It is true that today's players are much less likely to want interdependence in their game play. This explains why MMORPG developers (and developers in general) are more likely to allow players to be self sufficient.
Something is definitely lost in this transition. That something isn't really missed by the players who would rather be independent instead of interdependent though. It's just something that's lost, and unless something changes in the players, isn't coming back.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Players have learnt that interdependence equates to powerful guilds having access to more content than smaller groups. No I'm not talking about taking down raid bosses but things like access to certain crafted resources or helpful buffers that just pop up before any guild run. That Segway's into the multiple alts and boxing behaviour of EQ players and how that influenced game mechanics.
I feel you're being a bit disingenuous with some of your comments. I haven't personally played very many mmos where all classes had all utility spells, nor where you had access to all crating professions on one character. There is still interdependence built into many mmos, but the biggest difference is that it is not a requirement.
In more modern mmos you don't have to have every single buff available to you in order to complete a given task. Honestly, this is a good thing, because the game becomes less about filling holes and not being able to play without the right make up, and more about the business of playing the actual game. Yes, there is still most viable and best set ups for the min maxers, but these are not hard and fast requirements for everyone.
There are far too many of these types of threads where someone falsely attempts to state that X about Y is true, where nothing has really changed aside from the players. Sure it was more difficult to become autonomous in older mmos, but the challenge was still there. Stating that there is a lack of interdependence is the same as stating that mmos are designed to be less social. Both of which are not true. MMOs are designed more or less the same way as they have been for nearly 20 years. Go into a world, run some form of a treadmill to attain more power, play with other folks. The biggest difference of modern mmos is that much of the inherently built in tedium of the older mmos is gone, and many of the older mmos have also removed the built in tedium as well.
TL;DR: It's not the mmos that have changed, it's the players. If people want interdependence (aka social) then they will seek that out individually. The systems are still there, but most people seem to want to be able to play in their own way and attain their personal goals.
Being disingenuous with my opinion? With my point of view? I am only going off my experiences, if you were not there you are the one talking out of your rear friend. I am not falsely stating anything, this is MY experience. If you want to disagree have at it, but don't say I am being dishonest with MY experience.
You claim this is not true....where are the unique buffs to certain classes people would actually offer you money cast on them? Where is the face to face trading? Where are the personal interactions when it comes to crafting partnerships?
Please tell me where this magical MMO is I missed. Name it, link it, back your story up. I gave specific examples, where are yours?
Getting a bit defensive aren't you? No need to get hostile either. You mentioned how in DAoC only one class per realm had run speed (which is also not true, although Skalds/Bards/Minstrels had the fastest speeds, but multiple classes had run speed buffs), and then go on to lament about how ALL classes have such abilities now. Which is simply not true in a good number of mmos. Mounts don't exactly count, since we're talking abilities here (which was mentioned by you originally). Even with mounts not all are equal either, as some classes in some mmos are inherently faster, or get free mounts instead of having to buy, etc.
Secondly, while it's not a specific buff, I still see people spamming for teleports to various areas in WoW. Mages are still the only class with the ability to teleport folks, and they still charge for the service.
Lastly, my point is that you talk about interdependence as if it was some mystical element only available in the pre-WoW era. While it was somewhat more important back in the day, it was still possible to be completely independent from others. Hell, I had numerous friends in DAoC who prided themselves on being completely autonomous using multiple characters to provide anything that another one needed for crafting. Additionally, in my short time in FFXIV: ARR I was part of linkshells that existed for the sole purpose of crafters trading materials, tools, crafting clothes, etc among each other. Even though you can be all things with one character, it was still more efficient to focus on one or two crafts and trade or AH for the rest. While there is no face to face trading per say, we would mail each other stuff and would bypass the AH all together.
Interdependence still exists in many mmos, it might be a bit more masked, but it's still there. Honestly, if you are really looking for interdependence, you should start a mmo from the ground up (right around launch), because that's when it exists the most. As time goes, people learn to be more independent within any given game.
Yes, another old fogey reminiscing about the good old days....
We all know the new MMO's contradict the genre with the solo play chat room effect. In my opinion this is not the biggest problem with them though. I think unique skills or the lacktherof (speed, teleports, other buffs), auction houses, and crafting are the problem.
In older MMO's you could not craft or gather everything, you needed trades. An armorsmith would have to get in good with a tailor, a weaponsmith with a carpenter, and all would have to rely on gatherers for materials. The key was you could not do everything for yourself. You could be a blacksmith and a miner, but you could not also gather your own cloth and make the linings for your armor, you needed a tailor for that who would also need to either gather materials or buy them from someone else. You did not put your goods up on an auction house or send them through mail, you actually met face to face with the person and traded them.
Seriously when was the last time anyone used face to face trade in an MMO? I can't recall the last time I did!
Anyone play EQ and remember "Will tip for SOW"? For those who never played SOW was Spirit of the Wolf, a spell only one class in the game had. In EQ you had to run everywhere on foot, this spell made that much more bearable because it boosted your speed greatly, I think it lasted an hour. Nowadays this is a cash shop type buff. Or how about mage gates? Used ot be only a wizard could teleport you to a main city, saving you possible hours of time. In Daoc only one class per realm had group run speed, if you were Midgard and were a Skald you would get a group 100% of the time. You were NEEDED. Nowadays everyone has such skills.
I did not even have ot mention soloing, I don't think it is as big an issue for today's communities as these things are. These things created interdependence between players, we relied on each other and we had to socialize to get what we wanted. You felt important in the world, unique. You had something to offer other than some virtual armor rating telling you that you were good to go for some raid, or a generic cookie cutter tank spec and damn you know that rotation and boss tells well for that encounter....what an asset.
I am not saying those games were perfect, this is just something they did right. I think blending some of that in the new formula would go far.
The real question is why did games change to what they are today?
Popular demand?
or
Evil game developers bent on punishing the playerbase?
Old games were built on the principle of interdependence, which over time shifted to player independence.
I wonder how that happend.....
I will answer your question with an absurdity.
long story short...people confuse long-term goals ith short-term goals. I hate travelling on a slow mount across a zone. I also hate teleporting and not seeing 99% of the zone.
When we travel we complain it's slow.
when we port we complain we don't see anything.
right now games went from A to B and complaints went from B to A. And not everyone likes the same B or A.
it's devs' job to develop a game...as they see fit. listening to our complaints, even mine...is a mistake.
Tis true. They're the game developers. They can listen to the community somewhat, but when it comes down to it, they really need to not give into every whim from the playerbase.
There are a few things that come together to make player interdependace happen in a a rewarding and sustaining way.
More skills then an account can have.
P2P
SCS(single char slot)
low use or no auction house
local banking
See what happened was players would either start new accounts or developers would manage skill sets per account to foster self suficency.
There were players in most of the games that did have 5 or even 10 P2P accounts... yea $150 a month! this is where we ended up creating gold sellers and items for cash player sites to help those players pay for their accounts. the work around was dumbing down the game play and making everything easy and self sustaining.
Literaly ending the whole idea of massively multiplayer online gaming!
was that the right way to go?
Was there another option?
To a publisher all those extra accounts looks good. So getting rid of those who hold multi accounts seems like a very bad idea. Back and forth between coumunity liazion and developer and publisher whittled the games down to the basics of what we have today. single player games with a chat box....
There are a few things that come together to make player interdependace happen in a a rewarding and sustaining way.
More skills then an account can have.
P2P
SCS(single char slot)
low use or no auction house
local banking
See what happened was players would either start new accounts or developers would manage skill sets per account to foster self suficency.
There were players in most of the games that did have 5 or even 10 P2P accounts... yea $150 a month! this is where we ended up creating gold sellers and items for cash player sites to help those players pay for their accounts. the work around was dumbing down the game play and making everything easy and self sustaining.
Literaly ending the whole idea of massively multiplayer online gaming!
was that the right way to go?
Was there another option?
To a publisher all those extra accounts looks good. So getting rid of those who hold multi accounts seems like a very bad idea. Back and forth between coumunity liazion and developer and publisher whittled the games down to the basics of what we have today. single player games with a chat box....
No guilds ended massive multiplayer online gaming.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
thinking about this a little more...does anyone find it interesting that we -myself included- use the expression
"devs listen/dont listen to their playerbase"
when in fact the word we're practically implying the word "Obeying" not "listening" ?
perhaps this is the rupture. we see the results of devs obeying rather than listening.
Exactly. Devs listen most of the time, but they don't obey - nor should they. Sometimes you can see, or read between the lines, when a developer is trying to keep his/her cool and reply to a player comment politely. I tip my hat to any dev who is forced to do that as their job. I wouldn't have the patience for it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
thinking about this a little more...does anyone find it interesting that we -myself included- use the expression
"devs listen/dont listen to their playerbase"
when in fact the word we're practically implying the word "Obeying" not "listening" ?
perhaps this is the rupture. we see the results of devs obeying rather than listening.
That never did any MMO or the Daleks any good for that matter. I remember the way player advise was followed by the devs in AC2, disastrous. Sometimes what we look like is shown below.
And you're the SECOND dude that did not read my post.
I was a solo UO player in ye olden days. Try to read your post through my eyes.
But in the original post he did mention it wasn't about solo. SWG and EQ have vastly different interdependencies.
The second sentance is: "We all know the new MMO's contradict the genre with the solo play chat room effect."
What exactly do you think the OP meant by "contradict the genre"?
By starting with a slam against solo play, the OP immediately alienates the very people who would need to be convinced that interdependance is fun.
The premise was most people blame solo playability for new MMO's not featuring the social aspect the old ones did, my point was even though that does seem to contradict the term massive multiplayer it is NOT the problem. I did not even hide it, was pretty clear for all to read. It is pretty sad that someone can take that one sentence and make the other 50 null and void over it.
I feel you're being a bit disingenuous with some of your comments. I haven't personally played very many mmos where all classes had all utility spells, nor where you had access to all crating professions on one character. There is still interdependence built into many mmos, but the biggest difference is that it is not a requirement.
In more modern mmos you don't have to have every single buff available to you in order to complete a given task. Honestly, this is a good thing, because the game becomes less about filling holes and not being able to play without the right make up, and more about the business of playing the actual game. Yes, there is still most viable and best set ups for the min maxers, but these are not hard and fast requirements for everyone.
There are far too many of these types of threads where someone falsely attempts to state that X about Y is true, where nothing has really changed aside from the players. Sure it was more difficult to become autonomous in older mmos, but the challenge was still there. Stating that there is a lack of interdependence is the same as stating that mmos are designed to be less social. Both of which are not true. MMOs are designed more or less the same way as they have been for nearly 20 years. Go into a world, run some form of a treadmill to attain more power, play with other folks. The biggest difference of modern mmos is that much of the inherently built in tedium of the older mmos is gone, and many of the older mmos have also removed the built in tedium as well.
TL;DR: It's not the mmos that have changed, it's the players. If people want interdependence (aka social) then they will seek that out individually. The systems are still there, but most people seem to want to be able to play in their own way and attain their personal goals.
Being disingenuous with my opinion? With my point of view? I am only going off my experiences, if you were not there you are the one talking out of your rear friend. I am not falsely stating anything, this is MY experience. If you want to disagree have at it, but don't say I am being dishonest with MY experience.
You claim this is not true....where are the unique buffs to certain classes people would actually offer you money cast on them? Where is the face to face trading? Where are the personal interactions when it comes to crafting partnerships?
Please tell me where this magical MMO is I missed. Name it, link it, back your story up. I gave specific examples, where are yours?
Getting a bit defensive aren't you? No need to get hostile either.
When I am simply expressing a point of view and am accused of being disingenuous and dishonest yes I am going to get defensive. Passive aggressive much? After your first reply I am not interested in what you have to say.
The interdependence was nice as it made you feel more like a community but the focus to solo play was inevitable. Most of us post EQ no longer have the time to waste. We either don't have it it do and would like to actually get something done.
Of course there is a balance and as of yet the MMO model has not completely adapted to gameplay that takes less time. The bandaid has been to make most progression easy, that doesn't require others and keep a standard level = higher numerical factor system.
Games like GW2 "get it" in this regard. Not only making levels not as impact full to group play but allowing people to do things together on a smaller scale. Granted, it may not be high quality interaction as found in a formed group but it beats doing everything solo.
My point is, you can have interdependence and do it on a casuals budget but the core designs of the MMO have to adapt. So far the plan seems to be taking the "old school" style MMO and just make it easier.
Now every race/class can SOW, and heal, and tank, and dps, and solo. MMO have evolved into single player games with online optional.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
There are two sides to every coin and interdependence is once of those coins. On one side you have an opportunity for adding in a social element to a game such as a reason for grouping, or a reason for befriending a crafter that makes parts required by your craft, or even as a way to force guilds to structure themselves in a way that crafting and adventuring are both needed to progress. The other side of the coin is that the designer has also introduced bottlenecks, or worse, single points of failure. Games that started out with interdependencies usually remove them sooner or later because of their execution/exploitation in game by the players. It's a fine line to walk and while a few game designers can do it well most don't even try to add them in.
The premise was most people blame solo playability for new MMO's not featuring the social aspect the old ones did, my point was even though that does seem to contradict the term massive multiplayer it is NOT the problem. I did not even hide it, was pretty clear for all to read. It is pretty sad that someone can take that one sentence and make the other 50 null and void over it.
The reason I drew your attention to your comments on solo play (and stopped there) was that I hoped that would make it clear that forcing interdependance is not going to get back those old days because forced interdependance never existed in the first place.
Originally posted by Yyrkoon_PoM There are two sides to every coin and interdependence is once of those coins. On one side you have an opportunity for adding in a social element to a game such as a reason for grouping, or a reason for befriending a crafter that makes parts required by your craft, or even as a way to force guilds to structure themselves in a way that crafting and adventuring are both needed to progress. The other side of the coin is that the designer has also introduced bottlenecks, or worse, single points of failure. Games that started out with interdependencies usually remove them sooner or later because of their execution/exploitation in game by the players. It's a fine line to walk and while a few game designers can do it well most don't even try to add them in.
Nicely put. Most of the game design changes that folks here rail about were added to games to try to fix a problem.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Interdependence was almost always artificial in old school MMOs. By artificial I mean what was done in these older MMO is the devs would take a class and purposely make it weak so it would need buffs from other players. Devs would then create classes that would fill in the weaknesses in ways that forced grouping to make the classes work properly. Good idea on paper but bad idea in practice. The problem was this type of artificial interdependence tended to be uneven. What they ended up creating were mages that ran out of mana after every kill or tanks that had tiny HP pools that could barely kill anything. This made the already grindy gameplay even more tedious.
Even in the good old days some classes were more needed than others. Every guild wanted utility classes at end game but at the same time nobody wanted to go through the drudgery of leveling one up. Interdependence tends to lead to horrible imbalance outside of groups. Tanks and Healers were notorious for being slow levelers. Players of these classes had to put up with tedious gameplay just in the hope they would be wanted at end game. The devs purposely designed the game to be the opposite of fun which is fail.
Think about it who wants to play a squishy character that dies in two hits and has no DPS? Nobody, it is not logical. The only reason these classes were played at all was because it exploited basic human psychology.
It was artificial but that is because to a degree it needed to be. It was a game meant to feel like you lived in a society and so it added elements to it that gave it that feel and interdependence is one of those elements. I think that is the appeal of the old games. What new mmos feel like is some weird form of fantasy socialism. Instead of finding your niche in the world and fulfilling it (as it was in the older games) you instead are made on equal footing with everyone and no one needs anyone unless the game artificially imposes it(dungeons and raids). Essentially the game feels like the nanny state. It's the player driven feel of the old games that are missing. That you chose to struggle through that tough class to be needed at the end was in fact the point, it was the adventure.
Anyone play EQ and remember "Will tip for SOW"? For those who never played SOW was Spirit of the Wolf, a spell only one class in the game had.
Actually Shaman (level 9?), Druid (level 14?) and Ranger (level 39?) had the Spirit of Wolf spell (and everyone who owned a JBoot can cast a minor version of it on theirself; not as good as SOW but almost same effect).
Comments
That has to do with progression not interdependence.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The second sentance is: "We all know the new MMO's contradict the genre with the solo play chat room effect."
What exactly do you think the OP meant by "contradict the genre"?
By starting with a slam against solo play, the OP immediately alienates the very people who would need to be convinced that interdependance is fun.
It is true that today's players are much less likely to want interdependence in their game play. This explains why MMORPG developers (and developers in general) are more likely to allow players to be self sufficient.
Something is definitely lost in this transition. That something isn't really missed by the players who would rather be independent instead of interdependent though. It's just something that's lost, and unless something changes in the players, isn't coming back.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Interdependence is for play, Independence is for progression?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Getting a bit defensive aren't you? No need to get hostile either. You mentioned how in DAoC only one class per realm had run speed (which is also not true, although Skalds/Bards/Minstrels had the fastest speeds, but multiple classes had run speed buffs), and then go on to lament about how ALL classes have such abilities now. Which is simply not true in a good number of mmos. Mounts don't exactly count, since we're talking abilities here (which was mentioned by you originally). Even with mounts not all are equal either, as some classes in some mmos are inherently faster, or get free mounts instead of having to buy, etc.
Secondly, while it's not a specific buff, I still see people spamming for teleports to various areas in WoW. Mages are still the only class with the ability to teleport folks, and they still charge for the service.
Lastly, my point is that you talk about interdependence as if it was some mystical element only available in the pre-WoW era. While it was somewhat more important back in the day, it was still possible to be completely independent from others. Hell, I had numerous friends in DAoC who prided themselves on being completely autonomous using multiple characters to provide anything that another one needed for crafting. Additionally, in my short time in FFXIV: ARR I was part of linkshells that existed for the sole purpose of crafters trading materials, tools, crafting clothes, etc among each other. Even though you can be all things with one character, it was still more efficient to focus on one or two crafts and trade or AH for the rest. While there is no face to face trading per say, we would mail each other stuff and would bypass the AH all together.
Interdependence still exists in many mmos, it might be a bit more masked, but it's still there. Honestly, if you are really looking for interdependence, you should start a mmo from the ground up (right around launch), because that's when it exists the most. As time goes, people learn to be more independent within any given game.
Tis true. They're the game developers. They can listen to the community somewhat, but when it comes down to it, they really need to not give into every whim from the playerbase.
There are a few things that come together to make player interdependace happen in a a rewarding and sustaining way.
More skills then an account can have.
P2P
SCS(single char slot)
low use or no auction house
local banking
See what happened was players would either start new accounts or developers would manage skill sets per account to foster self suficency.
There were players in most of the games that did have 5 or even 10 P2P accounts... yea $150 a month! this is where we ended up creating gold sellers and items for cash player sites to help those players pay for their accounts. the work around was dumbing down the game play and making everything easy and self sustaining.
Literaly ending the whole idea of massively multiplayer online gaming!
was that the right way to go?
Was there another option?
To a publisher all those extra accounts looks good. So getting rid of those who hold multi accounts seems like a very bad idea. Back and forth between coumunity liazion and developer and publisher whittled the games down to the basics of what we have today. single player games with a chat box....
No guilds ended massive multiplayer online gaming.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Exactly. Devs listen most of the time, but they don't obey - nor should they. Sometimes you can see, or read between the lines, when a developer is trying to keep his/her cool and reply to a player comment politely. I tip my hat to any dev who is forced to do that as their job. I wouldn't have the patience for it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That never did any MMO or the Daleks any good for that matter. I remember the way player advise was followed by the devs in AC2, disastrous. Sometimes what we look like is shown below.
The premise was most people blame solo playability for new MMO's not featuring the social aspect the old ones did, my point was even though that does seem to contradict the term massive multiplayer it is NOT the problem. I did not even hide it, was pretty clear for all to read. It is pretty sad that someone can take that one sentence and make the other 50 null and void over it.
When I am simply expressing a point of view and am accused of being disingenuous and dishonest yes I am going to get defensive. Passive aggressive much? After your first reply I am not interested in what you have to say.
This/
Makes you wonder if these people complaining really want what they are complaining about not getting in an mmo.
Of course there is a balance and as of yet the MMO model has not completely adapted to gameplay that takes less time. The bandaid has been to make most progression easy, that doesn't require others and keep a standard level = higher numerical factor system.
Games like GW2 "get it" in this regard. Not only making levels not as impact full to group play but allowing people to do things together on a smaller scale. Granted, it may not be high quality interaction as found in a formed group but it beats doing everything solo.
My point is, you can have interdependence and do it on a casuals budget but the core designs of the MMO have to adapt. So far the plan seems to be taking the "old school" style MMO and just make it easier.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
The reason I drew your attention to your comments on solo play (and stopped there) was that I hoped that would make it clear that forcing interdependance is not going to get back those old days because forced interdependance never existed in the first place.
Nicely put. Most of the game design changes that folks here rail about were added to games to try to fix a problem.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It was artificial but that is because to a degree it needed to be. It was a game meant to feel like you lived in a society and so it added elements to it that gave it that feel and interdependence is one of those elements. I think that is the appeal of the old games. What new mmos feel like is some weird form of fantasy socialism. Instead of finding your niche in the world and fulfilling it (as it was in the older games) you instead are made on equal footing with everyone and no one needs anyone unless the game artificially imposes it(dungeons and raids). Essentially the game feels like the nanny state. It's the player driven feel of the old games that are missing. That you chose to struggle through that tough class to be needed at the end was in fact the point, it was the adventure.
Actually Shaman (level 9?), Druid (level 14?) and Ranger (level 39?) had the Spirit of Wolf spell (and everyone who owned a JBoot can cast a minor version of it on theirself; not as good as SOW but almost same effect).
But I totally agree with your post.