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

[trielav]

Read your own points that I have presented to you.

You arrived at the “logic” by ignoring my posts which directly refuted the “logic” and claiming things you made up. You presented a few of my lines which don’t show whether it’s my “logic” or not, and you phrased your post in such a way that the first and second sentences can be taken independently, so you can pretend you’re not trying to use those presented points as evidence of it being my “logic” when I point out to you that the presented points don’t show that.

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.

You called them all irrelevant and didn’t substitute anything until you realized you were wrong and tried to hide it. Food is the only one you can nitpick at, and you just used the plural form “examples.” Food and drink aren’t separate examples.

And seeing as how you now acknowledge my point

Your point would be that you can drag an argument out infinitely by denying what you said or strawmanning whenever you’re caught being wrong, right?

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?

You worded that as “contribute to” so that last part would say exactly nothing, since doing social interaction better requires contributing to it with supporting factors. You’re trying to sound like you’re arguing without actually saying anything.

You’ve really got no ammo left to use against the proven fact that social interaction is the key competitive advantage of a massively multiplayer game.

[FreeMan]

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.

I gave you an example, don’t take it literally.

You worded that as “contribute to” so that last part would say exactly nothing, since doing social interaction better requires contributing to it with supporting factors. You’re trying to sound like you’re arguing without actually saying anything.

You’ve really got no ammo left to use against the proven fact that social interaction is the key competitive advantage of a massively multiplayer game.

Agree.

[Eretnys]

[quote=“trielav, post:84, topic:39788”]
You arrived at the “logic” by ignoring my posts which directly refuted the “logic” and claiming things you made up. You presented a few of my lines which don’t show whether it’s my “logic” or not, and you phrased your post in such a way that the first and second sentences can be taken independently, so you can pretend you’re not trying to use those presented points as evidence of it being my “logic” when I point out to you that the presented points don’t show that.
[/quote]Nothing was taken independently. It is your stance on the subject at hand.

Your very initial post states that social interaction is a MMO’s strength, and therefore, it is natural for a player to choose a game that offers this strength more exceptionally than a game that does not. You also state that a solo player, will not be satisfied with a MMO, under a common misconception that a player chooses to play solo because they do not want to be social, which further reinforces the impression that you believe MMOs are for social purposes only. I replied saying how that is not the case. You then answer, saying that, much like a player who should just play a MMO that offers better social interaction, the same is said for a player who is looking for gameplay; they might as well play a singleplayer game, because it does it better. Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that you:

• See social interaction as the deciding factor in a player’s game choice in MMOs.
• Disregard gameplay as a deciding factor in MMOs. Because players should be playing an entirely different genre if such is the case.
• Disregard the “solo” players’ preferences in the equation, despite the fact that they also make up a large portion of a playerbase, and have preferences no less different from a different player.

And considering how I have numerously restated your stance, in which you “claim” I “made up,” over several posts, and that you have not once corrected me for “misinterpreting,” it further led me to believe that this is indeed your intended stance, meaning, the fault is but your own for not reconfirming your opinion, despite the many opportunities that I have given you to do so.

Though now, you are free to “restate” your stance, and say that I was “wrong” this whole time, and you were meaning to convey something else, if that makes you feel better.

[quote=“trielav, post:84, topic:39788”]
You called them all irrelevant and didn’t substitute anything until you realized you were wrong and tried to hide it. Food is the only one you can nitpick at, and you just used the plural form “examples.” Food and drink aren’t separate examples.
[/quote]It could be interpreted that the examples that he had given were under a restaurant setting, which can be much different from a social setting. What is “service quality” in a social/virtual setting? What are “prices” in a social/virtual setting? Under this context, saying “world details” led me to believe that he was using senses concerning tangible qualities for his examples, and was trying to connect it to a virtual setting. It wasn’t until he clarified it that I saw that they were meant to be qualities under a psychological level.

[quote=“FreeMan, post:85, topic:39788”]
I gave you an example, don’t take it literally.
[/quote]Yes, and I gave you an equivalent example under a virtual setting, proving your point.

[quote=“trielav, post:84, topic:39788”]
You worded that as “contribute to” so that last part would say exactly nothing, since doing social interaction better requires contributing to it with supporting factors. You’re trying to sound like you’re arguing without actually saying anything.
[/quote]You know full well what I meant. It is because these various factors draws the players into a game, that social interaction is able to occur, since these factors are what led them to play the game itself. It is not the result that attracts the player, it is the means that does.

[quote=“trielav, post:84, topic:39788”]
social interaction is the key competitive advantage of a massively multiplayer game.
[/quote]It is not an advantage, it is what defines the genre, as I have explained to you before. You are basically saying “an MMO has an advantage because it is an MMO,” much like how a fighting game has an advantage because it is a fighting game. A MMO’s unique features that gives it an “advantage” is not any different from another genre’s own unique features.

[FreeMan]

Yes, and I gave you an equivalent example under a virtual setting, proving your point.

I’m so tired. This is going nowhere.

This will be my last reply to you.

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.

Some players play multiplayer games because they can interact/compete with other people in some ways. So… the “overall structure” is not only about invididual gameplay like single player games. Social aspects play a role on why people choose multiplayer games.

[Eretnys]

[quote=“FreeMan, post:87, topic:39788”]
Some players play multiplayer games because they can interact/compete with other people in some ways. So… the “overall structure” is not only about invididual gameplay like single player games. Social aspects play a role on why people choose multiplayer games.
[/quote]You’re basically explaining why a player would choose to play the MMO genre over a different genre; because it has social qualities. It is as much of a reason as to why a player would play a different genre over the MMO genre. However, what is it that all these genres have in common? They are a game. And because they are games, they are primarily targeting a gaming audience. And what is it that attracts an individual gamer to one game over another? The game’s qualities itself.

The “overall structure,” matters as much in a multiplayer game as it does in a singleplayer game, no matter the genre, because it is targeting the same exact audience, each with their own preference over a specific genre.

[thebloodyaugust]

Basicly you are just using each other.

You just described every social interaction in life and game you wouldn’t do anything with anyone unless you got something out of it. For example your friends probably make you laugh or smile etc if they didn’t they wouldn’t be your friends.

[trielav]

Disregard gameplay as a deciding factor

Define gameplay. We established that you were using the term gameplay incorrectly before, and if that’s still the case, the second bullet point doesn’t hold.

and have preferences no less different from a different player.

What? Is this a typo?

Disregard the “solo” players’ preferences

This needs to be qualified by specifying that it’s only when their preferences are in conflict with more important design goals. For example, someone in a thread here said leveling should be removed from the game entirely because he likes League of Legends. That guy should be disregarded.

under a common misconception that a player chooses to play solo because they do not want to be social

If the solo player is someone on the extreme end, who avoids other players whenever possible, doesn’t join a guild or has a one-player vanity guild, and thinks it’s unfair to ever require a party, how is it that “they do not want to be social” is a misconception? Is the player soloing just because the barriers to social interaction in the game are too high to bother with? If they do play in groups voluntarily sometimes and join a guild, and only sometimes play solo, the game’s social aspect still matters to them, and it would be a bad idea for developers to forget about it and leave social stuff entirely up to the players.

for social purposes only

Primarily, not only. Even something as purpose-focused as a screwdriver can be used for many different things.

you have not once corrected me for “misinterpreting,”

I told you that you were getting things wrong many times. I just didn’t repeat the details, as those were already covered earlier in the thread.

Your summary is forgetting the most important part. Your question, which started this branch of the argument:

If Ragnarok Online does exactly that, why are there not more players playing that game instead?

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?”

The assumption that it does it better, present tense, is entirely yours. You threw in “if” and “from your logic” to distance yourself from that, but it’s still something you introduced and I argued against earlier. As has been pointed out by myself, and especially by the other guy’s blog link, and other links within that blog article such as http://adultimum.net/rw/extras.php?section=soappserv RO went downhill fast due to mismanagement and has been in a state of utter Chaos (pun intended) for a long time. I always had a problem with Gravity’s business side, but from the articles, it turns out it was even worse than I thought and their problems, especially with hacking and getting bought out, were more serious than I’d heard.

Thus, we’re left with the case where the game designers did some excellent work, but management problems were so severe as to eventually make the social side of the game unplayable. Sometimes literally, as game service had to be shut down at certain points.

It could be interpreted that the examples that he had given were under a restaurant setting,

That would be a misinterpretation, as the examples aren’t limited to the setting provided.

What is “service quality” in a social/virtual setting?

It could mean customer service (like the GM staff fixing problems and providing information) as well as keeping the servers running smoothly and ensuring the game is playable, and preventing hackers and bots from messing with the game.

What are “prices” in a social/virtual setting?

Are you serious? Is this a joke? Hold on, I need to take a moment to laugh at you. I’m going to bold this and decorate it with icons (I never realized this forum had such a big collection of them, and whoever added them has good taste in mahjong tiles) so anyone skimming through my horrendously long post will notice it.

Prices in a virtual setting would be prices. Literally, prices. Games often charge users money, sometimes as subscription fees, sometimes as up-front purchases, and sometimes through cash shops (in which certain game elements, which may or may not be necessary for players to be competitive, have prices [prices meaning players have to spend a certain amount of real money, such as dollars or won, to get something]). By the way, I’m making fun of you by answering this seriously.

Furthermore, concepts such as service quality are universal in business, and can be discussed as abstracts outside of any specific implementation. This leads to the point about how customers react psychologically, since all the universal elements of a service business fall into that category of things customers react to.

In fact, the “virtual setting” could be viewed by a business analyst as a physical setting in which the customers are in front of their computers at home, the servers are physical boxes like vending machines, and the staff are workers at a physical office.

You know full well what I meant.

Yes, I went over that in my previous post with

Your point would be that you can drag an argument out infinitely by denying what you said or strawmanning whenever you’re caught being wrong, right?

It is because these various factors draws the players into a game, that social interaction is able to occur,

Denied. I discovered RO because someone who was after my service quality in a non-virtual setting if you know what I mean suggested it as something to do together. The other factors are necessary to facilitate social interaction, retain players, and improve the experience, but the best way to attract players is an “everyone’s playing it” trend that snowballs into an avalanche of hype. Popular trends are by definition social phenomena.

It is not an advantage

Yes it is.

“an MMO has an advantage because it is an MMO,”

It does.

much like how a fighting game has an advantage because it is a fighting game.

Also correct. You can make something, market it as “it’s a new fighting game!” and get some fighting game fans to try it out and reviewers to review it just because there’s a big community that likes fighting games.

A MMO’s unique features that gives it an “advantage” is not any different from another genre’s own unique features.

Yes. These different genres appeal to different people in different ways, allowing them to establish their own niches, and targeting a niche is a good business strategy. That means a factor which either establishes or takes advantage of a lucrative niche is a competitive advantage.

Before you say something foolish like “a game should cover all niches if it wants to succeed,” this is an impossible task. Some niches are mutually exclusive, so catering to some players means disappointing others.

And what is it that attracts an individual gamer to one game over another? The game’s qualities itself.

And? You just admitted social interaction is one of those qualities.

because it is targeting the same exact audience

No, it’s not. Different games have different target audiences, and they’re marketed and designed differently based on those targets. For example, a 7 year old girl whose parents don’t want her learning naughty things from the internet might get a single player game to stop her from getting exposed to Goldshire Inn ERP. I’m not saying that happened when I was a 7 year old girl or anything, but it’s a good example.

Now you must quote and respond to each and every point here, or else you lose the forum tennis match.

You just described every social interaction in life and game you wouldn’t do anything with anyone unless you got something out of it.

In the very broadest sense, yes; even if someone is such a paragon of unselfishness that they live life solely to help others, the benefit others receive is something to be gotten out of it. It’s true that without some sort of desire, there’s no reason to do anything at all.

[Eretnys]

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Define gameplay. We established that you were using the term gameplay incorrectly before, and if that’s still the case, the second bullet point doesn’t hold.
[/quote]In this case, I am using the “correct” definition. And considering that both meanings of gameplay are interrelated, disregarding one is the same as disregarding the other, because it is just as important within both terms.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
What? Is this a typo?
[/quote]I have pointed out the reasoning behind this before.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
This needs to be qualified by specifying that it’s only when their preferences are in conflict with more important design goals. For example, someone in a thread here said leveling should be removed from the game entirely because he likes League of Legends. That guy should be disregarded.
[/quote]The problem with your example is: a MOBA is far from being a solo-centric game. So it is that one person’s individual opinion that could be disregarded, not because he is a “solo” player, but an individual.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
If the solo player is someone on the extreme end, who avoids other players whenever possible, doesn’t join a guild or has a one-player vanity guild, and thinks it’s unfair to ever require a party, how is it that “they do not want to be social” is a misconception?[/quote] It is because you are labeling everyone as being anti-social because they choose to play solo. It’s stereotyping.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
If they do play in groups voluntarily sometimes and join a guild, and only sometimes play solo, the game’s social aspect still matters to them,
[/quote]Yes, it is why they would choose to play the MMO genre over another specific genre, no less different from another player’s reason to; because social aspects exist.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
it would be a bad idea for developers to forget about it and leave social stuff entirely up to the players.
[/quote]You sound as if social elements should be forced upon the players, which is one of the reasons as to why someone would prefer to play solo. What a MMO also offers as opposed to other genres is the freedom. Whether it would be competitive play, solo play, or multiplayer play, the player has their freedom of choice. Restricting their choices is no different from neglecting an aspect which defines a MMO.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Primarily, not only. Even something as purpose-focused as a screwdriver can be used for many different things.
[/quote]As primarily for social purposes as MMOs are, it matters not if there are no one playing to fulfill the intended purpose. Much like as primarily for removing/adding screws as screwdrivers are, it matters not if there are no screws to fulfill its intended purpose.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
The assumption that it does it better, present tense, is entirely yours.
[/quote]Let’s take a look at your wording:

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
RO proves how powerful social aspects can be even after the game itself is long obsolete.
[/quote]Nowhere in this statement is there an indicative of it being past tense at all, which makes the statement mean: “even after the game is now no longer relevant, when it is compared with the games today, it still remains to display a powerful social aspect.” Meaning, the game still does it better than current MMOs.

The proper way for you to had worded it would’ve been:

[quote=“trielav, post:63, topic:39788”]
RO had proved how powerful social aspects can potentially be even after the game itself is long obsolete.
[/quote]This way, it shows that Ragnarok Online still remains as a strong example/standard of what a game with proper social aspects can potentially become, if that was your initial intention, that is.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
As has been pointed out by myself, and especially by the other guy’s blog link
[/quote]Yes, and one key point that the blog mentioned is related to poor design choices. Even despite how strong of a social aspect Ragnarok Online had, the change in game mechanics, introduction of the cash shop, and so on, had created a dissatisfying environment which eventually discouraged players to continue playing the game. Another correlation between gameplay quality and player engagement.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Games often charge users money
[/quote]Bare in mind, the vast majority of MMOs are free-to-play. As such, “price” is not as prominent of a factor in one’s choosing of a game, even more so when that person does not intend to use any money. And like with customer service, these aspects does not necessarily impact a person’s initial decision and experience directly as much as the psychological components do.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Denied. I discovered RO because someone who was after my service quality in a non-virtual setting if you know what I mean suggested it as something to do together.
[/quote]Your own individual experience does not account for everyone else’s.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
but the best way to attract players is an “everyone’s playing it” trend that snowballs into an avalanche of hype.
[/quote]“Hype” can only last so long. There is a difference between everyone saying a game is good, and actually playing a game and realizing that it is bad.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Before you say something foolish like “a game should cover all niches if it wants to succeed,” this is an impossible task. Some niches are mutually exclusive, so catering to some players means disappointing others.
[/quote]This is where sub-genres comes into play.

And? You just admitted social interaction is one of those qualities.

[quote=“Eretnys, post:86, topic:39788”]
It is not the result that attracts the player, it is the means that does.
[/quote]Since every MMO takes social interaction into account, what makes a person choose an individual game over another? The means, or rather, the qualities and aspects of the game itself, attracts the player into the game. It is only then, when players exist in the game, that social interaction is present.

[quote=“trielav, post:90, topic:39788”]
Different games have different target audiences, and they’re marketed and designed differently based on those targets. For example, a 7 year old girl whose parents don’t want her learning naughty things from the internet might get a single player game to stop her from getting exposed to Goldshire Inn ERP.
[/quote]It still becomes a product that is targeting a group within the audience categorized by gaming as a whole.

[trielav]

In this case, I am using the “correct” definition. And considering that both meanings of gameplay are interrelated, disregarding one is the same as disregarding the other, because it is just as important within both terms.

So you’re not actually saying anything concrete when you talk about gameplay, and whenever someone assumes one meaning, you’ll flipflop to the other, like throwing up a smokescreen.

I have pointed out the reasoning behind this before.

What does reasoning have to do with it? That sequence of words just doesn’t say anything meaningful.

The problem with your example is: a MOBA is far from being a solo-centric game. So it is that one person’s individual opinion that could be disregarded, not because he is a “solo” player, but an individual.

If he’s an individual, aren’t “solo” players just individuals then? Don’t pull a “large portion of the playerbase” card and then disregard other people’s opinions by calling them individuals.

As for MOBAs, see:

I’ve spent thousands of hours playing several mobas and if anything it made me more anti-social.

It is because you are labeling everyone as being anti-social because they choose to play solo. It’s stereotyping.

Where did I say anti-social? That doesn’t turn up in a post search, so it seems you’re lying again. ( In case I need to clarify it, the quote just now using “anti-social” is his wording, not mine, and it’s directed towards MOBAs anyway, not “everyone” or “everyone who plays solo.”)

You’re also lying about “everyone” although something so plainly delusional goes beyond lying. Sorry, not everyone in the world agrees with you. Get over it.

You don’t know what stereotyping is. Don’t use words you don’t understand. That probably goes for anti-social, too, since I doubt you know what it means, either.

Yes, it is why they would choose to play the MMO genre over another specific genre, no less different from another player’s reason to; because social aspects exist.

At last, you’ve conceded one of the main points we’ve been arguing over.

You sound as if social elements should be forced upon the players

In the same way killing monsters, doing quests, and gathering loot is forced? Is forced the magic word to put a bad connotation on anything that’s simply the way a game works? MMOs don’t work the way you claim and vary widely in terms of freedom, and in any case freedom would mean making more social features available, which conflicts with your original suggestion that devs should leave them out.

Nowhere in this statement is there an indicative of it being past tense at all

You just bolded the “after the game itself is long obsolete” part that indicates it. What are you doing? Really, explain why you’d bold something and then pretend it doesn’t exist. Is your goal to make yourself look dumb?

Meaning, the game still does it better than current MMOs.

Both the quote and your interpretation conflict with this meaning. You’re making it clear you don’t understand what you’re writing and you can’t handle plain English.

had proved

has proven

potentially

Is this another word you don’t know the meaning of, or are you inserting it inappropriately because you want to live in denial?

Yes, and one key point that the blog mentioned is related to poor design choices. Even despite how strong of a social aspect Ragnarok Online had, the change in game mechanics, introduction of the cash shop, and so on, had created a dissatisfying environment which eventually discouraged players to continue playing the game.

Now you’re agreeing with me and conceding the point. Good.

Another correlation between gameplay quality and player engagement.

We’ve been over how gameplay can mean anything to you, so this can mean “correlation between social interaction and player engagement.”

[quote=“Eretnys, post:91, topic:39788”]
Bare in mind
[/quote] Bear.

Bare in mind, the vast majority of MMOs are free-to-play. As such, “price” is not as prominent of a factor in one’s choosing of a game

Once again, what are you doing? Are you trying to look as dumb as possible? People are more likely to play a game if it’s free. That’s price mattering.

Your question was about virtual settings in general, not just MMO vs MMO choices, but now show proof that the vast majority of MMOs are free.

as much as

You called them irrelevant, so switching to “as much as” means you’re admitting you were wrong.

Your own individual experience does not account for everyone else’s.

Your own baseless assumptions do not account for everyone else’s behavior.

“Hype” can only last so long.

No game lasts forever.

There is a difference between everyone saying a game is good, and actually playing a game and realizing that it is bad.

So what? You don’t know what hype is, do you?

realizing that it is bad.

Not every game is bad. Sorry you can’t accept that, but some games are actually good.

It’s obvious that a hyped up bad game will attract more players than a bad game with no hype anyway, so you’re shooting yourself in the foot again.

Since every MMO takes social interaction into account, what makes a person choose an individual game over another?

“Since every game takes gameplay into account, what makes a person choose one over another?”

the qualities and aspects of the game itself

That includes social interaction.

It is only then, when players exist in the game, that social interaction is present.

It is only then, when players exist in the game, that gameplay is present.

It is not the result that attracts the player, it is the means that does.

This isn’t the same for every player, but separating “means” and “result” here isn’t very meaningful. Nevertheless, show evidence for your claim instead of simply assuming.

It still becomes a product that is targeting a group within the audience categorized by gaming as a whole.

Yes, and that directly contradicts “the same exact audience.”

Now we’ve established that a lot of your confusion comes from not understanding plain English. Spend some time with a dictionary. Judging by some of the really absurd things you’ve said, it seems like you want to be mocked. Are you a masochist? Are you getting off on being laughed at? Do you want to be spanked?

[Eretnys]

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
So you’re not actually saying anything concrete when you talk about gameplay, and whenever someone assumes one meaning, you’ll flipflop to the other, like throwing up a smokescreen.
[/quote]I have not once intentionally “swapped” the definition, they are both distinguishable under the context that they were used in.

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
What does reasoning have to do with it? That sequence of words just doesn’t say anything meaningful.
[/quote]They look for the same qualities in a MMO that a player of the opposite playstyle would also be searching for.

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
If he’s an individual, aren’t “solo” players just individuals then? Don’t pull a “large portion of the playerbase” card and then disregard other people’s opinions by calling them individuals.
[/quote]The playerbase in subject here are the solo players. Nothing is implying that this individual in particular is a solo player, meaning his opinion is not necessarily being voiced as the opinion of a solo player.

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
You don’t know what stereotyping is.
[/quote]If categorizing a group of people under a false notion is not stereotyping, what is it?

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
In the same way killing monsters, doing quests, and gathering loot is forced?
[/quote]By definition, to force someone is to have someone do something against their will. A player is not forced to kill every monster on sight, they have the freedom to do so. A player is not forced to do every quest available, they have the freedom to do so. A player is not forced to gather all loot that drops, they have the freedom to do so. And much like these components, a player is not forced to talk to everyone within the game, they have the freedom to do so.

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
freedom would mean making more social features available, which conflicts with your original suggestion that devs should leave them out.
[/quote]I did not say that they should be left out, but rather additional social features are not necessary. Though if you want my honest opinion on the matter, rather than directly adding social features into a game, refining/adding to the game’s mechanics would be a better approach. Since it would indirectly promote social interaction and give less of an impression of it being “forced.”

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
That probably goes for anti-social, too
[/quote]Yes, I admit, I did use the wrong term here. Though, at this point, I see that you are attempting to nit-pick at my wrong use of a word as a substitute of an argument in order to claim that my point is invalid, when, under the context of what is being discussed, should have given you a more than substantial hint as to what term I was trying to use. So you can stop feigning ignorance now.

As much as I want to reply to your other points, I do not see much of a reason to do so if this is how you will approach an argument. (You can interpret it however you like, though truth be told, I do not have the luxury of time to continue replying now, even more so considering our posts have only been increasing in length.)

But seeing as how we have now reached to a more reasonable agreement on a few points, I hope you can take several ideas under consideration, and maybe end this on a better note:

[quote=“trielav, post:92, topic:39788”]
Nevertheless, show evidence for your claim instead of simply assuming.
[/quote]I’ll point out some features in Tree of Savior and Ragnarok Online 2 from my experience with the two, seeing as you have not played the latter, in order to give you a little insight. Since this is from my own experience, take what you will of it:

Tree of Savior’s notable aspects:

• 3D enviroment
• 2D sprites
• Isometric view
• Large selection of classes, including crafting based classes
• Diverse and in-depth skill builds
• A degree of trial and error
• No instanced areas aside from bosses (as of yet)
• Companion system
• Traditional grind
• High level cap
• Music

Ragnarok Online 2’s notable aspects:

• 3D environment
• 3D character models
• Level 50 cap
• 5 basic classes, each branching to 2 advanced classes
• Static skill builds
• Instanced dungeons
• Fetch quests contributes to a large portion of leveling
• 4 Crafting jobs separate from class

Ragnarok Online 2 could be (and probably is) considered to be its own, separate game. And if you were to have named it something else, no one would have realized, or even believed that it was intended to be a sequel to the former game. Though, even with the name, it is not any more apparent. Gravity attempted an entirely different approach, and ended up creating a MMO with less refined mechanics and structure, which resulted in a less than desirable product. As for Tree of Savior, it offers qualities much akin to what the Ragnarok Online experience had once been before. With enhancements and tweaks on mechanics and details that had also existed in Ragnarok Online (graphics, sprite quality, etc.), Tree of Savior holds more true to the title as a genuine “successor,” as the players, veterans and aspiring fans alike, seek to re-experience/experience what Ragnarok Online was during its former glory, a feat that Ragnarok Online 2 was unable to do.

[quote=“Eretnys, post:91, topic:39788”]
Yes, and one key point that the blog mentioned is related to poor design choices. Even despite how strong of a social aspect Ragnarok Online had, the change in game mechanics, introduction of the cash shop, and so on, had created a dissatisfying environment which eventually discouraged players to continue playing the game. Another correlation between gameplay quality and player engagement.
[/quote](Since you seem to disagree so much with whatever definition of gameplay I use, I’ll try to rephrase it a bit.)

Ragnarok Online, as you have said, proves how powerful social aspects can be. That being said, the eventual downfall of Ragnarok Online has also shown how equally important other aspects (mechanics, design choice, you name it) of a game can be.

[trielav]

I have not once intentionally “swapped” the definition, they are both distinguishable under the context that they were used in.

Your “disregarding one is the same as disregarding the other” means they can’t be distinguished.

They look for the same qualities in a MMO that a player of the opposite playstyle would also be searching for.

This isn’t the case because they have opposite playstyles. However, if they did have the same preferences, then they could be disregarded because their preferences aren’t different, so satisfying the preferences of the other group will satisfy both.

The playerbase in subject here are the solo players.

You can’t count solo players as a unified playerbase and you don’t speak for other individual solo players. He’s a MOBA player and this is an “MMO or MOBA” thread, so he falls into the less social of the two categories along with solo players, whether he is one or not.

If categorizing a group of people under a false notion is not stereotyping, what is it?

The line you quoted before didn’t refer to everyone, but instead a hypothetical individual. There was no false notion, either. It doesn’t make sense to talk about stereotyping “everyone” to begin with.

Here’s what stereotyping is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotyping?s=t
Stereotypes aren’t necessarily false.

By definition, to force someone is to have someone do something against their will.

Then a game can’t force anyone to do anything since they can just stop.

A player is not forced to gather all loot that drops, they have the freedom to do so.

Then they can skip the social elements even if doing so is disadvantageous, just like how skipping loot is disadvantageous.

refining/adding to the game’s mechanics would be a better approach

It would be an insufficient approach (interpreting mechanics to exclude mechanics of social systems such as party mechanics), but that does vary based on the way the game is designed. For example, the level of difficulty changes the indirect effects, and people will disagree on what difficulty is more refined.

Though, at this point, I see that you are attempting to nit-pick at my wrong use of a word as a substitute of an argument in order to claim that my point is invalid, when, under the context of what is being discussed, should have given you a more than substantial hint as to what term I was trying to use. So you can stop feigning ignorance now.

You’ve been misusing words and using misleading phrasing and non-sequiturs to continue arguing while abandoning the point. Alright, I’ll stop feigning ignorance: you’re trolling.

With enhancements and tweaks on mechanics and details that had also existed in Ragnarok Online (graphics, sprite quality, etc.), Tree of Savior holds more true to the title as a genuine “successor,” as the players, veterans and aspiring fans alike, seek to re-experience/experience what Ragnarok Online was during its former glory, a feat that Ragnarok Online 2 was unable to do.

At least this section was a reasonable explanation of what counts as means and results. It doesn’t cover the process by which players make choices, so is it assuming complete reliance on early adopters, which is basically what TOS is doing and therefore what’s most relevant to this thread?

has also shown how equally important other aspects (mechanics, design choice, you name it) of a game can be.

I certainly would’ve taken issue with gameplay covering you name it, but “equally important” can work with any aspects that are prerequisites of or dependent upon others, which resolves that issue.