Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Revising the classic MMORPG (Creating a casual MMO for hardcore gamers)
Otrantor
Member Posts: 11
A couple weeks ago I started a little blog here on MMORPG.com, outlining what I would consider an interesting shift in the way online games are made. Building upon the strengths of the classic MMORPG, but catering to the casual player looking to access all content of the game.
As a former hard-core raider, I simply asked myself the question: What type of game would I wanna play and is it available on today's market? And the answer is no!
The current weakness of classic MMORPG is simple to me: It's the time invested and available that determines whether you access all the content and not the skill of the player. The reason for this is because the game dynamics change significantly as you progress through the three classic stages (solo, group and raid) of a MMORPG.
Now imagine your favorite run of the mill classic MMORPG and apply the following changes, while leaving all other features (Open world, crafting, trading, chat, communities, housing, ...) intact.
1. The entire removal of multi-party raiding (the final stage or current endgame of the classic MMORPG).
I'm convinced that this change would force developers to rethink and redesign the endgame of a MMORPG. To me raiding and casual play are hard to reconcile. This is a whole discussion even of itself, but there are no MMORPGs that I know off where someone with a limited amount of playing time can successfully take part in a raid within the first month the content went live.
2. The endgame would revolve around both single player encounters and small group challenges.
This is another issue, I have with classic MMORPG. Solo endgame content is rarely available, while this is exactly an opportunity to let individual skill and commitment shine through. I would love to see a game where you can log on and engage in a tough solo instance that reaps nice rewards or rare tradeskill items. By no means should solo instancing diminish the interaction in a MMO. I think, if designed well, it can greatly contribute to the community.
Thanks to the insight of the board discussions, I can see how small group encounters can be introduced in an endgame designed for players with limited time. If the groups are kept small and managerial nuisances (finding group members, long travel time, long clearing times) can be eliminate, this would greatly appeal to me.
3. All content (both items and exploration) must be available in short playing sessions.
Again this is key to the appeal of the game and ties in with the motives of the changes proposed above.
4. Individual achievement must rated and rewarded on par with group efforts.
It's a no brainer that both these elements of the endgame would be rated equally. Group efforts should in general not give better rewards than individual exploits.
Player interaction would still be a big part of the game.
Would this be a type of game you would be willing to play? What changes would you make to the current MMORPG to make it more solo/casual friendly?
Edited to include some clarifying notes and quotes.
Edited to reflect some of the discussion points and new insights
Edited to clarify the four proposed changes and to bring the post up to date.
Comments
How would you interact with others?
Would the world be open or instanced?
Would there be trade or a market?
Would there be PVP or opposed missions (even for a single player)?
How "deep" would the game be? (with levels)
Would it be classless? If not, how would you balance the classes so they would be different, but essentially capable?
In essence, what I see here is an old classic MUD style system, but it depends on how instanced or insulated the single player is.
Hey Cor4x,
great questions. I'll answer remark 1 last
.
Would the world be open or instanced? Both. I would create the classic open world geared towards solo and small group play. Pretty much the way EQ2 world is currently shaping his open zones. I didn't say I would eliminate grouping altogether, but I would limit max group size to 3-4 player to make it easier to join up and start exploring and fighting right away. Instances would be used heavily in the endgame stage of the game, where single players take it upon themselves to clear or conquer content (similar to the way DDO uses his instances).
Would there be trade or a market? Definitely. I would create this one of the centerpieces of interaction in the game. Not only for gear you found while adventuring on your own, but also as a mayor hub for tradeskill items and ingredients. Furthermore it gives people the chance to specialize as traders and to built reputations that way.
Would there be PvP or opposed missions? I think this is a decision the gamemakers would have to make for themselves. But a game focussed on soloplayers would definitely lend itself to a arena type combat. I wouldn't necessarily work with opposing factions as a starter (like EQ2, WoW,...), but more with faction and reputation systems among NPCs (like EQ, Vanguard,).
How deep would the game be? As deep as any classic MMORPG. I think the classic 20 or 50 level system would work out fine. I'm not trying to reinvent what works great. What I would add in terms of depth are hard single player encounters (instances) and epic questlines. A complex tradeskilling system with rare components. Furthermore the game has to reward skilled players visible be it true titles, looks, mounts, ... Lastly I would create a complex faction system among the NPCs, allowing for individual players to experience different questlines and access to different rewards.
Would it be classless? If not, how would you balance the classes so they would be different, but essentially capable? Personally I would work with different classes along the classic DPS, tank, healer lines, but create an endgame which allows players to gain access to skills they don't have by nature. There are numerous ways to achieve this. For example a healer would work its way to the top levels pretty much identical to the way you can nowadays find your way solo to the endgame in many MMORPG, but having achieved this he would have to supplement his missing skills through other means such as potions, items, pets, buffs, ... to increase his damage output and tanking abilities. It is in acquiring these 'missing skills' that the core of endgaming lies. A player aims to become a good allrounder capable of tackling the hardest content in the game by himself.
How would you interact with others? I'm not trying to create Diablo here, I wanna create a game where a solo player can engage in a community on his own terms, rather than the terms the top guilds demand. I see lotsa opportunities for interaction in trading, grouping, housing, tradeskilling cooperation or just basic information exchange about encounters, quests and tactics.
I love discussing this and have given it quite some thought. So please if have any further remarks or questions... shoot
What about game mechanics?
I'm getting tired playing wow cause it seems to turn more and more almost into a gameboy type game, where you push in rapid succsession 2 buttons and that's all that matters. The faster you do it, the quicker you react the better your results. That tires me out.
I loved the old muds where you had to figure out things, create your macros, draw your maps, figure the fights and mechanics out, lots of learing, lots of understanding, epic RP battles, duels fought with lots of dramatic player action before . Speed of connection and button mashing didn't matter that much. Can't I get that with good graphics somewhere? Or am I just too old and nobody's interested in that type of play anymore?
Interesting points.
However I think the major shift is going to come in the form of player progression, not player interaction. The shift from group-based to solo-based gameplay has already been made.
The major MMO studios have been scrambling to find ways of making the old leveling cap system fun, and I think more and more of them are coming to the conclusion that the majority of players no longer enjoy it (at least not in the west). We probably won't see this shift for another 5-10 years, though, as it takes about 3-5years to make a modern MMO.
Depth is now understood as how high will the level cap be?! -Here, I helped you. Now don't do it again. It's just a number. Nothing more. Experience shows that high level cap games include some levels that are useless and only prolong the player's eventual subscription. A bigger number doesn't make it more deep. It makes it "watered-down", if you will. This is not a fact - It is an observation.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The "What is an MMORPG?" debate simply doesn't matter. No reasonable person is going to shun a game simply because it isn't part of a specific genre -- all people care about is whether a game is fun.
Able to solo all content? Yes, absolutely. That's a no-brainer. The player should always be able to log on and do something enjoyable which progresses their character.
Soloing being superior to grouping? Um, no. That makes no sense. At the very least they should be balanced, and realistically grouping should be slightly better (I can detail the reasons why if needed, but it's the result of the variance in player skill causing players to advance at different rates while soloing -- and grouping must be reward-balanced relative to the fastest soloers.)
Removal of multi-party raiding? I'd lean towards no. I'm no fan of raiding, but occasionally it's fun to take an army of players up against a tough enemy. Should it be a big hassle or an obligation? No way, that's what ruins it as a concept -- the idea that raiding is where the best gear is attained is terrible, and drives players to this unenjoyable gameplay. But if you have rewards which are balanced with typical grouping rewards, then raiding becomes a purely optional activity, and is more fun as a result.
The core of making MMOs more casual is more to distill their game mechanics to the core of interesting decision-making, and to remove anything which is an obstacle to fun (such as the hassle of finding groups or getting to dungeons...WOW's Dungeon Finder is genius imo, and takes a large amount of hassle out of typical dungeon-running.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
@teodia Clearly there is room for improvement when it comes to gameplay mechanics. And particularly if you wanna make a game where individual merit and dedication are rewarded, there has to be some element of skill involved. Though I'm not a fan of MMO's where skill means being good at twitch reactions, I'd like to see a game where the efficient use of skills and resources determines whether you win or lose an encounter. Especially if you wanna make content for individual players, but want to create a game where not everyone is capable of tackling all the content. I clearly said all content must be available to everyone, by which I mean everyone should have a shot at all the content solo, without having to be part of an well-oiled uberguild.
@aesperus You are right, the shift is happening... slowly. Yet there are no games that start out being developed using the three guidelines I listed in my post. It's exactly by using these key differences that a developer can create a new type of online game. And indeed that's gonna take some time, because I don't see how you could convert an existing MMO built on the old paradigm that the highest attainable content should only be available to multi-party raids.
@Quirhid You are right and I stand corrected. Of course the number doesn't reflect the depth of a game, though it does reflect some sort of progression of inherent skill of the player and I think that is what I wanted to say. I don't think there is anything wrong with that as a concept. There has to be character progression, be it through the acquisition of higher stats, be it through experience, items, reputation, buffs,... and to me the multitude of available progression options does reflect one aspect of the depth of a game. But again, you are right... it's the mechanics behind that number and not the number itself.
This is all around a bad idea.
No one person should be able to solo all the content, nor should any of the other things you suggest ever exist in an MMORPG.
There's one key feature you're missing: the second M. It's not a Massive Online Role Playing Game, it's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
The people who truly understand this genre understand that it's meant to be played with other people, and that cooperation should be a big thing in these games. Taking out the need for cooperation and the need for player interaction (you know as soon as everything becomes solo-able, half of today's MMO audience will stop communicating altogether) takes away the need for a multiplayer component.
For example: an online FPS, say Halo, since everyone knows it. Online is all player interaction. What happens when you take that away? You have a subpar FPS campaign experience.
If you guys want a game that takes true player cooperation and is truly worth the multiplayer title, play an MMO. Not some lame MO.
If you guys want the gameplay of an MMO that's solo-able, then for god's sake, get the hell out of this genre. Beg the devs to make more games like White Knight Chronicles for all I care. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I enjoy doing stuff at my own, like to solo and tackle things and figure them out. But then I enjoy the interaction and co-operation with others too. I was wondering, would you want to completely take out any type of grouping together? Or just include it as a different option, not a necessity? I guess I'm myself not entirely clear on how that could be achieved, but it sure sounds like an interesting possibility.
I don't like elitarism very much, it results usually in the kind of things I don't enjoy. The 'mine is bigger then yours' attitude to put a quick label on it. I like much more 'This was fun, that we FINALLY got that done'. Something people work together to achieve together. But then if you can't find the people because you play at different times or because you don't want since one is in one of those 'screw everybody and leave me alone' kind of moods, then still being able to get that done too. Your idea puts additional options in the play.
teodia, in response to your post, I have to say that based on what he's saying, absolutely no one will want to group because the individual is more important than the community by his game's standards.
In response to my last post, I mentioned WKC because it's a game where you can choose whether you want to play with others or not (if not, you don't even need the internet!) and has the basic MMO gameplay formula, from what I've heard.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Some interesting responses. I'll try to respond to some concerns and clarify the intentions of where I'm coming from with this.
First and most importantly: I am not trying to make an MMORPG, I'm trying to create a new genre based on the classic MMORPG. So the fact that @Johnmatthias doesn't like this concept altogether and hates it from an MMO player point of view is completely understandable. And I agree with you... this isn't an MMORPG anymore... it's something else, something in between your classic MMORPG and a Single Player game that happens to have an online option (Diablo, WKC, ...).
@Axehilt Your replies exactly point out the issues I have with the classic MMORPG and reveal the reason I think there is a room in the market for this genre. Name me ONE MMORPG where I, as an individual paying and playing user, can access all content. There isn't any! Every single MMORPG seems to follow the paradigm of the three stages... Solo, group and raid/guild. And if you aren't part of a big raid you will never even have a shot at some of the content.
You say that it makes no sense to rate individual achievement higher than group effort, but that's exactly how pen&paper RPG and classic fantasy works. Individual exploits are inspiration for songs and poems, it's the names of heroes we remember. Why shouldn't this be possible in online gaming?
@Johnmatthias I addressed some of your concerns above, but I'd like to add something quick. I never said everything should be soloable, it still is an online game and interaction with others is still a key aspect of the game (e.g. tradeskilling, marketplace, advice,...). I just would like to see a game where everything in the game is available to single player. And that's where the achilles heel of the current MMORPG lies... not everything is available to a casual player.
In the current MMORPG it's the time invested that determines whether you access all the content and not the skill of the player.
And it's exactly this that I would like to resolve by the changes proposed. And in that sense I can follow @Axehilt's comment that the highest attainable gear should not come from raiding but from grouping and soloing. If an MMORPG can find a way to make grouping so accessible that I as a casual skilled player can log in and start tackling highend group content swiftly after I logged in, than I'm all game.
@teodia I would definitely keep grouping in the game. But as I said I would lower the max people in the group to 3 or 4 instead of the more classic 5 or 6 groups. Just to make it easier to find groups quickly and allow for skill rather than number to play a vital role in success or failure. Read a bit more about how I would see grouping and its role in the game in this blog post.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I think Guild Wars fulfill someways what you describe, Otrantor. It is not accepted in the MMORPG family by the purists anyway - and the devs themselves call it CORPG, Cooperative Online RPG. I've only heard GW to be called an CORPG but I guess DDO is pretty close to it as well.
Among other cage-rattling features such as having no monthly subsciption which in turn promotes anti-grind mentality which leads to non-gear-centered gameplay shifting the center to the player's and the character's skills. What it also does is that devs need to make a good (stand-alone)expansion every 6 months or so that they won't be left all penniless.
Another thing that rattled the cage was that it was completely soloable with AI controlled henchmen - NPC characters. This meant that the content could be always designed for a full team since players could fill empty slots or all party slots with these henchmen. You could practically play through this game entirely solo.
I was very impressed by these brave choices before I started playing it and I was delighted to experience how well they worked. I have great respect towards the ArenaNet team and especially the three founders, who left Blizzard at a time when they were making the giant that is now known as World of Warcraft to make something different. I hope that this new "branch" of MMORPGs will be fruitful in the future. There is certainly room to grow from the rigid mold of traditional MMORPG.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
"You say that it makes no sense to rate individual achievement higher than group effort, but that's exactly how pen&paper RPG and classic fantasy works. Individual exploits are inspiration for songs and poems, it's the names of heroes we remember. Why shouldn't this be possible in online gaming?"
I'm all for making the player a hero. But a group of heroes is what ultimately attained victory in LOTR, Dragonlance Chronicles, and many other great stories.
There are stories of great fellowships and great solitary heroes, and players should be able to reenact both -- and when solo and group rewards are balanced, that's the case.
"And it's exactly this that I would like to resolve by the changes proposed. And in that sense I can follow @Axehilt's comment that the highest attainable gear should not come from raiding but from grouping and soloing."
Balanced means balanced. Never said raid gear wouldn't be able to provide the highest attainable gear.
"In the current MMORPG it's the time invested that determines whether you access all the content and not the skill of the player."
To a degree, that's what "RPG" means.
Personally I think the ideal reward structure is one where time invested eventually catches up to skill. When the 1-star difficulty quest gives you 100 xp, and the 5-star difficulty quest gives you 2000xp, the bad player will eventually catch up to the skilled one with sufficient time investment, but in the meantime the skilled player will have gained substantially more advancement. This structure speaks to my earlier comment that you should always have a fun activity to do which advances you.
I mean personally I'd be fine with a game where skill is the absolute determinor of how far you progress. But an MMORPG wanting to attract the widest audience has to be an RPG, meaning time investment will eventually get you places. It doesn't necessarily have to get you there fast.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Axehilt, my response covered it from my point of view.
Covering gear acquiring, I don't think you should get an uber flame sword of awesomeness off of a dragon, or any other huge boss.
Why?
It's just not feasible for them to be carrying them around. What's the dragon going to do? Swallow it?
Also, it should be noted that even high fantasy (Tolkein) didn't have flame swords.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
After reading this thread I see what you are working toward but this is a bit off a mmorpg. What I am understanding here you are basically making a single player with multi player capabilities.
Dungeon siege was a great game except the server was 'you' so many people never got involved with it. If they did play it was private servers with mods or private LAN because of hacking issues. I was logged in many times and not one game was up. Dungeon Siege 2 was just as bad. Well after running through the game 2 times I was finished anyway. No carrot there at all. Maybe I had found a group I would have continued playing?
You mentioned D2 which reminds me of the time I soloed the entire game through Hell mode in hardcore. It Was a self challenge and a couple friends encouraged it along. I took time to group up with them on another character. We all solo a character for the hell of it. Friends left and I left. Four years of gaming but it was basically the group that kept me playing.
Now how you intend to develop any type marketing or crafting? Have a server like the D2 ones that I hated because of all the spam? Bliz finally made it so you didn't have to even hit chat because most of the players got tired of it. We had our own little chat groups that were hidden. We had private passworded games up and everyone knew who was on from friends list. We all knew the passwords so it was log in seek friend or make a game and wait a bit. Even this game was driven by group activity.
Even GW is driven by grouping. That is why they made the henchmen. Allows a player to group and still play group content.
How are you going to capture a mmo audience with your game if it is a solo game with a chat room?
You are making something that is a direct opposite of what MMOs actually are designed for.
Now that we cover that aspect. I think some developers have gone to far in making the game group centric and some have gone to far making them solo friendly. I think there needs to be a middle ground or a point on the curve where content is separated in such a way as to not make the player feel segregated.
People miss the entire point of a MMORPG.You 100% CANNOT make a SOLO game and call it a MMORPG.no way no how.That is the mistake games are doing,they probably know it ,but as long as they can have subscriptions they don't care if they sell you Yahtzee online and call it a MMORPG.
All these developers are doing is making single player games,then adding in the ability to login into a server.no instances are NOT a game,they are but a fraction of a game,and actually remove players from the MMO world,so they don't count as MMO either.As far as the term ROLE PLAYING goes,how does entering an instance have ANYTHING at all to do with ROLE PLAYING?Better yet how does soloing have anything to do with RPG?Unless of course your ambition was to enter the game as a HERMIT?or a LONER?I find it hard to believe people actually want to Role Play as a Hermit or Loner lol.
Hmm maybe my objective to role playing is i am a special knight that goes through warps into a boxed zone,maybe that is what the RPG stands for?Instances are pathetic content,again i am not disputing weather you like them or weather they are FUN,they are NOT MMORPG content,jus tweak content that any noob developer can pull off EASILY.
I do not dispute weather you are having FUN or not,that is NOT the point,the point is weather you can call yourself a MMORPG player or not,and imo playing a solo friendly game,you are NOT a MMORPG player and neither is the game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Naw, fun is the point. Part of the definition of a game is that a game is fun.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
I'm all for trying to make the experience as realistic as possible, but in the end gameplay trumps realism.
When you offer players the realistic dragon fight where they get nothing but XP and the other dragon fight where they get a flaming sword, which do you think they have more fun with?
I just imagine some non-Blizzard designer standing behind the chair of a gamer enjoying WOW, grabbing them by the shoulders and shaking them while screaming, "Stop having fun!!! It's not realistic so you shouldn't be having fun!!!"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Are you trying to tell me you can't have equally as much fun gaining the same items in a more logical way? Hell, I'm all for some dynamic world where citizens shower you with rewards for killing anything that is romping around their town killing things, but you know what? No one's done that yet.
Also, are you trying to tell me gamers won't have equally as much fun crafting those items, knowing for sure that they accomplished something even though they had to actually work for it and use some real thought?
"Oh god, no, we're playing games, don't make us think! We think enough in real life! Oh what's that? Puzzle games are some of the most popular games ever you say? They require thought and they're still popular you say? You're full of crap! Burn in hell!"
Yes, yes, I'm seeing your point. It has nothing to do with the fact that Professor Layton and the Curious Village trump most MMOs in both the gameplay department and in box sales, it just has to do with the fact that we shouldn't make players think.
Oh hey, this puma was carrying a dagger! I wonder what that one's carrying!
O_O
Game logic doesn't make me think! Anything's possible here!
*Addiction*
*sigh*
Wow I ranted...
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I'll go by the discussion about whether or not a dragon should drop a fiery sword or not...
I think that the setup of Guildwars, like @Quirhid mentions, might come closest to what I'm trying to get to. I played Guildwars for a while and did enjoy it. In the end I left it exactly because I felt it was to repetitive to my liking. (It might have changed in the meanwhile). I truly think you (Quirhid) see where I'm getting at.
I've played and tried many mmorpgs in the past, and I'm mainly now writing this from the point of view of a former hardcore player, who doesn't have the time anymore to commit to your topguild, yet does feel cheated because the game doesn't even give him a fighting chance to access all the content because of this... I know what I'm missing out on there at the top.
@Axehilt: Could you shortly elaborate as to what you understand under balanced rewards. Do you mean that the level of gear should be balanced in relation to the size of skill involved to attain it, or to the number of people cooperating, or to the length of the quest, or a combination of factors...?
Clearly time invested will always be reflected in the strength of your character. But that's not the issue. The problem I have today is that if someone who let's say has 2 hours of playtime available every night, can never ever access highend raid content, even though he puts up 14 hours a week. Game mechanics simply will not allow him to achieve this. Now imagine a game where you can log in, engage fairly quickly in an highend instance (be it with a small group or alone) which you know will take max 2 hours on success. This instance would require high skill, decent gear and reap great rewards... now everyone can have a shot at all the content, regardless of whether they have 2 hours or 8 hours of gametime available each day. You say it yourself... It doesn't necessarily have to get you there fast.
@Demc I think you see where I'm getting at, but take D2 one step further towards an MMO. I would encourage interaction as much as possible, and even force players to get involved in a community by having them depend on each other to trade for good items or to have someone convert that dragonscale you found into a nice shield. Why not create guildhouse or commonly owned property? Or have folks specializing in training your pets and supplying you with potions? Maybe you need someone to help you enter a building or have them use their reputation skills to buy a rare items of faction vendor? I mean there is opportunities enough. But all these are things I can do alone, in the sense that I can approach these people to help me out with these things. But when it comes to raid content and rewards... you talking about a different type of dynamic!
@Wizardry If there is anything you can't call me, is that I'm not a MMORPG player. I've played mmorpgs for years. Read this blog post to see where I'm coming from. I'm simply trying to built on my own experiences and knowledge of the games to make a new type of game that I think would entertain quite a few people. And yes, I know what I'm proposing is not MMORPG... go back and read my initial post.
Are you trying to tell me you can't have equally as much fun gaining the same items in a more logical way? Hell, I'm all for some dynamic world where citizens shower you with rewards for killing anything that is romping around their town killing things, but you know what? No one's done that yet.
Yes, yes, I'm seeing your point. It has nothing to do with the fact that Professor Layton and the Curious Village trump most MMOs in both the gameplay department and in box sales, it just has to do with the fact that we shouldn't make players think.
Why would you even bring up Layton? I mean you just got finished criticizing a dragon dropping a fire sword, when it's not much of a stretch to imagine the weapon as part of the dragon's horde...and then you bring up a game with a Professor who solves cases by completing puzzle mini-games. That's about as arbitrary and game-y as games get!
Nothing about my earlier statement says "players shouldn't think." Layton has a very weak logical connection between the activity (puzzles) and the fiction (solving mysteries). Does this mean Layton doesn't involve thinking? Of course it involves thinking! So you don't need a strong logical connection between the activity and the fiction for a game to be fun, or to involve thinking.
Like I said in my post (which you seem to have missed), of course developers should try to make those logical connections. But gameplay trumps realism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Forget about all that OP,just bring classic EQ back with downtime and community bonding.
Some of us do still like that type of game play.
Furious Fighters
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm
Back when I use to play WoW, I was in the top raiding guild on my server. I only raided 3-4 times a week and usually like 3-4 hours each time. Some people would cut out after just a couple hours but raided more nights. I did about the same in EQ, maybe a little more because I was having more fun.
You can access all the top end stuff with limited playing time. I've seen it in every mmo I've played. It might take the casual gamer a few months longer to get to max level, and maybe raiding a few hours a few nights a week, only get an item every couple weeks compared to 1 a week for someone more dedicated.
I use to be a hardcore gamer, but am pretty much a casual now. Even when I was playing a lot, after a while, I would barely log in, at very low casual levels, and still experience all a game has to offer.
I never really understood the complaints of a casual gamer. They can get the same gear, experience the same content, it just takes a lot longer, which it should, because they are only playing casually. Perhaps the complaints are more of soloers than just casual players.
The number of people cooperating would have a very minor influence on reward (and group vs. raid rewards would be identical.) The two key points being:
This does mean that the absolute highest rate of advancement is in a group full of experts, but it's the most balanced that the system can get.
I use the term "XP" above, but it applies to all forms of progression.
I consider "minimum time investment per sitting" to be a separate issue, and think that any 60+ min time requirement is crazy. If you want to design an epic questline where all the legs add up to more than 60 mins, fine. If you have a 4-wing dungeon where each wing is 45-mins, fine. You could even give bonuses for chaining the wings together, as long as chaining isn't required to earn a particular reward.
Scarlet Monastery was a popular WOW dungeon largely because of the small timesink requirement per wing, which let players play exactly as much as they wanted (and gauranteed that everyone but the guy who has to run to work in 10 minutes will have time for a complete run: meaning more grouping for everyone!) It always struck me as odd that later WOW winged dungeons completely screwed up this strongpoint -- it's like WOW's designers thought SM was popular just because it was winged, when in fact it was mostly because the time requirement for any particular wing was very small. I'm not sure they have ever fully learned from their mistakes, tbh.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver