Or....you can update quests to work more properly with MMOs.
Either way, neither solution is being done or done particularly well at the moment, instead we have hybrids that force a single player experience into a multiplayer environment that leaves neither side particularly well-off with the results.
If you actually played those games(the so called single player MMO), people kept complaining about they have problem soloing the quests. Not only that, after a while, usually the player base decline and people start complaining they don't have players to form group with.
And like you said, neither solution is done particularly well. There is a reason for it. Because of "budget problem" MMO company try to appear to the mass (which means both it's group and solo players)
I don't think it is budget reasons as such, MMOs just tend to aim the game to all MMO players, they add 50% soloing, 25% group events, 15% PvP and 10% raids (give or take 10% depending on the game) and hope they will appeal to all players. Sadly that often means no-one will be happy which actually gives you less players, some games have done this more successful then others though..
So focusing a game only on soloplayers if you think the game will mostly have them is better but not all games can do that since if you have 100 games doing the same the playerbase will be divided among those games and making a game for the somewhat smaller groups suddenly gives you more players. Compromise and hope everyone becomes happy really only worked for Wow and no-one since.
I used rats since I actually think I killed 10 in all fantasy MMOs from Meridian 59 to Tera. Bandits is only more fun if it is more challenging, tough rats at level 1 can be more interesting then orcs at level 40 that basically is trashmobs.
As for the quest I was thinking of we are talking something like the heritage and signature quests of EQ2, you could do far more than 10 regular grind quests in the time one of those complex and challenging quests take.
And yeah, we are talking about 100 quests Vs 1000 (most modern MMOs have more than 1000 but just divide it with 10). The actual content you do to complete the quests are as much however and you have more time to actually write a good story, something most MMOs lack.
Honestly do people always complain that they pass the content to quick even if you have 10 000 quests (but they also whine that it is grindy at the same time). But if you ask most players which quests they thought was most fun in any themepark I doubt anyone would ever mention killing 10 orcs as the one they had most fun with. And I think honestly that MMOs need to try out new ways to handle the content, players are staying in games shorter and shorter now, and I think the same same quests in all games is part of that problem.
As for the random factor you can add certain random elements that randomly can show up in a multitude of quests. Maybe the questgiver is actually a thief and jumps the players with his thiefguild buddies, maybe they get a clue for a rare cool item in the middle of the quest. There are certainly a bunch of good and bad things you could add to a variety of quests that would offer a bit of variety (but don't have too large chanse of it happening or it will get annoying, a 5% chance of an additional step in each quest would make things interesting and as long as you can code so certain of them could happen to all quests in a zone or questhub, or other similar thing it would make things more interesting.
As for saving a families farm I did that in GW2 a week ago, it was a DE but I did the same in EQ and several other games.
My point is that MMOs need to offer new gameplay experience, running long trails of quests doesn't work as well today as it did with EQ and Wow, people have done that for many years now and only players new to the genre find that interesting but we have a hard time to get in new players to the genre now. So we either need to make questing more interesting or replace it with other mechanics that offer something new. I suggest we keep the quests, change them a bit to feel more interesting and mix in dynamic events which I think will be enough to offer something new to MMO players who already played a few games. There certainly would still be some whining but the alternative is either to just keep as before (and that seems to be working less well today, the average time a player play a MMO have been going down with a steady pace since the last 10 years.
The perfect solution would be something new that neither is a quest or a dynamic event and feels different from both for the players but I can't really figure out something good enough for that.
But something needs to be done, we can't just have rehashed Wow and EQ clones any longer.
The better games already do the variety of things you describe. For example in WOW you'd stumble upon a treasure chest sitting out in the middle of nowhere and when you try to loot it you're attacked by bandits. It's nothing close to the typical type of quest you're describing, and that type of quest variety existed throughout WOW.
This "WOW clone" nonsense needs to stop.
Basically MMORPG is a genre. A genre is a type of game. That implies games within the genre are going to share several characteristics with one another (because otherwise they wouldn't be considered to share the same genre.)
MMORPGs have gradually become more like videogame RPGs over the years. Unsurprising, given that's the genre's name and that's the type of gameplay many players enjoy. This means they share several characteristics.
And yet clearly the major MMORPGs of the last few years have each had their own unique traits that clearly sets them apart.
Essentially instead of "this game is a WOW clone", players need to realize what they're actually saying is "this game is a MMORPG." Because that's what MMORPGs are. Progression, quests, stories, characters, dungeons.
This isn't to say that there aren't bad games. There are quite a few bad games (80% of everything is crap, as they say) and of the remaining games very few have approached WOW in terms of depth and variety. But that's not a problem with the fundamentals (like whether a game has quests.) It's a problem with the execution (like whether the game has interesting stuff like the bandit ambush, or plants vs. zombies, or bombing run quests, or any of the hundreds of other extremely distinct quests WOW offered.)
But you're never going to get away from things which are quests. If a game has rewarded objectives, that's a quest. And virtually every game has rewarded objectives in some form or another. (If not it's not going to be a very fun game for players.) Don't be distracted by the window dressings that this game calls it a "World Event" and this game calls it "crafting" and this game calls it "looting a box". It's all the same exact game pattern: do something -> see result. Whatever game you're enjoying now follows the same pattern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The better games already do the variety of things you describe. For example in WOW you'd stumble upon a treasure chest sitting out in the middle of nowhere and when you try to loot it you're attacked by bandits. It's nothing close to the typical type of quest you're describing, and that type of quest variety existed throughout WOW.
This "WOW clone" nonsense needs to stop.
Basically MMORPG is a genre. A genre is a type of game. That implies games within the genre are going to share several characteristics with one another (because otherwise they wouldn't be considered to share the same genre.)
MMORPGs have gradually become more like videogame RPGs over the years. Unsurprising, given that's the genre's name and that's the type of gameplay many players enjoy. This means they share several characteristics.
And yet clearly the major MMORPGs of the last few years have each had their own unique traits that clearly sets them apart.
Essentially instead of "this game is a WOW clone", players need to realize what they're actually saying is "this game is a MMORPG." Because that's what MMORPGs are. Progression, quests, stories, characters, dungeons.
This isn't to say that there aren't bad games. There are quite a few bad games (80% of everything is crap, as they say) and of the remaining games very few have approached WOW in terms of depth and variety. But that's not a problem with the fundamentals (like whether a game has quests.) It's a problem with the execution (like whether the game has interesting stuff like the bandit ambush, or plants vs. zombies, or bombing run quests, or any of the hundreds of other extremely distinct quests WOW offered.)
But you're never going to get away from things which are quests. If a game has rewarded objectives, that's a quest. And virtually every game has rewarded objectives in some form or another. (If not it's not going to be a very fun game for players.) Don't be distracted by the window dressings that this game calls it a "World Event" and this game calls it "crafting" and this game calls it "looting a box". It's all the same exact game pattern: do something -> see result. Whatever game you're enjoying now follows the same pattern.
Yes, MMORPG should have some things in common but they need to feel different and original from eachothers or people will just stay in their ld games until they tire of them and nothing new will offer anything different.
The chest thing have been used already earlier then Wow, several of the older games had similar things and while I think it is a good idea the whole thing needs to be taken further. Guildwars 2 actually have done so but it could be done better, just spawning a quest or event whenever someone clicks an item is a good variation now and then but not exactly what I have in mind.
I know that people will have to get objectives to complete in a game but they still need to be presented in different ways and sometimes there need to be consequences, good or bad.
How many western AAA MMOs are in development (and while the crowdfunded games certainly can be good they aren't really AAA)? None? The genre is shrinking if you look on the number of games in development and even sure fire games like Wow is dropping in subs now.
MMOs can still keep the basics of MMOs, that isn't a problem but they will still have to offer new experiences or the genre will slowly fade away.
What most games are experimenting with right now is different new combat mechanics but I think presentation is very important as well.
If just continuing as the games done so far would have worked we would see at least a few larger MMOs in development now but all the large companies have canceled their games (Titan is just one example, Biowares Dragon ages is another, you had Copernicus and a whole bunch of other high budget games going down the drain. Right now the only high budget western MMO in development as far as I know is Star citizen. So something is surely wrong, I am not saying my suggestions would be perfect but doing nothing will accomplish just that.
Or....you can update quests to work more properly with MMOs.
Either way, neither solution is being done or done particularly well at the moment, instead we have hybrids that force a single player experience into a multiplayer environment that leaves neither side particularly well-off with the results.
If you actually played those games(the so called single player MMO), people kept complaining about they have problem soloing the quests. Not only that, after a while, usually the player base decline and people start complaining they don't have players to form group with.
And like you said, neither solution is done particularly well. There is a reason for it. Because of "budget problem" MMO company try to appear to the mass (which means both it's group and solo players)
I don't think it is budget reasons as such, MMOs just tend to aim the game to all MMO players, they add 50% soloing, 25% group events, 15% PvP and 10% raids (give or take 10% depending on the game) and hope they will appeal to all players. Sadly that often means no-one will be happy which actually gives you less players, some games have done this more successful then others though..
So focusing a game only on soloplayers if you think the game will mostly have them is better but not all games can do that since if you have 100 games doing the same the playerbase will be divided among those games and making a game for the somewhat smaller groups suddenly gives you more players. Compromise and hope everyone becomes happy really only worked for Wow and no-one since.
There are already games like that. It's called low budget mmorpg.
Not only that, there are already 100% solo games called single player games, and 100% pvp games called MOBA that target those players.
People on this forum are expecting their niche mmorpg to have wow like budget. That's not happening.
And your last sentence can be said the same to Eve. There are developers try to make Eve Clone, it dont' work too. Even if it work, it just mean it steals Eve's player.
Sorry, might be wrong here, but I would love to see some of EVE Online quest mechanics implemented in current Fantasy world. Well, for the first I would love to see REALLY GOOD Post apocaliptic or CyberPunk MMO but that is different question.
What I meant by EVE online quest style, if you scan some areas for *anomalies* you will find some so called *random encounters*, most of the simple missions to clean out hostiles. But time for time they drop mission chain with random reward up to *mystic* ish quality I would translate it, equipment. Those chains might be in hell hole as 0.0 region, or might be something else, so there is Always a bit of surprise when you suddenly see expedition in your mission log. But sadly I haven't seen such event type implementation anywhere else.
But you're never going to get away from things which are quests. If a game has rewarded objectives, that's a quest. And virtually every game has rewarded objectives in some form or another. (If not it's not going to be a very fun game for players.) Don't be distracted by the window dressings that this game calls it a "World Event" and this game calls it "crafting" and this game calls it "looting a box". It's all the same exact game pattern: do something -> see result. Whatever game you're enjoying now follows the same pattern.
Well yes, if you define everything that you can possibly receive a reward from as questing then questing is here to stay and not going anywhere.
Though... if you've defined questing so broadly that crafting and PvP can be considered sub categories of questing then the word has effectively lost all meaning and we will need to create a new word to describe what most people consider questing to be.
I just want a game like EVE set in a fantasy world. I want the complexity. I want it to take a long time to master many skills, but a short time to be good at a few. I want to run a business one day, and raid an enemy the next. Then maybe just spend a day drinking with my buddies enjoying our spoils or licking our wounds. I want a small chance to craft something special, not just the same thing everyone else creates every single time. I want to be able to cultivate that chance by specialized training over a long period of time. Everyone that tries can maybe make a dagger, but someone that really works at it and specializes in it can make a dagger that is truly a work of art.
I want a world to explore that can't be mapped in a day. I want surprises out in that world. Quests and dungeons that pop up, and once completed are gone forever. Like the random dungeons, quests, forts and bandit camps in Bethesda games, but cranked up and improved a couple notches. I don't want everything important in the world happening behind a closed door of an instance, though some minor instancing would be fine if it served a valid purpose like reducing server strain. I want my choices and contributions to have some sort of meaning on the overall world, even if it is just guild control of an area like in EVE. Nothing is ever permanent, but having some noticeable impact on the world while I am playing and contributing is important to me.
I want to have my own house. I want it in a guild town like the old days. I want a sense of community again.
All of these things have been done in games before. I just hope someone gets it all together again before I die.
Maybe Crowfall will tick most of my boxes, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. Still some of what the indie MMO's are saying gives me a glimmer of hope.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
Or....you can update quests to work more properly with MMOs.
Either way, neither solution is being done or done particularly well at the moment, instead we have hybrids that force a single player experience into a multiplayer environment that leaves neither side particularly well-off with the results.
Making single player games, and tagging on some MMO features is much easier and cheaper. Plus, you don't have to drastically change the quest system.
MMOs are just not very well suited for elaborate high quality quests.
Or....you can update quests to work more properly with MMOs.
Either way, neither solution is being done or done particularly well at the moment, instead we have hybrids that force a single player experience into a multiplayer environment that leaves neither side particularly well-off with the results.
Making single player games, and tagging on some MMO features is much easier and cheaper. Plus, you don't have to drastically change the quest system.
MMOs are just not very well suited for elaborate high quality quests.
name a quest you have in mind when you say "elaborate, high quality". (I took the liberty to add proper punctuation to your quote just to avoid the semantics discussion).
Best recent example is Fallout 4. Spoilers ....
There is a sequence where you hack into the memory of someone to gain information, and it was a pretty nice sequence and let you learn the back story of another character, and also relive an event from another perspective.
The in-game engine is modified for you to follow memory fragments and observed past events.
Another example is the assassination sequence in the beginning of Dishonored. And again, in one of the DLC, you live the same event from another perspective.
He might not have worded it well, but he kinda has a point. The way single player quest lines work gives a lot of focus on the player as the central protagonist. This is an aspect that remains weak in MMOs largely for the fault that there's a fey thousand other protagonists occupying the same space, doing the same things.
This is compounded by the often static nature of the game worlds for MMOs, where quests don't generate any notable impact on the state of the world, in any impact at all. The boss respawns, the mobs respawn, the quests remain in ever the same state for the next person to come by.
Single player games get to dodge this issue because they can change the world with the events of a quest and not have to fret over how that might impact another player, because there are no other players.
His initial commentary about MMO mechanics being implemented into otherwise single player games reminds me of a few titles that popped up on the last gen consoles. Demon's Souls, Spore, and Dragon's Dogma all as predominantly single player titles/experiences that utilized multiplayer components for the most part in an indirect way to augment the user's experience. Maxis coined the term "Massively Singleplayer" behind the principle, but the point of it is that it can draw the information from across many users to seed content into another person's game and give it variety and novelty beyond what the developers might be able to put in themselves. Messages/memories from past/dead adventurers, foreign alien species and creations, sidekicks from another realm with differing experiences they can talk about, etc.
The part that I would disagree with is the idea that MMOs aren't capable of better storytelling than they presently offer, as I'd say that it's mostly because we have not developed the proper framework for delivering quality narrative in an MMO yet. Instead we are shoehorning in the structure of single player RPGs and narratives into an environment that needs a system that can string together the differing events and experiences of many users into arcs of their own as they contribute towards world-changing events.
You can see it in games like WoW and elsewhere, as when you complete a mission you might have a few seconds of satisfaction before coming back to the reality that nothing has changed. The world wasn't saved, the evil bosses were not put down for good, your contributions and experience don't exist to the game world.
The one thing past MMOs had that really aided in this problem were live GMs that operated events leading into changes in the game's world. The practicality of this has long since waned however, and though some attempts are being made or have been to try and incorporate at least something similar to a GM role back into some MMOs, it's just not a practical feature for a title to use as it's user base increases.
Phasing was an attempted solution, but it strangles the multi-user experience rendering the point of being an MMO moot in many ways.
What's really necessary as a result is a new system outright, something that can operate on the framework MMOs provide to give an experience properly tailored to that platform. There are ideas on how that might be achievable (like I suggested my own solution previously that works pretty well for multi and single player play styles), but we need to see them actually experimented with, progress, and evolve into the refined content that can deliver a gripping user experience.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Not bad examples...of course I don't know the specifics. This is my counter:
World of Warcraft. BC. Netherwing Ledge. There is a quest to fly behind 6 different flight "masters". (one by one, increasing difficulty). Only one person can enter one flight at a time since there's only one of each master. naturally they fly in twisted patterns, throw stuff at you and if you get hit you fall to your death. Completing the last race took me 5 days. In those 5 days I did it and failed it countless times. At all times, a big group of players also on this step of the quest would take turns and while the "competiting player" would do the race, the others would fly behind him at safe distance to familiarize themselves with the race better while being safe.
Simply put, the success or failure of each player was occuring in front of a large audience watching from a safe distance. And there were many "grats" when one would succeed.
Singleplayer quests are fine, but MMO players are looking for something a little more. I can't speak for any besides myself but that's basically the kind of experience I expect from high quality MMO quests.
From a story point of view, your example is extremely thin. There is no personal stakes, interacting with back stories. Even the use of the game mechanics is not special.
However, that is besides the point. Examples i have cited are just two in a huge sea of others. Single player games are full of good interesting quests and stories. How many examples you can cite in WoW (or other MMORPG) that is at the same quality as this example you just cited?
I played WOW for a few years, and my answer would be ... almost none. 99% of the wow quests = some irrelevant text + go kill some stuff (or go fetch some stuff). There is little about participating in meaningful events (scripted, and happening around you). I am sure there are some, but clearly not enough, and not customized enough.
I would much rather play Fallout 4 with some added MMO features (like you can go to a lobby and invite someone into your game, or may be even a public zone that is outside of the quests), then a MMO with to put half-ass quests.
MMOs are much better off focusing on no-story pvp e-sport, or hack-n-slash progression gameplay like D3, where stories and quests are completely irrelevant and not needed. (Yes, D3 has a story compaign but the story is meh, and that is like 1% of the gameplay).
The part that I would disagree with is the idea that MMOs aren't capable of better storytelling than they presently offer, as I'd say that it's mostly because we have not developed the proper framework for delivering quality narrative in an MMO yet. Instead we are shoehorning in the structure of single player RPGs and narratives into an environment that needs a system that can string together the differing events and experiences of many users into arcs of their own as they contribute towards world-changing events.
Well, the future is hard to predict. There is certainly no framework today that can deliver quality narrative in a multiplayer setting (beyond you come into my world, and help me with my quests).
I don't think it is easy, or feasible to do, and even if someone wants to try, i doubt we will see anything worthwhile in a decade.
The solutions are two:
1) Use the already well-developed single player quest/narrative framework, and tag on MMO elements that do not interfere.
2) Forget about quests and narrative. Either go e-sports pvp (like WoT), or hack-n-slash progression (like D3). Games like Marvel Heroes and PoE are successful (and they may not be classified as MMO, but that is besides the point) is that they don't focus on the quest/narrative at all.
MMOs are much better off focusing on no-story pvp e-sport, or hack-n-slash progression gameplay like D3, where stories and quests are completely irrelevant and not needed. (Yes, D3 has a story compaign but the story is meh, and that is like 1% of the gameplay).
I disagree with your last point simply because in my opinion MMORPGS are better providing a platform for Roleplaying/Roleplayers and is why the genre started off for the most part. Fill the world with lots of interesting scenes and interactions and let the players go wild. No handholding every step of the way.
An MMORPG is a movie set, the players are the actors and the director has asked the actors to ad-lib just before shouting 'Action'.
MMOs are much better off focusing on no-story pvp e-sport, or hack-n-slash progression gameplay like D3, where stories and quests are completely irrelevant and not needed. (Yes, D3 has a story compaign but the story is meh, and that is like 1% of the gameplay).
I disagree with your last point simply because in my opinion MMORPGS are better providing a platform for Roleplaying/Roleplayers and is why the genre started off for the most part. Fill the world with lots of interesting scenes and interactions and let the players go wild. No handholding every step of the way.
An MMORPG is a movie set, the players are the actors and the director has asked the actors to ad-lib just before shouting 'Action'.
Well, the target audience does not consist of RPers.
Those who are interested in e-sports (or just no-story pvp), and hack-n-slash progression probably out-number RPers 100 to 1.
The problem is MMOs have evolved too quest centric. Let me explain:
In a modern MMO quests have a single purpose - to give a player experience so he can eventually level up and gain new powers. These quests are usually pretty straigh forward, most of the time you don't even have to fight, only collect some sparkling objects and turn them in. When you are done at this quest hub, you get the last quest telling you to travel to the next hub of quest, and you start the process all over.
This could be entertaining kind of gameplay if these quests itself were interesting and well scripted, but every attempt to push them towards that direction makes them more and more look like a single player game that you have to share with lots of other people. You have to compete for mob tags, attention of quest givers, etc. even tho the other players should be on your side and help you. If you want to play MMO this is not OK, we dont need this kind of quests.
What we need is a living breathing world, where players got to figure out what's going on. This doesn't mean an NPC starting conversation shortly after character creation telling you X is destroying our village and you are their only hope. Let me figure that myself by having an NPC offering bountys for 'small red bandanas' and making me find out who carries those. Let those bandit mobs then drop goods like money, ammo, weapons, armors, crafting mats, items that give you hints for new locations and treasures, etc. In other words, give players a purpose to kill mobs other than some odd quest to 'kill 10 bandits'.
If i use vanilla wow human starting area as an example, there's lvl 5 bandits and their leader who has occupied the local vineyard. Instead of telling me to gather 10 bandanas and 5 stack of grapes, give me a quest to figure out why they are here. After some hours in game i learn about bandits in deadmines and their leader VanCleef. That's a quest - to kill VanCleef - but before i can even dream of trying to confront him i have to prepare myself by gearing up properly.
Other mobs around should be good for something too, even tho anyone doesn't really tell you to kill them. Boars give you meat for cooking, birds give you eggs to eat and feathers for arrows, wolves give you pelts for armors and fangs for necklaces and lucky charms, etc. All you have to do is design the game so that the players really need to do this before they can finish the quest to kill the evil bandit leader.
The bottom line is you only need a handful of quests, all that are important for progressing in this story. Let them players decide how to complete them, just give them tools to do it. Give them something they should group up for early on and give them a reason to work together. That makes a community.
We don't need scripted events or cut-scenes in MMOs, they belong to singe player games and only confuses the flow of the game. On top of that, it would be easier for developers to create more content faster this way.
Yes, MMORPG should have some things in common but they need to feel different and original from eachothers or people will just stay in their ld games until they tire of them and nothing new will offer anything different.
The chest thing have been used already earlier then Wow, several of the older games had similar things and while I think it is a good idea the whole thing needs to be taken further. Guildwars 2 actually have done so but it could be done better, just spawning a quest or event whenever someone clicks an item is a good variation now and then but not exactly what I have in mind.
I know that people will have to get objectives to complete in a game but they still need to be presented in different ways and sometimes there need to be consequences, good or bad.
How many western AAA MMOs are in development (and while the crowdfunded games certainly can be good they aren't really AAA)? None? The genre is shrinking if you look on the number of games in development and even sure fire games like Wow is dropping in subs now.
MMOs can still keep the basics of MMOs, that isn't a problem but they will still have to offer new experiences or the genre will slowly fade away.
What most games are experimenting with right now is different new combat mechanics but I think presentation is very important as well.
If just continuing as the games done so far would have worked we would see at least a few larger MMOs in development now but all the large companies have canceled their games (Titan is just one example, Biowares Dragon ages is another, you had Copernicus and a whole bunch of other high budget games going down the drain. Right now the only high budget western MMO in development as far as I know is Star citizen. So something is surely wrong, I am not saying my suggestions would be perfect but doing nothing will accomplish just that.
Concerns about the decline of the genre would be addressed by someone actually putting out a game deeper than WOW for once. Thus far, nobody has. Several have put out gameplay that was deeper than launch WOW, but the problem is WOW kept pushing the bar forward and "this year's WOW" is what these games are competing with.
Content quality (of which quests are a big part of) is the other big factor. (As is having the right publisher who knows how to market the game.) But we don't need a huge shift in how quests are implemented to accomplish that, we mostly just need a push for better variety and quality.
Presentation is important, but what major modern MMORPGs failed on account of presentation? Most of them look pretty nice, but fail due to lack of depth, variety, and/or content quality. Though if you're arguing for the presentation component of quests, then that's content quality and I could agree that games could do better. Not sure I'd automatically say it's the right direction for MMORPGs to go though (I get the sense it might be too expensive to be worth it, reducing the amount of quests a game can afford to offer. And as we've seen from player reactions: too few quests is a bigger sin than too little quality.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well yes, if you define everything that you can possibly receive a reward from as questing then questing is here to stay and not going anywhere.
Though... if you've defined questing so broadly that crafting and PvP can be considered sub categories of questing then the word has effectively lost all meaning and we will need to create a new word to describe what most people consider questing to be.
Essentially I'm trying to educate people that what they're offended by is exactly the same thing as what they're NOT offended by. Only the name has changed.
Only people realize that, they will either (a) realize their dislike of quests is shallow and stop it, or (b) be more specific about what they actually dislike that is specific to the main type of quests they're referring to.
If I call quests "missions", is that window dressing enough for you to enjoy quests again? How about if I call quests "crafting"?
Your answers will determine how narrowly you've defined questing.
If a "mission" isn't a quest in your mind, then what you consider a quest seems rather shallow (it's only the literal name "quest" that makes something a quest to you.)
If crafting isn't a quest then how is that any different from a mission or quest? You assemble the requested ingredients, return to the quest-giver (who's named Forge), and turn-in for a reward.
After walking through that exercise you'll know whether (a) quests aren't actually so bad after all or (b) you know the specific thing that irritates you (which won't be the fact that they're quests, but some other critical detail about how the quests are designed.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think things could be made more interesting in a static world with no quests if a developer could come up with an idea to have dynamic relocation of mobs/npcs that would give an illusion that actually seems realistic. This would help keep things fresh and remove the complaint that nothing changes. I'd rather see developers focus on something like that instead of finding ways to better implement quests.
Another step in the right direction would be to come up with a solution to repeated player harassment. There must be some type of system that would be better than instancing to solve such an issue. Some kind of rules that would heavily penalize a PvPer who kills someone repeatedly.
Remove the all combat class focus and switch to a role focus where players have the choice to do something in the world other than just participate in various forms of combat. Roles that will make the world feel more alive.
Have day/night cycles.
Find a solution to the housing/boat issue. Ultima Online had lots of issues with player housing taking up the whole world. A solution to such a problem might be to increase the cost/time of maintaining houses/boats/etc. and perhaps even having them completely removed after a period of not paying rent.
I'm not saying my solutions would work, but it seems developers have gone the easy route of instances and quests because it works (money wise) instead of trying to think outside of the box.
2) Forget about quests and narrative. Either go e-sports pvp (like WoT), or hack-n-slash progression (like D3). Games like Marvel Heroes and PoE are successful (and they may not be classified as MMO, but that is besides the point) is that they don't focus on the quest/narrative at all.
I think forgetting about narrative is appropriate. But not in that way.
MMOs were born as sandboxes and as such, quest-hub quest-line quest-chain are all things that while vital nowadays are not mandatory.
EVE Online...I played for about 4 years. I honestly don't know if it has a storyline or not. I did 2 or 3 tutorial missions before deciding i didnt want to do that, and went ahead to do my own thing and never looked back.
MMOs nowadays are fundamentally stable - minus the playerbases. If you judge the behavior of a PVPer or a raider, he basically goes to specially designated instanced spot and starts up some trouble with NPCs, mobs or other players.
Stable is boring. I will repeat this. Stable is boring.
Looking at a sandbox like EVE or on a non-MMO scale a game like ARK...you strive for stability. You build yourself up, to protect yourself from any real and imaginary threat. Expand, stabilize, expand,s tabilize, collapse to power-hungry internal drama, repeat. Not discussing contemporary EVE thunderdome/doughnut politics, but simply stating that quests simply seek to stir up trouble where there is none.
MMOs can achieve this much easier and much more dynamically. Players are known to be quite the trouble-makers.
You can get a quest to kill 10 wolves...but what if there are 10 wolves that belong to someone else, and there's no quest to kill them? Someone will kill them anyway, to piss off the owner. And then the owner might retaliate. And just like that we got dynamics going on without the need for a "kill 10 x" quest.
you said a bunch of stuff, essentially saying there are is no narrative. having some dynamic incentives (like you are killing my wolves) is not a narrative with a story.
So again, MMO should just forget about stories/narrative quests.
I'm not saying my solutions would work, but it seems developers have gone the easy route of instances and quests because it works (money wise) instead of trying to think outside of the box.
is there anything wrong with a solution that works?
I would also argue that quests do not work as well in MMO as in single player games yet, and there is a lot MMO devs can learn. Again, either make the quests more single player, or get rid of them, and just focus on narrative-less pvp (WoT, LoL .. with great success) or hack-n-slash pve.
In vanilla WoW the time you put into the game was more rewarding than the time you spent outside of the game. This hasn't been true for numerous amounts of games. In large number of games these days you can simply get a second job outside of the game to progress faster inside of the game.
Now considering that f2p is the staple of the "genre", can you think of any games where $10.00USD an hour doesn't earn you more actually playing the game? The only one I can think of is Maplestory, because they took out trading and removed exp/drop coupons and mesobags. The closest thing to pay2win they have in MS are pets.
WoW clones do exist and to me it mean that they inspired by and play like WoW with a wrinkle or two. UO, AC, EQ, DOAC have very little in common. WoW, Tera, Aion, LOTRO, STWOR, Wildstar and so and so all play exactly the same progression wise. Many have similar interfaces. Maybe the combat or classes system is different but your gameplay delivery is the same. This genre can have quest based progression and combat majority focus only but it doesn't have to be and not the only "RPG" way.
Questing is also a very tight and controlled experience the way its done. So not only do we have too many quest and have too many generic task passed off as quest... we also have the whole experience and world designed around those quest. Its why MMORPG feel the same because we're funneled into this very tight gameplay experience the same way in each one despite other differences like combat, classes and lore.
Content quality (of which quests are a big part of) is the other big factor. (As is having the right publisher who knows how to market the game.) But we don't need a huge shift in how quests are implemented to accomplish that, we mostly just need a push for better variety and quality.
"We don't need new, we need more of the same!" is a rather depressing mindset to have. There are at least a few pretty clear big problems with RPG and quest design as it presently exists with not meshing properly or exceptionally well into MMOs. Adding more fluff into a system that is still grounded in some very static ways at best only prolongs the time it takes for this issue to become apparent, and not by a meaningful amount it would seem.
Quality and variety are certainly good goals, but more of the same is doomed to stagnation. Deep gameplay comes in a variety of ways as has been pointed out in the past with examples of fighting systems that utilize mechanics either beyond or alternative to "combat rotations", creating new mechanics like cross class combos, combo fields, better interaction with environment for unique opportunities and effects, etc. Similarly other game mechanics have seen their own ranges of depth and uniqueness as they have experimented on how to expand and evolve the genre.
If We looked at it objectively, we'd note several things any ways. One being that WoW does not lead on innovation. It's rather behind in terms of siege mechanics for example compared to DAoC, Lineage, Archeage, and even Guild Wars as all these titles have features around siege engines, castle infiltration, castle destruction, and more direct value to gameplay for participating in such things not just for the user but as an effect on the player community through earned perks benefiting entire factions, territory for building things on, increased resources/rewards, etc. In terms of crafting there has been the gamut for depth of crafting mechanics that reaches far beyond any implemented features in WoW. In terms of travel systems there have been games that over considerably more optimal designs than WoW such as GW2's waypoint unlocks. In terms of narrative that's one of the few components SWToR did well at even if the experience suffers greatly from the previously mentioned disparity between single player RPG mechanics being used in an MMO framework...
Point here being, on an objective level, the beacon for depth and quality is not found in a single game, let alone not in WoW. If one wanted to say "most stable" then perhaps there is a point to be had there, but as far as quality goes, there is a great disparity to be had.
As it relates back to this stuff, the point is that progress is still something strive towards, not "more of the same".
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Concerns about the decline of the genre would be addressed by someone actually putting out a game deeper than WOW for once. Thus far, nobody has. Several have put out gameplay that was deeper than launch WOW, but the problem is WOW kept pushing the bar forward and "this year's WOW" is what these games are competing with.
Content quality (of which quests are a big part of) is the other big factor. (As is having the right publisher who knows how to market the game.) But we don't need a huge shift in how quests are implemented to accomplish that, we mostly just need a push for better variety and quality.
Presentation is important, but what major modern MMORPGs failed on account of presentation? Most of them look pretty nice, but fail due to lack of depth, variety, and/or content quality. Though if you're arguing for the presentation component of quests, then that's content quality and I could agree that games could do better. Not sure I'd automatically say it's the right direction for MMORPGs to go though (I get the sense it might be too expensive to be worth it, reducing the amount of quests a game can afford to offer. And as we've seen from player reactions: too few quests is a bigger sin than too little quality.)
I did not say that improving quests and DEs is the ultimate anything, but the MMOs need new ways to give you short time goals (Quests and DEs are 2 ways doing that) or to be better on making quests and DEs feel more fun.
And I don't exactly get any ideas on how to make a deeper MMO then Wow from you, you are basically just saying that the games should continue like Wow does in this whole thread.
Making a MMO as good and fun as Wow isn't good enough, you need to make it better.
And there are basically 4 things you can improve: 1. Graphics. (art and polygon count as well as effects and so on). 2. Character mechanics (how you gain power as you play, any none combat mechanics including crafting) 3. Combat mechanics (attacks, how you target and hit an opponent, dodges, group dynamics and so on). 4. Lore &Presentation ( long and short turn goals for the players the setting and the players role in that setting).
I think just picking one thing and improve isn't enough, all is preferably but at least 3 of those ways. How a game present you with your character short term goals is one of the things that impact the gaming experience most and yet it is the thing least talked about in threads here.
Comments
I don't think it is budget reasons as such, MMOs just tend to aim the game to all MMO players, they add 50% soloing, 25% group events, 15% PvP and 10% raids (give or take 10% depending on the game) and hope they will appeal to all players. Sadly that often means no-one will be happy which actually gives you less players, some games have done this more successful then others though..
So focusing a game only on soloplayers if you think the game will mostly have them is better but not all games can do that since if you have 100 games doing the same the playerbase will be divided among those games and making a game for the somewhat smaller groups suddenly gives you more players. Compromise and hope everyone becomes happy really only worked for Wow and no-one since.
This "WOW clone" nonsense needs to stop.
Basically MMORPG is a genre. A genre is a type of game. That implies games within the genre are going to share several characteristics with one another (because otherwise they wouldn't be considered to share the same genre.)
MMORPGs have gradually become more like videogame RPGs over the years. Unsurprising, given that's the genre's name and that's the type of gameplay many players enjoy. This means they share several characteristics.
And yet clearly the major MMORPGs of the last few years have each had their own unique traits that clearly sets them apart.
Essentially instead of "this game is a WOW clone", players need to realize what they're actually saying is "this game is a MMORPG." Because that's what MMORPGs are. Progression, quests, stories, characters, dungeons.
This isn't to say that there aren't bad games. There are quite a few bad games (80% of everything is crap, as they say) and of the remaining games very few have approached WOW in terms of depth and variety. But that's not a problem with the fundamentals (like whether a game has quests.) It's a problem with the execution (like whether the game has interesting stuff like the bandit ambush, or plants vs. zombies, or bombing run quests, or any of the hundreds of other extremely distinct quests WOW offered.)
But you're never going to get away from things which are quests. If a game has rewarded objectives, that's a quest. And virtually every game has rewarded objectives in some form or another. (If not it's not going to be a very fun game for players.) Don't be distracted by the window dressings that this game calls it a "World Event" and this game calls it "crafting" and this game calls it "looting a box". It's all the same exact game pattern: do something -> see result. Whatever game you're enjoying now follows the same pattern.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The chest thing have been used already earlier then Wow, several of the older games had similar things and while I think it is a good idea the whole thing needs to be taken further. Guildwars 2 actually have done so but it could be done better, just spawning a quest or event whenever someone clicks an item is a good variation now and then but not exactly what I have in mind.
I know that people will have to get objectives to complete in a game but they still need to be presented in different ways and sometimes there need to be consequences, good or bad.
How many western AAA MMOs are in development (and while the crowdfunded games certainly can be good they aren't really AAA)? None? The genre is shrinking if you look on the number of games in development and even sure fire games like Wow is dropping in subs now.
MMOs can still keep the basics of MMOs, that isn't a problem but they will still have to offer new experiences or the genre will slowly fade away.
What most games are experimenting with right now is different new combat mechanics but I think presentation is very important as well.
If just continuing as the games done so far would have worked we would see at least a few larger MMOs in development now but all the large companies have canceled their games (Titan is just one example, Biowares Dragon ages is another, you had Copernicus and a whole bunch of other high budget games going down the drain. Right now the only high budget western MMO in development as far as I know is Star citizen. So something is surely wrong, I am not saying my suggestions would be perfect but doing nothing will accomplish just that.
Not only that, there are already 100% solo games called single player games, and 100% pvp games called MOBA that target those players.
People on this forum are expecting their niche mmorpg to have wow like budget. That's not happening.
And your last sentence can be said the same to Eve. There are developers try to make Eve Clone, it dont' work too. Even if it work, it just mean it steals Eve's player.
What I meant by EVE online quest style, if you scan some areas for *anomalies* you will find some so called *random encounters*, most of the simple missions to clean out hostiles. But time for time they drop mission chain with random reward up to *mystic* ish quality I would translate it, equipment. Those chains might be in hell hole as 0.0 region, or might be something else, so there is Always a bit of surprise when you suddenly see expedition in your mission log. But sadly I haven't seen such event type implementation anywhere else.
Though... if you've defined questing so broadly that crafting and PvP can be considered sub categories of questing then the word has effectively lost all meaning and we will need to create a new word to describe what most people consider questing to be.
I want a world to explore that can't be mapped in a day. I want surprises out in that world. Quests and dungeons that pop up, and once completed are gone forever. Like the random dungeons, quests, forts and bandit camps in Bethesda games, but cranked up and improved a couple notches. I don't want everything important in the world happening behind a closed door of an instance, though some minor instancing would be fine if it served a valid purpose like reducing server strain. I want my choices and contributions to have some sort of meaning on the overall world, even if it is just guild control of an area like in EVE. Nothing is ever permanent, but having some noticeable impact on the world while I am playing and contributing is important to me.
I want to have my own house. I want it in a guild town like the old days. I want a sense of community again.
All of these things have been done in games before. I just hope someone gets it all together again before I die.
Maybe Crowfall will tick most of my boxes, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. Still some of what the indie MMO's are saying gives me a glimmer of hope.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.
MMOs are just not very well suited for elaborate high quality quests.
There is a sequence where you hack into the memory of someone to gain information, and it was a pretty nice sequence and let you learn the back story of another character, and also relive an event from another perspective.
The in-game engine is modified for you to follow memory fragments and observed past events.
Another example is the assassination sequence in the beginning of Dishonored. And again, in one of the DLC, you live the same event from another perspective.
This is compounded by the often static nature of the game worlds for MMOs, where quests don't generate any notable impact on the state of the world, in any impact at all. The boss respawns, the mobs respawn, the quests remain in ever the same state for the next person to come by.
Single player games get to dodge this issue because they can change the world with the events of a quest and not have to fret over how that might impact another player, because there are no other players.
His initial commentary about MMO mechanics being implemented into otherwise single player games reminds me of a few titles that popped up on the last gen consoles. Demon's Souls, Spore, and Dragon's Dogma all as predominantly single player titles/experiences that utilized multiplayer components for the most part in an indirect way to augment the user's experience. Maxis coined the term "Massively Singleplayer" behind the principle, but the point of it is that it can draw the information from across many users to seed content into another person's game and give it variety and novelty beyond what the developers might be able to put in themselves. Messages/memories from past/dead adventurers, foreign alien species and creations, sidekicks from another realm with differing experiences they can talk about, etc.
The part that I would disagree with is the idea that MMOs aren't capable of better storytelling than they presently offer, as I'd say that it's mostly because we have not developed the proper framework for delivering quality narrative in an MMO yet. Instead we are shoehorning in the structure of single player RPGs and narratives into an environment that needs a system that can string together the differing events and experiences of many users into arcs of their own as they contribute towards world-changing events.
You can see it in games like WoW and elsewhere, as when you complete a mission you might have a few seconds of satisfaction before coming back to the reality that nothing has changed. The world wasn't saved, the evil bosses were not put down for good, your contributions and experience don't exist to the game world.
The one thing past MMOs had that really aided in this problem were live GMs that operated events leading into changes in the game's world. The practicality of this has long since waned however, and though some attempts are being made or have been to try and incorporate at least something similar to a GM role back into some MMOs, it's just not a practical feature for a title to use as it's user base increases.
Phasing was an attempted solution, but it strangles the multi-user experience rendering the point of being an MMO moot in many ways.
What's really necessary as a result is a new system outright, something that can operate on the framework MMOs provide to give an experience properly tailored to that platform. There are ideas on how that might be achievable (like I suggested my own solution previously that works pretty well for multi and single player play styles), but we need to see them actually experimented with, progress, and evolve into the refined content that can deliver a gripping user experience.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
However, that is besides the point. Examples i have cited are just two in a huge sea of others. Single player games are full of good interesting quests and stories. How many examples you can cite in WoW (or other MMORPG) that is at the same quality as this example you just cited?
I played WOW for a few years, and my answer would be ... almost none. 99% of the wow quests = some irrelevant text + go kill some stuff (or go fetch some stuff). There is little about participating in meaningful events (scripted, and happening around you). I am sure there are some, but clearly not enough, and not customized enough.
I would much rather play Fallout 4 with some added MMO features (like you can go to a lobby and invite someone into your game, or may be even a public zone that is outside of the quests), then a MMO with to put half-ass quests.
MMOs are much better off focusing on no-story pvp e-sport, or hack-n-slash progression gameplay like D3, where stories and quests are completely irrelevant and not needed. (Yes, D3 has a story compaign but the story is meh, and that is like 1% of the gameplay).
Well, the future is hard to predict. There is certainly no framework today that can deliver quality narrative in a multiplayer setting (beyond you come into my world, and help me with my quests).
I don't think it is easy, or feasible to do, and even if someone wants to try, i doubt we will see anything worthwhile in a decade.
The solutions are two:
1) Use the already well-developed single player quest/narrative framework, and tag on MMO elements that do not interfere.
2) Forget about quests and narrative. Either go e-sports pvp (like WoT), or hack-n-slash progression (like D3). Games like Marvel Heroes and PoE are successful (and they may not be classified as MMO, but that is besides the point) is that they don't focus on the quest/narrative at all.
An MMORPG is a movie set, the players are the actors and the director has asked the actors to ad-lib just before shouting 'Action'.
Those who are interested in e-sports (or just no-story pvp), and hack-n-slash progression probably out-number RPers 100 to 1.
In a modern MMO quests have a single purpose - to give a player experience so he can eventually level up and gain new powers. These quests are usually pretty straigh forward, most of the time you don't even have to fight, only collect some sparkling objects and turn them in. When you are done at this quest hub, you get the last quest telling you to travel to the next hub of quest, and you start the process all over.
This could be entertaining kind of gameplay if these quests itself were interesting and well scripted, but every attempt to push them towards that direction makes them more and more look like a single player game that you have to share with lots of other people. You have to compete for mob tags, attention of quest givers, etc. even tho the other players should be on your side and help you. If you want to play MMO this is not OK, we dont need this kind of quests.
What we need is a living breathing world, where players got to figure out what's going on. This doesn't mean an NPC starting conversation shortly after character creation telling you X is destroying our village and you are their only hope. Let me figure that myself by having an NPC offering bountys for 'small red bandanas' and making me find out who carries those. Let those bandit mobs then drop goods like money, ammo, weapons, armors, crafting mats, items that give you hints for new locations and treasures, etc. In other words, give players a purpose to kill mobs other than some odd quest to 'kill 10 bandits'.
If i use vanilla wow human starting area as an example, there's lvl 5 bandits and their leader who has occupied the local vineyard. Instead of telling me to gather 10 bandanas and 5 stack of grapes, give me a quest to figure out why they are here. After some hours in game i learn about bandits in deadmines and their leader VanCleef. That's a quest - to kill VanCleef - but before i can even dream of trying to confront him i have to prepare myself by gearing up properly.
Other mobs around should be good for something too, even tho anyone doesn't really tell you to kill them. Boars give you meat for cooking, birds give you eggs to eat and feathers for arrows, wolves give you pelts for armors and fangs for necklaces and lucky charms, etc. All you have to do is design the game so that the players really need to do this before they can finish the quest to kill the evil bandit leader.
The bottom line is you only need a handful of quests, all that are important for progressing in this story. Let them players decide how to complete them, just give them tools to do it. Give them something they should group up for early on and give them a reason to work together. That makes a community.
We don't need scripted events or cut-scenes in MMOs, they belong to singe player games and only confuses the flow of the game. On top of that, it would be easier for developers to create more content faster this way.
Content quality (of which quests are a big part of) is the other big factor. (As is having the right publisher who knows how to market the game.) But we don't need a huge shift in how quests are implemented to accomplish that, we mostly just need a push for better variety and quality.
Presentation is important, but what major modern MMORPGs failed on account of presentation? Most of them look pretty nice, but fail due to lack of depth, variety, and/or content quality. Though if you're arguing for the presentation component of quests, then that's content quality and I could agree that games could do better. Not sure I'd automatically say it's the right direction for MMORPGs to go though (I get the sense it might be too expensive to be worth it, reducing the amount of quests a game can afford to offer. And as we've seen from player reactions: too few quests is a bigger sin than too little quality.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Essentially I'm trying to educate people that what they're offended by is exactly the same thing as what they're NOT offended by. Only the name has changed.
Only people realize that, they will either (a) realize their dislike of quests is shallow and stop it, or (b) be more specific about what they actually dislike that is specific to the main type of quests they're referring to.
If I call quests "missions", is that window dressing enough for you to enjoy quests again? How about if I call quests "crafting"?
Your answers will determine how narrowly you've defined questing.
- If a "mission" isn't a quest in your mind, then what you consider a quest seems rather shallow (it's only the literal name "quest" that makes something a quest to you.)
- If crafting isn't a quest then how is that any different from a mission or quest? You assemble the requested ingredients, return to the quest-giver (who's named Forge), and turn-in for a reward.
After walking through that exercise you'll know whether (a) quests aren't actually so bad after all or (b) you know the specific thing that irritates you (which won't be the fact that they're quests, but some other critical detail about how the quests are designed.)"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Another step in the right direction would be to come up with a solution to repeated player harassment. There must be some type of system that would be better than instancing to solve such an issue. Some kind of rules that would heavily penalize a PvPer who kills someone repeatedly.
Remove the all combat class focus and switch to a role focus where players have the choice to do something in the world other than just participate in various forms of combat. Roles that will make the world feel more alive.
Have day/night cycles.
Find a solution to the housing/boat issue. Ultima Online had lots of issues with player housing taking up the whole world. A solution to such a problem might be to increase the cost/time of maintaining houses/boats/etc. and perhaps even having them completely removed after a period of not paying rent.
I'm not saying my solutions would work, but it seems developers have gone the easy route of instances and quests because it works (money wise) instead of trying to think outside of the box.
So again, MMO should just forget about stories/narrative quests.
is there anything wrong with a solution that works?
I would also argue that quests do not work as well in MMO as in single player games yet, and there is a lot MMO devs can learn. Again, either make the quests more single player, or get rid of them, and just focus on narrative-less pvp (WoT, LoL .. with great success) or hack-n-slash pve.
Now considering that f2p is the staple of the "genre", can you think of any games where $10.00USD an hour doesn't earn you more actually playing the game? The only one I can think of is Maplestory, because they took out trading and removed exp/drop coupons and mesobags. The closest thing to pay2win they have in MS are pets.
Questing is also a very tight and controlled experience the way its done. So not only do we have too many quest and have too many generic task passed off as quest... we also have the whole experience and world designed around those quest. Its why MMORPG feel the same because we're funneled into this very tight gameplay experience the same way in each one despite other differences like combat, classes and lore.
Quality and variety are certainly good goals, but more of the same is doomed to stagnation. Deep gameplay comes in a variety of ways as has been pointed out in the past with examples of fighting systems that utilize mechanics either beyond or alternative to "combat rotations", creating new mechanics like cross class combos, combo fields, better interaction with environment for unique opportunities and effects, etc. Similarly other game mechanics have seen their own ranges of depth and uniqueness as they have experimented on how to expand and evolve the genre.
If We looked at it objectively, we'd note several things any ways. One being that WoW does not lead on innovation. It's rather behind in terms of siege mechanics for example compared to DAoC, Lineage, Archeage, and even Guild Wars as all these titles have features around siege engines, castle infiltration, castle destruction, and more direct value to gameplay for participating in such things not just for the user but as an effect on the player community through earned perks benefiting entire factions, territory for building things on, increased resources/rewards, etc. In terms of crafting there has been the gamut for depth of crafting mechanics that reaches far beyond any implemented features in WoW. In terms of travel systems there have been games that over considerably more optimal designs than WoW such as GW2's waypoint unlocks. In terms of narrative that's one of the few components SWToR did well at even if the experience suffers greatly from the previously mentioned disparity between single player RPG mechanics being used in an MMO framework...
Point here being, on an objective level, the beacon for depth and quality is not found in a single game, let alone not in WoW. If one wanted to say "most stable" then perhaps there is a point to be had there, but as far as quality goes, there is a great disparity to be had.
As it relates back to this stuff, the point is that progress is still something strive towards, not "more of the same".
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And I don't exactly get any ideas on how to make a deeper MMO then Wow from you, you are basically just saying that the games should continue like Wow does in this whole thread.
Making a MMO as good and fun as Wow isn't good enough, you need to make it better.
And there are basically 4 things you can improve:
1. Graphics. (art and polygon count as well as effects and so on).
2. Character mechanics (how you gain power as you play, any none combat mechanics including crafting)
3. Combat mechanics (attacks, how you target and hit an opponent, dodges, group dynamics and so on).
4. Lore &Presentation ( long and short turn goals for the players the setting and the players role in that setting).
I think just picking one thing and improve isn't enough, all is preferably but at least 3 of those ways. How a game present you with your character short term goals is one of the things that impact the gaming experience most and yet it is the thing least talked about in threads here.