Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Saga of Lord Evercraft Galaxies - the perfect MMO wishlist
Elikal
Member UncommonPosts: 7,912
Saga of Lord Evercraft Galaxies
My perfect MMO – wishlist.
This is entirely personal. The motivations is, after playing over a dozen MMOs I realized, I never got everything I wanted. And I wanted to know how others think about all this. It’s always something lacking or something not perfectly implemented. My biggest hope once was Vanguard, and I am still mad at the Sigil leaders for screwing it. Really mad. So, for all future MMO devs who want my 100% attention, here is what I want. Feel free to add, comment, as you wish, but leave the flames, this is just for the fun of doing it, and only my POV.
In no particular order:
1) MAKE IT BIG: I believe in size, the bigger the better. I am an explorer, I want to see many new vistas over time, no tiny, weeny miniworld. I want diversity in landscapes and many things to see. Deserts, snowy landscapes, forests, jungles, grassy hills, rural villages, big cities, ALL OF IT. I want a big, complex cosmos, so I have much to explore. I don’t want them to overdo it at launch, as VG did. A starter world should have about the scope of WOW, and I felt VG was a wee bit too large for a starter world, so everyone was pretty scattered.
2) BUNDLE THE STARTER AREAS: I know, we all want those individual racial or cultural stories. Nice and good. But if you make all those 15 races in different starter areas, you do two things wrong: first you prevent noobs from getting together (or the entire idea of 15 races is an anachronism), and second you litter the world with too many low level mobs. VG is FULL with mobs below level 15, I guess 70% of the world is below level 15 mobs, because of the FAR too many starter areas. In that way, you skip far too many areas and essentially you made them for nothing. It’s just a bad strategy to make the most mobs for those levels which players will leave behind the fastest and then having only 1 or 2 places left for high levels. Bundling the starter areas means, you bring new players together, as EQ2 or WOW do, without totally annihilating the chance to give some cultural background.
3) GUIDED STORY-LINES: I love stories told. Generally only one MMO really succeeds in storytelling, and that’s LOTRO. They have instances once and then, but not too many, to further several turning points in the overall going on story with some small scripted events going on. All quests form to a regional story, which form a global story. So with everything you do, you get a small or big part of one story. WAR seems also to do this with their quests, as they have told. I always loathed those incoherent EQ2 quests. They tell nothing. And they are the most uninspired I have seen, with a few exceptions. If some NPC sends you to fetch his lost bag or what, it usually tells ZERO about the area lore and could be placed at EVERY other place in the game as well. That’s just balderdash. I don’t read such “stories”. It doesn’t mean you must follow one line of quests, but you CAN. You are free to roam and go where you want, but all quests have that thing in common, giving parts of one big story. Only then you really get an emotional connection to places. You look at all those places in LOTRO, and they have the STORY, and you just feel the atmosphere of the place. Lavastorm or Thundering Steppes are just places. Or Tursh. They could be anywhere anything.
4) MANY DIVERSE RACES AND CLASSES: I want many. What really sucks in LOTRO is those 4 races and 9 classes. FOUR races! I mean, who the heck thought of a MMO in 2007, when all want MORE and make four? Its kinda anti-trend. I love to make alts, and experience many different classes and races; I enjoy doing that. I don’t know how many dozens of chars I made in CoH. Maybe 40. I think the classes and races in VG are a blast. In really loved the classes, they were all of them REALLY unique, not those EQ2 classes, where you basically have 6 or 7 really different classes and most abilities are the same, with small changes here and there. All those scout-bard-ranger classes share a big load of the same abilities in EQ2, so if you played one you basically played all, nothing much new to see. The VG classes were all interesting, and some really innovative, I think the class/race system of VG was the best; maybe they could have made 1-2 really strange and cute races, like Troll and Fae from EQ2. A wee bit too much humans. They could have bundeled the 4 humans to one with all the 4 human races possible graphics and add 3 or 4 more unusual classes. Lets say Troll, Dragonling and Fae or something the like, to cover all possible aspects of weirdness, uglyness and cuteness. In that way I can play another type of character just as I feel that day.
5) MAKE RACES VISUALLY EXCELLENT AND DIVERSE: Lets face it, the races of Lotro are just ugly. As are those of WOW. Personally I loved the character generation from CoH and SWG a lot. You had a LOT to chose from and could work with all details, size, muscles, fat; you could make weird, normal, beautiful, ugly chars, just as you wanted. In WOW all human and Dranei males are bulky, all females are like barbie. I just hate that. I want a big impact on the way my char looks, and I certainly don’t want to look like everyone else’s clone! The look of VG is a wee bit too barbie/ken like, but it’s a good start. (They have the most ugly Elves tho, for a reason I don’t fathom.) Nah, I think SWG or EQ2 soga are good, also CoH.
6) MAKE PVP AND PVE EQUAL: I love both pvp and pve. But to this day I need at least 2 games to satisfy my needs. Maybe DAoC was good, but I came to late to it. I want PVP as an equal aspect, with equally many ways to level, get loot and do things as in PVE. My mood is fickle, sometime I want a good story and dungeon run, which only PVE delivers, and the next day I want to beat the snot out of my neighbour, just some mindless, huge PVP war.
7) HUXLEY NOT ORWELL: Weird statement. Its about two utopias, two ways to make people what you want. In Orwells dark utopia people were punished for unwanted behaviour, in Huexleys there were rewarded. I don’t want penalities. Its my hobby. A death penality is something like a peaceful pacifist or a gay faggot. Its twince the same. Death IS a penality. I lost the fight. I awake back up, away from the quest/war. I don’t know how thick skinned you are, but I feel that is a disgrace and shame enough. I play the game for fun, not to grind my teeth in sleep. Call that what you want, but that’s how I feel about it. Especially in PVP I feel its quite pointless. People are SUPPOSED TO DIE in PVP. I don’t want some 15 year old zerg kids ruin my levels or get my meager gear! I want fun, and I don’t get less adrenaline pumping because of some penality. If the war is good and great, it is always exciting, and needs no further artifical push. That’s just a lame excuse the devs failed to make it exciting in itself. If you don’t die that often, you should build a buff. The longer you stay alive the greater it gets (to a certain limit). I think Spellborn is partially based on this idea. You can reward people for staying alive in many ways, or reward them for other wanted behavior, like grouping instead of soloing or helping those of lower level instead of penalizing them. Penalities just don’t work. Look at your crime rates. USA has death sentence, and STILL people murder. It just doesn’t prevent it.
8) NON COMBAT PROFESSION: A thing only SWG had. Dancers, musicians, image designers. I mean, fine if you don’t like to do that. 80% of my time I did combat too. But at the end of a day or sometimes when I was lazy it was just great to make a party, entertain people. I feel it can easily be integrated into Fantasy with music and dance groups of some sorts. Let them do something useful, like mend wounds, heal and buff. Watching an entertainer for an XP buff, for instance, or a combat buff. I felt the existence of this non combat classes greatly improved the immersion and atmosphere in SWG.
9) MAKE CRAFTING USEFUL FROM DAY ONE: I violently hated the VG crafting, above anything in that game. The reason is, you have to make uselss ICONS of things 99% of the time to get XP. I mean, isnt the fun in crafting to make small stuff right away, things you can use and “touch” and sell for a few coppers? Generally I liked the EQ2 crafting as it is now the most. Its not easy either, and complex, but you do useful things right away. My only gripe with EQ2 crafting is, the first 30-40 levels it’s a hobby for rich adventurers, because its more an investment than a pay off, unless you really spent 8 hours a day watching the broker prices. Which I don’t. If I wanted to do that I would have been a stock market analyst, be rich and not playing MMOs.
10) GREAT DIVERSITY IN GEAR: I admit I am a gear whore. I want more, something new, something differernt, rare whatever. EQ2 is, after three years, still a pain in the ass in terms of armor diversity. After three years and several small and big addons ALL tank classes between 50 and 60 wear the same armor! That’s a point where WOW was really strong. Is. I just don’t like the cartoony look, but it had a hell of a lot armor pieces. The EQ2 problem is: virtually there are some sets. But the best 10% are raid only, then we have 80% of sets who are bad, so no one wears them, and the remaining 10% which everyone wears. That’s just rubbish. VG also was quite good, at least until the late 20s into which I played.
11) GIVE SMALL FEEL GOOD THINGS: This is one of my fav topics. I think one of the real reasons of WOWs big success is, they added small feel good things. Its both in what people SEE and what they GET. To see are things going on. Kids playing chase in Stormwind, some guard exchange, NPC people in the streets talking to each other; Lotro is also really good in that. The opposite was Vanguard, with its NPCs nailed to the ground doing nothing. No city life, nada. In any step of development the big cities Aghram and New Torgnonor always felt like a graveyard. I want NPCs which are alife! The other thing is, loot. It does not have to be expensive or uber. Just, if you play WOW, even 1-2 hours, you get that new red shoulderpads or a new shield or what. Something useful for small work. In Vanguard or EQ2 you can kill HUNDRETS of mobs without getting ANYTHING useful, but trash to sell. I mean, my EQ2 char is rich. Just there isnt ANYTHING I can spent all the plat for, because there are just far too few really useful items. That’s were WOW really shines. You play those 2 hours a few short quests some grinding, and get that new glove or helmet or robe. Maybe only a tiny wee better than the one you have, but something to log off with a smile, not the feeble hope of a HUGE investment that MAY eventually pay of SOMEDAY.
12) GIVE ME LONG TERM GOALS: Houses, ships, flying mounts, player cities, titles, access to new areas. You get the idea. SWG was great in that, and also in the IDEA Vanguard. Only that nobody will ever visit those VG player cities. Why should they? My last guild’s player city from SWG was VERY active and well visited, we had a bar (entertainer-buff), shops, clone center, shuttleport, quest hub asf. VG city areas have zero use and are far off any quest lines. So beside the show to brag with your house, I cant see anyone will ever visit those cities, functionless as they are. I am a grat fan of housing. So far, I cant consider any game a long term game without housing. Its one of my prime reasons that I never played WOW longer than a few weeks in a row. It’s just too devoid of long term goals. Those goals bind people together, create social networks; for many of such things you can’t reach alone, you need people to accomplish it. Which leads to the unlucky 13.
13) ENFORCE GROUPING: I know in these days of soloing you will likely tar and feather me for this. I just give you one observation. When EQ2 was new, there were those Scarecrows, right in front of Qeynos. They were heroic, so you could not do them alone. They were one of the first quest-mobs you could not solo when you started your character. The result was, I met my first friends there, because people were forced to group. Now, those scarecrows are soloable, and all run over the same field, in silent effort, all soloing, all alone. I am all for solo quests, I don’t have time for a group always myself, but EQ2 and many other MMOs overdid it by FAR, because the result is, its WAY too difficult to find a group now, because a majority is soloing or in guild groups. For me, the group is the reason to play MMOs. Soloing is what I do when all else fails, and to be blunt: whats the reason to buy a MULTIPLAYER game and then solo all the time? I mean, mastubation is fun sometimes, but nothing comes to real sex with a partner, right?
14) MAKE EXPLORATION USEFUL BUT NOT A MUST: I personally love exploring above anything. Finding new caves and hidden valleys is just great. But when I have a quest, that says find the wobbogoblin, I want to KNOW where he is and what I am supposed to do. I want to know WHERE he is without consulting Alakhazham or Wikipedia! Exploring is something I want to do when I decide to. Meaningful travel is just a word. It may be my stupidity but I cant imagine what that is supposed to be in reality. If I meet my friends and we want o do a quest in Castle Nektolus, sure I do some travel. But I want to BE there, in that castle, because THAT’S the adventure we had chosen. I don’t want to be delayed 2 hours for some superficial extra adventure. How can that be meaningful? It just diverts me from my plans. And how many times can it be fun to cross Telon (from VG) “meaningful” over and over again in a delayed 2 hours march before you click the “cancel game” button? You can also rephrase this point as “I want to go to the fun without delay”. What is fun is MY choice! I don’t want to be forced to some non-fun groundwork to sometimes start the fun. I know, sometimes you have to work hard to accomlish greater goods, I am all for that. But it should not feel like work, or something in the design went wrong. I know that’s a tough challenge. The Lotro title system is one way, and the WAR joural is another to make the grind less.
15) A MMO MUST BE SELF EXPLANATORY: I have a deep distaste for consulting walkthroughs. I recall, recently I was on a quest in EQ2 in the old adventure pack The Fallen Dynasty. There was this pirate, whom you had to give the right answers to persuade him. Everyone else was long ready when I still tried the really long dialogue. So I asked my friends “hey, how comes you already finished? Is there some system I cant see?” “No”, they said “we’ve read the answers in the internet.” Doh. I really hate that. But games like Eq2 are just made so you HAVE to consult the internet. Many quests are just far too vague to do otherwise. Open some fish cages. Not a word, who of the hundrets of mobs might have the key. I just hate this. I don’t want quests to tell me everything, but I do want a logical hint to find the answer by thinking, from INSIDE the game. IMO every aspect of a MMO has to be explained inside the game so you can find it out without external sources whatsoever. What a spell does. Where a certain NPC is. What a quest goal is. Everthing. I don’t need it presented on a silver plate, but I need a guide, some logic to find the answer in an appropriate time.
!6) GOOD COMBAT ANIMATIONS. Not much to say. All previous are crap, more or less. I want REAL collision. I don’t want to jump through the enemy, I want my tank to bodyslam them, and the sword BANG on the shield or the other sword, not those ritualized iconized attacks MMOs have now. And I want it really animated so it’s a pleasure to look at. Gods and Heroes seems to be good in that term, as far as I see. I am just so sick of this pseudo-combat MMOs have now.
Whew. It grew quite a bit. I tried to be as short as I could. I am sure there are other things, but they are not on top, like lightsabers, or flying mounts, or Elves (heck, I don’t want a game without Elves; if you need SciFi make space Elves.) or voiceover. Yeah, I think voiceover is an important thing to me. I really don’t want to read bubbles or boxes only. Even the 18 year old adventure Death Gate was with full voiceover, and that had a LOT of text!
Keep in mind, this is merely my own wishlist. Devs, ya better start on this NOW! 
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
I think I'd like to add a point to diversity in this sense :
I played WoW for a while but when wanting to play something else than a mage, or a hunter, or a pally or whatever I quickly grew very bored of the game. The quest system led people along the way, but it tended to lead them in such a way that you did all the quests in your area and then moved along. Unfortunatly... playing a few characters and or classes that meant doing the same quests over and over again. And when you came to the higher levels... well, the game sorta led all players into the same area. Which is good in the social way if you play in groups. But very bad as all your characters would also end up in the same area, doing the same quests.
Everytime that happened I started thinking "how about me chosing my own path ?" But the quest rewards was worth it, and grinding is something I really hate most of the time ( except when bored and just relaxing ). So there was really no option. I think a game needs to have multiple choices. Something else to do besides what everyone else is doing. Be that builing and decorating your house or town, or crafting something to sell. Point is still.... the game has to move on. In my oppinion it could be made as easily as inserting more class quests; crafting quests; race quests and so on. As long as the game gave you some options as "what do you want to do now ?" It's alright to lead you through the same areas, but make them different. Make them dynamic according to what choices the players have chosen. Even quests or tasks that rules out others would be good. Chose a side and see what happens. Don't make the game a one-way street.
1) MAKE IT BIG:
Yeah, the area need to be so big that it takes forever to visit them all.
2) BUNDLE THE STARTER AREAS:
I'm neutrall in this one. It has good point but also negative points.
3) GUIDED STORY-LINES:
Interesting, but as stories are very nice, the guest should not be repetable so that everyone does same quests. I rather have random kind of quest than ready make stories. Of cause this doesn't mean that quest could not be area related or bigger one.
4) MANY DIVERSE RACES AND CLASSES:
I agree. More choises are better than only few.
5) MAKE RACES VISUALLY EXCELLENT AND DIVERSE:
Yes, ability customize and make the charcaters more induvidual is requirement todays MMORPG's. Hard to know, why some developers don't get it.
6) MAKE PVP AND PVE EQUAL:
I disagree. Not what You ment, but because it's not possible. PvP requires balance between player characters as PvE requires diversity between player characters. Those are opposite needs. Example if I would like to have time stop spell, it would be fine in PvE, but in PvP it would be catastrophe. So equality doesn't make PvP and PvE good in same game, it makes it mediocre. So I don't recomend having PvE and PvP in same game because they have negative effects in others playing styles and it's better that game is design from start to be execelent in something than be medium in all stuff. This doesn't mean there should not be MMORPG's where is both, but have a choise that all doesn't have to be so. It's better have choise, what game to choose than all to be same.
7) HUXLEY NOT ORWELL:
I disagree. Humans learn stuff from both, rewards and punishements. Removing punishment just reduce the difference between what's wanted actions and what's not. If You build world without punishment, it would be same as putting fingers in fire in RL without feeling that it would hurt.
8) NON COMBAT PROFESSION:
Yes, MMORPG's are virtual world, eveyting isn't about combat. There is merchants and entertaiment people too. Some players want's to roleplay in they virtual world and it support game atmosphere and makes game more enjoyable to all.
9) MAKE CRAFTING USEFUL FROM DAY ONE:
Grafting needs to be game it self, with functional economy behind it. Crafting has to have reason to be there. Grafting needs to be complex enough so that it's easy to use, but good items aren't easy to make. I don't like crafting where You gather 10000 material and then click icon and You have 100 item. Every item should take time to make and be worth of something to community. Also gathering material should be subgame too, not just go and click ground and get some material. You would need to find the spots too. Farming and gathering for biological materials.
10) GREAT DIVERSITY IN GEAR:
Yes, there is need to be a lot of different kind of gears to provide enough possibilities to have induvidual feeling. Not just for gears properties, but looks also.
11) GIVE SMALL FEEL GOOD THINGS:
Yes, it's about details and feeling that world is alive, not just a game.
12) GIVE ME LONG TERM GOALS:
I agree. This is where many MMORPG fails, players need reason to play, have goals what are worth of pursue. The reasons should be not something what game design force player to do, but choise what player did make. Choises should never be forced, but players free will to seek what they want.
13) ENFORCE GROUPING:
I agree. Not forced, but so valuable that it support communication between players and community feeling. MMORPG aren't solo games, even if it needs possibility solo, it's about creating communities in virtual world. Having virtual friends and neighbourhoods.
14) MAKE EXPLORATION USEFUL BUT NOT A MUST:
I agree.
15) A MMO MUST BE SELF EXPLANATORY:
I agree. Many service and stuff could be done inside the game. LIke You sayed, but I would provide other example. Mail system, why it has to be UI like, why not have real mail delivering system inside the game. Where players do the mail delivery them self. Same to everyting, game developers should start to think more about MMORPG as virtual world than technical game system. If it possible, then put it inside the game. Make libraries and quide books inside the game. Allow players create them too. Keep it inside the game.
I add here something
16) DON'T USE LEVELS, USE SKILLS:
Levels cause seperation of players and content. So think the world as virtual world, not just as game system. Skill system provides better communities between players, because it doesn't separate playrs so much. MMORPG's are all about communities, that is what keeps players playing. Fun and the friends. Sure skills are harder to balance, but it's worth while doing. Don't take the easy route and create linear level based content systems, so that it's easyer for game developers, but not good for players.
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
Thanks for the good comments. I am sorry it became so much, but essentially I wanted to cover all that was important to me. This was the shortest possible, heh.
I understand and can accept most points where people disagree. There are sure always more than one good way, and I feel we are not so far away. Quite good to read the responses of people who care as much as I do. ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Excellent post and I agree with most of your points. As with the other posters I do think a death penalty should be included. Exp debt seems to be the most logical. I need to be AFRAID to die, not shrug and run back.
The newest AOC animations really have me concerned, they give no feel of impact. Honestly I think the best game right now for impact and animation is COH. Great collision detection, great physics, you sock a villian and they go flyijng. That is how it SHOULD BE.
Sticky this please. Any one who plans on doing MMO, this is what we expect... Do it or you'll get flamed!
I like almost everything on this list except the inclusion of non-combat/adventure classes like cooks, artisans, entertainers, etc. Personally, I hate "buffbot" classes and especially hate being forced to rely on a multitude of buffers. I don't want to have to go first to the healing priest to get back my health and then visit the tavern and watch some afk dancer or musician on macro loop to regain my mana.
Let me make clear that I'm not wholly against dancers, musicians, etc in a game as long as these things are treated the same as a side profession and not a designated class. In the same way a mage can also be an accomplished enchanter or even blacksmith in WOW, let me play a deadly ranger who can also play a mean set of bagpipes. While I loved the diversity of classes in SWG, it really seemed that once you truly specialized at the highest level of entertainer or artisan it was tough to also level up in "combat" professions.
Also, I'd like an entertainment system where performing music and dance could be just as fluid and exciting as battling it out with some creature. Give me lots of flourishes, dance moves, and really cool tunes to unlock the more I perform. Give me a special type of "PVP" where I compete with other entertainers. But most importantly of all - make hanging out with entertainers something that's FUN to do, rather than a requirement.
As the technology makes it possible (and I think LOTRO is already doing this), allow me to actually create music in-game, create paintings using tools provided in the game engine, or write fan fiction and publish it in in-game tomes like the books you find in Oblivion.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I want to be able to craft items that are unique or at least not exactly the same as yours.
For instance maybe I make a Sword of Uberness with a DOT on it but no stat buffs or a Sword of Uberness with stat buffs but no DOT depending on what the client wanted. SW:G had a similar system.
@ Kyntor - YES to team diversity in creating MMOGs! YES! YES! YES!
I work as a tech writer and outside of the gaming industry most other software divisions get it - you need talented people such as writers, artists, and designers to make a product truly shine. But this trend hasn't completely taken off in games, where you'll have several devs for every artist and dialogue/storyline is something the programmers come up with over beer and pizza.
Say what you will about Guild Wars, but ArenaNet has done an excellent job of hiring top artists, best-selling fantasy authors and musicians like Jeremy Soule to help develop the content.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I agree with much of what the OP says. However, I'm going to tackle just one issue: "Enforced grouping." I do NOT agree with that. Why? Because it's the MMO equivalent of social engineering. This is a game. Let the players do what they want. If they want to group, fine. If they want to join a guild, fine. If they want to solo, fine. Why should one particular play style, such as the pickup group, be pushed on the players who don't like that play style?
First of all, there is no reason for it... there is no reason you can't have players just do whatever is fun. A soloist cannot possibly ruin the experience for a set of grouped people, except if the game is badly designed and allows kill stealing. Assuming that's not the case, then if I am off soloing somewhere else, how does it harm you if the game allows that, and supports it? Similarly if you are soloing, you are not harmed if me and my friends group up. Because nobody is really hindering anyone else's game play, I see no reason to push one style on a player.
Second of all, pushing a play style on people is automatically doomed to fail. DDO found this out last year and had to back off the "you can't solo in our game" paradigm. The reason is quite simple: there are far too many MMOs out there, for you to be able to force your style on the players. If they don't like the style your game enforces, they will just go elsewhere. Both DDO and Vanguard have quite nicely proven this in the last 12 months or so.
And so.... I think you make a lot of good points, but "enforced grouping" isn't one of them. There is absolutely no reason to push your preferred gaming style on everyone else, and force them all to play the way YOU want. And as I say, you can't anyway... these games are voluntary activities and people will just go elsewhere if they don't like what you're trying to force them to do.
C
I was firecely against fored grouping myself a long time. But the present results, the great difficulty to find groups has persuaded me otherwise. Maybe enforced is a bit harsh in wording, but there should be SOME solo content (interesting not dull) but there should be clear and strong reasons to group. Because essentially, as I see in EQ2 or WOW, when people CAN solo all their way up, they WILL. Or at least most, which isnt what a MMO should be like. I mean, at least I did come to play MMOs to meet people. Maybe forced is to harsh, but as I said some CLEAR reason to group.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Grouping is great, couldn't agree more. Too many people solo in MMOs nowadays.
Bundle starter areas - NO! Games like EQ2 had 2 cities (before EoF) which I think was much worse than something like EQOA where every race had their own. The lack of a starter city hurts diversity between characters. The races didn't really mean much in that game, since basically every race could be every class, there weren't many specialties, and they all started in the same city. Make a central city, such as FP in EQOA, but have the very first starting cities seperate.
Basically, I think that EQ2 had a lot of potential, but didn't quite meet it. One issue that I had was that exploration was very minimal. In EQOA, you traveled to a new place, got a new waypoint, etc. WoW does a pretty good job of this.
And yes, I kinda loved EQOA, it was so much fun while it lasted for me. Sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about up there.
And on the 17th note, Eikal rested
Heya,
You make some great points, but this one would make it a game I would not touch. I solo 90-95% of my time. I don't play MMORPG's for the Multiplayer part. I play it for a very large and long RPG game. If I wanted to socialize, I would go out to the bar or to a ball game with my friends.
To me, I hate the heroic and epic stuff in EQII, everything should just be it's level, and if you want to kill something levels above you and have faster progression, then by all means, group up. If you are happy soloing, well, then you can't kill that dragon for another 10-15 levels. It's your choice!
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.
--Aristotle
You've listed every reason why a role player could and does hate the current trend of MMORPGs
Static storylines are for singe player RPGs. If you want to play with friends pick up games like Diablo or NWN. I'm not spending $15 a month to spend 75% of my time in instances.
How it should go
Allow players and game masters to work together to create dynamic player-driven storylines and quest. Instead of a list of premade quests allow players to set quest requirements and rewards (i.e. if a leatherworker needs a certain kind of animal hide he sets the amount he needs, the minimum amount a player can cash in and the reward),
Allow player run politics where the players elect their leaders to office (or they take it themself). Give them the power to set taxes, raise armies amd declare war, and build and expand their civilization.
Bundle starting areas
This has to be the worst idea ever. So no matter what race I choose the first 20 levels will be the same tedious grind over and over again. That is one way to kill the replayability of a game. Not only that but it kills any chance at a lore, and I know it's hard to believe but some people actually enjoy the role playing side of R(ole)P(laying)Gs.
How it could be done
Let a player start in different locations depending on their race, but give them a choice. Then give monsters the ability to level, evolve, and migrate on their own. Set minimum stats for each monster and if left unattended let them grown and get stronger. No more will an area be locked into a certain level range.
Make PvP and PvE Equal
How about instead of making it equal, make them blend seamlessly into each other.
As it is now when you pick up a MMORPG you are picking up two different games. a PvP game and a PvE games. They are very loosely tied together. By making PvP more then just bashing the head of your enemy and making PvE have a certain impact on PvP you can blur the lines between the PvP and PvE experience. Even if each side never experience the other side's style of gameplay at least they can work together to accomplish similar goals.
Make diverse races and classes
I just wanted to point this out because you say you like diversity yet you want to start in the same area every time you play?
Non Combat Professions
What they need to do is make the currenent professions more fun. As it is now crafting professions are basically point and click and you're done. I propose instead of giving us preconstructed lists of items to create make the player discover things on their own through trial and error. Have a huge selection of items of varying quality and with the right ingredients put together in the right way you get a certain outcome. (i.e. when you use the roots of a certain poisonous flower you can create a potent healing potion). Also allow for players to make a name for themselves by discovering new an exotic plants or rare ores never before seen by another player.
Also allowing a player to raise stats specific to their profession that allow them to improve on their skill.
Finally one you didn't add.
Get rid of level-based gameplay and replace it with stat-based gameplay (i.e. you swing a sword you become stronger and more skilled with a sword).
Here is the problem: you cannot force people to have fun YOUR way. It is just not possible. Your problem is, "I can't find a group!" But think about it. Why can't you find a group? Because the people in game at the moment don't want to group with you, and would rather solo. What do you gain by forcing them to group with you? What you want? Actually, you don't... you gain, at the very best, a group of ornery, angry people who are bitter and resentful because they can't play the game the way they want, and have to join your group to "accomplish anything."
I am sorry but I have never seen this work. Look at DDO, for example. It bombed right out of the gate. And why? Forced grouping. They ended up caving and adding a bunch of solo content because they found out the hard way, that you cannot force people to group. There are too many games where you can solo now for that to work the way it did when EQ was the only game in town. They will just leave and find a different game.
The hypocrisy of the "people should be made to group" crowd on these forums is just staggering. You want to force grouping because you can't play the game the way you want (in groups). But to do that, you have to make it so other people can't play the game the way they want. How is that any better? Either way someone is suffering. So what you're basically saying is, "Let's make sure someone else suffers and not me." Pretty damn selfish, IMO.
C
I'll add my voice to the "no forced grouping" camp. It doesn't work. You can create circumstances where you need a group (most instances in EQ2 come to mind) and there should be rewards suitable to encourage grouping, but then you also run into the situation that most people look for the 'perfect' group. 1 tank, 2 healers, 3 dps. A good game will have the flexibility to overcome obstacles by using the various strengths of the classes in different ways. You shouldn't require any particular class to handle group content, just competent players who know their class. Even if you do have this, the issue is that people fall into the mind set that only the above mentioned group works.
I like to group, but I also like to solo. There are a lot of reasons why people choose to solo, some of them are time or lifestyle constraints, sometimes it's more based on the players mood. Give me more flexibility on how I play the game, not less.
Point 1 (and in part 14 and 16), as you call "make it big" I personally believe is about making the world believable, it doesn't necessarily have to be huge from day one, but rather have believable areas, both starting and as characters progress through out the world. And is in a way it is a contrast to point 2, and your point 4, which in turn is in contrast with point 5 but more on that in a bit.
I feel that the designers of the world should spend more time fleshing out / polishing smaller more intimate settlements and surrounding areas. Giving them a rich history and a "life". As opposed to making many lifeless quest hubs, that feels out of place in the world.
Which leads to point 2, centralized starting areas. But for this to be believable we can't have too many starting races. Especially if each race needs a rich history, settlements, and land for them selves. The world would have to be ungodly huge to account for all the necessary things that would make it believable (key word here on out). To take an example I didn't find Vanguard believable.
On the other hand, if your MMO was about say battles and exploring the frontier only, and the "home land" was largly irrelevant beyond the point of lore. Then perhaps mixing and mingling various different races would be believable in centralized starting hubs.
Jumping ahead to address point 4 and 5. The fewer playable races there are, the more unique each one can be, in my opinion. I never understood the facination with parahumans for example, nor the idea with having three to four different "short races", but that aside as it's more a personal preference. I do however believe some of them have to go to make each race more unique and distinct, beyond what their lore dictates. So in that I'm in direct contrast to your points, I'd say less is more, ie. fewer more diversified races.
Point 3, it's again going back to making it believable and making interesting quests, that can captivate the quester, and get them immersed. The quest dispensers of todays MMORPGs are thoughtless and screams of copy/paste. There is, no there have to be, more then Fedex, Slay and Collect objectives.
Point 6, I don't believe in having both elements in the same game. At least not in the traditional sense. One or the other is always let down or compromised in favor of the other. I do however believe there is room for PvP of a kind in a game. Things I've envisioned my self is Kings Court tournaments allowing for tournament guild wars, it would be PvP in the more traditional sense possibly with objectives intermixed. And for a fantasy type football as a, in a way, separate non-combat profession (in regards to point 8). At least how I envisioned it, it would have a different point system separated from the adventuring side.
7, I always have been a believer in the paradigm that hardship fosters better players. I however realize it's a razors edge in balancing out sufficient detriment towards "stupid" behavior, vs making the game "fun".
8, in "my" world that's what the crafting, miners and footballers would fall under.
9-11, I think SWG had something right with the crafting system. As I recall it (early days post release) it was quite diverse in the items you could make, a lot of them were fairly close in "power", but still different. Add on an accessory system to allow players, within a limit obviously, to dye their equipment, and to add on accessory to make them visually distinct and I think it's on track for the "right" recipe.
This wouldn't take part in an item centric MMORPG however, it wouldn't be about chasing the proverbial carrot. It would be more about interacting with the world, and "living" in it, and going on interesting adventures with your buddies. Which all sounds a whole lot easier to say on paper I reckon.
12, I'll skip that one. I can relate to giving players a "home", and I think EQ2 had it closest except it shouldn't have been instanced. Player cities, flying mounts, ect all relate back to the proverbial carrot, and is a whole other can of worms. I think instead Horizon had the ideas right, in allowing players to rebuild and craft structures.
13, it's something that's hard to balance obviously. And far easier to discuss on paper. But I think, even as an armchair designer, one has to come to terms with the fact that there has to be soloable content. It may not necessarily be the most interesting, but it should be sufficient to keep players interested when they aren't grouping for whatever reason.
15, first impression lasts. It's super important to have a polished product from day one, irregardless of however little content is sacrificed. It must run stable on a wide range of computers for starters with scalable graphics, it must not look like melted gijoe on lowest settings. Also the interface and controls have to be intuitive and easy to pick up. There's so much clutter and bloat in interfaces of programs today that it does my head in. And allowing customizable interfaces and plugin's is the cheap way out, the lazy one. Make it good from the start so players don't have to do it themselves. Beyond that an ingame encyclopedia or wiki would go a long way to help new players, in learning how a lot of things works.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Point 1 (and in part 14 and 16), as you call "make it big" I personally believe is about making the world believable, it doesn't necessarily have to be huge from day one, but rather have believable areas, both starting and as characters progress through out the world. And is in a way it is a contrast to point 2, and your point 4, which in turn is in contrast with point 5 but more on that in a bit.
I feel that the designers of the world should spend more time fleshing out / polishing smaller more intimate settlements and surrounding areas. Giving them a rich history and a "life". As opposed to making many lifeless quest hubs, that feels out of place in the world.
Which leads to point 2, centralized starting areas. But for this to be believable we can't have too many starting races. Especially if each race needs a rich history, settlements, and land for them selves. The world would have to be ungodly huge to account for all the necessary things that would make it believable (key word here on out). To take an example I didn't find Vanguard believable.
On the other hand, if your MMO was about say battles and exploring the frontier only, and the "home land" was largly irrelevant beyond the point of lore. Then perhaps mixing and mingling various different races would be believable in centralized starting hubs.
Jumping ahead to address point 4 and 5. The fewer playable races there are, the more unique each one can be, in my opinion. I never understood the facination with parahumans for example, nor the idea with having three to four different "short races", but that aside as it's more a personal preference. I do however believe some of them have to go to make each race more unique and distinct, beyond what their lore dictates. So in that I'm in direct contrast to your points, I'd say less is more, ie. fewer more diversified races.
Point 3, it's again going back to making it believable and making interesting quests, that can captivate the quester, and get them immersed. The quest dispensers of todays MMORPGs are thoughtless and screams of copy/paste. There is, no there have to be, more then Fedex, Slay and Collect objectives.
Point 6, I don't believe in having both elements in the same game. At least not in the traditional sense. One or the other is always let down or compromised in favor of the other. I do however believe there is room for PvP of a kind in a game. Things I've envisioned my self is Kings Court tournaments allowing for tournament guild wars, it would be PvP in the more traditional sense possibly with objectives intermixed. And for a fantasy type football as a, in a way, separate non-combat profession (in regards to point 8). At least how I envisioned it, it would have a different point system separated from the adventuring side.
7, I always have been a believer in the paradigm that hardship fosters better players. I however realize it's a razors edge in balancing out sufficient detriment towards "stupid" behavior, vs making the game "fun".
8, in "my" world that's what the crafting, miners and footballers would fall under.
9-11, I think SWG had something right with the crafting system. As I recall it (early days post release) it was quite diverse in the items you could make, a lot of them were fairly close in "power", but still different. Add on an accessory system to allow players, within a limit obviously, to dye their equipment, and to add on accessory to make them visually distinct and I think it's on track for the "right" recipe.
This wouldn't take part in an item centric MMORPG however, it wouldn't be about chasing the proverbial carrot. It would be more about interacting with the world, and "living" in it, and going on interesting adventures with your buddies. Which all sounds a whole lot easier to say on paper I reckon.
12, I'll skip that one. I can relate to giving players a "home", and I think EQ2 had it closest except it shouldn't have been instanced. Player cities, flying mounts, ect all relate back to the proverbial carrot, and is a whole other can of worms. I think instead Horizon had the ideas right, in allowing players to rebuild and craft structures.
13, it's something that's hard to balance obviously. And far easier to discuss on paper. But I think, even as an armchair designer, one has to come to terms with the fact that there has to be soloable content. It may not necessarily be the most interesting, but it should be sufficient to keep players interested when they aren't grouping for whatever reason.
15, first impression lasts. It's super important to have a polished product from day one, irregardless of however little content is sacrificed. It must run stable on a wide range of computers for starters with scalable graphics, it must not look like melted gijoe on lowest settings. Also the interface and controls have to be intuitive and easy to pick up. There's so much clutter and bloat in interfaces of programs today that it does my head in. And allowing customizable interfaces and plugin's is the cheap way out, the lazy one. Make it good from the start so players don't have to do it themselves. Beyond that an ingame encyclopedia or wiki would go a long way to help new players, in learning how a lot of things works.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Thanks for sharing, all quite interesting points. I only want to give replies to two, the others are good as you say, though I may not 100% agree I can understand them.
First, I love strange races, and I always felt many MMOs are far too human-centered, with only humanoid races. I like the idea of Ratmen, Wolfmen, Dragon-men asf. Also I feel halflings, gnomes and dwarfs are VERY different, but I love to RP a MMO world, so such things matter to me.
Second, I think its only a barrier in out mind, that we feel PVP and PVE are things that dont belong in one game, because its a paradigma in the current MMOs. I can well imagine to seperate them in space, by making 50% of a given level zone PVP (like some constant battle going on, fueled by NPCs) and the other 50% classe PVE quest zone without PVP. Thos numbers are just rough, dont take them exactly. I think it can be done, and all I hear about WAR sounds like the want to do it. I am sure it could be done, if it is implemented intelligently, so you can grind XP & loot with either PVE or PVP in ONE game without problems, and people could PVP or PVE just as their mood is. It would just need to make minimize the PVP-penalities, which I feel is a big barrier for most old school PVE players. Again, as WAR plans to do. You can get XP from PVP, you get loot from kills, but the player doesnt loose items from his belongings, only a substitute, but also you can do quests in classic non-PVP manner. It CAN be done, and I would feel that could be very interesting. It takes out the great, kind boring stability the PVE-only games like EQ2 have, when you have contested areas.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert