Topic

Quick Vent about "Cooperation"

It is *so* difficult to collaborate in this game.  At every turn, there are obstacles to cooperation and encouragements to go solo.  It's even easier to grief than to help.  I thought the design goals were the opposite: cooperation and interactive play over solo repetition, but the execution tells a different story.

Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Completely disagree.  It is very easy to help people,  there are tasks and items that require co-op play,  and you can always gift to other glitchers.
    Posted 12 months ago by TheBoyWhoCriedRook Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @SmitDogg- completely agree. I've found, if anything, that sometimes it's harder to go solo than it is to collaborate.
    Posted 12 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Maybe she is referring to something more specific like perhaps the whole community garden thing? Because yeah it's not that hard to help someone. Me personally I play solo because I want to and not because of anything with the game. I just don't really play the game frequently enough to where I need others.
    Posted 12 months ago by Vinchon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well Subway badges are bugged if you collaborate. So human nature aside, there are some architecture issues that need fixing.  And sometimes the desire of cooperation on part of the game makers backfires - releasing potions before the ability to have both herbs and crops for instance, does lead some to cooperate and others to go on a protectionist/and or selfishness bender.
    Posted 12 months ago by snarkle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Yarrow - Agree. Everything, except the occasional quest (dig a peat bog), can be done solo with little difference. Sometimes it takes a bit longer, sometimes it's a bit harder. In the end you get the same results (okay, plus a warm fuzzy glow inside you if you collaborate).

    What requires co-op play? Oh yes, street building... I saw recently in the forums how un-fun and disastrous was for the majority.
    Posted 12 months ago by Praxedes M Sagasta Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd say for street projects, I don't know how un-fun and disastrous is was for the majority. I think there is a vocal minority on these forums that like to poo poo things that don't fit into whatever preconception they had. Or they compare it to the first beta, which is unfair in its own right. Things change. Either roll with it or gripe, it doesn't change the outcome except your own personal feelings.
    Posted 12 months ago by Malus Agricola Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd actually say that the most successful co-op experience is Rook fighting.  There you actually do have some kind of at-once cooperative behavior.  I hear decent things about he all-sparkly streets for mining (although reports are mixed.)
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Friction example: acting together to get a bonus (or complete a with-a-friend quest) requires actually coordinating a group.  Group chat is decent for that, and there's usually someone around, but typically they have their own things going on, and you have to wait for them to be ready, which means sitting on your hands in a sort of ad hoc FPS waiting lobby.  When the only actually scarce resource in this game is time, spending an extra 5 minutes waiting to get a group together is painful.  Often the action involves timing your clicks with other players, which is its own challenge, especially when the vagaries of network lag are added to the mix.

    So, my first critique is that rather than designing around the organization of groups, activities should be provided for natural groups to do.  Why isn't there a game ticket vendor (or something like) in Cebarkul, for instance?
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh I definitely disagree with the op and agree with everyone else, that if anything most things encourage cooperative play  =)
    Posted 12 months ago by ♪♥~ Auren ~♥♪ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Easier to go solo: to get Alchemistry, you have to have at least Mining I.  There's maybe an argument for specialization and trade of goods between players, but when the skill tree is interwoven so that in order to get one specialization, you must also at least begin another, it is easier to be a complete mine-to-powder engine in and of yourself.  Likewise, toolmaking requires the skills that the tools are used for, so there's no such thing as a toolmaker who can't just use the tools themselves.  The cooking skills are tied up with cocktail crafting...  And Ticturing continues the trend: it requires Herbalism, so everyone who wants to make potions must be able to grow herbs as well.
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Synchronization Challenge: if you aren't on-line at the same time as someone you want to work with, your options are limited and painful.  I just sent off a batch of goods to someone so that they can cook for me - a nice little exchange.  It took 6 separate mails, because each mail can only have one stack, and cost, I think about 10% of the street value of the food I expect back.

    If we were online at the same time, I could have 'ported to them, given them the stuff directly, and they could've given me the food in return.  But we'd have to be playing at the same time, which requires a much bigger commitment to Glitch that I really want to make.  

    I can't even hope for an out-of-game notification from them so that I could log in for a minute, make the trade, and log back out.
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It is possible to do that with more than one person. I've almost never had a situation in-game where something I needed help with wasn't possible- there are always people playing, so I don't have to pick just the one person. But it might mean I have to cast my nets a bit further than I expected (which is a great way to make more friends).
    Posted 12 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For some of us the game is 'cooperative' enough just in that this isn't a PVP game where we have to be out fighting anybody else we encounter in the game.  We don't want everything to be collectivized beyond that. 

    It is fine for there to be collective activities and perks for performing tasks and activities with other people so long as it isn't necessary for everything and cooperation is not mandatory with anybody who happens along on the street.  I might want to mine together with my friend, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to mine with any random glitch who shows up.  It might even be said that such encounters with strangers is a fun part of the game, and that we get the opportunity to forge the relationships we want out of the tension present.  And that we can do that without necessarily getting all huggy with anybody we meet.  Freedom of association means the freedom to associate or not to associate with somebody.  When the 'group hall' features are implemented it might help refine these aspects of the game, because that will facilitate us being able to be cooperative with the people we choose.

    As far as the questy stuff that 'requires' cooperation, that is fine because it's not necessary to care one way or the other about quests.  Some of us almost entirely ignore the quests except when they are keys that unlock skills and capabilities.  Most quests are just side effects to living a virtual life in glitch.  Stamps in an album off somewhere for somebody else to care about.
    Posted 12 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You make some excellent point, Yarrow.... except that what you are complaining about are things that are problems with the very nature of collaboration.  It feels like your complaint is that you want collaborate and cooperate, but you don't want to have to be social about it.  Point-by-point:

    Friction Example:  Mining naturally leads to cooperation.  We all benefit when we mine the same Sparkly at once.  Similarly, digging dirt or peat is better as a group.  What you are complaining about is that there is no incentive to cooperate because there is NO resource scarcity.  There are TONS of Sparkly spread throughout the world, so cooperation is encouraged, but not required.  The fact that cooperation requires coordination is due to the fact that there is no negative to working solo, only positives to working as a group.  So, it forces you to be Social and coordinate in order for the whole to benefit.

    Easier to go Solo:  The learning model here is based on the same way that we humans learn.  As a human, one can't cook unless one understands the basics of acquiring food and making heat.  Simiarly, can't make tools without understanding the physics of how the tool will be used and its design, at least on a theoretical level.  We've only been able to Unlearn for a short amount of time, so people like me that have started doing alchemy haven't had time yet to unlearn the boring stuff we had to learn to get there ("Bog Specialization" is the top of my unlearning list).  Give it time and it will mature into a more functional, siloed economy.

    The Synchronization Challenge:  Again, your complaint seems to be you want to cooperate with people, but you find the social side of actually getting in touch with the either via friending them in-game and watching their status, or via an outside system, to be too troublesome for its own good.  Yes, the mail system sucks for transferring goods, but it isn't really a block to cooperation.  It forces you to communicate face-to-virtual-face, like actual cooporation is supposed to be conducted.

    Sorry to get a little ranty here, but I honestly don't understand this line of complaint.  No, Glitch doesn't FORCE you to cooperate.  That would be ridiculous and unfun.  It doesn't de-incentivize solo play for the same reason.  If it did, most of its players would leave in a heartbeat.

    Cooperation requires social interaction and coordination.  Otherwise, it's not really cooperation. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Grem Sketch Subscriber! | Permalink
  • nevermind.
    Posted 12 months ago by Scarlett Bearsdale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I always knew you could cooperate while mining and digging because of the quests that guide you to try that out, but did you know that you can also cooperate while scooping jellisacs and scraping barnacles?

    Now there is no obvious benefit to doing so (no extra yields), EXCEPT, you don't have feel like you're doing it in a rush to stay ahead of the other glitch, or you will miss out on your ingredients.  You just slow down and do it together =)

    I find that this is a fine example of cooperative play as it encourages (some, not all) glitch to watch what their fellow glitches are doing and meld rather than race.

    Sometimes it only lasts for 1 street, sometimes a whole neighborhood.  No talking is required, just matching your actions to theirs.

    It is peaceful.

    - Nym
    Posted 12 months ago by Nymity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, Nym, it does lead to extra yields... just not in quite the same way. The reason, you can all share the same resources instead of taking only a bit. For example, if there are 12 jellisac & barnies on a street and 3 of you are working together, you all get all 12. If you aren't working together, you may each get 4. That's 3 times the yield, just for working together :)
    Posted 12 months ago by Vera Strange Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've found Glitch to be great for cooperation -- in fact, I was wandering through a seldom-visited region yesterday, and found a number of dirt piles.  Since I had an unfinished quest which involved getting 3 people to dig dirt with me, I asked in general chat (on 3 different streets) if anyone would be willing to help.  Every time, someone took the time to help me complete my quest (and I gave out RKs and treats -- one person even said "You don't have to do that!", but I enjoy giving back, especially when I've had a positive interaction with someone.)

    I think that the issues you're talking about are more in regards to getting online at the same time as people you know in/outside the game, which can't really be controlled-for by Tiny Speck.  Maybe try meeting some new people in your time zone/on your work schedule/etc., so that you can have an easier time arranging for face-to-face interactions?
    Posted 12 months ago by Ashbet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Grem

    You cannot unlearn stuff that you need for other skills. I see you just learned 1, so in order to get rid of Bog Spec, you'd first have to unlearn potion, distillery and herbs.

    @Vera & Nym

    What you say, Vera, is true, and I have often tried to convince people who were harvesting barnacles on the same street to wait and try a coordinated effort.

    There is one problem however: Most people scrape barnacles by "just passing by". Very few are on an explicit barnacle hunt. For those people, it is often more convenient to just grab what you see (and loose the 3 barnacles to the other guy), then coordinating your effort (being at the same spot at the same time, reacting quickly after the other one started to scrape).
    Posted 12 months ago by Louis Louisson Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are obstacles, yes, but in my experience there are only a few that cannot be overcome by people determined/willing to collaborate/cooperate. And the results are quite satisfying.
    Posted 12 months ago by Mal'akh Subscriber! | Permalink
  •  Group chat is decent for that, and there's usually someone around, but typically they have their own things going on, and you have to wait for them to be ready, which means sitting on your hands in a sort of ad hoc FPS waiting lobby.  When the only actually scarce resource in this game is time, spending an extra 5 minutes waiting to get a group together is painful. 

    Your complaints seem to be that everyone isn't instantaneously available to do what you want, and that it is irritating to wait for other people to finish up what they are doing so they can collaborate with you.  If spending 5 minutes is painful, then what you need is a group who plan ahead of time to meet online at exactly the same time with a set agenda of exactly what they are going to do.  

     rather than designing around the organization of groups, activities should be provided for natural groups to do.
    Even if there were ways to organize the people at Cebarkul, you'd still have to wait for other people to finish up selling their stuff, or chatting with a friend, or all the other things that people might be doing in game.  Try an experiment:  buy one of each kind of ticket for games you enjoy.  Go to Cebarkul with those tickets in your bags.  See how long you have to wait for other people to join your games.

     Your "natural groups" are still going to have real humans running the characters and you are going to spend a lot of painful 5 minutes waiting for them to be ready to collaborate with you.  People will always have their own things going on, and it seems unreasonable to expect them to be instantaneously available for your own needs.  
    Posted 12 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If we all read this wikipedia article on cooperative game theory ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coope... ) I think we'd have to agree that in the way I believe the OP was referring to cooperative gaming (situations such as digging quests and rook fighting), this is not an overly cooperative game.

    However if we look at the game's ultimate game mechanic purpose as being to create an artificial economy where the outcome of the economy is directly affected by the choices/actions of Glitch players then the game is indeed very cooperative in its play.

    As a side note, I think a lot of players/commenters might be confusing the social aspects of this game with cooperative gameplay mechanics in their response to the OP's problem/vent.

    Or maybe I'm just drunk again.

    Fun junk to think about.
    Posted 12 months ago by Ernest Subscriber! | Permalink
  • q.q
    Posted 12 months ago by Volkov Subscriber! | Permalink