For me it raises the issue, why even have a multiplayer game if you don't have to play it multiplayer? But I reject the idea that MMOs have some how failed us, or that the current big hitters are second rate. It is just way past time we tried some different formats.
ESO felt like another WoW clone that brought nothing new to the table.
That's the reason why I did NOT play ESO at release, because the beta felt like just another WoW. The major improvements they made and specially "One Tamriel" completely change the deal though. The freedom of activity and of character development in that game nowadays is only matched by few other games.
To be fair.. ESO was never intended to be something "new" or "Innovative" the Developers even admitted such when they were making the game, Their intention for ESO was to be fan service for those that liked and wanted more of the Elder Scrolls World to explore. It's good to see they opted to expand beyond that scope, and try to build a better game overall.
ESO was 'supposed' to be DAoC with an Elder Scrolls skin. At least that was what the top developer brass wanted. Unfortunately for them, the huge pool of fans were ES based, and didn't care for the artificially designed world walls. Told them in closed beta that they were doing it wrong, and suggested many changes that they (eventually) moved towards. They had to suffer through the effects of their design errors first though. Despite being an MMO, it was really difficult to team up with my friends. Oops. In a modern MMO, you need to have things that can be enjoyed solo, and things that require grouping. It's not rocket surgery.
Always thought the original design was better placed on consoles. Don't know what the sales split on the game has become, but I'd bet it was stronger there.
Humm not what I read when the game was first announced, but, I guess we each have our own channels, and while neither of may be wrong, we just heard different parts of the larger story.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
For me it raises the issue, why even have a multiplayer game if you don't have to play it multiplayer? But I reject the idea that MMOs have some how failed us, or that the current big hitters are second rate. It is just way past time we tried some different formats.
ESO felt like another WoW clone that brought nothing new to the table.
That's the reason why I did NOT play ESO at release, because the beta felt like just another WoW. The major improvements they made and specially "One Tamriel" completely change the deal though. The freedom of activity and of character development in that game nowadays is only matched by few other games.
To be fair.. ESO was never intended to be something "new" or "Innovative" the Developers even admitted such when they were making the game, Their intention for ESO was to be fan service for those that liked and wanted more of the Elder Scrolls World to explore. It's good to see they opted to expand beyond that scope, and try to build a better game overall.
ESO was 'supposed' to be DAoC with an Elder Scrolls skin. At least that was what the top developer brass wanted. Unfortunately for them, the huge pool of fans were ES based, and didn't care for the artificially designed world walls. Told them in closed beta that they were doing it wrong, and suggested many changes that they (eventually) moved towards. They had to suffer through the effects of their design errors first though. Despite being an MMO, it was really difficult to team up with my friends. Oops. In a modern MMO, you need to have things that can be enjoyed solo, and things that require grouping. It's not rocket surgery.
Always thought the original design was better placed on consoles. Don't know what the sales split on the game has become, but I'd bet it was stronger there.
Humm not what I read when the game was first announced, but, I guess we each have our own channels, and while neither of may be wrong, we just heard different parts of the larger story.
Matt Firor, producer of DAoC, was the boss of ESO as well. The design of the ESO factions and gameplay mirror the structure of DAoC. Locked three part alliance, PVE internally, with a PvP section to be fought over. ETC.
Agree on the not new or innovative, and really, it wouldn't have to have been. Folks can like more than one thing in a genre. I still fire it up. Still wandering around Morrowind admiring the mushroom homes...
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If I am forced to group to do the content, then the whole task of finding, forming and dealing with the other players of the group becomes a tedious obligation to do the content as opposed to an advantage or an enjoyable aspect of playing a Multi-player game.
A game should have content that rewards grouping, not forcing it.
To use an example, Dungeons and Dragons Online, has ways to mix classes to allow a build to do many things, DPS, self heal, stealth, etc.. and this makes it so that players who have gotten better at the game can make a build that can solo some of the most difficult content in the game.
While they can get more rewards, exp, and the like if they chose to group, they are not forced into needing to group.
PvP games work like this as well, where a player can chose to solo if they want, and take those risks that come with it, form a group, become part of a guild, have a network and what have you.
While grouping is not forced, it is advantageous, any game that plans to require or depend upon forced grouping, is already shooting itself in the from the get go as this leads to not only a lot of social issues, where people feel that they can demand that others enable this game experience, it also preys upon the idea that players will treat each other as a disposable resources.
To avoid that, grouping should have it's advantages, but it should not be required, this way, anyone that is grouped, wants to group with other people, and is not forced to do so.
That is why games that put too much emphasis upon forced group content find themselves vacant, which is why EQ died, it became mandatory to group just to do basic grind content in the upper levels, which made the whole process of leveling in and of itself tedious and slow.
Grouping should have it's advantages, but, if you have to force it, you end up with a lot of people in groups that do not want to be there to start with.. which makes grouping a real shit experience, like dealing with a co-worker that hates their job.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But if you make them group they call that "forced grouping". I was intrigued to see how many posters were against the idea of having a MMO that could be played in single player or multiplayer.
In the multiplayer version grouping would be needed to do nearly all quests in a group, and maybe even crafting would need more than one player to produce the finished product...some were appalled.
The reason why I saw this as a possible solution is that if you try to make a MMO that appeals to groupers and solos there is going to be an obvious problem, they don't like each others gameplay.
It is the elephant in the room which actually so often gets talked about but is then ignored. There are other possible solutions, have totally divergent progression paths for solo and group play. But I can imagine what they will say there: groupers will just do the solo sections and just get on with it, solo players will whinge endlessly about being "forced" to group.
I guess my problem with the idea is that I ain't that interested in playing a MMO as a single player games since other games already do that part better. I play MMOs for group play.
As I see it, some soloplay is more or less necceesarily since some people play odd hours (including me) and at times it is just too hard to get a good group. The problem is that the percentage of soloplay has gone up and the quality of group play has gone down.
EQ certainly didn't have perfect group dynamics but it worked. Now most games used a really dumbed down version of it's system so every class is as good for soloing as well as group play.
So just like you need a system that works both ways if you mix PvP and PvE you need a good system that can handle both group play and soloing if you want to mix them and in my opinion MMOs have failed there so far. EQ had pretty good group mechanics but sucked at soloing but it wasn't a big problem since it was such small part of the game.
Now we had at least 75% of the games content for soloers and the mechanics is for that as well so maybe the games focusing on soloers should skip the group play altogether and we should get a few group focused games for us that enjoy that gameplay instead (I hope for Pantheon).
The alternative is to invent a new kind of gameplay with combat mechanics that both works for soloers and have a good group dynamics instead. Then you pull up the rate to 50/50 instead of just having a few tutorial group dungeons and put the rest of the group content in the endgame.
Your version would only work with current mechanics if you use them for the singleplayer parts but use a different mechanic for group play or if you invent that new thing.
Crafting wise, no MMORPG has done it better than SWG, either before, or since, I would even go further and claim that nobody has implemented gathering resources for crafting better than SWG did either, and the best items in the game were made by crafters, not mob drops.
Look at EQ2 crafting when it first released, not quite as good as SWG, but very, very close, lots of dependency on other crafters. More involved than just click a button and gain an item.
As for combat and PvP, once again SWG handled PvP better than any MMORPG since, the way abilities functioned in a different way when used for PvE as opposed to PvP was great, the flagging system/factions worked perfectly.
As far as combat balance, I feel that is where MMOs go wrong in the first place, trying to get balance, when really, they should be aiming for a rock/paper/scissors type system.
Obviously the above is just my opinion, and sure, not every older MMORPG (or MMOwhatever) has or had better systems than newer MMOs, but you can certainly find older MMOs that do have, or had, better functionality of a certain system than a lot of MMOs today.
SWG was an awesome game! It was the first MMO I played and I have so many great memories playing it. The crafting system was amazing.... and it was STAR WARS! But to be honest, if they re-released SWG at whatever pre-NGE point was deemed the pinnacle and it was updated with better graphics than any game that currently exists, I probably still wouldn't play it. The classic MMO's were good, but they were good for their time. I am looking for something new. Here is my wish list for an MMO:
1. It has to be hard. I want to lose the first fight against the easiest mob and have to work to overcome it. I want to die often, so I am encouraged to improve. 2. No maps. I want to have to explore on my own and get lost. The world should be big, but not empty and devoid of content. Cities and village should be big enough to hold a believable population size. 3. No quest helpers. No indication of who has quests. No pointing me in the right direction. Quests should be more like riddles you have to figure out than go here and kill X. Quests should also have multiple paths to choose from and/or multiple ways to complete them. 4. No fast travel. Going from one city to another should be a journey that you have to prepare for. A journey you may not survive. 5. No levels and no XP gain from killing mobs. I don't want to play the get to max level as fast as you can type of game anymore. I also want to be able to invite a friend to join and both of us can play the same content without some kind of fake auto-difficulty system. 6. No classes. I want to be able to build my character however I want. I want each player to be unique with no two the same. Right now I am leaning toward a healing archer 7. PvP is okay in the game, but I don't want it to be a gankfest. If it has open world PvP, then I need there to be systems in place to protect me sometimes (guards, criminal penalties, etc). 8. I want a lot of content that can be completed by me and 3 or 4 friends. I want each of us to have roles that we fill, but I would like to see a new combat system that does not rely on the Trinity. 9. I want skill based real-time combat. No tab targeting, no cooldowns and let's get rid of RNG completely. But at the same time I want the combat to be deeply strategic. I want to be able to craft my own magic spells and tune them to my play style. 10. I want AI that is smart. I want the mobs to be challenging, not just because they are powerful, but because they can out-think me. AI should seem more like you are playing a human and less like a bot that just runs at you swinging. AI should be unpredictable. 11. I want a player run economy where the best items are crafted by players. A game where crafting is a role equal to combat, not a secondary skill that everyone gets. 12. I want social systems in cities that more closely approximate social systems in real life. I want player run city governments. I want NPC and player run guilds with levels and ranks to achieve. I want a limited number of player run non-instanced shops in each city where players bid on them each week and they go to the player willing to pay the most rent that week. 13. I want a game that does not focus on content that each player can complete alone, but focuses more on content that is shared by all players while it is active. You may be able to complete a quest on your own, but it isn't your copy of the same quest everyone else gets. 14. The game storyline is mysterious and compelling and does not focus on the player. The player can completely ignore what is happening in the world if they want or they can investigate it and further the storyline for everyone in the game. 15. Game systems should be designed to encourage community.
I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
I started in Asheron's Call, where it wasn't exactly necessary to group up with others, though it was way more efficient if you did. Would group up when I could at grinding spots, but otherwise would just run around solo doing shit, and that's how I liked it.
I've always been one of those players where I find it fun and motivating to see others around, and see their look and all that, but I don't necessarily care to ever group up with any of them.
Seems the genre has somewhat moved in alignment with my interests, but there is still forced grouping content regardless.
If I am forced to group to do the content, then the whole task of finding, forming and dealing with the other players of the group becomes a tedious obligation to do the content as opposed to an advantage or an enjoyable aspect of playing a Multi-player game.
A game should have content that rewards grouping, not forcing it.
To use an example, Dungeons and Dragons Online, has ways to mix classes to allow a build to do many things, DPS, self heal, stealth, etc.. and this makes it so that players who have gotten better at the game can make a build that can solo some of the most difficult content in the game.
While they can get more rewards, exp, and the like if they chose to group, they are not forced into needing to group.
PvP games work like this as well, where a player can chose to solo if they want, and take those risks that come with it, form a group, become part of a guild, have a network and what have you.
While grouping is not forced, it is advantageous, any game that plans to require or depend upon forced grouping, is already shooting itself in the from the get go as this leads to not only a lot of social issues, where people feel that they can demand that others enable this game experience, it also preys upon the idea that players will treat each other as a disposable resources.
To avoid that, grouping should have it's advantages, but it should not be required, this way, anyone that is grouped, wants to group with other people, and is not forced to do so.
That is why games that put too much emphasis upon forced group content find themselves vacant, which is why EQ died, it became mandatory to group just to do basic grind content in the upper levels, which made the whole process of leveling in and of itself tedious and slow.
Grouping should have it's advantages, but, if you have to force it, you end up with a lot of people in groups that do not want to be there to start with.. which makes grouping a real shit experience, like dealing with a co-worker that hates their job.
I totally agree, but the current trend is to not really encourage grouping at all until endgame, then require it for the highest-end content. It's a bait and switch of gameplay types.
Most devs don't give enough consideration to the logistics involved, which means that the advantage is hardly ever enough to warrant it.
I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
Is it confirmed that you won't be able to progress at all without a group? Or does it harken back to the time when grouping actually was the quickest way to progress and, as such, worth the logistics?
Wow killed the genre. It set a precedent in monetary value that just wasn't feasible and altered the who mmo genre to fit its mold. Prior to WoW we were getting all types of varying mmos then once WoW hit the market every mmo was pretty much just a formula with slight variations. (Darkfall online was developed prior to WoW hence why it was completely different from other mmos at the time 2008)
The casuals killed a genre that wasn't intended for them and now we are sifting through the ashes waiting on crowdfunded nonsense to actually come to fruition.
These forums are pretty dead(compared to what it use to be) and the site itself now labels games that have no right to be called an mmo(50man server/lobby games) and does bit pieces about other non mmos. Hopefully mmos will go back to their roots and see the advancement that was suppose to take place.
One of the big issues for MMOs today is most of the market they really chase, pre-teen to mid 20's have only played super casual solo MMOs. To them MMOs should be like the Witcher or Assassins Creed, graphically amazing and everything tailored to solo players.
It must be a bit of a shock reaching top level and finding you are expected to group for something like a raid. The social aspect for them is outside the game, on Twitter or Facebook. I see forced grouping as a very hard sell, but would like to see it tried.
What I think we need is a rebalancing like Loke talked about, though that is going to be very tough, it has been going this way for so long it will be like turning the tide.
But what really gets my about this is the way MMORPG's are now expected to be solo games but nobody expects co-op to be solo do they? In other genres it is perfectly acceptable to expect a group is needed. But not MMOs, OMG Forced Grouping!
I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
Is it confirmed that you won't be able to progress at all without a group? Or does it harken back to the time when grouping actually was the quickest way to progress and, as such, worth the logistics?
It's more like wishful thinking from the few who dream of a new EQ, I've yet to see the Pantheon developers explicitly say that grouping will be required all the time.
Precisely. I think there's some hyperbole going here with the "you can't progress without a group."
At least, my experience with that batch and era of MMORPGs left me with the impression that you could, in fact, level and progress without a group, but that joining a good group meant, for the duration of that group, you progressed exponentially faster. Farming red/purple con mobs in DAoC was efficient with a good group setup. That never meant my Paladin was helpless outside that group setup. That's for the best. I don't have a lotta experience with EQ, so I can't comment specifically on it, but I never felt like there was forced grouping in DAoC, only beneficial grouping.
Crafting wise, no MMORPG has done it better than SWG, either before, or since, I would even go further and claim that nobody has implemented gathering resources for crafting better than SWG did either, and the best items in the game were made by crafters, not mob drops.
Look at EQ2 crafting when it first released, not quite as good as SWG, but very, very close, lots of dependency on other crafters. More involved than just click a button and gain an item.
As for combat and PvP, once again SWG handled PvP better than any MMORPG since, the way abilities functioned in a different way when used for PvE as opposed to PvP was great, the flagging system/factions worked perfectly.
As far as combat balance, I feel that is where MMOs go wrong in the first place, trying to get balance, when really, they should be aiming for a rock/paper/scissors type system.
Obviously the above is just my opinion, and sure, not every older MMORPG (or MMOwhatever) has or had better systems than newer MMOs, but you can certainly find older MMOs that do have, or had, better functionality of a certain system than a lot of MMOs today.
SWG was an awesome game! It was the first MMO I played and I have so many great memories playing it. The crafting system was amazing.... and it was STAR WARS! But to be honest, if they re-released SWG at whatever pre-NGE point was deemed the pinnacle and it was updated with better graphics than any game that currently exists, I probably still wouldn't play it. The classic MMO's were good, but they were good for their time. I am looking for something new. Here is my wish list for an MMO:
1. It has to be hard. I want to lose the first fight against the easiest mob and have to work to overcome it. I want to die often, so I am encouraged to improve. 2. No maps. I want to have to explore on my own and get lost. The world should be big, but not empty and devoid of content. Cities and village should be big enough to hold a believable population size. 3. No quest helpers. No indication of who has quests. No pointing me in the right direction. Quests should be more like riddles you have to figure out than go here and kill X. Quests should also have multiple paths to choose from and/or multiple ways to complete them. 4. No fast travel. Going from one city to another should be a journey that you have to prepare for. A journey you may not survive. 5. No levels and no XP gain from killing mobs. I don't want to play the get to max level as fast as you can type of game anymore. I also want to be able to invite a friend to join and both of us can play the same content without some kind of fake auto-difficulty system. 6. No classes. I want to be able to build my character however I want. I want each player to be unique with no two the same. Right now I am leaning toward a healing archer 7. PvP is okay in the game, but I don't want it to be a gankfest. If it has open world PvP, then I need there to be systems in place to protect me sometimes (guards, criminal penalties, etc). 8. I want a lot of content that can be completed by me and 3 or 4 friends. I want each of us to have roles that we fill, but I would like to see a new combat system that does not rely on the Trinity. 9. I want skill based real-time combat. No tab targeting, no cooldowns and let's get rid of RNG completely. But at the same time I want the combat to be deeply strategic. I want to be able to craft my own magic spells and tune them to my play style. 10. I want AI that is smart. I want the mobs to be challenging, not just because they are powerful, but because they can out-think me. AI should seem more like you are playing a human and less like a bot that just runs at you swinging. AI should be unpredictable. 11. I want a player run economy where the best items are crafted by players. A game where crafting is a role equal to combat, not a secondary skill that everyone gets. 12. I want social systems in cities that more closely approximate social systems in real life. I want player run city governments. I want NPC and player run guilds with levels and ranks to achieve. I want a limited number of player run non-instanced shops in each city where players bid on them each week and they go to the player willing to pay the most rent that week. 13. I want a game that does not focus on content that each player can complete alone, but focuses more on content that is shared by all players while it is active. You may be able to complete a quest on your own, but it isn't your copy of the same quest everyone else gets. 14. The game storyline is mysterious and compelling and does not focus on the player. The player can completely ignore what is happening in the world if they want or they can investigate it and further the storyline for everyone in the game. 15. Game systems should be designed to encourage community.
If anyone knows of a game like this, let me know
You have a better chance of being hit by lightning...twice in one day vs the possibility of this exact game ever being made.
Classic mistake, looking for games with a large laundry list of "desired" features.
If you find a game that contains even 5 of them you should be playing the heck out of it. (Several come to mind btw)
But likely you won't, for "reasons" so all I can say is, better consider wearing rubber soled shoes going forward.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I remember that night. There I was, blissfully enjoying an old school game, and suddenly, glass breaking, a flash bang goes off, and I thought I had been swatted. But no, it was the gaming industry, taking my grouping experience from me by FORCE!
Post edited by Amathe on
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
If I am forced to group to do the content, then the whole task of finding, forming and dealing with the other players of the group becomes a tedious obligation to do the content as opposed to an advantage or an enjoyable aspect of playing a Multi-player game.
A game should have content that rewards grouping, not forcing it.
To use an example, Dungeons and Dragons Online, has ways to mix classes to allow a build to do many things, DPS, self heal, stealth, etc.. and this makes it so that players who have gotten better at the game can make a build that can solo some of the most difficult content in the game.
While they can get more rewards, exp, and the like if they chose to group, they are not forced into needing to group.
PvP games work like this as well, where a player can chose to solo if they want, and take those risks that come with it, form a group, become part of a guild, have a network and what have you.
While grouping is not forced, it is advantageous, any game that plans to require or depend upon forced grouping, is already shooting itself in the from the get go as this leads to not only a lot of social issues, where people feel that they can demand that others enable this game experience, it also preys upon the idea that players will treat each other as a disposable resources.
To avoid that, grouping should have it's advantages, but it should not be required, this way, anyone that is grouped, wants to group with other people, and is not forced to do so.
That is why games that put too much emphasis upon forced group content find themselves vacant, which is why EQ died, it became mandatory to group just to do basic grind content in the upper levels, which made the whole process of leveling in and of itself tedious and slow.
Grouping should have it's advantages, but, if you have to force it, you end up with a lot of people in groups that do not want to be there to start with.. which makes grouping a real shit experience, like dealing with a co-worker that hates their job.
I totally agree, but the current trend is to not really encourage grouping at all until endgame, then require it for the highest-end content. It's a bait and switch of gameplay types.
Most devs don't give enough consideration to the logistics involved, which means that the advantage is hardly ever enough to warrant it.
This does seem to be case with most games, and I agree it feels like a bait and switch move with the whole feel of the game. The worst part of this, is that they don't reward or encourage grouping during the whole process upward.
Which in the end of things, makes it bad design and game planning.
Which is why, games that build up and reward grouping from the start to the end as opposed to having separate content, all content can be done in a team or a solo or with the help of others even if you are not grouped.
A great example is GW2's dynamic events, this really builds a whole feel that we are all working together, even if we are not in the same group and don't all need to be playing some role. Equally so, GW2 has raids now, which are forced group content, so they have regressed back to a more generic MMO content pattern.
Other games, like DDO for example, which is all instance based content, has dungeon scaling, and dungeon difficulty levels, allowing players to solo on easy settings, and group for harder setting, or if they want, they can solo harder settings, and group for easier settings (training runs anyone?)
In that regard, they really made a game that allowed for it ti be played many different ways, but a a lot of that allowance was also around their build and gear set ups that allowed players to overcome class weakness by adding in other classes, or using items to do added needed tasks.. like wands of healing for a warrior class, or even having a henchmen when you needed someone else to pull the lever and find the traps.. LOL.
In that game, people grouped because they enjoyed the group[ dynamic not because they were forced to depend on other players, this allowed the whole grouping experience to have a hugely different feel to it then I have dealt with in other games, a lot less hostility and toxic feel, and that was due to the idea that, if you were grouping or PUIGing, it was because you wanted to, not because you had to.
Given the power levels in that game that could be acquired made it so that a veteran player could easy solo some of the hardest dungeons and even solo some of the raids. This, it was not uncommon for vets to solo content and then invite people in for the loot rewards, in exchange of course if they got some special loot, they give it to the person that soloed the content, so even then, grouping was not as punitive in the dependency area, because if all else fails, someone could just carry the group to victory.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
For me it raises the issue, why even have a multiplayer game if you don't have to play it multiplayer? But I reject the idea that MMOs have some how failed us, or that the current big hitters are second rate. It is just way past time we tried some different formats.
ESO felt like another WoW clone that brought nothing new to the table.
That's the reason why I did NOT play ESO at release, because the beta felt like just another WoW. The major improvements they made and specially "One Tamriel" completely change the deal though. The freedom of activity and of character development in that game nowadays is only matched by few other games.
To be fair.. ESO was never intended to be something "new" or "Innovative" the Developers even admitted such when they were making the game, Their intention for ESO was to be fan service for those that liked and wanted more of the Elder Scrolls World to explore. It's good to see they opted to expand beyond that scope, and try to build a better game overall.
ESO was 'supposed' to be DAoC with an Elder Scrolls skin. At least that was what the top developer brass wanted. Unfortunately for them, the huge pool of fans were ES based, and didn't care for the artificially designed world walls. Told them in closed beta that they were doing it wrong, and suggested many changes that they (eventually) moved towards. They had to suffer through the effects of their design errors first though. Despite being an MMO, it was really difficult to team up with my friends. Oops. In a modern MMO, you need to have things that can be enjoyed solo, and things that require grouping. It's not rocket surgery.
Always thought the original design was better placed on consoles. Don't know what the sales split on the game has become, but I'd bet it was stronger there.
It was always designed to be a console game from the start. That was their primary target. They just released it to the PC crowd first to be paying beta testers. By the time they released it to the console crowd it was a much better game, at least in terms of bugs.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Crafting wise, no MMORPG has done it better than SWG, either before, or since, I would even go further and claim that nobody has implemented gathering resources for crafting better than SWG did either, and the best items in the game were made by crafters, not mob drops.
Look at EQ2 crafting when it first released, not quite as good as SWG, but very, very close, lots of dependency on other crafters. More involved than just click a button and gain an item.
As for combat and PvP, once again SWG handled PvP better than any MMORPG since, the way abilities functioned in a different way when used for PvE as opposed to PvP was great, the flagging system/factions worked perfectly.
As far as combat balance, I feel that is where MMOs go wrong in the first place, trying to get balance, when really, they should be aiming for a rock/paper/scissors type system.
Obviously the above is just my opinion, and sure, not every older MMORPG (or MMOwhatever) has or had better systems than newer MMOs, but you can certainly find older MMOs that do have, or had, better functionality of a certain system than a lot of MMOs today.
SWG was an awesome game! It was the first MMO I played and I have so many great memories playing it. The crafting system was amazing.... and it was STAR WARS! But to be honest, if they re-released SWG at whatever pre-NGE point was deemed the pinnacle and it was updated with better graphics than any game that currently exists, I probably still wouldn't play it. The classic MMO's were good, but they were good for their time. I am looking for something new. Here is my wish list for an MMO:
1. It has to be hard. I want to lose the first fight against the easiest mob and have to work to overcome it. I want to die often, so I am encouraged to improve. 2. No maps. I want to have to explore on my own and get lost. The world should be big, but not empty and devoid of content. Cities and village should be big enough to hold a believable population size. 3. No quest helpers. No indication of who has quests. No pointing me in the right direction. Quests should be more like riddles you have to figure out than go here and kill X. Quests should also have multiple paths to choose from and/or multiple ways to complete them. 4. No fast travel. Going from one city to another should be a journey that you have to prepare for. A journey you may not survive. 5. No levels and no XP gain from killing mobs. I don't want to play the get to max level as fast as you can type of game anymore. I also want to be able to invite a friend to join and both of us can play the same content without some kind of fake auto-difficulty system. 6. No classes. I want to be able to build my character however I want. I want each player to be unique with no two the same. Right now I am leaning toward a healing archer 7. PvP is okay in the game, but I don't want it to be a gankfest. If it has open world PvP, then I need there to be systems in place to protect me sometimes (guards, criminal penalties, etc). 8. I want a lot of content that can be completed by me and 3 or 4 friends. I want each of us to have roles that we fill, but I would like to see a new combat system that does not rely on the Trinity. 9. I want skill based real-time combat. No tab targeting, no cooldowns and let's get rid of RNG completely. But at the same time I want the combat to be deeply strategic. I want to be able to craft my own magic spells and tune them to my play style. 10. I want AI that is smart. I want the mobs to be challenging, not just because they are powerful, but because they can out-think me. AI should seem more like you are playing a human and less like a bot that just runs at you swinging. AI should be unpredictable. 11. I want a player run economy where the best items are crafted by players. A game where crafting is a role equal to combat, not a secondary skill that everyone gets. 12. I want social systems in cities that more closely approximate social systems in real life. I want player run city governments. I want NPC and player run guilds with levels and ranks to achieve. I want a limited number of player run non-instanced shops in each city where players bid on them each week and they go to the player willing to pay the most rent that week. 13. I want a game that does not focus on content that each player can complete alone, but focuses more on content that is shared by all players while it is active. You may be able to complete a quest on your own, but it isn't your copy of the same quest everyone else gets. 14. The game storyline is mysterious and compelling and does not focus on the player. The player can completely ignore what is happening in the world if they want or they can investigate it and further the storyline for everyone in the game. 15. Game systems should be designed to encourage community.
If anyone knows of a game like this, let me know
Let me start by saying this is all just opinion with the exception of the discussion boards comment, that is based on fact.
The thing about SWG, in my opinion, was it was so far ahead of its time. It was also my first MMO and if they did re-release it, obviously pre-NGE, with the Knight Trails, after a very serious bug sweep/fix I feel it would be a game that many would enjoy.
The biggest issue with SWG was two-fold.
1. Bugs, there were so many, it was just ridiculous that they kept adding content without first fixing what was in some cases game breaking bugs.
2. Chat boards. I wish I had kept screenshots of the chat boards. It was literally pages and pages of crying about how hard it was to become Jedi.
I feel that if they had not listened to the whining majority and stayed true to the path they set out on SOE would have been able to not only keep that game alive, but it would have thrived. However, they did not. They caved to the people that were on the board more than in the game and we got what we ended up with. A watered down million Jedi crap fest that was so truly uninspired it was ridiculous.
I would love to see SWG come back. With conditions:
The only fast travel would be via shuttlecraft. Which you would either have to craft, buy, or steal.
No fast travel to dungeons. Maps blacked out until you had actually explored an area.
Mounts yes.
The SWG crafting/building system yes.
Gathering (with some refinements) yes.
Obviously, the dungeons and theme parks would need a going over, but mostly yes.
The old Jedi system. Yes
The bounty system, yes, please!
City building, in designated areas. Again yes!
I have wet on to long at this point, but you get my drift.
It would need a lot of work, but I think it would be an awesome game now.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I remember that night. There I was, blissfully enjoying an old school game, and suddenly, glass breaking, a flash bang goes of, and I thought I had been swatted. But no, it was the gaming industry, taking my grouping experience from me by FORCE!
I was watching the remake of Fahrenheit 451 the other night, (not a notable film btw) but I do recall one good piece of dialogue applicable here.
The character Kira is speaking to the main fireman Montague (?) about how the burning of books all got started.
Basically she said something like, "They" did not do this to us, we asked for this, and we got what we asked for. (Freedom from worry, strife and conflict which comes from knowledge)
So the changing designs of MMORPGs is not something game developers just came up with to inflict on "us", they gave gamers the design's they were largely asking for.
Thing is, there were many unintended consequences from these changes, (much as was true in the original designs) which can be either positive or negative from both a player and developer viewpoint and often based on personal preference, especially for gamers.
Devs largely became increasingly driven by economic models which was to be expected as costs to create games spiralled ever upwards.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
Is it confirmed that you won't be able to progress at all without a group? Or does it harken back to the time when grouping actually was the quickest way to progress and, as such, worth the logistics?
Grouping wasn't the quickest way to progress. Solo or duo often was, but grouping was the safest. That was an important consideration. Do I get more xp per kill and more loot for myself at greater risk of PK or death and xp penalty? Or do I group up with 2 or 3 more people and we burn through stuff faster and probably get a little lower xp overall but are very unlikely to face PK or death xp loss.
The problems, solutions, and situations "back then" were more complex than people are making them out to be now. Outside of EQ most content wasn't arbitrarily divided into group and not-group. It was just content and if you were good and powerful enough you could solo, or do it with fewer people. Reward drops were based on damage contribution.
Of first gen MMOs only EQ was the "had" to group game. It was the only game where characters were weak mewling piglets that needed each other to change a light bulb or tie their shoes or face a deer. The spinoffs and followups that came closely on its heels (DAoC, FFXI, etc) mimicked that pattern of "helpless weak character unable to accomplish a task without help".
This was just not true in the case of DAoC, though. Solo or duo was much slower than a full group that included all roles. It damn near felt like power-leveling at times when you had a group that was chaining purple mobs. You didn't want to log off because you were making such great gains in such little time.
Grouping was far more efficient, assuming you weren't trying to put together a full group of Infiltrators or something.
That's lost today. Grouping does not exponentially increase the efficiency of progression during leveling. It's reserved as a gateway to additional content that can't be accomplished solo.
I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
Is it confirmed that you won't be able to progress at all without a group? Or does it harken back to the time when grouping actually was the quickest way to progress and, as such, worth the logistics?
Grouping wasn't the quickest way to progress. Solo or duo often was, but grouping was the safest. That was an important consideration. Do I get more xp per kill and more loot for myself at greater risk of PK or death and xp penalty? Or do I group up with 2 or 3 more people and we burn through stuff faster and probably get a little lower xp overall but are very unlikely to face PK or death xp loss.
The problems, solutions, and situations "back then" were more complex than people are making them out to be now. Outside of EQ most content wasn't arbitrarily divided into group and not-group. It was just content and if you were good and powerful enough you could solo, or do it with fewer people. Reward drops were based on damage contribution.
Of first gen MMOs only EQ was the "had" to group game. It was the only game where characters were weak mewling piglets that needed each other to change a light bulb or tie their shoes or face a deer. The spinoffs and followups that came closely on its heels (DAoC, FFXI, etc) mimicked that pattern of "helpless weak character unable to accomplish a task without help".
This was just not true in the case of DAoC, though. Solo or duo was much slower than a full group that included all roles. It damn near felt like power-leveling at times when you had a group that was chaining purple mobs. You didn't want to log off because you were making such great gains in such little time.
Grouping was far more efficient, assuming you weren't trying to put together a full group of Infiltrators or something.
That's lost today. Grouping does not exponentially increase the efficiency of progression during leveling. It's reserved as a gateway to additional content that can't be accomplished solo.
Right, DAoC is one of those follow on games that imitated the EQ mindset not just with grouping but with contrived themepark factions too. You didn't have those arbitrary lines in the first gen games except EQ. UO, Lineage, AC were all fairly open and let players do what they wanted how they wanted. It was EQ that said, "you're a tank, or a 'this' or 'that' and you can only succeed if you get the other plug-n-play puzzle pieces together". Other games had roles too but they allowed for a lot more freedom in how those roles were combined and used to overcome content.
Again, grouping was only more efficient always in EQ and games that followed its design. Grouping in other games was more efficient in some ways, but not in others. There were tradeoffs to everything, unlike EQ or DAoC or FF11 where there were clearly right and wrong ways to do the content. Those games mostly defined "on-rails" for the rest of the industry which I feel WoW cut, polished, and made digestible to the masses.
Grouping today is still always more efficient in the long run than soloing. It's faster and easier access to xp, leveling, and the best gear. Need a recent example? Rift Prime. If you focused and grouped, like some members of the guild did, you'd rocket to the top. Group grinding is still king.
It's not enough of an advantage for players to actually take to it without the game searching, grouping, and many times, porting the members to a dungeon entrance. WoW even went full-tilt and ensured you had everyone ever to pull from. There is no social community to be had from pulling from a pool like that.
Even in vanilla WoW, many classes still enjoyed a more consistently effective leveling progression by merely grinding solo. Food reduced the downtime experienced by not having classes like a healer. Both my Paladin and my Mage experienced this.
That's my point: most devs give poor consideration to the logistics of grouping. Many have tried to ensure those logistics are completely mitigated, but that came with a cost in and of itself (aforementioned cross-realm grouping in WoW). The trend hasn't been to merely give the due consideration to the extra time and effort it would take to amass a band of adventurers, instead sectioning off swathes of content that "required" a group to complete at all. That's forced grouping.
Having a well-oiled group greatly increase rate of progression is not forced grouping. It's beneficial grouping.
Old school, group play was taken away by FORCE. At what point did people say "I no longer want it". People seem to get mad as hell when I bring this up for some odd reason. It truly is fact, yet it angers people.
- Why are people not playing EverQuest 1 ?..... Simple, it's old and dated !!! - Why are people not playing EverQuest 2 ?..... Simple, its old and dated and it changed to unplayable !!!
This is so much fact, it should be a sticky on the main page of this site. But instead people get pissed....
If you had apples (good) and Bananas (good), and you take away apples by force, then you only have bananas. Sure people are eating a lot of bananas. But no one ever seems to ask "why did apples go away ?"
Lot's of people would like apples (good) Lot's of people would like old school (good)
If you took away apples by force it would just make people crave apples more. So the more you take away by force the more we want it.
Old school, group play was taken away by FORCE. At what point did people say "I no longer want it". People seem to get mad as hell when I bring this up for some odd reason. It truly is fact, yet it angers people.
- Why are people not playing EverQuest 1 ?..... Simple, it's old and dated !!! - Why are people not playing EverQuest 2 ?..... Simple, its old and dated and it changed to unplayable !!!
This is so much fact, it should be a sticky on the main page of this site. But instead people get pissed....
If you had apples (good) and Bananas (good), and you take away apples by force, then you only have bananas. Sure people are eating a lot of bananas. But no one ever seems to ask "why did apples go away ?"
Lot's of people would like apples (good) Lot's of people would like old school (good)
It was not taken away by force at all, players asked for it to be taken away (not all, but some).
Take WoW as an example, Vanilla WoW was a lot harder than Legion WoW is now, and it got the way it is now due to people on the WoW forums complaining.
They complained it was too hard to hit level cap, took too long, needs to be easier as they do not have enough time during their play sessions to gain a level or two.
They complained it was too hard and/or complicated to get attuned to dungeons/raids.
They complained that it was too hard to raid, too hard to organise 40 people and go kill raid mobs.
They complained that it was not fair that only raiders could get the best gear in the game.
They basically complained WoW into what it is today.
But some players liked vanilla WoW the most, so unofficial vanilla/classic servers popped up, and they had healthy player pops.
Now they are creating official classic servers, based on WoW 1.12, and already people are claiming it will not work, will be dead within x number of months, etc etc.
It is not Devs taking anything away by force, it is the vocal whiners on forums getting what they ask for.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Comments
Agree on the not new or innovative, and really, it wouldn't have to have been. Folks can like more than one thing in a genre. I still fire it up. Still wandering around Morrowind admiring the mushroom homes...
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think the idea of forced grouping is shit.
If I am forced to group to do the content, then the whole task of finding, forming and dealing with the other players of the group becomes a tedious obligation to do the content as opposed to an advantage or an enjoyable aspect of playing a Multi-player game.
A game should have content that rewards grouping, not forcing it.
To use an example, Dungeons and Dragons Online, has ways to mix classes to allow a build to do many things, DPS, self heal, stealth, etc.. and this makes it so that players who have gotten better at the game can make a build that can solo some of the most difficult content in the game.
While they can get more rewards, exp, and the like if they chose to group, they are not forced into needing to group.
PvP games work like this as well, where a player can chose to solo if they want, and take those risks that come with it, form a group, become part of a guild, have a network and what have you.
While grouping is not forced, it is advantageous, any game that plans to require or depend upon forced grouping, is already shooting itself in the from the get go as this leads to not only a lot of social issues, where people feel that they can demand that others enable this game experience, it also preys upon the idea that players will treat each other as a disposable resources.
To avoid that, grouping should have it's advantages, but it should not be required, this way, anyone that is grouped, wants to group with other people, and is not forced to do so.
That is why games that put too much emphasis upon forced group content find themselves vacant, which is why EQ died, it became mandatory to group just to do basic grind content in the upper levels, which made the whole process of leveling in and of itself tedious and slow.
Grouping should have it's advantages, but, if you have to force it, you end up with a lot of people in groups that do not want to be there to start with.. which makes grouping a real shit experience, like dealing with a co-worker that hates their job.
As I see it, some soloplay is more or less necceesarily since some people play odd hours (including me) and at times it is just too hard to get a good group. The problem is that the percentage of soloplay has gone up and the quality of group play has gone down.
EQ certainly didn't have perfect group dynamics but it worked. Now most games used a really dumbed down version of it's system so every class is as good for soloing as well as group play.
So just like you need a system that works both ways if you mix PvP and PvE you need a good system that can handle both group play and soloing if you want to mix them and in my opinion MMOs have failed there so far. EQ had pretty good group mechanics but sucked at soloing but it wasn't a big problem since it was such small part of the game.
Now we had at least 75% of the games content for soloers and the mechanics is for that as well so maybe the games focusing on soloers should skip the group play altogether and we should get a few group focused games for us that enjoy that gameplay instead (I hope for Pantheon).
The alternative is to invent a new kind of gameplay with combat mechanics that both works for soloers and have a good group dynamics instead. Then you pull up the rate to 50/50 instead of just having a few tutorial group dungeons and put the rest of the group content in the endgame.
Your version would only work with current mechanics if you use them for the singleplayer parts but use a different mechanic for group play or if you invent that new thing.
1. It has to be hard. I want to lose the first fight against the easiest mob and have to work to overcome it. I want to die often, so I am encouraged to improve.
2. No maps. I want to have to explore on my own and get lost. The world should be big, but not empty and devoid of content. Cities and village should be big enough to hold a believable population size.
3. No quest helpers. No indication of who has quests. No pointing me in the right direction. Quests should be more like riddles you have to figure out than go here and kill X. Quests should also have multiple paths to choose from and/or multiple ways to complete them.
4. No fast travel. Going from one city to another should be a journey that you have to prepare for. A journey you may not survive.
5. No levels and no XP gain from killing mobs. I don't want to play the get to max level as fast as you can type of game anymore. I also want to be able to invite a friend to join and both of us can play the same content without some kind of fake auto-difficulty system.
6. No classes. I want to be able to build my character however I want. I want each player to be unique with no two the same. Right now I am leaning toward a healing archer
7. PvP is okay in the game, but I don't want it to be a gankfest. If it has open world PvP, then I need there to be systems in place to protect me sometimes (guards, criminal penalties, etc).
8. I want a lot of content that can be completed by me and 3 or 4 friends. I want each of us to have roles that we fill, but I would like to see a new combat system that does not rely on the Trinity.
9. I want skill based real-time combat. No tab targeting, no cooldowns and let's get rid of RNG completely. But at the same time I want the combat to be deeply strategic. I want to be able to craft my own magic spells and tune them to my play style.
10. I want AI that is smart. I want the mobs to be challenging, not just because they are powerful, but because they can out-think me. AI should seem more like you are playing a human and less like a bot that just runs at you swinging. AI should be unpredictable.
11. I want a player run economy where the best items are crafted by players. A game where crafting is a role equal to combat, not a secondary skill that everyone gets.
12. I want social systems in cities that more closely approximate social systems in real life. I want player run city governments. I want NPC and player run guilds with levels and ranks to achieve. I want a limited number of player run non-instanced shops in each city where players bid on them each week and they go to the player willing to pay the most rent that week.
13. I want a game that does not focus on content that each player can complete alone, but focuses more on content that is shared by all players while it is active. You may be able to complete a quest on your own, but it isn't your copy of the same quest everyone else gets.
14. The game storyline is mysterious and compelling and does not focus on the player. The player can completely ignore what is happening in the world if they want or they can investigate it and further the storyline for everyone in the game.
15. Game systems should be designed to encourage community.
If anyone knows of a game like this, let me know
I've always been one of those players where I find it fun and motivating to see others around, and see their look and all that, but I don't necessarily care to ever group up with any of them.
Seems the genre has somewhat moved in alignment with my interests, but there is still forced grouping content regardless.
Most devs don't give enough consideration to the logistics involved, which means that the advantage is hardly ever enough to warrant it.
The casuals killed a genre that wasn't intended for them and now we are sifting through the ashes waiting on crowdfunded nonsense to actually come to fruition.
These forums are pretty dead(compared to what it use to be) and the site itself now labels games that have no right to be called an mmo(50man server/lobby games) and does bit pieces about other non mmos. Hopefully mmos will go back to their roots and see the advancement that was suppose to take place.
MurderHerd
It must be a bit of a shock reaching top level and finding you are expected to group for something like a raid. The social aspect for them is outside the game, on Twitter or Facebook. I see forced grouping as a very hard sell, but would like to see it tried.
What I think we need is a rebalancing like Loke talked about, though that is going to be very tough, it has been going this way for so long it will be like turning the tide.
But what really gets my about this is the way MMORPG's are now expected to be solo games but nobody expects co-op to be solo do they? In other genres it is perfectly acceptable to expect a group is needed. But not MMOs, OMG Forced Grouping!
At least, my experience with that batch and era of MMORPGs left me with the impression that you could, in fact, level and progress without a group, but that joining a good group meant, for the duration of that group, you progressed exponentially faster. Farming red/purple con mobs in DAoC was efficient with a good group setup. That never meant my Paladin was helpless outside that group setup. That's for the best. I don't have a lotta experience with EQ, so I can't comment specifically on it, but I never felt like there was forced grouping in DAoC, only beneficial grouping.
Classic mistake, looking for games with a large laundry list of "desired" features.
If you find a game that contains even 5 of them you should be playing the heck out of it. (Several come to mind btw)
But likely you won't, for "reasons" so all I can say is, better consider wearing rubber soled shoes going forward.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Which in the end of things, makes it bad design and game planning.
Which is why, games that build up and reward grouping from the start to the end as opposed to having separate content, all content can be done in a team or a solo or with the help of others even if you are not grouped.
A great example is GW2's dynamic events, this really builds a whole feel that we are all working together, even if we are not in the same group and don't all need to be playing some role. Equally so, GW2 has raids now, which are forced group content, so they have regressed back to a more generic MMO content pattern.
Other games, like DDO for example, which is all instance based content, has dungeon scaling, and dungeon difficulty levels, allowing players to solo on easy settings, and group for harder setting, or if they want, they can solo harder settings, and group for easier settings (training runs anyone?)
In that regard, they really made a game that allowed for it ti be played many different ways, but a a lot of that allowance was also around their build and gear set ups that allowed players to overcome class weakness by adding in other classes, or using items to do added needed tasks.. like wands of healing for a warrior class, or even having a henchmen when you needed someone else to pull the lever and find the traps.. LOL.
In that game, people grouped because they enjoyed the group[ dynamic not because they were forced to depend on other players, this allowed the whole grouping experience to have a hugely different feel to it then I have dealt with in other games, a lot less hostility and toxic feel, and that was due to the idea that, if you were grouping or PUIGing, it was because you wanted to, not because you had to.
Given the power levels in that game that could be acquired made it so that a veteran player could easy solo some of the hardest dungeons and even solo some of the raids. This, it was not uncommon for vets to solo content and then invite people in for the loot rewards, in exchange of course if they got some special loot, they give it to the person that soloed the content, so even then, grouping was not as punitive in the dependency area, because if all else fails, someone could just carry the group to victory.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
The thing about SWG, in my opinion, was it was so far ahead of its time. It was also my first MMO and if they did re-release it, obviously pre-NGE, with the Knight Trails, after a very serious bug sweep/fix I feel it would be a game that many would enjoy.
The biggest issue with SWG was two-fold.
1. Bugs, there were so many, it was just ridiculous that they kept adding content without first fixing what was in some cases game breaking bugs.
2. Chat boards. I wish I had kept screenshots of the chat boards. It was literally pages and pages of crying about how hard it was to become Jedi.
I feel that if they had not listened to the whining majority and stayed true to the path they set out on SOE would have been able to not only keep that game alive, but it would have thrived. However, they did not. They caved to the people that were on the board more than in the game and we got what we ended up with. A watered down million Jedi crap fest that was so truly uninspired it was ridiculous.
I would love to see SWG come back. With conditions:
The only fast travel would be via shuttlecraft. Which you would either have to craft, buy, or steal.
No fast travel to dungeons. Maps blacked out until you had actually explored an area.
Mounts yes.
The SWG crafting/building system yes.
Gathering (with some refinements) yes.
Obviously, the dungeons and theme parks would need a going over, but mostly yes.
The old Jedi system. Yes
The bounty system, yes, please!
City building, in designated areas. Again yes!
I have wet on to long at this point, but you get my drift.
It would need a lot of work, but I think it would be an awesome game now.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
The character Kira is speaking to the main fireman Montague (?) about how the burning of books all got started.
Basically she said something like, "They" did not do this to us, we asked for this, and we got what we asked for. (Freedom from worry, strife and conflict which comes from knowledge)
So the changing designs of MMORPGs is not something game developers just came up with to inflict on "us", they gave gamers the design's they were largely asking for.
Thing is, there were many unintended consequences from these changes, (much as was true in the original designs) which can be either positive or negative from both a player and developer viewpoint and often based on personal preference, especially for gamers.
Devs largely became increasingly driven by economic models which was to be expected as costs to create games spiralled ever upwards.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Grouping was far more efficient, assuming you weren't trying to put together a full group of Infiltrators or something.
That's lost today. Grouping does not exponentially increase the efficiency of progression during leveling. It's reserved as a gateway to additional content that can't be accomplished solo.
Even in vanilla WoW, many classes still enjoyed a more consistently effective leveling progression by merely grinding solo. Food reduced the downtime experienced by not having classes like a healer. Both my Paladin and my Mage experienced this.
That's my point: most devs give poor consideration to the logistics of grouping. Many have tried to ensure those logistics are completely mitigated, but that came with a cost in and of itself (aforementioned cross-realm grouping in WoW). The trend hasn't been to merely give the due consideration to the extra time and effort it would take to amass a band of adventurers, instead sectioning off swathes of content that "required" a group to complete at all. That's forced grouping.
Having a well-oiled group greatly increase rate of progression is not forced grouping. It's beneficial grouping.
Take WoW as an example, Vanilla WoW was a lot harder than Legion WoW is now, and it got the way it is now due to people on the WoW forums complaining.
They complained it was too hard to hit level cap, took too long, needs to be easier as they do not have enough time during their play sessions to gain a level or two.
They complained it was too hard and/or complicated to get attuned to dungeons/raids.
They complained that it was too hard to raid, too hard to organise 40 people and go kill raid mobs.
They complained that it was not fair that only raiders could get the best gear in the game.
They basically complained WoW into what it is today.
But some players liked vanilla WoW the most, so unofficial vanilla/classic servers popped up, and they had healthy player pops.
Now they are creating official classic servers, based on WoW 1.12, and already people are claiming it will not work, will be dead within x number of months, etc etc.
It is not Devs taking anything away by force, it is the vocal whiners on forums getting what they ask for.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...