Actually in most games the most coin fastest XP and best loot is through groups.
I've usually discovered that given the time needed to assemble a group and, people getting distracted and falling behind etc. etc. that it rarely works out that way in the end.
LOL mmo's used to have good communities back in 2000. Today forget about it. If you can't solo in a mmo most sane people won't play them. I used to have around 15 20 friends that played mmo's. Not anymore and they all say its the players today that killed it for them. I miss the old days when mmo's were niche.
Solo doesn't mean anti-social. A player could be anti-social within a group. That would cause a big kerfuffle.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Actually in most games the most coin fastest XP and best loot is through groups.
I've usually discovered that given the time needed to assemble a group and, people getting distracted and falling behind etc. etc. that it rarely works out that way in the end.
You don't farm in pugs. Random pickups are a last resort to fill gaps. Good money comes from practiced groups. You kill faster, more safely, with less down time.
It's not a PUG exclusive issue. Any time you are doing content together for an extended period of time people will need to take occasional breaks no matter how good your group is, sitting several people down alongside each other and going for several hours straight is not something that happens without people needing breaks for restrooms, food etc. And of course there are the ever infamous "smoke breakers". I swear I might do a "no smoking" policy next time I run a guild so we don't have to stop for 10 minutes every half hour. XD
If you are doing quests (fastest XP) then this very frequently means waiting since you don't want people falling behind on the quest line.
I generally just solo it since I am pretty fast on my own and can get it done faster without all the distractions.
Whilst I agree that MMOs have become too solo focused and have basically forgotten their one and only unique selling point, I disagree that the genre should have very little to do for solo players.
The genre needs an entire revamp, in my opinion, in order to make the best use of it's USP. We've barely scratched the surface of what can be done in a massively multiplayer environment, yet virtually nobody is pushing those boundaries.
On the community front, the strongest communities are those that are the most diverse and that foster respect for that diversity. Yes, MMOs are too solo focused now, but to virtually remove solo content (and thus soloers) won't improve the situation, you would still end up with a fairly homogenous community, it would just be smaller and group focused, still subject to the fickle winds of change. You still want your soloers in the community, just as you also want crafters, groupers, raiders, pvpers, roleplayers, socialisers etc etc.
To achieve that, I feel the genre needs the following:
Proper game engines - Most game engines can't even support massively multiplayer. You get 50 people involved in a fight and things go to shit. We need real investment and innovation in game engines so that they can support 500+ player activities, be it open world bosses, large scale pvp or just social gatherings. Without the engine, we'll never achieve the potential this genre has to offer.
Horizontal progression - Possibly unpopular, but clinging onto single player / coop progression mechanics such as levels, increasing stats and skills, power gaps from gear is harmful for the genre. It makes too much content obsolete and places too many barriers between players. Segregation has been proven over the centuries to be a wholly negative effect on communities, yet we're happy to be segregated in our online communities?
Less reliance on scripted content - it is a sad fact that it is impossible for developers to produce content quicker than we can consume it. Yet, all MMO devs make the attempt! We play through the scripted content, then end up grinding a tiny amount of endgame content on the gear treadmill. It is not a good model for long term retention. Yet, there has been very little investment in other types of content. Sandboxes are still stuck with just mob grinding, crafting and open world pvp.
Progression outside of characters - almost every activity we do is designed to improve our character, there is very little we can do outside of that. If we want to cap or eliminate power gaps, we need progression in other areas. It could be things like estate management (starting with a small plot of land, building a house, hiring gardeners, producing food to sell, reinvesting in land to create more food, turning into a large farm etc etc), or freeform building (like CU - design and build your own things in the world), or rearing animals (pokemon...) or whatever else you can think of.
If we can these four fundamental changes made, I believe the genre would improve a lot. On the surface things would look similar - there would still be a focus on fantasy, you'd still be out playing your character, completing quests, getting new stuff etc. But, these changes would provide more player freedom, more opportunities for being social and if they get the sandbox elements correct, far more content that never ends. Whack a popular IP on the top too and you've got a winner.
I like the thinking here, @Cameltosis. Here's some thoughts on your four action points.
Proper game engines. I absolutely agree that too many engines simply choke under the weight of too many people in one area. Is there a good solution for this? I don't know. Will a solution be costly? Probably. Spending money on technology scaling isn't something that many developers want to do, unfortunately.
Horizontal progression. Another difficult problem. This comes down to equality, and it's difficult to build multiple solutions that are seen as equivalent to one another. The EQ1 design of Clerics, Druids and Shamen were supposed to be functionally equals, but the healing mechanics of HoTs and Regen (Druids) and HoTs and Damage Prevention (Shamen) never matched the raw healing power needed as mobs became increasingly difficult.
Less reliance on scripted content. Scripting can be thought of as a form of writing, and writing is generally tends to be a solo experience. Unless a developer actually invests heavily into tools that can dynamically generate scripted content, there will never be enough content. AI hasn't been embraced in games to attempt to solve this problem, so games are essentially at the dream stage, with a lot of investment and development ahead of them. Again, this is money that the developers don't necessarily want to spend.
Progression outside of characters. I think this might be the most feasible to implement, but I think it might still be an uphill struggle. The problem is that even the ideas you proposed are still individual endeavors. To make something more social, it needs to require several people to accomplish the task. Communal objectives may be the solution. Building a house has never been a solo action, its always taken a group of people working together. The biggest challenge for this might simply be convincing players that group projects that simply can't be done independently (or through alts) is a good thing for the game, and can be enjoyed.
Okay, it may seem at first glance that I'm totally against trying this. Not so. A developer is going to have to take the initiative to start with a goal similar to this and back it with talent, money, and new ideas in order to evolve the MMORPG concept. It will be difficult and expensive, but everything worthwhile usually is.
The simplest path I've ever thought of is simply accepting the problems that you're attacking and trying to expand the activities players can perform within that framework. Religious activities. Social gatherings. Political campaigns. Government projects. Communal magic. Players could accept new mechanisms in addition to the existing combat and crafting systems in current games. Future generations of games could refine the basic ideas, and have a platform to make further innovation.
Instead, we get new games filled with old ideas, regurgitated and lifeless. Players and developers are shackled by games that are almost fifty years old. Even the massive multiplayer efforts are now surpassing twenty-five years. Developers seem to be stuck in a rut of trying to refine old ideas into a palatable mix for the customer, smothering the meal with marketing. At the core, old is old, and even the familiar and comfortable is unappealing.
At some point, I think the industry will begin to address the issues @Cameltosis points out. It will need to in order to support and implement whatever ideas and concepts come along next. First, I'd like to see some indication that the developers *want* to address those concerns. To any developer who happens upon this: find a new idea, fund, develop, and implement it in the MMORPG form. Innovate, don't rehash. That's what I want.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Actually in most games the most coin fastest XP and best loot is through groups.
I've usually discovered that given the time needed to assemble a group and, people getting distracted and falling behind etc. etc. that it rarely works out that way in the end.
I also think that the 'best = group' fails. The theory is that a group can kill at a faster rate than an individual. Six people wailing on a critter will kill it faster than an individual. But most games focus on a fixed XP value of that critter, and divide that amount by the number of people in the group. Instead of the solo player's 100%, the individuals in the group of 6 would gain only 1/6th of the value of the critter. Theoretically, that is offset by a faster kill pace. That doesn't happen often enough, either due to human factors or through scarcity of critters. My experience has been that when I group, I may get 50%-60% of the XP as a solo player. Loot doesn't come close to that due to greed.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Actually in most games the most coin fastest XP and best loot is through groups.
I've usually discovered that given the time needed to assemble a group and, people getting distracted and falling behind etc. etc. that it rarely works out that way in the end.
I also think that the 'best = group' fails. The theory is that a group can kill at a faster rate than an individual. Six people wailing on a critter will kill it faster than an individual. But most games focus on a fixed XP value of that critter, and divide that amount by the number of people in the group. Instead of the solo player's 100%, the individuals in the group of 6 would gain only 1/6th of the value of the critter. Theoretically, that is offset by a faster kill pace. That doesn't happen often enough, either due to human factors or through scarcity of critters. My experience has been that when I group, I may get 50%-60% of the XP as a solo player. Loot doesn't come close to that due to greed.
The group typically takes harder content like dungeons though which enables more xp and better rewards. I've never been in a group that was doing the exact same content at the same rate that someone was soloing on. A group that does that I would question.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Additionally say in a group of five each person isn't getting only 20% of the extraneous. Typically they get more than 20% Which when combined with the increased increased rate of kills more than makes up for the experience lot. Now combine that with the increased difficulty of the mob which alone gives more experience, yields significantly more Xp for the group than the soloer
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Additionally say in a group of five each person isn't getting only 20% of the extraneous. Typically they get more than 20% Which when combined with the increased increased rate of kills more than makes up for the experience lot. Now combine that with the increased difficulty of the mob which alone gives more experience, yields significantly more Xp for the group than the soloer
Sure, when grouping works out, and when those groups function ideally.
But, it often doesn't, and they often don't.
Either way, it is also bundled with interactions that may come with an enjoyment cost that offsets whatever XP gain I might get.
I prefer a pleasant time over a quick time any time.
I like the thinking here, @Cameltosis. Here's some thoughts on your four action points.
Proper game engines. I absolutely agree that too many engines simply choke under the weight of too many people in one area. Is there a good solution for this? I don't know. Will a solution be costly? Probably. Spending money on technology scaling isn't something that many developers want to do, unfortunately.
Horizontal progression. Another difficult problem. This comes down to equality, and it's difficult to build multiple solutions that are seen as equivalent to one another. The EQ1 design of Clerics, Druids and Shamen were supposed to be functionally equals, but the healing mechanics of HoTs and Regen (Druids) and HoTs and Damage Prevention (Shamen) never matched the raw healing power needed as mobs became increasingly difficult.
Less reliance on scripted content. Scripting can be thought of as a form of writing, and writing is generally tends to be a solo experience. Unless a developer actually invests heavily into tools that can dynamically generate scripted content, there will never be enough content. AI hasn't been embraced in games to attempt to solve this problem, so games are essentially at the dream stage, with a lot of investment and development ahead of them. Again, this is money that the developers don't necessarily want to spend.
Progression outside of characters. I think this might be the most feasible to implement, but I think it might still be an uphill struggle. The problem is that even the ideas you proposed are still individual endeavors. To make something more social, it needs to require several people to accomplish the task. Communal objectives may be the solution. Building a house has never been a solo action, its always taken a group of people working together. The biggest challenge for this might simply be convincing players that group projects that simply can't be done independently (or through alts) is a good thing for the game, and can be enjoyed.
Okay, it may seem at first glance that I'm totally against trying this. Not so. A developer is going to have to take the initiative to start with a goal similar to this and back it with talent, money, and new ideas in order to evolve the MMORPG concept. It will be difficult and expensive, but everything worthwhile usually is.
The simplest path I've ever thought of is simply accepting the problems that you're attacking and trying to expand the activities players can perform within that framework. Religious activities. Social gatherings. Political campaigns. Government projects. Communal magic. Players could accept new mechanisms in addition to the existing combat and crafting systems in current games. Future generations of games could refine the basic ideas, and have a platform to make further innovation.
Instead, we get new games filled with old ideas, regurgitated and lifeless. Players and developers are shackled by games that are almost fifty years old. Even the massive multiplayer efforts are now surpassing twenty-five years. Developers seem to be stuck in a rut of trying to refine old ideas into a palatable mix for the customer, smothering the meal with marketing. At the core, old is old, and even the familiar and comfortable is unappealing.
At some point, I think the industry will begin to address the issues @Cameltosis points out. It will need to in order to support and implement whatever ideas and concepts come along next. First, I'd like to see some indication that the developers *want* to address those concerns. To any developer who happens upon this: find a new idea, fund, develop, and implement it in the MMORPG form. Innovate, don't rehash. That's what I want.
Thanks for the detailed feedback Mendel!
There has actually been progress in all four areas that we are discussing, the progress just hasn't gotten that far as of yet.
On the engine front, CSE have built a bespoke engine for Camelot Unchained with the express purpose of supporting large numbers of players. The end result has yet to be seen, but so far it has topped out at 2,600 bots in the same area, all moving, all dressed differently and all firing off abilities. Whilst obviously not a true representation of players, it does mimic network traffic and processing power required, so I feel confident it'll support 1000+ real players.
On horizontal progression....yeh, this is where the genre is currently weakest. GW2 flirted with the idea, then quickly gave up on it. LotRO had horizontal progression at endgame when the game launched and it was amazing (if subtle). Sadly, they ditched it with Moria and killed off half the endgame scene in the process. Camelot Unchained is going almost exclusively horizontal, but hasn't been released so we don't know for certain. That said, look outside the genre and you can see many examples where it works amazingly well. Shooters are the biggest success story for horizontal progression.
Less scripted content....again, another hard one. Early MMOs experimented with this with their sandbox approach. Then that philosophy went stagnant for a decade. Luckily, it's coming back. Whether it is PvP sandboxes like CU or Crowfall, or PvE sandboxes like AoC or Pantheon, we're seeing the ideas come back. It remains to be seen whether the ideas evolve past mob grinding and pvp.
Progression outside of characters? We've already started down this path! Things like raising pets, building homesteads, housing in general really. You're right in that it would be great to see these features become more group focused. The Eternal Kingdoms in Crowfall offer us some hope in that regard, as does the CUBE system in CU.
You are also right in that these new ideas should not come at the expensive of what we already enjoy. There still needs to be quests, and dungeons, and raids, and arenas etc. We just need to scale back our reliance on this linear, small-scale content and introduce something newer, more engaging on both a personal and social level that really gets you invested in the virtual world and the community that exists within it.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Progression outside characters is something I would really like to see a lot more of. It's a solid form of content that would be very helpful to emphasise for games looking to take the focus off of stat grinding. I think it would surprise developers and audiences a lot how hard they are willing to work to develop their homes, villages, and cities.
As I said in another (recent) thread on this topic the "person" whose opinion matters is the publishers/devs.
If a company spends money developing an engine, art assets, a game system etc. then they are going to want to recoup their money and make a profit. This "need" increases as the amount of money spent increases: to give us better engines, immersive worlds and so forth.
And the perception is that games that have released without solo play have "often" underperformed. (Sometimes solo games underperform as well of course).
Throw in that once you have the engine, art assets etc. its easier and cheaper to do the single player rather than the multi-player and its no surprise that solo is dominant. Arguably we should be thankful if we get multi-player at all!
I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to "Stop Worrying and Love the Solo Element" to borrow from Dr. Strangelove but maybe stop worrying. If the game is good - in your opinion - play it if not don't. And to remember - when advocating for "something better" that the game companies want - and need if they are to continue - to make a profits. Don't lose sight of the fact that that is their hot button issue.
If you hate interacting with people that much why play single player RPG? Dont' you pretend to interact with people(NPC) in it too?
Following that logic you'll realize why people solo in MMORPG, because NPC can never simulate behavior of real people.
They are high quality and cheap/free , that's why those who love playing singleplayer jump to MMORPG . Then lately those game become expensive and those are back to they singleplayer farm . Leaving the poor developers confuse cause they don't even know why they game failed so hard .
If you hate interacting with people that much why play single player RPG? Dont' you pretend to interact with people(NPC) in it too?
Following that logic you'll realize why people solo in MMORPG, because NPC can never simulate behavior of real people.
They are high quality and cheap/free , that's why those who love playing singleplayer jump to MMORPG . Then lately those game become expensive and those are back to they singleplayer farm . Leaving the poor developers confuse cause they don't even know why they game failed so hard .
I think the reason so many people went back to the single player farm is they got tired of playing the same game. For those who don't delve into indie MMOs you have a choice of WoW, French WoW, WoW Bean, or WoW w/ Sprinkles.
There should be little for solo players to do (harvesting/crafting/housing and maybe some smaller things to do solo). As a solo only player, I moved onto other genres and found FAR better games that fit a solo only person. And if I want to play with my friend in a game, we find far more fun in games like Civilization 5, starcraft 2, Heroes of the Storm and that kinda game.
MMOs greatest AND best difference with any other genre? The massive amount of players one can interact, socialize and do things with that no other genre can compete with.
What do games like Skyrim, and the other games have? Generally a smaller, but better quality and better game suited for 1 player to maybe 6 or 8 players. A game tailored to the players experience. And skyrim has tons of mods as well that add tons of lands/quests/dungeons etc, so you can make a pretty big game to a game world all to yourself.
MMOs however have moved heavily to a solo focused experience. However that is the greatest weakness in the MMO genre. It completely erases the greatest thing MMOs have, a social and group focused genre. And this is coming from a person who doesn't like grouping at all and will never use voice chat with strangers. But, even I see that while MMOs are not for me (that is like me being a square trying to fit into a circular hole)...and find other genres far to a better advantage for a solo or (very) small group atmosphere.
There are MMOs coming out that look to do the old way, like Pantheon is a big one that goes back to the way MMOs were and should be...a group focused, social massive experience one can't find in any genre. That is what MMOs should be.
And this is coming from someone who would never play Pantheon, but Pantheon I really hope is successful because it is playing to the greatest strength of MMOs...social activities, group focused atmosphere and that is what MMOs are about
Your first paragraph had a hook to keep people reading. Your second paragraph has a good opener, but lacks support in the paragraph. I was wanting to read a better thought out second paragraph, all because it leads to a good contrast in the third paragraph. Your fourth paragraph opens up with speaking about a Solo experience, but does not define, list, or provide examples to the solo experience. You let your personal feelings obstruct you away from the main point of the paragraph.
You should replace the last two paragraphs (as that is a different topic altogether) with a conclusion.
I give this work of writing a grade of C.
Your outline is clearly defined, but you went off track on something that would have emerged to become incredibly strong to the reader. Even going off-track, I was able to follow and Fill-in-the-blanks; however, I should not have to fill in the blanks with what I know.
Not bad. One of the few posts I felt like writing this kind of reply to as a show of appreciating. Your writing is decent and not atrocious.
There has actually been progress in all four areas that we are discussing, the progress just hasn't gotten that far as of yet.
This is the crux of the problem. Games are just starting to lay the groundwork for future games. There's no 'shoulders of giants' for them to build on. It always makes me feel that the genre is 10 to 15 years behind where it should be. Instead of a new cycle of innovative development, the developers sought only to milk the cow. Now, we are left with a genre that the public is finding stale and dull, with developers scrambling to try to find replacements for failing products to keep income flowing. This product cycle is simply starting too late.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Now, we are left with a genre that the public is finding stale and dull, with developers scrambling to try to find replacements for failing products to keep income flowing. This product cycle is simply starting too late.
wow wow wow .. what do you mean by "developers scrambling to try to find replacements"? They have already found replacements.
Look at Blizz. Hearthstone and Overwatch are hugely successful. No one says they have to replace MMOs with MMOs. In fact, isn't that innovations? Just ditch MMOs and dev other, newer types of online games.
Couldn't disagree with you more. There should be something for everyone. I don't always want to have to group up to do even the simplest of task in a game. Sometimes you want to be online with friends but not in a group with them. Each can be off doing their own thing but if help is needed it is ready an willing to help. I have played games many years ago that were focused mostly on group play, wasn't fun when you couldn't get in a group because your gear wasn't good enough ect.... Even the casual solo player has things to offer to the group players, some go out just the harvest good to sell on the AH, ect... So I see your subjective opinion and think it is total horrible all around.
You point out games coming out like Pantheon, but you do realize the game is being made for a niche crowd. It will most likely have a medium devout following for a while. Overall I don't think a majority of people want to be grouped to just go pick a flower. Group play for dungeons or instances is the best way to handle MMO's. You can even have group quest on the open worlds also, but it should by no means be the only way to play. Overall this is my opinion.
Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.
Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.
In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
Couldn't disagree with you more. There should be something for everyone. I don't always want to have to group up to do even the simplest of task in a game. Sometimes you want to be online with friends but not in a group with them. Each can be off doing their own thing but if help is needed it is ready an willing to help. I have played games many years ago that were focused mostly on group play, wasn't fun when you couldn't get in a group because your gear wasn't good enough ect.... Even the casual solo player has things to offer to the group players, some go out just the harvest good to sell on the AH, ect... So I see your subjective opinion and think it is total horrible all around.
You point out games coming out like Pantheon, but you do realize the game is being made for a niche crowd. It will most likely have a medium devout following for a while. Overall I don't think a majority of people want to be grouped to just go pick a flower. Group play for dungeons or instances is the best way to handle MMO's. You can even have group quest on the open worlds also, but it should by no means be the only way to play. Overall this is my opinion.
Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.
Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.
In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
Whilst a game can't be great at everything, and whilst I agree that MMOs should be more focused on group activities and, you know, being massively-multiplayer, I also feel there should be something for everyone.
The reason?
Retention.
Players having changing needs over time. If you focus on a very narrow scope of features and make them very good, you immediately narrow your target market but you also end up creating a short lived game. Even if you absolutely love the features implemented, only being able to do those things becomes boring after a while. Even if you didn't get bored, player needs change over time.
One day, I might feel like raiding. The next, I might feel like doing some PvP. The next, I might fancy doing some solo stuff.
If an MMO has a wide variety of activities, then it can suit my changing moods and keep me in game for longer. By keeping me in game longer, not only does the company earn more money but I am more likely to form social connections. These social connections help build the community which in itself helps increase retention. The strongest communities are those with are diverse and inclusive.
Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs).
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs).
"Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.
There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?
Comments
Then vs Now!
Yet, another repeated discussion and the same old response from the same folks.
Worlds have hermits and social butterflies, MMORPG's need both.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If you are doing quests (fastest XP) then this very frequently means waiting since you don't want people falling behind on the quest line.
I generally just solo it since I am pretty fast on my own and can get it done faster without all the distractions.
- Progression outside of characters. I think this might be the most feasible to implement, but I think it might still be an uphill struggle. The problem is that even the ideas you proposed are still individual endeavors. To make something more social, it needs to require several people to accomplish the task. Communal objectives may be the solution. Building a house has never been a solo action, its always taken a group of people working together. The biggest challenge for this might simply be convincing players that group projects that simply can't be done independently (or through alts) is a good thing for the game, and can be enjoyed.
Okay, it may seem at first glance that I'm totally against trying this. Not so. A developer is going to have to take the initiative to start with a goal similar to this and back it with talent, money, and new ideas in order to evolve the MMORPG concept. It will be difficult and expensive, but everything worthwhile usually is.The simplest path I've ever thought of is simply accepting the problems that you're attacking and trying to expand the activities players can perform within that framework. Religious activities. Social gatherings. Political campaigns. Government projects. Communal magic. Players could accept new mechanisms in addition to the existing combat and crafting systems in current games. Future generations of games could refine the basic ideas, and have a platform to make further innovation.
Instead, we get new games filled with old ideas, regurgitated and lifeless. Players and developers are shackled by games that are almost fifty years old. Even the massive multiplayer efforts are now surpassing twenty-five years. Developers seem to be stuck in a rut of trying to refine old ideas into a palatable mix for the customer, smothering the meal with marketing. At the core, old is old, and even the familiar and comfortable is unappealing.
At some point, I think the industry will begin to address the issues @Cameltosis points out. It will need to in order to support and implement whatever ideas and concepts come along next. First, I'd like to see some indication that the developers *want* to address those concerns. To any developer who happens upon this: find a new idea, fund, develop, and implement it in the MMORPG form. Innovate, don't rehash. That's what I want.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But, it often doesn't, and they often don't.
Either way, it is also bundled with interactions that may come with an enjoyment cost that offsets whatever XP gain I might get.
I prefer a pleasant time over a quick time any time.
There has actually been progress in all four areas that we are discussing, the progress just hasn't gotten that far as of yet.
On the engine front, CSE have built a bespoke engine for Camelot Unchained with the express purpose of supporting large numbers of players. The end result has yet to be seen, but so far it has topped out at 2,600 bots in the same area, all moving, all dressed differently and all firing off abilities. Whilst obviously not a true representation of players, it does mimic network traffic and processing power required, so I feel confident it'll support 1000+ real players.
On horizontal progression....yeh, this is where the genre is currently weakest. GW2 flirted with the idea, then quickly gave up on it. LotRO had horizontal progression at endgame when the game launched and it was amazing (if subtle). Sadly, they ditched it with Moria and killed off half the endgame scene in the process. Camelot Unchained is going almost exclusively horizontal, but hasn't been released so we don't know for certain. That said, look outside the genre and you can see many examples where it works amazingly well. Shooters are the biggest success story for horizontal progression.
Less scripted content....again, another hard one. Early MMOs experimented with this with their sandbox approach. Then that philosophy went stagnant for a decade. Luckily, it's coming back. Whether it is PvP sandboxes like CU or Crowfall, or PvE sandboxes like AoC or Pantheon, we're seeing the ideas come back. It remains to be seen whether the ideas evolve past mob grinding and pvp.
Progression outside of characters? We've already started down this path! Things like raising pets, building homesteads, housing in general really. You're right in that it would be great to see these features become more group focused. The Eternal Kingdoms in Crowfall offer us some hope in that regard, as does the CUBE system in CU.
You are also right in that these new ideas should not come at the expensive of what we already enjoy. There still needs to be quests, and dungeons, and raids, and arenas etc. We just need to scale back our reliance on this linear, small-scale content and introduce something newer, more engaging on both a personal and social level that really gets you invested in the virtual world and the community that exists within it.
If a company spends money developing an engine, art assets, a game system etc. then they are going to want to recoup their money and make a profit. This "need" increases as the amount of money spent increases: to give us better engines, immersive worlds and so forth.
And the perception is that games that have released without solo play have "often" underperformed. (Sometimes solo games underperform as well of course).
Throw in that once you have the engine, art assets etc. its easier and cheaper to do the single player rather than the multi-player and its no surprise that solo is dominant. Arguably we should be thankful if we get multi-player at all!
I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to "Stop Worrying and Love the Solo Element" to borrow from Dr. Strangelove but maybe stop worrying. If the game is good - in your opinion - play it if not don't. And to remember - when advocating for "something better" that the game companies want - and need if they are to continue - to make a profits. Don't lose sight of the fact that that is their hot button issue.
Following that logic you'll realize why people solo in MMORPG, because NPC can never simulate behavior of real people.
Then lately those game become expensive and those are back to they singleplayer farm . Leaving the poor developers confuse cause they don't even know why they game failed so hard .
You should replace the last two paragraphs (as that is a different topic altogether) with a conclusion.
I give this work of writing a grade of C.
Your outline is clearly defined, but you went off track on something that would have emerged to become incredibly strong to the reader. Even going off-track, I was able to follow and Fill-in-the-blanks; however, I should not have to fill in the blanks with what I know.
Not bad.
One of the few posts I felt like writing this kind of reply to as a show of appreciating. Your writing is decent and not atrocious.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Look at Blizz. Hearthstone and Overwatch are hugely successful. No one says they have to replace MMOs with MMOs. In fact, isn't that innovations? Just ditch MMOs and dev other, newer types of online games.
Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.
Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.
In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
That's what she said.
The reason?
Retention.
Players having changing needs over time. If you focus on a very narrow scope of features and make them very good, you immediately narrow your target market but you also end up creating a short lived game. Even if you absolutely love the features implemented, only being able to do those things becomes boring after a while. Even if you didn't get bored, player needs change over time.
One day, I might feel like raiding. The next, I might feel like doing some PvP. The next, I might fancy doing some solo stuff.
If an MMO has a wide variety of activities, then it can suit my changing moods and keep me in game for longer. By keeping me in game longer, not only does the company earn more money but I am more likely to form social connections. These social connections help build the community which in itself helps increase retention. The strongest communities are those with are diverse and inclusive.
Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs).
"Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.
There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?