Blizzard dies and Bobby rides

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,659
4,282
Cybsled said:
The server groupings are the "real" servers now.
Click to expand...
I think the term is "connected realms" (or a similar euphemism) for a merged server group. I guess this is what you meant?

The goal should be to bring back social grouping within such a server group, as in: bascially a set of servers that allows players to be in a guild together.

Of course this does not undo the damage years of--I think the best description here would be "factory farming of players"--has done to the playerbase. Especially not overnight. But they should reverse the trend and bring in some incentives for social play on the same server outside the "Mythic raids only work on the same connected server." Which, together with guild membership and the auction house, is basically the last thing a server has as identity.
 
Kuro

Kuro

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
9,152
24,279
I believe the internal name is Cattle.net now
 
  • 4Worf
Reactions: 3 users
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
Neranja said:
Of course this does not undo the damage years of--I think the best description here would be "factory farming of players"--has done to the playerbase. Especially not overnight. But they should reverse the trend and bring in some incentives for social play on the same server outside the "Mythic raids only work on the same connected server." Which, together with guild membership and the auction house, is basically the last thing a server has as identity.
Click to expand...

Again that doesn't work with how the game is setup.

1) If people are serious about min/maxing and getting max rewards, then they'll all crowd specific servers if their current server isn't ideal
a) This creates even more population imbalance or deficit on certain servers
b) This also creates "prime hours", whereas server groupings can help smooth that out to a degree. Don't play at the optimal times because you work? Guess that sucks for you, get rekt!1!

2) Bottlenecks are created. Based on server population, your available pool of players will start to get used up, leaving even less available to group with. This brings back the "looking for group" shit for even trivial stuff because if the incentive is anything meaningful, playing without that is suboptimal and "not worth it". This can result in loss of players, or players just looking to go to a different server.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,659
4,282
Cybsled said:
1) If people are serious about min/maxing and getting max rewards, then they'll all crowd specific servers if their current server isn't ideal
a) This creates even more population imbalance or deficit on certain servers
b) This also creates "prime hours", whereas server groupings can help smooth that out to a degree. Don't play at the optimal times because you work? Guess that sucks for you, get rekt!1!
Click to expand...
First, let me state that this would be primarily for the leveling phase to max level, as character progression after a certain point is already in instanced group/raid content. The game already awards bonus XP for grouping, but the bonus does not outweigh the increased time cost of coordination between players, so the incentive isn't there. In addition to that, the primary pain point is that mobs die too fast anyway for grouping to be of any benefit. Making the mobs have more HP, while also giving more XP would shift that balance to making grouping more interesting.

Second, population imbalances are already in the game. This is a long running pain point. Especially in warmode with faction imbalances on top they already tried mercenary mode. Blizzard have really shit the bed here, especially on the faction imbalance side. I have no quick solution for this, other than more realm connections and making PvE grouping across factions.

Third, it's not like the solo progression path would be patched out of the game. The goal is to incentivize players to group, not to remove progression for solo players. Especially those who have only a limited amount of time (say, like an hour) and don't want to look for a group.

Interestingly, most parts of the tech is already developed and in game:
  • warmode to funnel groups of players into separate layers with different ruleset
  • party sync for quests and replaying of quests together with someone else
  • level scaling of mobs to the players, especially to the power level of the attacking players

Cybsled said:
2) Bottlenecks are created. Based on server population, your available pool of players will start to get used up, leaving even less available to group with.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. If the available pool of players are getting used up by players creating groups for content, isn't that a good thing that players group up? There will always be a remainder of players that either won't find a group, or don't want to. Either because they prefer that playstyle, or they have limited time.

It's not like the system couldn't be dynamic with group size. Three players can do it with 3 DD, fourth player should be a healer and for five you may want a tank. Since the game allows for switching specs on the fly and many classes have a tank or heal spec, this shouldn't be a problem.

This would also let people try out these "necessary" specs in a non-instanced environment.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
It just seems like a system with more negatives than positives for a problem that isn't that big a problem. There is absolutely nothing that prevents you from socializing and making friends right now in a MMO. Placing artificial restrictions or "bonuses" on something that server groupings were created to solve for to begin with is counter-intuitive.

Keep in mind server groupings were created so a) You could avoid obvious server mergers, which can have a catastrophic psychological effect on the playerbase ("ded game") b) keep queue times low so players didn't get frustrated that they can't do basic things in the game in a reasonable amount of time. No one wants to spend 30-60 minutes just to find a group. There is a reason games try very hard to avoid that - it kills player retention and drives away new customers.

If you want to drive server community, then you need shit like housing or other like-events (like in FFXIV). Tying -anything- progression wise to a server-only setting is not a good thing and why most MMOs have done away with that. You don't get rid of internet message boards because you miss your old local area BBS chat rooms from the early 90s.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,659
4,282
Cybsled said:
If you want to drive server community, then you need shit like housing or other like-events (like in FFXIV). Tying -anything- progression wise to a server-only setting is not a good thing and why most MMOs have done away with that.
Click to expand...
No. FFXIV forces you to group up into instances and trials for story progression early on, and the social contract in FFIXV is: you help the sprout (newbie) get through the dungeon, and you get bonus XP/tomestones. On top of a bonus for required roles like tank/healer. So the example of FFXIV is exactly counter to your argument.

Let's step back a bit: The argument started out with "you should expect to play with others in an MMO, that is the whole point of an MMO", but there aren't any incentives for you to do so in WoW for the leveling part. In FFXIV this is because those are part of the story, which is the primary focus of the game.

WoW on the other hand prides itself in its dungeon and raid design, but nothing in the new player experience drives people to group play, except when you hit a some dungeon quest (which you can ignore) or the brick wall of character progression. And even then it does this mostly by automated and anonymous tools, where the others players could be exchanged by elaborate bots. So players started to treat each other that way.

tl;dr: WoW has become a lobby-based game with instances, where the world just isn't part of a social experience. It's not an MMORPG anymore.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
Both of your examples use server-grouping architecture, though. I wasn't arguing against rewards for helping noobs or whatever, I was arguing against the flawed idea of "give bonuses to doing group content with people on your server only".
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,659
4,282
Cybsled said:
I was arguing against the flawed idea of "give bonuses to doing group content with people on your server only".
Click to expand...
Because that is the hill Blizzard seems to be willing to die on. Either make realm choice relevant again, or do away with it completely for things like guilds, auction house or M+ raiding.

Blizzard can't have it both ways. I think a lot of people really would want something like server identity back, especially for RP servers. And selling realm transfers can't be the only reason why they haven't done so yet.

Why is it so hard to add a checkbox in LFG with "only look on my server", and after 5-10 minutes you get a pop up "This takes long, want us to expand to cross-realm?". They already do that for the expansion-specific LFG queues.

Also, no one said to have grouping not give any bonus cross-realm. Just make the bonus bigger on server only groups, even if it's only 5 to 10%.

tl;dr: The goal should be to play with other humans, and if possible with people you can be in a guild together if you so choose.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
The game already has you play with other humans. Unless you're just in a zombie guild, you presumably already are playing with guildmates.

You're trying to solve for a non-existent problem under the impression that "the good old days" have been lost, while proposing a solution that ignores why server groupings are even a thing (to let people play with other people, regardless as to how shitty their individual server's population is). Especially in WoW, since you also have faction based concerns and if you are alliance on a horde dominated server, good luck getting into anything w/o cross realm.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nirgon

Nirgon

Log Wizard
14,300
23,164
Izo said:
Paladinger.
Click to expand...

73068230.jpg
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,659
4,282
Cybsled said:
The game already has you play with other humans. Unless you're just in a zombie guild, you presumably already are playing with guildmates.
Click to expand...
The whole time I was talking about making players acquainted with the idea to play with other people from the beginning of their journey instead of soloing to max level, and you come back with "you're already playing with guildmates." For new/returning players they sure as hell don't make a new character and start with "I need to find a guild so I can play with other players."

For the record, since I get the feeling this wasn't obvious: I was talking about playing with players outside the automated LFG tool. That tool is both a boon and a curse at the same time.

This whole argument rests on the presumption that no new or returning players get into the game. That's defeatist, basically what you'd call "a managed decline".

And I guess this is exactly what is happening inside Blizzard at the moment: Any ideas how to incentivize the influx of players at each start of an expansion to play together and form social bonds are sidelined with "you're trying to solve a non-existing problem", and "we have more important systems to develop."

Shortly after expansion launch those people quit because: a) they have no social connections holding them in the game and b) their character progress at some points starts to be limited by having access to people at their skill, effort, and progress level.

"But, but, there's Discord and Facebook now for ..."

That's not how this works out: Most communities there are nice to talk about the game, but skill and progress levels usually vary wildly in those communities. And this will invite friction once transferred to the game, because the lower end has disdain for the "no life poopsockers", while the people more invested in the game have disdain for the "fsck'ing casuals". Successful out-of-game communities usually tend to represent an in-game community (like a guild) that shares the same goals and values.

Cybsled said:
while proposing a solution that ignores why server groupings are even a thing
Click to expand...
Yeah, why even are "server groupings" a thing? Someone explain this to me please.

Is it just to fleece player money for transfers, or is it to give players some form of identity? GW2 does this for WvWvW reasons, but WoW could get away with factions for world PvP, and instanced PvP doesn't even need any of that.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
Neranja said:
Yeah, why even are "server groupings" a thing? Someone explain this to me please
Click to expand...

I already mentioned why: To allow for "individual servers" where players can be and have a server-specific community and/or economy, but you can avoid the pitfalls of a closed single-server ecosystem when needed in terms of player population by allowing a shared pool of players to be able to play with each other. Think a power grid - a managed power grid in theory allows for even distribution of power over the span of the grid. It helps account for dips and spikes in usage. Server groupings are the same thing, except players = the electricity.

Have you noticed that virtually no major MMOs have had a server merge in a very long time? That is because server groupings eliminate the need for that. Your chosen server could be a ghost town, but you wouldn't notice it because you get pooled with players from other servers when you hit a specific population threshold. Obvious server merges are BAD. Especially in today's environment. Can you imagine if WoW said "We're merging 15 servers together to offer a better playing experience to our players". Youtube, Twitter, gaming websites would be full of "WOW IS CONFIRMED DYING!" "DEAD GAME CONFIRMED - WOW SHUTTERS 15 SERVERS, RUMORS HAVE IT...". You already get the dead game shit now, but something like that would kick it into overdrive and then it has a risk of becoming reality as people get influenced by that. Look at past games where this happened - it has a cascade effect of negative publicity and player perception of the stability of the game environment. And who wants to invest time in a game that is going to "go away" or make you lose your time investment? Most recently I remember Archeage doing that, and that was worse because land was a finite and limited resource. People on the server being merged just flat out quit the game.

If you implemented a system that said "You get 5-10% more xp if you level with people on your server", all that does is make the people playing on the "dead" server more acutely aware they are on a dead server. Then they start to complain. Those that do feel an attachment to their server/community then begin to resent a change like this, because it isn't their fault the server is a ghost town. Then you get people either leaving the server in frustration, or worse, your game. You basically have the opposite effect of what you set out to do.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
xmod2

xmod2

<Gold Donor>
771
1,198
Cybsled said:
I already mentioned why: To allow for "individual servers" where players can be and have a server-specific community and/or economy, but you can avoid the pitfalls of a closed single-server ecosystem when needed in terms of player population by allowing a shared pool of players to be able to play with each other.
Click to expand...
Seeing other people in the world doesn't change the fact that you're on a dead server if you're forced to guild only with server people and the auction house is server specific. How is there going to be a 'server specific community' if there isn't anyone on the server in the first place? In the case of a dead server, the server group 'solution' simply masks the problem, it doesn't solve it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,213
13,760
Then sometimes they do shared AH as well if it gets bad.

Again, the downsides far outweigh the any positives that might come from obvious server merges.
 
Siddar

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,465
6,012
Cybsled said:
Then sometimes they do shared AH as well if it gets bad.

Again, the downsides far outweigh the any positives that might come from obvious server merges.
Click to expand...
I like server merges myself.

It creates new opportunity for players having half the server you're now on being completely new to you.

New people aren't all that different really once you get to know them.
 
Last edited:
Fucker

Fucker

Log Wizard
13,097
30,107
Siddar said:
I like server merges myself.

It creates new opportunity for players having half the server you're now on being complete new to you.

New people aren't all that different really once you get to know them.
Click to expand...
You are the last human left alive, and you are still in the Matrix. The rest of us are bots.
 
Chanur

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
29,032
46,988
My alliance server is basically just the guild I am in. There is another small active guild though. There are less than a hundred items on the AH at pretty much any time. Most groups or trades are from guild members. There seem to be 1-2 horde guilds also. We battle occasionally for resources and spirit towers. Its weird and can be frustrating at times. Makes for a tight guild though.
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
19,489
15,850
Cybsled said:
There is absolutely nothing that prevents you from socializing and making friends right now in a MMO.
Click to expand...
If the tools aren't there or the gameplay doesn't encourage socialization, it isn't prohibitive, but it's absolutely restrictive.

MMO players, by their nature, are mostly shut-ins and people who don't "like" to socialize - introverts. Sometimes, people need to be "forced" out of their shells. Love it or hate it, that is one area EQ did well in, is forcing interdependency. Almost ALL of us remember our social interactions in that game, very few people recall fondly the actual mechanics. There is definitely something there to explore. Sure, that game will likely be "niche", but most MMOs nowadays are just single-player grindfests/RPGs.
 
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,399
9,200
Kirun said:
Love it or hate it, that is one area EQ did well in, is forcing interdependency. Almost ALL of us remember our social interactions in that game
Click to expand...
If I wanted to spend all night trying to wrangle 40 neckbeards into getting something done, I'd stay at work.
 
  • 3Worf
Reactions: 2 users
You must log in or register to reply here.