I kept calling people who did idiotic things in games "morons and slackers". They kept answering that a game is a game, therefore can be played any way the player wants to, as long as he have fun. At this point the argument died as neither position can be proved. They can't prove that they have fun or they could play properly if they wanted to, I can't prove the opposite.
Now I'm trying a different approach: it is without doubt that from the point of view of the character, their actions is idiotic. Killing random orcs on Arathi Basin bridge instead of capturing a base makes the poor human paladin lose the battle and gain less rewards. Running off to lowsec to PvP in frigates will earn neither ISK nor good killboard for the poor pilot. The character is indeed a moron or slacker.
In the world of an MMO, the player is represented by an avatar. These games are called role-playing for a reason. These players simply roleplay an idiot. They roleplay the dumb paladin who can't understand that bases are more important than killing orcs or lacks the impulse control to do the right thing. They roleplay the combative, juvenile pilot who runs off fighting for no other reason than being mean to some random stranger.
These games are promising us to roleplay heroes. In the EVE Online page there is even a list of what you can be. I've seen "loyalist", "pirate", "manufacturer" there. Yet most people choose to roleplay and idiot.
Let's assume that these players are telling the truth and they are not idiots while roleplaying idiots. Then this situation is the fault of the game developer: their reward structure doesn't reward "proper" roleplaying enough. I mean the "hero" of Arathi Basin isn't rewarded enough to motivate people to roleplay heroes. If you just lol around pointlessly or simply go AFK, you still get more than enough honor points. Similarly, no one is rewarded enough in EVE to roleplay a "proper" pirate, someone who makes a fortune from piracy. The idiot pilot who runs around and shoots stuff randomly isn't much worse off than someone who hunts for a worthy prey. Actually both of them are miles behind the AFK miner.
The problem with this setting is that most people don't want to roleplay idiots. At least in their game time they want to be dragonslaying heroes, fearsome pirates or great warriors. The games must reward good play and punish bad play not because it suits the hardcore, but because only this can create an atmosphere where one can be a "hero". Even if most players won't achieve this status, being a foot soldier of the good cause is something worthy of roleplaying. Just think about how many players join large nullsec alliances despite the reward structure, just to roleplay an F1-bashing footman, or think about the fact that most people are in guilds despite most of the guilds are utterly useless. People want to roleplay belonging to a team, so a structure where they are footmen supporting an army would work.
Games that reward bad play are necessarily penalize roleplaying the hero. It makes playing the way it was advertised pointless and unrewarding. While you still can play that way, you are constantly reminded that it's pointless and dumb by the "lol u r nolifer" crowd. Funnily games without any rewards are better in this sense. I mean in such game all ways of playing are equal. In a badly rewarded game playing well is actively punished and the player have to make up extra roleplaying terms to counter it.
One of these extra terms is "skillz", these players actually play the way it was meant to be: fighting hard enemies. However their efforts are unrewarded as even an AFK miner earns more than the guy who beats a battleship in a frigate. So they make up the imaginary "skillz", an alternative world where their actions gain respect. Too bad that in the real world they are laughed at by those who bash them easily by "blobbing", by those who earn lot more by living in highsec and even by gankers who have much-much better killboard stats.
Fixing the reward structure of games would serve every players, except those who are indeed idiots therefore can't roleplay anything else but idiots.
Now I'm trying a different approach: it is without doubt that from the point of view of the character, their actions is idiotic. Killing random orcs on Arathi Basin bridge instead of capturing a base makes the poor human paladin lose the battle and gain less rewards. Running off to lowsec to PvP in frigates will earn neither ISK nor good killboard for the poor pilot. The character is indeed a moron or slacker.
In the world of an MMO, the player is represented by an avatar. These games are called role-playing for a reason. These players simply roleplay an idiot. They roleplay the dumb paladin who can't understand that bases are more important than killing orcs or lacks the impulse control to do the right thing. They roleplay the combative, juvenile pilot who runs off fighting for no other reason than being mean to some random stranger.
These games are promising us to roleplay heroes. In the EVE Online page there is even a list of what you can be. I've seen "loyalist", "pirate", "manufacturer" there. Yet most people choose to roleplay and idiot.
Let's assume that these players are telling the truth and they are not idiots while roleplaying idiots. Then this situation is the fault of the game developer: their reward structure doesn't reward "proper" roleplaying enough. I mean the "hero" of Arathi Basin isn't rewarded enough to motivate people to roleplay heroes. If you just lol around pointlessly or simply go AFK, you still get more than enough honor points. Similarly, no one is rewarded enough in EVE to roleplay a "proper" pirate, someone who makes a fortune from piracy. The idiot pilot who runs around and shoots stuff randomly isn't much worse off than someone who hunts for a worthy prey. Actually both of them are miles behind the AFK miner.
The problem with this setting is that most people don't want to roleplay idiots. At least in their game time they want to be dragonslaying heroes, fearsome pirates or great warriors. The games must reward good play and punish bad play not because it suits the hardcore, but because only this can create an atmosphere where one can be a "hero". Even if most players won't achieve this status, being a foot soldier of the good cause is something worthy of roleplaying. Just think about how many players join large nullsec alliances despite the reward structure, just to roleplay an F1-bashing footman, or think about the fact that most people are in guilds despite most of the guilds are utterly useless. People want to roleplay belonging to a team, so a structure where they are footmen supporting an army would work.
Games that reward bad play are necessarily penalize roleplaying the hero. It makes playing the way it was advertised pointless and unrewarding. While you still can play that way, you are constantly reminded that it's pointless and dumb by the "lol u r nolifer" crowd. Funnily games without any rewards are better in this sense. I mean in such game all ways of playing are equal. In a badly rewarded game playing well is actively punished and the player have to make up extra roleplaying terms to counter it.
One of these extra terms is "skillz", these players actually play the way it was meant to be: fighting hard enemies. However their efforts are unrewarded as even an AFK miner earns more than the guy who beats a battleship in a frigate. So they make up the imaginary "skillz", an alternative world where their actions gain respect. Too bad that in the real world they are laughed at by those who bash them easily by "blobbing", by those who earn lot more by living in highsec and even by gankers who have much-much better killboard stats.
Fixing the reward structure of games would serve every players, except those who are indeed idiots therefore can't roleplay anything else but idiots.
0 comments:
Post a Comment