Social systems in virtual worlds: Building a better looking raid loot system in World of Warcraft using the IAD framework.
0 likes533 views
This document summarizes a study on player behavior in the Looking For Raid (LFR) system in World of Warcraft. Focus groups revealed that players perceive widespread greedy behavior by others in rolling for loot, but report less greedy behavior for themselves. A survey of 333 players found a discrepancy between how players report their own behavior and their expectations of others. Preliminary analysis found a relationship between expectations of others' greed and players' reported greedy behavior. The study aims to use theories of institutional design and game theory to understand these findings and propose improvements to the LFR system.
![Focus Groups
Players generally report "rampant greed" in LFR
SC: "I just expect everybody to need on everything and that’s pretty much
going to be the case whether it’s need, whether it’s offspec, whether they’re
just being jerks about it."
Does this cause players to change their behavior?
DG: "...to be honest, the only reason I [trade items with
friends] is because I just get pissed off so much that other
people are needing on stuff when they obviously have 397
[better gear]. Which again, it’s probably the same way, they
might be doing this too, but I can’t know that for sure, so I
do it. I do it to help my friend out, give him a chance to get
gear."
...smells like Game Theory.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/socialsystemsinvirtualworlds-buildingabetterlookingraidlootsysteminworldofwarcraftusingtheiadframewo-131025100643-phpapp02/85/Social-systems-in-virtual-worlds-Building-a-better-looking-raid-loot-system-in-World-of-Warcraft-using-the-IAD-framework-8-320.jpg)
Social systems in virtual worlds: Building a better looking raid loot system in World of Warcraft using the IAD framework.
- 1. Social Systems in Virtual Worlds Building a better looking raid loot system in World of Warcraft using the IAD framework Travis Ross Telecommunications Department Indiana University TravisLRoss@gmail.com www.motivateplay.com Lauren B. Collister Department of Linguistics University of Pittsburgh lbc8@pitt.edu Twitter @parnopaeus
- 2. Outline The environment Looking For Raid (LFR) in World of Warcraft The phenomenon Perceived rampant greedy behavior vs. self-reported behavior The framework Game theory and Institutional Analysis and Design (IAD) The study Focus groups and a survey The results ???
- 3. LFR Phenomenon Ethnographic observations November 29, 2011: Raid Finder released in World of Warcraft -Collaboration between 25 unknown players from different servers -Exploitation of pre-established loot rules -Effect on player behavior
- 4. Loot System Basics Players enter the raid tagged by role -tank, DPS, healer Loot also tagged for role and class Players can roll "Need", "Greed", "Pass" -Only players who match the loot tag can roll "Need"
- 5. How to exploit the system Loot items can be traded among raid members -Bring a friend in your same class or role. -both of you roll on items that one can use, and trade with each other 52% of players responded four or more.
- 6. How to exploit the system If you're alone: -roll "Need" on everything you can *hope that you win something whether you actually need it or not *use that item to trade later for something you do need
- 7. Focus Groups Two focus groups conducted with a total of 10 players and an ethnographer. Insights from focus groups confirm ethnographic observations. -Players are angry about the behavior of unknown others. -There is always somebody being a jerk about loot. -Player fight back by gaming the system, and do so because "everybody else does it".
- 8. Focus Groups Players generally report "rampant greed" in LFR SC: "I just expect everybody to need on everything and that’s pretty much going to be the case whether it’s need, whether it’s offspec, whether they’re just being jerks about it." Does this cause players to change their behavior? DG: "...to be honest, the only reason I [trade items with friends] is because I just get pissed off so much that other people are needing on stuff when they obviously have 397 [better gear]. Which again, it’s probably the same way, they might be doing this too, but I can’t know that for sure, so I do it. I do it to help my friend out, give him a chance to get gear." ...smells like Game Theory.
- 9. IAD Framework players in the raid communication and raid make-up control over own actions Context/Physical Rules - Provisioning a Good - Lottery = CPR class/function operative or resultant action cost: collective marginal utility cost: negligible sanctions benefit: trading / bringing friends
- 10. The Survey 54 questions constructed based on observations and focus groups. -expectations of others' behavior, your own behavior, happiness, demographic information 333 survey responses gathered from a convenience sample. -Survey link posted in WoW-related forums (Blizzard forums, WoWhead, Ten Ton Hammer, Allakazham, TankSpot, WoWladies)
- 11. Preliminary Results Discrepancy between "self" and "others" when rolling 'need' on items that won't ever be used: self: others:
- 12. Preliminary Results Similar discrepancy in reports of needing to trade. self: others:
- 13. More Preliminary Results A simple model: Do expectations of others change behavior? Do players who expect greed become more greedy?
- 15. Myself vs. Others Adj. R2 = .20
- 16. Expertise effect Significant Main Effect: Expertise F (3) = 3.133 p = .026 N Values 4 = 48 5 = 162 6 = 99 7 = 20
- 17. Expertise effect Significant Main Effect: Expertise F (3) = 3.55 p = .015 Expertise
- 18. Future Directions New WoW expansion = New LFR system - No longer a mixed motive game. - Removes opportunities for player interaction - Natural experiment: -Are players happy? -Do they have more fun? -Has behavior changed? -Does the avoidance of "loot greed" justify the lack of social interaction?
- 19. Future Directions Using Mixed Motive games in multiplayer games Predictions from IAD: -Have sanctions for greedy behavior -Keep social interaction possible
- 20. References Ostrom, Elinor. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses (1st ed.). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Special thanks to: <SeeD> (especially C, DG, J, RL, SB, SC, SF, & T) Asakawa@WoWhead, Kaolian@Allakhazam Jonathan Hills Ashleigh Ayn Sult Jen Hansen
- 21. Thank you! Travis Ross travislross@gmail.com www.motivateplay.com Lauren B. Collister lbc8@pitt.edu Twitter @parnopaeus