So...VIPs are apparently getting hosed.

[Chai]

Please note that the niche that open world pvp games draw in is the "hang out just outside the low level safe areas with a max level character and kill new characters that dare poke their head out of safety, repeatedly. They then wonder just where the player base went, never understanding that they chased off the player base. I've seen it happen many a time. In Age of Conan for example the PvP servers are usually barren, and have been since about a month after the game launched. And that's entirely because of griefers hanging out in White Sands (the first open world pvp area) after grinding out max levels so they can easily kill the level 5-20 players trying to run their quests. Note that you know these people ground out their levels in White Sands 1 or 2 xp at a time because once you hit level 21, you can't enter White Sands anymore. I had a character I ground out to level 45 (cap was 50 at the time) in White Sands who I left parked there. I did this not to grief new players, but to hunt down any griefers, kill them, and force them to respawn outside of White Sands since these a-holes never had a spawn point unlocked in White Sands. Thus they would respawn in town, and be unable to get back to their favored griefing area.

Precisely my point.

And when that example game adds a "no PVP" server, the PVE crowd who hates open world PVP for the reason you describe now plays the game. This also doesnt negatively affect those who enjoy open world PVP as they get to keep their gamespace.

[SkyJ89]

No true at all. Players have equal chance at interacting with anyone they want in games with multiple game spaces. Theres also multiplicative higher probability that game with multiple game spaces has a mode the player likes, over a game with one single game space. Probably the single biggest example (and the most polarizing example) is games with open world PVP. They often end up as niche games. When they open a few servers with open world PVP turned off, they attract the PVE crowd. This doesnt mean the PVP crowd goes away, as they still have their gamespace.

Its a fact. When if we put 5 people into 5 room, they have 0 interaction. If we put them into 3 room, we have 2 people interacting in 2 room and 1 person sitting in isolation. If we put everyone into 1 room, everybody gets to interact. So if we were to divide grouping into multiple LFM with "zerg, flower sniffing, break every breakable, exploration, doing all optional" group, what are the chance people get to chat? And compare to just 2 LFM that is up? Don't forget to take out those that prefer to solo. How will new player feel if no one join their lfm? Well we can see the problem on live server without the need to categorizing the LFM.

I hope your multiple game space mean LFM with "zerg, flower sniffing, break every breakable, exploration, doing all optional" option suggested by Nokowi because that's what I'm talking about all along.

I find DDO did a good job by introducing reincarnation. They keep their population crowded together. Regarding how the population interact is up to the community. Its again a social thing. If we were to divide our already small community just to protect player from social conflict, it might do more harm than good. Like I said, social thing should be solve through social interaction. Just treat each other with respect and we will be all fine.

[Red_Knight]

Yesterday I put up a LFM for The Reaver's Fate on Hard, heroic level (so level 14 base). After sitting around waiting for 4 hours, I gave up and attempted to solo the raid. Nobody even considered trying to do a heroic raid at-level. I tried advertising in the chat channels, tried different messages on the LFM, no dice.

[myliftkk_v2]

And yet, the devs clearly do assign a dollar value to each component of the VIP benefits. Want proof? Well, over at LOTRO's vip info page they specifically call out the "value" of the benefits in order to convince you it's a good deal. I'm sure if the DDO page for that had been updated at all since the game went F2P it too would do so.

I think you may be mis-understanding what is meant by the term "input costs". When I pay someone in China to pour plastic into a mold, the plastic is an input cost. Because digital products are in fact digital, input costs related the marginal cost of production in digital goods are virtually zero per unit "manufactured" and "sold" (in reality we're chewing up tiny bits of silicon, but those costs are a rounding error off zero on a per unit basis. It does not cost SSG anything beyond sunk costs (similar to the mold the plastic is poured in) to create the mold from which an endless supply of digital widgets can stamped out to sell, all at a zero marginal cost of production. Designed competently, SSG can reduce even sunk costs to nearly zero depending on how they generate the "mold" from which digital widgets to sell are cast. What does this mean? Not creating widgets from which new marginal cost zero widgets can be stamped to meet demand is largely evidence of poor marketing and product design (VIP being the product).

That any business defines what they believe their units to be valued at is only relevant in as much as two parties need to agree on said value before a transaction occurs. That DDO hasn't even bothered to make the case of the value of their component structure of current VIP speaks to the mis-marketing that has been the hallmark of DDO all along. Moreover, if a second customer is being self-enlisted to "explain" the business' value of a offering to a first customer, we're so far down the mis-managment rathole, we might as well be in The Pit running around lost and without a map.

[myliftkk_v2]

Please note that the ... players exploit poor game design.

This is not a surprise, or were you not present for Dupe-a-palooza v1.0, v2.0, or v3.0?

[SkyJ89]

Yesterday I put up a LFM for The Reaver's Fate on Hard, heroic level (so level 14 base). After sitting around waiting for 4 hours, I gave up and attempted to solo the raid. Nobody even considered trying to do a heroic raid at-level. I tried advertising in the chat channels, tried different messages on the LFM, no dice.

Yup. Its sad. Further dividing it into zerg, flower sniffing, etc category, it will be more sad. Frankly I wont be so adamant about further categorizing LFM if the game population are more populated. Its just the game can't afford to do that.

[Red_Knight]

This is not a surprise, or were you not present for Dupe-a-palooza v1.0, v2.0, or v3.0?

Around, yes. And I ignored it each and every time. I went out of my way to not learn how people were duping items.

[myliftkk_v2]

It's just so overblown. Nothing proposed "hoses" VIP for anybody. No VIP is losing a single thing. Even dedicated I-only-ever-solo players who don't gain any benefit from a buddy bonus still don't lose anything.

If anyone (who hasn't lost anything) decides a different option (which admittedly has been made more attractive) is now the better option, then they are perfectly free to switch from VIP to Premium.

How much does SSG care whether people are VIP versus Premium? I don't know. If they want people to stay VIP instead of Premium, is there enough of an advantage to VIP? I don't know. But all this talk about being "hosed" is pure nonsense.

What's nonsense is quibbling over the language a customer uses to describe their perception of the value change in a transaction relevant to them. It avoids the entire issue, which is their perception did in fact change, and instead gets caught up trying to complain about the fact that someone hates a particular ingredient in the word salad.

If any VIPs decide that the transaction value has changed for them, then guess what, it's changed for them. One can continue trying to a convince them to quit making the exchange, or conversely trying to ask them to change their priorities so they can re-evaluate the transaction. Both will fail spectacularly, because guess what, they didn't come asking how to value the transaction, they came to issue their complaint with it. Re-affirming for the umpteenth time that one has no complaint isn't relevant to the other customer, while being relevant only to the creator of the goods (so that they may consider how demand has shifted). Especially amusing coming from some customers who don't even engage in said transaction which is akin to asking a customer not happy with their Big Mac offer to consider a viewpoint from someone who's eating a Filet-o-Fish.

[myliftkk_v2]

Around, yes. And I ignored it each and every time. I went out of my way to not learn how people were duping items.

Then we can suffice by saying bad actors exist in every environment and/or gamespace, and leave it at that and that there is no "draw" to a particular gamespace that eliminates or induces bad actors. They will exist wherever humans exist. A gamespace however can choose to design in such a way as to limit their effects.

[SirValentine]

What's nonsense is quibbling over the language a customer uses to describe their perception of the value change in a transaction relevant to them.

Who's doing that? You can call it "hosed", or whatever else you want, I don't care, and it will still be false.

It avoids the entire issue, which is their perception did in fact change, and instead gets caught up trying to complain about the fact that someone hates a particular ingredient in the word salad.

Someone's "perception" is their own internal issue. The plain objective fact is, VIP has lost nothing. Who cares what word they use, if they are lying and claiming they lost something when they didn't?

Especially amusing coming from some customers who don't even engage in said transaction which is akin to asking a customer not happy with their Big Mac offer to consider a viewpoint from someone who's eating a Filet-o-Fish.

If we want to make dumb McD's analogies, I view it as a customer who has exactly the same Big Mac they had last month whining because the Filet-o-Fish now comes with extra cheese. Their Big Mac didn't change, and if they want, they could now buy a Filet-o-Fish instead of a Big Mac if they prefer.

[Chai]

Its a fact. When if we put 5 people into 5 room, they have 0 interaction. If we put them into 3 room, we have 2 people interacting in 2 room and 1 person sitting in isolation. If we put everyone into 1 room, everybody gets to interact. So if we were to divide grouping into multiple LFM with "zerg, flower sniffing, break every breakable, exploration, doing all optional" group, what are the chance people get to chat? And compare to just 2 LFM that is up? Don't forget to take out those that prefer to solo. How will new player feel if no one join their lfm? Well we can see the problem on live server without the need to categorizing the LFM.

I hope your multiple game space mean LFM with "zerg, flower sniffing, break every breakable, exploration, doing all optional" option suggested by Nokowi because that's what I'm talking about all along.

I find DDO did a good job by introducing reincarnation. They keep their population crowded together. Regarding how the population interact is up to the community. Its again a social thing. If we were to divide our already small community just to protect player from social conflict, it might do more harm than good. Like I said, social thing should be solve through social interaction. Just treat each other with respect and we will be all fine.

That analogy doesnt add up. You are failing to account for both scenarios of people choosing to enter for a specific reason, and people refusing to enter the room for specific reasons. Your premise hangs on the incorrect assumption that people WILL enter. Since people can choose to play or not, and choose which gamespace to play in if given choices, the assumption that there is the same number of people in both examples is an incorrect assumption.

Heres the correct model.

If you put 1 stimulus into 1 room and tell people they can choose to go into the room or not based on the stimulus, chances are not all 5 people are going into the room. As the sample size increases, theres less of a chance for netting all observers with the same one stimulus.

If you find out (yes, researching the market audience) what each of those 5 people like, and put their favorite thing into one of the rooms, now all 5 people will enter a room.

In the context of the DDO flower sniffer vs zerger oversimplified example - flower sniffers do not become zergers in DDO because its the only gamespace available. They go play another game where they can sniff flowers. This is what you are not accounting for. You assume the same sample size even when customer is unsatisfied. This is not how business works.

[Careall]

You might not have been around at the time, but people did indeed complain about DDO switching to a F2P model. "The WoW noobs are going to come here and ruin the game" was a common refrain at the time. A number of long time vets were so outraged by the move that they quit. And needless to say, while a number of the new players did stick around... the hostile attitude of the remaining vets did indeed chase new players away. So once the advertising campaign ended the servers were quickly almost back to the state they originally had been in before going F2P. The Advice channel was filled with vets harassing new players for daring to ask questions and be new to the game. Some of us were happy to answer questions. But I'll admit, even I got tired of answering the same questions every 30 seconds. Then there was the guy who unironically wanted to know how you mine for fish.

EDITED TO EXPAND

Exactly. A classic case of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot.
Today: Why is SSG devaluing my VIP subscription by giving away free stuff? *Treats new players horribly in protest.*
Tomorrow: Why is DDO so dead and no one playing it?

[myliftkk_v2]

The real problem is how trustworthy is a player data to SSG compare to SSG own data? Its true my experience don't matter. But can u tell the data player collected is without bias or tampered? Can u trust my data if I were to submit my own copy? U see no matter what we say as a player or what data we collect, its only a player feedback to the developer. In the end, the developer would only use their own data. That's why I said leave this kind of job to the developer. Post your suggestion/idea and don't leave ultimatum. Let the developer decide. I find squabbling over such a matter is a waste of time. Not that we are able to see what the developer had on their meeting board. But yeah, if people wish to play developer on the forum, I guess its not my business anyway. Feel free do what u guys want.

Data is data. The issue surfacing consistently in these arguments is the extrapolation from single data points (anecdotal experience), which are valid singular data points, to globalized interpretations which are not, and when produced evidence that those interpretations are in fact biased in a way that they are functionally flawed, rather than re-assess the logical mistakes made moving from singular data points to interpretive models, some retreat to a "well, can't trust anyone's data". Unfortunately what cannot be trusted is in fact one's ability to logically move from data points to an interpretive model, not least of which, because one doesn't not show the logical work necessary to get there.

Chai, as have others, are more than happy to show the logical work needed to get from aggregated data points to their conclusions, in additions to controlling for their biases. When one begins to do the same, implying a seriousness in their critical thinking skills, one will generally find others will take one's arguments more seriously in return.

If the interest is you believing the company understands your product preference, simply say, "hey, SSG, I'm happy with VIP I'm purchasing now". That will let them know you are content. If others are discontent then the company can evaluate their relative purchasing power and, if executed properly, decide how to meet the needs of the other discontented group while also keeping your group happy. If you have this baseline fear about the company making the other customers happy will in turn result in you being unhappy, then we haven't come to an impasse, instead we've come to a place where the company themselves is the problem (Chai and others point all along). That you haven't come to the point where you're in the discontented group yet... well, someday the bell will toll for thee.

[SkyJ89]

That analogy doesnt add up. You are failing to account for both scenarios of people choosing to enter for a specific reason, and people refusing to enter the room for specific reasons. Your premise hangs on the incorrect assumption that people WILL enter. Since people can choose to play or not, and choose which gamespace to play in if given choices, the assumption that there is the same number of people in both examples is an incorrect assumption.

Heres the correct model.

If you put 1 stimulus into 1 room and tell people they can choose to go into the room or not based on the stimulus, chances are not all 5 people are going into the room. As the sample size increases, theres less of a chance for netting all observers with the same one stimulus.

If you find out (yes, researching the market audience) what each of those 5 people like, and put their favorite thing into one of the rooms, now all 5 people will enter a room.

In the context of the DDO flower sniffer vs zerger oversimplified example - flower sniffers do not become zergers in DDO because its the only gamespace available. They go play another game where they can sniff flowers. This is what you are not accounting for. You assume the same sample size even when customer is unsatisfied. This is not how business works.

U are right. I might neglect on something and my example are too simplified to be put in practical use. So lets put it this way, what are the chance for 2 soul mate to meet that are both flower sniffer, at similar level range, prefer to do on normal and prefer to do X quest? If we further categorizing it, the chance got smaller doesn't it? And if the server has only 5 people on that level range, what are the chance that 5 people are to meet if they follow their preference?

[myliftkk_v2]

Who's doing that? You can call it "hosed", or whatever else you want, I don't care, and it will still be false.

Someone's "perception" is their own internal issue. The plain objective fact is, VIP has lost nothing. Who cares what word they use, if they are lying and claiming they lost something when they didn't?

If we want to make dumb McD's analogies, I view it as a customer who has exactly the same Big Mac they had last month whining because the Filet-o-Fish now comes with extra cheese. Their Big Mac didn't change, and if they want, they could now buy a Filet-o-Fish instead of a Big Mac if they prefer.

Perceptions of value have driven economic exchange since one human exchanged bush meat for fire with another.

Economics is not a morality play, to the extent one tries to make it one will be matched by the extent to which one's models of it fail.

No, the appropriate analogy would be now the special sauce is available to everyone and thus it is no longer special. Thus, for those of us who've purchased the product for the special sauce, our perception of value in the exchange had indeed changed.

[myliftkk_v2]

Exactly. A classic case of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot.
Today: Why is SSG devaluing my VIP subscription by giving away free stuff? *Treats new players horribly in protest.*
Tomorrow: Why is DDO so dead and no one playing it?

Of course you've no proof for this line of reasoning.

What we do have proof for is shrinkage in VIP playerbase.

The vast majority of customer's disappointed in the value proposition just leave quietly. Do you throw a fit everytime you walk into a store a decide not to buy something?

[nokowi]

Yup. Its sad. Further dividing it into zerg, flower sniffing, etc category, it will be more sad. Frankly I wont be so adamant about further categorizing LFM if the game population are more populated. Its just the game can't afford to do that.

The majority of people have varying and/or multiple preferences, and are willing to play with alternate preferences some but not all of the time.

Here are my preferences:
50% solo (slow/challenge)
50% group (70% zerg, 30% slow/help)


When I see a zerg group, I will happily join that group, even though that is not what I want to do the majority of the time. I am prepared to complete the quest as quickly as possible, and I am not surprised when I get there and the quest is in progress. I enjoy getting faster rewards some of the time. I hate doing this all of the time.

When I see a flower sniffing LFM, I take a look at how much time I have to play, and I join the group understanding I should not run ahead of the rest of the group, and I might even hold back a bit so others can get more action. I enjoy helping others, and slowing down some of the time. I would hate to play this slowly all of the time.



The end result would be playing less of the time with alternate preferences and more of the time with better experiences. There are no less people playing and no less LFM's for any one preference, because people that like a preference will play that way more often.

The net gain is people playing more often when they can find groups that match player with preference.

I like solo play because I find most group play unchallenging and not very cooperative. I would play more in groups if they had a challenge and cooperative flag. Whatever preference I have that is not being met, I am more likely to group whenever these pop up.

Stating that matching player preference with game will divide players, without an ability to describe why or how this will happen, nobody should give your conclusions much credence. You disagree, but can you give specific examples of what would be worse for you? Tell us specifically how seeing your preference in a LFM will cause you to do something negative, or how seeing it more often than now will harm you.

Very few of us are pure flower sniffer, pure zerg, or pure one preference, and even those that are usually have some tolerance for playing with other preferences, at least some portion of the time. When I am playing solo and see a group that matches my mood, I am more, not less, likely to join it. Someone that doesn't see their preference at a moment in time can still join groups, which is what they are already doing now by joining groups without any labels.


I think the extreme zergers and flower sniffers are already absent from LFM's, and making it easier for them to group is a positive, while letting those in the middle match their current mood/time. Letting me join those groups when I am in the mood gives those with extreme preferences more players to play with.

[SirValentine]

No, the appropriate analogy would be now the special sauce is available to everyone and thus it is no longer special. Thus, for those of us who've purchased the product for the special sauce, our perception of value in the exchange had indeed changed.

Fine, say "special sauce" instead of "cheese"; now who's quibbling about words?

If someone's internal emotional state depends on other people being denied special sauce, I would not say that Mc D's is hosing them; I'd say they have an internal emotional issue to deal with.

But the facts are that the Big Mac still has it's special sauce, even if Filet-o-Fish does now, too. The Big Mac is as tasty as ever, and if you think the Filet-o-Fish being made tastier is tempting, you can get that instead if you want.

When none of your options have been made worse, and some of your options have been made better, there's no hosing (or insert word of choice, if you want to quibble) involved, whatsoever.

[SkyJ89]

Data is data. The issue surfacing consistently in these arguments is the extrapolation from single data points (anecdotal experience), which are valid singular data points, to globalized interpretations which are not, and when produced evidence that those interpretations are in fact biased in a way that they are functionally flawed, rather than re-assess the logical mistakes made moving from singular data points to interpretive models, some retreat to a "well, can't trust anyone's data". Unfortunately what cannot be trusted is in fact one's ability to logically move from data points to an interpretive model, not least of which, because one doesn't not show the logical work necessary to get there.

Chai, as have others, are more than happy to show the logical work needed to get from aggregated data points to their conclusions, in additions to controlling for their biases. When one begins to do the same, implying a seriousness in their critical thinking skills, one will generally find others will take one's arguments more seriously in return.

If the interest is you believing the company understands your product preference, simply say, "hey, SSG, I'm happy with VIP I'm purchasing now". That will let them know you are content. If others are discontent then the company can evaluate their relative purchasing power and, if executed properly, decide how to meet the needs of the other discontented group while also keeping your group happy. If you have this baseline fear about the company making the other customers happy will in turn result in you being unhappy, then we haven't come to an impasse, instead we've come to a place where the company themselves is the problem (Chai and others point all along). That you haven't come to the point where you're in the discontented group yet... well, someday the bell will toll for thee.

Nope. that's not my baseline at all. I have no problem with player submitting suggestion that would improve the game. I'm just criticizing a certain idea that from my point of view, have more negative impact than positive. If that would offend a certain group of people instead of looking at it in a positive way, then so be it.

[Chai]

U are right. I might neglect on something and my example are too simplified to be put in practical use. So lets put it this way, what are the chance for 2 soul mate to meet that are both flower sniffer, at similar level range, prefer to do on normal and prefer to do X quest? If we further categorizing it, the chance got smaller doesn't it? And if the server has only 5 people on that level range, what are the chance that 5 people are to meet if they follow their preference?

The chance gets smaller when the game does NOT have those game spaces. Once again youre operating on the assumption that Player A will play like player B when playstyle A is not a choice within the game, resulting in being together in fewer gamespaces. This is an incorrect assumption. In reality, player A will leave the game that only caters to playstyle B, and play a game that caters to playstyle A. Player B is now alone.

Using the zerger/flower sniffer analogy. (yes, a oversimplified example, but it does show the point)
Zergers dont become flower sniffers in flower sniffer only games. They go find a zerg game to play
Flower sniffers dont become zergers in zerg only games. They go find a flower sniffer game to play.
Zergers and flower sniffers will play games which have a separate gamespace for zerging and flower sniffing.

Best possible chance of those two meeting up in a game, is when the game has a gamespace for both.

In the case where you are talking about the level-spread-for-grouping breakdown (further categorization), modern games have addressed this issue too, and scale characters to the level of the content. DDO really does need a way to take a snapshot of the characters progress and allow players to play at different levels. While this gets shouted down by folks who think players will farm the same 5 quests over and over again, DDO already has mechanisms in place to prevent this, or stop it from becoming META.