The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
The move to make solo PVE content though doesn't seem at all out of place. EVE has always provided many styles of content for many playstyles, and they can do that because 100% of their content is optional (other than the threat of scammers and suicide gankers).
So who cares if they don't like eachother's gameplay? I like both solo and group based gameplay. Give me options for each and I will use each depending on my mood. Allow them to opt out of the other's playstyle and both sides will be fine.
agree 100% with all of this right here. The only thing you do by taking away options in a game is screw yourself(and the players) over.
SEEMS legit,i agree>>>>FFXI,so why then if people want choice did they all jump ship to play Wow that offers NO choice but just another EQ2?FFXI has ALWAYS offered BOTH solo and grouping and the community was always very helpful,so there is your choice. That is why i stated the problem is much deeper,the majority do not want a mmorpg,they want a SIMPLE leveling treadmill so they can speed to the last boss and claim victory to say "I WIN,i beat the toughest boss in game",to that i say grats so now you can move on to another game and keep hopping all over the place NEVER finding a home within a mmorpg.
Games evolve some people like it others do not. I would say more like it than do not, and your assertion that the majority probably aren't looking for your definition of an MMORPG, where they can establish roots, and stay there is most likely true.
It's easy to blame it on Wow. I have issues with WoW and the gamers that game brought to us (generally speaking) however I do not blame WoW alone. For the record, FFIV is similar to WoW, not sure why you think they are vastly different.
I put the blame on consoles. Console games, from conception to just recently had a beginning, a middle and an end. Yes, you could play the story in different ways and get slightly, to sometimes incredibly different results but they all have an endpoint. Until recently that is when Game Devs saw another way to rake in money and that is cross-platform games.
I believe that WoW brought a lot of non-gamers in it also brought a lot of console gamers into PC gaming and with it came the "lets finish this and go do something else" attitude to the game.
So, on one hand, you make a pretty lucid point, games are changing, I agree the majority are probably not looking for life-long adventure setting. On the other so are gamers and the trends are going to go where the money is. You are part of the niche. Sorry to break it to you, but your ideas just aren't profitable no matter how many posts you make extolling the virtue of hard and permanent video games.
Which brings up a point made in a discussion I was having at my Game shop. D&D is seeing (at least locally here) a huge surge. I am coming back to it after an *ahem* 30-year break as are many others. I was buying a new copy of all the books and I was blown away by how many dudes in my age category were playing, hosting, and buying items to play. So I struck up a conversation with the guy that owns the place and he had been polling (unofficially) his player/customer base and had gotten very similar answers.
Nothing out there provides the longevity, the depth, or the fun that tabletop games do, Was the majority of the answers. As we were talking more people joined in and before long, there was a pretty healthy group of 40 something dads, all holding various forms of gaming tomes, discussing the virtue of table-top games over video games.
So maybe tail chases dog here, or the wheel turns, perhaps this resurgence will spark a desire for a triple-A development company to make a game like you (and I bet a few others) desire despite the lack of profitability. Only time will tell.
Personally, I have been off the computer more and at the table slaying dragons...and I don't really miss the computer.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Just make it so that I can play a healer without having to be a damage dealers for 90% of the time while leveling up. If the game does force me to be a damage dealer, please make it so that I don't have to be a gimped damage dealer because I want to run dungeons as a healer.
Additionally, make the classical healer a cleric instead of a priest, I don't want to wear a dress when I play and I want to beat up monsters with a heavy blunt weapon instead of being a wimpy second-rate mage.
Dude...you DON"T have to wear a dress when you play. I wear shorts and a t-shirt normally, you can totally wear whatever you want. I can't imagine what your closet looks like.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Just make it so that I can play a healer without having to be a damage dealers for 90% of the time while leveling up. If the game does force me to be a damage dealer, please make it so that I don't have to be a gimped damage dealer because I want to run dungeons as a healer.
Additionally, make the classical healer a cleric instead of a priest, I don't want to wear a dress when I play and I want to beat up monsters with a heavy blunt weapon instead of being a wimpy second-rate mage.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Actually the primary reason I do not occasionally go back to everquest 1 to play is the veteran system.
It severely penalizes people who come back after several years of not playing vs those who stuck around for the long haul. Hence people don't come back.
The vet rewards are just so powerful -- I mean look:
1st year -- Lesson of the Devoted: The player is surrounded by a beautiful blue/white glow as they gain double experience for half an hour once every 20 hours.
2nd year -- Infusion of the Faithful: Usable once every
20 hours, the player enjoys maximum resistances, statistics and a faster
run speed for 15 minutes while he glows brightly with power.
3rd year -- Chaotic Jester: Usable once every 20 hours,
this summons a Bristlebane puppet that persists for 15 minutes or until
you zone. Bristlebane will randomly cast various spells that provide
benefits or minor penalties. His wry sense of humor is sure to get you
noticed at that next gathering!
4th year -- Expedient Recovery: Usable just under once
per week, all the player’s corpses are summoned to their feet and given
100% experience resurrection if they are still eligible. This reward is
very handy to use for those difficult situations where getting a
resurrection is inconvenient.
5th year -- Steadfast Servant: Summons a faithful
servant that casts healing spells upon the player and others nearby.
Lasts for half an hour or until you zone and is usable once every 20
hours.
6th year -- Staunch Recovery: Usable once just under
every 3 days, the player is fully restored with health, mana, and
endurance. Great for those emergencies but it does take a few seconds to
cast.
7th year -- Intensity of the Resolute: Surrounded by a
glow of energy this greatly increases the power of the player’s melee
abilities, spells and heals for 1 minute. This handy ability is
especially useful for tough situations requiring your best and is usable
once every 4 hours.
8th year -- Throne of Heroes: Usable every 72 minutes, the player is teleported to the Throne of Heroes in the Guild Lobby.
9th year -- Armor of Experience: Usable once every 20
hours this grants you several layers of protection from harm for 90
seconds or 10 strikes. This protection lessens as you take more damage.
Great for when you know you’re going to take a few hits.
10th year -- Summon Resupply Agent: Usable once every 20
hours this summons a helpful mechanical merchant to your side. This is
great for stocking up on supplies or selling loot when getting to a
merchant is inconvenient. He will stay up for 10 minutes or unless
dismissed by the player.
11th year -- Summon Clockwork Banker: Usable once every 20 hours, a helpful mechanical banker is the latest initiative from the new Norrathian Banking Consortium.
12th year -- Summon Permutation Peddler: Usable once every 20 hours, this summons an augmentation distiller vendor to your side.
13th year -- Summon Tribute Master: This summons an tribute master to your side.
14th year -- Blessing of the Devoted: Reduces the reuse time of all other Veteran's Rewards by 25 percent.
Just try taking your old time character with say 18 active months or 2 or even 3 years on it and try to join a raid guild. Watch as everyone in the guild does throne of heroes and you have to run. Big raid fail? Everyone but you uses Expedient recovery. Want to tank a raid, oh you don't have Armor of Experience... No we will use one who does. You mean you don't have infusion of the faithful? You won't even get to go on some raids. Don't have intensity of the resolute? Why would a raid group want you in it?
(the rewards were cut/pasted from fanra.info)
When I went back a couple of years ago, the AAs were the problem...I was literally thousands of AAs behind, and you ahve to sub to get anywhere near most of the raiders are now.....The F2Ps have no chance of catching up as you are pretty severely limited.
Can you tone down the hyperbole over there? All of those can only be used once a day and most of them only last a few moments to 30 minutes. A single wipe would render them pointless. While they can save 1 wipe here or there, stop acting like not having them is a barrier to entry for getting into raid groups. They aren't that powerful.
It's not hyperbole, at least what @Theocritus is saying. I think he's discussing regular AAs, and @centkin is discussing Veteran AAs. I'd suggest that the Veteran AAs that @centkin mentioned aren't nearly the huge advantage that he implies. So, I'd agree with @Sephiroso -- the impact of the Veteran AAs is a bit exaggerated here.
With regular AAs, tanking is gear and AA dependent in EQ1. It has been for a long time, probably since the GoD/OoW expansions. If you don't have enough of either, you are severely limited in what you can do. I came back to EQ1 with the Dragons of Norrath expansion. Lots of good group level content with a pretty nice drop/progression system. I tried playing with an alt tank, who while at 65th level, was unable to tank. I didn't have enough of the HP and damage avoidance/mitigation AAs to stand up to the damage the mobs were doing. (This was before the auto-grant AA feature that has all my characters crippled currently).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Actually the primary reason I do not occasionally go back to everquest 1 to play is the veteran system.
It severely penalizes people who come back after several years of not playing vs those who stuck around for the long haul. Hence people don't come back.
The vet rewards are just so powerful -- I mean look:
1st year -- Lesson of the Devoted: The player is surrounded by a beautiful blue/white glow as they gain double experience for half an hour once every 20 hours.
2nd year -- Infusion of the Faithful: Usable once every
20 hours, the player enjoys maximum resistances, statistics and a faster
run speed for 15 minutes while he glows brightly with power.
3rd year -- Chaotic Jester: Usable once every 20 hours,
this summons a Bristlebane puppet that persists for 15 minutes or until
you zone. Bristlebane will randomly cast various spells that provide
benefits or minor penalties. His wry sense of humor is sure to get you
noticed at that next gathering!
4th year -- Expedient Recovery: Usable just under once
per week, all the player’s corpses are summoned to their feet and given
100% experience resurrection if they are still eligible. This reward is
very handy to use for those difficult situations where getting a
resurrection is inconvenient.
5th year -- Steadfast Servant: Summons a faithful
servant that casts healing spells upon the player and others nearby.
Lasts for half an hour or until you zone and is usable once every 20
hours.
6th year -- Staunch Recovery: Usable once just under
every 3 days, the player is fully restored with health, mana, and
endurance. Great for those emergencies but it does take a few seconds to
cast.
7th year -- Intensity of the Resolute: Surrounded by a
glow of energy this greatly increases the power of the player’s melee
abilities, spells and heals for 1 minute. This handy ability is
especially useful for tough situations requiring your best and is usable
once every 4 hours.
8th year -- Throne of Heroes: Usable every 72 minutes, the player is teleported to the Throne of Heroes in the Guild Lobby.
9th year -- Armor of Experience: Usable once every 20
hours this grants you several layers of protection from harm for 90
seconds or 10 strikes. This protection lessens as you take more damage.
Great for when you know you’re going to take a few hits.
10th year -- Summon Resupply Agent: Usable once every 20
hours this summons a helpful mechanical merchant to your side. This is
great for stocking up on supplies or selling loot when getting to a
merchant is inconvenient. He will stay up for 10 minutes or unless
dismissed by the player.
11th year -- Summon Clockwork Banker: Usable once every 20 hours, a helpful mechanical banker is the latest initiative from the new Norrathian Banking Consortium.
12th year -- Summon Permutation Peddler: Usable once every 20 hours, this summons an augmentation distiller vendor to your side.
13th year -- Summon Tribute Master: This summons an tribute master to your side.
14th year -- Blessing of the Devoted: Reduces the reuse time of all other Veteran's Rewards by 25 percent.
Just try taking your old time character with say 18 active months or 2 or even 3 years on it and try to join a raid guild. Watch as everyone in the guild does throne of heroes and you have to run. Big raid fail? Everyone but you uses Expedient recovery. Want to tank a raid, oh you don't have Armor of Experience... No we will use one who does. You mean you don't have infusion of the faithful? You won't even get to go on some raids. Don't have intensity of the resolute? Why would a raid group want you in it?
(the rewards were cut/pasted from fanra.info)
When I went back a couple of years ago, the AAs were the problem...I was literally thousands of AAs behind, and you ahve to sub to get anywhere near most of the raiders are now.....The F2Ps have no chance of catching up as you are pretty severely limited.
Can you tone down the hyperbole over there? All of those can only be used once a day and most of them only last a few moments to 30 minutes. A single wipe would render them pointless. While they can save 1 wipe here or there, stop acting like not having them is a barrier to entry for getting into raid groups. They aren't that powerful.
It's not hyperbole, at least what @Theocritus is saying. I think he's discussing regular AAs, and @centkin is discussing Veteran AAs. I'd suggest that the Veteran AAs that @centkin mentioned aren't nearly the huge advantage that he implies. So, I'd agree with @Sephiroso -- the impact of the Veteran AAs is a bit exaggerated here.
With regular AAs, tanking is gear and AA dependent in EQ1. It has been for a long time, probably since the GoD/OoW expansions. If you don't have enough of either, you are severely limited in what you can do. I came back to EQ1 with the Dragons of Norrath expansion. Lots of good group level content with a pretty nice drop/progression system. I tried playing with an alt tank, who while at 65th level, was unable to tank. I didn't have enough of the HP and damage avoidance/mitigation AAs to stand up to the damage the mobs were doing. (This was before the auto-grant AA feature that has all my characters crippled currently).
If they aren't nearly the huge advantage then why not have a way to get them rather than waiting 12 years? I ignored Asheron's call for years because of a trinket for preordering an expansion that gave 10% extra hit points that was for a long time unobtainable in any other way that I did not have.
Straight AAs aren't an issue because you can always grind grind grind. Unless they changed something massively, AA's come like candy if you set 100% of your exp to them.
In my view, It's not grouping or soloing, it's simply the change in the distribution of time. We aged. We don't have that much time anymore, but it feels like we're still the main customers.
Having to spend 1 hour to find a group (or a spot in a grinding group) is not what i would call fun anymore. Yea, one could argue that the groups were "there", you just had to go "there" and group and do stuff. Well, we've been spoiled, and the mindless grinding of (the same) mobs is not cool anymore.
I want to "jump right in" when i log on. That's why many games adapted and now we have the public quests (I'll use the Warhammer online term here), the dungeon finders with auto teleports, the battlegrounds for instant pvp, the lobby-like MMO's. Some of us even changed genre, going to MOBA's and TCG's. Everything is faster in the world, compared to 15 years ago - so are games.
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
The move to make solo PVE content though doesn't seem at all out of place. EVE has always provided many styles of content for many playstyles, and they can do that because 100% of their content is optional (other than the threat of scammers and suicide gankers).
So who cares if they don't like eachother's gameplay? I like both solo and group based gameplay. Give me options for each and I will use each depending on my mood. Allow them to opt out of the other's playstyle and both sides will be fine.
agree 100% with all of this right here. The only thing you do by taking away options in a game is screw yourself(and the players) over.
It is about rewards, if you can get the rewards from solo play you do from grouping, why would you group?
I am still trying to get my head round what you said about WoW, as far as I know you can still solo to top level, are you saying that is now not the case?
Yes, you can solo to top level. Guess what, you could solo to top level in vanilla WoW. What's your point? The main game didn't start until you reached max level where the main content was locked behind needing max level and a certain amount of gear.
I've come to the conclusion that "old school" is not for me anymore. I loved EQ, EQ2, Vanguard, etc. but now grouping can be toxic, like communities. Maybe due to your younger generations or the influx of so many games? I like the convenience in soloing or playing with a few people I know (2 - 3 per group). I don't want to spend so much time grinding through "old school" mobs in groups...... I just don't have the time anymore. Is it just me?
edit: I was really looking forward to Pantheon, but after watching the streaming of the game it seemed slow, unforgiving and too time-consuming. The one thing that I do love about those "old school" games was the amount of races and classes to choose from....
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
The move to make solo PVE content though doesn't seem at all out of place. EVE has always provided many styles of content for many playstyles, and they can do that because 100% of their content is optional (other than the threat of scammers and suicide gankers).
So who cares if they don't like eachother's gameplay? I like both solo and group based gameplay. Give me options for each and I will use each depending on my mood. Allow them to opt out of the other's playstyle and both sides will be fine.
agree 100% with all of this right here. The only thing you do by taking away options in a game is screw yourself(and the players) over.
It is about rewards, if you can get the rewards from solo play you do from grouping, why would you group?
I am still trying to get my head round what you said about WoW, as far as I know you can still solo to top level, are you saying that is now not the case?
Yes, you can solo to top level. Guess what, you could solo to top level in vanilla WoW. What's your point? The main game didn't start until you reached max level where the main content was locked behind needing max level and a certain amount of gear.
Well that's solo instead of grouping isn't it? I can understand posters who are saying the mix we have in games like WoW is a best fit, but I think that may be because we have not tried that many ways to make a MMO. That's why I am open to any new take on how to balance that gameplay.
But posters like yourself, and you are not alone seem to want to forget the huge amount of soloing there is in that mix. Now you seem to be pointing out that end game is mostly grouping, that's a fair point, but those alts need to go through it all again (though I do realise in some MMOs you can at least partial bypass that). And dailies, mostly solo or zerg groups (a grey area "group" wise).
They never took grouping away by force. People are getting older and have less free time to belong to dedicated gaming groups without having to bail out due to life reasons.
I never join dedicated guild setups (group content) because i don't like bailing out on people and looking irresponsible when something more important happens in real life. So i decide to play solo and join casual guilds for casual/non-dedicated group content. I still have a lot of fun that way.
Its a natural evolution of the game when older players naturally lean towards more casual content consumption. And when new younger players join, that is what they find in game, more casual behavior.
My thoughts.
I figure when you take other commitments that require your time it's probably best to shift your gaming style to single player or console quick room multiplayer. Just because you change doesn't mean the game needs to bend with you.
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
The move to make solo PVE content though doesn't seem at all out of place. EVE has always provided many styles of content for many playstyles, and they can do that because 100% of their content is optional (other than the threat of scammers and suicide gankers).
So who cares if they don't like eachother's gameplay? I like both solo and group based gameplay. Give me options for each and I will use each depending on my mood. Allow them to opt out of the other's playstyle and both sides will be fine.
agree 100% with all of this right here. The only thing you do by taking away options in a game is screw yourself(and the players) over.
It is about rewards, if you can get the rewards from solo play you do from grouping, why would you group?
I am still trying to get my head round what you said about WoW, as far as I know you can still solo to top level, are you saying that is now not the case?
Yes, you can solo to top level. Guess what, you could solo to top level in vanilla WoW. What's your point? The main game didn't start until you reached max level where the main content was locked behind needing max level and a certain amount of gear.
Well that's solo instead of grouping isn't it? I can understand posters who are saying the mix we have in games like WoW is a best fit, but I think that may be because we have not tried that many ways to make a MMO. That's why I am open to any new take on how to balance that gameplay.
But posters like yourself, and you are not alone seem to want to forget the huge amount of soloing there is in that mix. Now you seem to be pointing out that end game is mostly grouping, that's a fair point, but those alts need to go through it all again (though I do realise in some MMOs you can at least partial bypass that). And dailies, mostly solo or zerg groups (a grey area "group" wise).
What do you mean we haven't tried that many ways to make an MMO? Tons of ways have been tried, and the market discarded them because it didn't interest enough people. At some point you have to accept reality. Forced grouping is something a very very tiny minority of people like.
It's why FFXI abandoned it. It was miserable. Yea, it was great when you actually managed to get a group but you ignore the ridiculously common scenario of people having to spend 30 minutes to hours trying to find a group because you HAVE to group to progress at all in the game and then when they do get one, someone dc's or the group wipes and falls apart and they have to find another group.
Shit like that happened all the time. Unless you were a tank or healer, gl finding a group that would take you. And then you or someone else would say "well just find a linkshell" yea, as if every player in the game can find a linkshell that they'd fit in with so easily. These are the reasons things like forced grouping aren't seen anymore, at least not when it comes to leveling. You still see forced grouping for the main PvE content of games like dungeons and raiding and other rewarding content like world bosses and world events, but just to level? Nah. It was tried, many many times in fact, and the market decided it was a terrible idea.
1. What features does Pantheon have that I can't find in existing MMOs? 2. How do you feel these differences make it meaningfully better than existing MMOs?
The whole history of MMORPGs is basically of companies leap-frogging each other, simplifying their games and spending more money than the earlier games trying to attract the elusive mass market. WoW achieved this, and in an attempt to maintain its grip on them it changed aggressively for many years till in the end the MMORPG became a big nothing. Now this mass market has a tremendous, overbearing presence in MMORPGs. Some people reminisce about Everquest, but bear in mind that Everquest was derided at the time for its lack of PvP, which was unusual for a game with the scope of an MMORPG.
I would like some day to play Lineage (1998) and Meridian 59 (1996) on a classic server. I went back and played Project1999 Everquest and Uthgard DAoC and they are... overrun with illiterate cheaters, munchkins, spoiler-site-users, and twinks. This illustrates the problem with these MMORPGs (as well as Final Fantasy XI and early Everquest II). They need massive players to support them, but as time has shown there are not a massive number of "good-type" players to populate an MMORPG. And the populous players that they attract are either the above... or leave them for another game if they don't release an expansion pack. Basically players whose expectations are not in line with what an MMORPG needs to be good. Hence "massively" multiplayer games of good quality are a fleeting illusion. Either they change to hold onto their fairweather supporters, or they cease to be massive.
Some people look forward to games like Pantheon, but the problem with that is implicit in their desire. The old games are not good enough for them. They won't try to make them work. They need a new game, new graphics. These are not the kind of players that can make a game last. Maybe some day in the future a kickstarter game will scale down the MMORPG enough so that it can serve a small and devoted playerbase, but for now I think any new, idealistic "massive" online RPG will end up with a playerbase like Darkfall did, basically a snarling pack of cheaters and rude players, or if they restrict PvP something like Uthgard DAoC, simply a lukewarm "game" (and these new MMORPGs, being MMORPG #1111 know their time is short and they are not special). As you say (and all "good-type" players know) MMORPGs only became worse with time. That Lineage and Meridian 59 don't have classic servers, while the latest MMORPG is booming with players, shows the futility of it all.
Something like Uthgard DAoC could be an excellent game with a high quality playerbase. Here's the problem: the game was never designed to encourage or select these kinds of players. In other words, among other things, it is far too easy. It will say "oh youre a Leeroy Jenkins type of player? That's alright. We'll forgive you." So as we see its classic server achieves massive status, but at the cost of having sent all the good-type players packing, in disgust at player names like "Moisthole" (GMs don't care), rampant cheating, and widespread illiteracy, stupidity, and bad manners. Still if Uthgard DAoC can reach hundreds or a thousand players, and Project 1999 too, it begs the question why someone has not revived Meridian 59 or Lineage. Perhaps these games could accumulate a good playerbase over time, where Project 1999 Everquest and Uthgard DAoC have not.
In the end the MMORPG today has no relation to games like Meridian 59 and Lineage. The entire aim of the developers incessantly making and trying to profit from these games ever since broadband Internet came about has been to attract more and more players. They have dug their own grave. They are all childish games. There is not a shred of dignity in any of them. Anyone making them just hides behind the subscription numbers while drawing up plans for an expansion pack or sequel so that their mercenary playerbase won't leave them. Why is there an Everquest II (and why were they making an Everquest III)? Why is there a Final Fantasy XIV? There is no reason in any of it. No point asking the players to account for it. As far as I see it is all hopeless. I began becoming disenchanted with MMORPGs at the announcement of WoW: TBC, and by the announcement of WoW: Cataclysm I had quit entirely. I won't support new games, won't waste my money on them (I tried that with TERA) , I will only play classic servers, and as far as I can see my choices are between Uthgard DAoC (which actually isn't terrible, it will be my choice for now if I go back to one) or Project 1999 Everquest, which is a haven of cheaters and just unpleasant. Very rarely does a group in Project 1999 justify the huge investment of time. I am glad that DAoC mended the huge problem of overpowered items in Everquest...which by the way is another example of a game that does little to winnow the good players from the bad, or the skilled from the unskilled. It happened back in the day, but that wasn't because of the game, it was because those were still the days of dial-up Internet for many.
Tried Uthgard DAoC Delete? It is the only MMORPG that I recommend today, I think.
EDIT: Also I forgot to speak of graphics. Classic DAoC is beautiful, Vanguard was not, nor will Pantheon be. Everquest and earlier games were fine. Anything more than classic DAoC graphics is excessive and a waste of money. That these games like Pantheon spend so much on graphics further demonstrates their flawed design. Or maybe the team is not talented enough to make beautiful graphics like DAoC, Lineage II, or Final Fantasy XI. Pantheon will only hurt classic MMORPG servers. It is a useless and unnecessary game. It may as well be called Vanguard II. There was nothing wrong with Vanguard as I remember it, it was a decent game, but lo and behold it is shut down or changed now. And who cares about a classic Vanguard server? It was just a waste of time and money that could better have spent making and supporting a classic server for AC, Lineage, Meridian 59, or Final Fantasy XI.
Ok- Why should I pay for something when my ability to even play it, progress and have fun is dependent on others???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Thing is people have always tried to find a way to play solo in most games for many reasons. Everyone remembers those times when you were doing well in group, leveling fast, then someone was all "I'm going to bed" the group just fell apart from there.
I stopped playing EQ2 and AIon back in the day because much of the game mechanics forced you to group up to even level up. In EQ2 I was in literally the largest guild on my server, thing is most of the people in it were all higher level and didn't want to help with older content. The older expansion areas were barren and I could never find anyone to group with so I gave up on that game.
In Aion I got to the point were I needed to do a lot of the Abyys content, again my guildes weren't interested in going in, like ever. I ran it solo for a while but there were twinks camping prime locations constantly so it you made no headway on anything. IMHO I like how GW2 does it, no forced grouping, but there is plenty of scaleable content to play with other people.
But if you make them group they call that "forced grouping". I was intrigued to see how many posters were against the idea of having a MMO that could be played in single player or multiplayer.
In the multiplayer version grouping would be needed to do nearly all quests in a group, and maybe even crafting would need more than one player to produce the finished product...some were appalled.
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
It is the elephant in the room which actually so often gets talked about but is then ignored. There are other possible solutions, have totally divergent progression paths for solo and group play. But I can imagine what they will say there: groupers will just do the solo sections and just get on with it, solo players will whinge endlessly about being "forced" to group.
Well the good MMORPGs already exist. They're not going to be making any more. I don't see the point of "what if" scenarios. I was there in the Vanguard beta...which is the template for all these new games like Pantheon. They had the chance to make something great, they didn't, and that window has long ago shut. That was eleven or twelve years ago. People supporting these new games are not supporting good games...they are a different kind of player altogether. Heck if I had to I'd rather buy the license for a Meridian 59 or Lineage classic server than support the seven hundredth MMORPG. We are not even remotely living in that age any more. Vanguard was at the very tail end of it, and being nothing special to my mind it brought a definite close to it (which the resounding lack of good games following it reinforced).
I'll leave you to your academic discussion if you wish, but if we are speaking of integrity, that is practical, and that is good for MMORPGs now, then we should bear in mind that both Meridian 59 and Lineage did not have the model of parties that Everquest did, and I have no doubt that one would find these were more complex games, or if not, that they were scaled for this (Everquest was huge), and so in that alone distinct from MMORPGs today. The essence of a good MMORPG, as anyone that cares about what I am saying likely knows, is one that does not change significantly. That is why we play classic servers, that is why we dislike MMORPGs today. And that is why I reject the idea that the paradigm is between Everquest and, say, World of Warcraft. There are many more points to MMORPGs. From what I have read each time you died in Meridian 59 you lost hitpoints (permanently, I am guessing). And Lineage is a very intriguing game that I will likely never be able to play.
Some people on here speak of not having "enough time" for an Everquest kind of game, but Everquest was far from the first MMORPG. Just shows how confused the conception is of many of MMORPGs in general.
In any case, no one is making good MMORPGs, they are already made.It remains for someone to energize them and make them into classic servers, mostly non-commercial, and steadfastly resolved against change. And there is a very fixed number of these that are worth the trouble. You are speaking of nonsense as far as I am concerned. Parties in new MMORPGs would not be the same as parties in old MMORPGs, for one thing. For another thing the idea of a new MMORPG is absurd... I have been playing them since 2001. Sometimes I think these message boards are stuck in a time rift back in 2006. The discussions are truly so old and pointless. As far as I am concerned every MMORPG after 2004 or 2005 can just be incinerated and nothing of value will be lost. But as for the "good-type" players...the sooner the kickstarter games come to an end, the sooner nature will direct them, especially the young ones who are not so individually willful, back to the earlier games, which are the causes that we should be championing. The only players of concern in the modern market are those going to games like Pantheon, and it is the young blood of that crowd that we need back in the classic games. The old ones obviously don't care, but maybe if those games do not do well they will return to the classic ones.
The game you want exists, it's just in early Alpha. It's called Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. It is literally made by the people who made EQ (thankfully not Daybreak, but McQuaid). The game looks amazing and will have the same mechanics of EQ (aka tank/heals/CC/dps quadrinity, grouping basically required, no instancing). I honestly cannot wait for it.
I miss the old EQ. Progression servers are neat, but they still have people gaining 10 levels a day, which is NOT EQ1 at launch. I get that "forced grouping" is not everyone's cup of tea, but there are literally dozens of MMOs that allow you to be antisocial. This one will eschew the ability to EFFECTIVELY solo (my guess is you CAN solo, but it won't be anywhere NEAR as good as grouping) in favor of fostering a community. And that sounds like heaven to me.
I don't know when the MM in MMO got tossed to the side in favor of "playing a one person RPG with other people around", but it killed a lot of the community who loved this genre.
As has been noted, historically the early MMORPGs were not based on the principle of parties. Nor were they divided into PvE and PvP games, as say Everquest and Shadowbane were. And for sure Project 1999 already offers a classic Everquest experience. If you know about Project 1999, then I can't think of a good reason that you would play Pantheon. Try Uthgard DAoC if you don't like Project 1999. Don't support more wasteful MMORPGs. Ask McQuaid why he isn't relaunching Vanguard or making a classic server for it.
Nevertheless the history of MMORPGs certainly does not begin with Everquest. As has been noted one of Everquests main historical points is that it may have been the first MMORPG to remove PvP entirely. To my mind Everquest began another generation of MMORPGs, or at the least ushered them in and was a kind of bridge. I'm not sure what games you're speaking of as opposition to Everquest, but my conviction is that World of Warcraft was a good game. Like Everquest though I think it began or at least ushered in another generation of MMORPGs, and that those inspired by it were historically insignificant and not good, while those inspired by Lineage II, though not historically significant either, tended to be solid games. Whenever that generation of moderate freedom (mostly Korean games, but Vanguard is a notable example in the west) ended, well, that begins the modern era. Don't know much about it, but on a friends computer I have played tutorial areas in games like Neverwinter, and seen gameplay of games like Guild Wars 2. And I played TERA some. Maybe those are the kind of games that you are speaking of. The generation after Everquest was understandably heavily influenced by it, but I didn't find Lineage II, or many of the games that it inspired (I'm guessing here, no offense if it didn't) (Rappelz, Shaiya, 2Moonz, ArcheLord, and others I forget) much worse than DAoC or Everquest was. They all had their problems, which is one reason I have long wished that I could player Meridian 59 or Lineage on a classic server. No luck there yet.
I don't remember the exact time and place, but somewhere around 2002-04 in EQ1 grouping became harder and harder to do.....The content from a couple of the expansions put alot of pressure on the players to be good....All of a sudden you had to have alot of HP/AC if you tanked, tons of mana if you healed, and insane DPS if you weren't a tank or healer....The support classes started to get left behind (my main was an enchanter).
In chat, players started complaining openly and loudly....Quite a few that I knew that had played for 3-4 years rage quit..... At this point, EQ started creating more content for solo play....Not too much later WoW came around (Nov 2004) and players could solo and group as much as they wanted...The content was much easier for groups, and you could basically handle it even with a terrible pick up group.
Everquests problem was that it created content in the first place, to try to win players over. If players continue to need new things or they will quit, they are dragging the game down. This is why I say that a "massive" online RPG of good quality is a fleeting illusion. For its efforts to change for players complaining "openly and loudly" and "creating more content" Everquest suffered severe and shameful degradation of its economy and the integrity of its world. It should have let those players go without a second thought. Everquest is Everquest, if you can't hack it go elsewhere. Of course that was unlikely under the circumstances... Everquest was such a massive and ambitious game, this is why I always hate to see it represented as the foundation of MMORPGs. It was far from it, but in fact the game that began or ushered in the next generation of MMORPGs.
As to the difficulty between EQ and WoW, I agree EQ's dungeons are harder than WoW's at the levels that I played them at. On the other hand, on Project 1999 very few go to dungeons other than Unrest, etc. They always stack the deck in their favor with twinking. EQ failed in my opinion by making zones like the Oasis, Unrest, etc. Overthere, Dreadlands, Lake of Ill Omen, etc. (speaking to my above paragraph too) only made things worse. Everquest can be challenging if everyone isn't cheating, but World of Warcraft, like DAoC and EQ2 (just to rub the point in further) made the wise choice to limit twinking, and so in that way dungeons in WoW often are more difficult than the few dungeons that anyone ran on Project 1999 (and back in 2001 I remember I took my first character from Oasis - Lake of Ill Omen - Overthere - Rathe Mountains - Dreadlands or something like that. Don't think I ever went in a dungeon the whole time I played, at least till the late levels.
To some extent I am playing devils advocate though. An unprepared group in a dungeon in Everquest would likely be run out on a rail, but on the other hand, one which intentionally wished to trivialize the content through stacking the deck could. This was significantly different from DAoC and WoW. A dull group in EQ was incredibly dull, while in DAoC and WoW I don't remember many dull groups. Of course with instances dungeons in WoW were very different. EQ deliberately allowed players to play in a dull way, and they did. I do not consider EQ difficult at all. The option was there...that is about all. And for most players that is meaningless when you need several players to go into a dungeon.
Oh, and on the topic of grouping, I hated most PUGs. Actually I can't remember anyone I knew who actually enjoyed being part of a PUG for the most part. True SOMETIMES you could find a couple of good people when pugging out of a full group, although often that turned out to be ONE person who you talked with privately, joking back and forth about how bad the other idiots were.
Note you didn't have to have a full guild group to have a good group however. I had several very good groups doing hard content where everyone in the group was from the top 10 guilds on the server. This typically happened in the mornings before people got into more coherent pure guild groups and raids. I was in like guild 4 and having a group of say 1 person from each of the top 6 guilds worked just as well as from everyone in the same guild.
It did promote elitism though because if you restricted a group to only people from the top guilds you did have a better experience. Yes there were nice skilled people from other guilds and people without guilds but in essence you would make a potential recruitment list from that pool of names, and they were the exception not the rule.
There was also the final group -- the non-aligned crafters. I have been one of those as well in some games at some times, people who are one of the artisan crafters in a game who refuse to guild not because they didn't fill the role but because they didn't want restrictions on who they used their crafting for and didn't want a whole laundry list dumped on them to craft for a guild. In one case I was essentially an associate of guilds 1 and 3 while not being in either. Master crafters also made good group members for the most part.
Old school, group play was taken away by FORCE. At what point did people say "I no longer want it". People seem to get mad as hell when I bring this up for some odd reason. It truly is fact, yet it angers people.
- Why are people not playing EverQuest 1 ?..... Simple, it's old and dated !!! - Why are people not playing EverQuest 2 ?..... Simple, its old and dated and it changed to unplayable !!!
This is so much fact, it should be a sticky on the main page of this site. But instead people get pissed....
If you had apples (good) and Bananas (good), and you take away apples by force, then you only have bananas. Sure people are eating a lot of bananas. But no one ever seems to ask "why did apples go away ?"
Lot's of people would like apples (good) Lot's of people would like old school (good)
But if you make them group they call that "forced grouping". I was intrigued to see how many posters were against the idea of having a MMO that could be played in single player or multiplayer.
In the multiplayer version grouping would be needed to do nearly all quests in a group, and maybe even crafting would need more than one player to produce the finished product...some were appalled.
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
It is the elephant in the room which actually so often gets talked about but is then ignored. There are other possible solutions, have totally divergent progression paths for solo and group play. But I can imagine what they will say there: groupers will just do the solo sections and just get on with it, solo players will whinge endlessly about being "forced" to group.
Well the good MMORPGs already exist. They're not going to be making any more. I don't see the point of "what if" scenarios. I was there in the Vanguard beta...which is the template for all these new games like Pantheon. They had the chance to make something great, they didn't, and that window has long ago shut. That was eleven or twelve years ago. People supporting these new games are not supporting good games...they are a different kind of player altogether. Heck if I had to I'd rather buy the license for a Meridian 59 or Lineage classic server than support the seven hundredth MMORPG. We are not even remotely living in that age any more. Vanguard was at the very tail end of it, and being nothing special to my mind it brought a definite close to it (which the resounding lack of good games following it reinforced).
I'll leave you to your academic discussion if you wish, but if we are speaking of integrity, that is practical, and that is good for MMORPGs now, then we should bear in mind that both Meridian 59 and Lineage did not have the model of parties that Everquest did, and I have no doubt that one would find these were more complex games, or if not, that they were scaled for this (Everquest was huge), and so in that alone distinct from MMORPGs today. The essence of a good MMORPG, as anyone that cares about what I am saying likely knows, is one that does not change significantly. That is why we play classic servers, that is why we dislike MMORPGs today. And that is why I reject the idea that the paradigm is between Everquest and, say, World of Warcraft. There are many more points to MMORPGs. From what I have read each time you died in Meridian 59 you lost hitpoints (permanently, I am guessing). And Lineage is a very intriguing game that I will likely never be able to play.
Some people on here speak of not having "enough time" for an Everquest kind of game, but Everquest was far from the first MMORPG. Just shows how confused the conception is of many of MMORPGs in general.
In any case, no one is making good MMORPGs, they are already made.It remains for someone to energize them and make them into classic servers, mostly non-commercial, and steadfastly resolved against change. And there is a very fixed number of these that are worth the trouble. You are speaking of nonsense as far as I am concerned. Parties in new MMORPGs would not be the same as parties in old MMORPGs, for one thing. For another thing the idea of a new MMORPG is absurd... I have been playing them since 2001. Sometimes I think these message boards are stuck in a time rift back in 2006. The discussions are truly so old and pointless. As far as I am concerned every MMORPG after 2004 or 2005 can just be incinerated and nothing of value will be lost. But as for the "good-type" players...the sooner the kickstarter games come to an end, the sooner nature will direct them, especially the young ones who are not so individually willful, back to the earlier games, which are the causes that we should be championing. The only players of concern in the modern market are those going to games like Pantheon, and it is the young blood of that crowd that we need back in the classic games. The old ones obviously don't care, but maybe if those games do not do well they will return to the classic ones.
I am putting the case for trying new formats of MMO gameplay, not saying what we have now is awful or that MMOs must be made a certain way. The overreaction to what I have said is rather knee jerk. The classic server idea spiked my interest, still not sure if populations are large because of the "classic" or the fact that like in Rift they are subscription in a MMO that has F2P severs. I was wondering could being shot of F2P players be the reason that had occurred?
Comments
Games evolve some people like it others do not. I would say more like it than do not, and your assertion that the majority probably aren't looking for your definition of an MMORPG, where they can establish roots, and stay there is most likely true.
It's easy to blame it on Wow. I have issues with WoW and the gamers that game brought to us (generally speaking) however I do not blame WoW alone. For the record, FFIV is similar to WoW, not sure why you think they are vastly different.
I put the blame on consoles. Console games, from conception to just recently had a beginning, a middle and an end. Yes, you could play the story in different ways and get slightly, to sometimes incredibly different results but they all have an endpoint. Until recently that is when Game Devs saw another way to rake in money and that is cross-platform games.
I believe that WoW brought a lot of non-gamers in it also brought a lot of console gamers into PC gaming and with it came the "lets finish this and go do something else" attitude to the game.
So, on one hand, you make a pretty lucid point, games are changing, I agree the majority are probably not looking for life-long adventure setting. On the other so are gamers and the trends are going to go where the money is. You are part of the niche. Sorry to break it to you, but your ideas just aren't profitable no matter how many posts you make extolling the virtue of hard and permanent video games.
Which brings up a point made in a discussion I was having at my Game shop. D&D is seeing (at least locally here) a huge surge. I am coming back to it after an *ahem* 30-year break as are many others. I was buying a new copy of all the books and I was blown away by how many dudes in my age category were playing, hosting, and buying items to play. So I struck up a conversation with the guy that owns the place and he had been polling (unofficially) his player/customer base and had gotten very similar answers.
Nothing out there provides the longevity, the depth, or the fun that tabletop games do, Was the majority of the answers. As we were talking more people joined in and before long, there was a pretty healthy group of 40 something dads, all holding various forms of gaming tomes, discussing the virtue of table-top games over video games.
So maybe tail chases dog here, or the wheel turns, perhaps this resurgence will spark a desire for a triple-A development company to make a game like you (and I bet a few others) desire despite the lack of profitability. Only time will tell.
Personally, I have been off the computer more and at the table slaying dragons...and I don't really miss the computer.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
With regular AAs, tanking is gear and AA dependent in EQ1. It has been for a long time, probably since the GoD/OoW expansions. If you don't have enough of either, you are severely limited in what you can do. I came back to EQ1 with the Dragons of Norrath expansion. Lots of good group level content with a pretty nice drop/progression system. I tried playing with an alt tank, who while at 65th level, was unable to tank. I didn't have enough of the HP and damage avoidance/mitigation AAs to stand up to the damage the mobs were doing. (This was before the auto-grant AA feature that has all my characters crippled currently).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Straight AAs aren't an issue because you can always grind grind grind. Unless they changed something massively, AA's come like candy if you set 100% of your exp to them.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
edit: I was really looking forward to Pantheon, but after watching the streaming of the game it seemed slow, unforgiving and too time-consuming. The one thing that I do love about those "old school" games was the amount of races and classes to choose from....
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
But posters like yourself, and you are not alone seem to want to forget the huge amount of soloing there is in that mix. Now you seem to be pointing out that end game is mostly grouping, that's a fair point, but those alts need to go through it all again (though I do realise in some MMOs you can at least partial bypass that). And dailies, mostly solo or zerg groups (a grey area "group" wise).
I really think you'll all be playing Pantheon.
The curiosity will be their
I figure when you take other commitments that require your time it's probably best to shift your gaming style to single player or console quick room multiplayer. Just because you change doesn't mean the game needs to bend with you.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
1. What features does Pantheon have that I can't find in existing MMOs?
2. How do you feel these differences make it meaningfully better than existing MMOs?
I would like some day to play Lineage (1998) and Meridian 59 (1996) on a classic server. I went back and played Project1999 Everquest and Uthgard DAoC and they are... overrun with illiterate cheaters, munchkins, spoiler-site-users, and twinks. This illustrates the problem with these MMORPGs (as well as Final Fantasy XI and early Everquest II). They need massive players to support them, but as time has shown there are not a massive number of "good-type" players to populate an MMORPG. And the populous players that they attract are either the above... or leave them for another game if they don't release an expansion pack. Basically players whose expectations are not in line with what an MMORPG needs to be good. Hence "massively" multiplayer games of good quality are a fleeting illusion. Either they change to hold onto their fairweather supporters, or they cease to be massive.
Some people look forward to games like Pantheon, but the problem with that is implicit in their desire. The old games are not good enough for them. They won't try to make them work. They need a new game, new graphics. These are not the kind of players that can make a game last. Maybe some day in the future a kickstarter game will scale down the MMORPG enough so that it can serve a small and devoted playerbase, but for now I think any new, idealistic "massive" online RPG will end up with a playerbase like Darkfall did, basically a snarling pack of cheaters and rude players, or if they restrict PvP something like Uthgard DAoC, simply a lukewarm "game" (and these new MMORPGs, being MMORPG #1111 know their time is short and they are not special). As you say (and all "good-type" players know) MMORPGs only became worse with time. That Lineage and Meridian 59 don't have classic servers, while the latest MMORPG is booming with players, shows the futility of it all.
Something like Uthgard DAoC could be an excellent game with a high quality playerbase. Here's the problem: the game was never designed to encourage or select these kinds of players. In other words, among other things, it is far too easy. It will say "oh youre a Leeroy Jenkins type of player? That's alright. We'll forgive you." So as we see its classic server achieves massive status, but at the cost of having sent all the good-type players packing, in disgust at player names like "Moisthole" (GMs don't care), rampant cheating, and widespread illiteracy, stupidity, and bad manners. Still if Uthgard DAoC can reach hundreds or a thousand players, and Project 1999 too, it begs the question why someone has not revived Meridian 59 or Lineage. Perhaps these games could accumulate a good playerbase over time, where Project 1999 Everquest and Uthgard DAoC have not.
In the end the MMORPG today has no relation to games like Meridian 59 and Lineage. The entire aim of the developers incessantly making and trying to profit from these games ever since broadband Internet came about has been to attract more and more players. They have dug their own grave. They are all childish games. There is not a shred of dignity in any of them. Anyone making them just hides behind the subscription numbers while drawing up plans for an expansion pack or sequel so that their mercenary playerbase won't leave them. Why is there an Everquest II (and why were they making an Everquest III)? Why is there a Final Fantasy XIV? There is no reason in any of it. No point asking the players to account for it. As far as I see it is all hopeless. I began becoming disenchanted with MMORPGs at the announcement of WoW: TBC, and by the announcement of WoW: Cataclysm I had quit entirely. I won't support new games, won't waste my money on them (I tried that with TERA) , I will only play classic servers, and as far as I can see my choices are between Uthgard DAoC (which actually isn't terrible, it will be my choice for now if I go back to one) or Project 1999 Everquest, which is a haven of cheaters and just unpleasant. Very rarely does a group in Project 1999 justify the huge investment of time. I am glad that DAoC mended the huge problem of overpowered items in Everquest...which by the way is another example of a game that does little to winnow the good players from the bad, or the skilled from the unskilled. It happened back in the day, but that wasn't because of the game, it was because those were still the days of dial-up Internet for many.
Tried Uthgard DAoC Delete? It is the only MMORPG that I recommend today, I think.
EDIT: Also I forgot to speak of graphics. Classic DAoC is beautiful, Vanguard was not, nor will Pantheon be. Everquest and earlier games were fine. Anything more than classic DAoC graphics is excessive and a waste of money. That these games like Pantheon spend so much on graphics further demonstrates their flawed design. Or maybe the team is not talented enough to make beautiful graphics like DAoC, Lineage II, or Final Fantasy XI. Pantheon will only hurt classic MMORPG servers. It is a useless and unnecessary game. It may as well be called Vanguard II. There was nothing wrong with Vanguard as I remember it, it was a decent game, but lo and behold it is shut down or changed now. And who cares about a classic Vanguard server? It was just a waste of time and money that could better have spent making and supporting a classic server for AC, Lineage, Meridian 59, or Final Fantasy XI.
Well the good MMORPGs already exist. They're not going to be making any more. I don't see the point of "what if" scenarios. I was there in the Vanguard beta...which is the template for all these new games like Pantheon. They had the chance to make something great, they didn't, and that window has long ago shut. That was eleven or twelve years ago. People supporting these new games are not supporting good games...they are a different kind of player altogether. Heck if I had to I'd rather buy the license for a Meridian 59 or Lineage classic server than support the seven hundredth MMORPG. We are not even remotely living in that age any more. Vanguard was at the very tail end of it, and being nothing special to my mind it brought a definite close to it (which the resounding lack of good games following it reinforced).
I'll leave you to your academic discussion if you wish, but if we are speaking of integrity, that is practical, and that is good for MMORPGs now, then we should bear in mind that both Meridian 59 and Lineage did not have the model of parties that Everquest did, and I have no doubt that one would find these were more complex games, or if not, that they were scaled for this (Everquest was huge), and so in that alone distinct from MMORPGs today. The essence of a good MMORPG, as anyone that cares about what I am saying likely knows, is one that does not change significantly. That is why we play classic servers, that is why we dislike MMORPGs today. And that is why I reject the idea that the paradigm is between Everquest and, say, World of Warcraft. There are many more points to MMORPGs. From what I have read each time you died in Meridian 59 you lost hitpoints (permanently, I am guessing). And Lineage is a very intriguing game that I will likely never be able to play.
Some people on here speak of not having "enough time" for an Everquest kind of game, but Everquest was far from the first MMORPG. Just shows how confused the conception is of many of MMORPGs in general.
In any case, no one is making good MMORPGs, they are already made.It remains for someone to energize them and make them into classic servers, mostly non-commercial, and steadfastly resolved against change. And there is a very fixed number of these that are worth the trouble. You are speaking of nonsense as far as I am concerned. Parties in new MMORPGs would not be the same as parties in old MMORPGs, for one thing. For another thing the idea of a new MMORPG is absurd... I have been playing them since 2001. Sometimes I think these message boards are stuck in a time rift back in 2006. The discussions are truly so old and pointless. As far as I am concerned every MMORPG after 2004 or 2005 can just be incinerated and nothing of value will be lost. But as for the "good-type" players...the sooner the kickstarter games come to an end, the sooner nature will direct them, especially the young ones who are not so individually willful, back to the earlier games, which are the causes that we should be championing. The only players of concern in the modern market are those going to games like Pantheon, and it is the young blood of that crowd that we need back in the classic games. The old ones obviously don't care, but maybe if those games do not do well they will return to the classic ones.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Nevertheless the history of MMORPGs certainly does not begin with Everquest. As has been noted one of Everquests main historical points is that it may have been the first MMORPG to remove PvP entirely. To my mind Everquest began another generation of MMORPGs, or at the least ushered them in and was a kind of bridge. I'm not sure what games you're speaking of as opposition to Everquest, but my conviction is that World of Warcraft was a good game. Like Everquest though I think it began or at least ushered in another generation of MMORPGs, and that those inspired by it were historically insignificant and not good, while those inspired by Lineage II, though not historically significant either, tended to be solid games. Whenever that generation of moderate freedom (mostly Korean games, but Vanguard is a notable example in the west) ended, well, that begins the modern era. Don't know much about it, but on a friends computer I have played tutorial areas in games like Neverwinter, and seen gameplay of games like Guild Wars 2. And I played TERA some. Maybe those are the kind of games that you are speaking of. The generation after Everquest was understandably heavily influenced by it, but I didn't find Lineage II, or many of the games that it inspired (I'm guessing here, no offense if it didn't) (Rappelz, Shaiya, 2Moonz, ArcheLord, and others I forget) much worse than DAoC or Everquest was. They all had their problems, which is one reason I have long wished that I could player Meridian 59 or Lineage on a classic server. No luck there yet.
Everquests problem was that it created content in the first place, to try to win players over. If players continue to need new things or they will quit, they are dragging the game down. This is why I say that a "massive" online RPG of good quality is a fleeting illusion. For its efforts to change for players complaining "openly and loudly" and "creating more content" Everquest suffered severe and shameful degradation of its economy and the integrity of its world. It should have let those players go without a second thought. Everquest is Everquest, if you can't hack it go elsewhere. Of course that was unlikely under the circumstances... Everquest was such a massive and ambitious game, this is why I always hate to see it represented as the foundation of MMORPGs. It was far from it, but in fact the game that began or ushered in the next generation of MMORPGs.
As to the difficulty between EQ and WoW, I agree EQ's dungeons are harder than WoW's at the levels that I played them at. On the other hand, on Project 1999 very few go to dungeons other than Unrest, etc. They always stack the deck in their favor with twinking. EQ failed in my opinion by making zones like the Oasis, Unrest, etc. Overthere, Dreadlands, Lake of Ill Omen, etc. (speaking to my above paragraph too) only made things worse. Everquest can be challenging if everyone isn't cheating, but World of Warcraft, like DAoC and EQ2 (just to rub the point in further) made the wise choice to limit twinking, and so in that way dungeons in WoW often are more difficult than the few dungeons that anyone ran on Project 1999 (and back in 2001 I remember I took my first character from Oasis - Lake of Ill Omen - Overthere - Rathe Mountains - Dreadlands or something like that. Don't think I ever went in a dungeon the whole time I played, at least till the late levels.
To some extent I am playing devils advocate though. An unprepared group in a dungeon in Everquest would likely be run out on a rail, but on the other hand, one which intentionally wished to trivialize the content through stacking the deck could. This was significantly different from DAoC and WoW. A dull group in EQ was incredibly dull, while in DAoC and WoW I don't remember many dull groups. Of course with instances dungeons in WoW were very different. EQ deliberately allowed players to play in a dull way, and they did. I do not consider EQ difficult at all. The option was there...that is about all. And for most players that is meaningless when you need several players to go into a dungeon.
Note you didn't have to have a full guild group to have a good group however. I had several very good groups doing hard content where everyone in the group was from the top 10 guilds on the server. This typically happened in the mornings before people got into more coherent pure guild groups and raids. I was in like guild 4 and having a group of say 1 person from each of the top 6 guilds worked just as well as from everyone in the same guild.
It did promote elitism though because if you restricted a group to only people from the top guilds you did have a better experience. Yes there were nice skilled people from other guilds and people without guilds but in essence you would make a potential recruitment list from that pool of names, and they were the exception not the rule.
There was also the final group -- the non-aligned crafters. I have been one of those as well in some games at some times, people who are one of the artisan crafters in a game who refuse to guild not because they didn't fill the role but because they didn't want restrictions on who they used their crafting for and didn't want a whole laundry list dumped on them to craft for a guild. In one case I was essentially an associate of guilds 1 and 3 while not being in either. Master crafters also made good group members for the most part.
You must be retired or unemployed.