Nuggetty Goodness

DPS metres!

Something I’ve gone back to really enjoying not having to deal with.

DPSmetres are… horrible things. Or well. A single factor that can turn slowly into a Horrible Thing. One of the glaring differences (and Recount was always one of the first addons I downloaded!) I’m seeing now in GW, after a month to see Cataclysm then going home is… what a horrible effect DPSmetres have on mindsets.

With DPSmetres, suddenly being good is doing more damage than everyone else, and damn the consequences. No! Can’t waste time CCing or anything, can’t buff anyone else, because that might take away time from my almighty DPSmetre score!

Yes, I’m exaggerating – but that DPSmetre stuff is also something that particularly struck me about WoW, and WoW’s entire combat architecture, when I was running Domain of Anguish with 2 friends in GW last night.

That is, even though WoW encourages team play on the surface, the very construction of the classes and builds encourage solo play. That is, everyone plays as an autonomous unit within the group, caring only for their own cooldowns and buffing their own roles. Tanks and healers too.

I’m not explaining this very well, I’m afraid. But it’s things like… how GW has a spell called ‘Splinter Weapon’ that when cast on a target, makes each of their physical attacks hit 4 other targets, for x number hits. And the damage/DPS boost is attributed to the target, not the caster. This sort of spell is VERY common in GW. And really, all you have to give up to bring it is one slot on your 8-skill skillbar.

In WoW, the only thing I can think of that comes readily/easily to mind, that buffs someone else, and gives them the benefit in terms of numbers, is Power Infusion. And you have to go pretty deep into the Disc tree to get that. Basically, (I don’t think) you would have that without being a Disco-preet.

I guess what I’m trying to say is one of the things I didn’t like about WoW was how, when it comes down to the actual nitty-gritty of it, team play is NOT built into the system and NOT encouraged on a truly fundamental level. (Bear in mind, I played WoW for 3 years – Vanilla to end of TBC – before moving to GW.) And it’s this very obsessive individuality built into the system that, paired with DPSmetres, encourages mindsets which are counterproductive to achieving team play and spirit.

This is something inherent in the architecture itself though, and there’s no point or purpose in railing against it. Either you can accept this kind of play, and enjoy it, or you can’t.

Hope this gave a slightly different perspective as to why DPSmetres can be da ooky. =)

TL;DR
DPSMetres tend to encourage selfish play.

*waddly nugget waddles off, leaving another crumbly battery wall of text in her wake*

Long spammy comment I wrote on the whole Social Responsibility of tanks and healers storm in a teacup that's been storming around in the MMO portion of the blogosphere recently.

I spammed up poor Spinks' place, then realised my readers might perhaps be interested in the perspective, too.

Another nice turn of phrase extracted from a CE217 assignment:

Health bar replenishment objects replenish health

Now you say it, it seems so obvious...

 

Also see...
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2011/QBlog030111B.html
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2011/QBlog020111C.html
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog311210B.html

^_^ I love it when Bartle marks papers.

I think the fix that we had for syncing worked for what it was intended to do, it just brought to light greater issues with the problem. Why are people syncing? To get a team that they feel is guaranteed to win. Why is that so important? Because most people are playing for title points, not for fun - thus losing is seen as inefficient, and generates resentment to whoever is the "source" of your loss. So playing on truly random teams was fantastic for people that are either more casual, or just interested in playing for playings sake - it's like just joining in to a random TF2 server. You can go in, shoot some guys, help your team with your objectives, and probably have fun regardless of the outcome. Titles (and related things, like Fame) in GW have been a double edged sword: they're a terrific motivation for people to play, but as we've seen, sometimes they come with some consequences. So while we can implement the syncing fix, I don't think it's in our interests to do so until it's coming along with something that's part of fixing the bigger problem. Generally I'm not a fan of band-aid solutions unless there's no other choice, I like to get at the real problem where we can. And for what it's worth, bug fixes for old stuff do make it into the builds that we're putting out when we've got time for them. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that with the size of the team, we're only able to do so much, and new stuff has to be a priority. It's not our job to be making money first (although it is always a concern; we are a business after all, and we need to show that our team is valuable and worth keeping around) rather, it's to keep people excited for and engaged with the game. New content is always going to be more compelling in that regard - it gives people something to look forward to, speculate about, argue over, and eventually play (or play with, in the case of features.) I have to prioritize doing the things that buy us the most positive returns, and hope that we'll be able to work toward the resources to better include maintenance as well. John Stumme 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

GW Lead John Stumme gives a very detailed, thoughtful, and clear answer as to why reworking older content/fixing bugs/PvP syncing is on a lower priority than new content.

It's so nice when things are explained sanely and clearly, without being patronising or mysterious.

There are many, many company representatives out there (not just games folk) who could take tips from how Stumme answers questions.

Bargh, Chen, and Burrows also did another experiment where some people unscrambled sentences with words related to rudeness (bold, bother, brazen) and some worked with words indicating politeness (patiently, courteous, unobtrusively). All subjects then walked in on a staged scene where they had to interrupt a conversation to get some needed information. Those in the “polite” condition waited 9.3 minutes on average. Those in the “rude” condition jumped in after just 5.5 minutes on average.³

These are examples of what psychologists called “priming,” which is basically getting people in a particular state of mind or getting them to think about what you want them to. It’s a staple of advertising and surprisingly easy to do. I’ve been thinking for a while that game developers should take better advantage of it.

What if, for example, certain words of phrases were thrown around on loading screens between levels or in the matchmaking lobby for a multiplayer shooter? Would simply showing words like “sportsmanship” or “communication” or “fairness” prime people to behave themselves during games? If you didn’t want to be that transparent, you could include little stories, vignettes, or even comics or movies that included those words or illustrations of them. Or maybe you could use real data, like the number of heals provided by players in the previous game or awards for best defense.

This makes me wonder...

...I think I shall now try greeting every crappy LFD group (by now, I despise the dungeon finder) with some happy, perky bounces, and see if that works with priming the groups to act more decently in general, thereby improving my LFD grouping experiences.

I do usually try to greet people with at least a, 'Hullo!' However, for the purposes of this experiment, I think I'll try to be a little bit odder, and work in 'polite' words for killing everything in sight, and see if that works better.

E.g.: Woohoo! Hi guys! Lettuce go forth and politely divest all the mobbies of their tasty loot with civility and gentleness!

(Assuming they have a certain level of mastery of the English language, it should at least be 'ha, this person is odd' even if it's not actually amusing - and it will hopefully, prime everyone with polite words.)

Certainly, when I made mistakes when I started tanking again (even though only low level) for the first time in 2 years, and I explained exactly that, the group was a lot more forgiving than it would have been had I said nothing.

Pair that with how apology has the tendency (if perceived as sincere) to cancel out the effects of annoyance...

...I shall run my little social experiment and report back inna bit!

More observations:
This is the line I've been using. I've had to macro it, because groups are so gogogogogo these days I don't have TIME to type it... and I type really fast.
/p Hi guys! The PUG runs I've had from LFD lately have been great. Good, polite folk - let's hope this is one of them too.

Unfortunately, I can only do this once per run. This is a problem because of folks dropping out / being kicked, etc, and it would be suspicious to keep saying it every time someone new shows up.

Samples (I may split this off eventually or this will get awfully long)
With Priming
1) RFK - good
2) RFK - good
3) DM - good
4) ZF - good
5) BRD - neutral
6) BRD - bizarre. group was really good. tank was really bad. pally who would not consecrate 'it takes too much mana', could not hold aggro, and ninja'd a haste cloak from me because 'it has stamina' XD
7) BRD - neutral - tank dropped group when Angerforge didn't drop her item
8) ST - bad
9) BRD - bad, tank pulled whole bar way over thaar, while we were smashing barrels. then had a hissy fit. also, another pally tank who wouldn't ever ever EVER consecrate. Not even when I was tanking all the adds (healer).
10) BRD - good - great tank, great group, some loldeaths in the bar, but really nice in general
11) Ramparts - good
12) Slave Pens - good
13) Blood Furnace - good (all three by same group - so could be skewed here)

...going to have to stop this for now. the BC section, and I'm told WotLK section is so faceroll that I never run out of mana no matter how stupid the group is being. Makes it very hard to judge.