Tree of Savior Forum

ToS (Social Interaction) as MMO or MOBA/Co-op?

General Discussion
#64

Ok, let’s play without chat, guilds, trades (social/economic tool), parties, etc. Let’s play offline… why do you need thousands of people playing on the same server? we don’t need social tools!!!

I’m not talking about making friends, is just about interactions between players! Felling that the world is alive… that your actions mean something.

For example: Making a trade is an social/economical interaction and you don’t have to be friends.

Again and again, social interaction/feature isn’t the same as being social. But you need those tools in order to be part of the online game.

#65

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
They didn’t, according to a quick google search, taking free to play effects into account. Is this ordering related to release dates, since new releases always generate hype? TERA was all about the Elin ERP, anyway.
[/quote]It was purely an example. The point is that a person has preference on one game over the other, despite the fact that the said game may or may not be less “socially interactive,” it is still popular, and is able to form a playerbase regardless.

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
“Hey honey, let’s eat at the exact same restaurant every week. It doesn’t matter where we go since the point is mating anyway.” Good luck with that.
[/quote]Going by your logic, why is it that the vast majority continues to use Facebook? “Hey, let’s continue to use this same exact site every day, because it doesn’t matter what else we use since the point is to socially interact anyways. Plus, everyone is already using it.” Good luck with that, huh?

If the purpose is solely for social interaction, then really, there is not much of a reason for someone to be playing a different/new MMO, because everyone else will still be playing, or rather, using, a previous one to socially interact

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
RO2 never took over its audience
[/quote]And why is that? What is it that makes Tree of Savior a better “successor” than Ragnarok Online 2? Surely if it is for social interaction purposes, wouldn’t the latter perform as much of a job as the former?

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
RO proves how powerful social aspects can be even after the game itself is long obsolete.
[/quote]If its social aspects are as powerful as it is, does it matter if it is obsolete? With Facebook, given how old that it is, it is still the most commonly used social networking site. So shouldn’t that be the same for Ragnarok Online?

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
Or the network effect is stabilizing it after the changes to the game lost a huge portion of its playerbase. Many factors are affecting it, so how do you isolate the effects of improved mechanics versus fast content releases, production values, marketing, etc?
[/quote]Yes, many factors are indeed affecting it. Factors of which (including the ones you have listed) that are not part of the game’s social aspects, which are now much less prominent that it was before. And yet, regardless of the social aspects, the game is still able to appeal to many.

It goes back to the point which I have made: A game’s overall structure (appeal, mechanics, etc.) plays a much more vital role than you might think. Social interaction merely builds upon that.

.

#66

If it may or may not be, they could be close enough that players see them as similar. I didn’t play Maplestory or FF14, so I can’t comment on how social they were. TERA had some big features like elected player leaders.

It’s constantly updated, unlike RO, and acts as a platform for other new software. Facebook games are a big part of the site now, and those are constantly changing and bringing novelty. When was the last time RO got a major update? WoW does major overhauls every couple years, and that’s vital to its longevity.

There have been social networks that died out: Friendster and Orkut had head starts over Facebook, but they’re long gone. Linkedin dominates the business sector, which brings up one big difference between FB and MMOs: social networks are also treated as tools or utilities, not just entertainment. Utility platforms can feed off of the novelty of other products, and some users can make money by using them.

I didn’t actually play it, but everything I heard about it was “yet another wow clone” and players found it disappointing. Word of mouth was very negative. TOS convinced the crowd it could be a good spiritual successor, and that lead to a powerful hype train building up.

Your point used to be “it should take precedence on gameplay above all else”. Overall structure includes social stuff and many other things besides gameplay, so which is the main priority: gameplay or overall structure?

#67

Ok, let’s play without chat, guilds, trades (social/economic tool), parties, etc. Let’s play offline… why do you need thousands of people playing on the same server? we don’t need social tools!!!

All this stuff already is in the game, I was talking about additional social tools. What was the point of this thread then if you basicly only asked for stuff that we already have?

#68

[quote=“trielav, post:66, topic:39788”]
If it may or may not be, they could be close enough that players see them as similar. I didn’t play Maplestory or FF14, so I can’t comment on how social they were. TERA had some big features like elected player leaders.
[/quote]Like I said, purely an example. Replace any of the games that I have stated to any other game that is currently out, and the result is still the same; a player’s own choice on what they choose to play is based more so on their own preferences and tastes, rather than whether a game is more social or not.

[quote=“trielav, post:66, topic:39788”]
When was the last time RO got a major update? WoW does major overhauls every couple years, and that’s vital to its longevity.
[/quote]Updates are irrelevant, because if Ragnarok Online has such powerful a social aspect as you claim it does, “Why wouldn’t players just go to a game that does it better?” Shouldn’t more players be playing Ragnarok Online, and not World of Warcraft, or any of today’s current games, since, from your logic, it “does it better?”

[quote=“trielav, post:66, topic:39788”]
I didn’t actually play it, but everything I heard about it was “yet another wow clone”
[/quote]And what is it that differentiates Tree of Savior and Ragnarok Online 2 from being “yet another WoW clone?” Gameplay.

[quote=“trielav, post:66, topic:39788”]
Your point used to be “it should take precedence on gameplay above all else”. Overall structure includes social stuff and many other things besides gameplay, so which is the main priority: gameplay or overall structure?
[/quote]When I used the word “gameplay,” I used it in a broad sense, meaning the main components, or, overall structure, of the game. Actual gameplay itself, of course, plays a big part in a game’s overall structure. Yes, social aspects can be a part of the overall structure of a game, but neglecting everything else is the same as trying to make a cake with only milk.

In order for a game to even have actual social interactions take place, it requires people to play the game. To have people play the game, it must attract its targeted audience: the gamers. Lest I remind you that a MMO is, first and foremost, labeled as a game, and secondly, as a socially interactive tool. With that being said, it is a given that it should take precedence on gameplay over social features in order to appeal to their specified audience. Otherwise the social interactions that you so desire will not exist, much like if no one were to use Facebook, its social activity will also not exist.

#69

Wut? You said this and you should have added the “new” word to the sentence:

Anyway…ok you don’t want new social interactions. It’s fine, you are making yourself clear.

We know why… marketing+money+monopoly. Oblivious to this there is another psychological factor:

Crowd psychology is a phenomenon that is understood to be part of the broader study of social psychology. The basic concept is that the thought processes and behavior patterns of the individual often vary from those of a larger group, although these same individuals often adapt to the expectations of the surrounding culture and modify individual traits in order to identify with the crowd.

Sigmund Freud’s crowd behavior theory primarily consists of the idea that becoming a member of a crowd serves to unlock the unconscious mind.

And that could be one of the reasons why is so hard to throw down big corporations.

Please moderate your thoughts because there is always a deeply explanation to all the things in the universe.

#70

[quote=“FreeMan, post:69, topic:39788”]
Please moderate your thoughts because there is always a deeply explanation to all the things in the universe.
[/quote]It was more of a rhetorical question.

Please do not quote out of context, as the intention behind my post was to make an entirely different point from that of yours.

#71

Facebook the most used social network because they are widely used (too simply explanation, but why is this?i answered you).

The same answer could be applied to WoW. And is supossed to be an MMO not a social tool right? and as trielav said they are continuously doing updates that requires money, also marketing that again requires money and this attracts people who attract more people by crowd psychology.

I don’t see the mistake about quoting you “out of context”.

Your point was, if someone solely wants social interaction will be more predisposed to go to the same place or anywhere they pleased. The kind of place doesn’t matter if your main objective is socialization, but there are some nuances like food/drink quality, service quality, environment, closeness, prices, etc… to take in account. So is not that simple as, hey socialize? Yeah we can go there.

Also if you have a restaurant monopoly and all are the same and elsewhere, people can’t choose right at all.

And yes in games people will go whatever games they like and they think they could have fun, so socialize is a plus. But this can only be applied to normal multiplayer games, not a one having thousands of players on the same “world”.

You were simplying too much and that’s bad sometimes. So… you asked the facebook question and i answered.

Again: I don’t see the mistake about quoting you “out of context”.

So it’s clear that MMO’s aren’t for socialization at all, but is as important as gameplay because on MMO’s the players supposedly are part of the content. You could play an MMORPG alone, but they were not invented to be that.

I don’t know where you have been rhetorical, i only have seen metaphors…whatever…
Rhetorical was used by trielav not you.

#72

[quote=“FreeMan, post:71, topic:39788”]
Facebook the most used social network because they are widely used (too simply explanation, but why is this?i answered you).
[/quote]My explanation is no different from what your “crowd psychology” is. A large group of people continues to use Facebook. Individuals notices this happening. Seeing that there is already a large following for this website (that is, Facebook), they decide to adapt and to conform with the group, as there is no reason for them to oppose the crowd if they want to identify themselves with them. It’s all psychological factors, factors which you have seemed to overlooked.

[quote=“FreeMan, post:71, topic:39788”]
but there are some nuances like food/drink quality, service quality, environment, closeness, prices, etc… to take in account.
[/quote]In a physical setting, this would make sense. However, social networks, much like MMOs, are virtual. And in a virtual setting, those points become irrelevant.

[quote=“FreeMan, post:71, topic:39788”]
I don’t know where you have been rhetorical, i only have seen metaphors…whatever…
[/quote]I do not blame you. Words lose most of their underlying meaning in the form of text, much like sarcasm does.

#73

Ok man, the world details don’t matter.

#74

0/10

You don’t even know what gameplay means, do you?

Oh, I was right. Your “gameplay” includes social features, so you haven’t disagreed with what I said. You’re just switching definitions and being “sarcastic” or “rhetorical” to contradict yourself.

You just did that with the other guy twice: first saying you agree with his psychological factors and restating them but then saying he overlooked them, and second saying a bunch of “gameplay” and price factors are irrelevant in a virtual setting after you’ve been going on about how important that stuff is.

This would be a good time for you to pull a “you mad?” but now that it’s been mentioned, that would look pretty silly. You’ll go back to saying the opposite of what you said again.

#75

[quote=“FreeMan, post:73, topic:39788”]
Ok man, the world details don’t matter.
[/quote]Reread what I said.

[quote=“trielav, post:74, topic:39788”]
0/10
[/quote]I was stating how sarcasm loses its meaning in the form of text, and not that my own statements were sarcastic. I am only simply following your logic.

[quote=“trielav, post:74, topic:39788”]
You don’t even know what gameplay means, do you?
[/quote]It is a vague term, though if you have actually given an effort to look at the differences between Tree of Savior and Ragnarok Online 2 in a video, then you will quickly see what definition I am using.

[quote=“trielav, post:74, topic:39788”]
Oh, I was right. Your “gameplay” includes social features, so you haven’t disagreed with what I said. You’re just switching definitions and being “sarcastic” or “rhetorical” to contradict yourself.
[/quote]You can whichever definition you want, and my point still stands.

[quote=“trielav, post:74, topic:39788”]
so you haven’t disagreed with what I said.
[/quote]Your point is that the purpose of an MMO is for social interactions only. And going by what you had said:

[quote=“trielav, post:55, topic:39788”]
wouldn’t players just go to a game that does it better?
[/quote]I have stated many times how that is not the case. The social aspects alone does not make the game, the main components do. Whether it is the graphics, quality, mechanics, and, of course, the core gameplay, It is what creates the game’s appeal to the gamer, the audience of MMOs.

I have not said that, reread what I had said again.

#76

You’re not following anything, you’re making up garbage. If it’s not sarcastic, what is it? Trolling, throwing a tantrum, lying because you have no argument and want a strawman?

You said that, reread what you said again. Oh, right:

#77

I know, you mean on virtual worlds. But still a human player cares about the details because is human and have conscience. Stanford University is doing research on this (human behavior on virtual interfaces)… not for nothing.

#78

[quote=“trielav, post:76, topic:39788”]
You’re not following anything, you’re making up garbage. If it’s not sarcastic, what is it? Trolling, throwing a tantrum, lying because you have no argument and want a strawman?
[/quote]Answer me your own question:

[quote=“Eretnys, post:68, topic:39788”]
“Why wouldn’t players just go to a game that does it better?” Shouldn’t more players be playing Ragnarok Online, and not World of Warcraft, or any of today’s current games, since, from your logic, it “does it better?”
[/quote]I am genuinely curious. From your point, you say that a player should just play a game that offers better social interaction features. If Ragnarok Online does exactly that, why are there not more players playing that game instead?

Because:

[quote=“trielav, post:55, topic:39788”]
What an MMO offers over other genres is social interaction, so neglecting that strength makes as much sense as putting the burden of balancing competition on players in a fighting game. Why wouldn’t players just go to a game that does it better?
[/quote]And:

[quote=“trielav, post:58, topic:39788”]
anyone looking for only gameplay might as well play a single player game.
[/quote]Right?

[quote=“trielav, post:76, topic:39788”]
You said that, reread what you said again.
[/quote]A physical setting is different from a virtual setting. If you cannot understand the point I was making, then really, I cannot explain it any way else.

#79

So your answer to the question is you’re trolling? At least come up with something that wasn’t explained above already.

It’s difficult to explain a point when you don’t have one. Stop ignoring the other guy, though; he just made a valid point about how people react to virtual environments. You can’t bail out now.

#80

Ragnarok was an awsome game, had future but bad game updates/maintenance, bots, developers left the project, etc… Despite this, his first game desing was hilarious.

That remind me the follow option (nostalgia moment) :joy:

#81

[quote=“trielav, post:79, topic:39788”]
So your answer to the question is you’re trolling? At least come up with something that wasn’t explained above already.
[/quote]If you cannot even answer your own question to the given scenario that is under your own logic, it goes to show how much you have contradicted yourself. Having to resort to calling my arguments “trollbait,” when you cannot even justify yourself, really says a lot.

[quote=“FreeMan, post:77, topic:39788”]
I know, you mean on virtual worlds. But still a human player cares about the details because is human and have conscience. Stanford University is doing research on this (human behavior on virtual interfaces)… not for nothing.
[/quote]The equivalent of these details in a virtual setting would be: world setting, environment, visual appeal, etc. With these under consideration, that would mean that a player would would want seek comfortability in a game, and in doing so, will allow them the ease to socially interact. Once again, these components of the game, which contributes to the overall structure, are what is attracting the player to the game, and not social aspects itself.

#82

Quoting “explained above already” right before this, such comedy. The “logic” in question is yours, not mine, so you can go ahead and make up my response, too. If you need a 2d6 roll for your “roleplay as me” game, I’m rolling 5 and 2, and you can use this as a starting point:

You called those components (food/drink quality, service quality, environment, closeness, prices, etc…) irrelevant before:

You can ignore the “food/drink” part over semantics, but the other elements are directly present in a virtual setting. Furthermore, “and in doing so, will allow them the ease to socially interact” is an admission that social interaction is an overarching goal and those other elements serve to facilitate it.

#83

[quote=“trielav, post:82, topic:39788”]
The “logic” in question is yours, not mine
[/quote]Read your own points that I have presented to you. It is, in fact, your logic. And as such, the given scenario interprets your reasoning soundly, the scenario that you are still refusing to give an answer to.

[quote=“trielav, post:82, topic:39788”]
You called those components (food/drink quality, service quality, environment, closeness, prices, etc…) irrelevant before:
[/quote]A few examples he had given (i.e. food quality and such) are in fact irrelevant in a virtual setting, as it is using a human sense not available in the virtual setting: taste. Therefore, I substituted it with virtual components that are equivalent to the human senses used in both a virtual and physical setting, as you could see in my explanation above.

[quote=“trielav, post:82, topic:39788”]
Furthermore, “and in doing so, will allow them the ease to socially interact” is an admission that social interaction is an overarching goal and those other elements serve to facilitate it.
[/quote]Note these keywords. Social interaction can only be resulted from all the elements of a game; components that serves to attract and appeal to one player over another.

And seeing as how you now acknowledge my point, can you still say that “a player goes to a game that does social interaction better,” when it is, in fact, these other factors that contribute to a players choice over said game?