Interdependency. All players need each other to be the best.
Remove features that isolate players. Private instances, solo hero quest and certain conveniences.
Instances were created to allow people equal access to content, not remove the need for multiplayer. Older gamers remember what it was like to play UO or SWG and get to an area and see it camped by a bunch of others and have to wait for a spawn and be the first hit on a mob to get credit for it. Anyone remember that geonosian complex on Dath in SWG that was always camped? After going there several times a day for two weeks and finding it always camped I just gave up on it.
I totally agree with you on interdependency. Crafting professions need to rely on each other, that cool pistol you
are making might need a leather grip or a special lens for the scope. Back in the day I did not like how SWG only allowed you one toon per server but later on I grew to appreciate it. If you wanted to do everything yourself, you had to buy more accounts. You could not just create 5 alts and do everything yourself unless you committed to paying more each month.
Sadly, a game like this would never hit it big because most people dont want to rely on others for fun, They want to solo content whenever they feel like it and they want complete control over all the crafting professions with multiple alts.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Interdependency. All players need each other to be the best.
Remove features that isolate players. Private instances, solo hero quest and certain conveniences.
Instances were created to allow people equal access to content, not remove the need for multiplayer. Older gamers remember what it was like to play UO or SWG and get to an area and see it camped by a bunch of others and have to wait for a spawn and be the first hit on a mob to get credit for it. Anyone remember that geonosian complex on Dath in SWG that was always camped? After going there several times a day for two weeks and finding it always camped I just gave up on it.
And the old game did it wrong . Someone did it wrong don't mean it's wrong .
For example , camped . Because the mob is special drops . Remove special drop and people will move around .
In MMORPG , some mobs should have special drop rate , but not special drop like only drop sword A , armor B . Have special drop item mean it will be camp .
Multiplayer can never be equal . By equal everything , you turn the game into singleplayer. And , who said instance equal for all player ? ninja loot everywhere . I rather deal with KS than ninja loots .
Interdependency. All players need each other to be the best.
Remove features that isolate players. Private instances, solo hero quest and certain conveniences.
Instances were created to allow people equal access to content, not remove the need for multiplayer. Older gamers remember what it was like to play UO or SWG and get to an area and see it camped by a bunch of others and have to wait for a spawn and be the first hit on a mob to get credit for it. Anyone remember that geonosian complex on Dath in SWG that was always camped? After going there several times a day for two weeks and finding it always camped I just gave up on it.
And the old game did it wrong . Someone did it wrong don't mean it's wrong .
For example , camped . Because the mob is special drops . Remove special drop and people will move around .
In MMORPG , some mobs should have special drop rate , but not special drop like only drop sword A , armor B . Have special drop item mean it will be camp .
Multiplayer can never be equal . By equal everything , you turn the game into singleplayer. And , who said instance equal for all player ? ninja loot everywhere . I rather deal with KS than ninja loots .
There are multiplayer instances too, remember? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
How about making them MASSIVELY multiplayer again. Most people here probably played WoW at some point. Remember those battles at the crossroads or tarren mill? That's what's lacking in most MMO's today. Where is the content that allows a couple of hundred players to participate? So few actual MMO's deliver on this massively multiplayer aspect today.
Some people prefer that and enjoy the smaller group content, and that's fine, but there's still a large number of us that want those epic, chaotic, huge battles, be they PvP or PvE.
How about making them MASSIVELY multiplayer again. Most people here probably played WoW at some point. Remember those battles at the crossroads or tarren mill? That's what's lacking in most MMO's today. Where is the content that allows a couple of hundred players to participate? So few actual MMO's deliver on this massively multiplayer aspect today.
Some people prefer that and enjoy the smaller group content, and that's fine, but there's still a large number of us that want those epic, chaotic, huge battles, be they PvP or PvE.
It's not lacking, it's missing for a reason. While it was fun for the level 60's to kill the griffons and shopkeepers, it wasn't necessarily fun for most of the people that actually wanted to use those NPCs. It also wasn't fun for the players inconvenienced with the lag/performance hit. It certainly wasn't much fun for many of the level 12-20s there.
If the metrics showed those events to be fun for the majority, Blizzard would have put less effort into battlegrounds and arenas, and more effort into Tarren Mills and Crossroads battles.
In short, if you want that content the onus is on you to show that "a large number" of you exists and can engage in such content without negatively impacting the rest.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Interdependency. All players need each other to be the best.
Remove features that isolate players. Private instances, solo hero quest and certain conveniences.
I agree with this. Out of the games I played SWG is the best example. Most classes/professions could benefit from others through special buffs or crafting items. The game was designed to where pretty much no-one character was self contained or self sufficient. All the upper level crafted items from weapons, armor, housing, vehicles, etc required usually the combined efforts of two to three different classes just to craft and various types of equipment to harvest the materials. It took way more than a pickaxe to get a mineral out of the ground.
EDIT: All of this was done without the need to actually chat with anyone, yet the interaction with other players seemed like a lot more than in most of today's games.
This is an area I am not sure I would be good at giving an answer because its something I personally dont want to do. Having said that to me it seems the best way to get some good baseline answers is to look at how it happens in real life.
How I see it in real life is most likely biased toward my personality type however the main pillars of the observation are likely accurate, which are:
1. many people like to contribute to the greater community without actually interacting with the greater community. Builders for example. I might want to build a great community block that is ideal for good living and high levels of social interaction but I reallly dont want to interact with people myself.
2. People who enjoy the social interaction from others because they are intrested in others has fellow human beings. This is really hard to 'abstract' into a game because a game is designed to be more like work. you have goals and/or building you are not really just wanting to hear the life story of a real life person.
3. People who like to orchestrate other people. I dont mean that in a bad way i am just saying from a 'project' motivation to affect a change some people like to manage, other people like to do.
so that is your pillar set.
The OP seems to want number 2. however how does one get number 2 into a tasked/project based motovation I dont know
That is an interesting thought. You are right that not everyone wants to be socially involved the same way. Some directly, like charismatic and communicative group/guild leaders while others prefer subtly or indirectly influencing a larger group. Communication really isn't a primary goal in socializing as much as it is getting people involved. All you can do is make it easier for it to happen if it does, great, and if not, it shouldn't detract from the game. 1,3 So you'd have a play style of not just being a guild leader but someone that creates the social infrastructure for a faction or alliance, an architect creating a player social hub, or some kind of faction goal manager/tactician.
so my question would be this.
If I am a character that plays solo 90% of the time running out in the woods to collect these rare thingys that the community needs to make the whatever and I bring those items back every few days to increase the stock pile while I run out and get more not saying hi to anyone, does that fit as a part answer to your original question? I just ask to make sure I understand.
To me that example I just gave very much is community and that person is never going to be full blown social because they dont want to in any context but they do want to help the community.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
OMG I agree, but only as long as they do not conflict with one another. If you have different modes with the same rewards one mode will become the easymode option.
OMG I agree, but only as long as they do not conflict with one another. If you have different modes with the same rewards one mode will become the easymode option.
Easy is in the eye of the beholder. No one says everyone needs to play the same mode. Make mode A caters to the solo-ers, and mode B cater to the groupers ... and so on and so forth.
And you can always have participation rewards like in Marvel Heroes. You get a bonus to play a particular mode, but ONLY ONCE per day. In fact, that is how they incent players to play different heroes, and not the most powerful ones. You only get the legendary quest bonus once per hero per day (granted if you just play one hero, you still get something, just not as much).
OMG I agree, but only as long as they do not conflict with one another. If you have different modes with the same rewards one mode will become the easymode option.
Easy is in the eye of the beholder. No one says everyone needs to play the same mode. Make mode A caters to the solo-ers, and mode B cater to the groupers ... and so on and so forth.
And you can always have participation rewards like in Marvel Heroes. You get a bonus to play a particular mode, but ONLY ONCE per day. In fact, that is how they incent players to play different heroes, and not the most powerful ones. You only get the legendary quest bonus once per hero per day (granted if you just play one hero, you still get something, just not as much).
Only half agree, you may have players who play the mode once and then call it a day on that game for the day. I remember you talked about dipping in and out of games, it plays to that kind of player and has a negative impact on anyone who plays more full time.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
No level restriction , repeatable contents and no instances .
No level restriction mean player can use any contents he want , with the people he want without get refuse by the system (though people can refuse him lol)
Repeatable contents mean no one time contents (aka current quests/tasks) . It add ability to play the same contents with other
And no instance , no magical resource . I mean , a multiplayer game that give you things without have to compete ? you can co-op in instance but no compete with other then there are only half of multiplayer .
No level restriction , repeatable contents and no instances .
No level restriction mean player can use any contents he want , with the people he want without get refuse by the system (though people can refuse him lol)
Repeatable contents mean no one time contents (aka current quests/tasks) . It add ability to play the same contents with other
And no instance , no magical resource . I mean , a multiplayer game that give you things without have to compete ? you can co-op in instance but no compete with other then there are only half of multiplayer .
Instances allow for mechanics not possible in open world segments. Difficulty selection, vanquishing (the challenge of killing everything in the zone), randomized spawns, undisturbed small group play, and story permanence (the killing of a certain boss permanently, for example) just to name a few.
Instances are not a bad thing in a game that effectively utilizes them as part of its design philosophy. This whole concept of "open world good, instances bad, hurgle durgle durr!" is both misinformed and quite frankly baffling. It's all about implementation.
Roles and interdependency. The choice of the player and how they interact with others and the situation is the definition of their role. Add to that true versatility in play style.
This means the player must be able to apply their play style to their character so they feel they define the outcome based on their actions, and that the role is not forced on them with simplified mechanics (wow trinity). This does not mean the removal of classes to become a bland everyone is a damage dealer disaster (gw2), it means that traditional roles tank-heal-cc-support-damage-etc should be achievable in a multitude of ways. Healing for example can be achieved in numerous ways, pro/re active heals, wards, regens, armor/resist mechanics, life/buff steals.. not to mention a myriad of ways to prevent taking damage in the first place, like stuns, slows, kiting or range control, cc, positioning including taking advantage of terrain.
The success or failure rate of a situation is more of a joint effort of the actions of all the players in the group combined rather than individual powers, making coop and situational awareness (which is also social awareness) a key factor for all players. This will make all players feel they contribute something to the group by playing their role (chosen for the situation).
They key here is versatile not simplified role mechanics, high degree of freedom of role choice based on situations. A "situation" is everything from group setup including players style and skills to mobs setup and terrain and other situation defining attributes.
This will make better multiplayer gameplay.. too abstract?
Other examples could be creating dependencies between player types with different play styles. I know some pvp games try to make crafting and combat interdependent in various ways, this could also be done on a pve level with adventurers and crafters/entrepreneurs/socializers. All the ways a game can create bridges between players it should, and this does mean direct social interaction, but it can also be more indirect dependency like trading of necessary goods.
No level restriction , repeatable contents and no instances .
No level restriction mean player can use any contents he want , with the people he want without get refuse by the system (though people can refuse him lol)
Repeatable contents mean no one time contents (aka current quests/tasks) . It add ability to play the same contents with other
And no instance , no magical resource . I mean , a multiplayer game that give you things without have to compete ? you can co-op in instance but no compete with other then there are only half of multiplayer .
Instances allow for mechanics not possible in open world segments. Difficulty selection, vanquishing (the challenge of killing everything in the zone), randomized spawns, undisturbed small group play, and story permanence (the killing of a certain boss permanently, for example) just to name a few.
Instances are not a bad thing in a game that effectively utilizes them as part of its design philosophy. This whole concept of "open world good, instances bad, hurgle durgle durr!" is both misinformed and quite frankly baffling. It's all about implementation.
"How to make MMOs better multiplayer games" is the question . Multiplayer = co-op or compete . Instance = co-op . Better multiplayer = co-op + compete = open world .
In open world , you win again players , in instances , you win again game .
Also the "bot haven" strawman don't work . Cause still bot in instance games .
Seriously , thing can't be good without some spice and bitter . People want to play multiplayer game don't care much about stories like you said . There aren't many developer strong enough to keep release stuff like Blizzard .
Sometime I wonder if those MMOs developers are brainless or not . why the heck that they throw 2 things that can't mix together .
At lest those Korean MMO maker did pretty good job . Game like dragon nest make good use of instance and co-op elements . Though i don't like to call dragon nest MMOs .
Edit : btw "an multiplayer game inside an massive multiplayer game " term make me laugh hard
One great example that comes to mind is Trove - in Trove you are always grouped with everyone. Yes you can't form a group because everyone is already grouped together. You see 50 players on screen near you - everyone is in the same group.
Experience is done by proximity, if you are close enough to someone killing something or completing a dungeon - you get full XP just by being close. If someone is mining resources near you - you get all the resources as well by proximity.
Yes you can totally leach but if you choose to participate you only speed the process up and get faster xp, faster resources etc...
This system encourages participation without forcing communication.
Loot is individiaulized per player, so even if you don't fight and are close enough you will get a chance for your own loot drops when someone kills something or completes a dungeon.
This system won't work for every game and to pull this "everyone is always grouped and proximity xp and loot" you have to design the whole game to support this system which Trove has done successfully.
Most MMO servers are designed around zones. These zones provide the proximity grouping that @DMKano writes of Trove as having. I feel most MMOs are prepared to support this feature, but chose not to.
The next thing they could add is proximity voice chat channel. I realize not everyone participates in voice chat. But may be rather than delegate their chat only to a chat window to be ignored or missed? It could be more prominent, not dead center of the screen? But larger, may be below the current target?
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I always viewed multiplayer RPG games as "cmon town grab your pitchforks, torches, and shovels were going to kill the ogre and his minions!"....Monsters should be strong and take players working together to kill them....Once they decided we can solo just about anything it really ruined the genre to an extent.
There always comes along a player that asks in the forums, "Can this game be played solo?" No Publisher wants that answer to be, No. So they answer that if the content is out leveled then it could be done solo with Best In Slot (BIS) gear. During development six pieces of BIS armour and a BIS weapon cost 7 gold (1 gold each). Upon release the same gear now costs 7.000 gold.
So it is no longer soloable, and the solo players complain. Result, nerf the mobs, make the content soloable patch. The real problem are speculators inflating the player economy, real solution treat these players as detrimental to the game.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I always viewed multiplayer RPG games as "cmon town grab your pitchforks, torches, and shovels were going to kill the ogre and his minions!"....Monsters should be strong and take players working together to kill them....Once they decided we can solo just about anything it really ruined the genre to an extent.
There always comes along a player that asks in the forums, "Can this game be played solo?" No Publisher wants that answer to be, No. So they answer that if the content is out leveled then it could be done solo with Best In Slot (BIS) gear. During development six pieces of BIS armour and a BIS weapon cost 7 gold (1 gold each). Upon release the same gear now costs 7.000 gold.
So it is no longer soloable, and the solo players complain. Result, nerf the mobs, make the content soloable patch. The real problem are speculators inflating the player economy, real solution treat these players as detrimental to the game.
Solo combat is fine. But even combatants should need other players in some way. For gear, repairs and etc.
I always viewed multiplayer RPG games as "cmon town grab your pitchforks, torches, and shovels were going to kill the ogre and his minions!"....Monsters should be strong and take players working together to kill them....Once they decided we can solo just about anything it really ruined the genre to an extent.
There always comes along a player that asks in the forums, "Can this game be played solo?" No Publisher wants that answer to be, No. So they answer that if the content is out leveled then it could be done solo with Best In Slot (BIS) gear. During development six pieces of BIS armour and a BIS weapon cost 7 gold (1 gold each). Upon release the same gear now costs 7.000 gold.
So it is no longer soloable, and the solo players complain. Result, nerf the mobs, make the content soloable patch. The real problem are speculators inflating the player economy, real solution treat these players as detrimental to the game.
Solo combat is fine. But even combatants should need other players in some way. For gear, repairs and etc.
Forget the lame stuff like gear and repairs. Rock-paper-scissors balance already achieves this.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I always viewed multiplayer RPG games as "cmon town grab your pitchforks, torches, and shovels were going to kill the ogre and his minions!"....Monsters should be strong and take players working together to kill them....Once they decided we can solo just about anything it really ruined the genre to an extent.
There always comes along a player that asks in the forums, "Can this game be played solo?" No Publisher wants that answer to be, No. So they answer that if the content is out leveled then it could be done solo with Best In Slot (BIS) gear. During development six pieces of BIS armour and a BIS weapon cost 7 gold (1 gold each). Upon release the same gear now costs 7.000 gold.
So it is no longer soloable, and the solo players complain. Result, nerf the mobs, make the content soloable patch. The real problem are speculators inflating the player economy, real solution treat these players as detrimental to the game.
Solo combat is fine. But even combatants should need other players in some way. For gear, repairs and etc.
Forget the lame stuff like gear and repairs. Rock-paper-scissors balance already achieves this.
Nah you should be able to adventure when you have to alone. There should be place where you can't but enforced grouping all the time is bad design.
The person behind the computer has to want to participate in the multiplayer part.
Some people want to talk and socialize while playing WITH others.
Some people want to play solo, but share the same space WITH others.
For me EQ did it the best. You could solo, but grouping was faster. Those static camps the new blood hate, they were an important part of the social game. If you joined a group, and acted like a tool. Word got around and people wouldn't get invites till they smartened up. Your game experience reflected how you treated people.
With the new norm of transient 5 minute game play, the experience can only be shallow no matter how you look at it.
To me an ideal mmo design concept would be something like: A one huge instance where a massive amount of players can interact and socialize with each other in as many different kinds of ways as possible.
When I think about a core design filosophy behind an mmo I always see pvp. Why build a massive multiplayer world other than to let players compete with each other in a massive way. So I see territorial control as a base mechanic for an mmo. So how to make territory control interesting. Let all players be part of it without forcing pvp combat on them. So how can someones actions that only does pve affect the world? I'm sure I can come up with lots of mechanics. One would be somekind of moral mechanic where pve players by completing pve missions in safe zones could assign more npc guards to areas where pvp combat happens and craft weapons for those npcs for example. When those areas would become safe zones for their clan/faction they could expand their business there without the fear of pvp combat.
A safe zone would mean that the same faction would control all adjacent zones to that zone and would correlate to an unbreakable npc guard border control. If a rival faction would take even one of the adjacent zones that would dissipate the safe zone and border control.
Just an idea from the top of my head...
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Comments
Remove features that isolate players. Private instances, solo hero quest and certain conveniences.
I totally agree with you on interdependency. Crafting professions need to rely on each other, that cool pistol you are making might need a leather grip or a special lens for the scope. Back in the day I did not like how SWG only allowed you one toon per server but later on I grew to appreciate it. If you wanted to do everything yourself, you had to buy more accounts. You could not just create 5 alts and do everything yourself unless you committed to paying more each month.
Sadly, a game like this would never hit it big because most people dont want to rely on others for fun, They want to solo content whenever they feel like it and they want complete control over all the crafting professions with multiple alts.
For example , camped . Because the mob is special drops . Remove special drop and people will move around .
In MMORPG , some mobs should have special drop rate , but not special drop like only drop sword A , armor B . Have special drop item mean it will be camp .
Multiplayer can never be equal . By equal everything , you turn the game into singleplayer.
And , who said instance equal for all player ? ninja loot everywhere . I rather deal with KS than ninja loots .
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Some people prefer that and enjoy the smaller group content, and that's fine, but there's still a large number of us that want those epic, chaotic, huge battles, be they PvP or PvE.
If the metrics showed those events to be fun for the majority, Blizzard would have put less effort into battlegrounds and arenas, and more effort into Tarren Mills and Crossroads battles.
In short, if you want that content the onus is on you to show that "a large number" of you exists and can engage in such content without negatively impacting the rest.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
EDIT: All of this was done without the need to actually chat with anyone, yet the interaction with other players seemed like a lot more than in most of today's games.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
If I am a character that plays solo 90% of the time running out in the woods to collect these rare thingys that the community needs to make the whatever and I bring those items back every few days to increase the stock pile while I run out and get more not saying hi to anyone, does that fit as a part answer to your original question? I just ask to make sure I understand.
To me that example I just gave very much is community and that person is never going to be full blown social because they dont want to in any context but they do want to help the community.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And you can always have participation rewards like in Marvel Heroes. You get a bonus to play a particular mode, but ONLY ONCE per day. In fact, that is how they incent players to play different heroes, and not the most powerful ones. You only get the legendary quest bonus once per hero per day (granted if you just play one hero, you still get something, just not as much).
Only half agree, you may have players who play the mode once and then call it a day on that game for the day. I remember you talked about dipping in and out of games, it plays to that kind of player and has a negative impact on anyone who plays more full time.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Instances are not a bad thing in a game that effectively utilizes them as part of its design philosophy. This whole concept of "open world good, instances bad, hurgle durgle durr!" is both misinformed and quite frankly baffling. It's all about implementation.
This means the player must be able to apply their play style to their character so they feel they define the outcome based on their actions, and that the role is not forced on them with simplified mechanics (wow trinity).
This does not mean the removal of classes to become a bland everyone is a damage dealer disaster (gw2), it means that traditional roles tank-heal-cc-support-damage-etc should be achievable in a multitude of ways. Healing for example can be achieved in numerous ways, pro/re active heals, wards, regens, armor/resist mechanics, life/buff steals.. not to mention a myriad of ways to prevent taking damage in the first place, like stuns, slows, kiting or range control, cc, positioning including taking advantage of terrain.
The success or failure rate of a situation is more of a joint effort of the actions of all the players in the group combined rather than individual powers, making coop and situational awareness (which is also social awareness) a key factor for all players. This will make all players feel they contribute something to the group by playing their role (chosen for the situation).
They key here is versatile not simplified role mechanics, high degree of freedom of role choice based on situations. A "situation" is everything from group setup including players style and skills to mobs setup and terrain and other situation defining attributes.
This will make better multiplayer gameplay.. too abstract?
Other examples could be creating dependencies between player types with different play styles. I know some pvp games try to make crafting and combat interdependent in various ways, this could also be done on a pve level with adventurers and crafters/entrepreneurs/socializers. All the ways a game can create bridges between players it should, and this does mean direct social interaction, but it can also be more indirect dependency like trading of necessary goods.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Multiplayer = co-op or compete . Instance = co-op .
Better multiplayer = co-op + compete = open world .
In open world , you win again players , in instances , you win again game .
Also the "bot haven" strawman don't work . Cause still bot in instance games .
Seriously , thing can't be good without some spice and bitter .
People want to play multiplayer game don't care much about stories like you said . There aren't many developer strong enough to keep release stuff like Blizzard .
Sometime I wonder if those MMOs developers are brainless or not . why the heck that they throw 2 things that can't mix together .
At lest those Korean MMO maker did pretty good job . Game like dragon nest make good use of instance and co-op elements .
Though i don't like to call dragon nest MMOs .
Edit : btw "an multiplayer game inside an massive multiplayer game " term make me laugh hard
The next thing they could add is proximity voice chat channel. I realize not everyone participates in voice chat. But may be rather than delegate their chat only to a chat window to be ignored or missed? It could be more prominent, not dead center of the screen? But larger, may be below the current target?
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
So it is no longer soloable, and the solo players complain. Result, nerf the mobs, make the content soloable patch. The real problem are speculators inflating the player economy, real solution treat these players as detrimental to the game.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Some people want to talk and socialize while playing WITH others.
Some people want to play solo, but share the same space WITH others.
For me EQ did it the best. You could solo, but grouping was faster. Those static camps the new blood hate, they were an important part of the social game. If you joined a group, and acted like a tool. Word got around and people wouldn't get invites till they smartened up. Your game experience reflected how you treated people.
With the new norm of transient 5 minute game play, the experience can only be shallow no matter how you look at it.
A one huge instance where a massive amount of players can interact and socialize with each other in as many different kinds of ways as possible.
When I think about a core design filosophy behind an mmo I always see pvp. Why build a massive multiplayer world other than to let players compete with each other in a massive way. So I see territorial control as a base mechanic for an mmo. So how to make territory control interesting. Let all players be part of it without forcing pvp combat on them. So how can someones actions that only does pve affect the world? I'm sure I can come up with lots of mechanics. One would be somekind of moral mechanic where pve players by completing pve missions in safe zones could assign more npc guards to areas where pvp combat happens and craft weapons for those npcs for example. When those areas would become safe zones for their clan/faction they could expand their business there without the fear of pvp combat.
A safe zone would mean that the same faction would control all adjacent zones to that zone and would correlate to an unbreakable npc guard border control. If a rival faction would take even one of the adjacent zones that would dissipate the safe zone and border control.
Just an idea from the top of my head...