Rethinking Rewards: How Economics and Psychology can Inform STO
Background:
What follows is the start of an essay that I hope will shed some light on what motivates people in games, by analyzing why people are motivated in other aspects of their lives. I wrote most of this based on the following:
My overall goal is to demonstrate how rewards in STO ought to be varied, especially as the developers consider endgame mechanics. Just as the punishment should fit the crime, the reward should fit the type of gameplay experience we have.
Motivation for Gameplay
Extrinsic Motivators:
Extrinsic motivators are ones that exist outside of the game-world. These are predominantly left-brain activities: your ability to follow procedural tasks. If you kill/scan/fix/beam 5, then you get X. They work well with better loot rewards or meta-rewards (achievements). If the gameplay is simple and rigid, the rewards should be precise and quantifiable. However, they do not work well as rewards for creative problem-solving.
Examples of Extrinsic Motivators: loot (item stats), achievements
Examples of Gameplay Suited for Extrinsic Motivators:
- PvP Instance Map Objectives (hold this for 1200, kill 15)
- Fish Bowl Exploration (kill 5/scan 5)
- DSEs
- Generic Patrol Missions
- Fleet Actions
Games with Extrinsic Motivators:
- Achievement UnlockedI (play it here; makes fun of achievements and the scoring is based on whether you master activities that don't make sense from a gameplay standpoint for points.
Intrinsic Motivators:
These are any motivators that affect the game world or expand the lore. We love playing these missions for their own sake the best rewards for these missions (if necessary) are ones that offer something different but not necessarily better). These are things we see in the game not factors we calculate outside it. It might be exploring every cluster and discovering a new kitbash (no gameplay feature but theres something original there). The rewards are found in emotional or creative meaning.
Examples of Intrinsic Rewards: Titles, Costumes, New Mission Lore, New Gameplay Experiences
The Big Three Intrinsic Motivators:
- Autonomy: I can choose my experiences in a game and the outcome of a mission
- Mastery: I am getting better and hope to be the best at a particular aspect of the game.
- Purpose: I have an overarching meaning to my actions.
Examples of Gameplay suited for Intrinsic Motivators:
- Territory Control (its not about doing more damage its about changing the world)
- Featured/Story Missions
- Diplomatic (or talk/research)Missions
- STFs
Games with Intrinsic Motivators:
- Minecraft (there are no goals; the motivation to play comes strictly from the game and thinking creatively within its world, even in Survival Mode; no levels)
- Star Wars Galaxies (Pre-NGE; very few goals and rewards for kill x missions, virtually no sweet loot, the best rewards were made by players: cities, starships, and crafting expanded the lore and worked within the games world; no levels per-se).
Games that Balance Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators:
You might not believe that these games have anything in common (and, ordinarily, they don't):
- World of Warcraft (WoW has an extensive lore and many of the raids set-up the overarching story of the game. This is balanced by heavy focus on tiered gear stats and achievement systems)
- EVE Online (extensive sandbox gameplay is balanced by an equally extreme amount of stats and neer-ending grinds)
I committed a cardinal sin by acknowledging that both EVE and WOW are successful in their own ways but for similar reasons. They do balance the extrinsic motivators (stats, loot) with wholly intrinsic factors. They may target different audiences but that doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned
Last Words on Motivation:
The simplest distinction is that intrinsic motivators make you want to play the game because the gameplay or game-world is so engaging. You come back because the world is so fresh and interesting and the gameplay is fun. Extrinsic is more like getting a high-score in an arcade game - scoring has nothing to do with the game world or enhance gameplay - it merely judges it.
Neither motivator is a bad thing. They each have their place - and can even overlap sometimes. The question is determining which activities are suited to which goals?
Differences in Values Regarding Rewards
The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology:
Richard Bartle, Ph.D. created one of the first MMOs MUD back in 1978. Hes also a researcher and professor. Back in 1996 he categorized gamers into four broad categories based on what factors motivate them:
- Achiever more/better loot, PvP rankings/tourneys, accolades
- Explorer Large world, large sectors, unique crafting, unlocked rewards, something to do/see that hasnt before
- Socializer Costumes, Social Instances, Group/Fleet Gameplay
- Killer Competition, PvP, griefing, etc. (its not the loot; its the ability to play with others competitively)
What We Learn from These Differences:
Certain gameplay mechanics currently address different player desires. However, some desires are unaddressed. The PVP set-up doesn't really offer any long-term achievement (your wins have almost no influence outside of the match, the acoolade, and the daily) but the Killers find little joy in it aside from simple kills. It's too closed a system for one and not incentivized enough for another. That's not to say that STO PvP is bad: the space component is surprisingly well-balanced and enjoyable. However, it's just not as compelling as it could be.
People are people with different needs. While this might be the chorus poltical commentary from Depeche Mode - it's also the simplest way of addressing the fact that the game could learn how to engage each one of those gamer groups (note to bean counters: they're demographics - having mechanics finely tuned to court all of them means money.)
What the **** does this have to do with STO?
Hopefully, the meaning is clear: rewards should vary based on what type of experience is being offered. Grinds should have easily quantifiable and tangible rewards, so we know exactly why theres effort.
However, as Star Trek Online begins considering endgame more extensively, consideration should be given as to what rewards motivate people for thinking outside the box.
- Do we really want another green- or purple-Mk TRIBBLE item mall for playing poker, conquering territory, or creating UGC? (Dabo, while possessing few rewards, acknowledged that it shouldnt be a Purple Mall.)
- Or do we want some game experiences to be so well developed that the rewards are expanded functionality in that particular gameplay experience?
Take territory control for example: would you want another item mall (and mall currency) or would you want new features for territory control to be added as your faction (or House) prove successful?
How about the rights to building a space station in a particular system for your efforts with attached battles? Thats an intrinsic motivator. Its a reward that comes from and extends the life of that territory control aspect - instead of some stat on a piece of gear.
Comments
You've got the brains AND the patience... I'm glad you're here, keep this up.
Hopefully, this raises a few eyebrows. It's funny that a lot of work in the social sciences could actually help game companies out. The cool part? The research is free and peer-reviewed, instead of relying on just internal focus groups or market research. Sometimes the product that sells best hasn't been made yet. Analyzing what we know about people (from a general aspect) could go a long ways toward creating games that are more meaningful for players and developers alike.
The great part is that the research happened to support my thesis. Afterall, if you make games for people, it helps to understand what motivates people (and not just in games, since there may not be well-known games with the mechanics people actually want).
Answers are actually fairly easy to come across too. The real challenge is asking the right question that inspire a healthy discussion.
Side-note:
I did a thread on Gestalt Psychology and redesigning power icons - very intuitive changes to the interface that made sense too.
To me the main thing with mmos this day they have turned into epic SINGLEPLAYER story telling games with interaction and chat with others, everyone that stands next to have the same story done the exact same thing everyone saved the universe and is the sole protector of the galaxy.... this story telling works well in a single player game but for a mmo there should be a main story driven by huge events managed partily by ingame mechanics and partly from player interaction. Right now STO is just 1 story line and then you are done... we supposed to have conflict 2 sides fighting a war with more factions to come at a later time...
Dont get me wrong i love this IP but this game at this stage is nothing more then a generic mmo with a startrek skin, it would have done wery well as a single player game.
Intrinsic motivation is motivation resulting from personal enjoyment of task or activity (internal motivation; motivation from within yourself). (e.g. I want to get good grades in school because it makes me feel good) (Carpenter, Huffman, 2008).
Extrinsic motivation is motivation based on obvious external rewards or threats of punishment. (e.g. If I get an 'A' on my report card, my parents will give me $5). In this case the child wants to get good grades in order to get the $5 (Carpenter, Huffman, 2008).
So for a game example;
Intrinsic motivation: Someone makes a new costume just cause they can. It makes them feel good. There is no reward for making this costume except for the fact that they have a new costume and can tell all there friends "Hey look at this awesome costume I made"
Extrinsic motivation: If you make a new costume, your get an achievement, a new title, and some merit points. In this case there are rewards in this that are external to the person.
Again I might have misunderstood you when you were describing the different types of motivation, so I though I would post just in case
Reference
Carpenter, S., & Huffman, K. (2008). Visualizing psychology. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Seems like both those examples are intrinsic, as getting internal enjoyment from a costume you made is no different than getting internal enjoyment from an achievement or title. Both require that you have some sort of endorphin reaction.
This is slightly confusing to a simple Narn.
no what I meant in that case is the person made in costume in order to get those rewards. Sorry for the confusion there. But yes that was a terrible example cause achievements and titles are more so intrinsic, unless you are doing the task in order to get the achievement (which usually has a bonus attached to it) or the title in that case it would be extrinsic.
Instead you can sum it with the following statement.
My like clicking on shiny staff that needs tapping again and again whle having the option to buy the privilidge of having to click less to see more.
this is a good point. It only brings more defined way of logic to the "shouts/desires" of those wanting a open pvp zone, or territory control. Thus, your efforts are rewarded by other variables that make your side "favored"
Examples:
1) Warhammer: Had a system in place with the PvP "lakes" in that you went and took a Castle, 1 of 3, and held it to gain control. Thsi then allowed you to get better stats for healing or DPS and also gave better Siege equipment to take the other castles or even defend the one you took.
2) SWG: You had various "zones" of PvP control spread across 4 planets. Each bunker you took gave your side "buff items" to use in combat and also gave that planet a bonus to crafting/combat/research/etc. It also, had a small defense bonus to be able to defend said bunker.....which turned out to be some of the BEST PvP in that game Post-NGE.
3) EVE: Aside from Null Sec and its strategic occupancy system.....i did/do play in Low-Sec and help partake in the Faction Warfare. These zones we fight over, only contribute in ways that we have a system to control and defend. IDK of any stat bonuses for crafting and research at the star-base's in these zones, i don't craft a lot, but i know there isn't any space stat bonus either. It is we have this much territory we control vs You, so you aren't as powerful as we are because of it.
Faction Warfare is more about being able to get a group, large or small, and then go out and wreak havoc. Epic space fights, frigate to BS blob fights, roaming 7 different systems with scouts looking for the enemy.
I agree that there would be better fights and game play if some other parts of the game were "enhanced"
1) Crafting: needs to be expanded. Needs to have a way for players to craft everything in game. Plus, there needs to have a way to put different stats to each piece of star-ship part.
2) Fleet vs Group. There should be an additional layer to the fleet system. If 2 or 3 Fleets want to combine to make a "bigger Fleet" there should be a way to create new fleet, with title and positions and using the same chat channel. It gets tiresome having 3 other friendly fleets and having 3 different chat channels to use, but i don't get to see all of them online.
It wouldn't be dissolving the Fleet you are in, it would be a new Window Pane showing all who is in your Alliance of Fleets and 1 chat channel to speak to all of them. Basically, it would be akin to having 2 Fleets windows.....one is your personal one and the other is the "Overall" view.
3) Controllable Points: would have to go about making "PvP Arena" like zones to take and hold both in space and the ground, without duplicating existing ones but allowing up to 50+ people fight in the instancing that they have to institute.
4) 3rd faction. Well......we will just leave it that I hope the Klingon's get "More Gooder" :rolleyes: in the next season and Thus, will be a stepping stone for the Romulan's to be following in Season 4:eek:
For one, your examples of games with extrinsic motivators is awfully shortsighted. Are you aware that many of FFXI's core features and its primary thesis are almost carbon copies of the first iterations of EverQuest 1? Where does DAoC (noted by many as the best RvR MMO ever created) fit into all of this? It just seems like you grabbed examples from the air without noting the trendsetters. This genre isn't that different from any of the others. If someone releases an action game with FPS elements and it sells bookoo units, you can expect to see a whole bunch of "new" games using the same formula. The same goes with MMOs. As an example, what game made the 'theme park' model overwhelmingly popular (when it wasn't before)? That's why you see so many games come out that are dubbed 'clones' of that game (because the model was proven to work commercially).
Secondly, your terminology is off. You say Richard Bartle created one of the first MMOs and that's incorrect. A MUD is no more an MMO than a calculator is a computer. Again, you mistake the precursor for the progeny. Anyone who has run both a MUD and an MMO can tell you that, despite the latter being based on the former, they are two very different animals. But I'm guessing that was just a case of oversimplification for the sake of those who may not know that MUD (in capitals) isn't someone yelling about the mixture of dirt & water?
Don't get me wrong, I liked the essay. I just wish it would've been closer to thesis level in depth (yeah yeah, I know the audience wouldn't go for that). For intrinsic motivator games, there are far more examples (and more obvious) than the ones you gave. A Tale in the Desert, for example. There are also games that started as one and evolved into the other. Horizons....err, sorry, my old school is showing, Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted. While it still maintains a strong intrinsic motivation (community crafting and world shaping, for example), it also has a strong extrinsic motivational mechanic.
tarian, I would suggest you speak to some real MMO designers (in person, not on a web forum. You want them to speak freely, after all). The game(s) you describe have a very high hurdle to jump. It's called 'financing'. Right now, the theme park style sells. It makes money. It's relatively easy to create and balance and it recoups somewhat reliably (as much as can be expected, at least). The game you're clamoring for is expensive to make, expensive to maintain, and isn't guaranteed to find a large enough audience to justify its continued existence. While it's nice to think that the game you want is the game "everyone else" wants to, that's just not the case. You'll notice that there's one PvP centric game that has survived the test of time, while others fell by the wayside (or fell into obsolescence, which in this genre, is the same thing). There's a reason for that. One thing I've learned over 15 years of playing these games is that the only way players do what the designers want them to do is if they're forced to do it (or given little or no alternatives to doing it). You want mass socialization as the core of the game? You have to force people to socialize (i.e. early EQ1, FFXI, etc). Nowadays that's even harder partially because the advance (and economics) of computers has made it easy (or easier) for players to play multiple characters at once, either with multiple computers or with multiple clients on the same computer.
While I loved the first five or so years of EQ1, I realize that that style of game probably wouldn't do very well nowadays, for several reasons. First and foremost being critical mass. If you don't have a lot of players across most/all level ranges, you wind up with lots of 'dead zones' where there's "nobody" to socialize (read: group) with. Plus, those games don't age well. A year or two in, "everyone" is at the cap and the barrier of entry becomes way too high to attract new players. The theme park eliminates that barrier (which is why pretty much anyone can hit the cap in WoW inside of a month. Two, for extremely casual players).
It would be nice to see another game emerge with the model you suggest but there's a serious problem with players affecting the world: only a handful typically get the opportunity. You also run into the prospect of those game changes turning off a segment of the playerbase (partially because they didn't get to participate in the changing). And everyone HAS to be the hero in an online game or who's going to play it? There are enough people who are nobodies in real life (relative to their own perceptions), who's going to pay to be a nobody in a game? While I'd love to see an MMO with the kind of story depth you allude to, I'm probably a bit more pragmatic that most of today's MMO players. This isn't a game, it's a business. As such, typical business concerns have to be considered. Plus, there are probably only two developers with the resources required to make a game like that up to your (or my) standards. One is supposedly doing just that and the other doesn't need to (they have their golden egg laying goose already). No one else is willing to pony up $200 million to produce that. The child company of the movie studio would rather pump out lukewarm games to plug into their all-in-one pass or spend that money on Spider-Man 6 & 7 or something.
They need your mad skillz.
I think you may also be the only person to ever successfully compare and contrast EvE WoW and STO on these forums from a proper perspective with valid conclusions.
Extrinsic motivators are meta-incentives. They are stats, scores, and achievements. They don't exist within the game's fiction or gameplay. They reward behavior outside of the game. It's like doing a speed run of a level: there's no in-game reason why you'd need a speed run in Terradome. However, some players might be motivated by doing a speed-run by seeing others (which means they're playing the game from outside the perspective of the game lore). Achievements by definition are rewards that exist outside the game to show off to others - and sometimes the goals needed to get an achievement have little to do with common-sense in the game world (i.e. Turk had an achievement for killing everyone, including your team, in a multiplayer map).
One related example is user interface design:
In terms of user interface, diegetic interfaces are ones embedded within the gamelore. Take Metro 2033 - many UI elements are on your character's watch or physically looking at journals and maps in-game. This is opposed to WoW's non-diagetic interfaces which add nothing to the game lore - you hit buttons and pull-up maps in a manner that exists outside of your character and the world around them. Here's a great write-up on interface design.
ahh ok gotcha now
You're technically correct. MUD2 was the really functional version. MUD was just a prototype. The confusion I was hoping to avoid was that an entire genre of games (many of which can be classed as full MMOs) are called MUD. However, MUD was also the name of a game too. :eek: I thought Minecraft and SWG were great examples. Few people have played A Tale in the Desert - even fewer people than own a 8-bit throwback game like Minecraft, oddly enough. However, on a gradient: SWG and Minecraft are closer to A Tale In the Desert than either WoW or EVE and far removed from FFXI.
I love EQ1, SWG (pre-NGE), and AC. I always had trouble getting in UO - in part because the game was buggy when I played it at a friend's house in elementary school.
Very valid point. One man's Mass Effect 2 is another man's E.T. for the Atari.
However, as developers are considering endgame possibilities that are open-ended and require more creative problem solving (dstahl and zinc have mentioned territory control), I thought it pertinent to bring up where there's difference between motivating factors for that style and our current set-up.
WOuld you agree or disagree that stuff like the Weekly Episodes tend to appeal more to the "intrinsic" motivators? YOu want to know how the story unfolds, you want to make decisions. Sure, you get XP and loot, but it's only secondary to experiencing the game world.
I think that's a reason why they seem to be deemed so succesfully - they deliver something for a lot of people.
The Dailies that were added with the Deferi episodes on the other hand seem to be focused on the intrinsic stuff - you don't get any new story to explore, but you get access to the newest purple store with the Emblems. (I am not sure where the Diplomacy DAiliy likes - getting Diplomacy XP might be a borderline thing - it gives you access to costumes and things like that, right?)
I would even say that many of the loot rewards might be intrinsic. They offer new gameplay experiences - but not necessarily better stats.
However, I would agree that the Weeklies tend to be intrinsically motivated (at least for me). It was about expanding the game's lore and having cool storylines and guessing what was the next mission was about. Most capped players really weren't gaining anything meta (save the Capital Punishment and Satellite Repairrman accolades).
The patrols were more extrinsically motivated. They generally offered XP and credits - that's it. They delved a little into the lore but the reward was generally in the XP. Of course, at cap, the rewards didn't matter - so you could argue it went from extrinsic to intrinsic.
What's interesting is that loot isn't as compelling a factor in raids as having raids that are designed to be involving, right-brain experiences: ones that challenge the mind, expand game (and Trek Lore), and reward creativity.
Most of my favorite raids from MMOs were not mind-numbingly hard, they were puzzles with deliberate steps to figure out to win: stuff like enemy "tells" where special attacks are broadcast, varying mobs by gameplay mechanics, etc. Even The Sleeper from EQ1 wasn't about big HP/XP - it was about unlocking new experiences for the entire server (with some extrinsic bragging rights for being in the raid group that accomplished it).
Merely having lots of mobs are part of the reason many dislike the raids in STO. It isn't an intuitive puzzle - it's more about killing lots of something that's fairly easy alone.
If a raid is fun enough to do over and over again without needing a purple drop, you've designed a great raid. I doubt anyone still does the STFs for loot anymore. However, that doesn't mean the underlying mechanics couldn't be improved and the rewards by tied toward stuff other than the biggest/baddest guns available.
STO's STFs are fairly successful in expanding the lore but it's the gameplay but not the reward structure or gameplay variety.
discovering what the tell was for Terradome on Tribble Server (great moment)- protecting engineers
- the boss fight in Infected
The lows:
undifferentiated Undine Mobs, Borg Mobs that didn't engage intrinsic motivators (i.e. battle is about killing them instead of how to kill them - or not kill them).- loot and accolades that didn't engage extrinsic motivators.
Keep in mind that people prefer varying rewards based on personal taste too - which is why the gamer personality factors into the equation. If your goals are fame and prestige in the community, having rigorous loot and accolade systems are huge incentives - whereas socializers might not be as drawn to such material.
This factor is layered on top of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators working well for differing tasks in the work force. If you're doing something that doesn't require a lot of thought (a grind), it helps to have an extrinsic motivator that doesn't require much though to personal preference (i.e. bigger stats). Creative and critical thinking activities generally don't have as much of a pull regarding such motivating factors.
Dan Pink brought up an example of Linux-variants. Most of these are done for fun (and for free) because the intrinsic motivators of mastery and autonomy are reasons people love to contribute to those Operating Systems. People are the doing the work of companies like Microsoft for free, after completing their usually technical jobs.
It's not the monetary incentive that drives many of these people: it's about building the best, being self-reliant (no corporations), and having a purpose (like creating their own Linux-server variant).
In short: I'm not as good a fit as forum posters may imagine. Unless Cryptic does unpaid internships and allowed me to focus on education during the evenings, I really don't see it being feasible (or financially sound) to do it any other way. There's too much risk in paying an unvetted employee and most interns flake out - even if it gets approved.
Besides, there's an inherent narcissism in my armchair development - I don't have to worry about 1/100th of the concerns Cryptic does and don't possess nearly enough skills to tilt consideration in my favor.
You have people that get through an Ivy League school and can barely read (I'll refrain from mentioning any famous political figures for the sake of brevity) and other people with no education whatsoever that are masters in their field. Education is not expertise, it's the ability to prove that your family has enough liquid assets to let you sit in on lectures until you have enough debt that you will *never* pay it off as an average middle class citizen. Indentured Servitude in a new disguise.
What really matters is not the sheepskin, it's the innovative mind with a motivated passion. That's exactly why Cryptic is in the state it's in right now. It's a Corporation, and has no ideals, no ability to see beyond the next fiscal quarter, and is more concerned with how things look on paper than how they actually work.
The "resources are thin" excuse has been used repeatedly in every discussion I've seen that asks for innovation of any kind. I'd like to point out that if there really are 100K copies of the game sold, as has been stated, that's 6 million dollars before subscription fees, C-store purchases, lifetime subscriptions, and other promotional revenue. That's half a million dollars a month for a year. That's ten employees making fifty grand a month, which we all know is way more than the devs make anyway. Now take into account that they managed to make the $20million bonus from atari for making $20million back in July, and that's at least $46 million in resources they've got to work with already, on paper.
On paper, they failed to understand that a few costly innovations early on would have altered the market projections significantly, and instead of a steeply declining playerbase (if you think the playerbase is not declining, I'd like to know where exactly you are hanging out in the game) which produces an ever shrinking pool of residual, which further decreases the amount of projected renovation, which drives the playerbase even lower, cyclically to the ultimate conclusion of an insurance claim and subsequent sell-off to NCSoft, as has happened to so many other games in the last 5 years including City of Heroes/Villains, Cryptic's birth spasm. Instead of that, they could have captured the attention and imagination of four generations of CBS consumers, their friends and families, and a significant chunk of the entire MMO market that aren't even avid Trekkies. This game could have been bigger than WoW, easily, with those kind of human resources at their disposal. Atari made a dumb mistake, Cryptic acted like a Corporation, and now we have the "resources are thin" argument at every turn of the wheel.
Now, while I know you stand absolutely no chance of changing the face of a faceless corporation, you think in the kinds of patterns that make companies successful. When you do get a job at a development company, let me know what it is, because their game will be a sensational success and I want to play something that's community-oriented fun.
- What areas in STO do you feel could improved in terms of rewards?
- What areas are/were great examples of rewards? (either intrinsically or extrinsically)
=====My Response to Question #1:
Participation (or lack thereof) in PvP matches can be broken into three broad categories:
My Response to Question #2:
For an extrinsic reward system, the Marks worked extremely well. It's a shame the marks fell off the radar for VA+ as the system had worked well for those specific gameplay experiences.
Did many of us want more meaningful gameplay? Sure. However, for what it was, the rewards worked well and weren't too difficult to obtain.
As to #1;
(*) Mob loot does not feel rewarding to me.
It is better for some reason in the Deferi sector, but very lacking elsewhere.
I also feel extremely upset every time I kill some sort of 'boss' in a mission and receive only a pittance drop or no drop at all.
(EG "I destroyed the IKS Kaarg and all I got was this rusty Klingon battery")
At the very least, loot for killing the boss should be a full cut above the average loot dropped by average NPCs in the instance at your difficulty level.
(*) Crafting.
Yes a crafting system has been discussed time and again with many excellent ideas put out there.
But in terms of rewards, crafting-only special gear would be a good way to motivate people to craft more.
It also wouldn't hurt to have a larger selection of basic items for each tier as well, to motivate people to do a little less buying and a little more exploring.
(*) Exploration.
Exploration already has some nice rewards, and adding new crafting items adds exploration incentive by its very nature.
I would also, however, like to see a system of random discovery of items.
Basically, every so often (rare but not *too* rare) when you destroy an enemy you acquire some kind of special tech (in the way of gear) from them.
Tech might also be acquired by finding archeological sites of long dead races.
(some in combat missions, some not)
If the above gear is both worthwhile and exploration specific then it adds great incentive to explore, because you just might run across something really cool you can actually *USE*
A system of random Boff acquisition from the aliens you meet and help could also be cool.
As to #2;
The weekly missions are my absolute favorite example of rewards.
The cryo-grenades are disappointingly difficult to restock, and I don't personally care for tribbles (thus making the snow tubers less than worthless to me)
And the biothermal damper,while fun, would be even cooler with a function such as removing plasma fire.
*BUT* the Transphasic cluster torp Breen BO, and yes the damper, were all rather cool indeed.
Having special gear for mission rewards, particularly unique and cool items that are level-less is a wonderful way to reward players for weekly missions.
I hope to see some amazing stuff for the Devidian series
(though I can make a sort-of guess what the rewards will be right now;
Mission 1; Phase inspired grenades
Mission 2; Devidian phase inspired space weapon
Mission 3; Some method of making a Devidian tribble
Mission 4; Devidian revealer device that turns an area 'spooky' with the visual effect and has a chance to reveal a Devidian.
Mission 5; Devidian type ground weapon and Boff from the 'old friends')
Crafting could be intrinsically motivating (so fun you want to do it). Instead, it's a grind that offers neither compelling extrinsic rewards (outside of *maybe* 1-2 items) or virtually any intrinsic rewards.
- Does it fit in the setting? Yes.
- Does crafting as presented in STO expand the game/setting lore? No.
- Does the act of creating an item feel engaging? No - but this is far more subjective than the previous two.
- Does the final product feel unique, challenging, or more powerful? No - not outside a few items.
The rewards from crafting are nothing we haven't seen before: just varying stats. The extrinsic motivator is usually weaker than easier offerings; the intrinsic feeling of mastery is muted. It's the "I mastered crafting and all I got was this t-shirt" kind of crafting.The million dollar question:
- What does crafting offer me that no other experience in the game does - either as a reward or during the process itself?
This is the pivotal question and here's where the distinction is: we have a semi-autonomous list of items, we can choose any and all paths. We can master them. However, crafting in STO isn't hard enough to master (it just requires money and grinds - making it a prime candidate for extrinsic rewards). However, the extrinsic rewards it offers are virtually outpaced by the item malls and don't justify the investment.These are great questions and I'm glad Jonathan_Kent brough it up as I hadn't considered crafting heavily enough through the lens posited in the OP.
Take building with legos. On paper, they're simple colored blocks that snap together and they're mostly of uniform height. On paper, the basic lego shapes aren't especially compelling. However, the process itself is the reward. With legos you have predetermined means of creating nigh-infinite variety. There's a strong tactile feel when it clicks together or when you get that one corner section complete with the kids (or as an adult). It's a simple concept taken to an extreme in variety. A basic set of legos gives you full autonomy: many sets don't even have instructions - you just make what you want with generic pieces. There's a mastery is knowing how to use space and an overarching purpose if you know what you want to make.
With crafting in STO, there are more rigid rulesets on what you can make (partially due to balance reason). The mechanism is dumping the building blocks into a list and waiting for a timer. It's the microwave dinner of crafting. Go and get the things, hit the :30 button, and pow! You get a slightly-less satisfying than homecooked, restaurant, or drive-thru experience.
The big fix is either:
How can the rewards be viable rewards when the item database itself has so many problems due to disorganization?
Everquest (the pre-cursor but equally applicable example to everything you post about World of Warcraft) had an item database that was very well organized. It's example was followed by WoW.
STO has quite a few problems with itemization. And many of them could be cleaned up and fixed by going in and tweaking the item database. Everything from adding Mk IV Phaser Turrets to ESD Requisition officers ... to Antiproton Consoles to vendors ... to fixing the discrepancies between Tactical Consoles ... to sorting out why some Mk XI weapons are bind on equip and others are bind on pickup.
Step 1 ... really. Better organization of the item database. There's too many errors. Get the foundation more solid and then build it up from there.
But I'm used to being somewhere outside of left field... I just saw your distinctions and felt like I was all of them... I'm a Completist.... I want all of the experience and am willing to invest all the time needed to do so... anything else would be "in-complete"... note also obsessive/compulsive....
Actually, I acknowledge that the groups have overlap.
Some want a mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators - which is why item malls are both a benefit and a crux.