'live and let live' with other playstyles.  They're out for your piece of the pie, and by extension you're out for theirs.

[Azazel]

FWIW, life itself makes it clear that the time all of us spend on MMOs is trivial, no matter what we're doing.  Some We-Deserve-Better-Because-We-Spend-Time raiders might try and kid themselves on that, but a conversation or two about their raiding with someone who doesn't play MMOs at all (A group of people I would henceforth refer to as 'people better than us') should dispel any such illusions.

There's plenty of things that people do that are nothing but a fucking waste of life-time.

Raiding in a MMOG or playing the things is a better use of my time then, say, being an alchoholic and slowly drinking myself to death, or sitting rotting in front of the TV for hours on end every night. Playing or not playing a specific type of computer game is no better or worse than many other pastimes or social interactions.

But if you consider those people to be better than you, go ahead. I won't argue. I'd probably agree.

[Chenghiz]

But the problem is, we're fighting for a piece of the same pie.  If I'm playing WoW, and I want to be able to run an aimed-at-level-40 version of BWL that's about right for 5-10 people, I can't under the current system, because the raiders have insisted that's "content just for them".

If at level 60, I want to run a version of BWL that's balanced for someone to solo or duo, and receive the same rewards for doing so as a 40-man raid - I can't, because the raiders have staked out that piece of the pie.

Again, once the raiders win their battle that the devs should abide by a false equation of "greater risk / difficulty equals greater reward", from there all bets are off, it's all rent-seeking, and you can never just 'live and let live' with other playstyles.  They're out for your piece of the pie, and by extension you're out for theirs.

Who are these nebulous 'raiders' of whom you speak? Is there some sort of special-interest pressure group advocating this, or are you just making a generalisation based on what you see people posting in MMO forums? Sure, your statement may be true of some people who raid end-game content, but I think it's rather farfetched to assume that the vocal majority on the forums represents the same proportion of people who play the game and don't bother with the forums at all. I don't give a flying fuck if someone can do the same content scaled down for lvl-40s in 5-10 man groups, although I do think it's a bit of a pipe dream development-wise.

I think the real issue here is that it's simply not possible to tailor one dungeon for different group sizes and level ranges. I challenge you to design a boss fight like Razorgore or Vaelastraz or even the Zul'Gurub (20-man) bosses for small groups without forcing certain class balances.

[Telemediocrity]

Raiding in a MMOG or playing the things is a better use of my time then, say, being an alchoholic and slowly drinking myself to death, or sitting rotting in front of the TV for hours on end every night.

Yeah, but those types of people are losers, and they usually sit at the margins of life, not really making themselves noticable.  So it's hardly worth considering them as someone we'd compare ourselves to.

[Telemediocrity]

I think the real issue here is that it's simply not possible to tailor one dungeon for different group sizes and level ranges. I challenge you to design a boss fight like Razorgore or Vaelastraz or even the Zul'Gurub (20-man) bosses for small groups without forcing certain class balances.

Sure it is.  Just make 'em easier, or (CoH style) grant temporary powers to party members that allow them to make up certain roles in a scaled down fashion.  Class interplay isn't really the point anyway.

[Zane0]

Yeah, but those types of people are losers, and they usually sit at the margins of life, not really making themselves noticable.  So it's hardly worth considering them as someone we'd compare ourselves to.

http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&health.html

Sure it is.  Just make 'em easier, or (CoH style) grant temporary powers to party members that allow them to make up certain roles in a scaled down fashion.  Class interplay isn't really the point anyway.

Content would be consumed too quickly, especially if we're using Blizzard as the measuring stick.  At the current ratio of drops per person, a raider waits an average of a couple weeks per item at least.  This is only tolerable because the social dynamics of a 40 person raid can keep things entertaining; it will not be tolerable for a 5 or 10 man group.  Furthermore, fights such as Vaelestraz are guaranteed to kill 12 of your 40 man raid on a good day; not easy to scale.

[Telemediocrity]

Content would be consumed too quickly, especially if we're using Blizzard as the measuring stick.  At the current ratio of drops per person, a raider waits an average of a couple weeks per item at least.  This is only tolerable because the social dynamics of a 40 person raid can keep things entertaining; it will not be tolerable for a 5 or 10 man group.  Furthermore, fights such as Vaelestraz are guaranteed to kill 12 of your 40 man raid on a good day; not easy to scale.

Rate of content consumption is never a valid argument against a play dynamic, if you're looking at the game for the perspective of a player.  It only works if you use the perspective of a money suit.

[Azazel]

Raiding in a MMOG or playing the things is a better use of my time then, say, being an alchoholic and slowly drinking myself to death, or sitting rotting in front of the TV for hours on end every night.

Yeah, but those types of people are losers, and they usually sit at the margins of life, not really making themselves noticable.  So it's hardly worth considering them as someone we'd compare ourselves to.

Boyo, you must have lived some kind of priveliged and sheltered life so far. Probably the most naive thing you've written here.

.

[Zane0]

If there's something yet to be done that is challenging and that makes one's character distinctive, it's always something to gun for, even if it takes a long time to reach.  Even if it's out of reach at the moment, it remains a "carrot".

The pure achiever (and these aren't even necessarily "hardcore") plays to attain perfection for his character.  If he gets the best stuff, he has won the game.  If there isn't something else to reach for soon, he won't be hanging around. Content consumption will affect whether the achiever has things to achieve or not, and thus whether he is enjoying himself or not.

For the many with a hybrid of motivations, a lack of achievement can rankle, and when combined with other issues they have with the game, may shift their decision to play.

[Calantus]

Rate of content consumption is never a valid argument against a play dynamic, if you're looking at the game for the perspective of a player.  It only works if you use the perspective of a money suit.

It is a valid argument when looking at a game from a perspective grounded in reality. Try it.

And TBH, it kinda sucks when you always have content to work on. My server is new so my guild had to hit up ZG->MC->BWL->(AQ20)->AQ. We're only just up to Sartura with the gates having been open for 2 days and to be honest I'm getting a little tired. It was only 2 months ago at most we first zoned into MC and we've been learning one boss or another constantly til then. I want a breather. I want the content to stop for a while. I wanna farm the shit we know for a while before the next shiny hits live.

[Telemediocrity]

Rate of content consumption is never a valid argument against a play dynamic, if you're looking at the game for the perspective of a player.  It only works if you use the perspective of a money suit.

It is a valid argument when looking at a game from a perspective grounded in reality. Try it.

From a perspective grounded in reality, if a game has great content but not enough of it, that just means you play until you run out of content, and then stop to go do other things, coming back when more content is added.  It doesn't make the game any worse, any moreso than a movie is 'worse' than a game because it only entertains you for 2 hours.  I mean, really, are you going to sit there twiddling your thumbs if the game isn't giving you something to do?

If anything, I'd rather have a game with 10 A+ content units than 100 B+ content units - because not only am I having more fun, then I have more free time as well.

[Zane0]

Some enjoy the sustained and ongoing experience that virtual worlds provide.  If I wanted to burn away for a couple months and then move on when things got old, I'd be more inclined to play non-persistant games that don't come packaged with long term subscription fees.

[Telemediocrity]

Some enjoy the sustained and ongoing experience that virtual worlds provide.  If I wanted to burn away for a couple months and then move on when things got old, I'd be more inclined to play non-persistant games that don't come packaged with long term subscription fees.

One month is not 'long term', and for most of us 15 dollars a month is not an earthshattering fee if even if you're not playing it 'all month'.  Also, the 'sustained and ongoing experience' is usually crap - which precludes the whole 'virtual world' aspect.  In order to have a real sustained and ongoing experience, you need a game where the players can make their own content, usually via PvP.  A PvE game can probably never be a 'world' to begin with, so why bother caring whether it's 'sustained' or not?  Of course, all that is IMHO, but if I were really looking for what you imply, I wouldn't see the allure in persistent-world games much.

[Zane0]

Well when we're talking about a single month of playing, one doesn't even get to endgame content, so there'd be no reason to complain about it.

Also, the 'sustained and ongoing experience' is usually crap - which precludes the whole 'virtual world' aspect.

Where do you find the authority to make this conclusion?  From your own extensive experience with endgame PvE?  It is relative indeed, but it's also rather silly to say this just after trying to argue for one side over the other in this thread (which is stupid, but you did it!) with a series of trite and tired moral platitudes.

[Telemediocrity]

Well when we're talking about a single month of playing, one doesn't even get to endgame content, so there'd be no reason to complain about it.

Again, I'm not seeing the logical reason there should be a difference between 'game' and 'endgame'.  I certainly see it from the business suit side - keep people playing longer, make more money.  But from the player's side, not seeing it.

[Calantus]

Having more free time is not my objective when I get into an MMOG. I've got X amount of free time to burn on whatever amuses me. So long as something is entertaining I don't feel the need to tally up how much free time I have left after it.

[HaemishM]

I think it's because people are broken. The greedy, broken nature of people in just about any setting usually causes the evolution of systems of control.

People can't be expected to help others in a game. They can't be expected to put aside their own needs for someone needier. Finally, /random does not always reward the saints and the most deserving out there.

DKP is communism, only with a capitalist sheen. I'm constantly amazed that people who are otherwise politically conservative love them some DKP.

[Toast]

DKP is least like communism among the major loot systems. Random rolls are the most "communistic". Everyone's on equal footing regardless of contribution or aptitude.

A central loot committee that assigns based on need and good of the guild is pretty communistic. Corruption and favoritism plague these systems. Ingenuity and hard work is not necessarily rewarded in this system.

DKP, on the other hand, is the most like free market. Those players who want to benefit from the guild put in the time and the work. It's like sweat equity with the wealth of the guild allocated based on contribution.  Trying to apply a free market, real world business model to online guilds gets absurd really quickly.

Just because guilds don't hire members in at varying loot pay rates doesn't make DKP communism.

[HaemishM]

ALL loot systems are communist, or at least socialist in flavor. They all try to allocate wealth from a central authority. And it's because the loot systems are fundamentally broken that you HAVE to put some form of looting order in place, because not everyone will be rewarded for going on raids, and many will be punished (repair bills with no loot to offset the loss).

The next step is to have controls put into the game that manage DKP's. I will weep then, oh will I weep.

It just proves to me that MMOG developers are all hippy commies.

[tazelbain]

When a hunter goes out, shoots a deer, and takes it home to eat, that's communism?  Raiding is just a more elaborate and sanitized form of that.

[HaemishM]

When a hunter goes out, shoots a deer, and takes it home to eat, that's communism?  Raiding is just a more elaborate and sanitized form of that.

A hunter is solo. He can make whatever rules he wants about his deer meat. Raiding takes 20-40 (or more) assholes working together as a collective. The spoils have to divvied up "fairly."

[Engels]

Something fundamentally broken in your comparison of raids to a form of government when you can equally equate guilds top down management of loot to large corporations. Now if the game itself enforced, with penalties for not doing so, the distribution of wealth to the unwashed masses of these guilds, you'd have an arguement.

[bhodi]

My guild (and by inference our loot distribution system) is an Oligarchy.. I'm guessing a lot of guilds are, those that aren't straight Autocracies. It seems to work OK.

[Trippy]

DKP, on the other hand, is the most like free market. Those players who want to benefit from the guild put in the time and the work. It's like sweat equity with the wealth of the guild allocated based on contribution.  Trying to apply a free market, real world business model to online guilds gets absurd really quickly.

Just because guilds don't hire members in at varying loot pay rates doesn't make DKP communism.

Your last point is crucial, though. DKP doesn't actually measure contribution only participation -- i.e. the raid leaders, MT, healers and class leaders all accumulate points at the same rate as the people that are AFK half the time during the raid. In the "real world" the CEO (aka the raid leader) does not accumulate wealth at the same rate as the mail sorter. However given all the political and social drama with the other types of loot distribution systems I still think DKP is the best way to handle this problem.

[Telemediocrity]

Having more free time is not my objective when I get into an MMOG. I've got X amount of free time to burn on whatever amuses me. So long as something is entertaining I don't feel the need to tally up how much free time I have left after it.

Having X amount of free time, I want to get in as many interesting experiences as possible.  Hopefuls for this summer, in addition to MMOs, include krumping, parkour, learning to surf, and trying to get some academic writing published.  The dollars I put into the MMO are not important; I want the most bang in terms of fun for time invested.  No slow, by-the-numbers progression; I want some Sesame Street shit, where it's gratification from start to finish.

[Margalis]

Having X amount of free time, I want to get in as many interesting experiences as possible.  Hopefuls for this summer, in addition to MMOs, include krumping, parkour, learning to surf, and trying to get some academic writing published.  The dollars I put into the MMO are not important; I want the most bang in terms of fun for time invested.  No slow, by-the-numbers progression; I want some Sesame Street shit, where it's gratification from start to finish.

In the end you die, turn to dust, and everything you did in your life has exactly the same meaning as everything else: zero.

One leisure activity really isn't any better than any other, for hte most part. Is surfing really a great way to spend some valuable time?

If you don't want to spend a lot of time in a MMORPG then don't. Some people read books, some watch TV, some work out, some play sports, etc. In the end all these activities are basically equally meaningless.

If you are looking for instant gratification MMOPRGs probably aren't for you. A lot of people do spend too much time playing MMORPGs, but I can 100% assure you that plenty of people find your leisure activities worthless - and they aren't patrolling message boards making sure to tell everyone that.

"LOL you surf bums - get some jobs!"

If people are playing MMORPGs to the point where they are not eating, cleaning, going to work, taking care of kids then that's a big problem. If they are playing MMORPGs to the point where they can't surf and play cricket who really gives a shit? You, apparently.

Edit: Let me also point out that you've accumulated 400 posts in about 2 weeks. Your time is not that valuable.

[Telemediocrity]

Having X amount of free time, I want to get in as many interesting experiences as possible.  Hopefuls for this summer, in addition to MMOs, include krumping, parkour, learning to surf, and trying to get some academic writing published.  The dollars I put into the MMO are not important; I want the most bang in terms of fun for time invested.  No slow, by-the-numbers progression; I want some Sesame Street shit, where it's gratification from start to finish.

In the end you die, turn to dust, and everything you did in your life has exactly the same meaning as everything else: zero.

One leisure activity really isn't any better than any other, for hte most part. Is surfing really a great way to spend some valuable time?

The Claremont Institute once tried to tackle this by using the fatalistic approach as bludgeon to beat atheistic liberalism with.  "How then, shall we live? The entirety of liberalism's answer is that it is better to play chess than checkers... We have seen the future, and it is an endless adult-education seminar."

Except, maybe it's just me, but "It is better to play chess than checkers" was always an appealing life philosophy to me - that by using more of our talents and exploring more of our possibilities and potential rather than fewer, we achieve greater self-actualization.

As for instant gratification in MMO's - why not, exactly?  I started with AC1, and it gave me instant gratification.  So does DDO, so did ToonTown, so did Puzzle Pirates. Neocron could have, if they came up with a better way to level.  CounterStrike (yes, you can mod it to give it persistent/MMO components) does. I see no reason why other MMOs can't do the same.

[Calantus]

Except, maybe it's just me, but "It is better to play chess than checkers" was always an appealing life philosophy to me - that by using more of our talents and exploring more of our possibilities and potential rather than fewer, we achieve greater self-actualization.

Sounds boring, also sounds like a good foundation to build a cult around. I think I'll stick to what I find fun.

EDIT: I'd venture that I'm more self-actualized than anyone who would use a word like "self-actualization", especially those who feel the need to project their lives and beliefs upon others. I just do what I do... enjoy doing what I enjoy doing. I don't analyse my life or try to weigh how meaningful or worthwhile it is. I don't see why people bend over backwards to make themselves different, or "better", nor why they care that others do not. I guess maybe that's how they have fun, good on em I say, just wish they'd just stop bothering me.

[Telemediocrity]

Except, maybe it's just me, but "It is better to play chess than checkers" was always an appealing life philosophy to me - that by using more of our talents and exploring more of our possibilities and potential rather than fewer, we achieve greater self-actualization.

Sounds boring, also sounds like a good foundation to build a cult around.

LaRouche beat you to it.  All his little culties take classes at LaRouche headquarters on Rhiemann, Gauss, classical musical composition, etcetera.

Which, come to think of it, is actually kind of cool.

I don't analyse my life or try to weigh how meaningful or worthwhile it is. I don't see why people bend over backwards to make themselves different, or "better", nor why they care that others do not.

Because we have been born into a very unique situation - into the developed world, relatively young in an era with almost limitless knowledge at our fingertips (interesting theories abound about what that means for the future of education), and thus the potential, assuming we find ourselves dedicated enough, to eventually change the course of world events and otherwise significantly impact the lives of others.

Dick Cheney started out his life path by leaving Yale and laying power lines.  The barriers to entry (assuming you're aiming for something non-elected) have only lessened since then.  I've known people who were doing absolutely nothing with their life who later on ended up at KSG and went on to big things. Nobody who knew Ronald Reagan at 30 would have predicted he'd someday be president.

The world is important enough that there's no good reason/excuse to simply leave it be as it is.  The personal development is your own best guard that you won't fuck things up as, say, Cheney and Rumsfeld have. (Or substitute liberal names, depending on your ideological persuasion - my intent is not to make this into a Politics thread)