Comments on: A Theory on the Quality of Grouping http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/ Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:06:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Heartless http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/comment-page-1/#comment-472 Heartless Wed, 24 May 2006 02:35:13 +0000 http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/#comment-472 Sounds very similiar to the idea I had for DDO if the game would of had real live Dungeon Masters. An eBay style system where you get to rank your DM and the DM ranks the players. That way the chumps get identified. The only problem is people grouping together and rating each other as good just to make their ranking better. Pretty big hurdle to clear. Sounds very similiar to the idea I had for DDO if the game would of had real live Dungeon Masters. An eBay style system where you get to rank your DM and the DM ranks the players. That way the chumps get identified.

The only problem is people grouping together and rating each other as good just to make their ranking better. Pretty big hurdle to clear.

]]> By: Alan De Smet http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/comment-page-1/#comment-467 Alan De Smet Tue, 23 May 2006 16:36:21 +0000 http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/#comment-467 I agree, some sort of reputation system would help is getting higher average levels of N. I'd do something more intelligent than eBay's system, however. MMOGs are fundamentally social activities. Take that social aspect into account. Ratings are easy to game (eBay at least charges you a little bit if you game the system by auctioning things to yourself). A cumulative rating is useful (it will weed out some people) but far more useful is a web of friends. This is Fred, who you don't know. But you know Bob (and indeed rated him a 10 because he's your real life friend and trust him). Bob rated Fred at 8. Since you trust Bob's judgement, you can take Bob's rating of 8 at face value. If necessary, go multiple hops. The more hops necessary, or the less you trust the judgement of your immediate hops ("Joe's a great guy and I love playing with him, but he's a terrible judge of character and gives everyone a 10"), the less reliable the result, but at least you can gauge the reliability. I agree, some sort of reputation system would help is getting higher average levels of N. I’d do something more intelligent than eBay’s system, however. MMOGs are fundamentally social activities. Take that social aspect into account. Ratings are easy to game (eBay at least charges you a little bit if you game the system by auctioning things to yourself). A cumulative rating is useful (it will weed out some people) but far more useful is a web of friends. This is Fred, who you don’t know. But you know Bob (and indeed rated him a 10 because he’s your real life friend and trust him). Bob rated Fred at 8. Since you trust Bob’s judgement, you can take Bob’s rating of 8 at face value. If necessary, go multiple hops. The more hops necessary, or the less you trust the judgement of your immediate hops (”Joe’s a great guy and I love playing with him, but he’s a terrible judge of character and gives everyone a 10″), the less reliable the result, but at least you can gauge the reliability.

]]> By: Darniaq http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/comment-page-1/#comment-465 Darniaq Tue, 23 May 2006 03:17:26 +0000 http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/#comment-465 I've long preferred an eBay style voting system. Each character gets one. The people allowed to vote on them have spent, say, at least 30 minutes grouped with them in an adventure zone (for WoW it'd only be instances) and have some sort of good rating of their own (or some other factor). Accountability. Without it no formula of sufficient complexity could be used as a prediction of a good session experience. In my opinion ;) I’ve long preferred an eBay style voting system. Each character gets one. The people allowed to vote on them have spent, say, at least 30 minutes grouped with them in an adventure zone (for WoW it’d only be instances) and have some sort of good rating of their own (or some other factor).

Accountability. Without it no formula of sufficient complexity could be used as a prediction of a good session experience. In my opinion ;)

]]> By: Alan De Smet http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/comment-page-1/#comment-464 Alan De Smet Mon, 22 May 2006 19:46:13 +0000 http://www.mmognation.com/2006/05/22/a-theory-on-the-quality-of-grouping/#comment-464 You didn’t finish the train of thought, perhaps because you figured it was obvious. But I think it’s worth finishing the thought: If you’re looking to group with strangers, you can to assume that “N” is going to be lower than you’d like because some percentage of strangers suck. Exactly where you put your estimate of N will vary based on your experience, but you’d be a fool to assume it’s going to be close to 1. Conclusion: You need to set the bonus or group high enough that it counteracts the bad grouping experiences. To pull numbers out of a hat, if 50% of the groups an average player ends up grouping with are pretty good (close to 1) and 50% are bad (close to 0), the bonus for grouping needs to <em>100%</em> to compensate. Anything less essentially rewards soloing. Yet if you announce a 100% bonus for grouping, you end up rewarding people with more reliable groups (rewarding people who play a lot and get into exclusive guilds); effectively penalizing the casual player who is stuck with random groups And as an added bonus, the solo fans will scream bloody murder because they perceive a 50% penalty on XP (which isn't present in practice). You didn’t finish the train of thought, perhaps because you figured it was obvious. But I think it’s worth finishing the thought:

If you’re looking to group with strangers, you can to assume that “N” is going to be lower than you’d like because some percentage of strangers suck. Exactly where you put your estimate of N will vary based on your experience, but you’d be a fool to assume it’s going to be close to 1. Conclusion: You need to set the bonus or group high enough that it counteracts the bad grouping experiences. To pull numbers out of a hat, if 50% of the groups an average player ends up grouping with are pretty good (close to 1) and 50% are bad (close to 0), the bonus for grouping needs to 100% to compensate. Anything less essentially rewards soloing. Yet if you announce a 100% bonus for grouping, you end up rewarding people with more reliable groups (rewarding people who play a lot and get into exclusive guilds); effectively penalizing the casual player who is stuck with random groups And as an added bonus, the solo fans will scream bloody murder because they perceive a 50% penalty on XP (which isn’t present in practice).

]]>