You can't just create a community until players want one. These days they just don't want one and the game itself - whatever game it might be - isn't going to ever encourage them to make one.
If no one is forcing you to play the game, no one is forcing you to group.
Exactly. Early MMORPG developers learned that one the hard way as all their players walked out the door. Few are inclined to repeat that design decision.
So Devs removed the forced grouping, and players still walked out the door. Then they got rid of long travel times, and the waked out the door faster. Next came shorter, faster, leveling, and...players exited MMOs even faster. Now eliminate the open world with LFD tools, you guessed it, exit stage right more quickly than ever.
Used to be MMORPGS had a slow ramp up, then slow decline after several years, and some of those are still around today. Now the pattern is huge rush at launch followed by a rapid die off leaving fewer than 6% of the original population by the end of the first year for some titles.
Outside of a few outliers such as WOW, FFXIV, SWTOR, or EVE almost all modern MMOs suffer the same rapid player loss pattern.
Apparently most Devs are unable to find a formula to retain a larger player base over the long term, but you certainly can't point to the elimination of forced grouping as a success factor, in fact all of the titles I listed as being successful have forced grouping activities at the core of their end game designs.
Come to think of it, are there really any that don't ?
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
Exactly. (It's probably also worth mentioning that the failure is failure to skyrocket into the stratosphere, and that most of these MMORPGs are still around and fairly successful.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If no one is forcing you to play the game, no one is forcing you to group.
Exactly. Early MMORPG developers learned that one the hard way as all their players walked out the door. Few are inclined to repeat that design decision.
So Devs removed the forced grouping, and players still walked out the door. Then they got rid of long travel times, and the waked out the door faster. Next came shorter, faster, leveling, and...players exited MMOs even faster. Now eliminate the open world with LFD tools, you guessed it, exit stage right more quickly than ever.
Used to be MMORPGS had a slow ramp up, then slow decline after several years, and some of those are still around today. Now the pattern is huge rush at launch followed by a rapid die off leaving fewer than 6% of the original population by the end of the first year for some titles.
Outside of a few outliers such as WOW, FFXIV, SWTOR, or EVE almost all modern MMOs suffer the same rapid player loss pattern.
Apparently most Devs are unable to find a formula to retain a larger player base over the long term, but you certainly can't point to the elimination of forced grouping as a success factor, in fact all of the titles I listed as being successful have forced grouping activities at the core of their end game designs.
Come to think of it, are there really any that don't ?
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
That would be the point now right? You can't point to a specific feature or set of features that lead to the success or failure of any particular MMO, not even WOW.
MMORPG's are a sum of their parts, as well as the other tangibles you mentioned above, put them all together and if you are very, very lucky, you'll hit some relatively long term success.
For everyone else, it's a rapid decline and drift into the MMO also -ran list.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
Exactly. (It's probably also worth mentioning that the failure is failure to skyrocket into the stratosphere, and that most of these MMORPGs are still around and fairly successful.)
Yep, failure seems to be a very elastic term around here
Developer's cannot afford to tag along the communities input,they have a game to make and cannot change that direction every second day.They only drag along the community PRETENDING to make them feel a part of it to garner their attention and support.
Every developer has a budget,they know how much time and money they can spend to get that game out with somewhat of an expectation on profit to come.When comes to community,their bigger focus is on the media sites,looking for hype,advertising and favorable reviews of their product.They don't give me and you free early copies of a game,they give them to media sites for those favorable biased reviews.
So you can clearly see what part of the community truly interests them and what part they prefer to manipulate and mislead.
Just think about the gaming conventions,you would THINK since they want your support ,they would almost PAY YOU to come watch their advertising,but nope they charge you the supporters money to watch them advertise their products.It is funny because i don't remember the last time friends or family watching TV,said "oh great i am so glad this movie was interrupted for a commercial,we love advertising".
Bottom line is the only community devs care about is community money.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If no one is forcing you to play the game, no one is forcing you to group.
Exactly. Early MMORPG developers learned that one the hard way as all their players walked out the door. Few are inclined to repeat that design decision.
So Devs removed the forced grouping, and players still walked out the door. Then they got rid of long travel times, and the waked out the door faster. Next came shorter, faster, leveling, and...players exited MMOs even faster. Now eliminate the open world with LFD tools, you guessed it, exit stage right more quickly than ever.
Used to be MMORPGS had a slow ramp up, then slow decline after several years, and some of those are still around today. Now the pattern is huge rush at launch followed by a rapid die off leaving fewer than 6% of the original population by the end of the first year for some titles.
Outside of a few outliers such as WOW, FFXIV, SWTOR, or EVE almost all modern MMOs suffer the same rapid player loss pattern.
Apparently most Devs are unable to find a formula to retain a larger player base over the long term, but you certainly can't point to the elimination of forced grouping as a success factor, in fact all of the titles I listed as being successful have forced grouping activities at the core of their end game designs.
Come to think of it, are there really any that don't ?
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
That would be the point now right? You can't point to a specific feature or set of features that lead to the success or failure of any particular MMO, not even WOW.
MMORPG's are a sum of their parts, as well as the other tangibles you mentioned above, put them all together and if you are very, very lucky, you'll hit some relatively long term success.
For everyone else, it's a rapid decline and drift into the MMO also -ran list.
Oh, i CAN point you to specific set of features (and cirumstances) that made WoW into what it has been for past 10 years.
I can aslo point you to why all of wow clones that followed wow failed.
In fact ive done that many times and im doing it now, just read my post history.
Originally posted by Bladestrom What exactly is 'forced grouping'? Mmorpg are games that offer tones of content including content that is designed for groups. That's not forced, that's an option you can choose or not.
Exactly. "Forced grouping" is what socially challenged nerds call games that don't let them solo all the content.If no one is forcing you to play the game, no one is forcing you to group.When people eat at a restaurant, is there is "forced seating?" When you play a guitar, is there "forced strumming?"In a group-centric MMORPG, there is no "forced grouping", grouping is just what you'll do. Shared adversity creates a sense of community. Its not an opinion, its a fact of life.
Not to get into this debate here and now, but let me try to explain how I see "forced grouping."
EQ is the MMORPG where I experienced this. Some players could solo, and solo quite effectively. I was not one of them So, between levels 15 and 20 and after, I could not do much without a group. Even crafting required materials dropped by mobs, which for me required assistance. I could certainly fish all day, every day. But if I wanted to advance my character, grouping was the only option for me.
Why did I need a group? Because "white con" (even level) mobs could kill you 50% of the time and take away the victories you did get, for the XP loss was greater then the XP gain. In upper levels (I got to my mid to upper 30's), even "blue cons" (a few levels lower then the player) could, and did, kill me with regularity. I do not mind losing fights. It presents a challenge to overcome. However, EQ's XP loss was disproportionate to the XP gained with victories, making it a backwards slide.
Once out of the "starter areas" (past level 20), a single bad encounter could wipe out hours of leveling.
Again, not every player encountered this. Some were very good at soloing their characters. I, and many others, were not so gifted. I enjoyed the tough fights. They made me think about things. But like I said, it was a backwards slide in advancing my character. So grouping was indeed needed for anything but fishing. I did not log to EQ as a fishing simulator, though I did my fair share of that
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Oh, i CAN point you to specific set of features (and cirumstances) that made WoW into what it has been for past 10 years.
I can aslo point you to why all of wow clones that followed wow failed.
In fact ive done that many times and im doing it now, just read my post history.
Hopefully it doesn't focus too much on "rising internet popularity". Seen some posters pretend that's all it was, as if Blizzard's record wasn't filled with homeruns prior to that.
The shift towards soloability is actually one of the big things that made WOW so much better. Quests were another huge one (prior games "had them" but most of the time you still ended up endlessly, repetitively grinding mobs to level.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Oh, i CAN point you to specific set of features (and cirumstances) that made WoW into what it has been for past 10 years.
I can aslo point you to why all of wow clones that followed wow failed.
In fact ive done that many times and im doing it now, just read my post history.
Hopefully it doesn't focus too much on "rising internet popularity". Seen some posters pretend that's all it was, as if Blizzard's record wasn't filled with homeruns prior to that.
The shift towards soloability is actually one of the big things that made WOW so much better. Quests were another huge one (prior games "had them" but most of the time you still ended up endlessly, repetitively grinding mobs to level.)
Of course not, while it played a role its not major one.
1. Blizzard capitalized on both of their audiences - took warcraft world and gamplay form diablo and meshed it in MMO
2. made game accessible and more "casual" than previous MMOs, including questing as main leveling mechanic and easily soloable with optional grouping for leveling
3. decreased time to level, since it took considerably less time to cap than previous MMOs, and removed various obstacles those games put in fornt of players progress
in other words it was right product at the right time that managed to get critical mass of players. they managed to attract large number of players while at same time made game playable for them (something that old school MMOs mised by a wide margin)
The only part that Blizzard considers failure was endgame since only <5% of players participated in it. So they changed it in BC despite outcry, lowered number of people in raids and including more casual options (and that has, for most part, been true for every expansion)
Thats a tie-in, they managed to sustain large playerbase, but that is not cincidence, they adapted and changed what was needed over time despite hardcores whining about "dumbifying". but they did try to make game more challenging with cata and that caused steep decline in subs.
The WoW clones failed because they tried to be "bigger/better WoW than WoW" or "WoW done properly". Those are not worse games than WoW, they just failed at outWoWing WoW. Rift went most cleverly after it with relatively small badget (50 m$) and never actually expected WoWs numbers. But Rift also had to considerably "dumbify" the game shortly after launch.
Anyways, what i would say impacted WoW rise the most (while having in mind ALL was important as a whole) was accessibility and making game playable for huge number of people who didnt play MMOs before for whatever reason, since EQ2 released roughly at the same time, and if we are to believe some people it was "superior to WoW in every sense", but, yeah.
Lots of people dropped old school MMOs and went to WoW because WoW was just more enjoyable experience.
Most people don't seem to understand that community is something that is built by the players, all devs need to do is put the tools in place to allow it. Solo content, "forced" group content... none of it matters at the end of the day. You can't force community on people, you can't design a game that is going to automatically create it. If you want community, join a guild with like minded players and play with them.
Thats a tie-in, they managed to sustain large playerbase, but that is not cincidence, they adapted and changed what was needed over time despite hardcores whining about "dumbifying". but they did try to make game more challenging with cata and that caused steep decline in subs.
While some players do say that, most average gamers really very little understanding of game accessibility vs. game depth.
Game accessibility just means the rules are simple. A 7 year old can learn chess. A 7 year old can learn WOW.
Game depth means the game takes a long time to master. A 7 year old is very unlikely to be a master of either chess or WOW.
So these players saying something that is usually just hot air and not at all indicative of the true depth these games sometimes have. We could say (with a certain irony) that that's a very shallow way of looking at things -- like calling chess dumbed-down just because it's accessible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by kartool Most people don't seem to understand that community is something that is built by the players, all devs need to do is put the tools in place to allow it. Solo content, "forced" group content... none of it matters at the end of the day. You can't force community on people, you can't design a game that is going to automatically create it. If you want community, join a guild with like minded players and play with them.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I hear it others as well.. Can you force people to work together (aka unite) and be communal? I guess in the strict sense you can't, however you can encourage and promote teamwork, that seems to be missing in any modern day MMO I've played.. Being an USAF vet, the one thing I picked up was the atmosphere of teamwork.. I grew up with my parents bestowing upon me that selfishness was not rewarded.. The Air Force did the same.. I took great pride in what we "the unit" did as a whole, then anything I did on my own.. Example: Outstanding Unit Award means more to me then a Marksman ribbon..
IMO, modern day MMO's focus more on Esport content then they do other options.. Why? Probably because it's cheaper and easier to get players to compete against themselves then to design and maintain a communal environment.. I could EASILY design a game where the focus is on "PLAYERS" against the program, while allowing a sub focus on Esport, but then maybe today's devs that are in power do not have the brain power to devise such a design.. I've listened to many devs talk in interviews and panels, etc etc and have yet to be impressed with anything they have to say..
Originally posted by kartool Most people don't seem to understand that community is something that is built by the players, all devs need to do is put the tools in place to allow it. Solo content, "forced" group content... none of it matters at the end of the day. You can't force community on people, you can't design a game that is going to automatically create it. If you want community, join a guild with like minded players and play with them.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I hear it others as well.. Can you force people to work together (aka unite) and be communal? I guess in the strict sense you can't, however you can encourage and promote teamwork, that seems to be missing in any modern day MMO I've played.. Being an USAF vet, the one thing I picked up was the atmosphere of teamwork.. I grew up with my parents bestowing upon me that selfishness was not rewarded.. The Air Force did the same.. I took great pride in what we "the unit" did as a whole, then anything I did on my own.. Example: Outstanding Unit Award means more to me then a Marksman ribbon..
IMO, modern day MMO's focus more on Esport content then they do other options.. Why? Probably because it's cheaper and easier to get players to compete against themselves then to design and maintain a communal environment.. I could EASILY design a game where the focus is on "PLAYERS" against the program, while allowing a sub focus on Esport, but then maybe today's devs that are in power do not have the brain power to devise such a design.. I've listened to many devs talk in interviews and panels, etc etc and have yet to be impressed with anything they have to say..
Which still has little to do with community. There are plenty of guilds that group up and raid just fine. There are plenty of people that engage in teamwork. Anything incentivied by palatable rewards is a great motivator to put up with the guy next to you for 15 minutes or, as most MMOs seem to be, to use the guy next to you for 15 minutes. Community normally runs a bit deeper than that.
"I could EASILY design a game where the focus is on "PLAYERS" against the program, while allowing a sub focus on Esport, but then maybe today's devs that are in power do not have the brain power to devise such a design.. I've listened to many devs talk in interviews and panels, etc etc and have yet to be impressed with anything they have to say.."
There seems a lot of this going around here lately. Have you considered the possibility that it looks as easy/simple/intuitive as it does to you because you really have no clue what is actually involved?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
here is an example of 2000ish: dark age of camelot.
you could actually level from 1 to 60 totaly alone.
another one, anarchy online, perfect example again, guess what, you could go to max level alllllll alone.
where the team play started you ask?
well, either when i met with friends to level to max (no one said i couldn't reach max level in team), it was way simpler to reach max level by farming mobs (uh right yea, people do that in WoW and other "modern" mmos too!)
so, here is the verdict: mmos NEVER tell you what to do, or even HOW to do it, it's all about your choices.
you think those games make it too easy to reach max level alone? shocking news, it WILL be faster if you do it in team, that's why people actually DO IT in team.
you wanna cry? then cry ABOUT the communities.
surely the games did not change the community. but the communities changed the games.
in daoc i didnt get any exp if people "took" my farm, but guess what, they just DIDN'T do it! no one came around and killed my bloody quest mob when i waited for it to spawn for like 10 mins:
actually, people STOOD IN LINE and waited.
so as said above, don't blame the games for a bad community, blame the community for a bad game.
THAT is how it works, and not the other way round
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
in daoc i didnt get any exp if people "took" my farm, but guess what, they just DIDN'T do it! no one came around and killed my bloody quest mob when i waited for it to spawn for like 10 mins:
actually, people STOOD IN LINE and waited.
Good point. You saw the same in Asheron's Call, too. In AC, you also had monthly meetings of the monarchs (guild leaders) on some servers to sort out server community issues and plan events. At some point that changed. Fewer people cared about the lines. Fewer people took their issues to the guild leaders to sort out, monarch meetings stopped, etc. The game hadn't changed at, the community did.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
in daoc i didnt get any exp if people "took" my farm, but guess what, they just DIDN'T do it! no one came around and killed my bloody quest mob when i waited for it to spawn for like 10 mins:
actually, people STOOD IN LINE and waited.
Good point. You saw the same in Asheron's Call, too. In AC, you also had monthly meetings of the monarchs (guild leaders) on some servers to sort out server community issues and plan events. At some point that changed. Fewer people cared about the lines. Fewer people took their issues to the guild leaders to sort out, monarch meetings stopped, etc. The game hadn't changed at, the community did.
Not to pee on your nostalgia cheerios, friends, but I remember a lot of line jumpers in Asheron's Call.
One example comes to my mind right now, you had those new Olthoi dungeons released, there was like a dozen of people waiting in line to kill the boss for the quest, and some jerk came in and stole the kill, laughing at everyone else.
(Reminder: in AC1, the one getting credit and kill is the one doing the most damage).
I never said everyone was a saint , however when those dungeons came out in 2001, players would complain to their monarch and they would take it up with that person's monarch. Fast forward a few years and such civilities were long gone. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find many guilds right now in ANY MMO that have ANY policy on interguild relations other than establishing alliances and NAPs. This is in part because few can lead, and of those few that can, I don't think many really want to. Well, also because GIF Theory.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Which still has little to do with community. There are plenty of guilds that group up and raid just fine. There are plenty of people that engage in teamwork. Anything incentivied by palatable rewards is a great motivator to put up with the guy next to you for 15 minutes or, as most MMOs seem to be, to use the guy next to you for 15 minutes. Community normally runs a bit deeper than that.
You seem to be focused on a different application of "teamwork" definition.. Maybe I should of picked a better word(s) such as Public Participation as it relates to be communal.. As for your part in describing of putting up with the guy for 15 minutes was nothing I referred to, or even hinted to.. That is far from being a community, and something I don't endorse or support as the cheap replacement of community activity..
There seems a lot of this going around here lately. Have you considered the possibility that it looks as easy/simple/intuitive as it does to you because you really have no clue what is actually involved?
Oh it is actually that EASY for me to design such a formula for a communal game.. It's not rocket science.. It is nothing more then having a greater focus on what you want the players to spend their time achieving.. When there is a greater common goal amongst the public it will spur communal behavior.. All you need to do is apply that to gaming.. Easy for me, but then devs like Dave G. find themselves playing PvP unemployed..
Originally posted by Nanfoodle As long as MMOs keep focusing on solo games, where getting to top level can be done 99% solo, you wont see awesome communities form. If and when you see an MMO that forces you to group for a large % of content, if community matters to you, then go buy that MMO in as fast as you can. As new MMOs stand, community will never be a focus.
This is the heart of the matter.
This is why MMORPGs (By MMORPG, I am referring to the current difference between the terms MMO and MMORPG) got bigger than they probably should have. So what's the answer? Make games that appeal to the masses or appeal to the niche? There are pros and cons to both sides. The next "WoW" would go to the team that is able to figure out how to marry the two. Something that has not been done since WoW and has not been done by copying WoW.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer This is the heart of the matter.
This is why MMORPGs (By MMORPG, I am referring to the current difference between the terms MMO and MMORPG) got bigger than they probably should have. So what's the answer? Make games that appeal to the masses or appeal to the niche? There are pros and cons to both sides. The next "WoW" would go to the team that is able to figure out how to marry the two. Something that has not been done since WoW and has not been done by copying WoW.
Even WoW divorced these crowds pretty early on. For ease of balancing PvP/PvE gear got pretty specific to their type of content (changed later on). The few open world dungeons and elite mobs got nerfed essentially relegating group content to instance only. Catch up solo attainable gear was introduced each expansion making previous content completely obsolete.
The pendulum of solo viability swung way too far in the other direction. I am not saying that there should be a certain level wall, or class wall, to being able to solo. I just feel that there was way more solo content than was needed. Level/Gear progression was far too accelerated. Downtime non-existent. Intermixed mobs levels / group content too few and far between.
A good balance could be met. Scale mob difficulty on a larger curve as you progress in levels. Introduce some semblance of downtime and require players to be proficient/efficient to be successful. Add a hell of lot more content to the open world that is group/dungeon but still keep a decent share of soloers. Sure keep instanced content around too -- that can be another organic progression from the open world dungeons. Smaller more difficult dungeons that would otherwise be contested.
Make solo quests turn into group quests more often, Branch group quests to Raid or PvP goals. Make crafting useful generally to all crowds. Don't hand items out like candy and make buffs powerful again. Make tight situations possible with a death mechanic that is more than just going over to a graveyard and clicking resurrect. This lends to class utility that is useful not only in combat but in helping others out of those tight situations.
Sure have an auction house. Generic items like base level crafting mats etc the AH takes no cut. As the items you sell have a higher rarity the AH takes a bigger percentage cut. Now you are encouraged to still do player merchant activities to get full value out of the transaction, but only when the time vs loss of cut is worth it. Not sure why this is such an elusive design for MMORPG designers.
Would this solve the community issue? Not necessarily, but I think it's a start.
The problem with community, is the fact that players need be the community. No game can force you to be social or to play with a team. It is up to the players.
If the OP wants to blame anything, blame the players.
Which still has little to do with community. There are plenty of guilds that group up and raid just fine. There are plenty of people that engage in teamwork. Anything incentivied by palatable rewards is a great motivator to put up with the guy next to you for 15 minutes or, as most MMOs seem to be, to use the guy next to you for 15 minutes. Community normally runs a bit deeper than that.
You seem to be focused on a different application of "teamwork" definition.. Maybe I should of picked a better word(s) such as Public Participation as it relates to be communal.. As for your part in describing of putting up with the guy for 15 minutes was nothing I referred to, or even hinted to.. That is far from being a community, and something I don't endorse or support as the cheap replacement of community activity..
There seems a lot of this going around here lately. Have you considered the possibility that it looks as easy/simple/intuitive as it does to you because you really have no clue what is actually involved?
Oh it is actually that EASY for me to design such a formula for a communal game.. It's not rocket science.. It is nothing more then having a greater focus on what you want the players to spend their time achieving.. When there is a greater common goal amongst the public it will spur communal behavior.. All you need to do is apply that to gaming.. Easy for me, but then devs like Dave G. find themselves playing PvP unemployed..
Wow... don't break your arm, bro...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Nanfoodle As long as MMOs keep focusing on solo games, where getting to top level can be done 99% solo, you wont see awesome communities form. If and when you see an MMO that forces you to group for a large % of content, if community matters to you, then go buy that MMO in as fast as you can. As new MMOs stand, community will never be a focus.
From my experience soloing really isn't the issue, look at SWG, you could solo all the time from starting a build to finishing it. Yet it was a truly social experience, soloing was never an issue, the only thing groups served in terms of progression was offering better mission payout, many folks still went their own separate ways after attaining missions, as otherwise folks would get a share of your credits &/or resources.
The real heart of the matter from my perspective comes down to making a game revolving around personal scoring systems, rather than ownership as well as community wide reward/consequence. To use SWG again, PVPers losing a planet, had an adverse effect on all of that faction's players. That planet became hostile effecting the danger of visiting said planet. This created an incentive for faction members to band together to take down bases, as well as defend their own, to allow for an advantage in PVP in cities, as well as safe passage for less than capable players.
It's creating a reason for people to be communal and work together that matters most. Not many developers are doing that, instead they give a greater focus in having us attain personal power.. motivating us with it through gear systems, Arenas, small inconsequential PVP systems (BG's). Solo based instanced questing. It's all there to give you a new item, or title. There is little pushing players to work together,. You have to have systems that supersede personal gain..
TL'DR Solo based game-play is fine for progression, as long as you have many systems in place to incentivize social play in other areas.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Nanfoodle As long as MMOs keep focusing on solo games, where getting to top level can be done 99% solo, you wont see awesome communities form. If and when you see an MMO that forces you to group for a large % of content, if community matters to you, then go buy that MMO in as fast as you can. As new MMOs stand, community will never be a focus.
From my experience soloing really isn't the issue, look at SWG, you could solo all the time from starting a build to finishing it. Yet it was a truly social experience, soloing was never an issue, the only thing groups served in terms of progression was offering better mission payout, many folks still went their own separate ways after attaining missions, as otherwise folks would get a share of your credits.
The real heart of the matter from my perspective comes down to making a game revolving around personal scoring systems, rather than ownership as well as community wide reward/consequence. To use SWG again, PVPers losing a planet, had an adverse effect on all of that faction's players. That planet became hostile effecting the danger of visiting said planet. This created an incentive for faction members to band together to take down bases, as well as defend their own, to allow for an advantage in PVP in cities, as well as safe passage for less than capable players.
It's creating a reason for people to be communal and work together that matters most. Not many developers are doing that, instead they give a greater focus in having us attain personal power.. motivating us with it through gear systems, Arenas, small inconsequential PVP systems (BG's). Solo based instanced questing. It's all there to give you a new item, or title. There is little pushing players to work together,. You have to have systems that supersede personal gain..
TL'DR Solo based game-play is fine for progression, as long as you have many systems in place to incentivize social play in other areas.
This.
I also think community flourishes in an environment where players can come together in many different ways. For example in ffxiv, players can come together for high level crafting components, marriage ceremonies, card games, racing, etc. I've met people collaborating on a 4 star craft item. I've added a few folks to my friend list that I have raced and played cards with.
Community building ultimately lies with the player's willingness to interact, but diversity in game design allows for more unique interactions. Which can be rewarding in their own right.
Comments
None of these are the reasons for a lot of games in the last several years failing. They primarily failed because either:
a) it was just a copy of an already existing game but done poorly and just wrapped in a new skin (ie: WoW clones that were worse than WoW and had no real reason for people to give up all their time already invested in WoW for the new game instead)
b) launched with tons of bugs, missing content / features that were promised, etc which took too long to get fixed, if ever (WAR is a great example of that)
c) just plain shitty design and implementation of the game and its features (bad controls / combat mechanics, PvP games that lack a real purpose to PvP, etc).
Cant think of a single game that legitimately flopped because of things like fast travel, lfg tools, etc.
Exactly. (It's probably also worth mentioning that the failure is failure to skyrocket into the stratosphere, and that most of these MMORPGs are still around and fairly successful.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That would be the point now right? You can't point to a specific feature or set of features that lead to the success or failure of any particular MMO, not even WOW.
MMORPG's are a sum of their parts, as well as the other tangibles you mentioned above, put them all together and if you are very, very lucky, you'll hit some relatively long term success.
For everyone else, it's a rapid decline and drift into the MMO also -ran list.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yep, failure seems to be a very elastic term around here
Developer's cannot afford to tag along the communities input,they have a game to make and cannot change that direction every second day.They only drag along the community PRETENDING to make them feel a part of it to garner their attention and support.
Every developer has a budget,they know how much time and money they can spend to get that game out with somewhat of an expectation on profit to come.When comes to community,their bigger focus is on the media sites,looking for hype,advertising and favorable reviews of their product.They don't give me and you free early copies of a game,they give them to media sites for those favorable biased reviews.
So you can clearly see what part of the community truly interests them and what part they prefer to manipulate and mislead.
Just think about the gaming conventions,you would THINK since they want your support ,they would almost PAY YOU to come watch their advertising,but nope they charge you the supporters money to watch them advertise their products.It is funny because i don't remember the last time friends or family watching TV,said "oh great i am so glad this movie was interrupted for a commercial,we love advertising".
Bottom line is the only community devs care about is community money.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Oh, i CAN point you to specific set of features (and cirumstances) that made WoW into what it has been for past 10 years.
I can aslo point you to why all of wow clones that followed wow failed.
In fact ive done that many times and im doing it now, just read my post history.
EQ is the MMORPG where I experienced this. Some players could solo, and solo quite effectively. I was not one of them
So, between levels 15 and 20 and after, I could not do much without a group. Even crafting required materials dropped by mobs, which for me required assistance. I could certainly fish all day, every day. But if I wanted to advance my character, grouping was the only option for me.
Why did I need a group? Because "white con" (even level) mobs could kill you 50% of the time and take away the victories you did get, for the XP loss was greater then the XP gain. In upper levels (I got to my mid to upper 30's), even "blue cons" (a few levels lower then the player) could, and did, kill me with regularity. I do not mind losing fights. It presents a challenge to overcome. However, EQ's XP loss was disproportionate to the XP gained with victories, making it a backwards slide.
Once out of the "starter areas" (past level 20), a single bad encounter could wipe out hours of leveling.
Again, not every player encountered this. Some were very good at soloing their characters. I, and many others, were not so gifted. I enjoyed the tough fights. They made me think about things. But like I said, it was a backwards slide in advancing my character. So grouping was indeed needed for anything but fishing. I did not log to EQ as a fishing simulator, though I did my fair share of that
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Hopefully it doesn't focus too much on "rising internet popularity". Seen some posters pretend that's all it was, as if Blizzard's record wasn't filled with homeruns prior to that.
The shift towards soloability is actually one of the big things that made WOW so much better. Quests were another huge one (prior games "had them" but most of the time you still ended up endlessly, repetitively grinding mobs to level.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course not, while it played a role its not major one.
1. Blizzard capitalized on both of their audiences - took warcraft world and gamplay form diablo and meshed it in MMO
2. made game accessible and more "casual" than previous MMOs, including questing as main leveling mechanic and easily soloable with optional grouping for leveling
3. decreased time to level, since it took considerably less time to cap than previous MMOs, and removed various obstacles those games put in fornt of players progress
in other words it was right product at the right time that managed to get critical mass of players. they managed to attract large number of players while at same time made game playable for them (something that old school MMOs mised by a wide margin)
The only part that Blizzard considers failure was endgame since only <5% of players participated in it. So they changed it in BC despite outcry, lowered number of people in raids and including more casual options (and that has, for most part, been true for every expansion)
Thats a tie-in, they managed to sustain large playerbase, but that is not cincidence, they adapted and changed what was needed over time despite hardcores whining about "dumbifying". but they did try to make game more challenging with cata and that caused steep decline in subs.
The WoW clones failed because they tried to be "bigger/better WoW than WoW" or "WoW done properly". Those are not worse games than WoW, they just failed at outWoWing WoW. Rift went most cleverly after it with relatively small badget (50 m$) and never actually expected WoWs numbers. But Rift also had to considerably "dumbify" the game shortly after launch.
Anyways, what i would say impacted WoW rise the most (while having in mind ALL was important as a whole) was accessibility and making game playable for huge number of people who didnt play MMOs before for whatever reason, since EQ2 released roughly at the same time, and if we are to believe some people it was "superior to WoW in every sense", but, yeah.
Lots of people dropped old school MMOs and went to WoW because WoW was just more enjoyable experience.
While some players do say that, most average gamers really very little understanding of game accessibility vs. game depth.
So these players saying something that is usually just hot air and not at all indicative of the true depth these games sometimes have. We could say (with a certain irony) that that's a very shallow way of looking at things -- like calling chess dumbed-down just because it's accessible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is unfortunate that we still expect civility on the internet after 40 years of accumulated evidence to the contrary.
There's a cure. But it is frequently worse than the disease.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I hear it others as well.. Can you force people to work together (aka unite) and be communal? I guess in the strict sense you can't, however you can encourage and promote teamwork, that seems to be missing in any modern day MMO I've played.. Being an USAF vet, the one thing I picked up was the atmosphere of teamwork.. I grew up with my parents bestowing upon me that selfishness was not rewarded.. The Air Force did the same.. I took great pride in what we "the unit" did as a whole, then anything I did on my own.. Example: Outstanding Unit Award means more to me then a Marksman ribbon..
IMO, modern day MMO's focus more on Esport content then they do other options.. Why? Probably because it's cheaper and easier to get players to compete against themselves then to design and maintain a communal environment.. I could EASILY design a game where the focus is on "PLAYERS" against the program, while allowing a sub focus on Esport, but then maybe today's devs that are in power do not have the brain power to devise such a design.. I've listened to many devs talk in interviews and panels, etc etc and have yet to be impressed with anything they have to say..
Which still has little to do with community. There are plenty of guilds that group up and raid just fine. There are plenty of people that engage in teamwork. Anything incentivied by palatable rewards is a great motivator to put up with the guy next to you for 15 minutes or, as most MMOs seem to be, to use the guy next to you for 15 minutes. Community normally runs a bit deeper than that.
"I could EASILY design a game where the focus is on "PLAYERS" against the program, while allowing a sub focus on Esport, but then maybe today's devs that are in power do not have the brain power to devise such a design.. I've listened to many devs talk in interviews and panels, etc etc and have yet to be impressed with anything they have to say.."
There seems a lot of this going around here lately. Have you considered the possibility that it looks as easy/simple/intuitive as it does to you because you really have no clue what is actually involved?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
so, you think mmos are to blame? cute
here is an example of 2000ish: dark age of camelot.
you could actually level from 1 to 60 totaly alone.
another one, anarchy online, perfect example again, guess what, you could go to max level alllllll alone.
where the team play started you ask?
well, either when i met with friends to level to max (no one said i couldn't reach max level in team), it was way simpler to reach max level by farming mobs (uh right yea, people do that in WoW and other "modern" mmos too!)
so, here is the verdict: mmos NEVER tell you what to do, or even HOW to do it, it's all about your choices.
you think those games make it too easy to reach max level alone? shocking news, it WILL be faster if you do it in team, that's why people actually DO IT in team.
you wanna cry? then cry ABOUT the communities.
surely the games did not change the community. but the communities changed the games.
in daoc i didnt get any exp if people "took" my farm, but guess what, they just DIDN'T do it! no one came around and killed my bloody quest mob when i waited for it to spawn for like 10 mins:
actually, people STOOD IN LINE and waited.
so as said above, don't blame the games for a bad community, blame the community for a bad game.
THAT is how it works, and not the other way round
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Good point. You saw the same in Asheron's Call, too. In AC, you also had monthly meetings of the monarchs (guild leaders) on some servers to sort out server community issues and plan events. At some point that changed. Fewer people cared about the lines. Fewer people took their issues to the guild leaders to sort out, monarch meetings stopped, etc. The game hadn't changed at, the community did.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I never said everyone was a saint
, however when those dungeons came out in 2001, players would complain to their monarch and they would take it up with that person's monarch. Fast forward a few years and such civilities were long gone. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find many guilds right now in ANY MMO that have ANY policy on interguild relations other than establishing alliances and NAPs. This is in part because few can lead, and of those few that can, I don't think many really want to. Well, also because GIF Theory. 
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Oh it is actually that EASY for me to design such a formula for a communal game.. It's not rocket science.. It is nothing more then having a greater focus on what you want the players to spend their time achieving.. When there is a greater common goal amongst the public it will spur communal behavior.. All you need to do is apply that to gaming.. Easy for me, but then devs like Dave G. find themselves playing PvP unemployed..
This is the heart of the matter.
This is why MMORPGs (By MMORPG, I am referring to the current difference between the terms MMO and MMORPG) got bigger than they probably should have. So what's the answer? Make games that appeal to the masses or appeal to the niche? There are pros and cons to both sides. The next "WoW" would go to the team that is able to figure out how to marry the two. Something that has not been done since WoW and has not been done by copying WoW.
Even WoW divorced these crowds pretty early on. For ease of balancing PvP/PvE gear got pretty specific to their type of content (changed later on). The few open world dungeons and elite mobs got nerfed essentially relegating group content to instance only. Catch up solo attainable gear was introduced each expansion making previous content completely obsolete.
The pendulum of solo viability swung way too far in the other direction. I am not saying that there should be a certain level wall, or class wall, to being able to solo. I just feel that there was way more solo content than was needed. Level/Gear progression was far too accelerated. Downtime non-existent. Intermixed mobs levels / group content too few and far between.
A good balance could be met. Scale mob difficulty on a larger curve as you progress in levels. Introduce some semblance of downtime and require players to be proficient/efficient to be successful. Add a hell of lot more content to the open world that is group/dungeon but still keep a decent share of soloers. Sure keep instanced content around too -- that can be another organic progression from the open world dungeons. Smaller more difficult dungeons that would otherwise be contested.
Make solo quests turn into group quests more often, Branch group quests to Raid or PvP goals. Make crafting useful generally to all crowds. Don't hand items out like candy and make buffs powerful again. Make tight situations possible with a death mechanic that is more than just going over to a graveyard and clicking resurrect. This lends to class utility that is useful not only in combat but in helping others out of those tight situations.
Sure have an auction house. Generic items like base level crafting mats etc the AH takes no cut. As the items you sell have a higher rarity the AH takes a bigger percentage cut. Now you are encouraged to still do player merchant activities to get full value out of the transaction, but only when the time vs loss of cut is worth it. Not sure why this is such an elusive design for MMORPG designers.
Would this solve the community issue? Not necessarily, but I think it's a start.
The problem with community, is the fact that players need be the community. No game can force you to be social or to play with a team. It is up to the players.
If the OP wants to blame anything, blame the players.
Wow... don't break your arm, bro...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
From my experience soloing really isn't the issue, look at SWG, you could solo all the time from starting a build to finishing it. Yet it was a truly social experience, soloing was never an issue, the only thing groups served in terms of progression was offering better mission payout, many folks still went their own separate ways after attaining missions, as otherwise folks would get a share of your credits &/or resources.
The real heart of the matter from my perspective comes down to making a game revolving around personal scoring systems, rather than ownership as well as community wide reward/consequence. To use SWG again, PVPers losing a planet, had an adverse effect on all of that faction's players. That planet became hostile effecting the danger of visiting said planet. This created an incentive for faction members to band together to take down bases, as well as defend their own, to allow for an advantage in PVP in cities, as well as safe passage for less than capable players.
It's creating a reason for people to be communal and work together that matters most. Not many developers are doing that, instead they give a greater focus in having us attain personal power.. motivating us with it through gear systems, Arenas, small inconsequential PVP systems (BG's). Solo based instanced questing. It's all there to give you a new item, or title. There is little pushing players to work together,. You have to have systems that supersede personal gain..
TL'DR Solo based game-play is fine for progression, as long as you have many systems in place to incentivize social play in other areas.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I also think community flourishes in an environment where players can come together in many different ways. For example in ffxiv, players can come together for high level crafting components, marriage ceremonies, card games, racing, etc. I've met people collaborating on a 4 star craft item. I've added a few folks to my friend list that I have raced and played cards with.
Community building ultimately lies with the player's willingness to interact, but diversity in game design allows for more unique interactions. Which can be rewarding in their own right.