The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
It would also add to the adventure aspect, not being able to look up guides explaining exactly how everything works, down to the math.
Yeah, but how does a game do that? What they can do is add some randomness, so that the numbers aren't fixed.
Edit: Oops, I lost track of what we were talking about, lol. Agreed!
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
It would also add to the adventure aspect, not being able to look up guides explaining exactly how everything works, down to the math.
Yeah, but how does a game do that? What they can do is add some randomness, so that the numbers are fixed.
Dynamic mob/content spawns coupled with periodic (i.e. every 6 months) passes that change the parameters for said dynamic system, would be my initial guess at the best way to do this.
Personally, I think if an MMO is abandoned it is totally legit for the community to take ownership. For example, City of Heroes is alive and well thanks to volunteers in the community. Check out City of Heroes Rebirth for more information if you miss the game and want to come back!
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
But you do want a relatively stable game world. There's lots of room for specific changes inside of that, though. Maybe unnoticeable to all but those who practice certain things, like fishing. Or actually spend time in certain areas long enough to notice. Such as Rangers who make it a point to keep informed on their forests.
I'm a big fan of dynamic content for games. Like you pointed out, it would drive the spoiler sites bonkers, and that can't be a bad thing. It would probably solve many of the current ills of the genre that everyone constantly discusses. Dynamically generated content could also give those who are looking for that nostalgic 'never done that' feeling a swift kick in the pantaloons. Then, maybe, players could stop whining about the good old days for at least long enough to enjoy a game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It's one of the things I liked most about Ryzom's world, and something Firefall tried to do as well, was regenerating resource maps with updates/seasons so that players would regularly explore and migrate around the world.
Dynamic content has been a hard one for developers to pin down and really leverage well. Part of the problem tends to come from some all or nothing mentalities where either entire systems are completely procedural, or nothing at all.
I do personally see dynamic content as a boon, and possessing much unused potential. From altering the logic behind how content is populated into a game world to how individual interactions with mobs takes place, even to how narrative systems are built to track and play off of player activity.
The reliance on static systems, mechanics, and tropes of other frameworks which ill-suit live and multi-user and collaborative environments has been a rather large thorn in seeing anything more come from the MMO genre, be it MMO"RPG" or otherwise.
Personally, I think if an MMO is abandoned it is totally legit for the community to take ownership. For example, City of Heroes is alive and well thanks to volunteers in the community. Check out City of Heroes Rebirth for more information if you miss the game and want to come back!
One thing I question is how much studios see in game communities as a money spinner? Not sure either way but if they did think a good community were a money maker for the game they would do a lot more to promote it. Which bodes ill for making a MMO a home for one and all.
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
But you do want a relatively stable game world. There's lots of room for specific changes inside of that, though. Maybe unnoticeable to all but those who practice certain things, like fishing. Or actually spend time in certain areas long enough to notice. Such as Rangers who make it a point to keep informed on their forests.
God that really makes me wish Chronicles of Elyria didn't die so early because that was a major design point of it.
Caspian should've just been the creative director instead of trying to run the whole studio.
I think eoloe was using that as part of an argument that current MMORPG offerings (outside of the hyper-focused ongoing crowdfunded projects) attempt to appeal to folks who don't really want a massively multiplayer experience.
Yes possibly eoloe was saying that. But the point still remains, if they are trying to appeal to the largest audience they are in fact failing at it. Compare our current world to 15 years ago, more people, more connected to internet, more people with access to games. Yet MMO's pull in less people for any sustained period than they used to. Obviously the target audience does not want what they are selling. The industry doesn't care because they continue to put out the cheapest product they can.
It would be a different story if they were showing HUGE successes but you just didn't like what they sold, like in old days Vanilla WoW had a lot of people hating on it. You might not like the product but had to respect it was popular.
My example would be Rice industry, if you were selling rice, its bland, not exactly nutritious yet how can you argue its not popular. If you compare that to say a niche market of Spicy Soul Food, it might have great taste people that eat it love it ... but you are not going to convince the Rice industry to switch their product and move it to Spicy Soul Food unless the is a change is purchasing habits.
However what we got in MMO land is BUG FOOD. They are selling us bug food, telling us how its amazing, but people know it sucks. Who cares if someone in the world likes it, because when you taste it, you know its gross and you don't want what they are selling. They don't care because they can get it in large quantities very cheap and force you to eat it if they remove all other options.
If this were true, then there would be a bunch of MMO's that are all more popular than they used to be. Yet all we see is a graveyard of failed MMO's. So obviously the strategy they are using is doing the exact opposite of catering to the most people.
If the MMO industry was actually trying to cater to the most people, then they are spectacularly failing at that. In the previous Generation of MMO's even average MMO's were hitting 300k+ SUBS for multiple years. Today most games cant even do it when they are FREE. Even the Top MMO's are less popular than they were a decade ago.
Actually I think they are trying to cater to the most people (with the odd exception here and there, and they are indeed failing at it.
I also wonder about that 300k amount. Was that really kept up over years or was that "at highest population."
I'm inclined to believe it was the latter.
If it's the former then I'd offer that the original group of people, the lion's share of them, are probably not interested in mmorpg's anymore. At least playing for hours and hours on end like we used to.
Most of the old games sustained their players over years and years with small drops over time. Not like the 99% drop offs you see now after 1 month.
Those numbers on the bottom are Years not Months FYI.
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
It would also add to the adventure aspect, not being able to look up guides explaining exactly how everything works, down to the math.
Yeah, but how does a game do that? What they can do is add some randomness, so that the numbers are fixed.
Dynamic mob/content spawns coupled with periodic (i.e. every 6 months) passes that change the parameters for said dynamic system, would be my initial guess at the best way to do this.
UO offered the beginnings of an idea, and other games did something like this too.
In UO, they had about 6 different kinds of ore. Eventually, to spice up Mining, they had a chance for each ore type to spawn their own version of an Earth Elemental, the chance being per mining target (or it could be time related in other systems).
I think this idea, of something causing a chance spawn, would be one answer. This could also apply to harvesting anything else, too.
Now, take this same idea and apply it to everything else about Dungeons and key overland spots. Kill all of the Orcs in a valley and the next spawn might replace them with Trolls, as an example.
A key point here, in my mind, is that you want some stability to the game world. Especially for common resources. So a Dungeon might always have certain types of resources (and their source MOBs), but only the top tier of MOBs might be replaced, as a sort of "temporary rulers of the Dungeon."
You can always add in random spawns too, per my first part of this post.
Back to the topic of Player socialization, these changes could be for longer periods, giving Players something to talk about. Both those looking to battle MOBs and those looking for resources.
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
But you do want a relatively stable game world. There's lots of room for specific changes inside of that, though. Maybe unnoticeable to all but those who practice certain things, like fishing. Or actually spend time in certain areas long enough to notice. Such as Rangers who make it a point to keep informed on their forests.
Exactly. Parts of the world that would procedurally generated would be awesome. And like you mentioned, only parts.
If it would be a world designed in concentric circles, then the center, the core would be the main hub and totally stable. The circle around it would have some changing elements but rather stable. The outer circle would entirely chaotic with ever-changing geography and high stakes challenges.
The goal of the MMO industry is catter as most people as they can.
Here is the problem with this argument.
If this were true, then there would be a bunch of MMO's that are all more popular than they used to be. Yet all we see is a graveyard of failed MMO's. So obviously the strategy they are using is doing the exact opposite of catering to the most people.
If the MMO industry was actually trying to cater to the most people, then they are spectacularly failing at that. In the previous Generation of MMO's even average MMO's were hitting 300k+ SUBS for multiple years. Today most games cant even do it when they are FREE. Even the Top MMO's are less popular than they were a decade ago.
I see the exact opposite. I see games that want to appeal to a specific crowd like Crowfall and they die on that hill. Many of the indie MMO's are saying they will be a niche game. Or the other option is the Devs are just completely unimaginative, clueless and lazy.
No they hope to appeal to a target audience and hope everyone will fall in line. This is happening in all of entertainment. Or don't even care, and release absolute junk and hope people will play it because they have no alternative.
If they were truly trying to appeal to the masses, then they would have massive amounts of players. Something is disconnected. It probably comes down to laziness combined with greed.
Yes they do.
First, the MMOs that catter all, no they are not failing. FFXIV is not failing, BDO is not failing. I don't play WoW, but I guess that despite not being in its former glory, it is still a successful monster, still spitting expansions...
Yes, niche games are failing, countering your own argument. But that was not my point nor the discussion I wanted to highlight.
You witness that a game is cattering as many as possible, when it includes so many different games in one. And most MMOs do that.
Firstly, you have the infamous PvP vs. PvE, that feeds on this very site so many threads.
After, you have crafting. I have read full rants online about games that do not provide this feature. There is a real pressure there.
You have also all the bad minigames that come from life-skilling, like in BDO or NW.
Someone could argue that it helps to build a world immersion. And to a certain extent it is true. Some people in BDO are dedicated wood cutter or fishers and feed the economy with their products.
But here, I see 2 problems that bring us outside of this conversation:
- some activities are mind dumbing and downgrade the overall MMO experience
- IMHO, yes this is a way to build a certain level of immersion/world credibility, but this is far from being the best way to build immersion/world credibility. It is sad to witness that the only alive part of a world is its economy when it exists at all... In order to go beyond this point, we need to leave the older WoW-clone model, and experience new concepts.
The goal of the MMO industry is catter as most people as they can.
Here is the problem with this argument.
If this were true, then there would be a bunch of MMO's that are all more popular than they used to be. Yet all we see is a graveyard of failed MMO's. So obviously the strategy they are using is doing the exact opposite of catering to the most people.
If the MMO industry was actually trying to cater to the most people, then they are spectacularly failing at that. In the previous Generation of MMO's even average MMO's were hitting 300k+ SUBS for multiple years. Today most games cant even do it when they are FREE. Even the Top MMO's are less popular than they were a decade ago.
I see the exact opposite. I see games that want to appeal to a specific crowd like Crowfall and they die on that hill. Many of the indie MMO's are saying they will be a niche game. Or the other option is the Devs are just completely unimaginative, clueless and lazy.
No they hope to appeal to a target audience and hope everyone will fall in line. This is happening in all of entertainment. Or don't even care, and release absolute junk and hope people will play it because they have no alternative.
If they were truly trying to appeal to the masses, then they would have massive amounts of players. Something is disconnected. It probably comes down to laziness combined with greed.
Yes they do.
First, the MMOs that catter all, no they are not failing. FFXIV is not failing, BDO is not failing. I don't play WoW, but I guess that despite not being in its former glory, it is still a successful monster, still spitting expansions...
Yes, niche games are failing, countering your own argument. But that was not my point nor the discussion I wanted to highlight.
Yes they are failing in comparison to the past. You bring up a couple of MMO's that are making it and use that to say the MMO genre is successful? If the genre is successful then why would they want to change LOL. So either there is a problem or not, make up your mind.
How can you say FFXIV catering to the masses is a problem if they are growing in Subs? You think FFXIV should change their strategy when they are at their highest growth?
So no, I am not talking about MMO's that are making it. I already brought up that it would have been dumb for WoW vanilla to change while growing subs. Which btw they did change later down the road from casual to very casual players and seen the largest drop in customers in the entire history of any MMO's.
BDO as a success? fine if by maintaining a few hundred thousand players while going free is success to you, then fine what's the problem then? No reason for them to change.
What about all the others thou, that are releasing trash and have 99% drop in players shortly after release? Like Crowfall, New World and Elyon as a few examples.
You say niche? is $35 mil budget niche? What about $250 mil budget? Your definition of niche is a bit broad don't you think? So make up your mind, either these big budget games are niche, or they are catering to the masses, which is it? You seem to be taking multiple sides of the argument and contradicting yourself.
The whole landscape of MMORPGs have changed. We have completely different types of players and making them play together is challenging. A lot of changes have been made and things that were considered sacred is no longer the case.
We also have a lot of players who prefer to solo so you cannot ignore them either if you want your game to succeed. I don't know the answer but forcing players to play together does also make them leave the game when they find themselves unable to progress. Balancing that is the key but I'll be damned if I know the way.
You cannot force players to play together if they don't want to. On the other hand, a lot of MMORPG players want to, or would if it's in the design at any rate.
The question is, does a game want to be more social. What are the benefits? - - Allows friendships to form. - - Good for Guilds and recruitment - - Gives players another reason to stay - - Fosters a richer feel to the game world - - Even non-guilded can more easily find groups from their relationships - - Makes any downtime more enjoyable - - Allows players to find "like-minded" - - More than "just a game" - - Offers more to do in-game through Player run events - - Gives more meaning to fame than just a name on a list - - Makes players feel their characters are a part of the world through recognition
In effect, socialization makes the game come alive in ways that don't happen without it.
I think the thing here, is that for me, Socialization is just that, being Social.
So when I need to focus on killing a dragon/god/vorpal bunny/some annoying hog that I hate the sound effect of, etc.. I am not in the mood to chat it up with you. I am doing something, and I am focusing on that.
IMHO the largest mistake that these game makers make, is thinking that players are going to socialize while doing tasks, no one does that. We don't socialize while we are laying bricks, we don't socialize while we are trying to get the paperwork done, we don't socialize while trying to get the ball to the touchdown line.
We socialize in-between all that.
We talk when sitting on the bench drinking Gatorade, or at the water cooler.
The thing is, modern MMO's don't have water coolers.
I think Runescape does it right there by having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting.
Runescape also stands out to be as having a completely anti-linear world design where players of all different levels will constantly cross paths all the time, and can be doing different things for different levels in the same areas. That broadens the scope of what players you can keep running into rather than just ones at your level.
That being said I think discord did a lot of harm to MMOs because it moved all the idle chat outside of the game to in-groups.
"having tasks that don't require constant attention and push lots of players into one place, like fishing or woodcutting."
Yes, this was the point I wanted to make in reply too. There are loads of things for players to do that don't require hardcore attention.
What you want then in the game design is to enhance reasons for talking. An ever-changing world is a good place to start. Random. So that the cheat sites have a hard time to keep up, and players want to trade current information.
But you do want a relatively stable game world. There's lots of room for specific changes inside of that, though. Maybe unnoticeable to all but those who practice certain things, like fishing. Or actually spend time in certain areas long enough to notice. Such as Rangers who make it a point to keep informed on their forests.
Exactly. Parts of the world that would procedurally generated would be awesome. And like you mentioned, only parts.
If it would be a world designed in concentric circles, then the center, the core would be the main hub and totally stable. The circle around it would have some changing elements but rather stable. The outer circle would entirely chaotic with ever-changing geography and high stakes challenges.
Dynamic generation of land masses would be okay. When I think Dynamic creation of content, I usually mean an AI process to generate events and story within the virtual world. Creation tools to create land masses would be okay (maybe a first step towards fully dynamic worlds), but those really only benefit the developers. When you really think about it, land doesn't change much; people do.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't see how LFG ruined MMORPG. LFG is nothing more than parsed text chat. I don't see how MMORPG were more interesting when you had to spam "LFG BC Tank" or had to scroll and analyze text chat different formats of messages to find your instance. I don't remember making friends and having some awesome social moments because of having to spam text chats.
We made friends because back then games were not built for snowflakes. Now you have everything instanced and timegated. Everything is watered down and systems to protect you from even slightest negative that could make weakest player to cry. MMORPG worlds just arent fun anymore.
MMORPGs became everyone gets a trophy and no child left behind all at once......They made the games easy so that even the weakest players could solo the content...What fun is that?.....Really our last good MMORPG was classic WoW (and that didnt last long because the players complained about it too).
The goal of the MMO industry is catter as most people as they can.
Here is the problem with this argument.
If this were true, then there would be a bunch of MMO's that are all more popular than they used to be. Yet all we see is a graveyard of failed MMO's. So obviously the strategy they are using is doing the exact opposite of catering to the most people.
If the MMO industry was actually trying to cater to the most people, then they are spectacularly failing at that. In the previous Generation of MMO's even average MMO's were hitting 300k+ SUBS for multiple years. Today most games cant even do it when they are FREE. Even the Top MMO's are less popular than they were a decade ago.
I see the exact opposite. I see games that want to appeal to a specific crowd like Crowfall and they die on that hill. Many of the indie MMO's are saying they will be a niche game. Or the other option is the Devs are just completely unimaginative, clueless and lazy.
No they hope to appeal to a target audience and hope everyone will fall in line. This is happening in all of entertainment. Or don't even care, and release absolute junk and hope people will play it because they have no alternative.
If they were truly trying to appeal to the masses, then they would have massive amounts of players. Something is disconnected. It probably comes down to laziness combined with greed.
Yes they do.
First, the MMOs that catter all, no they are not failing. FFXIV is not failing, BDO is not failing. I don't play WoW, but I guess that despite not being in its former glory, it is still a successful monster, still spitting expansions...
Yes, niche games are failing, countering your own argument. But that was not my point nor the discussion I wanted to highlight.
Yes they are failing in comparison to the past. You bring up a couple of MMO's that are making it and use that to say the MMO genre is successful? If the genre is successful then why would they want to change LOL. So either there is a problem or not, make up your mind.
How can you say FFXIV catering to the masses is a problem if they are growing in Subs? You think FFXIV should change their strategy when they are at their highest growth?
So no, I am not talking about MMO's that are making it. I already brought up that it would have been dumb for WoW vanilla to change while growing subs. Which btw they did change later down the road from casual to very casual players and seen the largest drop in customers in the entire history of any MMO's.
BDO as a success? fine if by maintaining a few hundred thousand players while going free is success to you, then fine what's the problem then? No reason for them to change.
What about all the others thou, that are releasing trash and have 99% drop in players shortly after release? Like Crowfall, New World and Elyon as a few examples.
You say niche? is $35 mil budget niche? What about $250 mil budget? Your definition of niche is a bit broad don't you think? So make up your mind, either these big budget games are niche, or they are catering to the masses, which is it? You seem to be taking multiple sides of the argument and contradicting yourself.
Let's try to make it simple:
"why THEY would change a winning recipe?" this is your argument.
Then you acknowledge, and this is a very interesting comment, that new MMOs following the winning recipe are failing anyway.
Don't you see the problem here? There is one.
MMOs are very competitive in nature because they require a lot time and dedication. It is hard as a player to play many MMOs simultaneously.
The winning recipe is born from the WoW model and has some variations, but usually you find: leveling/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
Why in hell, should I leave a game where I have a good amount of progression and social ties, to experience rather the same thing elsewhere?
So the problem of your argument, which states "why THEY ..." which is illustrating the companies perspective, I oppose it with "Why should I..." as a player.
Not changing the so-called "winning recipe" is a death sentence to new games, as you mentioned, and to the needed renewal for the interest of players.
What did we get over the years as real improvement?
- action combat (this is a debatable one)
- graphic improvement
- various QoL
We are still in the same genociding-mobs/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
Nothing about the core concept. Or not much. On the contrary, the industry instead of taking advantage of the massive amount of players, receded into soloization for the reasons I exposed on the first page. Which is for them needed, but for me as a player, I feel a bit sad.
Some posters here (I didn't pay attention to their names) said: "MMORPG is the worst gaming genre". I don't entirely agree, but a part of me does. And for sure, the initial promise of living in a digital and epic world has not been met.
The goal of the MMO industry is catter as most people as they can.
Here is the problem with this argument.
If this were true, then there would be a bunch of MMO's that are all more popular than they used to be. Yet all we see is a graveyard of failed MMO's. So obviously the strategy they are using is doing the exact opposite of catering to the most people.
If the MMO industry was actually trying to cater to the most people, then they are spectacularly failing at that. In the previous Generation of MMO's even average MMO's were hitting 300k+ SUBS for multiple years. Today most games cant even do it when they are FREE. Even the Top MMO's are less popular than they were a decade ago.
I see the exact opposite. I see games that want to appeal to a specific crowd like Crowfall and they die on that hill. Many of the indie MMO's are saying they will be a niche game. Or the other option is the Devs are just completely unimaginative, clueless and lazy.
No they hope to appeal to a target audience and hope everyone will fall in line. This is happening in all of entertainment. Or don't even care, and release absolute junk and hope people will play it because they have no alternative.
If they were truly trying to appeal to the masses, then they would have massive amounts of players. Something is disconnected. It probably comes down to laziness combined with greed.
Yes they do.
First, the MMOs that catter all, no they are not failing. FFXIV is not failing, BDO is not failing. I don't play WoW, but I guess that despite not being in its former glory, it is still a successful monster, still spitting expansions...
Yes, niche games are failing, countering your own argument. But that was not my point nor the discussion I wanted to highlight.
Yes they are failing in comparison to the past. You bring up a couple of MMO's that are making it and use that to say the MMO genre is successful? If the genre is successful then why would they want to change LOL. So either there is a problem or not, make up your mind.
How can you say FFXIV catering to the masses is a problem if they are growing in Subs? You think FFXIV should change their strategy when they are at their highest growth?
So no, I am not talking about MMO's that are making it. I already brought up that it would have been dumb for WoW vanilla to change while growing subs. Which btw they did change later down the road from casual to very casual players and seen the largest drop in customers in the entire history of any MMO's.
BDO as a success? fine if by maintaining a few hundred thousand players while going free is success to you, then fine what's the problem then? No reason for them to change.
What about all the others thou, that are releasing trash and have 99% drop in players shortly after release? Like Crowfall, New World and Elyon as a few examples.
You say niche? is $35 mil budget niche? What about $250 mil budget? Your definition of niche is a bit broad don't you think? So make up your mind, either these big budget games are niche, or they are catering to the masses, which is it? You seem to be taking multiple sides of the argument and contradicting yourself.
Let's try to make it simple:
"why THEY would change a winning recipe?" this is your argument.
Then you acknowledge, and this is a very interesting comment, that new MMOs following the winning recipe are failing anyway.
Don't you see the problem here? There is one.
MMOs are very competitive in nature because they require a lot time and dedication. It is hard as a player to play many MMOs simultaneously.
The winning recipe is born from the WoW model and has some variations, but usually you find: leveling/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
Why in hell, should I leave a game where I have a good amount of progression and social ties, to experience rather the same thing elsewhere?
So the problem of your argument, which states "why THEY ..." which is illustrating the companies perspective, I oppose it with "Why should I..." as a player.
Not changing the so-called "winning recipe" is a death sentence to new games, as you mentioned, and to the needed renewal for the interest of players.
What did we get over the years as real improvement?
- action combat (this is a debatable one)
- graphic improvement
- various QoL
We are still in the same genociding-mobs/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
<snip>
I would like to believe that there is more than a single winning recipe for the MMORPG genre. I don't know how diligently companies are searching for anything other than the WoW model, though.
The three improvements you listed are about the only ones I've seen in the industry. Other than those modifications, the genre really hasn't evolved much past the WoW era. I'd even contend that WoW wasn't a major step up from the UO/EQ/AC era, just marginal graphical improvements with some QoL improvements.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
We are still in the same genociding-mobs/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
Here is where I disagree with you the most.
In the last 8 years (probably can go back much more) which new game has released and is better than any of its predecessors in any of these things and at the same time is not popular? You say they are releasing the same stuff, yet its not the same, its actually worse. It should be getting better with technology, but its actually getting worse. If new games were getting better at its core mechanics then they would be popular now.
If games were actually improving these core fundamentals and were failing then maybe you would have a point. But I have not seen that happen yet.
What did we get over the years as real improvement?
- action combat (this is a debatable one)
- graphic improvement
- various QoL
This idea that games need to change and innovate to succeed is hogwash. Change is not always good. Designs of hammers 10 years ago still sell well now. There are other designs and they also sell well the market is big enough for both.
Wow had 100 mil accounts sold 10 years ago. So these 300k player base, games now are not even popular compared to the total population of gamers. People don't need to play multiple games. There are 100's of millions of players, so a good game could easily sustain 10's of millions of players possibly even 100's of millions of players, but is there a good game?
I agree with your real improvement assessment. The industry has not improved other than maybe the areas you are said above. But the industry has changed dramatically. Compare now to 10 years ago, Cash shops everywhere, monetization schemes everywhere, EZ mode everywhere, it used to be games dumbing themselves down for consoles. Now they dumbing down further for mobile. The general community of gamers obviously don't agree these are improvements which is why there is so much negative reaction all the time.
This entire argument goes back to people saying the industry is doing this to appeal to the largest possible group of players. Yet they are in fact not appealing to these players because all the new games being released are seeing 99% of the players leave after 1 month. So there is a HUGE disconnect in that statement. You cant be both appealing to the majority and not appealing to the majority.
As the graph I posted a few back show, in the old days after a game released it seen Growth and sustainability over many years. The reason you don't see that now, is games are not good enough. When a game comes out that does finally improve on the core experience, you will see it gain traction just like in the old days.
- Different crafting classes that need to cooperate to create large projects (for example Ships, Housing, Guild Castles etc)
- Crafting item drops from raids
In this context of course I define everything that leads to relationships between players as a good relationship. Even if it means competition.
Competing with somebody else is also fun. As long as its sportive, i.e. both parties equally stand a chance. While Ganking etc is a sick fun for one party at the expense of a helpless victim. At very least there should be an option to opt out of this kind of engagement.
I want to say, Claiming that since WoW had 10 million active users, anything less is failure, is total, complete, bullshit.
That is like saying if you are not the absolute fucking best, you failed, and that is total, complete, horseshit.
I work for a construction company, we are not a fortune 500, but we are a far cry from failure as well.
You don't need to be the apex best fucking game to exist to be successful, you just need enough of a core base, that keeps your company profitable, allows for development, and can keep the game going strong.
No one needs 10 million other payers, when they can barely remember the names of 100, and at best only really like to group and play with around 10.
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.
We are still in the same genociding-mobs/crafting/PvE/PvP/Housing/Mount/Raids.
Here is where I disagree with you the most.
In the last 8 years (probably can go back much more) which new game has released and is better than any of its predecessors in any of these things and at the same time is not popular? You say they are releasing the same stuff, yet its not the same, its actually worse. It should be getting better with technology, but its actually getting worse. If new games were getting better at its core mechanics then they would be popular now.
If games were actually improving these core fundamentals and were failing then maybe you would have a point. But I have not seen that happen yet.
What did we get over the years as real improvement?
- action combat (this is a debatable one)
- graphic improvement
- various QoL
This idea that games need to change and innovate to succeed is hogwash. Change is not always good. Designs of hammers 10 years ago still sell well now. There are other designs and they also sell well the market is big enough for both.
Wow had 100 mil accounts sold 10 years ago. So these 300k player base, games now are not even popular compared to the total population of gamers. People don't need to play multiple games. There are 100's of millions of players, so a good game could easily sustain 10's of millions of players possibly even 100's of millions of players, but is there a good game?
I agree with your real improvement assessment. The industry has not improved other than maybe the areas you are said above. But the industry has changed dramatically. Compare now to 10 years ago, Cash shops everywhere, monetization schemes everywhere, EZ mode everywhere, it used to be games dumbing themselves down for consoles. Now they dumbing down further for mobile. The general community of gamers obviously don't agree these are improvements which is why there is so much negative reaction all the time.
This entire argument goes back to people saying the industry is doing this to appeal to the largest possible group of players. Yet they are in fact not appealing to these players because all the new games being released are seeing 99% of the players leave after 1 month. So there is a HUGE disconnect in that statement. You cant be both appealing to the majority and not appealing to the majority.
As the graph I posted a few back show, in the old days after a game released it seen Growth and sustainability over many years. The reason you don't see that now, is games are not good enough. When a game comes out that does finally improve on the core experience, you will see it gain traction just like in the old days.
LOL it seems that you like forum PvP. I do too! Let's go for it
" You say they are releasing the same stuff, yet its not the same, its
actually worse. It should be getting better with technology, but its
actually getting worse."
---------------
Wrong. Technology does not warranty better games. Better game design does.
Are newer games, gameplay wise, worse? I am not sure. I think the problem is more complex. For example, I tried some older games, and sometimes they feel so clunky that I uninstall rather quickly, even the games I loved. We are not the same players. We evolve. But sure enough, some aspects like EZ mode, bad monetization, forever early access, NFTs and so on, I agree with you. How couldn't I?
"This idea that games need to change and innovate to succeed is hogwash. Change is not always good. "
---------------
You misunderstood and/or oversimplified and/or reshaped my statement. You are a naughty kitty! I clearly wrote that successful games do not need to change. I stated that, since the market is competitive, newer games have to improve on the formula or die, like Elyon for instance.
Again, why should I leave a game that exists, that is successful, in which I have significant achievements and social ties for one of its pale copy?
I don't. And many players feel the same way, so the pale copy naturally dies.
"The reason you don't see that now, is games are not good enough. "
---------------
Well, my take on it is not exactly that they are not good enough. My opinion is they don't offer something that stand out of the competition enough.
Again, why should I leave a game that exists, that is successful,
in which I have significant achievements and social ties for one of its
pale copy?
I don't. And many players feel the same way, so the pale copy naturally dies.
(yes it was copy/pasted for brainwashing purposes)
"When a game comes out that does finally improve on the core experience, you will see it gain traction just like in the old days."
---------------
Yes, this is my point. However, I still think there is traction, even if the games do not meet our expectations. New World first months were a mess, but the number of players trying it show that MMORPGs are still attracting a fair amount of players.
I don't. And many players feel the same way, so the pale copy naturally dies.
(yes it was copy/pasted for brainwashing purposes)
Again we are not far off on our disagreement. Here is where I think there is a problem with your reasoning that copy/pasted games are why MMO's are not successful. Yet my point that its not copy/paste design that is the problem, but quality design is actually the true problem.
Explain then why the ultimate copy/paste game, WOW Classic, is beating 99% of all the other MMO's in players right now? Its exactly a copy/paste from 15 years ago, there is barely any difference at all. So by your definition it should have failed like all the rest. Yet even a 15 year old game is beating out its competitors.
Its pretty much unheard of that a 15 year old game can be rereleased in practically the same state it was originally and maintain its player base over years.
I am sure you will have some exception to your own statement above to allow for this OBVIOUS contradiction.
Your point that people wont leave their game. Hate to break it to you, but players already have. So many MMO players are not happy with the current market right now. If their dream MMO came out they would jump in a heartbeat. This is exactly why new MMO's see a surge at release as everyone is still hopeful. Once they find out how trashy the game is, they leave.
I will say that I don't fully disagree with your premise that COULD be a problem under a situation (that I don't believe exists right now). So IF everyone was happy with their current MMO's, then your point would be valid, as people would compare the new offering to the one they are playing now. Which is why its important the new MMO is actually as good or better than the current MMO.
However I still haven't heard any examples of MMO's releasing in the last 8yrs that are better or equal than ALL predecessors and still failing now. You should be able to give me a list of COPY/PASTED MMO's that are so amazing but failing. I am waiting!
I want to say, Claiming that since WoW had 10 million active users, anything less is failure, is total, complete, bullshit.
Well I believe people are smart enough to understand that something can be a success at one point, and when compared to another point be considered a failure.
If you look at WoW from 2 different 7 year periods, from 2004 - 2011 1mil to 11mil subs, then changing directions from 2012 - 2019 11mil subs to 3 mil subs. Which version looks like success to you and the other is called what? You can debate on if you want to call that subpar performance, failure, collapse, whatever word you want to call that, so you can go ahead and debate the definition of failure.
But any lack of success is a definition of failure to me. But feel free to put your own word in there if it makes you feel better.
- Different crafting classes that need to cooperate to create large projects (for example Ships, Housing, Guild Castles etc)
- Crafting item drops from raids
In this context of course I define everything that leads to relationships between players as a good relationship. Even if it means competition.
Competing with somebody else is also fun. As long as its sportive, i.e. both parties equally stand a chance. While Ganking etc is a sick fun for one party at the expense of a helpless victim. At very least there should be an option to opt out of this kind of engagement.
With all due respects, my friend, most of that is in MMORPGs now, right? And how does that cause socialization?
Also, for everyone here, I thought the point of this thread was to foster socialization in the game world, openly, not just in-group socializing, which is another thing that's already available.
I don't see how many of the ideas being posted in this thread actually change anything. Those who socialize in-group will, those who don't (all too common) won't, and all those who don't have a set of friends to socialize with won't be able to. No change, as I said, and I wonder how that helps MMORPGs at all.
This is a big part of why MMORPGs are getting boring, heavily solo-ed, and lackluster as far as "worlds."
Comments
What they can do is add some randomness, so that the numbers aren't fixed.
Edit: Oops, I lost track of what we were talking about, lol.
Agreed!
Once upon a time....
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Dynamic content has been a hard one for developers to pin down and really leverage well. Part of the problem tends to come from some all or nothing mentalities where either entire systems are completely procedural, or nothing at all.
I do personally see dynamic content as a boon, and possessing much unused potential. From altering the logic behind how content is populated into a game world to how individual interactions with mobs takes place, even to how narrative systems are built to track and play off of player activity.
The reliance on static systems, mechanics, and tropes of other frameworks which ill-suit live and multi-user and collaborative environments has been a rather large thorn in seeing anything more come from the MMO genre, be it MMO"RPG" or otherwise.
Caspian should've just been the creative director instead of trying to run the whole studio.
Yes possibly eoloe was saying that. But the point still remains, if they are trying to appeal to the largest audience they are in fact failing at it. Compare our current world to 15 years ago, more people, more connected to internet, more people with access to games. Yet MMO's pull in less people for any sustained period than they used to. Obviously the target audience does not want what they are selling. The industry doesn't care because they continue to put out the cheapest product they can.
It would be a different story if they were showing HUGE successes but you just didn't like what they sold, like in old days Vanilla WoW had a lot of people hating on it. You might not like the product but had to respect it was popular.
My example would be Rice industry, if you were selling rice, its bland, not exactly nutritious yet how can you argue its not popular. If you compare that to say a niche market of Spicy Soul Food, it might have great taste people that eat it love it ... but you are not going to convince the Rice industry to switch their product and move it to Spicy Soul Food unless the is a change is purchasing habits.
However what we got in MMO land is BUG FOOD. They are selling us bug food, telling us how its amazing, but people know it sucks. Who cares if someone in the world likes it, because when you taste it, you know its gross and you don't want what they are selling. They don't care because they can get it in large quantities very cheap and force you to eat it if they remove all other options.
Most of the old games sustained their players over years and years with small drops over time. Not like the 99% drop offs you see now after 1 month.
Those numbers on the bottom are Years not Months FYI.
In UO, they had about 6 different kinds of ore. Eventually, to spice up Mining, they had a chance for each ore type to spawn their own version of an Earth Elemental, the chance being per mining target (or it could be time related in other systems).
I think this idea, of something causing a chance spawn, would be one answer.
This could also apply to harvesting anything else, too.
Now, take this same idea and apply it to everything else about Dungeons and key overland spots.
Kill all of the Orcs in a valley and the next spawn might replace them with Trolls, as an example.
A key point here, in my mind, is that you want some stability to the game world. Especially for common resources. So a Dungeon might always have certain types of resources (and their source MOBs), but only the top tier of MOBs might be replaced, as a sort of "temporary rulers of the Dungeon."
You can always add in random spawns too, per my first part of this post.
Back to the topic of Player socialization, these changes could be for longer periods, giving Players something to talk about. Both those looking to battle MOBs and those looking for resources.
Once upon a time....
But here, I see 2 problems that bring us outside of this conversation:
How can you say FFXIV catering to the masses is a problem if they are growing in Subs? You think FFXIV should change their strategy when they are at their highest growth?
So no, I am not talking about MMO's that are making it. I already brought up that it would have been dumb for WoW vanilla to change while growing subs. Which btw they did change later down the road from casual to very casual players and seen the largest drop in customers in the entire history of any MMO's.
BDO as a success? fine if by maintaining a few hundred thousand players while going free is success to you, then fine what's the problem then? No reason for them to change.
What about all the others thou, that are releasing trash and have 99% drop in players shortly after release? Like Crowfall, New World and Elyon as a few examples.
You say niche? is $35 mil budget niche? What about $250 mil budget? Your definition of niche is a bit broad don't you think? So make up your mind, either these big budget games are niche, or they are catering to the masses, which is it? You seem to be taking multiple sides of the argument and contradicting yourself.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
MMORPGs became everyone gets a trophy and no child left behind all at once......They made the games easy so that even the weakest players could solo the content...What fun is that?.....Really our last good MMORPG was classic WoW (and that didnt last long because the players complained about it too).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Here is where I disagree with you the most.
In the last 8 years (probably can go back much more) which new game has released and is better than any of its predecessors in any of these things and at the same time is not popular? You say they are releasing the same stuff, yet its not the same, its actually worse. It should be getting better with technology, but its actually getting worse. If new games were getting better at its core mechanics then they would be popular now.
If games were actually improving these core fundamentals and were failing then maybe you would have a point. But I have not seen that happen yet.
This idea that games need to change and innovate to succeed is hogwash. Change is not always good. Designs of hammers 10 years ago still sell well now. There are other designs and they also sell well the market is big enough for both.
This entire argument goes back to people saying the industry is doing this to appeal to the largest possible group of players. Yet they are in fact not appealing to these players because all the new games being released are seeing 99% of the players leave after 1 month. So there is a HUGE disconnect in that statement. You cant be both appealing to the majority and not appealing to the majority.
As the graph I posted a few back show, in the old days after a game released it seen Growth and sustainability over many years. The reason you don't see that now, is games are not good enough. When a game comes out that does finally improve on the core experience, you will see it gain traction just like in the old days.
That is like saying if you are not the absolute fucking best, you failed, and that is total, complete, horseshit.
I work for a construction company, we are not a fortune 500, but we are a far cry from failure as well.
You don't need to be the apex best fucking game to exist to be successful, you just need enough of a core base, that keeps your company profitable, allows for development, and can keep the game going strong.
No one needs 10 million other payers, when they can barely remember the names of 100, and at best only really like to group and play with around 10.
Explain then why the ultimate copy/paste game, WOW Classic, is beating 99% of all the other MMO's in players right now? Its exactly a copy/paste from 15 years ago, there is barely any difference at all. So by your definition it should have failed like all the rest. Yet even a 15 year old game is beating out its competitors.
Its pretty much unheard of that a 15 year old game can be rereleased in practically the same state it was originally and maintain its player base over years.
I am sure you will have some exception to your own statement above to allow for this OBVIOUS contradiction.
Your point that people wont leave their game. Hate to break it to you, but players already have. So many MMO players are not happy with the current market right now. If their dream MMO came out they would jump in a heartbeat. This is exactly why new MMO's see a surge at release as everyone is still hopeful. Once they find out how trashy the game is, they leave.
I will say that I don't fully disagree with your premise that COULD be a problem under a situation (that I don't believe exists right now). So IF everyone was happy with their current MMO's, then your point would be valid, as people would compare the new offering to the one they are playing now. Which is why its important the new MMO is actually as good or better than the current MMO.
However I still haven't heard any examples of MMO's releasing in the last 8yrs that are better or equal than ALL predecessors and still failing now. You should be able to give me a list of COPY/PASTED MMO's that are so amazing but failing. I am waiting!
Well I believe people are smart enough to understand that something can be a success at one point, and when compared to another point be considered a failure.
If you look at WoW from 2 different 7 year periods, from 2004 - 2011 1mil to 11mil subs, then changing directions from 2012 - 2019 11mil subs to 3 mil subs. Which version looks like success to you and the other is called what? You can debate on if you want to call that subpar performance, failure, collapse, whatever word you want to call that, so you can go ahead and debate the definition of failure.
But any lack of success is a definition of failure to me. But feel free to put your own word in there if it makes you feel better.
And how does that cause socialization?
Also, for everyone here, I thought the point of this thread was to foster socialization in the game world, openly, not just in-group socializing, which is another thing that's already available.
I don't see how many of the ideas being posted in this thread actually change anything.
Those who socialize in-group will, those who don't (all too common) won't, and all those who don't have a set of friends to socialize with won't be able to.
No change, as I said, and I wonder how that helps MMORPGs at all.
This is a big part of why MMORPGs are getting boring, heavily solo-ed, and lackluster as far as "worlds."
Once upon a time....