Dancer Archive
Thread: How much of the 'social' is the gameplay for you?
- Is the term 'social playstyle' even accurate as adescriptor? Is being 'social' the gameplay for you?
- Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
- Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for youthat it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that isfound in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
- What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
. Socialization strictly for socialization is not and will not be the reason I play any game. I'm here to play a game with my friends and make new friends to expand my enjoyment of the game. The cantina provides a place where I can showcase my meager musical skills and meet people. However I get out of the cantina a lot to do other things. I would love to be able to do other things that involved me being a musician. Let me be a spy, let me carry my skills to the group in combat, let me be involved as a musician. If the revamp is removing buffs as we know them or changing them so that they are meaningless and healing is meaningless then I'll probably leave this profession. First there would be no reason for people to ever come see us and second I would be burning a ton of skill points that helps no one, not even myself.Our guild has done a fair amount of krayt hunting lately. Imaji as a swordswoman and me as a TKM add a lot to the team as combatants but we also add a lot as enterainers. It allows us to duck into a player cantina or our rangers camp and help everyone feel better and get their minds buffed up for the next wave. It allows us to be useful on multiple levels. This kind of involvement and need is critical to keeping any profession working. If all there is to do as an entertainer is stand in a cantina, flourish, and chat then I think you will see us all leave. Every one of us wants an audience and removing a need for us destroys that.
Yes.
Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
Yes.
Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for you that it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that is found in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
It's a playstyle for me. I cannot speak to how the rest of the community sees things. I find it rewarding.
What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
Lemme put it this way. A lot of people, on the weekends, go out with friends to bars, dance clubs, whatever. They don't hunt orcs, they don't blow up stormtroopers, they go out, they drink, they have interesting conversations, they hit on each other, they dance, they have fun, and at the end of the day, they are actually considered more normal and well adjusted than those who sit indoors and play video games.
Yet, when some of us choose to engage in much the same activities online...conversing, drinking, meeting new people, partying, flirting, etc...we are labeled as weird or odd. People cannot understand it. Why? Because in the game, we're the misfits. Why? Is it so odd to want to spend nights with friends, having fun, meeting people, flirting and being social rather than off on our own, powerleveling and beating off to the vision of our Jedi putting the smack down on a Krayt?
The whole concept of an MMOG is to play with other human beings. Why then, is is to damn hard for the devs and everyone else to understand why we enjoy playing the game in a purely social manner?
Maybe I’m way too naive but if I buy a game labeled Multi-Player I expect an interaction and codependency among the player base, ALL of the player base, not just selected few.
So far in every other game I had and/or still play it’s a given fact. The player base gets the best out of the game by interacting and working together.
So why in SWG if you use the chat channels for anything but spam you are suddenly labeled as a social butterfly?
Why is it that so many players rather pay for extra accounts to create scores of alts to ensure they don’t ever have to interact with anyone?
Why so many prefer to play in the “god-mode” to insure winning with no challenge?
And why those who actually expect multi-player game to be *gasps* Multi-player are suddenly labeled as el-weirdoes?
I am not looking for a chat-room, never been in to those.
I don’t want to spend my playtime doing nothing else but chitchat about what color I should paint my fingernails.
I don’t want to feel I’m surrounded by mechanical NPCs with no soul.
No matter what game I play I’m always the same me.. regardless if my avatar is a dancer, assassin, shaman, sideborg or whatever else.
Why are entertainers labeled the “social profession”? Wouldn’t two Jedi who work together to outsmart BH be “social” also?
Oh I get it.. They combat, so therefore it’s ok for them to expect content and interaction, but only on their terms.
Deli'ah
2) Yes
3) Yes, I wish they would restore a lot of the atmosphere that we had before they turned us into a bot profession too.
4) There is nothing like the cantina experience in any other game I have played. The flirting, the easy friendships the gossip and the posturing between people... Seriously it's a game into and of itself. It doesn't need "content" but it does need to reward our characters in the way that combat and crafting rewards our characters... Allow us to buy and recieve game items from it. All we have ever needed was a good way to earn credits to buy houses, decorations and clothing items.
Xyrdre wrote:
Questions for the community members:
- Is the term 'social playstyle' even accurate as adescriptor? Is being 'social' the gameplay for you?
I bought a massively multiplayer game so that I could interact with other people. If that's why they are describing by "social" then my answer is Yes. I did not purchase the game solely for an opportunity to "talk" with other people. If that's what they mean then my answer is No.
- Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
No. It is a side effect of being a human at the keyboard. There needs to be some other action going on be it healing, shooting, trying to glean information, bartering, whatever
- Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for youthat it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that isfound in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
No it is not. If someone is playing this game and they are not "socializing" then I'd have to wonder what thought process was involved when they looked in the Multi-player category and decided to make the purchase.
- What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
I wish they would stop using it because I think too many people assign their own definition to what it means for it to have a universal usefulness.
And now that I've read the other post as well... let me add this. If I wanted to create and play a character that's a slave I would have done so. I didn't. I created a character with curiosity and a desire to see the galaxy and take part in the Galactic Civil War. If their "grand vision of the social playstyle" is that my character needs to be a happy little slave sitting in the cantina awaiting the arrival of combat players then I can only say &*%$ that! I play on a small server. What the hell am I supposed to do when I'm the only person in the cantina for 2 hours??? The combat player is out there being very social with all his buds and I get to practice adding lighting effects to broken dances and hoping I remember how to greet people when they finally do wander into the cantina. Hooray!! All this time I could have been grinding combat xp to have my very own Jedi and requisite alt bot. Are they going to give me a veteran reward to make up for that?? I should have known they just wanted a bunch of scantily clad slaves they could pull out of the dungeon whenever they wanted some eye candy while theystroked their sabers. Typical. Bloody typical.
Ikewe
Message Edited by Ikewe on 03-11-2005 08:25 AM
edited to add my angry vent at discovering I have wasted a whole lot of time trying to be creative about a profession when the development team couldn't put in the slightest bit of creativity.
edited again because in my anger I'd made careless typos
Message Edited by Ikewe on 03-11-2005 08:44 AM
I love getting to know more people, having fun, being silly, joking and find ways to get people activly socializing and live entertaining seeing as there is quite the ammount of AFK players around
- Is the term 'social playstyle' even accurate as adescriptor? Is being 'social' the gameplay for you?
It is an accurate descriptor indeed, allthough i would want more social activity.
- Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
- Yeah, alltho more content as in games, clothes, effects etc would be nice. I also want to point out the creative part of this profession. People spend time in making their own dances, videos etc. This is also a part of this gameplay in my opinion.
- Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for youthat it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that isfound in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
Socializing is rewarding enough for me
- What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
Xyrdre wrote:Is the term 'social playstyle' even accurate as a descriptor? Is being 'social' the gameplay for you?
Yes, it is an accurate descriptor. It's one of the four recognized player types on the Bartle Scale, and if I take the Bartle Test I end up as SEA, with S (socializer) way, way out in front.
Socializer is a bit of a misnomer though. Bartle defined a very brilliant "interest graph" that goes something like this:
ACTING
Killers | Achievers
|
|
|
|
|
PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers | Explorers
INTERACTING
Killers' primary interest is acting on other players (forcing their will on others), hence these are PKers, griefers of all sorts, and the like.
Achievers' primary interest is acting on the world -- these are the builders, the business owners, etc.
Explorers' primary interest is interacting with the world -- these are the people who like to earn badges, do quests, explore content, etc.
Socializers' primary interest is itneracting wtih other players -- this is where many (but not all) roleplayers fall in addition to "true socializers."
Thus it is a bit of a misnomer to assume a "socializer" player only wants to sit in the cantina and talk. Soclializers like to interact with other players, but not in a way that forces anything on them (that's what the Killers tend to do). Now performing in the cantina (assuming no AFKing) can accomplish this but lots of other things can as well. Being a mayor of a town is part achievement (acting on the world) but also has a lot of interpersonal interaction components and may well appeal to socializers as much as achievers.
I'm primarily a socializer in that I like interacting with other players and for that reason I liked the old way the cantinas used to be (before AFK macroing took them over). But I can interact with other players in lots of ways too (e.g. in guild chat, or RPing with them in between battles on a hunt). So we have to be careful with definitions here. I know lots of people who come up Sxx on the Bartle test (Socializer first, then 2 other things) and have no desire to be an entertainer per se. Medics and docs and other types also have lots of social interactions with other players... and I know a very socially-oriented person who was a pistoleer/CH. He got his socialization fulfillment by training pets for people, helping new guild members learn the game, running a resource-gathering business, and all sorts of other things.
So I think the "social playstyle" is an accurate descriptor providing we are using Bartle's definition, that is, that socializers are people whos favorite thing to do is interact with other players in whatever way (more than acting on them, or acting/interacting with the game world).
Given that definition, yes, I am a socializer. First and foremost. Heck I just quit playing another MMO, City of Heroes, because the game does NOT support social elements enough (it's basically a game for Acheivers and Explorers only) and my guild there was becoming less active, and thus I had less social things to do in the game. So yeah, I'm a socializer.
Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
Bartle's answer would be that no one play style is sufficient to hold most individual players' interests. That's why the guy who made up the "Bartle quotient" test (note: it was not Bartle himself) gives you a 3-part answer. I am SEA, which means I mostly like to interact with things, first being people, second being world, and then I have a little achiever in me (and zero killer -- I don't like forcing things on other players, nor having them forced upon me). Very, very few people would end up 100% socializer, and 0% in all 3 of the other things.
For myself, interacting with other players is my favorite thing to do, but I also do like being able to explore and do things like run a small business, and so forth. So while the social element is highly important, no, it is not enough by itself for me to play most games. Even when I first started SWG my character's main occupation was dancer and I had no combat goals for her, but I did try to do some artisan-ing. Mainly, I need variety in any game, or I get bored. Much as I loved the cantina atmosphere, even with that it was nice to get away and go sampling/surveying, or crafting, sometimes.
Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for you that it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that is found in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
Yes, socializing according to Bartle (and I agree with his categories) is a playstyle. It is the style of wanting to interact with other players. However, as he points out in his outstanding article, few players have only one playstyle. Most are primarily one, with a mix of others making up the remainder of their personalities. I'm not sure what it means to ask whether a playstyle represents a difference in approach to the game -- isn't that by definition what a playstyle is? If you are a person who likes the end and grinds to the top ASAP, and I like the journey and take it more slowly, but then get bored at the top and swap professions right after mastering, aren't those both different playstyles and different approaches?
Bartle sees things in terms of goals which most players do not think about consciously but have nevertheless. If your goal is to interact with players, you will end up being a "socializer" type. If you goal is to impact the game world, you will be an achiever type. Your play styles will reflect your goals.
What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
Bartle makes a really good case that it is hard to please all 4 types at the same time. He shows that pairs can work well together. Socializers and Explorers work pretty well together because they both like interacting. Achievers and explorers can work well together. Killers and socializers frequently do not. He points out that the very things that attract a Killer to a MUD (in his case, or MMO in ours -- same thing conceptually, since an MMO is at its heart a MUD with pretty graphics and a bigger user base) will deter Socializers, and vice-versa. So if the devs want to appeal to all 4 types (to maximize their audience) it's going to be very hard to do indeed.
I think a huge problem with how things are set up in the game is that you have the Socializers healing the non-Socializers. I don't mind doing this but, by definition, it means that most of the people who come in to heal do not really want to interact with you, since they have other goals. Since your goal is interaction, having a bunch of silent wounded guys sitting there getting healed off your dancing is entirely unsatisfying. I'm not sure how they fix this, as the socializers tend to be attracted to our professions, and the non-Socializers to the others. But that's where I'd look to "fix" things in the game. I don't envy those whose job it is to solve it, to be honest.
C
I have always had a hard time wrapping my mind around the term "social playstyle." I play... the way I play. I just do different things when I play different professions. I am equally social in all of them. If the question is being "social enough? means that there will never be any additional useful skills or content added then, um, no. I want more useful skills, I want more content, I want my ent characters to have a role in the GCW, PvP, PvE, active, passive, everything, while remaining and "entertainer." I want the whole game.
If our skills did nothing, interacted with nothing, produced nothing, provided nothing for us besides the opportunity to sit around and chat then I think that would suck be bad.
If the question is it enough? means should we just get rid of the professions then NOOOOO! These professions are great. Amazing, unique, and I have missed them very much when I've dabbled in other games. I don't understand what exactly is the problem in the eyes of the development team. Fix what is broken. Stop the exploiting. Expand on the current skills. Do not take anything away without providing something else that is equally as useful. Is there a problem with this? It is the same as with any other profession. Just because the profession itself is different does not mean it needs to be treated differently.
If this was Pikeman and something was broken they would fix it. If it was possible to level the entire profession afk they would consider it an exploit and fix it. If Pikeman started the game with limited skills and weapon choices they would expand them. If they took away Pikeman's role in combat they would provide them with a different, equally as useful role. I don't understand the problem. How are the Entertainer professions different from any other professions except in some weird twist of the mind? Provide the tools, provide skills, provide the content.If they are fun the players will enjoy them. If they are broken or exploited the players will complain as we have been doing. In my mind players are social as an expression of the fun and enjoyment they are having playing the game. Provide the fun and the social will take care of itself. This is true for every type of profession. And so what is true for every type of profession is also true for the Entertainer professions.
Maybe it is just that the virtual world is difficult for me. I am a hands-on wookiee, not good at conceptualizing. Fun is fun. Not fun is not fun. A profession is a profession. Entertainer, Pikeman, Docotor. They are just names for different types of animations on screen. People will react to other people based on whatever perceptions, conceptions, or misconceptions they have in their minds no matter what.That has no effect on the physical game design. Pikeman, Doctor, Entertainer. You design them in the same way, you fix them in the same way, you enhance them in the same way. If something is boken, you fix it, if something is exploitable you fix it, if players say "this sucks" you change it, if players say "this rocks!" you expand on it. I don't see the deal. There are difference yes. You are not going to add the same type of stuff to tailor as you would to Pikeman. You are not going to add the same type of stuff to Entertainer as you would to architect. I just dont see why doing this has been so hard for the game designers. Forget mentally agonizing over "playstyles." Just. Do it.
I hope this answered the questions... like I said I didnt really understand what they meant *squirms* so maybe I am just running off my mouth and making a fool of myself. Wouldn't be the first time. 
Xyrdre wrote:
Questions for the community members:
- Is the term 'social playstyle' even accurate as adescriptor? Is being 'social' the gameplay for you?
Yes.
- Is 'socializing' enough of a gameplay experience for you that it stands alone as something fun enough by itself?
Yes.
- Is 'socializing' rewarding enough for youthat it can really be called a playstyle in and of itself, or is it more that there's a difference of approach to rewarding gameplay that isfound in the players that make up our community that has been so dubbed as 'social'?
It's definitely, in my mind, a playstyle in and of itself. You can see this demonstrated a million times over on Starsider, the unoffical roleplaying server. Get togethers and role playing are a BIG thing, people like getting together for events and socializing. I've spent entire evenings, 6 hour gaming sessions, talking and goofing around with people in a cantina, club, casino, whatever. And people of all professions stuck around the ENTIRE TIME. Socializing is most definitely a playstyle from what I've experienced. Some people spend most of their time going around to different events and RP'ing, or just hanging around starports and striking up conversations. You don't even need Entertainer to actively be a "social" playstyle person. What I would like to see, however, is a way for Entertainers to complement those who play this game with the "socializing" aspect as their main focus. I will elaborate further in the next question.
- What other thoughts do you have about the 'social' term, in how it relates to your gameplay experience?
OK, here's the thing. The social playstyle encompasses an awful lot of things. It covers a lot of ground. You can literally "socialize" anywhere in this game for as long as you like, without the need to even have 1 skillpoint dedicated to a "social playstyle." Entertainers seem to have this as their main focus, because Entertainers are the ones who are usually at parties, or who are initiating conversations with other players. I very much think we're the "icebreakers" of the galaxies. I've seen it happen countless times, parties are generally silent without anyone talking much, but if I'm playing a Slitherhorn and start asking people how things are, and so forth, pretty soon the whole room erupts in conversation! Not only is talking to other players interesting, but so is watching what others are talking about!
I'd also like to add that player events and Entertainers just fit well together. Aren't we the folks who should be throwing the big Rebel get together or the Imperial conference? Shouldn't we be the ones to go to, when organizing a bit event? If we're to be "social" players, in order to be one in the truest form of the phrase, we need the tools to REALLY encourage socialization. This was my biggest disappointment with the Player Event Perks. Every single one of those perks would make sense to have Entertainers hand out. Maybe we'd get a 50% cut on the sales. Consider the obvious perks such as the stages (Dancers and Musicians) and the Jukebox (Musicians). The NPC actors could've been Image Designable - rather it's "whatever you get, you get." The perks were a great possibility for content for Entertainers, and it was bypassed in order to become a money sink and one "magical" Event Promoter who can get you anything.
A "social playstyle" is what drives this game. If people don't talk to each other, this game fails miserably.
However, as a "social profession," Entertainers should be the ones who ENHANCE the social aspects of this game. We're the ones who should be handing out Player Event Perks. We're the ones who should "get the party started." We're the players to see when you want to have a good time. If we're not only to partake in a social playstyle, but also enhance it, we need more tools are our disposal and more reasons to make people smile and enjoy themselves while socializing in this game. Everyone socializes to some degree in SWG. Some dedicate their time to it more than others, and that is what makes it a playstyle choice. I feel like it should be our role to enhance those players' experiences, draw others in to "kicking back and enjoying the view or just plain having fun." The possibilities are endless, a feast set up by a Chef, a fashion show for Tailors (LOTS of new clothes, maybe a type of runway walk?), an Imperial interrogation (in an Architect-built dungeon), a Rebel celebration (in a hall built by Architects), a petting zoo (utilizing BE's and CH's). We should be both the enabler of such events, and the enhancer of such events. We should be the "go to" people, in order to have a seriously FUN and EXCITING event. Anyone have delve into the social playstyle, but we should be the pros at it and make others enjoy it even more.