Some of these post reminds me of that loser kid in everyone's kindergarden class who is obnoxious, spoiled, and an all around drag, but the teacher forces class mates to play with him cuz he whines and cries when he is left out. So if that is your motivation for wanting a group forcing MMO then guess what even if one is made people still wouldn't want to group with you. Sorry the $14.99 a month subscription fee doesn't include a personality transplant, sucks doesn't it?
The analogy doesn't really make sense. In a forced grouping game, there would be no solo players. They would hate the game, and they would go play something solo friendly.
The only people left, would be people that wanted to play the game, those that didnt' mind the fact that the game required a group to make progress.
How could anyone in that situation be "forcing" someone to group with them? Makes no sense /shrug. Either they would want to group with you, or they wouldn't.
If they didn't like the fact that they had to group with SOMEONE, even if it wasn't you, then they'd play some other game. There are hundreds, mostly solo friendly, just look to your left:
90% of the people in this thread prefer a solo friendly game. 10% of the people in this thread prefer a forced grouping game. If you were a mmorpg developer, which crowd would you write your game for? Oh, there were mmorpgs that were made in the past to cater to the forced grouping crowd (EQ2, Vanguard, etc), and within a year, they had added solo content, because noone was playing their game. The game developers figured it out eventually......why can't you?
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
90% of the people in this thread prefer a solo friendly game. 10% of the people in this thread prefer a forced grouping game. If you were a mmorpg developer, which crowd would you write your game for? Oh, there were mmorpgs that were made in the past to cater to the forced grouping crowd (EQ2, Vanguard, etc), and within a year, they had added solo content, because noone was playing their game. The game developers figured it out eventually......why can't you?
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
That sounds exactly like what Vanguard tried to do. How well did that work for them?
90% of the people in this thread prefer a solo friendly game. 10% of the people in this thread prefer a forced grouping game. If you were a mmorpg developer, which crowd would you write your game for? Oh, there were mmorpgs that were made in the past to cater to the forced grouping crowd (EQ2, Vanguard, etc), and within a year, they had added solo content, because noone was playing their game. The game developers figured it out eventually......why can't you?
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
This statement makes no sense to me. I mean granted you can solo in WoW pretty much up to end game but once you get threre everything is based on grouping and raiding. So picking a game that is more towards grouping would be the complete opposite of what your saying and would right into the flow of WoW IMO.
I mean this is off-topic but in all honesty if you wanted to go agaisnt WoW you would have to created a game that was geared towards PvP end game. Kind of like a Lineage 2 type game. I mean there are a lot of solo friendly games out there, I just don't consider WoW a solo friendly game IMO.
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.- Frank Zappa
If you don't see the point in soloing, then just don't solo, period. To everyone who does, there would be varying lists of the reasons they like to do so, but what it comes down to is this; people play solo because that is what they feel like doing at the time. Freedom is a big part of the draw to any mmo, and being Forced to group is not and won't ever be what " it's all about", instead is more then likely one of the biggest factors in keeping people away from these games they would otherwise enjoy.
It's either forced group, or forced solo. Take your pick, but you can't have both.
I respectfully choose to disagree here. While I can certainly see your point, and I'm certainly not one to seek out a "solo" mmorpg, I do believe it would be possible to strike a balance between the two. Not an easy task, granted, but I believe a possible one.
First, we need to examine the main reasons to choose solo over group:
Time, Convenience, Reward. There's other factors in some cases, but for the most part, it can be summed as these 3. Time taken to arrange a group, convenience as you need to then have the group relocate to the desired region and prepare, and reward, as most rewards would be divided, or only available for one member. All of these factors can cause someone to ignore grouping, if soloing is also an option. I'll try to address these one at a time, to offer my view on some possible solutions, not to eliminate the desire to solo, as that is a choice that should still be respected for those that take it, but to encourage those sat on the edge to tip towards grouping.
Time:
It should be quick and simple to find players to group with. Firstly, a global LFG tool is a must. It should be an optional chat channel, that you are free to enter at any time, wether actively searching a group or not. To prevent abuse of this, a global general channel should also be provided, so that any unrelated messages can be put to the general channel instead of "spamming" the group one.
There should also be a flag to set on yourself as looking for a group, with the ability to specify quests from your quest book as the goal of your group, even if they are defined as "solo" quests. Have a marker beside each quest, and also the ability to choose from dungeons and encounters around your level or skill range. It would be possible then to find anyone on the same quest, interested in the same goals, or who is just around your level and fancies grouping.
Convenience:
There should be abilities from an early stage to allow rapid world travel for groups. Allowing it for all circumstances would depend very much on the game, but in a lot of cases, I believe at least, would remove from the imersion. A system to allow a group to get together quicker though I believe is near a must. The meeting stone idea from WoW is a decent one, and could easily be adjusted to fit into a number of scenarios. Another option would be some kind of "hearthing" facility, allowing group members to port to other group members "hearth" locations, which the person nearest the goal could set to a location nearby. These kind of options would allow groups, once formed, to get to the desired location quicker, and get on with their purpose. To prevent abuse, where it may be possible, hearth locations could be restricted by level range, so for example, a group with a level 5, a level 8 and a level 50, the 2 low levels could hearth to each other's locations, but not to the level 50's. the level 50 however can journey to the lower level destinations.
Another inconvenience with grouping is the lack of a group "function", I'm sure we've all been in scenarios where we need a healer or a tank and just can't find one, or find one but they then go afk for 10 minutes. To get around this, one possible source of inspiration is Guild Wars, with it's hirable NPCs. They're capable, but not in the same capacity as a human. It could well be enough to make the group worthwhile though, and make the difference between a wasted 30 minutes, and a happy run through that dungeon.
The problem of people going afk is a bit more tricky. One option would be for the game to have some kind of fatigue, so that resting in game is necessary every so often. While some may not favour this, I believe as long as it is not too quick to build, and doesn't take too long to recover from, it wouldn't do any serious harm. I'm sure others will disagree, but it's impossible to please absolutely everyone, so to try would be pointless. With this resting system in place, there could be an option to form a camp, so that resting can be done safely, and people can go afk as needed while resting. The camp would serve as a safe point, as long as the imediate area is relatively clear, it would deter any mobs from coming close.
Another option would be to hand character control to an AI while afk. Before anyone shouts "but that's botting!" it would be a system controlled by the game, not an external program, and therefore have limitations imposed by the game. Firstly, it would not allow control for extended periods of time, possibly up to 5 minutes of control, enough to allow time to get a drink for example, but not enough to abuse constantly. It would also have a cooldown, so you could not hand over to the AI for another 30 minutes or so after using it. Lastly, while the AI is in control, it would be as the NPCs you hire, a group member not using their full abilities or potential. Not a substitute for the real thing, but better than nothing. Also to further prevent abuse, the person going afk would not be eligable for any loot while under AI control, and they may build up fatigue at a slightly increased rate.
Reward:
Probably the biggest reason for soloing. "Why should I spend time getting a group to go there for a chance of getting a Sword of the Destroyer, when bob can craft me a Sword of Truth if I go get him the bits?" I'm sure you'll have came across this kind of statement often, or perhaps even thought it yourself. While it should be possible to get similar rewards through solo encounters, it's my believe that it should at least be AS difficult, if not more so, to get something equivalent to the item you can gain through a group encounter. This would eliminate one of the main arguments for a start.
Experience is another one. If a group is levelling, the reward would in most cases, be divided. While one could argue that the rate of killing would increase, thus negating this, quite often it's not even still. Therefore, there should be increased reward for taking down something that one person alone could not, for example taking a group of mobs at once, or taking one particularly tough mob that is above your own level to solo. Of course, this would need tweaking to prevent abuse, but if balanced right, could provide a healthier reward, and encourage people to group if someone is doing the same as them anyway, rather than feeling they'd be at a loss from doing so.
Remember, these are my own views, and ideas. I don't think they'd appeal to everyone, nor would I try to insist they should. I think for myself though, these ideas would give a game a fair chance of making group play seem more desired, but without eliminating solo play from the picture.
+1 ..will als add to the quote above that ,that Ac was excellant at both group or solo play its just finding the right game.Sometimes I wanted to solo to check for item drops and most people that you are leveling with wouldnt want you to be checking treasure when you should be grinding exp in a fellow.Also its nice to do different things sometimes.i enjoyed the gropu quests to also where you would have to get quite a few people together to complete them
Forced groupers tend to eat through content as quick as it is developed for them.
Soloers tend to take much much longer to use that content up.
As a developer, i would rather satisfy the crowd that isn't forcing the argument for constantly updated content. Let the power types eat it up, get bored and then leave. They still bought the box, they paid at least 1 sub.
I for one would say that a game is fun both solo'ing what u can solo and grouping aswell
It's true...when you're in a group most games don't add a bonus exp or leave the same amount of exp that you would usually get from a mob or quest...People are also "afraid" that other people would steal the drops that they could use or sell...Everyone wants to develop their character as much as they can,get the best gear that they can for their class and make as much money to buy anything that they could possibily need.(maybe some of you already said this...didn't read every post)
As fun as running solo is , grouping is also fun.It can make the game easier and it will keep you in the mood for playing...after i solo 4 hours and don't interact with other players i get bored...if the game is always like that it makes me want to quit the game and delete it.
WoW is mostly solo till you get to 80(except for the group quests).If you have friends playing on the same server they'll run you through dungeons so you'll get to 80 faster.Once you get to 80 you raid...alot...actually that's something that you'll do all the time except for the quests to increase your reputation..but that can also be done in some cases by running some lower level dungeons.
I've been playing mostly free mmo's these days.I tried alot of them but there is a common thing in all of them.Grinding quests.They all have quests like :go kill 3 million(yes i'm exagerating alot due to rage:P ) monkeys(lol)
I need (and probably most of the mmo players) quests that make you look for certain people without telling you the exact place where to go to find them.Finding items(not dropped by mobs because that means GRINDING) in certain locations.I need more story rather than grinding....but this is me:P
i hate grouping except for people in my guild and even then i prefer to group with rl freinds over the guild cause the memories of people going afk or going for 2 hour dinners during the instance is enough so i just dont bother even replying to people unless i need it my self
Read the various forums on this site. Take in the average personality you see here. Then realize those people are in this MMO (which ever one). If you really have to ask what the point of soloing is after that... then there is no hope you will understand.
Post of the year!
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
90% of the people in this thread prefer a solo friendly game. 10% of the people in this thread prefer a forced grouping game. If you were a mmorpg developer, which crowd would you write your game for? Oh, there were mmorpgs that were made in the past to cater to the forced grouping crowd (EQ2, Vanguard, etc), and within a year, they had added solo content, because noone was playing their game. The game developers figured it out eventually......why can't you?
What you have typed is not true. If you would read more clearly there was only a very few pushing for forced grouping, maybe two people. Most people that stated they enjoy grouping also stated that they do see a place for solo in the game as well. I myself feel solo in a game is fine but I do wish they make games where there is more incentive to group than there is now to level.
I personally feel that if they could find a way to make it just as attractive to either solo or group while leveling that would be a big benefit to either side.
Truth be told...I love to go Solo in games which force you to go in groups :-)....this way the "Lone Wolf" feel is greater, and where one would need a pack of wolves to succeed...you know you'd manage on your own....or die trying :-).... My WitchHunter in Warhammer Online is the living proof. :-)
There are ways for players to interact other than by grouping. Grouping exists because MMOs are predominantly single player games that thousands of people play in the same environment. If you want to play that game with others, then you have to velcro your game to theirs for some period of time. Grouping. That mechanism exists so that individual rewards can be doled out fairly.
I have hopes that MMOs will switch to community rewards so that players won't need to group, join guilds or do anything else like that. They'll just show up, join in a task (a fight, a puzzle, a construction project, etc) figure out who they enjoy being around, and interact with them. The goal is that these tasks can accomodate upwards of 100 players, but if only 1 shows up, then he can make progress on the task.
Note that the task has a builtin reward for the community when the task is completed. So having one guy on the task isn't going to be particularly efficient, but it'll eventually get the job done. Clearing a mountain pass of the monsters that are blocking the trade route permits NPC traders through again. Rebuilding the corner battlement of the town wall gives better defenses for the residents.
Individual rewards could be retained, but they would be trivial compared to current MMOs. Mostly vanity stuff. Win 100 monster fights and the local lord will let you pick from one of the ornate swords in his collection. Said collection was populated by the player crafters. They're no more effective than any other sword, but they look quite a bit better.
I'm going on with all this because creating a game with congregations instead of groups isn't a trivial change to MMO gameplay. It's a significant restructuring. So long as individual rewards are the focus of gaming, players will continue to be concerned with playing the game suchthat they receive their individual rewards. That's solo play. Removing the great bulk of individual rewards means that MMOs would be vastly changed.
What I want to draw out of players is the idea that playing the game is the reward that they seek. That it's fun to clear the mountain pass one day, rescue a town's child from the clutches of evil monsters the next, expand a frontier the day after, etc. The game content changes from day to day, and that content is structured to attract large chunks of the player population, to get them interacting with each other without the need to form groups.
The elimination of personal rewards means that there is no power quest for player characters. There are no levels, no gear that boosts your character's power, no magic spells for fireballs and the like. Player characters are all created equally and they only vary from their starting formula by perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Player skill would be brought in as the greater determinant of effectiveness.
Such a game is undoubtedly years away. Primarily for reasons of culture.
There are ways for players to interact other than by grouping. Grouping exists because MMOs are predominantly single player games that thousands of people play in the same environment. If you want to play that game with others, then you have to velcro your game to theirs for some period of time. Grouping. That mechanism exists so that individual rewards can be doled out fairly. I have hopes that MMOs will switch to community rewards so that players won't need to group, join guilds or do anything else like that. They'll just show up, join in a task (a fight, a puzzle, a construction project, etc) figure out who they enjoy being around, and interact with them. The goal is that these tasks can accomodate upwards of 100 players, but if only 1 shows up, then he can make progress on the task. Note that the task has a builtin reward for the community when the task is completed. So having one guy on the task isn't going to be particularly efficient, but it'll eventually get the job done. Clearing a mountain pass of the monsters that are blocking the trade route permits NPC traders through again. Rebuilding the corner battlement of the town wall gives better defenses for the residents. Individual rewards could be retained, but they would be trivial compared to current MMOs. Mostly vanity stuff. Win 100 monster fights and the local lord will let you pick from one of the ornate swords in his collection. Said collection was populated by the player crafters. They're no more effective than any other sword, but they look quite a bit better. I'm going on with all this because creating a game with congregations instead of groups isn't a trivial change to MMO gameplay. It's a significant restructuring. So long as individual rewards are the focus of gaming, players will continue to be concerned with playing the game suchthat they receive their individual rewards. That's solo play. Removing the great bulk of individual rewards means that MMOs would be vastly changed. What I want to draw out of players is the idea that playing the game is the reward that they seek. That it's fun to clear the mountain pass one day, rescue a town's child from the clutches of evil monsters the next, expand a frontier the day after, etc. The game content changes from day to day, and that content is structured to attract large chunks of the player population, to get them interacting with each other without the need to form groups. The elimination of personal rewards means that there is no power quest for player characters. There are no levels, no gear that boosts your character's power, no magic spells for fireballs and the like. Player characters are all created equally and they only vary from their starting formula by perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Player skill would be brought in as the greater determinant of effectiveness. Such a game is undoubtedly years away. Primarily for reasons of culture.
Clearing the alley for tradesmen to come thru?
It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work.
Um I dont know how often it needs to be said....NO THANKS. Simmers and their sandplay have no place with directed content adventures involved.
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Solo play I feel is mandatory as equally is grouping in a MMO. I have said this before, but the only key difference in them should be the time it takes to get what you want. A group should be faster because its a group of people. Example in real life is it takes allot less time to build a house with 10 people than building a house by your self. Now along with that example it does not mean it is impossible to build said house by your self. It just means it will take more time. Now with that that leads me into that soloers should be able to get the best w/ever just as group/raiders can. Just at a slower pace. Nothing should be undoable by soloers to an extent. The exclusion being raids and big boss'. But that does not mean a soloer should be restricted to lower end gear/items/gameplay. Just they can not get it as fast as those raiders.
That seems to be a fair compromise, I know I'd still be playing WoW if I had a mathematical chance of acquiring top level equipment via solo play that's higher than zero.
... It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work...
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Odd, I'm pretty sure that JB specifically stated clearing the pass of monsters, but I dont think it'll make much difference to your arguement. Yep, JB wants to change the way things work, and that apparently is a major problem to you... do you just want everything to stay the same?
With player built and managed settlements the 'simmers' get a little more of they want, but this doesn't have to mean you lose out on your favourite game play, it just expands the options, including yours. You get to take out JBs 'workers' and keep his settlement tradeless and cash poor, indeed you can be the 'monsters in the pass'.
Your only real issue would appear to be the player crafted gear and the struggle to justify your raids with ever increaingly powerful loot. If you cant imagine any other reason to play a game (yeah I know its a game) than grinding for more powerful gear, then you simply havent imagined enough options for a game. I agree that it could easily appear that such a world has little space for a number of uber characters, characters that you (indeed most of us) want to play, but with even a limited expansion of the gameplay scope we can find more ways to reward play and develop our characters than simply having the uber gear. Lets face it, your uber gear either goes out of date or eventually everyone will have equivalent gear and so effectively nobody has uber gear, again removing your reason to grind. If the gear goes out of date then you accept that you need not always have the best for all occasions, but instead you continue to acquire 'better gear'. You've been duped into thinking your being rewarded by simply adding a few extra points of 'uberness' and a cool new graphic to the next item you collect. Its not a problem, afterall you've idenitified it as the reason you play, so thats good for you that youre catered for, but surely you can see that you may find another reward system just as justified? You might not, so you dont need to pay subscription to that game, thats called choice, but if your not currently catered for then perhaps you might like to voice your wishes and frustration at having no choice? Just a thought.
Truth be told...I love to go Solo in games which force you to go in groups :-)....this way the "Lone Wolf" feel is greater, and where one would need a pack of wolves to succeed...you know you'd manage on your own....or die trying :-).... My WitchHunter in Warhammer Online is the living proof. :-)
I like to do that with a lot of games, that would be one of the main reason's I solo, just to see if I can do it by myself, add in the other bonuses for grouping, ( no waiting around, full exp and loot )
On a side note; People shouldn't confuse carebears with soloist;
I once read that if mmorpg's were basketball games, then the carebears want all the basketball net's lowered to 3ft to make it easier, hardcorer's just want the net's to be left at 10ft, but as a soloist i want them set to 15ft!, the harder a game the better.
mmorpg does not = massive multiplayer online cooperative game
Soloing in an mmo, what's the point? - Pretty much all crafting and harvesting - Adventuring and then going into town to trade with other players, or just interact for kicks
It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work.
I'm referring to clearing the monsters from the pass.
As for gear, I want characters to get it by going to the appropriate equipment house and picking up the gear they want to use. Gear becomes a means of tuning a character for a role or a profession. Change gear, change profession. The game becomes one of using gear, not acquiring it.
Today, players use gear to get better gear. In the future, I hope that players will use gear to do something different. I'm hoping that it will be to stand side-by-side with other players to move metaphorically huge chess pieces that make up the operation of the game world. Like clearing the pass of monsters or fighting off a monster invasion. Things that are normally considered 'events' turned mainstream. Every day, all the time. That's what 'congregating characters' is all about.
... It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work...
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Odd, I'm pretty sure that JB specifically stated clearing the pass of monsters, but I dont think it'll make much difference to your arguement. Yep, JB wants to change the way things work, and that apparently is a major problem to you... do you just want everything to stay the same?
With player built and managed settlements the 'simmers' get a little more of they want, but this doesn't have to mean you lose out on your favourite game play, it just expands the options, including yours. You get to take out JBs 'workers' and keep his settlement tradeless and cash poor, indeed you can be the 'monsters in the pass'.
Your only real issue would appear to be the player crafted gear and the struggle to justify your raids with ever increaingly powerful loot. If you cant imagine any other reason to play a game (yeah I know its a game) than grinding for more powerful gear, then you simply havent imagined enough options for a game. I agree that it could easily appear that such a world has little space for a number of uber characters, characters that you (indeed most of us) want to play, but with even a limited expansion of the gameplay scope we can find more ways to reward play and develop our characters than simply having the uber gear. Lets face it, your uber gear either goes out of date or eventually everyone will have equivalent gear and so effectively nobody has uber gear, again removing your reason to grind. If the gear goes out of date then you accept that you need not always have the best for all occasions, but instead you continue to acquire 'better gear'. You've been duped into thinking your being rewarded by simply adding a few extra points of 'uberness' and a cool new graphic to the next item you collect. Its not a problem, afterall you've idenitified it as the reason you play, so thats good for you that youre catered for, but surely you can see that you may find another reward system just as justified? You might not, so you dont need to pay subscription to that game, thats called choice, but if your not currently catered for then perhaps you might like to voice your wishes and frustration at having no choice? Just a thought.
Thanks for posting this - saves me from having to type it all out.
------------- The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I'll offer that I'm not a big fan of "player-built and managed settlements". My mention of rebuilding a part of a town was intended to be a congregating quest; a way to get a whole bunch of crafters working on the same crafting project. If all crafting involves players working individual forges or potion cauldrons or whatever, then players are soloing. On the other hand, I don't want to force players to officially group in order to craft, so the idea is to create tasks that players just help out with. Somewhat like a barn raising; if you show up, you help out wherever you can. If you don't know what to do, there should be a bunch of people right there who can show you or you can just learn from them by watching.
The net result is to continue with the theme park structure, where the publisher sets up the experiences and the players enjoy them. The next iteration that I'd like to see from publishers is a game where a story plays out over time. That story is driven by the publishers, not the players. That's because the goal of the publisher is to entertain the entire player base. The goal of individual players to entertain themselves - which is why I'm not a fan of 'open' MMOs, which leave the operation of the game to the most dedicated players. That creates a kind of high-end game, where players must be dedicated in order to experience it. I'd rather that players be able to walk away from the game whenever they want to. It's poor business, but good ethics.
Given a game with the publisher operating the monsters at a macro level and the AI handling the nitty-gritty details, the game becomes one of PvP - players versus publisher. It is an RPG with the entire player population representing the role being played. The publisher creates scenarios and content that walks that population through a storyline just as a single player RPG walks a single player along.
Ideally, the publisher is presenting a multi-faceted storyline. There are always activities available for fighters, explorers, crafters, socializers, harvesters, etc. How would you feel about playing a game if you knew that once the battle in the mountain pass is won, that something would change in the game? For example, the explorers could get started on exploring the new lands, crafters would have towns to build, harvesters would have new resource pockets to mine. And so on.
Note that all of these activities would be performed as part of quests handed out by the NPCs. Remember, it's an RPG. The quests aren't handed out to individuals, groups or guilds. They're handed out by messengers who go around posting papers declaring that Lord Goober wants the mountain pass cleared. Or Mayor Miffo wants a town gate built. The publisher would be originating all of these quests, of course, and they would be tasks that players enjoy completing. NPCs would be left to tackle all the monotonous grunt work; things like digging wells, putting up individual houses, the long walls that border a town, wall lookouts, farming, etc.
I don't want to go on too far with this because of the topic of the hosting thread. The goal of everything I've talked about is an attempt at a game design that gives large groups of players a theme park environment where they can congregate on tasks so that they are playing neither solo nor having to form groups. They work on a task side-by-side, coming and going as they see fit without ruining the experience of others as they do so.
JB, Sounds like a sensible middleground, themepark with dynamic content. Indeed people taking part in the primary plot will not be able to tell the difference between this and a fully open world, however anyone attempting to define their own plot will be waiting for the publishers team to notice and provide a change (of course I doubt they would as they'll be following the script).
I'm not convinced that an open world need have zero publisher content, I work on the idea that a strategic story is unfolding (similar to your own brief) yet players can define their own interaction with this plot. Indeed it may be possible for the more capable characters (need not be 'high-level', just played well) to establish plot lines to rival the publisher, and in time such plot developments to move to the fore.
The group build has been a fundamental part of my own brief as my economy demands near-real slow building times and the use of considerable resources, so I like that. And the clearing of the pass of monsters while superficially the same as todays crop of MMOs, something actually happens - as you highlighted the pass is actually cleared. I wonder who would not want their actions to have an effect upon the game. But like I initially stated, this will only work for those who are following the development teams story; I assume therefore that attempts to clear a different pass wont have any effect?
Comments
The analogy doesn't really make sense. In a forced grouping game, there would be no solo players. They would hate the game, and they would go play something solo friendly.
The only people left, would be people that wanted to play the game, those that didnt' mind the fact that the game required a group to make progress.
How could anyone in that situation be "forcing" someone to group with them? Makes no sense /shrug. Either they would want to group with you, or they wouldn't.
If they didn't like the fact that they had to group with SOMEONE, even if it wasn't you, then they'd play some other game. There are hundreds, mostly solo friendly, just look to your left:
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
That sounds exactly like what Vanguard tried to do. How well did that work for them?
Currently Playing: DAOC Uthgard
Previously Played: UO, DAOC, Shadowbane, AC2, SWG, Horizons, COX, WOW, EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, WAR, Vanguard, Rift, SWTOR, ESO, GW2.
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
This statement makes no sense to me. I mean granted you can solo in WoW pretty much up to end game but once you get threre everything is based on grouping and raiding. So picking a game that is more towards grouping would be the complete opposite of what your saying and would right into the flow of WoW IMO.
I mean this is off-topic but in all honesty if you wanted to go agaisnt WoW you would have to created a game that was geared towards PvP end game. Kind of like a Lineage 2 type game. I mean there are a lot of solo friendly games out there, I just don't consider WoW a solo friendly game IMO.
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.-
Frank Zappa
It's either forced group, or forced solo. Take your pick, but you can't have both.
I respectfully choose to disagree here. While I can certainly see your point, and I'm certainly not one to seek out a "solo" mmorpg, I do believe it would be possible to strike a balance between the two. Not an easy task, granted, but I believe a possible one.
First, we need to examine the main reasons to choose solo over group:
Time, Convenience, Reward. There's other factors in some cases, but for the most part, it can be summed as these 3. Time taken to arrange a group, convenience as you need to then have the group relocate to the desired region and prepare, and reward, as most rewards would be divided, or only available for one member. All of these factors can cause someone to ignore grouping, if soloing is also an option. I'll try to address these one at a time, to offer my view on some possible solutions, not to eliminate the desire to solo, as that is a choice that should still be respected for those that take it, but to encourage those sat on the edge to tip towards grouping.
Time:
It should be quick and simple to find players to group with. Firstly, a global LFG tool is a must. It should be an optional chat channel, that you are free to enter at any time, wether actively searching a group or not. To prevent abuse of this, a global general channel should also be provided, so that any unrelated messages can be put to the general channel instead of "spamming" the group one.
There should also be a flag to set on yourself as looking for a group, with the ability to specify quests from your quest book as the goal of your group, even if they are defined as "solo" quests. Have a marker beside each quest, and also the ability to choose from dungeons and encounters around your level or skill range. It would be possible then to find anyone on the same quest, interested in the same goals, or who is just around your level and fancies grouping.
Convenience:
There should be abilities from an early stage to allow rapid world travel for groups. Allowing it for all circumstances would depend very much on the game, but in a lot of cases, I believe at least, would remove from the imersion. A system to allow a group to get together quicker though I believe is near a must. The meeting stone idea from WoW is a decent one, and could easily be adjusted to fit into a number of scenarios. Another option would be some kind of "hearthing" facility, allowing group members to port to other group members "hearth" locations, which the person nearest the goal could set to a location nearby. These kind of options would allow groups, once formed, to get to the desired location quicker, and get on with their purpose. To prevent abuse, where it may be possible, hearth locations could be restricted by level range, so for example, a group with a level 5, a level 8 and a level 50, the 2 low levels could hearth to each other's locations, but not to the level 50's. the level 50 however can journey to the lower level destinations.
Another inconvenience with grouping is the lack of a group "function", I'm sure we've all been in scenarios where we need a healer or a tank and just can't find one, or find one but they then go afk for 10 minutes. To get around this, one possible source of inspiration is Guild Wars, with it's hirable NPCs. They're capable, but not in the same capacity as a human. It could well be enough to make the group worthwhile though, and make the difference between a wasted 30 minutes, and a happy run through that dungeon.
The problem of people going afk is a bit more tricky. One option would be for the game to have some kind of fatigue, so that resting in game is necessary every so often. While some may not favour this, I believe as long as it is not too quick to build, and doesn't take too long to recover from, it wouldn't do any serious harm. I'm sure others will disagree, but it's impossible to please absolutely everyone, so to try would be pointless. With this resting system in place, there could be an option to form a camp, so that resting can be done safely, and people can go afk as needed while resting. The camp would serve as a safe point, as long as the imediate area is relatively clear, it would deter any mobs from coming close.
Another option would be to hand character control to an AI while afk. Before anyone shouts "but that's botting!" it would be a system controlled by the game, not an external program, and therefore have limitations imposed by the game. Firstly, it would not allow control for extended periods of time, possibly up to 5 minutes of control, enough to allow time to get a drink for example, but not enough to abuse constantly. It would also have a cooldown, so you could not hand over to the AI for another 30 minutes or so after using it. Lastly, while the AI is in control, it would be as the NPCs you hire, a group member not using their full abilities or potential. Not a substitute for the real thing, but better than nothing. Also to further prevent abuse, the person going afk would not be eligable for any loot while under AI control, and they may build up fatigue at a slightly increased rate.
Reward:
Probably the biggest reason for soloing. "Why should I spend time getting a group to go there for a chance of getting a Sword of the Destroyer, when bob can craft me a Sword of Truth if I go get him the bits?" I'm sure you'll have came across this kind of statement often, or perhaps even thought it yourself. While it should be possible to get similar rewards through solo encounters, it's my believe that it should at least be AS difficult, if not more so, to get something equivalent to the item you can gain through a group encounter. This would eliminate one of the main arguments for a start.
Experience is another one. If a group is levelling, the reward would in most cases, be divided. While one could argue that the rate of killing would increase, thus negating this, quite often it's not even still. Therefore, there should be increased reward for taking down something that one person alone could not, for example taking a group of mobs at once, or taking one particularly tough mob that is above your own level to solo. Of course, this would need tweaking to prevent abuse, but if balanced right, could provide a healthier reward, and encourage people to group if someone is doing the same as them anyway, rather than feeling they'd be at a loss from doing so.
Remember, these are my own views, and ideas. I don't think they'd appeal to everyone, nor would I try to insist they should. I think for myself though, these ideas would give a game a fair chance of making group play seem more desired, but without eliminating solo play from the picture.
+1 ..will als add to the quote above that ,that Ac was excellant at both group or solo play its just finding the right game.Sometimes I wanted to solo to check for item drops and most people that you are leveling with wouldnt want you to be checking treasure when you should be grinding exp in a fellow.Also its nice to do different things sometimes.i enjoyed the gropu quests to also where you would have to get quite a few people together to complete them
I'll add my own fairly spot on generalization.
Forced groupers tend to eat through content as quick as it is developed for them.
Soloers tend to take much much longer to use that content up.
As a developer, i would rather satisfy the crowd that isn't forcing the argument for constantly updated content. Let the power types eat it up, get bored and then leave. They still bought the box, they paid at least 1 sub.
I for one would say that a game is fun both solo'ing what u can solo and grouping aswell
It's true...when you're in a group most games don't add a bonus exp or leave the same amount of exp that you would usually get from a mob or quest...People are also "afraid" that other people would steal the drops that they could use or sell...Everyone wants to develop their character as much as they can,get the best gear that they can for their class and make as much money to buy anything that they could possibily need.(maybe some of you already said this...didn't read every post)
As fun as running solo is , grouping is also fun.It can make the game easier and it will keep you in the mood for playing...after i solo 4 hours and don't interact with other players i get bored...if the game is always like that it makes me want to quit the game and delete it.
WoW is mostly solo till you get to 80(except for the group quests).If you have friends playing on the same server they'll run you through dungeons so you'll get to 80 faster.Once you get to 80 you raid...alot...actually that's something that you'll do all the time except for the quests to increase your reputation..but that can also be done in some cases by running some lower level dungeons.
I've been playing mostly free mmo's these days.I tried alot of them but there is a common thing in all of them.Grinding quests.They all have quests like :go kill 3 million(yes i'm exagerating alot due to rage:P ) monkeys(lol)
I need (and probably most of the mmo players) quests that make you look for certain people without telling you the exact place where to go to find them.Finding items(not dropped by mobs because that means GRINDING) in certain locations.I need more story rather than grinding....but this is me:P
Regards, Skip.
i hate grouping except for people in my guild and even then i prefer to group with rl freinds over the guild cause the memories of people going afk or going for 2 hour dinners during the instance is enough so i just dont bother even replying to people unless i need it my self
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
What you have typed is not true. If you would read more clearly there was only a very few pushing for forced grouping, maybe two people. Most people that stated they enjoy grouping also stated that they do see a place for solo in the game as well. I myself feel solo in a game is fine but I do wish they make games where there is more incentive to group than there is now to level.
I personally feel that if they could find a way to make it just as attractive to either solo or group while leveling that would be a big benefit to either side.
It would have to be a damn big incentive to make me want to PUG! I don't think it would be possible.
Truth be told...I love to go Solo in games which force you to go in groups :-)....this way the "Lone Wolf" feel is greater, and where one would need a pack of wolves to succeed...you know you'd manage on your own....or die trying :-).... My WitchHunter in Warhammer Online is the living proof. :-)
There are ways for players to interact other than by grouping. Grouping exists because MMOs are predominantly single player games that thousands of people play in the same environment. If you want to play that game with others, then you have to velcro your game to theirs for some period of time. Grouping. That mechanism exists so that individual rewards can be doled out fairly.
I have hopes that MMOs will switch to community rewards so that players won't need to group, join guilds or do anything else like that. They'll just show up, join in a task (a fight, a puzzle, a construction project, etc) figure out who they enjoy being around, and interact with them. The goal is that these tasks can accomodate upwards of 100 players, but if only 1 shows up, then he can make progress on the task.
Note that the task has a builtin reward for the community when the task is completed. So having one guy on the task isn't going to be particularly efficient, but it'll eventually get the job done. Clearing a mountain pass of the monsters that are blocking the trade route permits NPC traders through again. Rebuilding the corner battlement of the town wall gives better defenses for the residents.
Individual rewards could be retained, but they would be trivial compared to current MMOs. Mostly vanity stuff. Win 100 monster fights and the local lord will let you pick from one of the ornate swords in his collection. Said collection was populated by the player crafters. They're no more effective than any other sword, but they look quite a bit better.
I'm going on with all this because creating a game with congregations instead of groups isn't a trivial change to MMO gameplay. It's a significant restructuring. So long as individual rewards are the focus of gaming, players will continue to be concerned with playing the game suchthat they receive their individual rewards. That's solo play. Removing the great bulk of individual rewards means that MMOs would be vastly changed.
What I want to draw out of players is the idea that playing the game is the reward that they seek. That it's fun to clear the mountain pass one day, rescue a town's child from the clutches of evil monsters the next, expand a frontier the day after, etc. The game content changes from day to day, and that content is structured to attract large chunks of the player population, to get them interacting with each other without the need to form groups.
The elimination of personal rewards means that there is no power quest for player characters. There are no levels, no gear that boosts your character's power, no magic spells for fireballs and the like. Player characters are all created equally and they only vary from their starting formula by perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Player skill would be brought in as the greater determinant of effectiveness.
Such a game is undoubtedly years away. Primarily for reasons of culture.
Clearing the alley for tradesmen to come thru?
It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work.
Um I dont know how often it needs to be said....NO THANKS. Simmers and their sandplay have no place with directed content adventures involved.
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
That seems to be a fair compromise, I know I'd still be playing WoW if I had a mathematical chance of acquiring top level equipment via solo play that's higher than zero.
I solo the game and get titles to show off. Usually I also spam guild chat while soloing.
Soloing is most important in MMORPG because it gives u allot choice where to go than depend on another people to aid your way.
Kain_Dale
I think of myself as the captain.
I cant seem to find good groups.
I dont like sharing drops and monsters
... It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work...
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Odd, I'm pretty sure that JB specifically stated clearing the pass of monsters, but I dont think it'll make much difference to your arguement. Yep, JB wants to change the way things work, and that apparently is a major problem to you... do you just want everything to stay the same?
With player built and managed settlements the 'simmers' get a little more of they want, but this doesn't have to mean you lose out on your favourite game play, it just expands the options, including yours. You get to take out JBs 'workers' and keep his settlement tradeless and cash poor, indeed you can be the 'monsters in the pass'.
Your only real issue would appear to be the player crafted gear and the struggle to justify your raids with ever increaingly powerful loot. If you cant imagine any other reason to play a game (yeah I know its a game) than grinding for more powerful gear, then you simply havent imagined enough options for a game. I agree that it could easily appear that such a world has little space for a number of uber characters, characters that you (indeed most of us) want to play, but with even a limited expansion of the gameplay scope we can find more ways to reward play and develop our characters than simply having the uber gear. Lets face it, your uber gear either goes out of date or eventually everyone will have equivalent gear and so effectively nobody has uber gear, again removing your reason to grind. If the gear goes out of date then you accept that you need not always have the best for all occasions, but instead you continue to acquire 'better gear'. You've been duped into thinking your being rewarded by simply adding a few extra points of 'uberness' and a cool new graphic to the next item you collect. Its not a problem, afterall you've idenitified it as the reason you play, so thats good for you that youre catered for, but surely you can see that you may find another reward system just as justified? You might not, so you dont need to pay subscription to that game, thats called choice, but if your not currently catered for then perhaps you might like to voice your wishes and frustration at having no choice? Just a thought.
I like to do that with a lot of games, that would be one of the main reason's I solo, just to see if I can do it by myself, add in the other bonuses for grouping, ( no waiting around, full exp and loot )
On a side note; People shouldn't confuse carebears with soloist;
I once read that if mmorpg's were basketball games, then the carebears want all the basketball net's lowered to 3ft to make it easier, hardcorer's just want the net's to be left at 10ft, but as a soloist i want them set to 15ft!, the harder a game the better.
mmorpg does not = massive multiplayer online cooperative game
Soloing in an mmo, what's the point?
- Pretty much all crafting and harvesting
- Adventuring and then going into town to trade with other players, or just interact for kicks
I'm referring to clearing the monsters from the pass.
As for gear, I want characters to get it by going to the appropriate equipment house and picking up the gear they want to use. Gear becomes a means of tuning a character for a role or a profession. Change gear, change profession. The game becomes one of using gear, not acquiring it.
Today, players use gear to get better gear. In the future, I hope that players will use gear to do something different. I'm hoping that it will be to stand side-by-side with other players to move metaphorically huge chess pieces that make up the operation of the game world. Like clearing the pass of monsters or fighting off a monster invasion. Things that are normally considered 'events' turned mainstream. Every day, all the time. That's what 'congregating characters' is all about.
... It doesnt sound like you mean of various monsters/critters...but the actual mechanics of it....such as grating the road, clearing brush/filling in holes/etc. IN short you are refering to sim work...
I understand some folks want that virtual reality, but the numbers in games indicate the simmers are the far minority style of play.
You mentioned about the reward from the king coming from a tradesperson. Adventures dont wanna get their wares thru tradesfolks...we want to earn them thru battle...or completion of quests.
The second you hand the best equipment to the traders to be made, is the second you do away with the reason folks wanna spend the time gathering in grps to defeat high level content. Why raid with 30 or 40 folks only to be sent home with some gold to purchase craft items. You could of earned more gold on your own in most cases.
WHen folks finish major fights ,with their friends, they like to have the wares to show off from their victory. When the best stuff is on traders, it is just a matter of saving up for it.
I wish this site was a place for adventure gamers to discuss things...but it always ends up with those in the minority trying to press their gamestyle onto the masses when it has no place there. When this is brought up, it always ends up in the flames about "only immature people dont wanna play Uncle Owen games". Which is the furthest thing from the truth...but you wouldnt know it by reading this site. The vocal minority wail away on these forums, and folks get tired of arguing with them cause they never will shut up.
Odd, I'm pretty sure that JB specifically stated clearing the pass of monsters, but I dont think it'll make much difference to your arguement. Yep, JB wants to change the way things work, and that apparently is a major problem to you... do you just want everything to stay the same?
With player built and managed settlements the 'simmers' get a little more of they want, but this doesn't have to mean you lose out on your favourite game play, it just expands the options, including yours. You get to take out JBs 'workers' and keep his settlement tradeless and cash poor, indeed you can be the 'monsters in the pass'.
Your only real issue would appear to be the player crafted gear and the struggle to justify your raids with ever increaingly powerful loot. If you cant imagine any other reason to play a game (yeah I know its a game) than grinding for more powerful gear, then you simply havent imagined enough options for a game. I agree that it could easily appear that such a world has little space for a number of uber characters, characters that you (indeed most of us) want to play, but with even a limited expansion of the gameplay scope we can find more ways to reward play and develop our characters than simply having the uber gear. Lets face it, your uber gear either goes out of date or eventually everyone will have equivalent gear and so effectively nobody has uber gear, again removing your reason to grind. If the gear goes out of date then you accept that you need not always have the best for all occasions, but instead you continue to acquire 'better gear'. You've been duped into thinking your being rewarded by simply adding a few extra points of 'uberness' and a cool new graphic to the next item you collect. Its not a problem, afterall you've idenitified it as the reason you play, so thats good for you that youre catered for, but surely you can see that you may find another reward system just as justified? You might not, so you dont need to pay subscription to that game, thats called choice, but if your not currently catered for then perhaps you might like to voice your wishes and frustration at having no choice? Just a thought.
Thanks for posting this - saves me from having to type it all out.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I'll offer that I'm not a big fan of "player-built and managed settlements". My mention of rebuilding a part of a town was intended to be a congregating quest; a way to get a whole bunch of crafters working on the same crafting project. If all crafting involves players working individual forges or potion cauldrons or whatever, then players are soloing. On the other hand, I don't want to force players to officially group in order to craft, so the idea is to create tasks that players just help out with. Somewhat like a barn raising; if you show up, you help out wherever you can. If you don't know what to do, there should be a bunch of people right there who can show you or you can just learn from them by watching.
The net result is to continue with the theme park structure, where the publisher sets up the experiences and the players enjoy them. The next iteration that I'd like to see from publishers is a game where a story plays out over time. That story is driven by the publishers, not the players. That's because the goal of the publisher is to entertain the entire player base. The goal of individual players to entertain themselves - which is why I'm not a fan of 'open' MMOs, which leave the operation of the game to the most dedicated players. That creates a kind of high-end game, where players must be dedicated in order to experience it. I'd rather that players be able to walk away from the game whenever they want to. It's poor business, but good ethics.
Given a game with the publisher operating the monsters at a macro level and the AI handling the nitty-gritty details, the game becomes one of PvP - players versus publisher. It is an RPG with the entire player population representing the role being played. The publisher creates scenarios and content that walks that population through a storyline just as a single player RPG walks a single player along.
Ideally, the publisher is presenting a multi-faceted storyline. There are always activities available for fighters, explorers, crafters, socializers, harvesters, etc. How would you feel about playing a game if you knew that once the battle in the mountain pass is won, that something would change in the game? For example, the explorers could get started on exploring the new lands, crafters would have towns to build, harvesters would have new resource pockets to mine. And so on.
Note that all of these activities would be performed as part of quests handed out by the NPCs. Remember, it's an RPG. The quests aren't handed out to individuals, groups or guilds. They're handed out by messengers who go around posting papers declaring that Lord Goober wants the mountain pass cleared. Or Mayor Miffo wants a town gate built. The publisher would be originating all of these quests, of course, and they would be tasks that players enjoy completing. NPCs would be left to tackle all the monotonous grunt work; things like digging wells, putting up individual houses, the long walls that border a town, wall lookouts, farming, etc.
I don't want to go on too far with this because of the topic of the hosting thread. The goal of everything I've talked about is an attempt at a game design that gives large groups of players a theme park environment where they can congregate on tasks so that they are playing neither solo nor having to form groups. They work on a task side-by-side, coming and going as they see fit without ruining the experience of others as they do so.
JB, Sounds like a sensible middleground, themepark with dynamic content. Indeed people taking part in the primary plot will not be able to tell the difference between this and a fully open world, however anyone attempting to define their own plot will be waiting for the publishers team to notice and provide a change (of course I doubt they would as they'll be following the script).
I'm not convinced that an open world need have zero publisher content, I work on the idea that a strategic story is unfolding (similar to your own brief) yet players can define their own interaction with this plot. Indeed it may be possible for the more capable characters (need not be 'high-level', just played well) to establish plot lines to rival the publisher, and in time such plot developments to move to the fore.
The group build has been a fundamental part of my own brief as my economy demands near-real slow building times and the use of considerable resources, so I like that. And the clearing of the pass of monsters while superficially the same as todays crop of MMOs, something actually happens - as you highlighted the pass is actually cleared. I wonder who would not want their actions to have an effect upon the game. But like I initially stated, this will only work for those who are following the development teams story; I assume therefore that attempts to clear a different pass wont have any effect?
edits for grammer