Into the woods

Into the woods,
Without delay,
But careful not
To lose the way

Into the woods,
Who knows what may
Be lurking on
the journey?
“Into the woods” Stephen Sondheim

If you do venture into the deep dark woods what duty of care to you have for others in your party – especially those that are AFK but soaking upthe XP?

This tale sent to us by Mike Cox might be a salutary lesson for all.

I was playing my cleric with a group doing scarecrows around the Steppes station (for experience, and going through the usual swapping people in and out of the group, when this one guy, Mr. K, asked us to invite his buddy, Mr. C.  We did so, and things went well for a while, until someone started to notice that Mr. C (who had said he was going afk for a few minutes), had been gone for some time.

In other words, his character was doing nothing but following us around, in auto, and soaking up experience.

So a discussion about kicking him out of the group was made, and the leader decided to kick him out in the woods, so he would get killed.  Kind of cold hearted, and maybe the guy had a legitimate reason for being gone a long time, but this was probably in the range of 15 minutes or so.

So, our brilliant leader drags Mr. C into the woods, where he is promptly attacked by a bear.  In the meantime the rest of the group has pulled a couple of scarecrows.  I look up, see Mr. C is getting killed, and try and cast a heal or two, but he is out of range!

One of the warriors run over and starts to whale on the bear. The leader is telling the warrior to stop. I am running back and forth between the bear fight and the scarecrow fight trying to make sure no one dies, and way to busy to try and type any messages...

Finally the bears and scarecrows are killed, and we have a chance to explain to the Brilliant Leader that no one wanted 3% Dead Debt by someone in the group getting killed.  (Sigh)

Mr. C was kicked out and killed by a wandering wolf a few minutes later.

Comments

[Timothy Burke]

1.

I'm continually interested in the ways that MMOG players fine-tune the collective ethics of game sociality--and the way that various inventive people try to find new niches for parasitism, sometimes using the ethical norms of the local society as a way to extend the lifespan of their parasitism.

So, for example, I was in WoW a couple of weeks back in an area called Uldaman. It's a popular area to raise money for your level 40 mount. A player suddenly invited four of us to join him in a group and proposed that we go into the main area of the dungeon. Ok, we all joined, one at a time. The party leader said, "I'll be back in a minute, I have to repair my gear: you guys go ahead and start killing things. I'll catch up". We methodically start killing and looting the locals. After about five minutes, when there's a lot of combat spam, we all suddenly notice that the player in question has quietly changed the looting protocol so that all loot goes to him as party leader. We also notice that while pretending to be off somewhere else reparing, he's actually stealthed and parked in the chamber where we all are, and has been trying to stay far enough away that we don't detect him but close enough that he gets experience.

Everyone drops the group like a hot potato. I don't know how he thought he'd get away with it, but maybe he had before. It was so methodical that it kind of took my breath away.

Every WoW server have a couple of high-level players who are notorious for "rolling on everything", e.g., trying to claim every item of useful loot even if they themselves can do nothing with it. The really cunning ones have picked a class like priest that makes them somewhat indispensible for the more difficult dungeons. Sooner or later everyone has to group with them because there's no alternative at a time when you've got an otherwise suitable group to do a difficult quest. So some parasites adapt and maintain a stable existence. Others overstep and gain such a negative reputation that their parasitism becomes impossible--or they find themselves constantly in danger, as Mr. C was in this case.

[Flatfingers]

2.

MMOGs are fertile ground for studying what Robert Axelrod called "The Evolution of Cooperation."

The stories told here are good examples of two radically different philosophies of interactive play. On the one hand, you have players who believe that they do best for themselves by helping the entire group do well. And on the other hand, you have players who believe that the best (most fun/efficient) way to succeed is by taking advantage of other players.

Axelrod called the former type of player a "cooperator" and the latter type a "defector." His conclusion was that defectors tend to do well over the short term, but can't survive over the long run as long as several conditions are met:

* players must be able to recognize each other
* players must be able to remember past interactions
* cooperators must be able to interact frequently with each other
* there must be no preset limit on interactions
* cooperation must pay more than an average defection
* the population must contain some cooperators

What's instructive about the stories told here is how clearly they illustrate these conditions. In particular, game features that support reliable recognition, memory, and frequent interaction with other cooperators are crucial to favoring cooperation over defection. Knowing that other players can recognize you and remember what you did to them provides just enough of a disincentive to defection to make cooperative behavior the norm.

Conversely, anonymity and lack of grouping tools breed bad behavior. If a game is structured so that it's hard to find and group with other cooperators, or if players can easily create new characters on a server and thereby remain effectively anonymous, we can expect that game to be much more of a Hobbesian environment. Players of this kind of game have less incentive to cooperate because the cost of defection is low. The typical interaction will be finding creative ways to hose your fellow players.

So I see the level of "duty of care" that players have for each other as being determined by how completely a game encodes these conditions for cooperation.

This question has implications for several of TN's beardy types. From an academic point of view, if it were possible to quantify for a particular game the levels of the conditions described above, and then observe and categorize player interactions in that game, you'd have a good set of data for learning some interesting things about human social behavior.

And from a game designer point of view, Axelrod's observations tell you how to structure your game's player interaction rules to get the kinds of social behaviors you want. If you like the idea of a dog-eat-dog, 24x7 gankfest, then you'd encode game rules that turn the knobs way down on the listed conditions. If instead you want to create a game that rewards trust and punishes parasites, then you'd implement game rules that crank the dial to 11 on these conditions.

Here's what I wonder: What would such games be like? Assuming other game features that make those games fun to play, would a game that deliberately violates all the conditions for cooperation be successful, either critically or commercially? What about a game that deliberately encodes rules intended to achieve a very high degree of cooperation? Would such a game be too "angelic" to survive? Or is it The Game that the computer-owning but non-game-playing population is waiting for?

What level of cooperation do most players want in their virtual worlds? Nothing but 5s? Or a mix of 2s and 5s and 8s?

--Flatfingers

[Jeff Freeman]

3.

What about a game that deliberately encodes rules intended to achieve a very high degree of cooperation?

Isn't that just "forced grouping", and already well-served?

I think also we shouldn't ignore the importance of the desire to be altruistic, and the opportunity that VW's afford people to be altruistic (vs. offline, where fear of getting stabbed in the eye frequently overrides expressions of altruism).

[Bruce Woodcock]

4.

While talk about setting up systems to encourage cooperation and discourage defection is all well and good for *society*, I'm not playing a game to *live* there (at least, not until it can provide me with RL sustenance), so I'm mainly playing a game to *enjoy* the experience. Thus, the real problem the above story illuminates is revealed in one sentence:

>Sooner or later everyone has to group with them
>because there's no alternative at a time when
>you've got an otherwise suitable group to do a
>difficult quest.

And that's the problem right there -- forced grouping. If every game catered to solo play, there would be no problem. Yes, a bunch of people would not group -- so what? That's what they want to do. Those that want to group *still can*, and don't need extra incentive to do so -- they already derive value solely by grouping because that is their preference. Putting mechanisms in place to force those who don't want to group to group is just going to encourage all sorts of the exploitative behavior by individuals who want to minimize the amount of grouping they have to do.

Bruce

[Theo]

5.

CoH offers a good example of a solo-friendly game instituting forced grouping, in that several of the missions began requiring several team members to disarm bombs simultaneously. I like grouping when I WANT to, but very much dislike being forced to by what seems an arbitrary addition to the game mechanics.

[Flatfingers]

6.

A couple of additional points:

1. "Cooperation" doesn't imply "grouping." Formal groups are one way to induce cooperative behavior, but they're certainly not the only way. Players can support each other in many ways without being grouped, from small, subtle things to direct action.

2. Who says grouping has to be forced? When I think of grouping from a design POV, I'm thinking of two things:
a. tools for finding players I want to group with
b. incentives to encourage players to *want* to group with other players

From this perspective, enhancing cooperation is more about providing effective and easy-to-use tools for finding players for groups, and -- more importantly -- coming up with positive incentives for grouping. Maybe it's to be able to take on the bigger, badder mobs. Maybe it's having a really good loot division system. Maybe it's getting access to cooler spells when grouped, or snazzier weapon graphics. Maybe it's team monuments or reputation scores. Maybe it's having shortcuts that replace some long travel paths.

You get the idea. The point is that a fun game doesn't penalize people for doing the wrong things; it rewards them for doing the right things. If cooperative behavior is considered a right thing, then providing incentives for grouping is one fun way among many to achieve that goal.

...

At the risk of going on a tangent, where has this notion come from that not having access to some group ability or effect constitutes "forced" grouping?

If there's a single path you have to follow to move up in skills or through a storyline, and the only way to cross a mandatory point on that path requires grouping, then yes, that's "forced" grouping. But when there are alternatives, then no, that's not forced grouping.

To use the most obvious example, not being able to solo some specific kind of dangerous mob does *not* constitute "forced grouping." No one is twisting your arm to make you attack that mob; it's not necessary for you to beat that mob to make money or score loot or go up in rank or abilities... which means there's no justification for a complaint that you're being "forced" to group in order to defeat that utterly optional foe.

As long as it's not a mandatory chokepoint in a progression path, being able to take on certain very powerful foes is a *benefit* you receive from choosing to group. Not being able to solo that foe is not a punishment for refusing to group.

And so it is for the other kinds of effects I suggested. Useful/fun effects when grouped are incentives for choosing to group, not requirements that "force" grouping. The two should not be confused.

--Flatfingers

[magicback]

7.

There have to be tools/guides/knowledgebases that guide players to the desired social norms. Allowing AFK players to tag along and soak up XP by design may sound like a group-friendly function, but may incite poor behavior.

[Bruce Woodcock]

8.

>1. "Cooperation" doesn't imply "grouping."
>Formal groups are one way to induce cooperative
>behavior, but they're certainly not the only
>way. Players can support each other in many ways
>without being grouped, from small, subtle things
>to direct action.

I agree. Sadly, most developers are not this sophisticated. What's the first thing everyone talks about when cooperation is brought up? Grouping.

>b. incentives to encourage players to *want* to
>group with other players

Er... why? Players who naturally want to group don't need incentives to group. Players who don't are only going to resent being "forced" to group because of your "incentives."

>You get the idea. The point is that a fun game
>doesn't penalize people for doing the wrong
>things; it rewards them for doing the right
>things. If cooperative behavior is considered a
>right thing, then providing incentives for
>grouping is one fun way among many to achieve
>that goal.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you're rewarding someone else for grouping, it's just a subtler way of punishing the soloer. It's better than outright punishment, sure, but not by much.

>At the risk of going on a tangent, where has
>this notion come from that not having access to
>some group ability or effect
>constitutes "forced" grouping?

Well, actually, most "forced" grouping is far beyond that. Many games have quests that are literally "forced" grouping. Others have content in the form of monsters or quests that could theoretically be done solo, but not without a character of such high level the reward is no longer worth it. Or the risk is so high that it would take too much time. This is marginally less offensive in a game that has lots of stuff so the soloer really can "go do something else", but it's still offensive, and in any case, most games aren't that dynamic.

If there's a single path you have to follow to move up in skills or through a storyline, and the only way to cross a mandatory point on that path requires grouping, then yes, that's "forced" grouping. But when there are alternatives, then no, that's not forced grouping.

Any content, which requires a group to be successfully "enjoyed" (i.e. monster defeated, loot gathered, quest completed), at the level range for which it is designed, *is* effectively forced grouping for that content. Often times in these games the reward is quite an important item, so not being able to obtain it only hurts the solo player more.

>To use the most obvious example, not being able
>to solo some specific kind of dangerous mob does
>*not* constitute "forced grouping." No one is
>twisting your arm to make you attack that mob;
>it's not necessary for you to beat that mob to
>make money or score loot or go up in rank or
>abilities... which means there's no
>justification for a complaint that you're
>being "forced" to group in order to defeat that
>utterly optional foe.

Unfortunately, MMOGs are far more subtle that that. Here's the most obvious example. Let's assume that characters and monsters are relatively evenly matched -- a L10 character can defeat a L10 monster most of the time, and gets L10-powered loot. A L15 mob is too tough, so he hunts L10s. A L10 soloer can kill X L10 mobs an hour and get X L10 loot and experience.

2 L10 characters can hunt the same mobs. Commonly people say, "Ah, but experience and loot are split." But they neglect the fact that they can kill such mobs twice as fast. Even if they don't cooperate and simply solo independently within the group, then each degenerates into the same L10 soloer case.

But it's more complicated than that. Because the L10 guys *can* cooperate, and with things like class specialization, they can have far more skills combined than the soloer has alone. A healer and a fighter will have less downtime while each getting the same amount of experience and loot. Also the risk of death is less, because many times mobs are dangerous not because you can't hurt them but that you run out of hit points before they do. And don't forget the loot -- which in most games is probably randomized. The soloer gets a bunch of loot he can't use, and has to run back to town to sell junk. With a group, the greater chances are each drop will be something someone can use right away.

And this is *BEFORE* you add any of the grouping experience BONUSES that most MMOGs commonly have. I mean, come on. Grouping already is giving greater rewards for less risk, and now you add bonuses ON TOP of that?

And then comes the kicker. The solo L10, no matter how great it is that he can solo, is never going to be able to take out that L15 mob until he's L15 or thereabouts. But two L10s, they can probably take out an L15 working together. Sure, the experience will work out so it's still fair since it's split and it'll take them longer. But what about the LOOT? Usually the L15 will drop L15 loot that simply *cannot* be gotten at L10, even if you sold all that L10 loot to try to buy the L15 loot. And often this is going to be a quest item or similar that you can't buy anyway. So boom, the L10 guys now have L15 gear, and can advance that much more quickly and safely than the soloer ever could.

Now, there are many ways you can address these problems with proper design. Level restricting loot, for example, so you can't use the high-level stuff until you're that level. Making higher-level mobs more than just lower-level ones with more hit points and more damage. Making the loot dynamic, or providing more balanced risk vs. reward profiles.

But most MMOGs don't do this. It's simply too easy to simply pump the mobs up bigger, adding more of them, and telling people they have to group if they want to take them on. Most games eventually reach a point where a soloer not only can't keep up, but has no enjoyable content at their level that they haven't already accessed and enjoyed. The designers don't care; they're too busy adding L200 mobs to fight the raids of guilds with 25 L100 characters.

Bruce

[Flatfingers]

9.

Thanks for the detailed comments, Bruce. I took a strong position on this to encourage discussion, so I appreciate your providing a different perspective.

Let me see if I can clarify where I was coming from. (Sorry for the length. Just imagine how long this was before I deleted several paragraphs!)

>> incentives to encourage players to *want* to group with other players
> Er... why? Players who naturally want to group don't need incentives to group. Players who don't are only going to resent being "forced" to group because of your "incentives."

Who said that incentives to group should be the only incentives in the game?

More and more I'm coming to believe that a mainstream MMOG needs to offer content that's aimed (through specific features) at multiple playstyles. In other words, there ought to be unique rewards for group play and other unique rewards for solo play, unique rewards for fighting and for crafting, and unique rewards for PvP and for roleplaying. No mainstream MMOG should be *only* about grouping -- there ought to be content and features and special goodies that respect other playstyles as well. I believe that's how you attract a player base that's diverse enough to be sustainable over the long term.

Having said this, however, I still conclude that incentives for grouping are particularly valuable.

Being "massively multiplayer" is what makes MMOGs unique. A "massively multiplayer" game that doesn't include features clearly showcasing this special capacity for widescale social interaction is one that fails to exploit its most valuable asset. That's why I promote incentives for grouping -- not just to reward those who already enjoy that playstyle, but to encourage others to give interaction a try.

And please note that "grouping" doesn't just mean combat. Why shouldn't playing in a band be more rewarding than playing some musical instrument by yourself? Why shouldn't there be complex and powerful items that can only be built by an organized group of crafters? Celebrating these features would be helpful marketing for the one thing that best distinguishes MMOGs -- their "MM" nature.

As long as there are also rewards for other kinds of play, I see no problem with incentivizing group play -- in fact, I think it's a necessity if the MMOG industry is to prosper.

> Any content, which requires a group to be successfully "enjoyed" (i.e. monster defeated, loot gathered, quest completed), at the level range for which it is designed, *is* effectively forced grouping for that content. Often times in these games the reward is quite an important item, so not being able to obtain it only hurts the solo player more.

I suspect we're coming to different conclusions based on making different assumptions. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be assuming that a player has a kind of "right" to be able to do certain things or acquire certain objects regardless of behavior. So if the only way to obtain a valuable item is to group, that constitutes "forced" grouping because you can't get that object -- to which you have a right, and without which your gameplay is hurt -- in any other way.

But no such right to all content exists! So on what grounds do you object to requiring grouping in some circumstances? If players don't have a right to Item X, how can they object to needing to group (or follow some other game rule) to get Item X? These aren't rhetorical questions; I'm sincerely curious -- I understand that you don't feel forced grouping is fair, but what's the principle behind your objection?

Even if this isn't the basis for your own objection to special rewards for grouping, it sure seems to be a popular belief among gamers generally. "I paid for this game, so I have a right to immediate access to all content."

Suppose that you and your group can defeat the vile Troll of Smogmore and obtain the Flaming Sword of Uberness, but I can't because I don't group. So? How do I have any "right" to the FSU? Why should I be given a FSU if I freely choose not to do the things required by the game's rules to obtain one? How am I injured if the rules favor grouped play, given that playful social interaction (which benefits all players of a MMOG) is the number one goal that a massively multiplayer game ought to be trying to achieve?

I'm a highly solo player who doesn't mind not being able to obtain the same rewards as those who group, because I believe that grouped play is what MMOGs ought to be best at, and because offering rewards obtainable only through grouping is one way to encourage that playstyle. Of course I'd like to obtain those goodies without having to abandon my preferred (solo) playstyle... but I'm not going to assume that I have some right to valuable rewards merely because I want them.

Social play is a crucial behavior in a MMOG, so it still seems to me that such play ought to be actively encouraged with unique in-game incentives. These incentives don't all have to be about fighting -- in fact, I think smart designers will offer fun grouping rewards for crafters and roleplayers and other non-combatants -- but having such incentives that help make grouping desirable still seems like a good idea. Grouping helps to create a sense of community that makes a MMOG better for all of us, social and solo player alike. That makes it worth supporting with incentives for grouping.

In summary, I actually agree with your analysis that grouped players typically get more rewards than solo players.

My question is: Why shouldn't they?

--Flatfingers

[Julie]

10.

“More and more I’m coming to believe that a mainstream MMOG needs to offer content that’s aimed (through specific features) at multiple styles.”

I couldn’t agree more, but mostly because I believe most people play in multiple styles. I solo, I group, I craft, I sit around and chat.

Generally, I’m an opportunistic grouper meaning if a group is readily available (I’m asked by a friend or some random passing group who needs me) I’ll join. Or, if I really need something for a quest, I’ll attempt to pull together a group with shouts. Otherwise, I solo. There are those who actively and aggressively group, but even those solo at times.

In Everquest 1, my opportunistic grouping worked great for a while until I reached higher levels. Then, if my 60 beastlord (the cap at the time) couldn’t find a group (even actively searching), I’d end up trying to solo light blues for dismal exp and little to no loot worthwhile because, at high levels, the game was SO skewed towards groups. I quit because about half the time I logged on and had to (or wanted to) solo, there was little variety in what I could do. And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people shout “I’m logging because I can’t find a group.”

The best thing for an MMO? Keep people logged on! More people hanging around makes for a better MMO because they are likely, being people, to interact either through grouping or, even while solo, chat (shouts, says, tells, social animations, guilds, channels). Arm-twisting players reluctant to group at the particular time they’re on by offering little to no ‘golden opportunity’ play options only encourages someone to logoff because ‘I can’t find a group!’

So why not make quests or game features that provide incentives to group play? And why not at the same time create quests and features that provide incentives (maybe slightly different ones) to solo play? I know I, and many others, will do both actively.

Now to change subject… sort of… “The point is that a fun game doesn't penalize people for doing the wrong things; it rewards them for doing the right things.”

That’s an interesting statement. By ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ I’m assuming you’re talking in the context of ‘cooperators’ and ‘defectors.’ Did you ever play Everquest on a PVP server? This was a very different environment from the non-PVP servers and the society there was different. Or did you play Lineage II and have to deal with bots and farmers and PKs? Did you ever deal with kill stealing and constant trains and people snatching loot? Or how about lewd behavior, selling in game sex for loot?

In an online community I’ve found that whatever ‘wrong’ behavior is possible will happen. And the way you limit and or punish that behavior with game design can vastly alter the set of people who play and the way that they play. PVP is a great example and alters a community more than anything else I think.

So the perfect game? I think would be just like the real world. Make everything possible and at the same time make protection and opportunity possible. Make havens for each. Everquest 2 I think is nice, but too safe. I would add zones (in addition to the non-PVP, non-KS, non-powerlevelling ones now) that were open PVP. I would also make areas where there was complete ‘lawlessness’ where people could KS and steal loot and randomly change the way they look and PK at will. I would also make many options in terms of the way one looks. And I would offer full city zones to fight in and a huge variety of group, raid and solo aimed quests.

In short, "Why shouldn't they (reward players who group more)?" Because there's much more to an MMO community than grouping. And you want to encourage everyone to play no matter what their mood.

Julie

[Flatfingers]

11.

Julie: "The best thing for an MMO? Keep people logged on!"

I understand what you mean. If grouping matters, then the odds of being able to group increase with the number of currently active players.

On the other hand, this runs afoul of the observation that Raph Koster has made that, from a server operations viewpoint, you actually don't want all players to be logged on constantly. It chews up bandwidth your more desirable players could use for a more responsive play experience.

But I agree that grouping is so important that it needs to be relatively easy to do. So I come back to tools -- specifically, tools for finding the kind of content that suits your playstyle (including grouping). A MMO that truly catered to varied playstyles would deliberately spend the time to develop the best possible tools for finding content.

If this can be done in an immersive way, great. If not, it still needs to be available, because it doesn't matter how great your content is if it's too hard for your players to do what's necessary to access it. (This assumes they've got the requisite attributes, of course.)

So I encourage developers to create powerful tools to support easy grouping. In fact, I'd say your "group content" is incomplete without such tools.

(Note: I expect some developers think they already have "powerful tools for finding groups." I'd ask my player base if they agree with that rosy assessment.)

Flatfingers: "The point is that a fun game doesn't penalize people for doing the wrong things; it rewards them for doing the right things."
Julie: "By ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ I’m assuming you’re talking in the context of ‘cooperators’ and ‘defectors.’"

Not exactly. In the context of game design I don't mean "right" and "wrong" in a universal ethical way -- I simply mean whatever player behaviors the designers want to encourage or discourage. I'm not addressing whether particular design decisions would produce desired/expected results, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

I'm just making the old point about carrots and sticks in a MMOG context. Of course there will be times when taking away some player capability is the only solution. What I'm suggesting is that when you have a choice between adding code to penalize behavior you don't want (such as soloing) and adding code to encourage behavior you do want (such as grouping), that your game will be more fun (which serves your bottom line) if you tend to choose the path of positive reinforcement.

And all of this was just to explain my contention that offering special rewards to grouped players is not a punishment of solo players and doesn't constitute "forced" grouping (unless it's a mandatory chokepoint along a story or skill/level progression path).

Julie: "So the perfect game I think would be just like the real world. Make everything possible and at the same time make protection and opportunity possible. Make havens for each."

That's a fairly provocative position to take. I don't necessarily agree, but it has the great virtue of being a kick in the pants to what appears to have become conventional MMOG design wisdom. :-)

Why shouldn't there be multiple "civilized" and "barbaric" areas blending into each other on the same server? Are dynamic rules really that hard to implement? Or is it a problem of too many players not realizing that they've walked into a bad part of town... at night... by themselves... flashing their wallet... and then howling "this game suxxors!" when they get mugged?

--Flatfingers