Originally posted by Vynt 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.
My experience has been completely different when it comes to casually gaining access to top end gear. And I think this is where the core of the discussion lies. With the way game mechanics and guild policies work, I as a casual gamer become simply bored by the current endgame that is out there. I absolutely love playing those first 50 or what not levels, but for some reason MMORPG turn into a different game once you hit the final stages.
Granted, as you said, after many months of trying and grinding you will acquire some new items, but with the rate expansions are being released, this gear will more often be out-dated by the time you get it than not. And call it lame, but I wanna see my character progress a little bit more than that. If I experience a continuous sense of progression during the first part of the game, the contrast is simply to big when I hit the final stages.
Anyways, the most important part of the whole discussion is that I'm not trying to change the classic MMORPG. 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!
I'm simply trying to see if there is an opportunity here to create a new genre of game, catering to the more solo oriented player who doesn't have the hours the current guildstructure and game mechanics require to experience all the content, yet be somehow involved in a complex online world rather than playing Dungeon Siege 2 alone at night.
Originally posted by Vynt 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.
It is quite possible now to be a 'casual raider' in WoW. You just have to find the right group of people to raid with. This was definetly not true in vanilla WoW where the 40 man raids and lousy loot distribution meant that you had to raid consistently or you could not advance with your guild to the next raids. One could start raiding MC casually but it could tear the guild apart easily form all the internal pressure and the boredom of gear grinding in MC and BWL.
With the release of STO, the debate over what an MMORPG truly is, has been quite fierce. I´ve been following this discussion closely because I believe that there lies an opportunity here for the creation of new genre of gaming here based on the classic MMORPG. Yet somehow developers are a bit unwilling to embrace this and prefer to go out of their way just to give their game the MMORPG label. A couple weeks before the release of STO, 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 solo player. The current weakness of classic MMORPG is simple to me: It's the time invested that determines whether you access all the content and not the skill of the player. Now imagine your favorite run of the mill classic MMORPG and apply the following three changes, while leaving all other features (Open world, crafting, trading, chat, communities, housing, ...) intact.
The entire removal of multi-party raiding (the final stage or current endgame of the classic MMORPG). All content (both items and exploration) must be available to a single soloing character. Individual achievement must rated and rewarded higher than group efforts.
Player interaction would still be a big part of the game, but simply not in combat cooperation. Think about it for a minute. I agree this wouldn't be an MMORPG no more. It would still be Massive and RPG, but saying it's still a Multiplayer gaming is a bit dodgy. Yet I would be thrilled to play it, even years after its release. 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 friendly? Edited to include some clarifying notes and quotes.
I would play a mmorpg where you as solo playing can get all same as group there are plenty of ways to accomplish that, and still playing a mmorpg with many others in same world.
I say both should be posible those who wanne solo or those who wanne group they just have different ways to get top stuff.
Darkfall come close to get all when solo but you still need sometimes help of others by making friends to get it i say its good way to solo and still use community to get better stuff, offcorse solo in Darkfall is way harder then join a caln but its not imposible.
If you realy wanne be pure solo in a mmo well then i dont see it happen with a open free world unless you dont have pvp but i wont play a mmo without pvp.
And a mmo with pure solo in a open free world with pvp it will be griefers paradise for sure.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Originally posted by Axehilt 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:
An average group should earn advancement at the rate of an expert soloer. This is necessary to avoid a problem which existed in Planetside where I was strongly discouraged from grouping simply because I generated XP faster than 99% of players (and so why would I want to join a group and see all that XP split off to other players when I could have it all for myself?) The expert soloer must always feel that it's a balanced choice to group.
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. Challenge should ramp up reward substantially. In WOW, you advance slower by tackling tougher challenges (at least while leveling.) This is because the time it takes to kill a mob 1, 2, 3 levels above you increases by a larger magnitude than the reward for killing said mobs. The actual rate of progression should rise proportionate to the challenge.
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.
I agree completely with your take on progression when it comes to group vs. solo.
I like the SM examlpe, because when it comes to higher end dungeons, developers generaly seem to lean towards: "The longer, the better" instead of "the harder, the better". I remember playing SM from the good side (been couple years), seemed like a long time to get there, but the dungeon was indeed very nice.
In other games top end group encounters take ages, not only in the time it takes to clear, but also in terms of getting there and creating a balanced group. It is exactly this where I don't have the time for anymore. And when it comes to raiding, it just gets worse. I can see how this type of issue can be resolved fairly easily if you cater towards smaller groups by creating a good groupbuilding and more allround character types (meaning you don't have to be 2 hours online to finally get a cleric or healer type).
I'm ok with group challenges if it doesn't take hours to complete.
I think that MMOs need to be more diverse, they are just too similar to eachother now.
I would play that game if it was good enough but I do prefer some exclusive group content, if I just will play solo then there shouldn't be a monthly fee for the game, it is just solo game that you sometimes interact with other players in.
I do think TOR will have a lot of the things you want in it.
In other games top end group encounters take ages, not only in the time it takes to clear, but also in terms of getting there and creating a balanced group. It is exactly this where I don't have the time for anymore. And when it comes to raiding, it just gets worse. I can see how this type of issue can be resolved fairly easily if you cater towards smaller groups by creating a good groupbuilding and more allround character types (meaning you don't have to be 2 hours online to finally get a cleric or healer type). I'm ok with group challenges if it doesn't take hours to complete.
Yeah, obliteration of managerial hassles is pretty crucial for grouping to remain viable in games.
WOW actually eliminated managerial hassle from the majority of the game (except raiding.) You queue for random dungeon groups, and POOF, a bit later you teleport directy into the dungeon with your fully-assembled group.
Despite its crippling failures, Champions Online had a system I really wanted to see work called Roles. It's a bit like a semi-permanent "stance" for your character, melding you into a Tank, Support/Healer, or DPS role. You could switch as long as you were out of combat, meaning that any 6 players could form a functioning group -- there wasn't any concern of finding Class X or Class Y because you needed a tank or healer; anyone could do it.
Sadly, one of those "crippling failures" was the near-complete-lack of group content. At least while leveling, the most I needed to group with was 2 people and none of those group quests were even challenging enough to warrant changing your 'stance' from the default (a balanced stance best suited to soloing.) Which made this awesome-sounding feature a complete waste, basically
(Cryptic is such a tragic company. They create these fantastic gameplay innovations, but then totally screw up the basics.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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). snip...
Phantasy Star Online/Universe is very similar to what you described. Although maybe they hit the instance button a bit too much and anything outside of combat is a bit shallow.
Phantasy Star Online/Universe is very similar to what you described. Although maybe they hit the instance button a bit too much and anything outside of combat is a bit shallow.
Well I don't get the impression PSO/U weren't successful, however the early games in the series always struck me as Diablo Minus The Fun. Basically they had worse pacing, worse combat, and worse advancement decisions.
So while I think the series was reasonably successful, it wasn't instancing that ruined the game. It was pacing, combat, and advancement. If those things hadn't caused the game to drag its feet, the series would've been a runaway success, much like Diablo.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't get it OP. If I'm not able to form and do content in multi-group parties and everything can be achieved solo why on earth am I playing a MMORPG and not a multiplayer lobby game? They are usually higher quality. What's the reason to play this over Borderlands or Diablo? I think people are forgeting one of the main benefits of MMOs.
You are taking away the most fun feature for me (raiding). I'm not saying a game has to evolve around it, but what's wrong with designing a game for a little raid content? Because you don't like participating in it? Why are you playing MMOs? You have loads of single player and smaller multiplayer RPGs (and other games) you can play.
A MMO without group content with the ability to solo is no different from Borderlands or Diablo. Your revisions wouldn't create a new online genre, just the same old same old we have with loads of other games: Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight, Sacred, etc.
I agree that games need to be skill-oriented, but this year and next year you are going to see more and more MMOs that require skill. The main problem with MMOs is that they have the same combat system that requires player interaction only in the form of pressing button sequences at the appropiate time with loads of leeway. Once MMOs start adopting (and they have already) more complex systems that involve more "skill" like shooters and fighting games then we'll see the trend of skillful games become more popular.
What you are proposing is taking away one of the aspects of MMOs that requires skill. That's being able to organize and lead a raid of players, even if their skill isn't on par with yours. Why not design a game that requires all the players in a raid to be skillful and reward them as such?
Soloable, small group friendly, casual friendly, endgame progression without large numbers or huge amounts of mandatory time per week. It seems to me that this isn't a new concept, and that for the most part current WoW implementation has the bases covered already.
At best I will acknowledge that WoW's pattern is to make the best gear endgame content less casual, but only at first. I think that is simply a means to satisfy the hard-core who WANT elitist content. Yes this does mean that Tier 1138 (or whatever) isn't easily attainable, but that's part of their game design. One percent or less ever even sees that gear.
Is the bottom line that the needs of the casuals are conflicting with the needs of the hard-core?
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
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.
Well dragons in PnP DnD kept a stock pile of treasures in their lairs. From every dragon picture I've seen, it looks to me like they could grab whatever they wanted with either their claws or mouth. Hell they could even hit it with their tail over to where they want it. If you want to be more realistic then games wouldn't have dragons at all since they don't actually exist in the real world.
My ideal mmo would have bosses with random item generators.. The reason being is because that awesome flaming sword of doom really isn't all that cool if everyone and their mom has one too.
yea i hate the need to be in big guild/legion to be able to succed into a game even in mmo( communoty) I want the communoty to be enought intelligent to answer my question or gave me some tips on the chat if i need some. But i dont want to be stick to grp with 4 noob not able to play correctly just because they're 11 year old.
Or i want to kick Onixia with my dwarfe full geared without relying on a raid of 25. I want to go in the abyss at any lvl and be able to beat the ass of all Elyos without being raped by a grp of 4 guys ! I want to play into a Morrowind world where the npc are player but arent important to me, wich i wont need to go and beat the ASTAROTH ass all by myself.
I want to be Kratos in a world with other player that it!
Soloable, small group friendly, casual friendly, endgame progression without large numbers or huge amounts of mandatory time per week. It seems to me that this isn't a new concept, and that for the most part current WoW implementation has the bases covered already. At best I will acknowledge that WoW's pattern is to make the best gear endgame content less casual, but only at first. I think that is simply a means to satisfy the hard-core who WANT elitist content. Yes this does mean that Tier 1138 (or whatever) isn't easily attainable, but that's part of their game design. One percent or less ever even sees that gear. Is the bottom line that the needs of the casuals are conflicting with the needs of the hard-core?
Ken
How would you reach that conclusion?
Casual players need low complication.
Hardcore players need game depth.
These two goals do not conflict. Chess is a game which is enjoyable by both casual newbies and grandmasters.
Both players need content suitable for their skill/interest/commitment level, but casual players don't really care that a chunk of the toughest content is exclusive to hardcore players. Casual players are too busy happily plinking away at the content to bother thinking that deeply about it. Which makes WOW's setup rather ideal:
Casual players have tons of content to slowly plink through.
As content ages, it trickles down to the casual player because encounters get easier (either through direct nerfs, or indirectly by superior gear becoming available.)
Hardcore players get the newest, toughest content which yields the best rewards.
I'm not saying I feel that's the only viable way to divvy up content, nor do I feel WOW does things flawlessly (many of my fellow raiders agreed with my sentiment that requiring huge amounts of people was unnecessary, as were the huge timesinks in one sitting.) WOW's difficulty implementation also isn't perfect (and made a huge misstep early in WOTLK by not providing big enough challenges for players.)
But again, casual players simply do not care if there's content that only 1% of the playerbase can achieve (they only care if a huge amount of the content in the game is only accessible by the minority.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Oh... wait. Lets make a new genre for each big design decision. Combinatory Analysis of design decisions, instead of giving the genre a name, lets give it a number.
Well I don't get the impression PSO/U weren't successful, however the early games in the series always struck me as Diablo Minus The Fun. Basically they had worse pacing, worse combat, and worse advancement decisions. So while I think the series was reasonably successful, it wasn't instancing that ruined the game. It was pacing, combat, and advancement. If those things hadn't caused the game to drag its feet, the series would've been a runaway success, much like Diablo.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't really talking about PSO/PSU and it's faults, but how it's basic structure is similar to the OP's theoretical game. Just a reference for the OP to take a look at.
What is the point of playing your so called game on line?
Sorry I am so tired of the "I want to do everything solo" crowd. Please go away, the idea of a MMO is to do things with other people not be an anti social shut in doing your own thing.
Go play single player games, there are tons of them. A MMO is not your thing, admit it.
I don't get it OP. If I'm not able to form and do content in multi-group parties and everything can be achieved solo why on earth am I playing a MMORPG and not a multiplayer lobby game? They are usually higher quality. What's the reason to play this over Borderlands or Diablo? I think people are forgeting one of the main benefits of MMOs. You are taking away the most fun feature for me (raiding). I'm not saying a game has to evolve around it, but what's wrong with designing a game for a little raid content? Because you don't like participating in it? Why are you playing MMOs? You have loads of single player and smaller multiplayer RPGs (and other games) you can play. A MMO without group content with the ability to solo is no different from Borderlands or Diablo. Your revisions wouldn't create a new online genre, just the same old same old we have with loads of other games: Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight, Sacred, etc. (...) What you are proposing is taking away one of the aspects of MMOs that requires skill. That's being able to organize and lead a raid of players, even if their skill isn't on par with yours. Why not design a game that requires all the players in a raid to be skillful and reward them as such?
Hey Magnum,
thanks for your feedback. I see your point of view, but I think there are two principal points I personally don't agree with. And this is coming from a hardcore player who simply hasn't got the time no more to play like he used to in college.
I used to love raids. I stayed up hours at night raiding and trying top end content in several games such as EQ, WoW and LOTRO. But I'm not that player no more. I'm no longer in college, and raid content doesn't appeal to me no more. I can't invest 10 nights a month just to get myself the necessary DKP points to gain one lousy item. So to me a game where the top gear doesn't come from raiding, but from skilled small grouping and solo content appeals me a lot more.
If you take out raiding from your classic MMORPG... you don't end up with Borderlands, Diablo, Dungeon Siege,... you end up with something more. You must see there is a difference there. If you can't acknowledge that, than you don't see what I'm going at.
I like too many things in MMORPGs too much to throw them out. I love reputation, I love tradeskilling and trading, I love interacting and helping out people. I love exploring and showing off new gear and titles. I love admiring others their mounts and outfits or looking around AHs for new gear. I love going into a dungeon with a couple guildies or friends to kick ass. These are the things I can still appreciate the game... now why would I take those out?
And to be honest if raiding equals skill to you, then you clearly have a gigantic guild with nothing but awesome players and a perfect balance of classes around, because in recent years... to me raiding has meant nothing else but grinding and messing about with 23 other folks ... if we could find them. The only time when skill enters the picture in raids is right after that expansion hits the shelf and long forgotten guildies and officers suddenly pop back online for their part of the action.
To wrap up this discussion, I decided to make a blogpost reflecting all the revisions, opinions and input I got through this forum discussion. I started explaining my motives and motivation on the blog two months ago, so it seemed only appropriate to go back there and to tie things together.
Thanks to all for your comments and all further input is always welcome.
You can find the blog entry here on the mmorpg.com website through this link.
With the release of STO, the debate over what an MMORPG truly is, has been quite fierce. I´ve been following this discussion closely because I believe that there lies an opportunity here for the creation of new genre of gaming here based on the classic MMORPG. Yet somehow developers are a bit unwilling to embrace this and prefer to go out of their way just to give their game the MMORPG label. 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 solo player. 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 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.
The entire removal of multi-party raiding (the final stage or current endgame of the classic MMORPG). All content (both items and exploration) must be available to a single soloing character in short playing sessions. Individual achievement must rated and rewarded higher than on par with group efforts. (kudos Axehilt) The endgame would revolve around single player encounters and small group challenges.
Player interaction would still be a big part of the game. Think about it for a minute. I agree this wouldn't be your classic MMORPG no more. It would still be Massive and RPG, but saying it's still a Multiplayer gaming is a bit dodgy. Yet I would be thrilled to play it, even years after its release. 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
Oblivion while you chat on messenger or something like that.
Comments
My experience has been completely different when it comes to casually gaining access to top end gear. And I think this is where the core of the discussion lies. With the way game mechanics and guild policies work, I as a casual gamer become simply bored by the current endgame that is out there. I absolutely love playing those first 50 or what not levels, but for some reason MMORPG turn into a different game once you hit the final stages.
Granted, as you said, after many months of trying and grinding you will acquire some new items, but with the rate expansions are being released, this gear will more often be out-dated by the time you get it than not. And call it lame, but I wanna see my character progress a little bit more than that. If I experience a continuous sense of progression during the first part of the game, the contrast is simply to big when I hit the final stages.
Anyways, the most important part of the whole discussion is that I'm not trying to change the classic MMORPG. 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!
I'm simply trying to see if there is an opportunity here to create a new genre of game, catering to the more solo oriented player who doesn't have the hours the current guildstructure and game mechanics require to experience all the content, yet be somehow involved in a complex online world rather than playing Dungeon Siege 2 alone at night.
OP!what you are asking for is an morpg!and im sorry but there are thousand of morpg out there including wow
you feel its not an morpg because there is AN OPTION for raid ,hard mode heroic and the like.
you can access to almost everything solo ,the only reason game dev put candy in raid and pvp and battleground is to steer
then there so the game doesnt lag too much .so gratification inside an instance is here to stay.
hell most game havent been a miassive game in years.they are most like you say multiplayer online game
maissve is like aika :can have 1000 vs 1000 battle
or like eve:can be 1700 in jita ,that is massive
as for solo game you are right there is almost no online solo game
explain me this basicly you want to be in facebook while gaming is that it?play farmville then!
mm!morpg are the closest thig to a solo game there is and the game publisher publish close to 2 of those a day!
It is quite possible now to be a 'casual raider' in WoW. You just have to find the right group of people to raid with. This was definetly not true in vanilla WoW where the 40 man raids and lousy loot distribution meant that you had to raid consistently or you could not advance with your guild to the next raids. One could start raiding MC casually but it could tear the guild apart easily form all the internal pressure and the boredom of gear grinding in MC and BWL.
I would play a mmorpg where you as solo playing can get all same as group there are plenty of ways to accomplish that, and still playing a mmorpg with many others in same world.
I say both should be posible those who wanne solo or those who wanne group they just have different ways to get top stuff.
Darkfall come close to get all when solo but you still need sometimes help of others by making friends to get it i say its good way to solo and still use community to get better stuff, offcorse solo in Darkfall is way harder then join a caln but its not imposible.
If you realy wanne be pure solo in a mmo well then i dont see it happen with a open free world unless you dont have pvp but i wont play a mmo without pvp.
And a mmo with pure solo in a open free world with pvp it will be griefers paradise for sure.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I agree completely with your take on progression when it comes to group vs. solo.
I like the SM examlpe, because when it comes to higher end dungeons, developers generaly seem to lean towards: "The longer, the better" instead of "the harder, the better". I remember playing SM from the good side (been couple years), seemed like a long time to get there, but the dungeon was indeed very nice.
In other games top end group encounters take ages, not only in the time it takes to clear, but also in terms of getting there and creating a balanced group. It is exactly this where I don't have the time for anymore. And when it comes to raiding, it just gets worse. I can see how this type of issue can be resolved fairly easily if you cater towards smaller groups by creating a good groupbuilding and more allround character types (meaning you don't have to be 2 hours online to finally get a cleric or healer type).
I'm ok with group challenges if it doesn't take hours to complete.
I think that MMOs need to be more diverse, they are just too similar to eachother now.
I would play that game if it was good enough but I do prefer some exclusive group content, if I just will play solo then there shouldn't be a monthly fee for the game, it is just solo game that you sometimes interact with other players in.
I do think TOR will have a lot of the things you want in it.
Yeah, obliteration of managerial hassles is pretty crucial for grouping to remain viable in games.
WOW actually eliminated managerial hassle from the majority of the game (except raiding.) You queue for random dungeon groups, and POOF, a bit later you teleport directy into the dungeon with your fully-assembled group.
Despite its crippling failures, Champions Online had a system I really wanted to see work called Roles. It's a bit like a semi-permanent "stance" for your character, melding you into a Tank, Support/Healer, or DPS role. You could switch as long as you were out of combat, meaning that any 6 players could form a functioning group -- there wasn't any concern of finding Class X or Class Y because you needed a tank or healer; anyone could do it.
Sadly, one of those "crippling failures" was the near-complete-lack of group content. At least while leveling, the most I needed to group with was 2 people and none of those group quests were even challenging enough to warrant changing your 'stance' from the default (a balanced stance best suited to soloing.) Which made this awesome-sounding feature a complete waste, basically
(Cryptic is such a tragic company. They create these fantastic gameplay innovations, but then totally screw up the basics.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Phantasy Star Online/Universe is very similar to what you described. Although maybe they hit the instance button a bit too much and anything outside of combat is a bit shallow.
Well I don't get the impression PSO/U weren't successful, however the early games in the series always struck me as Diablo Minus The Fun. Basically they had worse pacing, worse combat, and worse advancement decisions.
So while I think the series was reasonably successful, it wasn't instancing that ruined the game. It was pacing, combat, and advancement. If those things hadn't caused the game to drag its feet, the series would've been a runaway success, much like Diablo.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't get it OP. If I'm not able to form and do content in multi-group parties and everything can be achieved solo why on earth am I playing a MMORPG and not a multiplayer lobby game? They are usually higher quality. What's the reason to play this over Borderlands or Diablo? I think people are forgeting one of the main benefits of MMOs.
You are taking away the most fun feature for me (raiding). I'm not saying a game has to evolve around it, but what's wrong with designing a game for a little raid content? Because you don't like participating in it? Why are you playing MMOs? You have loads of single player and smaller multiplayer RPGs (and other games) you can play.
A MMO without group content with the ability to solo is no different from Borderlands or Diablo. Your revisions wouldn't create a new online genre, just the same old same old we have with loads of other games: Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight, Sacred, etc.
I agree that games need to be skill-oriented, but this year and next year you are going to see more and more MMOs that require skill. The main problem with MMOs is that they have the same combat system that requires player interaction only in the form of pressing button sequences at the appropiate time with loads of leeway. Once MMOs start adopting (and they have already) more complex systems that involve more "skill" like shooters and fighting games then we'll see the trend of skillful games become more popular.
What you are proposing is taking away one of the aspects of MMOs that requires skill. That's being able to organize and lead a raid of players, even if their skill isn't on par with yours. Why not design a game that requires all the players in a raid to be skillful and reward them as such?
Soloable, small group friendly, casual friendly, endgame progression without large numbers or huge amounts of mandatory time per week. It seems to me that this isn't a new concept, and that for the most part current WoW implementation has the bases covered already.
At best I will acknowledge that WoW's pattern is to make the best gear endgame content less casual, but only at first. I think that is simply a means to satisfy the hard-core who WANT elitist content. Yes this does mean that Tier 1138 (or whatever) isn't easily attainable, but that's part of their game design. One percent or less ever even sees that gear.
Is the bottom line that the needs of the casuals are conflicting with the needs of the hard-core?
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
Well dragons in PnP DnD kept a stock pile of treasures in their lairs. From every dragon picture I've seen, it looks to me like they could grab whatever they wanted with either their claws or mouth. Hell they could even hit it with their tail over to where they want it. If you want to be more realistic then games wouldn't have dragons at all since they don't actually exist in the real world.
My ideal mmo would have bosses with random item generators.. The reason being is because that awesome flaming sword of doom really isn't all that cool if everyone and their mom has one too.
na . hate it old fashion ... evolve!
All game fail, they need to made the standar higther graphic, new idea, and amaze us... We always ask as a human BETTER ! FASTER ! HARDER ! ( u see)
yea i hate the need to be in big guild/legion to be able to succed into a game even in mmo( communoty) I want the communoty to be enought intelligent to answer my question or gave me some tips on the chat if i need some. But i dont want to be stick to grp with 4 noob not able to play correctly just because they're 11 year old.
Or i want to kick Onixia with my dwarfe full geared without relying on a raid of 25. I want to go in the abyss at any lvl and be able to beat the ass of all Elyos without being raped by a grp of 4 guys ! I want to play into a Morrowind world where the npc are player but arent important to me, wich i wont need to go and beat the ASTAROTH ass all by myself.
I want to be Kratos in a world with other player that it!
How would you reach that conclusion?
These two goals do not conflict. Chess is a game which is enjoyable by both casual newbies and grandmasters.
Both players need content suitable for their skill/interest/commitment level, but casual players don't really care that a chunk of the toughest content is exclusive to hardcore players. Casual players are too busy happily plinking away at the content to bother thinking that deeply about it. Which makes WOW's setup rather ideal:
I'm not saying I feel that's the only viable way to divvy up content, nor do I feel WOW does things flawlessly (many of my fellow raiders agreed with my sentiment that requiring huge amounts of people was unnecessary, as were the huge timesinks in one sitting.) WOW's difficulty implementation also isn't perfect (and made a huge misstep early in WOTLK by not providing big enough challenges for players.)
But again, casual players simply do not care if there's content that only 1% of the playerbase can achieve (they only care if a huge amount of the content in the game is only accessible by the minority.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Want something based on skill or talent?
On a video game?
Oh... ok.
Oh... wait. Lets make a new genre for each big design decision. Combinatory Analysis of design decisions, instead of giving the genre a name, lets give it a number.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't really talking about PSO/PSU and it's faults, but how it's basic structure is similar to the OP's theoretical game. Just a reference for the OP to take a look at.
What is the point of playing your so called game on line?
Sorry I am so tired of the "I want to do everything solo" crowd. Please go away, the idea of a MMO is to do things with other people not be an anti social shut in doing your own thing.
Go play single player games, there are tons of them. A MMO is not your thing, admit it.
Hey Magnum,
thanks for your feedback. I see your point of view, but I think there are two principal points I personally don't agree with. And this is coming from a hardcore player who simply hasn't got the time no more to play like he used to in college.
I like too many things in MMORPGs too much to throw them out. I love reputation, I love tradeskilling and trading, I love interacting and helping out people. I love exploring and showing off new gear and titles. I love admiring others their mounts and outfits or looking around AHs for new gear. I love going into a dungeon with a couple guildies or friends to kick ass. These are the things I can still appreciate the game... now why would I take those out?
And to be honest if raiding equals skill to you, then you clearly have a gigantic guild with nothing but awesome players and a perfect balance of classes around, because in recent years... to me raiding has meant nothing else but grinding and messing about with 23 other folks ... if we could find them. The only time when skill enters the picture in raids is right after that expansion hits the shelf and long forgotten guildies and officers suddenly pop back online for their part of the action.
To wrap up this discussion, I decided to make a blogpost reflecting all the revisions, opinions and input I got through this forum discussion. I started explaining my motives and motivation on the blog two months ago, so it seemed only appropriate to go back there and to tie things together.
Thanks to all for your comments and all further input is always welcome.
You can find the blog entry here on the mmorpg.com website through this link.
Oblivion while you chat on messenger or something like that.
There you go, your game is finished.
Sigh... thanks for the "constructive" input. I hope the other 5657 posts you made are bit more insightful.