I think it really depends and can be answered with these questions.
1. How cohesive are the roles of the classes that compliment group gameplay?
2. Does group gameplay provide interesting new mechanics that can allot for interesting strategy and tactics?
3. Is the strategy involved dynamic and not based of one dimensional gameplay of the "tank and spank" stratagem?
4. Do you have to have certain roles to accomplish content?
5. Can group composition be more open and not necessarily have the essential roles for survival but rather any class/role can group and be effective. (Without omitting the trinity) Essentially, the challenge changes.
I think one of the MAIN reasons why we don't see dedicated core group gameplay from level 1 till max level as much anymore because of the wait time to find players to complete content. I think if question 5 can be answered and have a work around to diminish long periods of wait time for LFG that would help immensely for a group oriented game.
I think point 5 will be met with a lot of resistance. The demographics that like strong grouping seem to also favor specific focused roles for characters and classes.
How well these games do will be a combination of quality design and tempered expectations. If the games aren't built well enough people will fall off. If expectations are too high then the game won't be able to meet them and it will die.
In my opinion the only way to meet Point 5 is if you still have defined roles and class combat mechanics can compliment a more tactical NPC AI system. Giving all classes some form of defense to survive without a healer in the group or if no melee in the group to tank. This can also only work if the trinity gameplay model is redefined. The only aspect of the trinity that needs to be redefined is the tank role because it's core of how you approach combat. Also have to reconsider of omitting the tank & spank model by focusing all on 1 mob or even the current wow model where you aoe everything down with no effort.
The only real way to increase intrigue for a group based PVE heavy game is to have adaptable AI that can pattern detect and have the opportunity to behave differently based of specific variables. That way, each encounter, is different because of the composition of NPC's.
One thing these group focused MMO's have in common is the extreme lack of polish. Vanguard was the biggest offender but it hasn't gotten much better since. The sheer amount of cringy EQ fans supporting half assed MMO's is mind boggling. I wouldn't recommend games like Shroud of the Avatar or Project Gorgon to my worst enemies.
Project 1999 the EQ classic + first 2 expansion is still going strong to this day tbh
Yet don't some (or many) folks multi box there so they can still solo?
Multiboxing is a swift ban and it is not 'if' but 'when' they catch you.
That is only for some MMOs/games. I actually have yet to see an MMO where they ban people for it. I have seen MUDs and browser games enforce that rule though. People multibox with multiple accounts, sometimes even past 10 accounts in EVE Online. WoW I've seen multiboxers and no one cares. Ultima Online is well known for multiboxers.
(for subscription MMOs or players that are paying for each account) Why ban 10 accounts that are paying 15 dollars each or each account paying in their cash shop? That would be a moronic decision and if any company did that, they'd deserve to fail. That be a ton of money they'd be throwing away.
My answer was specifically for Project 1999 I was not talking about other games.
I mostly agree that would be better, but my point is that it will be a difficult sell to a huge portion of the hardcore grouping demographic. It has a lot of old school players in it and that sort of change is usually met with resistance.
I agree. I think it's how you package it. Pantheon is literally the MMO right now for that niche market.
What I was proposing could be used for the old and new school mmo player who is looking to play a game that innovates the trinity game play model in a more strategic way without sacrificing every traditional attribute of the system.
I prefer playing on my own schedule. Some days I might log in and play for an hour or so while other days I have more time. Gone are the days when I want to spend half an hour or so getting a group together, waiting for someone to answer the phone, or finding another group member because 5 minutes in and someone has to leave. I don't want to rely on other people for my fun.
I still prefer MMOs because I find them more enjoyable than most single player rpg games. I just want to play alone for the most part.
What is there to do beside dungeon, raids, or pvp in all the wow clones? All that is group content.
Actually, now the endgame is group focused but everything before it is solofocused. It doesn't help that the current group dynamics are too bad to really make that endgame fun either.
It is like the entire focus of the games are that short time it takes to level and the endgame is a watered dow version of vanilla Wows with dumbed down group dynamics.
As I see it they should either put group or solofocus on their entire game instead, what we have now is a bad compromize.
Doesn't a big portion of FFXIV require a group? I played it off and on and the end game (the type of end game I sought out and enjoyed) required grouping. (Dungeons, Raids, Pvp, some Fates)
Please come check out my stream. All the love is appreciated!
I think point 5 will be met with a lot of resistance. The demographics that like strong grouping seem to also favor specific focused roles for characters and classes.
How well these games do will be a combination of quality design and tempered expectations. If the games aren't built well enough people will fall off. If expectations are too high then the game won't be able to meet them and it will die.
In my opinion the only way to meet Point 5 is if you still have defined roles and class combat mechanics can compliment a more tactical NPC AI system. Giving all classes some form of defense to survive without a healer in the group or if no melee in the group to tank. This can also only work if the trinity gameplay model is redefined. The only aspect of the trinity that needs to be redefined is the tank role because it's core of how you approach combat. Also have to reconsider of omitting the tank & spank model by focusing all on 1 mob or even the current wow model where you aoe everything down with no effort.
The only real way to increase intrigue for a group based PVE heavy game is to have adaptable AI that can pattern detect and have the opportunity to behave differently based of specific variables. That way, each encounter, is different because of the composition of NPC's.
a more tactical NPC AI system
This is what MMO's need, not forced grouping. If the AI is sophisticated enough that voluntary grouping aids in the combat, then you have the best of both worlds, IMO.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
The playerbase of 2017 is much more resistant to a group heavy game than the playerbases were in 2000....WHile many of us enjoyed the slower pace and community of a game like EQ1, many today have no desire for something like that.....IF they do group at all they want it fast paced and short term for the most part.
Yes. Most of the 'group' focused mmorpgs (everyone that I have played did) still had classes that could solo, and all of them had content that I have played that you could easily duo. So a group based game doesn't mean you can't solo/duo. It may not be the most optimal way to advance, but people are acting like a group based game means you need a group to do anything, which is false.
The playerbase of 2017 is much more resistant to a group heavy game than the playerbases were in 2000....WHile many of us enjoyed the slower pace and community of a game like EQ1, many today have no desire for something like that.....IF they do group at all they want it fast paced and short term for the most part.
That also has to do with the market, most of these games are f2p, and you can earn in-game currency to pay for your sub or items. If the game is sub only, you remove the reward/pressure of needing to find the most optimal way to earn your free ride/tickets. Sure you will have people that still optimize, people optimized in EQ1, but you remove the urgency to meet the quota also. People can focus on having fun a little more, than earning gold to make sure they can pay for in-game currency for their sub.
Sure games like Overwatch have shown that grouping games have TONS of life left in them.
It's just going to come at the cost of everything that gets in the way of grouping like levelling systems, gear, story, and anything else that is remotely RPG like.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
There is none ... so no. Or more accurately ... devs don't believe there is such a market.
There is a market for it. Pantheon is capturing that market. Just because it's niche doesn't mean there is no market.
Sure ... how about there is no AAA market for it?
If you want to count niche .. anything goes. There is even a niche text adventure market. Personally, i doubt i will ever have time for niche stuff ... but hey ... it is your prerogative to pay underfunded, indie games.
Grouping is alive and well in all kinds of games. It's where groups are not core to the game where it runs into problems. Games where groups are just how it works, those do fine.
So grouping is not really the challenge per say. It's how it's designed. The first issue is in an mmo with lots to do, grouping is just one of those things. So compared to a game where grouping is the default game loop, you need more people.
There is also the issue of given a choice, many people will just avoid social interaction. If they buy a game where grouping is just how the gameloop works, it's the nudge that is needed to get them involved. But mmo's don't generally incorporate grouping in that way.
while the numbers/math part of that is fairly obvious, I think even a lot of game developers miss some of the more subtle reasons why groups are hard to get going in mmo's. Otherwise why would they continue to use designs that inherently require huge populations. Indie mmo's in particular should not be designing groups so they only work with high pops, but they do.
I think a group focused game would do fine as long as they are content with mediocre profit margins. Since most of these dev houses seem hell bent on super premium profit margins, we'll see if companies like Visionary Realms can really survive on a niche game.
It is all about the design,you can't just lump grouping into one topic area and say yes/no.
Wow and EQ2 and all their clones have grouping but only needed in instances and for Raid type content,to me that is NOT a grouping game,that is single player gaming with instanced Co-Op.
In those same games,you have EASY MODE fighting same level mobs,not so the case in a real grouping game.As well you really don't need any specific group setup,i remember doing raids with a Rogue as the tank and it had nothing to do with the Rogue abilities but more so the gear/numbers.
The one so called problem area that grouping has always been accused of is slow,takes too long to setup a group is a poor excuse.The real reason is a LOT ,a very high majority are passive/lazy players that want to sit back and watch someone else do all the work. I am not condemning those people but you have no business complaining if all you do is sit there waiting for someone else to set it up.
Besides that you have to design the game properly from day 1,you cannot achieve a decent setup with one character,one class designs.You NEED to allow that one player to learn and develop all skills/classes so every player becomes versatile and can take on any role needed.Some games have these so called "next tier professions"that is still ONE CLASS and the wrong way to do it.
The only time you should be soloing is farming or questing or several levels above the npc foe but you get very low xp if any.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The simplest way to do it and still cater to everyone is to use "common sense". If you can solo a mob,it is therefor TOO EASY,you get the same type of XP...very little and very few skill gains.
On the flip side,if it takes a group then it is MUCH too hard to solo,therfore much more XP and perhaps higher skill gains.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Wasn't GW2's first expansion heavily group dependent? And I think people ended up hating it. Today's age prefers things you can get in and out of easily while also not lasting forever (I'm guilty of liking this set up too so I can jump in and out of stuff when I know I dont have a lot of time but still want to do something). Systems like GW2 where you can group on the fly or just in passing while getting credit does seem to be the way to go these days
People don't like to be content block by waiting time. The problem with GW2's first expansion is you run around exploring, you find a point of interest that require a group to do, and you are stuck and need to wait for people to complete.
Lets be honest "mmo"rpg's today barely even have the mmo aspect anymore, In most mmo's today you never need another person for anything really, other than dungeons. They are bascally turned into a piss-poor single player rpg with a irc chatroom and a boring loot treadmill at level cap.
I remember when mmo's were about what they were supposed to be about: the journey, not about how fast you can rush to level cap. Last mmo I played where it was about the journey, was ff11 back when the level cap was 75 before it got hit with the casualification bat. You needed a group for most things, but this also made getting things done feel much more rewarding, i've never gotten this feeling in any other mmorpg since, and i've played alot of them over the years.
I've pretty much given up on the genre, as the mmo's of today just can't hold my interest for more than a week or 2 do to a severe lack of things to do that is actually intersting.
I am however a bit intersted in that city of heroes clone thats in devolopment currently, but we won't be seeing that for a very long time, if it ever actually makes it to beta.
As to wether a game like this will survive today... not likely, to many mmorpg players were brought into the genre by wow or ff14, which are 2 shining examples of what is wrong with the genre and what killed what they used to be.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
They just need to make that final leap to single player rpg with ai bots and you will finally have what all the players today want.
1. They are the hero ... check 2. They will always have enough players for whatever ... check 3. They will never have a resource shortage ... check 4. They will always be number 1 ... check
Those that play for the journey are covered. Those that play for endgame are covered. Those that play for PVP are covered. Those that play the auction house are covered (ai's will be programmed to try and undercut you).
Social interaction you say? Here's a ripe area for Siri or Alexa to step in.
There's not a single MMO on the market or coming to the market that requires real people to backfill your world. Ai's are the logical choice. They can be stupid or smart depending on your settings. Just like real players.
Lets be honest "mmo"rpg's today barely even have the mmo aspect anymore, In most mmo's today you never need another person for anything really, other than dungeons. They are bascally turned into a piss-poor single player rpg with a irc chatroom and a boring loot treadmill at level cap.
I remember when mmo's were about what they were supposed to be about: the journey, not about how fast you can rush to level cap. Last mmo I played where it was about the journey, was ff11 back when the level cap was 75 before it got hit with the casualification bat. You needed a group for most things, but this also made getting things done feel much more rewarding, i've never gotten this feeling in any other mmorpg since, and i've played alot of them over the years.
I've pretty much given up on the genre, as the mmo's of today just can't hold my interest for more than a week or 2 do to a severe lack of things to do that is actually intersting.
I am however a bit intersted in that city of heroes clone thats in devolopment currently, but we won't be seeing that for a very long time, if it ever actually makes it to beta.
As to wether a game like this will survive today... not likely, to many mmorpg players were brought into the genre by wow or ff14, which are 2 shining examples of what is wrong with the genre and what killed what they used to be.
You know, the same thing happened with movies right? Rich people that couldn't spare 2+ hours in a theater were able to pay $100 to watch the last 10 minutes of the movie. There are also condensed versions of best selling books for 5x the price because lets be honest, what rich person has time to read a book. So it only makes sense that game developers would create MMOs catered to these very rich, but very busy lifestyles.
Why would the rich waste time on such nonsense anyway? If they are so busy why bother with entertainment at all? They obviously have money to make off someone via some shady means.
I am not sure any such MMO would make a big splash. Gamers have now been indoctrinated with one way of playing. Solo, easy, casual. It would be such a sea change for them I think only those of us who grew up with old school MMOs would give them a chance.
There is still hope for more hybrid MMOs which keep some OS elements. The ironic thing is that solo player games have become more multiplayer. The problem is that all games are already being moulded to be played one way. Multiplayer like SWB and nothing else.
Comments
In my opinion the only way to meet Point 5 is if you still have defined roles and class combat mechanics can compliment a more tactical NPC AI system. Giving all classes some form of defense to survive without a healer in the group or if no melee in the group to tank. This can also only work if the trinity gameplay model is redefined. The only aspect of the trinity that needs to be redefined is the tank role because it's core of how you approach combat. Also have to reconsider of omitting the tank & spank model by focusing all on 1 mob or even the current wow model where you aoe everything down with no effort.
The only real way to increase intrigue for a group based PVE heavy game is to have adaptable AI that can pattern detect and have the opportunity to behave differently based of specific variables. That way, each encounter, is different because of the composition of NPC's.
What I was proposing could be used for the old and new school mmo player who is looking to play a game that innovates the trinity game play model in a more strategic way without sacrificing every traditional attribute of the system.
I still prefer MMOs because I find them more enjoyable than most single player rpg games. I just want to play alone for the most part.
It is like the entire focus of the games are that short time it takes to level and the endgame is a watered dow version of vanilla Wows with dumbed down group dynamics.
As I see it they should either put group or solofocus on their entire game instead, what we have now is a bad compromize.
a more tactical NPC AI system
This is what MMO's need, not forced grouping. If the AI is sophisticated enough that voluntary grouping aids in the combat, then you have the best of both worlds, IMO.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
That also has to do with the market, most of these games are f2p, and you can earn in-game currency to pay for your sub or items. If the game is sub only, you remove the reward/pressure of needing to find the most optimal way to earn your free ride/tickets. Sure you will have people that still optimize, people optimized in EQ1, but you remove the urgency to meet the quota also. People can focus on having fun a little more, than earning gold to make sure they can pay for in-game currency for their sub.
It's just going to come at the cost of everything that gets in the way of grouping like levelling systems, gear, story, and anything else that is remotely RPG like.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Sure ... how about there is no AAA market for it?
If you want to count niche .. anything goes. There is even a niche text adventure market. Personally, i doubt i will ever have time for niche stuff ... but hey ... it is your prerogative to pay underfunded, indie games.
So grouping is not really the challenge per say. It's how it's designed. The first issue is in an mmo with lots to do, grouping is just one of those things. So compared to a game where grouping is the default game loop, you need more people.
There is also the issue of given a choice, many people will just avoid social interaction. If they buy a game where grouping is just how the gameloop works, it's the nudge that is needed to get them involved. But mmo's don't generally incorporate grouping in that way.
while the numbers/math part of that is fairly obvious, I think even a lot of game developers miss some of the more subtle reasons why groups are hard to get going in mmo's. Otherwise why would they continue to use designs that inherently require huge populations. Indie mmo's in particular should not be designing groups so they only work with high pops, but they do.
Wow and EQ2 and all their clones have grouping but only needed in instances and for Raid type content,to me that is NOT a grouping game,that is single player gaming with instanced Co-Op.
In those same games,you have EASY MODE fighting same level mobs,not so the case in a real grouping game.As well you really don't need any specific group setup,i remember doing raids with a Rogue as the tank and it had nothing to do with the Rogue abilities but more so the gear/numbers.
The one so called problem area that grouping has always been accused of is slow,takes too long to setup a group is a poor excuse.The real reason is a LOT ,a very high majority are passive/lazy players that want to sit back and watch someone else do all the work.
I am not condemning those people but you have no business complaining if all you do is sit there waiting for someone else to set it up.
Besides that you have to design the game properly from day 1,you cannot achieve a decent setup with one character,one class designs.You NEED to allow that one player to learn and develop all skills/classes so every player becomes versatile and can take on any role needed.Some games have these so called "next tier professions"that is still ONE CLASS and the wrong way to do it.
The only time you should be soloing is farming or questing or several levels above the npc foe but you get very low xp if any.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If you can solo a mob,it is therefor TOO EASY,you get the same type of XP...very little and very few skill gains.
On the flip side,if it takes a group then it is MUCH too hard to solo,therfore much more XP and perhaps higher skill gains.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I remember when mmo's were about what they were supposed to be about: the journey, not about how fast you can rush to level cap. Last mmo I played where it was about the journey, was ff11 back when the level cap was 75 before it got hit with the casualification bat. You needed a group for most things, but this also made getting things done feel much more rewarding, i've never gotten this feeling in any other mmorpg since, and i've played alot of them over the years.
I've pretty much given up on the genre, as the mmo's of today just can't hold my interest for more than a week or 2 do to a severe lack of things to do that is actually intersting.
I am however a bit intersted in that city of heroes clone thats in devolopment currently, but we won't be seeing that for a very long time, if it ever actually makes it to beta.
As to wether a game like this will survive today... not likely, to many mmorpg players were brought into the genre by wow or ff14, which are 2 shining examples of what is wrong with the genre and what killed what they used to be.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
1. They are the hero ... check
2. They will always have enough players for whatever ... check
3. They will never have a resource shortage ... check
4. They will always be number 1 ... check
Those that play for the journey are covered. Those that play for endgame are covered. Those that play for PVP are covered. Those that play the auction house are covered (ai's will be programmed to try and undercut you).
Social interaction you say? Here's a ripe area for Siri or Alexa to step in.
There's not a single MMO on the market or coming to the market that requires real people to backfill your world. Ai's are the logical choice. They can be stupid or smart depending on your settings. Just like real players.
There is still hope for more hybrid MMOs which keep some OS elements. The ironic thing is that solo player games have become more multiplayer. The problem is that all games are already being moulded to be played one way. Multiplayer like SWB and nothing else.