A Qualitative Philosophy & Stat Decay

[Duderock]

This is inspired by a post loftar made a while earlier.

What I was thinking about was in the context of food. I was considering if it isn't a bit retarded that I can, theoretically speaking, just eat ~250,000 blueberries in order to produce a character with 500 INT, and whether it wouldn't be more fun if I had to keep advancing towards qualitatively different food (and/or more variety, or something) to keep advancing, somehow (and we already have some plans baking for Haven 2 that aren't entirely dissimilar from that).

This is just a rant, really, because I'm still not sure just what conclusions I should be drawing from that, but perhaps someone found it interesting.

I found it interesting. And I made a conclusion for myself that I hope you might consider; I think this philosophy should be expanded further.

As it stands H&H (predominantly) adopts a quantitative approach. The current philosophy goes "the more time a player spends in the game, the more 'powerful' he becomes". Meaning, time spent = higher stats = success, as Potjeh aptly expresses in this post.
Unfortunately, this either leads to lots of grinding or requires an endless stream of content to sustain.

So what is a qualitative approach?
A qualitative approach would change the philosophy to "the more time a player spends 'understanding' the game, the more 'influential' he becomes". Note how influence(qualitative) replaces power(quantitative) as the central focus. And note how the time spent 'understanding', not just playing becomes the means to success. In other words understanding = influence = success.

Still don't understand?
I'm not great with analogies so please don't look to deeply into this and just take it at surface level.
Think of the current quantitative concepts as the gold standard and imagine that in this gold standard system everyone has their own infinite goldmine, that they can mine gold from indefinitely. Since everyone has their own goldmine, no one feels a serious need to interact with anyone and because the goldmine is infinite and never changes all you have to do is mine to get more gold. As you can probably guess the gold would be LP and the mining is the grind in this scenario.

Now think of the qualitative concepts as barter. Imagine everyone starting with something different but overall these things are limited. To get what they want, players will have to interact and socialize in some way. The best players would find the true value of these items and will use their knowledge to gain an advantage over others. This will cause values to fluctuate meaning there is never a grind because things change in value all the time depending on circumstances.

So what would a qualitative approach mean?
- Less emphasis on stats as the form of progress.
- More emphasis on influence as the form of progress, thus more social.
- Experience and understanding of the world affects the rate of progress more than time spent. In other words skill > time spent, but time spent still is a factor.
- Less frequent but longer lasting content, and less grindy.

What features are present in a qualitative approach?
- Finite resources
- Strength in numbers not the individual
- Recyclable content


What has skill decay got to do with this?
Little actually. This is just a bit of self promotion for something that would complement this approach. I believe once a player has adjusted to a qualitative philosophy, they will quickly realize that stats are no longer as important as they were. Stats will become the tools to achieve success not the success itself. And cooperation would be much more important than it is without stat decay.

Wouldn't this mean the end of character development?
No. It would mean the end of character development as we know it. The focus would shift from stats(quantative) to qualitative elements like social status, achievements, prestige and possessions. Things the real world values more.

There are many flaws with this philosophy!
Of course there are, and I encourage anyone to pick them out. But as a general statement I'd like to make regarding almost every suggestion ever posted here. Before you dismiss those ideas, please ask yourself "Would this offer a better overall experience to the game?" Because if it does, then its probably worth it. That's not to say this particular suggestion is any good, its to say no idea is perfect but some are better than others.

Edit:

Please note these are subjective. Some disadvantages can be considered advantages to some people and vice-versa.

Advantages of a quantative philosophy:
- Success can be measured so players can be compared, giving everyone a common goal
- Features are easier to implement
- Freedom isn't limited by other players

Disadvantages of a quantative philosophy:
- Requires a constant stream of content
- Endgame may become grindy
- Comparatively shallow or passive gameplay (unless bulked up by artificial means)
- More prone to botting (I can't confirm this, this is just based on my initial analysis)
- Doesn't require as much social interaction

Advantages of a qualitative philosophy:
- Multiple goals available as success isn't determined by values but rather prestige
- Encouraged social interaction
- Inherently deeper and active gameplay
- Less prone to botting (Again, I can't confirm this)

Disadvantages of a qualitative philosophy:
- Features take longer to implement
- Freedom may be limited by other players (but H&H already has artificial freedom limiting in the form of skills)
- Too similar to reality (Not a bad thing for me personally, but I understand some escapists aren't fond of this, but then again H&H is one of the 'realest' MMOs I know)
- Can't be measured so prestige is subjective (Not a bad thing imo)
- Social interaction is necessary to achieve the greatest heights (I don't think this is a bad thing)

[borka]

The focus would shift from stats(quantative) to qualitative elements like social status, achievements, historical significance and possessions. Things the real world values more.

IMHO the values the real world values more shouldn't matter in a game (as they are BS anyway and a reason why the real world is such a mess) - instead alternative values should matter.

Your main idea isn't bad

[Duderock]

Oh yes, definitely. A game isn't better based on how closely it follows reality. But its certainly important to note why the world appreciates those things more than 'stats', and how this can give a more meaningful experience.

[borka]

what you call "things" are some kind of "stats" in the real world - they are and they're seen as important because they can be "measured" but the truly important things can't be measured and thus not put in "Stats" in the real world ...

[TeckXKnight]

I am amazed that you managed to write so much without saying a thing. After reading and re-reading your post I still don't feel like you or I have any idea what you're suggesting aside from some mystically broad concept that usurps power from time input into the game and rewards it to smart people somehow.

[Duderock]

what you call "things" are some kind of "stats" in the real world - they are and they're seen as important because they can be "measured" but the truly important things can't be measured and thus not put in "Stats" in the real world ...

When I said stats I meant things like a persons physical strength and intelligence. They are not much valued compared to the things you do with them. In other words, they are tools to achieve success not the success in itself. That is what I'm trying to push here.

I am amazed that you managed to write so much without saying a thing. After reading and re-reading your post I still don't feel like you or I have any idea what you're suggesting aside from some mystically broad concept that usurps power from time input into the game and rewards it to smart people somehow.

Actually, you seem to understand it quite okay. I was just introducing a new way of thinking, so yes it is very broad.

My suggestion is that this philosophy should form the basis of every concrete idea that comes from now on. The only actual 'ideas' presented in the OP was loftars post and stat decay. Those are just a small sample of ideas that promote this philosophy.

[LadyV]

Assigning influence to a character who has a greater understanding of the game? No I dont like this. It artificially generates social interaction where few if any may have occured. Influence should come from player work, not time in game. Let alone the concept someone who has never met or heard of you really could care less. I understand what you are aiming for but its not a good idea.

[Duderock]

Assigning influence to a character who has a greater understanding of the game? No I dont like this. It artificially generates social interaction where few if any may have occured. Influence should come from player work, not time in game. Let alone the concept someone who has never met or heard of you really could care less. I understand what you are aiming for but its not a good idea.

Well... influence isn't assigned so much as it is earned. After all its nearly impossible to measure a qualitative element such as influence therefore its impossible to assign.

But yes you are right, social interaction would be necessary to achieve the greatest heights(btw, this does not mean a hermit can't be influential, and neither does it mean everyone must strive for dominance). I've always found it slightly flawed that in an MMO, a single totally isolated person can potentially achieve the heights of a village with 20 people, albeit at a slower rate, with no interaction whatsoever.

You are free to not like it, but you'll find the social interaction isn't nearly as artificial as you may think. If you've played games like Europa Universalis you will understand exactly what I'm talking about. Every situation feels completely natural and its how you react and pro-act to these situations that determines your survival and success.

And influence DOES come from player work. It's just that part of the work becomes understanding the game and your environment a bit better. No longer can you start the game and switch your brain on auto-pilot. You must now remain more vigilant in order to survive. Besides, it's not like there isn't a bit of that now already.

[ChainedDjinn]

I agree and disagree with bits and pieces here and there, but the overall statement is intriguing.

But that in and of itself would be burdensome work for a lot of people, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with LadyV's take on the matter.
Please understand, a lot of players.(myself included) have particular playing styles with a variety of characters, changing at times we feel necessary to facilitate particular goals.

I myself for instance have the habit of running off to play hermit on my own and learn the games mechanics, once I feel I have become adequately adept only then to I venture into socializing. Even then, in the environment that is haven it is a daunting task to even talk to individuals let alone approach them. Most in an effort of self preservation flee to keep from losing what they've worked to achieve, forcing people to work together without the circumstances being life threatening, would more then likely result in Teeth-Clenched Teamwork.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... edTeamwork
(Sadly I don't know how to make links attach to words as of yet.)

Also, do remember that certain players are very tricky in their play style as well as interactions. These people would more then likely use every possible flaw to gain the upper-hand in order to dominate the rest. For instance, if the player gets more power by those under him, simply make a lot of characters that all follow him. If the game requires understanding, then the faction will simply meta-game the information so even the most dull crayons can get more color, usually for a price.

Sadly I cannot fathom how this system could be implemented, let alone be managed. It more or less focuses the power toward the one who can manipulate the most, at least, that is how I see it. I would discuss something along the lines of limiters, but I was already thinking of making a topic on that subject and would not wish to derail this one.

In all, a very interesting point of view with some mechanisms that could possibly yield something of greater value if explored upon.
Till next time.

[Duderock]

I agree and disagree with bits and pieces here and there, but the overall statement is intriguing.

You bring up some very good points, and after a bit of thought I'm starting to consider less extremist approaches to this.

But that in and of itself would be burdensome work for a lot of people, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with LadyV's take on the matter.
Please understand, a lot of players.(myself included) have particular playing styles with a variety of characters, changing at times we feel necessary to facilitate particular goals.

I don't think it would ever get too burdensome if you don't let it. While I did advertise the ever changing nature brought by this philosophy, I assumed the players would begin to learn the tricks of the trade and would be able to cope with most situations thrown their way. I also imagine there would be constants here and there to stabilize the experience. I was thinking more in the context of when a dice rolls your number, you may seize the opportunity if you are experienced enough or simply miss out without losing much.

I myself for instance have the habit of running off to play hermit on my own and learn the games mechanics, once I feel I have become adequately adept only then to I venture into socializing. Even then, in the environment that is haven it is a daunting task to even talk to individuals let alone approach them. Most in an effort of self preservation flee to keep from losing what they've worked to achieve, forcing people to work together without the circumstances being life threatening, would more then likely result in Teeth-Clenched Teamwork.

Maybe its just me but I think Teeth-Clenched Teamwork would bring lots of interesting scenarios and unique experience we don't always see in gaming. But you are right, this is a grey area that I can't tell for sure what would happen. Maybe there should be a few mechanics thrown in that keeps your friends an arms distance somehow. Either way I would prefer death because of my naivety/poor socializing skills/inexperience than death because I spent less time grinding. At least the former is a learning experience that only makes me stronger, not weaker.

Also, do remember that certain players are very tricky in their play style as well as interactions. These people would more then likely use every possible flaw to gain the upper-hand in order to dominate the rest. For instance, if the player gets more power by those under him, simply make a lot of characters that all follow him. If the game requires understanding, then the faction will simply meta-game the information so even the most dull crayons can get more color, usually for a price.

Indeed, this is a problem that will not abandon us and it will take new ways to combat them. But for a reason I can't fully express, I feel that this concept is less prone to manipulation somehow.

Sadly I cannot fathom how this system could be implemented, let alone be managed. It more or less focuses the power toward the one who can manipulate the most, at least, that is how I see it. I would discuss something along the lines of limiters, but I was already thinking of making a topic on that subject and would not wish to derail this one.

I'm still learning new things about it all the time. And yes it focuses on giving power to those who can manipulate it best. I don't claim to know all the answers and fixing all the flaws in this system would be akin to fixing all the flaws with the current one, so it's impossible for me to single-handedly figure it out. So I definitely hope the developers and other users pick up on this and see ways it can be expanded on.

I'm really interested in what you have to say about limiters and hope you'll have the time to discuss it soon.