As I understand it, Life is Feudal is not an MMO as the player cap is 64.
I don't know enough about GW2 to comment there. If me and 100 friends said "lets all meet up at town X", would we be able to traverse the game world and all arrive at that town? Or would we have to exit to a lobby, then select a specific instance from the lobby, then load into that instance / server? Is there a player cap?
Let me see if I can get you to understand my point was about complex network setups making one MMO, this is life is Feudal MMO Map:
49 Servers handling a SINGLE game-world, 64 players per each of those squares, the main map alone at the current cap is +3000 players able to persist on the same map. That makes MMO for me, the Massive amount of players is there, just not in the same exact location at the same exact time.
As for GW2, it has a player cap of around 150, if you join a map with already 100 peeps with 50 players already on it, they will be cut through 2 instances, you can always open a new fresh instance and make all your players travel to it; that's what we do for organized boss runs like the 3 headed wurm.
OK, first thing then, lets drop the word "server". I don't care about physical servers (hardware wise), that hasn't been a relevant term in the MMO space for 15+ years. When we refer to servers nowadays, what we're actually referring to is a single version of the game world.
E.g. if I log into LotRO, I have to choose a "server" like Laurelin, but Laurelin is actually made up of multiple physical servers.
Second thing then, Life is Feudal. You say the whole map can support 3000 players. However, you also state that each square can only support 64 people. How do the squares relate to the overall map? Can I freely wander from square 1 to square 2? Or do I have to exit square 1, return to a lobby, then join square 2? What happens if square 2 already has 64 players?
If the Life is Feudal map is persistant and I can traverse the whole map, then the game would support 3000 players in the same world / instance and this it would be an MMO.
Update: I've just gone to the Life is Feudal website and it looks like there are two games - "Your Own" which is capped at 64 players and the MMO version, which doesn't look like it has caps but also hasn't released yet. I was unaware that there were two versions of the game, I'd only heard of the first one which definitely isn't an MMO.
Debating this is a far cry from 5v5 MOBAs and Hearthstone a 1v1 trading card game. There is a pretty obvious point at which calling something that is blatantly not massively multiplayer a MMO makes someone look utterly retarded.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Yeah I just read the rest of the posts. That system makes LiF's MMO status debateable. I'm imagining that if people keep trying to have massive battles and being told "You can't move to this area because the server load is too high" it's MMO status is going to come under review. If that doesn't become an issue then it may not.
However debating if only allowing 64 players in the same area in a game that allows for thousands of players is an actual debate with merits on both sides.
Yeah it's exactly the point I've tried to make, it has its own merits to stand the MMO flag. (ofc MOBAs and such are a big no on this)
We find MMOs those games where we select a server that can handle let's say 1000 players online in its game world.
But this format can allow far more players in that same game world, but at the cost of limiting the population in a localized matter (per server pretty much). Instead of being copies of the same "map" under many servers, it's many servers running the one "map".
And that is why I consider the Massive of it when it comes to concurrent/persistent player population still stands and why GW2 doesn't lose its right to raise the MMO flag (neither would LiF) because of it.
Debating this is a far cry from 5v5 MOBAs and Hearthstone a 1v1 trading card game. There is a pretty obvious point at which calling something that is blatantly not massively multiplayer a MMO makes someone look utterly retarded.
Yeah it derailed from MOBAs I wasn't aiming at those games at all, was mostly about the MMO's that derail from the classic "single server per game world" and use instances/other network setups instead that mean smaller localized player caps.
But, by that logic every single online multiplayer ever is an MMO.....which is clearly wrong.
"wrong" by your definition. But isn't that what is happening to some degree already? Just look at the game list here.
The game list here where they said they needed to branch out because MMORPGs couldn't keep the place afloat? Where they list single player games just because they are popular? Like The Witcher 3. Where they would run ads for League of Angels that contained copyrighted blizzard music and square enix final fantasy 14 trailer. Remember those Scarlet Blade ads?
Yeah this site is a fantastic place.
I mean just look at your post history.... it's nothing short of astonishing...
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
The game list here where they said they needed to branch out because MMORPGs couldn't keep the place afloat? Where they list single player games just because they are popular? Like The Witcher 3. Where they would run ads for League of Angels that contained copyrighted blizzard music and square enix final fantasy 14 trailer. Remember those Scarlet Blade ads?
Yeah this site is a fantastic place.
I mean just look at your post history.... it's nothing short of astonishing...
Remember when No Man's Sky was firstly added to steam it was added with the MMO tag by the devs themselves? (later removed lol)
Does or doesn't Guild Wars 2 instances its game world on dozens up to hundreds of smaller server instances?
Reply those questions and tell me that doesn't make one MMO.
Uhm, almost all MMOs ever made use zooning, including games like Everquest. Otherwise only a couple games (like Wow and Vanguard) would be MMOs and they use zones as well even if they don't have a loading screen when you walk between them.
The game is clearly massive, in fact far more massive then games like AoC and it is a RPG. For that matter does it have more massive combat then any other MMO I ever played, I don't think I seen another MMO with more then 64 players teaming up against the same worldboss. Yeah, those fights are rather zergy and could be far more fun but if it is anything it is "massive".
Don't you mean Guildwars? GW was a CORPG and it sounds like you mix them up. GW was not massive, I think 24 players is the most you ever could get in the same instance besides the outposts there.
I'm going to ask it again. It's a simple question... (I think)
Was Diablo I/II Battlenet multiplayer the same as Quake multiplayer?
If it's not the same, might I suggest Multiplayer Online rather than just Multiplayer? Why? I'm making a distinction. Unlike Quake, Diablo I/II characters existed persistently in teh same server space as many thousands of other characters. This secured from cheats, hacks and other abuses occuring in non-battlenet multiplayer. Those charactes would be played for months or even years later, all interacting with each other. If htey weren't interacting in the small 8-player instnaces, the were doing so in teh chat channels. The chat channels were filled with hundreds or thousands of players. A description of the chat is below, straiht from the Diablo II manual:
"Once you have logged in to Battle.net and selected a character, you are placed into one of Battle.net's Diablo II Realm Chat Channels. In the Realm Chat Channels, character portraits, representing other players, appear at the bottom of the screen. If more people are in the Chat Channel than fit across the screen, you can scroll the portraits by clicking on one of the triangular scroll arrows. Holding your mouse over any of these portraits reveals the character's Battle.net account name, class, and level. Left-clicking on a portrait selects that particular character. Right-clicking on a portrait brings up that character's User Profile. From this channel, you can conversse with other players, join or create games, and view the ladder rankings of the top Diablo II players."
I plyed Ultima Online and Everquest in 1999. I very much preferred them to Diablo games, BUT I think a lot of you're being dishonest. Moreso, I don't thihnk MMO's are really MMO's anymore anyway. Soloing and instances have changed them. They're more like Diablo everyday and many are none the wiser.
Bear in mind I haven't paleyd Diablo III. I'm looking forward to Pantheon. I'm not a console gamer. I'm not a FPS gamer. I'm not trying to pervert or change MMO's. I haven't played any of these MOBA's. I have played browser games. I'm playing Astro Galaxy. I'm playing Wurm Online. Everquest was my main MMO.
No, you see all those games with thousands of players on ONE server? With hundreds of thousands and even millions spread across multiple servers ( 5,000 ROFLMMFAO )? Those are undeniably mmos. 64 players on one server is multiplayer, regardless of how many other servers there are.
So 64 player per server instance, is not one MMO (LiF: MMO)? And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
"Massive Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) encompass a wide range of game genres, including role-playing, shooters and, a recently emerged category called MOBAs"
MOBAs were derivative of RTS games though, Notably through Starcraft/Warcraft thanks to the map editors.
Superdata can't even get the origin of the MOBA genre right...
MOBAs were derivative of RTS games though, Notably through Starcraft/Warcraft thanks to the map editors.
Superdata can't even get the origin of the MOBA genre right...
yeye RTS, I don't think MOBA's, unless some MOBA starts doing something in terms of matches that could give it a Planetside 2 play scale to stand merits towards the whole MMO thing.
No, you see all those games with thousands of players on ONE server? With hundreds of thousands and even millions spread across multiple servers ( 5,000 ROFLMMFAO )? Those are undeniably mmos. 64 players on one server is multiplayer, regardless of how many other servers there are.
So 64 player per server instance, is not one MMO (LiF: MMO)? And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
It's a very grey area when it comes to defining MMOs.
On the one hand, everyone is online within the same game world and, with some careful shuffling, you should be able to walk through the game world and meet up with anyone currently online. So, in that sense, they are MMOs.
However, by putting hard caps on number of players in a zone, you are preventing the game from ever actually being massively multiplayer - because no more than 64 / 150 people can ever interact with one another at the same time.
The issue is further confused by technical limitations, i.e. the game physically can't handle 500+ people in the same zone without either client's lagging out or servers crashing. SW:TOR, for example, did set player caps per zone but was so badly coded that the game would lag out and crash before it even hit that cap.
As I am a fan of massively-multiplayer features and events and I believe that this genre should be focused on being massively-multiplayer (its one unique selling point), I would say that no, they aren't MMOs. However, I am aware that by being strict, I would be whittling down the genre to just a handful of games because hardly any MMOs can actually handle 500+ players in a zone. So, until the genre improves, I am happy to include games like GW2 etc because even though they'll never be able to handle massive amounts of players playing together, you are at least all within the same persistent virtual world.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
No, you see all those games with thousands of players on ONE server? With hundreds of thousands and even millions spread across multiple servers ( 5,000 ROFLMMFAO )? Those are undeniably mmos. 64 players on one server is multiplayer, regardless of how many other servers there are.
So 64 player per server instance, is not one MMO (LiF: MMO)? And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
64 is some kind borderland at least but GW2 have 500 players in it's WvW servers (or so say Gw2 guru, but a siege certainly have more then 150 players).
There are a few FPS games that borders on being MMOs due to size but they don't have a persistant world then, just temporary maps that open up and closes during a battle.
Mobas however are nowhere near 64 players and neither have they persistant worlds.
You basically need at least 2 of these points to be a MMO:
* More then 64 players * Persitant world * Permanet progression (doesn't reset after a match)
Preferably all 3 but anything with 2 can at least be discussed. Mobas have none of them
The issue is further confused by technical limitations, i.e. the game physically can't handle 500+ people in the same zone without either client's lagging out or servers crashing. SW:TOR, for example, did set player caps per zone but was so badly coded that the game would lag out and crash before it even hit that cap.
People don't realize that this MMO's that handle thousands of players actually have mechanics to stop big gatherings of players in the same place because they can't handle it. And those who do allow it, it's the usual client and/or server lag festival.
Then we get to the future of MMO's, there's a trade-off to be done, if we want more complex and in-depth MMO's, with more simulation, more physics, better AI's, etc... that's not going to happen by allowing hundreds/thousands to be able to persist and see each other in a single place.
No, you see all those games with thousands of players on ONE server? With hundreds of thousands and even millions spread across multiple servers ( 5,000 ROFLMMFAO )? Those are undeniably mmos. 64 players on one server is multiplayer, regardless of how many other servers there are.
So 64 player per server instance, is not one MMO (LiF: MMO)? And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
64 is some kind borderland at least but GW2 have 500 players in it's WvW servers (or so say Gw2 guru, but a siege certainly have more then 150 players).
There are a few FPS games that borders on being MMOs due to size but they don't have a persistant world then, just temporary maps that open up and closes during a battle.
Mobas however are nowhere near 64 players and neither have they persistant worlds.
You basically need at least 2 of these points to be a MMO:
* More then 64 players * Persitant world * Permanet progression (doesn't reset after a match)
Preferably all 3 but anything with 2 can at least be discussed. Mobas have none of them
It'd say all you need is the player count, it's really the only thing that is meaningful when talking about massively-multiplayer online.
The persistence and progression have no bearing on the multiplayer aspect, they are more to do with RPGs. For example, if there was a moba or shooter than allowed 500 vs 500 players in a battleground, I would call that an MMO because that is genuinely massively-multiplayer. (I'm now picturing Battlefield but on a larger scale.....*drool*)
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You basically need at least 2 of these points to be a MMO:
* More then 64 players * Persitant world * Permanet progression (doesn't reset after a match)
I don't agree with the 64 players. Neither one full persistent world, remember GW2 is one heavily instanced world in each of its maps where the players are segregated through multiple instances of the same map as well.
You can have 64 players per zone in one MMO with 49 zones resulting in +3000 players total in the game world of said game.
You can have 150 players per zone in one MMO with 10 zones resulting in 1500 players total in the game world of said game.
Both have merits to them, one achieves more players online in a single persistent game world, the other achieves more players in the same place but half of the total players in its game world. Then if you put GW2 on the spin here, the MMO with 64 per instance has the merit of keeping its gameworld fully persistent for all players while GW2 multiplies localized instances per map.
There are a few FPS games that borders on being MMOs due to size but they don't have a persistant world then, just temporary maps that open up and closes during a battle.
well well well, looks like someone forgot planetside (1)!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
No, they're not MMORPG's. They're MOBA's, simply categorized differently based off their core design.
*Pro-Tip* When doing a poll if you really want decent results, make all options black or white, don't involve unnecessary options like, "I like turtles" trolls will vote for that and you won't get the sample you're looking for. People won't take your poll seriously.
Get with the program guys, it's 2017. The new buzzword is Shared World.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't agree with the 64 players. Neither one full persistent world, remember GW2 is one heavily instanced world in each of its maps where the players are segregated through multiple instances of the same map as well.
You can have 64 players per zone in one MMO with 49 zones resulting in +3000 players total in the game world of said game.
You can have 150 players per zone in one MMO with 10 zones resulting in 1500 players total in the game world of said game.
Both have merits to them, one achieves more players online in a single persistent game world, the other achieves more players in the same place but half of the total players in its game world. Then if you put GW2 on the spin here, the MMO with 64 per instance has the merit of keeping its gameworld fully persistent for all players while GW2 multiplies localized instances per map.
Opening up overflow maps when more then 150 players want to be in it does not really not making it a "persistant world", or do you think that putting people in a queue is better? All zones are always up. All MMOs have a limit to how many people that can go into a zone after all, that is why you sometimes have to wait hours to log into your new Wow expansion.
Also, while GW2 uses megaserver and open up copies whenever many people want to be in the same zones many other MMOs instead split the world by a whole bunch of different servers so they often have more copies of the same map with fewer players in.
Yeah, it would be sweet if more people could be in the same zone but in a game like GW2 that would just lead to more zerges then it already have.
We can discuss the number that makes something a MMO but no Mobas I ever seen are near "massive" making the point moot here unless you think 16 or 8 is "massive".
As for how heavily instanced GW2 is, I would say that more then half of the MMOs have smaller zones with less going on in them. It is of course always better to have a MMO zoneless but few MMOs are so.
No, they're not MMORPG's. They're MOBA's, simply categorized differently based off their core design.
*Pro-Tip* When doing a poll if you really want decent results, make all options black or white, don't involve unnecessary options like, "I like turtles" trolls will vote for that and you won't get the sample you're looking for. People won't take your poll seriously.
@Eronakis - That's precisely why I put options like that into polls. It's a substitute category for "I don't have a strong opinion." Not everyone is very well informed on every subject which is why a black and white "Yes or No" poll is bad. If someone wants to troll the poll or does not have a strong enough opinion they want to click a serious option then I am very happy to provide them a way to opt out. Because we all know when people see boxes they want to check one even if they aren't super well informed on what they are checking.
I don't think anyone are calling those games mmorpg. They are just being called mmo.
Besides no one ever says mmo and mmorpg are the same thing. And it is very possible to make a massive multiplayer online game which isn't a rpg. Just not common.
No, they're not MMORPG's. They're MOBA's, simply categorized differently based off their core design.
*Pro-Tip* When doing a poll if you really want decent results, make all options black or white, don't involve unnecessary options like, "I like turtles" trolls will vote for that and you won't get the sample you're looking for. People won't take your poll seriously.
@Eronakis - That's precisely why I put options like that into polls. It's a substitute category for "I don't have a strong opinion." Not everyone is very well informed on every subject which is why a black and white "Yes or No" poll is bad. If someone wants to troll the poll or does not have a strong enough opinion they want to click a serious option then I am very happy to provide them a way to opt out. Because we all know when people see boxes they want to check one even if they aren't super well informed on what they are checking.
I respectfully disagree, black and white polling is most efficient way to find a sample. The opt out is to not vote. Most players on this board should know what an mmo/mmorpg is. The site is mmorpg.com. I always give the benefit of doubt to people and assume they should know what mmorpg is. If they don't it's quite sad. You're welcome to conduct your poll as you see fit. Just a pet peeve of mine when I see polling options like that. Its hard to take the poll seriously.
Any survey in which respondents choose themselves (AKA they choose whether or not to give an answer or not) is considered a joke in statistics. No poll found on forums (or anywhere online) would be taken seriously as reliable data by anyone who knows data.
So no matter how well I make this poll I would advise you not to take the results overly seriously.
No, you see all those games with thousands of players on ONE server? With hundreds of thousands and even millions spread across multiple servers ( 5,000 ROFLMMFAO )? Those are undeniably mmos. 64 players on one server is multiplayer, regardless of how many other servers there are.
So 64 player per server instance, is not one MMO (LiF: MMO)? And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
64 is some kind borderland at least but GW2 have 500 players in it's WvW servers (or so say Gw2 guru, but a siege certainly have more then 150 players).
There are a few FPS games that borders on being MMOs due to size but they don't have a persistant world then, just temporary maps that open up and closes during a battle.
Mobas however are nowhere near 64 players and neither have they persistant worlds.
You basically need at least 2 of these points to be a MMO:
* More then 64 players * Persitant world * Permanet progression (doesn't reset after a match)
Preferably all 3 but anything with 2 can at least be discussed. Mobas have none of them
I share this sentiment. "Multiplayer" came from games like Golden Eye where it referred to people playing in the same space at the same time. Add "massively" and though the exact number can be subjective, there is a reasonable tolerance in the definition of how low that number is. I say 64 is a good number where the lowest point of multiplayer is concerned.
Comments
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/We find MMOs those games where we select a server that can handle let's say 1000 players online in its game world.
But this format can allow far more players in that same game world, but at the cost of limiting the population in a localized matter (per server pretty much). Instead of being copies of the same "map" under many servers, it's many servers running the one "map".
And that is why I consider the Massive of it when it comes to concurrent/persistent player population still stands and why GW2 doesn't lose its right to raise the MMO flag (neither would LiF) because of it.
Yeah it derailed from MOBAs I wasn't aiming at those games at all, was mostly about the MMO's that derail from the classic "single server per game world" and use instances/other network setups instead that mean smaller localized player caps.
Yeah this site is a fantastic place.
I mean just look at your post history.... it's nothing short of astonishing...
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The irony killed me.
The game is clearly massive, in fact far more massive then games like AoC and it is a RPG. For that matter does it have more massive combat then any other MMO I ever played, I don't think I seen another MMO with more then 64 players teaming up against the same worldboss. Yeah, those fights are rather zergy and could be far more fun but if it is anything it is "massive".
Don't you mean Guildwars? GW was a CORPG and it sounds like you mix them up. GW was not massive, I think 24 players is the most you ever could get in the same instance besides the outposts there.
Was Diablo I/II Battlenet multiplayer the same as Quake multiplayer?
If it's not the same, might I suggest Multiplayer Online rather than just Multiplayer? Why? I'm making a distinction. Unlike Quake, Diablo I/II characters existed persistently in teh same server space as many thousands of other characters. This secured from cheats, hacks and other abuses occuring in non-battlenet multiplayer. Those charactes would be played for months or even years later, all interacting with each other. If htey weren't interacting in the small 8-player instnaces, the were doing so in teh chat channels. The chat channels were filled with hundreds or thousands of players. A description of the chat is below, straiht from the Diablo II manual:
Bear in mind I haven't paleyd Diablo III. I'm looking forward to Pantheon. I'm not a console gamer. I'm not a FPS gamer. I'm not trying to pervert or change MMO's. I haven't played any of these MOBA's. I have played browser games. I'm playing Astro Galaxy. I'm playing Wurm Online. Everquest was my main MMO.
And 150 players per server instance, is one MMO (GW2)?
Superdata can't even get the origin of the MOBA genre right...
On the one hand, everyone is online within the same game world and, with some careful shuffling, you should be able to walk through the game world and meet up with anyone currently online. So, in that sense, they are MMOs.
However, by putting hard caps on number of players in a zone, you are preventing the game from ever actually being massively multiplayer - because no more than 64 / 150 people can ever interact with one another at the same time.
The issue is further confused by technical limitations, i.e. the game physically can't handle 500+ people in the same zone without either client's lagging out or servers crashing. SW:TOR, for example, did set player caps per zone but was so badly coded that the game would lag out and crash before it even hit that cap.
As I am a fan of massively-multiplayer features and events and I believe that this genre should be focused on being massively-multiplayer (its one unique selling point), I would say that no, they aren't MMOs. However, I am aware that by being strict, I would be whittling down the genre to just a handful of games because hardly any MMOs can actually handle 500+ players in a zone. So, until the genre improves, I am happy to include games like GW2 etc because even though they'll never be able to handle massive amounts of players playing together, you are at least all within the same persistent virtual world.
There are a few FPS games that borders on being MMOs due to size but they don't have a persistant world then, just temporary maps that open up and closes during a battle.
Mobas however are nowhere near 64 players and neither have they persistant worlds.
You basically need at least 2 of these points to be a MMO:
* More then 64 players
* Persitant world
* Permanet progression (doesn't reset after a match)
Preferably all 3 but anything with 2 can at least be discussed. Mobas have none of them
Then we get to the future of MMO's, there's a trade-off to be done, if we want more complex and in-depth MMO's, with more simulation, more physics, better AI's, etc... that's not going to happen by allowing hundreds/thousands to be able to persist and see each other in a single place.
The persistence and progression have no bearing on the multiplayer aspect, they are more to do with RPGs. For example, if there was a moba or shooter than allowed 500 vs 500 players in a battleground, I would call that an MMO because that is genuinely massively-multiplayer. (I'm now picturing Battlefield but on a larger scale.....*drool*)
You can have 64 players per zone in one MMO with 49 zones resulting in +3000 players total in the game world of said game.
You can have 150 players per zone in one MMO with 10 zones resulting in 1500 players total in the game world of said game.
Both have merits to them, one achieves more players online in a single persistent game world, the other achieves more players in the same place but half of the total players in its game world. Then if you put GW2 on the spin here, the MMO with 64 per instance has the merit of keeping its gameworld fully persistent for all players while GW2 multiplies localized instances per map.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
*Pro-Tip* When doing a poll if you really want decent results, make all options black or white, don't involve unnecessary options like, "I like turtles" trolls will vote for that and you won't get the sample you're looking for. People won't take your poll seriously.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Also, while GW2 uses megaserver and open up copies whenever many people want to be in the same zones many other MMOs instead split the world by a whole bunch of different servers so they often have more copies of the same map with fewer players in.
Yeah, it would be sweet if more people could be in the same zone but in a game like GW2 that would just lead to more zerges then it already have.
We can discuss the number that makes something a MMO but no Mobas I ever seen are near "massive" making the point moot here unless you think 16 or 8 is "massive".
As for how heavily instanced GW2 is, I would say that more then half of the MMOs have smaller zones with less going on in them. It is of course always better to have a MMO zoneless but few MMOs are so.
Besides no one ever says mmo and mmorpg are the same thing. And it is very possible to make a massive multiplayer online game which isn't a rpg. Just not common.
I like turtles.
So no matter how well I make this poll I would advise you not to take the results overly seriously.