Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A wishlist: permanence and elimination of the grind
xPaladin
Member UncommonPosts: 741
What bothers me perhaps the most about modern MMO deployment is that they make grand claims -- presumptions really -- about how great it is to be part of a community of thousands of players playing simultaneously. To this I say, what good is a community if they live in a dry, shallow world?
I think the biggest -- and most unfulfilled -- draw to MMOs is a sense of permanence, that is, for the player(s) to have a lasting effect on the game world. Developers are literally afraid to implement any sort of permanence systems because they fear causing frustration for the player that invests significant game time on PvE content. While reasonable, it also reveals the fundamental flaw in all MMO logic, that is, the assumption a PvE grind is absolutely necessary for a MMO.
The overwhelming plethora of MMOGs -- and holy crap are there a lot of them -- see existing PvE-based formulas and decide to tell a new story with different graphics and possibly slightly different mechanics, as if to sell folks on the storyline of the game. If that isn't the case, then call me a fool, as I see no significant innovation in ANY recent MMOG that extends beyond storyline and IP. In fact, the focus on IP and storyline is itself extremely counteractive to permanence because the player has almost no role in defining the storyline of the game. The player becomes a part of the story rather than the story teller.
While it seems like a subtle play of words, the realization is quite astonishing and has a serious toll on emotional investment in the game itself. It's hard to stay involved in a game where the player is forced into the role of an extra instead of the leading role. When the feeling that one has no effect at all in the game world finally settles in, the player has nothing left to give and simply walks away. Very few players -- the players who have indeed actualized their "lead role" position -- actually remain, but they too can die off if their supporting cast or fans give up.
What I mean by that is that guilds don't really cut it for the majority of gamers either. These days, guilds form out of necessity; they are attempts to keep players in leading roles rather than becoming extras ("Getting a crew together to run that super hard dungeon with discipline"). The majority of guilds never see any sort of actualization for their efforts, though. Only few guilds ever get to see the light in games, as the majority of guilds merge upward into bigger guilds that usually never work out. The few guilds that are successful -- again, this constitutes about 5-10% of any server of any game at any time -- are the only ones that have any chance of sticking together ex post facto.
Yes, that was indeed a subtle shot at "Kosterism," outdated by todays standards. In his heyday, guilds had much more emotional meaning than they do now, where things are almost entirely utilitarian. One of the questions of the lovely (and also archaic) Bartle quotient questions whether it's a higher honor to receive great loot or be accepted into a guild, adue in fact to the majority of MUD-based guilds required significant prestige to enter. With some high end guilds, this is still the case, although things are still utilitarian as guilds seek to fill out "slots" in their PvE roster rather than focus on creating societies. Ultimately, the majority of guilds are "worthless" because the player is determined to take center stage and look after himself, and this is a completely reasonable demand.
Part of the reason WoW's expansion came with a reduction in the maximum raid-man amounts was because of a genuine (and admitted) Blizzard concern that not enough people had actually seen the endgame content, thus they figured it required facilitation. Obviously 40 mans are quite a pain in the ass to assemble and coordinate, so 20 mans are a degree more manageable. Yet, be that as it may, clearing the highest top-end instances is not enough because it signals the (current) end of advancement. There's no more achievements to be had after point X, and therefore, no reason to continue playing. I'd say a very small percentage of the entire WoW playerbase is even capable of reaching the high-end dungeons and smaller yet is the percentage that can actually clear them with little incident.
In fact, one trend I noticed in my years of MMO gaming, especially among powergamers, is that they plan out their leveling well in advance. In Pre-BC WoW, I recall a discussion in which several powergamers were discussing the fastest possible way to 60, using both instances and zones. One of the players wound up forming an "inline ascii map" that could rival most players' guides in reaching 1-60, to which I wondered that if things could be so meticulously planned out and require only a dedicated time investment, exactly what was the point of even going for level 60? As it turned out, L60 battlegrounds and, yes, more PvE, which is equally as planned out: get fire resistance gear from X, Y, Z, read boss battle guide, follow through. Rinse and repeat, just on a slightly larger scale.
This is where WoW failed. Their expansion only brought in more of the same, and it's been leaving people wondering where the actual war is. The overkill, in fact, of the new content and rather silly requirements for instance raiding are an exacerbation of an already ill situation: players relied on world PvP for entertainment, and that was summarily stripped from them as players are forced into instances for the purposes of grinding. It's really no surprise that the wind is being removed from the sails of a lot of players as a result.
The reason, again, is that PvE -- no matter how drawn out, scripted, and time consuming it is -- isn't filling enough. People ultimately want PvP, even if it's merely light and inconsequential, because it adds a degree of permanence. There's a certain glory to be had in besting another player, and even the most jaded PvP veteran will admit to truly feeling the battle. If the PvP element was expanded further, I tend to believe, there would be a good balance.
The flaw with the PvE version of permanence is that it is very limited. Housing and Cities are perhaps the most prevalent of the things that have any permanence in game worlds. First Kills and Server Firsts are also considered permanence but they are very limited scopes, and only ever happen once per event/kill. Again, only a limited amount of people ever get to see a live Server First. PvE is quite an exclusive club and it is usually dominated by those with the most time to invest in it.
PvP, on the other hand, is a system that can be socially dominated. As it currently stands, the existence of PvP is determined almost entirely by PvE aspects and mechanics and therefore is broken in more than one game. DAoC has keep and relic raiding which is some degree of permanence, but the only option available to players is to capture, and never to destroy since the game mechanics have a built in "RvR dungeon" (read: PvE) that is unlocked to a specific faction when one side controls more keeps. AC PvP has corpse looting, but this is offset by "Death Items" that sold for large amounts of money but never equated to actual loss. SWG has player bases that are attackable, and players put these to good, interesting, and creative uses, though for the longest time those bases came with a compliment of rather unbalanced NPC guards (yet, for their complete lack of worth during those times, the bases inspired many a legendary battle within SWG).
But that doesn't even mention the biggest PvE-based PvP killer: loot. Loot drives PvP to the point where it becomes "GvG" or "Gear vs Gear," because gear is a PvE element required for advancement in the PvE ladder and is rarely ever balanced against other players. Thus this enforces the deadly entrapment of the status quo we have today, the greatest fundamental problem, players running through PvE content they avidly hate in order to gain an edge in PvP or, in some cases, remain competitive at all.
Do away with the "required PvE grind for levels," let the players wreck total havoc and/or institute order. Let them create and destroy at free will. Give them the tools and the mechanics to create great cities and then blow each other to hell. Let PvE be useful to the PvP and social efforts, leaving nobody behind. Most important of all, let the players govern themselves and the game world. Focus on the PvP and social aspects of the game -- the aspects that influence the most player-generated change instead of the linear, logarithmic stagnation offered by achievement -- and it will be difficult to fail.
I think the biggest -- and most unfulfilled -- draw to MMOs is a sense of permanence, that is, for the player(s) to have a lasting effect on the game world. Developers are literally afraid to implement any sort of permanence systems because they fear causing frustration for the player that invests significant game time on PvE content. While reasonable, it also reveals the fundamental flaw in all MMO logic, that is, the assumption a PvE grind is absolutely necessary for a MMO.
The overwhelming plethora of MMOGs -- and holy crap are there a lot of them -- see existing PvE-based formulas and decide to tell a new story with different graphics and possibly slightly different mechanics, as if to sell folks on the storyline of the game. If that isn't the case, then call me a fool, as I see no significant innovation in ANY recent MMOG that extends beyond storyline and IP. In fact, the focus on IP and storyline is itself extremely counteractive to permanence because the player has almost no role in defining the storyline of the game. The player becomes a part of the story rather than the story teller.
While it seems like a subtle play of words, the realization is quite astonishing and has a serious toll on emotional investment in the game itself. It's hard to stay involved in a game where the player is forced into the role of an extra instead of the leading role. When the feeling that one has no effect at all in the game world finally settles in, the player has nothing left to give and simply walks away. Very few players -- the players who have indeed actualized their "lead role" position -- actually remain, but they too can die off if their supporting cast or fans give up.
What I mean by that is that guilds don't really cut it for the majority of gamers either. These days, guilds form out of necessity; they are attempts to keep players in leading roles rather than becoming extras ("Getting a crew together to run that super hard dungeon with discipline"). The majority of guilds never see any sort of actualization for their efforts, though. Only few guilds ever get to see the light in games, as the majority of guilds merge upward into bigger guilds that usually never work out. The few guilds that are successful -- again, this constitutes about 5-10% of any server of any game at any time -- are the only ones that have any chance of sticking together ex post facto.
Yes, that was indeed a subtle shot at "Kosterism," outdated by todays standards. In his heyday, guilds had much more emotional meaning than they do now, where things are almost entirely utilitarian. One of the questions of the lovely (and also archaic) Bartle quotient questions whether it's a higher honor to receive great loot or be accepted into a guild, adue in fact to the majority of MUD-based guilds required significant prestige to enter. With some high end guilds, this is still the case, although things are still utilitarian as guilds seek to fill out "slots" in their PvE roster rather than focus on creating societies. Ultimately, the majority of guilds are "worthless" because the player is determined to take center stage and look after himself, and this is a completely reasonable demand.
Part of the reason WoW's expansion came with a reduction in the maximum raid-man amounts was because of a genuine (and admitted) Blizzard concern that not enough people had actually seen the endgame content, thus they figured it required facilitation. Obviously 40 mans are quite a pain in the ass to assemble and coordinate, so 20 mans are a degree more manageable. Yet, be that as it may, clearing the highest top-end instances is not enough because it signals the (current) end of advancement. There's no more achievements to be had after point X, and therefore, no reason to continue playing. I'd say a very small percentage of the entire WoW playerbase is even capable of reaching the high-end dungeons and smaller yet is the percentage that can actually clear them with little incident.
In fact, one trend I noticed in my years of MMO gaming, especially among powergamers, is that they plan out their leveling well in advance. In Pre-BC WoW, I recall a discussion in which several powergamers were discussing the fastest possible way to 60, using both instances and zones. One of the players wound up forming an "inline ascii map" that could rival most players' guides in reaching 1-60, to which I wondered that if things could be so meticulously planned out and require only a dedicated time investment, exactly what was the point of even going for level 60? As it turned out, L60 battlegrounds and, yes, more PvE, which is equally as planned out: get fire resistance gear from X, Y, Z, read boss battle guide, follow through. Rinse and repeat, just on a slightly larger scale.
This is where WoW failed. Their expansion only brought in more of the same, and it's been leaving people wondering where the actual war is. The overkill, in fact, of the new content and rather silly requirements for instance raiding are an exacerbation of an already ill situation: players relied on world PvP for entertainment, and that was summarily stripped from them as players are forced into instances for the purposes of grinding. It's really no surprise that the wind is being removed from the sails of a lot of players as a result.
The reason, again, is that PvE -- no matter how drawn out, scripted, and time consuming it is -- isn't filling enough. People ultimately want PvP, even if it's merely light and inconsequential, because it adds a degree of permanence. There's a certain glory to be had in besting another player, and even the most jaded PvP veteran will admit to truly feeling the battle. If the PvP element was expanded further, I tend to believe, there would be a good balance.
The flaw with the PvE version of permanence is that it is very limited. Housing and Cities are perhaps the most prevalent of the things that have any permanence in game worlds. First Kills and Server Firsts are also considered permanence but they are very limited scopes, and only ever happen once per event/kill. Again, only a limited amount of people ever get to see a live Server First. PvE is quite an exclusive club and it is usually dominated by those with the most time to invest in it.
PvP, on the other hand, is a system that can be socially dominated. As it currently stands, the existence of PvP is determined almost entirely by PvE aspects and mechanics and therefore is broken in more than one game. DAoC has keep and relic raiding which is some degree of permanence, but the only option available to players is to capture, and never to destroy since the game mechanics have a built in "RvR dungeon" (read: PvE) that is unlocked to a specific faction when one side controls more keeps. AC PvP has corpse looting, but this is offset by "Death Items" that sold for large amounts of money but never equated to actual loss. SWG has player bases that are attackable, and players put these to good, interesting, and creative uses, though for the longest time those bases came with a compliment of rather unbalanced NPC guards (yet, for their complete lack of worth during those times, the bases inspired many a legendary battle within SWG).
But that doesn't even mention the biggest PvE-based PvP killer: loot. Loot drives PvP to the point where it becomes "GvG" or "Gear vs Gear," because gear is a PvE element required for advancement in the PvE ladder and is rarely ever balanced against other players. Thus this enforces the deadly entrapment of the status quo we have today, the greatest fundamental problem, players running through PvE content they avidly hate in order to gain an edge in PvP or, in some cases, remain competitive at all.
Do away with the "required PvE grind for levels," let the players wreck total havoc and/or institute order. Let them create and destroy at free will. Give them the tools and the mechanics to create great cities and then blow each other to hell. Let PvE be useful to the PvP and social efforts, leaving nobody behind. Most important of all, let the players govern themselves and the game world. Focus on the PvP and social aspects of the game -- the aspects that influence the most player-generated change instead of the linear, logarithmic stagnation offered by achievement -- and it will be difficult to fail.
-- xpaladin
[MMOz]
AC1/2, AO, DAoC, EQ1/2, SoR, SWG, UO, WAR, WoW
Comments
For me PvP is ultimately the only viable reason to continue in a MMO game. I mean why grind end game content for hundreds of hours when you still will not have any impact on the game world? I've heard of lots of rank 14 players in WoW who quit after reaching that highest rank. And what for? Instanced battlegrounds is a joke and a copout yet players still participate in them. I don't think I will play another MMO that isn't a dynamic ever changing game world that changes due to character decisions from PvP batttles to economic competition to politics and declarations of war anf forming of alliances, etc. I can't wait till POTBS comes out next month because I'm interested in how their game will work - it will be fully conquerable and everyones' actions will effect the game world. You choose your nation and help it to conquer the game world. Hopefully, their game design will give players a better sense of being a part of a team where their actions mean something from the guilds they are in to the country they are fighting for. I think AoC and WAR will have similiar features I hope. Maybe those games will be sucessful and promote better game design in the future.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
I think we will be able to see something like that in the future...
There is too many problems still about PvP centered games
One of the main things is performance we saw what happened in Shadowbane...
Another thing is how difficult is to make such an open game
And the worst element is PEOPLE yeah.. ppl in games tend to act like retards and in most open games they tend to ruin the whole experience...
But yeah i like all the ideas and i want to see a game where ppl can form guild, towns, even a new country !! i want to see a game where politics play a role a game with rebels, nations, bandits, etc a game where u can build whatever the heck u want to build...
I hope one day we can see a huge project like that
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
Well i know what you mean. But i dont really think that premade content is all that needed, Sure to some extent they would need some. But for the most part just "give players the props and they'll create the play" is what i think the op is saying. It wouldnt need really fast content imho. As for zones, i see zones becoming a major problem recently.
They are all too linear. And mmos are too much level based when it comes to areas. For exaple i'll use wow. E forest outside of stormwind has no use for players over 12, why would they ever come back to that area? To defend? Not really... quests and the level based progression just leads pople to different areas, and really has no point... to be honest this is why after 2 years of playing wow i quit... it didnt have a feel as if a "war" was going on.
Just my two cents.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
Well i know what you mean. But i dont really think that premade content is all that needed, Sure to some extent they would need some. But for the most part just "give players the props and they'll create the play" is what i think the op is saying. It wouldnt need really fast content imho. As for zones, i see zones becoming a major problem recently.
They are all too linear. And mmos are too much level based when it comes to areas. For exaple i'll use wow. E forest outside of stormwind has no use for players over 12, why would they ever come back to that area? To defend? Not really... quests and the level based progression just leads pople to different areas, and really has no point... to be honest this is why after 2 years of playing wow i quit... it didnt have a feel as if a "war" was going on.
Just my two cents.
I wasn't really posing it as a solution to the problem. As I said at the end of the post I think his/her ideas for having players create their own adventures through things like PvP and controlling differnt areas of the game is interesting. I just pointed out that some people don't mind the questing system. Right now MMOs are like a very big single player game with grouping options and some people enjoy that. They don't need the game to continue going forever. I think with a little creativity and imagination they could make the quests more interesting. There are a lot of old single RPG games that have more varried quest ideas with things like I mentioned and yet MMOs are using the same type of quests over and over again.
The NGE fiasco with SWG is perhaps a great example of this: rather than fix the existing game, SOE came up with a solution that wasn't complete and alienated a good portion of the player base. Based on feedback from the CU, SOE was well aware they had pushed many players to the brink and were exclusively relying on new subs to make up for the losses.
The history of MMOGs is one of a singular formula being transformed gradually into one that might actually be worth using. In some ways it is quite good: MMOs of the future will pay more attention to things that previous games did wrong and try to correct them. However, the evils far outweighs any benefits this system might have. Players only ever get exposed to THIS system and play it for any number of reasons, usually in spite of their feelings toward the game system.
"Veteran" MMO players might look down on new, youthful, and optimistic WoW players because they retain a love for the system whereas typical veteran has had many more years of this system and are sorely tired of the formula. Those singing praises now will become jaded themselves in a matter of time, and so on, so forth.
The fact that people are playing and continue to subscribe "justifies" the system, when in fact there are many fundamental flaws with it. Few properly-budgeted and staffed development teams are willing to consider alternatives to the existing formula because it might upset the system. Yet, this is an unfair analysis because only fractions of the user base ever get to see games outside the system. Publishers aren't asking developers to make games, they're asking them to build sales platforms.
If players don't know something exists, how can they appreciate it?
Worse, if current iterations of ideas suck (in however many different ways there are to suck), how can players be expected to be patient for them?
-- xpaladin
[MMOz]
AC1/2, AO, DAoC, EQ1/2, SoR, SWG, UO, WAR, WoW
until then the devs will think everyone wants the same stuff because it sells.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Well i know what you mean. But i dont really think that premade content is all that needed, Sure to some extent they would need some. But for the most part just "give players the props and they'll create the play" is what i think the op is saying. It wouldnt need really fast content imho. As for zones, i see zones becoming a major problem recently.
They are all too linear. And mmos are too much level based when it comes to areas. For exaple i'll use wow. E forest outside of stormwind has no use for players over 12, why would they ever come back to that area? To defend? Not really... quests and the level based progression just leads pople to different areas, and really has no point... to be honest this is why after 2 years of playing wow i quit... it didnt have a feel as if a "war" was going on.
Just my two cents.
I remember the zones in WoW and how wasted they were as most were basically devoid of players and the zones served no real utility other than gathering crafting materials and level grinding, otherwise everyone stayed packed away in instances both PvE and PvP. That's another reason why I don't believe in levels because it creates 90% or more wasted space in these games. Zones would be better in a non level based MMO since they would be created with utility in mind instead of populating them with mobs to level grind.But we can all just hope, that other developers see the problem, and other games will come which another approach how a mmo should be.
However, it is almost a veteran problem, because for the newbies of mmos, it is enough to play with others, and they dont ask about anything deeper, until they get bored, too. But this takes some time.
make sure you try EvE btw although skills are time based. you do have permenance guilds own space stations and titan and motherships that can be destroyed by others. but there is some grind unfortunately.
there is also planetside havent played it yet myself but plan to
I agree with all the points really. publishers worry bout keeping players around so they make ya grind forever and ever for loot which in turn screws us PvPers over. And because it takes such a huge commitment to earn loot there is no full looting....
yeah looking forward to playing a game that doesnt enforce grind on us and elts us change the world. I like how guild wars is setup. yeah u do grind a bit for skills i guess but they had the right idea by letting carebears grind all day long for the gold to buy the best looking armor. while they let pvpers create a toon with best gear. And casual gamers can get best gear with little effory (really cheap). so they found a way to make everyone happy. of course it doesnt allow permenance or anything but I like how they at least tried to find a middle ground to please the 3 different types of players out there. I really liked that bout it
Im going on a trip but will respnd to this post in a few days if any thoughtful replies
I do have one question- I'm thinking it might suck if you build a huge empire and log on the next day and its all torn to bits cause you got sucker punched while you were sleeping. I'm thinking you gotta have some NPC guards or somehing to protect your assets while you're asleep. im thinking it should be more of a war of attrition whereas you have a lengthy war before you lose all your assets.
I also think it should cost you money to defend your base and it should cost the attackers a lot to assault you. I think EvE has that inplace where the attackers have to build space stations as well before they can attack your terriority that you own
It also separates the players from each other with an artificial level border.
The game itself should be imense enough to make you do things, explore, build, fight and whatnot.
Mmorpgs need a fundamental change and as someone else pointed out, that will not happen before some independent company makes a success with the new formula.
This new forumla imo needs to atleast include:
- A more versatile tick (hard to get away from with the way internet is constructed) combat system
- Perma decaying items (really slow decay, but eventually they will be ultimately destroyed)
- Free PvP (in a non-level based game where gear is important but not equal to win)
- Social knots (DAOC, for example, did it great with guild colors and cloaks)
- alot more that I can't think of atm (need more coffee first)
and the standard of the basic game mechanics such as UI, graphics and other related things, need to atleast reach WoW status in all aspects.That is one thing WoW has done, it have set a new minimum that later mmorpgs need to reach in almost every part of the game so that players don't feel they downgrade there experience.
I'm hoping that DF will bring me, in a decade or two, some of this but any other game that does will do
But what happend? Every developer outthere build up on the Everyquest(or diku mud) concept, with his coherent grind for levels and items. It is such a pity.. we can just hope, that in the future they go back to the UO concept(UO wasnt the inventor of it, it existed in MUDs before UO.. but anyway), or even try something completely different, which noone thought about yet.
But i cant really play anymore a mmorpg with those old and repitive concept.. this is maybe the reason why i have not played a mmorpg since around 2 years..
Therefore, I'd actually say the problem is with NPCs themselves. While not entirely on topic, here's something of a proto-answer: don't make conversion of assets NPC based a la DAOC, where you kill the keep lord to gain control of the keep. Instead, make asset conversion player based.
Let's take an example of a game I make (hehehe, I wish) in which I declare the emphasis of the game guilds and guild warring. Keep in mind as you read this that what I'm describing below is an incomplete mechanic. It's a very rough, but plausible draft.
Hypothetically speaking, guilds in my game have two modes: neutral and aggressive (pacifists would only create precedent for spies). Aggressive guilds try to kill everything and are always attackable, whereas neutral guilds have to declare war to attack -- and be attacked by -- other neutral guilds. Unlike other games, war declaration is one sided, but alerts the opposing guild and takes a day to go into effect. The objective of said system is to attack and conquer other players home bases, their Guild Halls.
Let's talk about the positives of Guild Halls first. In addition to allowing guild creation, Guild Halls offer solid benefits like stat and gathering bonuses, as well as enable advanced crafting structures. Guild Halls can be upgraded to allow for some number of upgrades, depending on how well the guild does in war(s). More "wins" means more everything for a guild: territorial gains, more advanced crafting, more defenses, and so on.
However, it is not without cost. Guild Halls require maintenance in three forms, which increases rather exponentially the more advanced the guild is: monetary upkeep, resources collected from disputed areas in the game world, and the presence of their Guild Master. The role of the GM is to keep the other two in balance. The more active a GM is within the game, the less the money and resource upkeeps will be until they reach a minimum amount. This minimum amount is raised during "wartime," as the performance of the guild in war(s) directly affects the GM's contribution to the pool.
So, guilds that perform badly face the prospect of weakening their own position without directly being assaulted by the enemy. The cool thing is that it's actually advantageous to hold off on direct assault. Storming a well supplied, well armed keep should be nigh-suicidal, and this offers a way to weaken it through attrition.
When the guild hall is weakened significantly it becomes "vulnerable" to take-over or destruction whenever the GM is logged on. If the GM doesn't log on, the attrition effect continues unchecked and ultimately the Guild goes to waste.
All of this is focused at making Guilds into Serious Business™, and forces players to deal with one another rather than with NPCs.
-- xpaladin
[MMOz]
AC1/2, AO, DAoC, EQ1/2, SoR, SWG, UO, WAR, WoW
Funny, I just finished reading something really cool on TerraNova (a MMO blog with a lot of academics, but also developers like Koster), and then came over here and happened to see this topic. Over on TerraNova they've been talking about whether MMOs need better AI. The whole thread is pretty interesting, but check out this post: http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/05/artificial_inte.html#c69221522
Well i know what you mean. But i dont really think that premade content is all that needed, Sure to some extent they would need some. But for the most part just "give players the props and they'll create the play" is what i think the op is saying. It wouldnt need really fast content imho. As for zones, i see zones becoming a major problem recently.
They are all too linear. And mmos are too much level based when it comes to areas. For exaple i'll use wow. E forest outside of stormwind has no use for players over 12, why would they ever come back to that area? To defend? Not really... quests and the level based progression just leads pople to different areas, and really has no point... to be honest this is why after 2 years of playing wow i quit... it didnt have a feel as if a "war" was going on.
Just my two cents.
I remember the zones in WoW and how wasted they were as most were basically devoid of players and the zones served no real utility other than gathering crafting materials and level grinding, otherwise everyone stayed packed away in instances both PvE and PvP. That's another reason why I don't believe in levels because it creates 90% or more wasted space in these games. Zones would be better in a non level based MMO since they would be created with utility in mind instead of populating them with mobs to level grind.Exactly, it makes content disposable. Factor in that current MMO's cost millions to make and you would think that devs would be pushing to ditch the level based formula.