Next MMO Generation: Feature set

[pyrhic]

After recently starting, and then shelving SW:TOR, I've come to realize that the current MMO model just can't hold my interest. It doesn't matter if it involves elves or dwarves, space, or superheroes, as a player I'm tired of the treadmill and things that remind me of that gamestyle.

So rather than bitch about what is wrong, i thought I'd ask what other people would like to see in the next generation MMO? Maybe everything is awesome today, and I'm the one who is out of touch...

Personally, some of the things I'd like to see:

Smaller MMO: I don't interact with 10,000 people on my server. They make me queue, they compete for my resources and quests, they offer me little in the way of gameplay. I'd rather just have 500 people that I have real meaningful interactions with.

More server choice: PVE? RP? Is that the really the extent of choice? Why can't there be a children/family servers, local servers, servers with specific rulesets(ie permadeath, competitive or time-limited(ie max 8 hours a week))? Ask me what kind of game i want to play, and give me the environment to play that game...

No disneyland: Sorry, i hate disneyland. I don't want to experience the exact same thing everyone else has. I don't want to stand in a line and ride the same ride that ends the same way all the time. I want uniqueness and randomness. 10,000 people who look like me, act like me, jump like me and have all my equipment? No thanks. How about, i just got this purple item and it's the ONLY one like it. The ONLY one. I found it and it's the only one of its kind on the server.

Win condition: The game doesnt last forever. Maybe 'the world' lasts 100 days, and the server is seeing who can be king in that 100 days. Maybe it's who uncovers the sacred unique item. Or maybe it's who gets the most gold. Or maybe it's all that, rolled into a scoring mechanism and at the end of the 100 days of my artificial life, i get to see who won and how i did. And then, i try it again..

Classless: I hate classes. Want to be a battlemage? Study armor and magic. Want to be a bush wizard? Nature magic and wilderness skills. Rogue? Thieving and skulking. You get the point. Stop shoehorning me into some predefined role, ie: paladin. Instead, let me choose things like armor type, magic type, weapon types. Look at skyrim. Ya, the UI(particularly for the skill tree) was bad, but I could build my character any way i wanted.....that is great!

More dynamic world. Part of the problem with modern MMO design stems from the fact that they need to plan to satisfy 10-20k people, all of whom might be in your zone right now, all needing 10 bear asses. Assuming every bear has but one ass, you need to have 100k bears, or, maybe 10k bears, but they pop back up as soon as you kill them. That's just silly. I want a world that looks, feels, plays and responds like a real organic world.

[DKDArtagnan]

I see ArcheAge. That is all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2zm0gABZUg

[nooteh]

More dynamic world. Part of the problem with modern MMO design stems from the fact that they need to plan to satisfy 10-20k people, all of whom might be in your zone right now, all needing 10 bear asses. Assuming every bear has but one ass, you need to have 100k bears, or, maybe 10k bears, but they pop back up as soon as you kill them. That's just silly. I want a world that looks, feels, plays and responds like a real organic world.

Pretty much what you said here.

I want to mix Eve's "Take whatever space you can" but on one planet, though limit it to two or three sides ( Horde, Alliance, Ron Paul ). Instead of just PvP it could be based on Points of Co-operation. You got with your guild and killed X, because of this you've won land" because of this you could get access to different buffs, or resources, or quests or any number of silly things. Make the events weekly and random. ( Kill X, deliver whatever, bribe someone, win at chess... ).

I want quests to be 'random' and I want to come in half way through quests with my friends. Mr Blah wanted 10 things killed and my friend's killed 3? Sweet, I'll help kill the other 7 and get experience for the quest as well. You're being sent to go talk to some bloke in another area? Cool dude I'll go on a run with you. None of this "But you haven't heard the start of the story", fuck it, my friend can fill me in on the way.
I'd also like to extend this with what I've quoted. Someone else just got all the bear asses you need Mr NPC? Great, give me something else to do.

Oh and if you've got a "Big Bad" make him threatening. WoW specific but Deathwing wasn't a threat. He split the world in half, we jumped ahead a few years and everyone was just at the pub. And that was it.. well.. then we killed him.. sort of. The point is I was never worried about him showing up and turning me into some kind of Blood Elf Toastie.

I do like the idea of "this weapon is the only weapon" though I'd probably do it through some kind of customisation rather than "you found this thing".
Give weapons stats that could be "adjusted" through various means ( blacksmithing etc ). An example of this could be a "warrior" class who gets a sword. Does that player want a more pointed end for stabbing? A serated edge to cause more bleed damage? Make it cost money to alter this stuff, or special training ( not so you can't use a curved weapon if you don't have curved weapon training, but so you'd not be as proficient ).

Let me have fun. This is another WoW one. With the introduction of transmorgraaiosdoation you can make a weapon/clothing look like a different weapon/clothing. The issue is that Blizzard had rules about it. Can't turn a dagger into a fish, can't have a warrior in cloth. Don't give me a racetrack and tell me I have to drive the speedlimit.

I'm sure there's more but this will do for now.

[Ultrazen]

The thing that's killed MMOs for me, and I'm quite sure I'll be in the minority, is the fact that they are too easy and don't require good cooperative play.

Hate to keep going back to EQ1, but before Sony got a hold if it, that game was brutal. You lost exp when you died, you could even lose a level, and gaining exp was no easy matter. The game also required you to group for everything, and not only that, the people in your group had to play well or you were going to probably die. Add to that you'd piss off everyone else in the zone as you'd probably create a train.

Viewed by todays standards, people say 'well, no one would put up with that now'. What that set of circumstances did create, was an actual MMO, instead of a massive single player game. You knew pretty much everyone on your server, and had probably grouped with them, or at least had some kind of run in with them. This created a really dynamic, and often contentious community, but it was *exciting* (magic word).

The other thing the difficulty did was also to create excitement. In todays MMOs there is virtually no death penalty. In EQ if you died, not only did you lose a painful amount of progression and exp, you also lost all your gear, and had to get back to your body to recover it. Once again, this forced you to cooperate and enlist the help of other players. Some very strong bonds were formed by that game because of the difficulty. All of this made fights very tense and created a real sense of fear, caution, and once again, *excitement*.

I will, until my dying day, never forget exploring Lower Guk. We were the first party on the server to even find the place, and there was literally nothing on the web about it. The sense of danger and dread trying to learn that new content, in our crap gear, has never been matched by even a fractional percent by another MMO.

TLDR: What's missing from MMOs? Real danger, real penalties for failure, and an environment that forces interaction with other players.

[Teiman]

I have not a complete trought of this. Only "ideas" floating in my head.

Heres some min-dump of that (sorry!).


[datapoint 1] It seems that the dikumud formula is not very flexible, and is flawed. Players are push to more and more power and then presented a precipice and asked to jump and reroll. Because you can't pressent "even bigger blades" against "even bigger baddiers". And if you can, players will not follow because will present "mmo fatigue".

[datapoint 2] What people really want? the perfect themepark?, adventure?, a wallet garden?, to feel again something like the first kiss/first mmo?. Some of these things are possible, other not. Perhaps some people want some things, and others completelly and incompatible ones.

[datapoint 3] The dikumud formula support even more patching. I like how terraria separate characters and servers, allowing fresh worlds to be visited by old players, or new players in old world. OGame also used to release new world periodically,as the old ones where too mature for new players. At some points SWTOR make you want to quicksave.

[datapoint 4] Would people accept alternatives to the dikimud formula? these alternatives exist?

[datapoint 5] Perhaps start programming these games with document-centric databases and prototype based languages. As oposed relational databases and class based languages. Most MMO translate to the quests structure the limitations of a relational database, and to UI and gameplay the limits of a class based OOP language.

[gurugeorge]

What MMOs seem to have turned into is solo games with multiplayer lobbies and a multiplayer option, where the sense of a virtual world is more or less vestigial.

This seems to be the result of a combination of two things: the older MMO players getting jobs, family, etc., and having less time to live and breathe in virtual worlds, and the younger players inheriting and getting used to, and therefore demanding, ever "poorer" MMO design (Bartle article (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2157/soapbox_why_virtual_worlds_are_.php), which is amazingly prophetic) that's more and more similar to normal multiplayer games you can jump into and out of easily.

Who does have time to invest in full-on virtual worlds these days? Not me. Some EVE Online players, perhaps? But even the "hardcore" EVE players seem to be a relative minority in EVE.

The only way I see for the "true" MMO idea to survive is through something like NWN's Permanent Worlds, but scaled up a bit. A "server" in such an MMO would be something a fair bit bigger than a NWN PW, and more professionally run, with more intensive GM-ing (with the GM-ing as part of the service you pay for) - but with a similar flavour of intimacy and camaraderie.

Which is why I'm wondering if Cryptic may surprise us yet with their take on NWN, as they've expressed great respect for the NWN1 & 2 idea, and they've got quite some experience in UGC now.

In fact, isn't that another way to look at it? Isn't a "sandbox" game literally UGC? I think there's a bit of conceptual re-jiggery has to happen, to the exent that players are given more sophisticated tools to "affect the gameworld". Not just that they're given "sand", but also some tools to make their own themepark rides for each other.

(Imagine you could, within certain restrictions to prevent griefing, build the type of cave dungeon you would get in the older type of open world MMO, that travellers could just wander across, not knowing what it contains. Perhaps you have a "lease" to that particular dungeon for a while, then another player could "lease" it with a different adventure later, so that wandering travellers would never come across the same adventure twice - summat like that anyway.)

One point re. the OP though - isn't the problem with the "no restrictions" type of classless, or skill-based system, that people are such lemmings that everyone would just roll the OP combination? Especially if some degree of "realism" is aimed at. e.g. if heavy armor gives better protection than light, at not too great a cost in mobility (which is in fact how it was - the notion of heavy armour reducing agility is a bit of a myth), wouldn't everyone just roll a character with heavy armor? Again, IRL, as soon as guns developed to a certain level, axes and swords became obsolete.

[jason]

I simply will not play any MMO that has more than one live server/world. I am just so tired of playing a game only to find some people I want to play with (at a new job, a message forum, a blog, whatever) are on a different server and either I need to start over or pay to move.

To that ends, I don't mind instancing, even instancing cities. I know some people hate it and want open seamless worlds where they never hit a loading screen, but that is far less important to me than being able to play with the people I want to play with. Most recently, SWTOR, which I wasn't going to play at all until some friends talked it up enough, and now I'm not playing because I have a half dozen or so circles of friends playing, all of whom I'd like to play with, on different servers - so now I have to choose, or play on a bunch of servers. That I can't play with all my friends using a single character is enough that SWTOR will never get a dime from me.

[Shellfishguy]

I'd love to see a true player run economy. It was one of the things that SWG really did right back in the beginning. If a player wants to devote themselves to being a pure crafter, let them do it! Hire other players to gather resources, craft the highest quality weapons/armor/houses/doodads and build a reputation and clientele.

I like nooteh's idea on modding items and think it would mesh well with this. Want that sword changed up? Take it to a player swordsmith. Need that Leather armor to give resists rather than bonus stats? Take it to that master leatherworker.

[Brian Rucker]

I don't want to change the world.

I'm not looking for a new England.

I'm just looking for an MMO. Lookin' for an MMO. Lookin' for an MMO...

Sorry. Couldn't be helped. Mainly because Gurugeorge stole my best lines. :) That's the page I'm on. UGC. You get dynamism and replayability (unlike static PvE where things get dull after one play through - though I'll admit I don't understand raid mindset at all). You can define your own peer group, territory, and who can impact it (unlike PvP where that's imposed on you via conflict).

I've even been pointing back to NWN/NWN2 persistent worlds in some chats the other day with an industry guy I play with sometimes in SWTOR. He seems convinced it will never work in an MMO, that live RP model with player GMs entertaining their friends on a consistent basis. But he hadn't played SWG when it had Storyteller which was esentially a hack that allowed just this approach. Players used the hell out of it even though it didn't give them any in-game rewards (unlike Architect or Foundry) and actually cost them credits to use. And we've seen NWN persistent worlds that have gone on for many years so there's something going on here.

[The Mad Hatter]

What MMOs seem to have turned into is solo games with multiplayer lobbies and a multiplayer option, where the sense of a virtual world is more or less vestigial.

This seems to be the result of a combination of two things: the older MMO players getting jobs, family, etc., and having less time to live and breathe in virtual worlds, and the younger players inheriting and getting used to, and therefore demanding, ever "poorer" MMO design (Bartle article (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2157/soapbox_why_virtual_worlds_are_.php), which is amazingly prophetic) that's more and more similar to normal multiplayer games you can jump into and out of easily.

Who does have time to invest in full-on virtual worlds these days? Not me. Some EVE Online players, perhaps? But even the "hardcore" EVE players seem to be a relative minority in EVE.

This. There is a dichotomy between the ever declining minority of people who want a more "hardcore" experience and the rest of us who don't. Hardcore in the MMO sense usually means a throwback to the original EQ ruleset - forced grouping, harsh death penalties, etc. People in that subset usually have friends that they play with, so they want the "we" experience emphasized. I don't have such a group, so I hate it when these games expect that I do. WoW succeeded in large part because it was the first of this generation that didn't have such an expectation (Ultima Online also didn't, but that line of game development is dead).

If we're sticking with the "massively multiplayer" aspect, the game must be friendly to those of us who mostly play alone. That does tend to limit the dynamic potential of the world, but that's where I think the Neverwinter Nights model is better anyway. Smaller worlds tailored to specific interests, with dozens of people playing instead of thousands.

[DeepT]

I want an MMO where the main focus is exploration and building. There can be combat, but that isn't the point of the MMO. One MMO idea (to simplify it greatly) I have is where the players form nations, building towns, cities, roads, ports, manufacturing centers and all that. Each nation can either ally or declare war.

These nations use NPC armies to fight which are a huge investment. Dead soldiers do not respawn so a failed attack will be a costly affair and you just can't attack again next week.

The world is huge, ideally infinitely big although that may not be practically possible. I do have a solution to the problem of when one nation becomes unchangeable, which basically ends up with the eventual destruction of the world, but that would get into the deeper story of the game.

Another MMO idea I have is a FPS based MMO vaguely similar to planetside. Unlike Planetside, a single faction can win and the design promotes this. It also makes it important to take and hold territory as well as fix and maintain it. IE: You take out a fort somewhere and it will remain destroyed until players fix it. Once a faction wins, the world is randomized to some degree and they start over.

[JM]

More persistance in regular multiplayer games. Imagine a game with L4D-style mechanics and games, but set on a fleet that engages in regular missions (think Space Hulk or Aliens) with an overall objective for your faction that you can help achieve with your friends without going through the bullshit treadmill and theme park world of normal MMOs.

Ultimately most of us don't really want to interact with hoi polloi, and we'd much rather play with our friends.

[Kelan]

Interesting topic and one my previous boss and I have continually discussed over the years (his office is still next to mine, although he isn't my boss anymore). In the old days, we used to call each other at 2am back in the mid-late 90s to help each other "recover" our equipment after a bad UO or Diablo run, haha.

One of our popular conversations is, "When I hit the $100 million lottery this week, this is the MMO I will build with it." Although, not sure that is enough money any more!

Here are some of the features from various games that we enjoyed:

Ultima Online: A skill system that allowed you to train and craft a character how you wanted, without levels and pre-defined classes that limited you. A living world that allowed you to mine/harvest materials, then craft useful items out of them. It felt like you were really making a name/craft for yourself since you were actually building the skills by continually using them. Also, Treasure Maps! Those things were awesome and wish a MMO would do them as random loot again someday, with crude, non-exact, maps that you would use to try to find the treasure. Perpetuum actually had a decent alternative to this that was fun.

Everquest: The difficulty did bring the community together, sometimes for good and sometimes bad, but almost always remember able. It isn't by chance that most likely the top 90% of my MMO memories are from Everquest and the difficulties and challenges we overcame. A lot of that was probably the way our guild approached the game, and the fun we had together. Also, the newness and it being the first of its kind for many of us influences the strong memories I am sure. The early days of playing we didn't know anything about min-maxing classes or equipment and played for ages without even knowing what an Enchanter could do. However, we still had a blast working our way though encounters and dungeons with the tools we had. Today it seems to be more about rushing to end game, running instances to get the best loot in the fastest most optimized fashion and not sure I like that as much. I would really like to be able to take any level and quantity of people that I want into a dungeon again and not have to leave people out because only 4 or 5 or 6 can enter at a time together. Who cares if I want to 20-man a 10-man dungeon? I want to be able to do that and have fun with my non-optimized group of friends like I used to back in the EQ days and still have a chance to succeed.

Horizons: While the game was strangely barren in many areas, I really liked the way you manually mined the ore and stone and built your house from the ground up. It was sort of boring as heck, but the idea of building your own house/towns that way was always interesting to me. I think Age of Conan also had something similar where you built up your own city in a similar way. Giving a guild something like this to band together and work together toward a common goal is something I am looking for here. If you are going to grind gathering and crafting to gain skill, may as well have a way to use them as a guild to build something. You could also take this further like Shadowbane did it where you could use them to build up/repair your town after assault by another (or even NPC invasions; that would be cool). Imagine a Shadowbane with random Rift style invasions where nearby cities could/would fight together to protect the cities from the invasions, then go back to fighting each other in between.

Everquest 2: I really like the way they did their mentoring. If a game is going to be a level focused MMO, being able to mentor down to any level group mate to adventure with them was very cool. I much prefer that to mentoring up (like CoH used to) as there the lower level is being thrust to content they aren't ready for, and thus missing out on their normal content progression. Everquest 2 did this very well.

DAoC: Persistent Realm style PvP. I still think they have done this better than anyone so far. The three sides are very important and not being able to converse with/understand the other side was a welcome feature. I think Warhammer Online missed the boat in that there weren't 3 sides and you didn't actually "own" any of the contested areas. In DAoC, you felt like your own realm was more important and were more likely to protect it as a community. In Warhammer, it seemed like they were just keeps/castles to take, and who really cared who owned what? One keep was really no different from the others strategically, that I recall. The keep fights were really fun, though. Also, while I realize that having points as rewards is important for many, encouraging groups to specialize and go off on their own (like the old 8-mans in DAoC here) to maximize Realm Point gain detracts from the immersion I would like to get in a realm combat game. I would rather rewards be based on what your realm as a team accomplishes, not that so and so went solo and AoEd the entire enemy team to maximize his/her realm points. Build a system to encourage community and teamwork in a realm style war game and that would be a good start.

Rift: For PvE, the rift style invasions are very well done. Some sort of similar dynamic content is very helpful in some format to keep things unpredictable and fresh. It is the first time in a long time that I see strangers commonly helping each other out and banding together to fight for the same cause.

Anyway, these are random ideas that don't necessarily work well in the same game. But, they are features that I really enjoyed over the years and think can still have some merit if implemented well in a modern MMO.

[KevinC]

I'm more into virtual worlds than themeparks but I'd settle for just different mechanics at this point. No Holy Trinity. No same old aggro management group play. I also miss UO/SWG where I could actually be a crafter, rather than every character being a grandmaster smith/alchemist/whatever.

These big budget games that are trying to rival WoW just don't cut it for me, as the Bartle article predicted. I want smaller scale, smaller budget online games that can afford to target niches and try new things. Salem is on my radar for that reason, but we'll see.

Most of all I just want to be challenged again. Its impossible to fail in many games today and while that reduces frustration, it also reduces the chance to rise to the next level and overcome challenges, leaving these games very bland/vanilla/unmemorable.

[Becoming]

I see ArcheAge. That is all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2zm0gABZUg

What the...this actually has me curious. Must go find more information! The music and general looks definitely have me interested though.

I am no great armchair designer, but I agree with the general sentiment here that I've just become fed up with the same old theme park design and empty mechanics.

If I were to ever consider the time and money investment of an mmo again it would really have to be something dynamic to make me feel invested in it and unique enough that I wouldn't feel like I'd just crapped away dozens of hours of my time for the same exact experience everyone else is having.

[shift6]

One of the things I really enjoyed about A Tale in the Desert is that it does have many of these ideas, even still. In part this is because it is a smaller game run by an indie company so for instance it makes sense that everyone is on the same server. But they have also been building in ideas concerning requiring cooperative play, skill-based play rather than "classes", end games, persistence and dynamism as the devs roll out new stuff, etc.

[Khoram]

I'd love to see something along the lines of what several of you have already explored. I'd like to have a really huge world. Instead of servers being separate shards of the same (small) world, have one huge world where each "server" (I know a server isn't a single machine; I mean the resources normally associated with a single shard or world-instance) is instead dedicated to a geographic portion of the world - a continent perhaps, or kingdom. A single character should probably never see the entirety of the world (unless they specifically set out to be a world explorer type of adventurer).

PCs set out to be "local heroes" instead of "world heroes". In other words, you may be Beowulf and gain reknown in the Norse kingdoms (your locally geographic area and players), but no one in China has a clue who you are or what a Grendel is. They've got their own monsters, problems, kingdoms and wars, and PC heroes making names for themselves. Perhaps PC and NPC bards carry tales of adventurers from neighboring kingdoms. Word of particularly nasty PC or NPC bandits spreads and provide incentive for enterprising and bold heroes to travel outside of their local area.

Perhaps time advances in a quicker fashion. What if 1 year in-game was a lifetime for in-game characters (or a career-time). You can continue to play as the children of your previous character. This allows time for wars, political intrigues, etc to play out, without the majority of characters reaching deity-killing levels then sitting around wondering what to do.

Perhaps each kingdom/continent/area/"server" has a GM or GM and helpers who can plan or kick off things like monster incursions that need to be dealt with, or kingdoms heading to war, or caravans that need protecting, or whatever. Goblin tribes unite and become a threat and must be swept away or into their caves in the dangerous wilds to be dealt with by another generation after they grow in numbers again. Players aren't locked to a single "server" or area, they are free to move between but it takes time and effort.

Perhaps many players act as mercenaries and hire themselves out (or guilds == mercenary groups, like the Black Company) to whichever king can pay the most.

Magic is rarer than in most games, and true power requires true devotion. Perhaps cold-based spells are only taught by eldritch masters in the snowy wastes far away. If you want to learn them you will have to undertake a perilous journey and spend a lot of time under their tutelage. Perhaps you need to hire some bodyguards (PC or NPC) to ensure you arrive safely.

Crafters are true artisans. The best arms and armor crafters are known for their high quality. There is a high demand for such goods in the neighboring kingdom, which is on the brink of civil war. There are many mercenary companies in need of a good armorer. Instead of 1000 people running around with "Windsheer, the legendary golden sword of Vreet!", perhaps items could have some kind of "history" page associated with them - think Baldur's Gate item descriptions meets Dwarf Fortress lore and history. If Bob the barbarian amassed a fortune over a lifetime of looting and pillaging, and had the greatest blacksmith known to him make him the best blade possible, then lost his life foolishly attempting to slay an elder dragon in its underground lair, that sword has all that history attached to it and sits there waiting until someone powerful enough to defeat the dragon comes along and claims it, adding their bit of history to it. Later they pass it on to their heir, and it becomes legendary of its own accord.

I have no idea if such a game is possible (probably not), and it wouldn't include any voice acting (since the gameplay is largely emergent), but I bet $300 million could probably get close to it.

[Nathan Phoenix]

I miss the sense of community from Dark Age of Camelot where you'd hear that your relic was being attacked and start the hard ride to the frontier from Gna Faste, but not before running to Spindelhalla to spread the word to players in side that may not have heard. Then rushing out to help defend, even though you weren't even max level, because it mattered. Each expansion weakened this sense of community because the same number of people were spread out among so many more places. Atlantis really made it worse because the gear power creep was so great that it ended up shutting out lower level players from frontier PVP entirely.

[Teiman]

I miss the sense of community from Dark Age of Camelot where you'd hear that your relic was being attacked and start the hard ride to the frontier from Gna Faste, but not before running to Spindelhalla to spread the word to players in side that may not have heard. Then rushing out to help defend, even though you weren't even max level, because it mattered. Each expansion weakened this sense of community because the same number of people were spread out among so many more places. .

/thread

So making a good mmo is a solved problem.

Daoc, planetside... the problem is getting these formulas updated.

[Brian Rucker]

Solved for you. Lots of players aren't remotely interested in that.

We need more variety somehow. An MMO you'd like for your niche. An MMO I'd like for my niche.

[KevinC]

Solved for you. Lots of players aren't remotely interested in that.

We need more variety somehow. An MMO you'd like for your niche. An MMO I'd like for my niche.

More, but smaller, games with smaller budgets targeting certain playstyles. Right now everyone is dropping hundreds of millions on trying to be the next WoW and it's stifling any innovation.

When UO came out weren't they expecting something like 10,000 total subs for 6 months or something? I wouldn't mind smaller, lower budget games that had a business model with those numbers in mind.

I think the GW model of doing things might help as well. They don't have subscriptions so they don't have to waste your time with pointless treadmills.

[beloved one]

I'd like to see a massive sports-games arena approach. Each area would have some game or contest that might or might not be related to the actual meat/character of the mmo. I.e. there might be some vehicle racing game, or a 1on1 arena, or a contest to kill the most wumpuses in a cave, a single champion sitting in a mech versus a group of regular challengers, etc...

You'd have to do some series of quests to qualify for the area's contest... Once qualified you can register for the competition -- For single or small groups contests, once per day a special competition would be held, which would award either some sort of buff or strong equipment. Guild level events could be held weekly.

Basically to have the best stuff, you'd be required to be active and skilled at some aspects of the mmo -- ideally there'd be levels for every type of player, who can clear mobs fastest, various pvp situations, non pvp etc.

[The Mad Hatter]

/thread

So making a good mmo is a solved problem.

Daoc, planetside... the problem is getting these formulas updated.

You hate WoW, while I found DAoC dull and formulaic. Different strokes, etc.

Of course, best of all would be to take WoW and give it old school UO rules. Getting that raid together? Better watch out for a pkiller gang swooping in and taking all your epics. Uh oh, "Sonoma is down" just stole your rare pet.

[Teiman]

You hate WoW, while I found DAoC dull and formulaic. Different strokes, etc.


Everyone is trying to make updated wow these days. The resulting games are not very satisfying for the wow players, and are not very satisfying for the non-wow players. Maybe we need 2 solutions here. One for the wow players, and other for the non-wow players.

Wow players want more wow, even these with mmo-fatigue. Blizard job seems to create a new mmo that will be loved by the current wow fanbase, and perhaps other people. Is not a easy job.

Non-wow player probably would be best served by formulas that don't try to recreate wow.

[aganazer]

Its going to take a paradigm shift in MMO design to get my back into it. We are going to be stuck in a feedback loop of WoW clones until someone proves that another type of game style is viable. (hopefully GW2)

What we really need is a high budget sandbox game targeting a more casual audience. Someone is going to do it eventually. The lack of it is holding up progress IMO. This will finally break the loop and get investors to stop chasing their tail.

Beyond that I have a lot of faith in the game designers to bring us innovative new ideas. I don't feel like it would be productive to list my ideas, but they tend to lean toward making MMO's less arcade-like with more depth.

[The Mad Hatter]

Everyone is trying to make updated wow these days. The resulting games are not very satisfying for the wow players, and are not very satisfying for the non-wow players. Maybe we need 2 solutions here. One for the wow players, and other for the non-wow players.

Wow players want more wow, even these with mmo-fatigue. Blizard job seems to create a new mmo that will be loved by the current wow fanbase, and perhaps other people. Is not a easy job.

Non-wow player probably would be best served by formulas that don't try to recreate wow.

That's a fair point. I think WoW has created something like the blockbuster movie mentality though, where if it's not raking in the money it's seen as a failure. I'm not sure what the cut off point really is for a profitable MMO - some seem to go on forever (UO, WW2 Online...I got an email asking me to re-sub for Anarchy Online the other day, heh). Others have been cancelled pretty quickly though. I suspect the infrastructure costs of a MMO deter some of the innovation that other genres get.

[Jab]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, give me Demon's Souls style combat in an MMO and I would play the hell out of it.

I've reached the point that I'm done with hot-key driven combat, I knew the second that I read about it in SW:TOR that there is no way I'm playing it. As another consequence, I agree about classless builds, specifically with how classes and talent trees remove choice. As there is always the "preferred build" and doing anything different will make you weaker then other players.

[Gordon Cameron]

Wow players want more wow

I loved World of Warcraft -- it's one of my top 3 games alltime. That said, I'm pretty burnt on the Diku model and don't feel a strong need to play another game like it. I'll never be able to recapture the high of that first year. Which is probably just as well, considering how addicted I became.

[Jason Townsend]

It was easy to solo to level cap in EQ with many of the classes. In the case of characters that could kite multiple enemies it was even competitive with half-assed grouping.

Every laundry list I've ever read of "What's Wrong with MMOs" or "What MMOs Need To Finally Do" has been reflective of the players' own particular set of priorities. Whatever "constituencies" there are for Magic Solutions 1, 2 and 3, the Ruckers and Ultrazens probably don't want to play the same game.

In 2012, with MMO fatigue, with the existing "successful" MMOs and WoW taking up the market share they do, isn't it all academic? Surely any developer with a care for his/her shareholders would prefer any other form of multiplayer?

[Hanacker]

I simply will not play any MMO that has more than one live server/world. I am just so tired of playing a game only to find some people I want to play with (at a new job, a message forum, a blog, whatever) are on a different server and either I need to start over or pay to move.

Yes. Would it be technically infeasible to at least let me log my character onto whatever server I want each time I log on? Or move to a different server mid-game to join a party with my friend? I think WoW has cross-server battlegrounds or something, right? So it seems like it should be possible. What is the downside to this that I'm not seeing?

[HahaSoFunny]

Yes. Would it be technically infeasible to at least let me log my character onto whatever server I want each time I log on? Or move to a different server mid-game to join a party with my friend? I think WoW has cross-server battlegrounds or something, right? So it seems like it should be possible. What is the downside to this that I'm not seeing?

Blizzard has/had a monopoly on good MMOs, and currently charges for server transfers, so they would lose that revenue.

They recently added the ability to form cross-realm groups for older raids, so hopefully competition will force them to allow that for current raids, so that everyone can join any guild freely.

[HahaSoFunny]

Regarding MMOs, the best feature would IMHO be either solo endgame, or effective matchmaking for raiding, so that you are not forced to play the guild application/advancement game.

Currently, endgame consists of 10 or 25-man raiding, which means you either need to join multiple existing groups of increasing skill, and be forced to meet their standards or respect their rules, or build one from scratch without any help whatsoever from the game, and with finding skilled players extremely challenging.

Unfortunately, raiding requires both lots of general learning and experience, and lots of time to learn specific bosses, so naively forming pick-up groups doesn't generally work.
However, advanced matchmaking techniques might work, and would break the power that established guilds currently wield, reducing the hassle involved.

Right now Blizzard only added an ultra-naive matchmaking tool coupled with an ultra-easy difficulty level ("Looking for Raid"), and it would be nice to have an MMO where you could (or even better, be forced to) use the matchmaking feature for hardcore raiding.

[Mark Asher]

I'd be happy with an updated Shadowbane. Very quick leveling, to the point where it almost doesn't exist. Build your own cities. Burn down the cities of other players. Kill players and loot them.

Maybe beef up the PvE a bit in that game because PvP really was about all there was to do.

Basically, what will give an MMO legs is player-generated content. Players will create a more interesting environment than AI-driven monsters will ever do.

[Murph]

I think it's important to let each player feel like (s)he's making a difference in the world. Obviously, in an MMO, that's an illusion, but if you're gonna treat me like some kind of hero, let me see those changes in the world. If I aid one side in a battle allowing them to win, send me to a new instance of the country/realm/planet where that change has actually taken place, and they're thanking me. I'm aiding a reconstruction effort on Taris...when I come back to Taris, I wanna see that it's a better place because of my help. I understand the difficulties of this, especially as it might affect guilds when different members made different choices, but the most boring part of MMOs as they stand now is the limited fashion in which the world can react to you. We need new ways of addressing that...provided that I'm supposed to be the hero. (Some of the suggestions here wouldn't meld with that mindset at all.)

[The Mad Hatter]

Right now Blizzard only added an ultra-naive matchmaking tool coupled with an ultra-easy difficulty level ("Looking for Raid"), and it would be nice to have an MMO where you could (or even better, be forced to) use the matchmaking feature for hardcore raiding.

I don't really get this view. Why is it so bad that I can see the raid content on my own time and in my own way? Once I stopped hardcore raiding that kind of content became inaccessible to me. The LFR tool in WoW let me see it again. That would be at the top of my wishlist for any new MMO - do not limit content by forcing grouping in order to experience it.

[jason]

Blizzard has/had a monopoly on good MMOs, and currently charges for server transfers, so they would lose that revenue.

At the moment they are losing $15 a month from me because I'd rather not play than pay to move a character.

[aganazer]

The simple fact that so many can't even disassociate "MMO" from "raiding" doesn't bode well for future innovation in the genre. Surely there is more to the genre than 1001 ways to implement raids.

[HahaSoFunny]

I don't really get this view. Why is it so bad that I can see the raid content on my own time and in my own way? Once I stopped hardcore raiding that kind of content became inaccessible to me. The LFR tool in WoW let me see it again. That would be at the top of my wishlist for any new MMO - do not limit content by forcing grouping in order to experience it.

It's not bad, but it's IMHO insufficient.

The problem with LFR is that you can't do heroic (or even normal) difficulty with it, because it lacks any ability to automatically figure out how skilled and experienced players are and put together a viable raid of similar skill, good composition, and similar experience with that particular heroic boss.

And at least personally the LFR difficulty (which is an ultra-dumbed-down difficulty level they introduced with the tool, to allow the content to be completed despite no incentives to the players to even not be AFK) is so utterly easy and devoid of challenge that it feels like a chore to do it, and I don't see myself being interested in running it beyond the first 1-2 weeks after content release.

So the end result is that you are still forced to join a guild if you want even slightly challenging content and/or if you want to compete on progression.

[Murbella]

So how exactly do you plan to make a LFG tool that detects how skilled (and of course it isn't only skill. Knowledge and how much they are paying attention that day are both nearly as important as general ability) a player is at their chosen role? Also, you would want this to be done in such a way that less... able players are not told to their face that they suck, otherwise they will just come complain to you that your LFG system is broken.

I agree that there should be content for solo players (Which there was last time i played wow and is way more now from everything i hear), but the idea that you should be able to compete with an organized group in content progression with a pickup group is just silly.

In any event, you kind of hit the nail in the head in your own post. The only reason guilds tend to be able to field more skilled players that work together better than PUG #125 is because they have standards and requirements for their members. If they didn't, it would be no different than gathering 10 random Joe The Warriors.

It is one thing to not want to be forced to group in order to do anything, but at some point you're going to have to work with other PEOPLE if you're playing a mmorpg. Otherwise you might as well just play a single player mmorpg like skyrim.

[The Mad Hatter]

So how exactly do you plan to make a LFG tool that detects how skilled (and of course it isn't only skill. Knowledge and how much they are paying attention that day are both nearly as important as general ability) a player is at their chosen role? Also, you would want this to be done in such a way that less... able players are not told to their face that they suck, otherwise they will just come complain to you that your LFG system is broken.

I agree that there should be content for solo players (Which there was last time i played wow and is way more now from everything i hear), but the idea that you should be able to compete with an organized group in content progression with a pickup group is just silly.

In any event, you kind of hit the nail in the head in your own post. The only reason guilds tend to be able to field more skilled players that work together better than PUG #125 is because they have standards and requirements for their members. If they didn't, it would be no different than gathering 10 random Joe The Warriors.

It is one thing to not want to be forced to group in order to do anything, but at some point you're going to have to work with other PEOPLE if you're playing a mmorpg. Otherwise you might as well just play a single player mmorpg like skyrim.

The WoW system allow people like to join random groups in order to see the content, and others to form their own groups and do the same content in a much more difficult form (and receive better gear and achievements for doing so). Both sides win. I object to the view that "casuals", as they are usually referred to, have less right to see the content and that my being able to do so somehow cheapens what regular raiders are doing.

[HahaSoFunny]

So how exactly do you plan to make a LFG tool that detects how skilled (and of course it isn't only skill. Knowledge and how much they are paying attention that day are both nearly as important as general ability) a player is at their chosen role?


Well, this is one of the things MMO companies should spend money and time on, and the kind of thing they could innovate on.

Anyway, just looking at HPS compared to other healers in the group (adjusted by spec), DPS on relevant targets compared to everyone playing that spec on the encounter or damage taken for tanks, plus the number of times they failed at mechanics, should be already enough to give a pretty usable assessment.

Also, you can tailor game mechanics and encounters so that this kind of thing can always be determined automatically.



Also, you would want this to be done in such a way that less... able players are not told to their face that they suck, otherwise they will just come complain to you that your LFG system is broken.


You can simply not tell players anything but rank players behind the curtains, like League of Lengeds unranked matchmaking.

[Murbella]

The WoW system allow people like to join random groups in order to see the content, and others to form their own groups and do the same content in a much more difficult form (and receive better gear and achievements for doing so). Both sides win. I object to the view that "casuals", as they are usually referred to, have less right to see the content and that my being able to do so somehow cheapens what regular raiders are doing.

Yes and i support that. What i don't support is the idea that mmo companies should have designed some super lfg that magically detects how good a player is and matches them with other good players (because "I" am good and the players "I" play with are holding me back).

I also don't think it is realistic to expect a group put together through LFR to be able to compete with really good guilds in content progression. Being able to do the content is one thing, but competing in clearing new content is just silly to expect.


Well, this is one of the things MMO companies should spend money and time on, and the kind of thing they could innovate on.

Anyway, just looking at HPS compared to other healers in the group (adjusted by spec), DPS on relevant targets compared to everyone playing that spec on the encounter or damage taken for tanks, plus the number of times they failed at mechanics, should be already enough to give a pretty usable assessment.

Also, you can tailor game mechanics and encounters so that this kind of thing can always be determined automatically.



You can simply not tell players anything but rank players behind the curtains, like League of Lengeds unranked matchmaking.

Again how do you expect to do this? Should blizzard (or whatever company) go through an encounter with their internal team, note down average dps and then any dps who does that encounter and does less dps, loses a point on their skill meter? What if i spend the entire fight aoe'ing useless trash to pad the dps meter when i should be dpsing in order to get skill meter increases? What if i'm really good with bad gear so once i get better gear my dps goes way up but by then my skill meter is really low? What if i'm melee dps and avoid some sort of aoe so my dps is lower than someone who doesn't avoid it and wastes the healers' mana?

That barely mentions gear level at all too which can vastly affect these numbers. I also hope your HPS is not counting overhealing. Not to mention when i played, certain classes (druids) had a huge advantage on getting high effective healing numbers due to how their mechanics worked. I think some of that may have changed since i played, but I doubt all of it has.

[HahaSoFunny]

Again how do you expect to do this? Should blizzard (or whatever company) go through an encounter with their internal team, note down average dps and then any dps who does that encounter and does less dps, loses a point on their skill meter?
No, simply the more dps you do, the higher the score.
Perhaps it could be based on the average across encounters of a weighted time-based average of the percentiles your dps is compared to other playing your spec on the specific encounter.
Of course, this needs to combined with the average number of times you fail at mechanics per encounter.



What if i spend the entire fight aoe'ing useless trash to pad the dps meter when i should be dpsing in order to get skill meter increases?
Only count DPS on relevant targets (with encounter-specific code).



What if i'm really good with bad gear so once i get better gear my dps goes way up but by then my skill meter is really low?
The time average needs to be tuned so it's possible to raise it to its natural level reasonably fast.



What if i'm melee dps and avoid some sort of aoe so my dps is lower than someone who doesn't avoid it and wastes the healers' mana?
Make the AoE instakill, or detect that you didn't avoid it, and count it as a failure at mechanics (per-encounter code, like the EnsidiaFails addon).



That barely mentions gear level at all too which can vastly affect these numbers.
I suppose the game could evaluate gear, and automatically rescale previous performances once you get newer gear instead of just averaging it.



I also hope your HPS is not counting overhealing.Of course not.


Not to mention when i played, certain classes (druids) had a huge advantage on getting high effective healing numbers due to how their mechanics worked.
Balance healers properly (the druids have been nerfed, although they then managed to make holy paladins somewhat OP).

At any rate, it just needs to be better than the current matchmaking system that simply places anyone together with anyone (or for several non-WoW MMO, doesn't even exist!), and that's very easy to do.

Regarding guilds, one of the problem of guilds is that you need to play on a schedule, and very rarely this matches the times when one feels like playing, and is quite a huge inconvenience.
In practice, if you want to actually enjoy the game, you currently need to dedicate 3-5 night per week to it, or dedicate all your weekends, or take a vacation from work/school and play full time.

Obviously, however, I'd expect that most people don't want to do that, and would much rather play whenever they feel like it, but also not be forced to play a super-dumbed-down version just because of that.
I think this kind of "practical" issue is ultimately more important that how exactly the game plays, at least for some segments of the market.

[Hanacker]

Your suggestions sound great in a theoretical world, but completely impractical in the real world where nothing ever ends up as balanced as the designers wish.

[ineffablebob]

Interesting topic. We're never going to see "one MMO to rule them all" because so many people want different things. I saw a comment somewhere above predicting more, smaller MMOs that appeal to particular segments of the player market. I think a lot of this will happen as the gap between single player games and MMOs narrows. Some genres are already heading this direction, through services like XBoxLive and PSN. The next generation of games may start out as single player games, and allow assets to be moved to shared worlds hosted on those service networks as you progress past the single-player areas. Those shared worlds could be as different as Civ5 is from Skyrim, and there would be a lot of them. All the very interesting suggestions above might be realized in different areas of such an ecosystem of shared worlds.

[Sean Tudor]

Has no one tried Darkfall? It doesn't follow the mould of your usual themepark MMO and almost completely avoids the levelling treadmill.

[gurugeorge]

Has no one tried Darkfall? It doesn't follow the mould of your usual themepark MMO and almost completely avoids the levelling treadmill.

I tried it about a year ago, and I do like it but it's a bit clunky (e.g. it's back to inventory management being a chore) and the lore's a bit "empty" for my tastes, although it does have nice, vast single-world atmosphere and that sense of danger and things mattering that you can only get from hardcore open world PvP games. It sounded like people were having fun with the sieges and stuff, and the community was that usual mix of really helpful and gank-squaddey. If I had another lifetime I'd probably enjoy it a lot, but as it is there are other things higher on my list of priorities.

When I played, there was that problem which seems to plague some skill based MMOs (the problem CCP cleverly avoided) which is that people tend to grind up their skill levels doing stupid things like swimming in place for hours on auto and things like that.

It's definitely more fleshed-out than Mortal Online though - quite a bit more "sand" in the sandbox.

[pyrhic]

I don't really want one MMO to rule them all, i want an MMO that holds my interest. STO, SW:TOR, DC Universe, Warhammer, DDO, Lotro. CoH....I'm probably missing a few too, all pretty much got me to play one month and done. In all but DC I didnt make 'endgame' - so there was more content there, it's just that the game didn't compel me to play. With more and more of my friends that play, this is their sentiment too....as people have said, the model just isn't aging well.

I love the STALKER franchise, and would love some kind of MMO based in that world. However, you couldnt have 10k Stalkers in a game world - it just wouldnt hold up. However a small community of 50 stalkers might...particularly if you built the environment well. You might spend days not running into another player stalker, but then, one day you do....now, what do you do? Friend? Foe?

See, that I find compelling. That is the kind of game I would pay monthly for.

To the classless comments - i think you can build a successful combination, and the key to it is to have positives and negatives. Some of these might be apparent(ie, the negative to light armor is lower protection, but the benefit could be actual movement speed in the game world). You want heavy armor? Ok, it's there, and great, but you'll move at .6 the speed ALL THE TIME. Or maybe extra susceptible to heat and lightning spells. Or maybe both those. The point is to make tradeoffs and to make them good and real in the game world. You have enough material, and enough imagination, to make a true rock-paper-scissors system. Good ole rock, nothing beats that...oh wait.

[Ultrazen]

Just as a re-affirmation. MMOs that continue to cater to single player mode are all going to fail. Having to deal with other people, is what makes these games engaging. The more that gets stripped away, the shorter the retention of these games becomes. This is not a complicated issue.

Wow got lucky, due to timing. They took EQ, actually more than that they ripped off EQ, right down to the key bindings, and made it easier. The mistaken conclusion by the world at large was, if you make MMOs easier, people will buy them. The reality was, they hit broadband internet, and peoples awareness of the genre at the right time. It actually had very little to do with their game, and mostly to do with timing.

The WoW model, has probably done more harm to the development of MMOs than anything else, because the correct conclusions weren't drawn.

[Razgon]

For you maybe - There is a growing trend among MMO players that has them playing it more like a single player game. Early on, WoW recognized this and streamlined the game accordingly. Every big MMO has done this actually.

While the human interaction is important, we want to be able to decide exactly when and how much we are going to interact with other humans, and all group missions are completely optional.

[The Mad Hatter]

For you maybe - There is a growing trend among MMO players that has them playing it more like a single player game. Early on, WoW recognized this and streamlined the game accordingly. Every big MMO has done this actually.

While the human interaction is important, we want to be able to decide exactly when and how much we are going to interact with other humans, and all group missions are completely optional.

This. If the future of the genre is in forced grouping, you can count me out. BTW, UO predated Everquest and it also did not force grouping. It was perfectly suited to lone gunmen like me. WoW was just the next game to develop that ease of solo play.

BTW, I agree with the person who said that there should be more to end game play than raiding. My impression in my years with WoW is that the old raid model has been steadily breaking down. Opening up raid content to the unwashed masses is a big step in that direction. Ideally, the "post character development" phase of these games (whether that's reflected as max level, skills topped out, etc) should be accessible and engaging. It should be more than dailies and raids.

[MrGrumpy]

The simple fact that so many can't even disassociate "MMO" from "raiding" doesn't bode well for future innovation in the genre. Surely there is more to the genre than 1001 ways to implement raids.

Exactly.

[Teiman]

The genre was created by nerds, the idea was "virtual worlds" where to have adventures and make new friends. This why grouping was encouraged, it what the whole points of a masive MULTIPLAYER role play game.

Now the genre has ben popularized to not-nerds, and these people want to play theme parks with his friends. The no-nerds don't understand role playing, even want to ridiculize it. No-nerds act like assholes to other people, because don't want to make new friends, only "have a good ride", perhaps with his own IRL friends.

So this why we have soo much "forced soloing" games like WoW, and why the genre has ben ruined. Soloing is boring, and is forced on everyone. Soloing a mmo is funcionally exactly like using a facebook game. Click, click, click, reward, repeat. Soloing a mmo is something a tiny perl script can do, is not something for what you need a human. So, of course, people write tiny perl scripts (bots) to play, or pay other people to play for thenselves (gold, account sales in ebay) because soloing is boring for these people. Soloers have built a empty boring and meaningless world for thenselves, and everyone that used to like this genre before it was ***destroyed***.

:D

[DKDArtagnan]

The difference between casual gamers and enthusiast gamers is experience and level of interest.

Like, if I'm casually interested in cars - I don't actually know what makes a good car, and that's why I shouldn't be allowed to dictate how cars are designed.

In the MMO genre, the casual/mainstream gamers are allowed to dictate how MMOs are designed.

As if they knew what would be the most fun for them.

The problem with allowing people without knowledge and experience dicate game design, is that they only see the short-term "fun". They don't have the experience with which to make important long-term design decisions.

That's exactly why everything in modern MMOs is about the short-term - and nothing is about the long-term.

Note that I'm not "looking down" on casual gamers, because I fully understand that gaming isn't equally interesting to everyone. I also don't think enthusiast gamers are "entitled" to enthusiast games.

I'm just looking at this very strange MMO genre, where even many of the most casually interested gamers get locked down by a treadmill carrot design - and they end up spending most of their free time without even being really interested in games or their design. They just enjoy the social aspects and the "log on and know what to do" aspect.

Should those people really dictate what designs should be?

[Teiman]

In the MMO genre, the casual/mainstream gamers are allowed to dictate how MMOs are designed.


Normal people can't design. Most people (except people trained to do something different) just want to "expand his favorite feature". And that is bad design.

Also "too much cheffs in a kitchen". Maybe designing is a solitary task, and only a single designer sould allowed to make the final decision.

[DKDArtagnan]

Normal people can't design. Most people (except people trained to do something different) just want to "expand his favorite feature". And that is bad design.

Also "too much cheffs in a kitchen". Maybe designing is a solitary task, and only a single designer sould allowed to make the final decision.

That would certainly be my preference. The only problem is that most "genuine" designers care more about the actual game than what business it might generate. Well, that's the ideal designer.

For AAA games, suits can't have that. They need to dictate things according to "market research".

Fortunately, things are changing - and people are getting increasingly sick of these me-too designs. So even the suits wil eventually realise that copy-catting without insight is not particularly profitable in the long-term.

[Teiman]

Fortunately, things are changing - and people are getting increasingly sick of these me-too designs. So even the suits wil eventually realise that copy-catting without insight is not particularly profitable in the long-term.

I am not sure it don't work. Zynga used that strategy maximized to the top. Even made public that his strategy was steal other people ideas, never invent anything, and have a better marketing. Or that was Zynga said. Maybe what was really doing was taking good ideas, and repackaging then with polish. People like polish.

The suits have Steve Jobs to see a example of how profitable is to let designers take important decisions, and I think the suits respect Jobs. The suits respect people like Bill Gates, that is a "rob baron". So the suits have examples to show how to run (ruin?) things in different ways, not just the ones that result on good products. The suits are "right" in making games that generate profit but are low quality. In this case is the public that is on the wrong in buying what is not good.

[Razgon]

What you two are railing against isnt the ordinary person being stupid - frankly, I resent that implication. While it may not suit you, it suits plenty of others, leading to whats going on in the industry. Its market forces, that has driven the industry to where it is today. Push and pull and what sells, and what doesn't.

What you want, you will not find in the established developer / distributor areas, but in the indie field. An indie MMO that is successful enough to create new market directions is unlikely though.

[DKDArtagnan]

I am not sure it don't work. Zynga used that strategy maximized to the top. Even made public that his strategy was steal other people ideas, never invent anything, and have a better marketing. Or that was Zynga said. Maybe what was really doing was taking good ideas, and repackaging then with polish. People like polish.

The suits have Steve Jobs to see a example of how profitable is to let designers take important decisions, and I think the suits respect Jobs. The suits respect people like Bill Gates, that is a "rob baron". So the suits have examples to show how to run (ruin?) things in different ways, not just the ones that result on good products. The suits are "right" in making games that generate profit but are low quality. In this case is the public that is on the wrong in buying what is not good.

Sure, but I'm talking long-term.

This is what happens everytime a "new" market is discovered. It's milked to destruction - and at the end, the people responsible are surprised they couldn't just exploit the market indefinitely.

At the core, that's what's happened with the financial recession - with a clear example being the "housing bubble" (or whatever it's called internationally). People wanted money to generate out of thin air - and they kept at it - on and on and on.

This is what's happening with Facebook shit and App-market games at the moment. People are convinced this is how to make money, and for the moment - they're correct.

However, even the masses eventually tire of the same shit exploitation. It will just take time.

It's my claim that, as far as the MMO segment is concerned, the masses are approaching the realisation that the short-term fun they're having, chasing that ever elusive carrot does NOT lead to a rainbow endgame where all the magical long-term fun is hiding.

It's a scam. EXACTLY like TOR PvP endgame.

[GloriousMess]

I think I'd appreciate a core mechanic that kept me playing beyond reaching maximum level and acquiring super-awesome-gear-5000. Something that involved a reputation as a player as well as a character being improved (or damaged) when you interact with others. An example could be an assassination style MMO whereby contracts are a common way to resolve business dealings, or end political runs. In a city of many people (mostly NPCs, granted), the players gain reputation for fulfilling contracts set by NPCs (low value) or by players (high value). The idea is to keep interaction high while still requiring the player to play the game. Skill and gear factor into success and there you have it.

Another scenario is one similar to JM's description, whereby the gear and experience account for a smaller percentage of your "awesome", and the emphasis is on teamwork, interaction and skill. Space Hulk would be an amazing example as beyond Terminator Armour and, say, Lightning Claws, you're still vulnerable if your squadmates aren't covering your back. The possibilities can grow from there if need be, and (ugh) include raiding if the "MMORPG 101"-trained lead designer demands it.

Ultimately I'm not optimistic about MMOs at the moment, they all appear to be aimed at the audience currently absorbed in existing MMO games. I'm not saying that's a terribad strategy, but I am saying that the market has enough WoW clones at the moment.

[DKDArtagnan]

What you two are railing against isnt the ordinary person being stupid - frankly, I resent that implication. While it may not suit you, it suits plenty of others, leading to whats going on in the industry. Its market forces, that has driven the industry to where it is today. Push and pull and what sells, and what doesn't.

What you want, you will not find in the established developer / distributor areas, but in the indie field. An indie MMO that is successful enough to create new market directions is unlikely though.

Read what you're responding to, before you accuse people of calling others stupid. I've said nothing of the kind.

In fact, I made it a point to include clarification - because I know it's a common misconception.

Casual means nothing except casual. If you want to know what I mean by that word, you need only look a few posts above.

[Razgon]

Weirdly I was certain you both used that word - Apologies.

The rest of the post still stands, though.

[DKDArtagnan]

No worries, then.

As for the rest of your post, my point is - exactly - that the MMO segment is changing.

It's a very special genre, because it has invited casual gamers with open arms and turned them into... A new breed.

Let's call them non-gamers who spend A LOT of their time gaming. That's not so uncommon in itself, as lots of non-gamers spend hours and hours playing Mahjong and similar games.

But the MMO genre is different in that it's not really casual at the endgame. Not in the traditional sense. It's changing, I suppose - but it's very demanding if you're not really interested in mechanics or investing yourself in the experience.

That's NOT a derogatory statement.

Also, it's obviously not the case for all casual gamers. Some don't spend much time playing at all - and some have actually become enthusiast gamers who care enough to invest themselves and commit to the rather extreme demands of high-end raids, comparitively speaking, and such.

So, the gist of my point is that there's a time-limit on this kind of themepark design. It's no longer enough, even for the masses. I don't see it, anyway.

[The Mad Hatter]

The genre was created by nerds, the idea was "virtual worlds" where to have adventures and make new friends. This why grouping was encouraged, it what the whole points of a masive MULTIPLAYER role play game.

Now the genre has ben popularized to not-nerds, and these people want to play theme parks with his friends. The no-nerds don't understand role playing, even want to ridiculize it. No-nerds act like assholes to other people, because don't want to make new friends, only "have a good ride", perhaps with his own IRL friends.

So this why we have soo much "forced soloing" games like WoW, and why the genre has ben ruined. Soloing is boring, and is forced on everyone. Soloing a mmo is funcionally exactly like using a facebook game. Click, click, click, reward, repeat. Soloing a mmo is something a tiny perl script can do, is not something for what you need a human. So, of course, people write tiny perl scripts (bots) to play, or pay other people to play for thenselves (gold, account sales in ebay) because soloing is boring for these people. Soloers have built a empty boring and meaningless world for thenselves, and everyone that used to like this genre before it was ***destroyed***.

:D

That's a load of crap. I've been gaming for 30 years, I simply don’t enjoy the forced group model. It caters a small subset of people with either nothing but time on their hands and can wait for groups to form or who have established set groups of people to play with. I don’t fit either model, so once UO had run its course I tried and rejected the EQ/DAoC/Asheron’s Call games, all of which rigidly limited solo play. The WoW model succeeded because it was better, for both casual and hardcore gamers.

Whether you like it or not, the next generation of MMOs is going to be created to make money, not recreate failed models. See Vanguard for a great example of a game trying and abjectly failing to succeed by recreating an Everquest-style world. I had to accept that old school UO is dead and buried as a game play mechanic, you guys will have to do the same. Neither model makes money like an open and easily accessible game like WoW or SWTOR.

[HahaSoFunny]

Yeah, I fail to see why "forced grouping" is a feature at all.

The reason single-player and dungeon/raid finder models seem on the rise is that IMHO, quite simply, people just want (ideally) to play the game whenever they want and without extra bullshit like having to schedule gameplay or wait hours spamming "LFM for Whatever" in chat.

Plus, with forced grouping, a developer puts their customers' experience at the mercy of the "community" and/or guild leaders: for example, if a player sucks, a developer is still interested in having them play because they pay, but most people wouldn't be interested in grouping with him.

[Teiman]

See Vanguard for a great example of a game trying and abjectly failing to succeed by recreating an Everquest-style world. I had to accept that old school UO is dead and buried as a game play mechanic, you guys will have to do the same. Neither model makes money like an open and easily accessible game like WoW or SWTOR.

*uses the 'that is a Argumentum ad populum fallacy' card*

Well, if you use popularity has what define what is good or not, you must be ready to accept McDonalds has the best food, Justin Biever has the best musician ever, and so on.

[Murbella]

If you don't want to interact with other people, why do you play a MMO? Why not play a single player rpg (which is going to be better in every way except having multiplayer)?

You don't see people playing team fortress 2 and then complaining because they have to be on a team.

[The Mad Hatter]

*uses the 'that is a Argumentum ad populum fallacy' card*

Well, if you use popularity has what define what is good or not, you must be ready to accept McDonalds has the best food, Justin Biever has the best musician ever, and so on.

Given the infrastructure costs and continual maintenance involved with any MMO, they have to make money, wouldn't you agree? That means that what's popular matters, and what's unpopular is going to have a hard time being used as the model for a new game. You want forced grouping imposed on everyone. I want a game with no pk switch, where a gang of pkillers can swoop down on your group, kill them all in five seconds and take all of your gear. Neither of us is likely to have the game they want, because they aren't popular models.

[Razgon]

Really? We've been over that 1000 times here by now - Some people like to be able to choose, some like the idea of MMO's but mainly adventure alone due to lifestyle, choice, akwardness what have you.

Its the new way to play MMOs, as can been seen in the market trends.

Other prefer the oldschool way of grouping, but really, not much content in modern MMO's that require, or even encourage it.

Team Fortress is a competetive game, thus not the same as you quite well know.

[HahaSoFunny]

If you don't want to interact with other people, why do you play a MMO? Why not play a single player rpg (which is going to be better in every way except having multiplayer)?


Because MMOs are persistent, so you feel that the work you put in your character isn't "wasted" as the game ends, like it happens in single-player games, and there is a remote server that certifies that your achievements are genuine, so you can compete in that respect even if you play solo.

Also "not wanting to play in a guild" and "not wanting to spend hours spamming trade" is very different from "not wanting to interact with others".

Personally, I like to play with other people, but I strongly dislike putting in any work to organize that or being bound in any way by social ties in a game. So, I'd like the game developer to provide me with other people to play with without any effort on my part other than playing the game well.

[The Mad Hatter]

If you don't want to interact with other people, why do you play a MMO? Why not play a single player rpg (which is going to be better in every way except having multiplayer)?

You don't see people playing team fortress 2 and then complaining because they have to be on a team.

I want to interact with people as I see fit to do so, not be blocked because there's no groups available or I didn't get in with the right guild. WoW is a game I can solo in, but I've kept with it for so long in large part because I found a comfortable guild with familiar "faces", so to speak. WoW lets us enjoy both solo and group based play. SWTOR seems to following a similar model. Both are worth my time and money.

[Mark Asher]

Just as a re-affirmation. MMOs that continue to cater to single player mode are all going to fail. Having to deal with other people, is what makes these games engaging. The more that gets stripped away, the shorter the retention of these games becomes. This is not a complicated issue.

Wow got lucky, due to timing. They took EQ, actually more than that they ripped off EQ, right down to the key bindings, and made it easier. The mistaken conclusion by the world at large was, if you make MMOs easier, people will buy them. The reality was, they hit broadband internet, and peoples awareness of the genre at the right time. It actually had very little to do with their game, and mostly to do with timing.

The WoW model, has probably done more harm to the development of MMOs than anything else, because the correct conclusions weren't drawn.

Here's the problem. Once players begin to bump into interesting content that they can only do in groups, players will start to resent the game if they feel this content is locked for them. So if the game design is primarily one of group content, you're going to lose all the players who for one reason or another are not able to get in groups with any regularity.

You can see that with a game like Warhammer where the public quests are a fail because you're often the only player there to do one of them. The designers made it as easy as possible to group for those and yet it's still content locked to most players because it's impossible to get a group going.

I'll disagree about WoW. I don't think Blizzard got lucky. I think they looked at EQ and saw the things that players didn't like and removed those -- long times to med for mana, death penalties, slow leveling, etc. I'd argue the opposite -- Verant got lucky because they launched EQ at a time when there was a modest curiosity about a graphical MMO and there were no other options besides UO. And then after launch there was a lot of social stickiness in the game. People stayed in the game not because they loved corpse runs but because their guild and their friends were there.

[Murbella]

Really? We've been over that 1000 times here by now - Some people like to be able to choose, some like the idea of MMO's but mainly adventure alone due to lifestyle, choice, akwardness what have you.

Its the new way to play MMOs, as can been seen in the market trends.

Other prefer the oldschool way of grouping, but really, not much content in modern MMO's that require, or even encourage it.

Team Fortress is a competetive game, thus not the same as you quite well know.

There is a difference between people who want to do both (solo when they feel like it, group when they feel like it) and people who never want to interact with another player under any circumstances. The second seems to be becoming more and more common.

I actually fall in to the first. I am playing SWTOR now and i solo or group with a single out of game friend 90% of the time, but I also enjoy doing group content every so often too.


Because MMOs are persistent, so you feel that the work you put in your character isn't "wasted" as the game ends, like it happens in single-player games, and there is a remote server that certifies that your achievements are genuine, so you can compete in that respect even if you play solo.

Also "not wanting to play in a guild" and "not wanting to spend hours spamming trade" is very different from "not wanting to interact with others".

Personally, I like to play with other people, but I strongly dislike putting in any work to organize that or being bound in any way by social ties in a game. So, I'd like the game developer to provide me with other people to play with without any effort on my part other than playing the game well.

Single player games have achievements now if you feel the need to extend some electronic badge of... honor. Single player games also have no monthly fee while being vastly superior in every way other than multiplayer.

You can do stuff in mmorpgs without spending any effort at becoming organized, just like you can in real life. What you cannot do is expect to be as effective as people who do organize, just like real life.

People who put more effort in to organizing, thinking and strategy are always going to do better than people who don't in group activities. Unless you force people to be in random group, this will never change. This is not something specific to the mmorpg genre or even gaming itself.


I want to interact with people as I see fit to do so, not be blocked because there's no groups available or I didn't get in with the right guild. WoW is a game I can solo in, but I've kept with it for so long in large part because I found a comfortable guild with familiar "faces", so to speak. WoW lets us enjoy both solo and group based play. SWTOR seems to following a similar model. Both are worth my time and money.

Yes, this is actually the exact same position I hold. I just think it is silly that people expect a pickup group of random strangers setup by the game to compete with an organized group of focused individuals who have a strong interest in the advancement of the whole. I've always thought that desire to do well/attention was just as important as general skill or knowledge. Even the best player with the best equipment will not do well if they are only half paying attention during a fight. This is something pickup groups of unrelated strangers completely lack generally. Why should i care about these people I will never see again beyond the direct benefit to me they are?


Here's the problem. Once players begin to bump into interesting content that they can only do in groups, players will start to resent the game if they feel this content is locked for them. So if the game design is primarily one of group content, you're going to lose all the players who for one reason or another are not able to get in groups with any regularity.

You can see that with a game like Warhammer where the public quests are a fail because you're often the only player there to do one of them. The designers made it as easy as possible to group for those and yet it's still content locked to most players because it's impossible to get a group going.

I'll disagree about WoW. I don't think Blizzard got lucky. I think they looked at EQ and saw the things that players didn't like and removed those -- long times to med for mana, death penalties, slow leveling, etc. I'd argue the opposite -- Verant got lucky because they launched EQ at a time when there was a modest curiosity about a graphical MMO and there were no other options besides UO. And then after launch there was a lot of social stickiness in the game. People stayed in the game not because they loved corpse runs but because their guild and their friends were there.

I played starcraft 2. I just played it for the single player and yet i didn't go complain on battle.net that there is a strong focus on multiplayer.

I'll semi agree but also disagree with you. Blizzard did get lucky but they also effectively exploited the wave to make mmorpgs more casual friendly. They saw that the modern mmorpg was changing and so they jumped on the bandwagon. In no way did they create this trend though or make major innovations to the genre (ok, i admit official support for UI mods was a major innovation but other than that...), but they did (very) effectively exploit it.


Anyway for me, i like single player mmorpgs somewhat, but they can never hold my attention for more than the starter month because they can never compete with single player rpgs even before i start thinking about the higher cost. If i'm going to be paying a monthly fee there needs to be "something" extra that makes up for the current limitations in the mmorpg genre. This "something" has generally been "social elements."

[HahaSoFunny]

Yes, this is actually the exact same position I hold. I just think it is silly that people expect a pickup group of random strangers setup by the game to compete with an organized group of focused individuals who have a strong interest in the advancement of the whole. I've always thought that desire to do well/attention was just as important as general skill or knowledge. Even the best player with the best equipment will not do well if they are only half paying attention during a fight. This is something pickup groups of unrelated strangers completely lack generally. Why should i care about these people I will never see again beyond the direct benefit to me they are?
Well, the idea of a matchmaking system is that you would be strongly encouraged to do your best, because otherwise the next times you will be grouped with crappy players, and you won't be able to kill the boss on the hardest difficulty and progress.

Instead, if you prepare and play perfectly, you'd eventually get to play with the best in the world, and get matching progression.



Anyway for me, i like single player mmorpgs somewhat, but they can never hold my attention for more than the starter month because they can never compete with single player rpgs even before i start thinking about the higher cost. If i'm going to be paying a monthly fee there needs to be "something" extra that makes up for the current limitations in the mmorpg genre. This "something" has generally been "social elements."For me I don't care that much about social ties, although it's kind of nice to play with other people.

The REALLY good thing of mmorpgs is that heroic raiding is the hardest kind of "adventure/RPG gaming" available, and progress really feels meaningful, and is publicly displayed on a scoreboard.
By comparison, all single-player RPGs are ridiculously easy and progress in them carries no prestige/achievement traits, because the focus there is mostly story and presentation, and not mechanics and challenge, and being able to actually finish the game is always taken for granted, while it is not so in MMORPGs.

The only thing that is similar to MMORPGs in that respect are online permadeath roguelike games (e.g. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup played over the Internet), which however achieve their difficulty in a very different fashion.

[ineffablebob]

Ultimately I'm not optimistic about MMOs at the moment, they all appear to be aimed at the audience currently absorbed in existing MMO games. I'm not saying that's a terribad strategy, but I am saying that the market has enough WoW clones at the moment.
Amen. I'm hoping The Secret World will buck this trend a bit. All the stuff they keep saying about the game being story-driven sounds good.

[gurugeorge]

The genre was created by nerds, the idea was "virtual worlds" where to have adventures and make new friends. This why grouping was encouraged, it what the whole points of a masive MULTIPLAYER role play game.

Now the genre has ben popularized to not-nerds, and these people want to play theme parks with his friends. The no-nerds don't understand role playing, even want to ridiculize it. No-nerds act like assholes to other people, because don't want to make new friends, only "have a good ride", perhaps with his own IRL friends.

So this why we have soo much "forced soloing" games like WoW, and why the genre has ben ruined. Soloing is boring, and is forced on everyone. Soloing a mmo is funcionally exactly like using a facebook game. Click, click, click, reward, repeat. Soloing a mmo is something a tiny perl script can do, is not something for what you need a human. So, of course, people write tiny perl scripts (bots) to play, or pay other people to play for thenselves (gold, account sales in ebay) because soloing is boring for these people. Soloers have built a empty boring and meaningless world for thenselves, and everyone that used to like this genre before it was ***destroyed***.

:D

And yet ... and yet ...

City of Heroes showed that an alternative way is possible. Some mysterious synergy in the way that game was made (proabably accidental, seeing as Cryptic totally cocked the social aspect of Champions Online) allowed for a social game for casual players.

IOW, perhaps it's not that people want to solo in MMOs, perhaps it's that old skool nerd developers have unconsciously equated "casual" player with "solo", and "grouping" with "guild".

In CoX in its heyday, a huge chunk of players PUG-ed as a matter of course - it was by far the most sociable (of not stricaly "social" in the old skool sense) MMO I've ever played.

Yet it was heavily instanced.

Yet it was casual.

So yeah, it wasn't much of a virtual world in the nerdy sense you're talking about above (which I agree is a strong founding tradition of the genre, and I agree it's in some ways regrettable that it's fallen by the wayside), but it was a virtual place where people could play together, chat together, and have fun together, day in and day out, for years.

I think it was several things:-

1) UI very easy for the eye, ergonimically, etc. Just simple, but highly functional (right down to two tones of beep, one for incoming tells and one for team chat - dumbly simple yet extraordinarly effective and easy on the brain for a stressed leader, to help him carry on looking for people while chatting to the team and keeping everyone appraised of events).

2) Combat itself - just the right sweet spot between hard and easy. Hard enough to have some meat in it and to have some headroom to excel, but easy enough and forgiving enough for newbies to tag along without the risk of cocking things up too much for the rest of the team (and, again, easy enough for "knowledge" to be passed around about any tricky bits). IOW, PUG-ing wasn't such a traumatic experience as it can be in other games, so it was a fun alternative to soloing for innately social but still only casual players.

3) NO LOOT. I'll say that again: NO LOOT. For ever such a long time, CoX had no loot. This was something that led many people to predict the game's early demise. Also, perfunctory endgame, and not much added over the years. No loot, and no endgame - how weird that a game could survive without those two things, eh? But perhaps these lacks were part of the synergy that led the game to survive? (I agree, not excel - CoX was no WoW, for sure - but perhaps another game that built on CoX's strengths could do better?)

4) Strong reliance on alt-ing, and with an incredibly flexible character creator that allowed you to dream up your own characters, with a build system that was (again) not too complex, but complex enough to excel at with a bit of research. So alt-ing was "moreish". (It's also extremely moreish in Champions Online, but CO lacks some of the other elements that made CoX great.)

5) Difficulty slider. The benefit of this is obvious - if you're a hardcore player or group, crank it up, if you're a roleplayer, leave it at "Heroic"! Also, you get a sense of progression from being able to gradually get to the stage where you can crank it up to "Invincible". Part of the charm of CoX was how the "conning" was really obvious (the reticules were well done), so one's progression meant eventually "being able to confidently beat Purple mobs reliably, so long as you're paying attention"

6) Easy, transparent mission completion whether grouped or solo - e.g. if someone clicks a glowie, it counts for YOUR mission. But this was totally transparent in a way that some games seem to fail to be able to do.

7) Being able to instantly see what missions other members of the team have available. This is partly a UI thing but it deserves its own mention. Part of the sociable aspect was that everyone could discuss what mission to do next ("Oh look, Bob's got a mission in this zone, let's do that").

8) Sidekicking and Exemplaring - again, another obvious one, that many other companies have tried variations of.

Now, having said that, going back to the virtual world thing - something, or some combination of things, eventually killed some of CoX's charm. People have proposed several obvious candidates, but I think it's the various forms of instant travel that eventually got into the game. See, during the "golden years" of CoX, you still had to travel, using your travel power and the train lines, THROUGH THE CITY, to get to an instance. It took a bit of time, sure, but not a prohibitive amount of time, and in that time, people chatted and played with emotes; and meanwhile, if you were getting to a mission, you had a sense of moving through a virtual world (albeit at superspeed, or flying). I think giving so many instant travel forms away as goodies is a subtle thing that diminished CoX quite a lot - certainly diminished what sense of virtual world CoX did actually have for a long time.

What I mean is, ok, teleport is a Good Thing for teaming if everyone's yomping around on Shank's Pony, but given the superhero thing, and the fact that you have to have a "travel power" in a superhero game, the early development phase was right in not giving away too much instant teleportation, in forcing people to USE their travel powers to get around.

Anyway, yes, I think it bears more investigation. It's more than a lobby/arena, yet less than a virtual world, but it's a good compromise, I think, between the two.

And as I say, the key is, not to think of casual players as automatically wanting to solo. Give them a chance to casually team, and be sociable, make it easy to get into, yet enjoyable (if not exactly hard) to master, and you have a game design that somewhat avoids some of the issues about MMO design that people are going round and round in circles with.