Let's look at the core of things and not get distracted by minor ones

[lungdisc]

MMORPGs have been made by taking all the features found in the single player and co-op RPG games and then adding a lot of players into one server, interacting with one another.

Single player RPG specific features:
- story and quests
- level progression and skills
- items and crafting
- killing mobs

Co-operative RPG specific features:
- grouping with your friend(s) (ofcourse)
- chatting
- pvp (dueling) -> Diablo 2
- finding players to group with -> Diablo 2 when in the lobby
- guilds -> done outside of the game, but still

MMO specific features:
- seeing a lot of players in one place

MMOs only makes you believe that you are doing your adventuring with millions of players, when in fact you are barely interacting with them.

And why is that?

It's because players are too busy doing their routine tasks (killing 10 rats) to progress with their character level. But once they reach the maximum level, then they start maxing out the other progression scheme (gear). And once they get the epic gear by doing instances, players usually stop playing the game with that particular character.

And why is that?

It's because the entire focus of the game is on level progression. PvP is just an activity like others (fishing, mini-games) and there's not much to it, because it has no consequences over your character like level and gear progression does. And if you really want some adrenaline pumping, playing an FPS or RTS game is more thrilling, more skill involved and much more balanced, ie: Battlefield, Starcraft.

Yes, some games like Lineage 2 and others do give purpose to PvP like faction wars, castle sieges, locking down farming spots, etc. But remember that players only do these things to help themselves and their guild mates to be more efficient at maxing their level and over enchanting their gear.

So let's try here and figure out on what can MMOs focus on, besides level/gear progression.

First of all the difference between RPG and FPS/RTS games is that your character is persistent. You can't login everyday in your favorite MMO and start the game at level 0 like MOBA games do or getting your character perma-killed. So, let's stick with the level and gear progression, but make it come second in importance: a more skilled level 1 player could kill a less experienced level 60 player.

This topic is only about creating awareness. I don't have the answer for it, but maybe with your help we can come up with some decent ideas.

My idea is to focus on player interaction like PvP, but with persistent rewards that are not tied to level/gear progression. The level and gear should only help you in reaching that main goal and not the other way around.

I believe if we solve this problem we will not be having the issues that current MMOs have like endgame activities, PvP rewards, boring quests, etc. And we will also make the jump from the WoW clones era to another era of MMOs, hopefully a better one.

[GrumpyMel]

lungdisc wrote:

MMORPGs have been made by taking all the features found in the single player and co-op RPG games and then adding a lot of players into one server, interacting with one another.

Single player RPG specific features:
- story and quests
- level progression and skills
- items and crafting
- killing mobs

Co-operative RPG specific features:
- grouping with your friend(s) (ofcourse)
- chatting
- pvp (dueling) -> Diablo 2
- finding players to group with -> Diablo 2 when in the lobby
- guilds -> done outside of the game, but still

MMO specific features:
- seeing a lot of players in one place

MMOs only makes you believe that you are doing your adventuring with millions of players, when in fact you are barely interacting with them.

And why is that?

It's because players are too busy doing their routine tasks (killing 10 rats) to progress with their character level. But once they reach the maximum level, then they start maxing out the other progression scheme (gear). And once they get the epic gear by doing instances, players usually stop playing the game with that particular character.

And why is that?

It's because the entire focus of the game is on level progression. PvP is just an activity like others (fishing, mini-games) and there's not much to it, because it has no consequences over your character like level and gear progression does. And if you really want some adrenaline pumping, playing an FPS or RTS game is more thrilling, more skill involved and much more balanced, ie: Battlefield, Starcraft.

Yes, some games like Lineage 2 and others do give purpose to PvP like faction wars, castle sieges, locking down farming spots, etc. But remember that players only do these things to help themselves and their guild mates to be more efficient at maxing their level and over enchanting their gear.

So let's try here and figure out on what can MMOs focus on, besides level/gear progression.

First of all the difference between RPG and FPS/RTS games is that your character is...

I think the issue may even be more basic then that. Most of todays MMO's tend to focus on just one type of gamer personalty.... Achievers... and they pretty much ignore all the other gamer personalty types on bartles spectrum... socializers/RP-ers, Problem Solvers, Explorers, etc...all pretty much get completely ignored by them. Thus the games all devolve into just one type of activity ... handing out gold stars... dressed up in one sort of method or another.

Even when games PRETEND to give a nod to some other activity... they really pay short shift to the actual elements that make the activity interesting to the other personalty types and just turn it into one more thing to hand out "gold stars" for.

For instance, you'd think that the Points of Interest systems that some games impliment would be something targeted to appeal to Explorers...but it's really not, there just isn't that much of an element of exploration built into those systems...rather the design focus seems to be having players go to those POI so they can be handed out the Achievement Award (i.e. "gold star") for having visited it...and no more thought put into it then that.

Note, I'm not arguing against systems that appeal to the Achievement aspect...but it shouldn't be pretty much the SOLE design focus of a game.

[lungdisc]

GrumpyMel wrote:

Note, I'm not arguing against systems that appeal to the Achievement aspect...but it shouldn't be pretty much the SOLE design focus of a game.

I agree that current MMOs appeal more to achievers, while socialisers can be entertained a lot of simply playing it very casual and maybe never reach the max level and gear. Explorers can be mesmerized by the beautiful graphics and maybe quests too, while the killers might get a good enough doze of thrill by engaging in arena pvp.

For all of them the game ends when the level/gear progression ends. Achievers have nothing to achieve anymore, explorers explored everything, socialisers can't socialize anymore if the quests are done and the level/gear has reached the end and of course the killers will leave too when no ones is playing in the arenas.

Right now this problem is patched by increasing the level/gear cap with each expansion, but it's a never ending loop.

The focus of MMOs should be something that never ends, unlike a story or a max level. Why do people play Starcraft for 12 years and still enjoy it, or Counter Strike or Dota for 6-7 years? These games are very quick to learn, but very hard to master mostly because of the twitch mechanics involved. If MMOs can combine this with the persistent nature of player characters and loot, maybe we will get something better than single player RPG level/gear progression.

[KitNyx]

I would like to see the player type test redone with a builder/engineer type added. These people play games to express their creative side and tend to enjoy games such as Minecraft because they like to build stuff. (I do understand this is not currently part of the test because the ability to really build things is not a feature of most, if any, MMOs).

lungdisc, there are games out there available that do not focus on the aspects you mention. Saga of Ryzom has an unlimited free trial...and it is much further along the sandbox scale than most games I have ever played. You should give it a try so you can see how games could avoid that level/gear progression...in fact, to my knowledge (as a 7 year vet of SoR) I have only seen one person max their level progression. It is an older game and many do not like the lack of themepark content, but it is worth trying to see a different focus in design.

EDIT: I do not think PFO should be like SoR, I am only saying it is very different mechanically, socially, and therefore in priorities than most games people are familiar with. It also shows how some challenges (such as the requirement to build your action stanzas using "learned/earned" pieces. Leveling does not let you learn new skills, it lets you learn new pieces you can use to build new or more powerful actions) can add to the fun while being more complicated...and yes, I have seen people leave because they could not or did not want to figure this system out, but the majority of people have no problem.

[Scott Betts]

lungdisc wrote:

MMO specific features:

- seeing a lot of players in one place

I'm tempted to mentally toss this thread into the "ignorant MMO hate" pile. MMORPGs do not merely provide the opportunity to see a lot of players in one place. That's simply false.

And it's not just false. It's really, really false. Like, you can spend ten seconds thinking about it and come up with another example of an MMO-specific feature.

So I don't know. Either the OP didn't spend even a little bit of time thinking about what MMOs actually offer, or he ignored all of those other things because being honest makes his point less salient.

Examples of things MMOs offer that single-player or impersistent, small-group co-op don't:

1. Player-driven economies (and no, Diablo 2's SOJ-based "economy" doesn't count)
2. Auction houses
3. Large-group play experiences
4. A sense of persistent, in-game community
5. Guilds as a game feature

I'm sure you can come up more if you spend some time on it.

Quote:

MMOs only makes you believe that you are doing your adventuring with millions of players, when in fact you are barely interacting with them.

And why is that?

I don't know, why is that? Join a guild, and start participating in raids or battlegrounds with dozens of other players.

I'm not necessarily decrying your argument here, but you're starting out poorly. MMOs already have unique, compelling features to offer, and you're only going to shoot yourself in the foot by ignoring them. And persistent character advancement/progression is a good thing.

[lungdisc]

KitNyx wrote:

Saga of Ryzom has an unlimited free trial...and it is much further along the sandbox scale than most games I have ever played.

I played Ryzom back when it was launched and I also played it again this year when I downloaded their open source game and messed with it a bit. I will try to get into it again, thanx.

Scott wrote:

1. Player-driven economies (and no, Diablo 2's SOJ-based "economy" doesn't count)

2. Auction houses
3. Large-group play experiences
4. A sense of persistent, in-game community
5. Guilds as a game feature

I'm sure you can come up more if you spend some time on it.

1. People have traded items in single player games too.

2. Diablo 3 will have an auction house
3. I already said that (seeing a lot of players in one place)
4. I already said that (seeing a lot of players in one place)
5. Competitive guilds have their own website, forum and ventrilo server, which is clear that the guild in-game feature is very limited and should not be really attributed to MMOs like they deserve it.

All your points address only one functionality of the MMO which I already stated - "seeing a lot of players in one place". You can dress it with as many pretty words as you like, but it still comes down to the same thing.

Scott wrote:

I'm not necessarily decrying your argument here, but you're starting out poorly. MMOs already have unique, compelling features to offer, and you're only going to shoot yourself in the foot by ignoring them. And persistent character advancement/progression is a good thing.

Let's say you don't agree with how I addressed the 5 points above. Please tell me then, what's so unique and compelling about the features you mentioned above?

Let's admit it. Current MMOs are a crappier version of single player RPGs. They trivialized everything about the story, cutscenes, dialog choices, meaningful quests, persistent changes on the environment, freedom of choosing a path, etc, and left us with what? Become the max level PWNZOR that kills everyone in one shot.

Scott wrote:

I don't know, why is that? Join a guild, and start participating in raids or battlegrounds with dozens of other players.

Yes, let's join a guild and grind together for the same gear and xp; that makes it much more fun indeed. Or let's play pvp in instanced scenarios or even in open worlds to really see how simplistic and unbalanced classes really are, and how ganking is king. Like I said in my previous post, if you want the thrill of competition, there are better games that provide that.

I don't want to sound like I hate MMOs. I love what MMOs stand for, which is bringing people together in meaningful activities. But sadly these days it comes down to masking a single player experience with achievements and prizes every step of the way to keep you hooked. But when the "game ends", so is your addiction to it ends, unless new expansions are added and they always are.

Mostly the theme-park MMOs do this, while sandbox, open world MMOs provide more freedom to how you want to play the game. R.Bartle, in "Pleasing the teller", suggested to offer the theme park experience in the begging, to guide the player, and then show him the great sandbox you have.

[KitNyx]

lungdisc wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Saga of Ryzom has an unlimited free trial...and it is much further along the sandbox scale than most games I have ever played.

I played Ryzom back when it was launched and I also played it again this year when I downloaded their open source game and messed with it a bit. I will try to get into it again, thanx.

Well, I know many do not like the lack of themepark stuff...and that is a legitimate complaint in a sandbox that does not offer enough player freedom.

[Scott Betts]

lungdisc wrote:

1. People have traded items in single player games too.

That is not the same as a robust, player-driven economy.

Quote:

2. Diablo 3 will have an auction house

And most people are acknowledging that Diablo 3 is purposefully blurring the lines between MMOs and older online hack-and-slash games thanks to their abundant experience with WoW.

Quote:

3. I already said that (seeing a lot of players in one place)

Seeing a lot of players in one place is not the same as adventuring in a large group, and having to navigate large-group dynamics in order to succeed.

Quote:

4. I already said that (seeing a lot of players in one place)

Again, seeing a lot of players in one place is not the same as experiencing a community. A community is made up of a lot of players, but a lot of players in one place doesn't automatically make a persistent community.

Quote:

5. Competitive guilds have their own website, forum and ventrilo server, which is clear that the guild in-game feature is very limited and should not be really attributed to MMOs like they deserve it.

I'm not really sure what you're hoping to accomplish, here. In-game guilds mean that even casual players (those unwilling to invest in time outside of the game client to experience a guild) can enjoy the guild experience.

Quote:

All your points address only one functionality of the MMO which I already stated - "seeing a lot of players in one place". You can dress it with as many pretty words as you like, but it still comes down to the same thing.

All of those features are enabled by the fact that these games feature a lot of players, but that doesn't mean that it's all the same feature. It's not. And you go on to use your incomplete feature list to justify the rest of your post. MMOs are more social than you make them out to be.

Quote:

Let's say you don't agree with how I addressed the 5 points above. Please tell me then, what's so unique and compelling about the features you mentioned above?

Do I really need to provide you with actual reasons behind what's so compelling about a game with 14 million active subscriptions at the height of its popularity?

That really ought to speak for itself. I can go into it if you like, but I think you're just sort of fishing for support for an untenable argument.

Quote:

Let's admit it. Current MMOs are a crappier version of single player RPGs.

Again. 14 million subscribers. No one is admitting anything.

[lungdisc]

Scott wrote:

Again. 14 million subscribers. No one is admitting anything.

The most subscribers ever were 11.5 mil and now they are 10.3 million players if you do your research right. And 50% of these 10mil are from asia which pay by the hour not monthly, but these 5 mil people only count for 6% of the total revenue - source. It looks like Activion-Blizzard gave WoW to the asian market for free almost, just so they can double their numbers, where in fact only half of the subscribers pay the monthly cost and the game+expansions on dvd, while the chinese only go to an internet cafe and pay for a couple of hours, like you would pay for coffee in a starbucks place.

Anyway, even 5 mil subscribers is still a lot.

Scott wrote:

Do I really need to provide you with actual reasons behind what's so compelling about a game with

Ohh so Pathfinder Online is actually looking to make just another "wow clone" because WoW has 20mil subscribers. I thought we're trying to do something different by discussing in this forum, something that actually is about player interaction, not amphetamines disguised as achievements in a single-player grind fest for who has the bigger and the better stats and gear.

But if you want to talk about numbers lets talk about Farmville which has more than 80 million players. Let's make Pathfinder a Farmville game because they have the biggest numbers, and implement all the features they have because that's what people want.

[Scott Betts]

lungdisc wrote:

Ohh so Pathfinder Online is actually looking to make just another "wow clone" because WoW has 20mil subscribers.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me, or what. I'm not saying that PFO should be like WoW, and I'm not really sure why you're trying to make it seem like that's what I'm saying.

I'm telling you that any service with millions of people paying for it must be offering something compelling.

Instead, let me pose you a question: If the only unique feature MMORPGs have to offer is that you get to see a lot of people in one place, and if they are in all other respects inferior to single-player or co-op RPGs, why are tens of millions of people paying money to play them?

You are purposefully and perhaps intellectually dishonestly minimizing the things that MMORPGs have to offer in an effort to push for a specific design direction. That's not a good place to start.

[Enpeze]

lungdisc wrote:

MMORPGs have been made by taking all the features found in the single player and co-op RPG games and then adding a lot of players into one server, interacting with one another.

Single player RPG specific features:
- story and quests
- level progression and skills
- items and crafting
- killing mobs

Co-operative RPG specific features:
- grouping with your friend(s) (ofcourse)
- chatting
- pvp (dueling) -> Diablo 2
- finding players to group with -> Diablo 2 when in the lobby
- guilds -> done outside of the game, but still

MMO specific features:
- seeing a lot of players in one place

MMOs only makes you believe that you are doing your adventuring with millions of players, when in fact you are barely interacting with them.

And why is that?

It's because players are too busy doing their routine tasks (killing 10 rats) to progress with their character level. But once they reach the maximum level, then they start maxing out the other progression scheme (gear). And once they get the epic gear by doing instances, players usually stop playing the game with that particular character.

And why is that?

It's because the entire focus of the game is on level progression. PvP is just an activity like others (fishing, mini-games) and there's not much to it, because it has no consequences over your character like level and gear progression does. And if you really want some adrenaline pumping, playing an FPS or RTS game is more thrilling, more skill involved and much more balanced, ie: Battlefield, Starcraft.

Yes, some games like Lineage 2 and others do give purpose to PvP like faction wars, castle sieges, locking down farming spots, etc. But remember that players only do these things to help themselves and their guild mates to be more efficient at maxing their level and over enchanting their gear.

So let's try here and figure out on what can MMOs focus on, besides level/gear progression.

First of all the difference between RPG and FPS/RTS games is that your character is...

There is some truth in your words. But one thing I guess you forgot is that MMOs are getting boring in their current form, because they just deliver the same experience over and over.

IMO to innovate the whole genre you have to invent a different and more interesting type of interaction between the players.

For example in giving the creative players directors rights. Allow players to create content and stories for others. Of course you have to develope advanced tools for this, in order to not imbalance the game world.

[lungdisc]

Scott wrote:

why are tens of millions of people paying money to play them?

I already brought Farmville as an example to point out that millions of subscribers/players does not make a game necessarily interesting. Yes, it's profitable, but we're not corporations here talking about marketing and how to squeeze the last cent of from peoples' pockets. We are people that love games and we want to talk about what makes games tick, how can they enrich people's experience.

Does wow and farmville provide fun ? Yes it does, but it's a kind of fun that's addictive and unhealthy and I'm talking here about people that spend to much time playing these games.

When players invest that much time and money in grinding for the top gear and maxing their level, you will not see any fair play from them and they will love to kill lower level or lesser equipped players, also called noobs.

Enpeze wrote:

Allow players to create content and stories for others. Of course you have to develope advanced tools for this, in order to not imbalance the game world.

This is a great idea. Basically MMOs should only circle around players, the content they make, the faction wars they create, the politics. Some of these things should make a great sandbox MMO where people can contribute and changes made by them are directly reflected in the world they play in.

[feytharn]

I have seen a fair number of people who play to much
a) Pen&Paper games
b) Single Player CRPGs
c) Card Games
I have seen and heard even more people pointing at
a) roleplayers
b) computergamers
c) sport fans
and some other groups saying what they do is unhealthy, addictive, not fun, anti-social or even leading to suicide or murder. Mast of those doing the pointing don't parttake in the activity they are attacking.

Please, if you do not like MMOs (I do myself not play them) don't use them as a scapegoat or project diffuse fears about addiction and 'unhealthy' entertainment at them, instead just play whatever you consider healthy and unaddictive fun.

[Kryzbyn]

lungdisc wrote:

Does wow and farmville provide fun ? Yes it does, but it's a kind of fun that's addictive and unhealthy and I'm talking here about people that spend to much time playing these games.

MMOs are bad, M'kay? SO don't do MMOs, cuz they're bad. M'kay?

If you have to rely on the argument that it's the games and not incredibly weak willed people who probably weren't all there to begin with to even reinforce a small part of your point, you sir have lost.

This reminds me of the Metallica causes suicide BS of the 80's...

[feytharn]

lungdisc wrote:

Does wow and farmville provide fun ? Yes it does, but it's a kind of fun that's addictive and unhealthy

While I did read your posts from OP to this one, this was the part I chose to react to. That has nothing to do with either my attention span nor with your argument at large. Combined with you wanting us to agree with the rather general criticism that MMOs are just 'crappier version of single player RPGs (yes, I do know that you 'explained' that last point, I won't quote it to keep this post readable, interested readers might just scroll back a bit) it shows you have a very low opinion of MMOs. That is fine, as I wrote, I do not play any MMO myself. I just have seen too many people attacking hobbies I love with almost the same words and arguments you use to dismiss MMOs, to let that go by uncommented.

I don't know about WOWs subscriptions and I frankly do not care, so why should I not ignore your rant about them?

Now, because the readers and commenters in this thread don't take the time to discuss the 'improvements' someone who sees so little good in MMOs anyway, you act huffy and spend a post for a general attack on 'people like us'. You argue with half-truth about MMOs (or basically WoW - as if it was the only one of its kind) as you percieve them, seemingly knowing even less about them then I do, and want all others to just applaud your ideas of a better game without callenging them?

Your chances of succes, I daresay are very slim.

And that, again, has little to do with 'people like us' being unable to grasp the (indeed simple) concepts you present us.

[hmarcbower]

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm telling you that any service with millions of people paying for it must be offering something compelling.

QFT.

However, I think what we're running up against here is the classic struggle: do we give the most people what they want (which is often diluted to the point of uselessness but that they find enjoyable and fulfilling on some level which is all that matters) or do we give people what we think they *should* enjoy (a rich game that does away with or minimizes level/achievement-based progression in favour of something more cerebral or spiritually awesome)?

It's the same reason democracy sucks: do you trust the majority of people to actually make decisions on your behalf? I don't (maybe that's just me, though :). But when you're trying to make money, you appeal to the lowest common denominator (which, by definition, will appeal to almost everyone at some level) and make money hand-over-fist (i.e. WoW). You can try something else, but it's considered "niche" - and when you're talking about a MMO set somewhere that is already "niche", you're greatly reducing the possibilities of its financial success. It's been established that this isn't being done for charity - it's a business and needs to make money.

So the question is this: do they give the most people what they want (which causes the self-appointed "true" fans to be pissed off) or do they cater to the narrower, nichier market to make them happy but produce something that isn't widely popular or profitable?

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

[Jagga Spikes]

hmarcbower wrote:

...

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

problem with going for "standard" MMO is that is direct confrontation with WOW. and Blizzard has money, expertise and experience that Goblinworks don't have and can't afford. besides, anything Goblinworks manages to do better than WOW, Blizzard can just copy into their own game.

imo, Goblinworks best chance is to design something that Blizzard can't copy back into WOW.

[lungdisc]

Quote:

So the question is this: do they give the most people what they want (which causes the self-appointed "true" fans to be pissed off) or do they cater to the narrower, nichier market to make them happy but produce something that isn't widely popular or profitable?

The problem right now is that if you want to appeal to the already established player base, you have to make a wow clone to a certain degree. Making a wow clone means focusing a lot on PvE, which means more quests than Wow (9500+) and much more polished content. But this is very hard since no one has the budget and time that Blizzard put into WoW.

Now, another take on WoW could be to provide the same experience as WoW, but in a different environment, for people that are bored with WoW. Rift tried it, now SWTOR tries it too, to some degree. Both of them have something unique to WoW, but it's pretty much the same type of MMO. As for Rift we know that they haven't succeeded in beating WoW and I'm pretty sure SWTOR will not succeed either.

This is the problem when you go head to head against a giant equipped with the same weapons the giant has too. In order to come with something new, you need to have unique features in your MMO, right at the very core of it.

If you make an MMO that focuses on killing 10 rats every 10 minutes for the sake of an NPC, leveling and getting new gear, you are offering the same experience as WoW.

I believe a good way to beat WoW is to focus on PvP, the element that doesn't require that much time and content. Basically the content is generated by players and will feel very different each time, because people are unpredictable.

An idea could be that people start by doing a tutorial that will take let's say 24 hours (a week of playing 4 hours a day), where you basically play WoW to a certain degree, but also introducing you with the PvP content, house building, sieging, etc. After one week, players will be able to phase out the grind of killing 10 rats and start building their own house, forming cities with others and attacking other factions.

Basically the tactics and capture points will be similar to Planetside, while the Realm vs Realm will be similar to DaoC, with 3 factions at war.

The differences to DaoC and other MMOs will be:
- there will be no grind for leveling or gear
- the level difference will not be that high (a level 1 player has a chance to kill a level 20 [max] player)
- gear will be like in GW where the stats stop at some point, and then the difference is only cosmetic
- skills will not have any randomness to them, similar to Bloodline Champions
- pvp will be done by flagging. Unlike L2 you will only flag for that person, not universally.
- you will see the level and class of your enemies so you can asses the odds better
- death penalty will only make you re-spawn
- building your house
- merging your house with others and forming cities; managing cities will be done by vote or appointing people to certain functions; cities can evolve by building walls, towers, garden etc.

Similarities to other MMOs:
- leveling but it stops pretty quick (in a week)
- gear, but everyone has the same stats in the end (cosmetics will change)
- no specialized healer or tank, no hating/agro skills; mobs will attack players that are closer, not who make the greater dmg
- classes with skill trees and dual classing at level 10 similar to Titan Quest
- crafting classes with the same dual classing system, but kept apart from the combat class; crafting will let you craft different armor/weapons with different appearance, but the stats remain the same (like GW)
- harvesting resources similar to Ryzom where a bit of skill and randomness is required

Some of these features might look casual, but we are interested here in ease of play, but hard to master, kind of like Starcraft. In Starcraft 1 Jaedong wasn't the best zerg because he grinded like a champ and had top gear and he based his chance on scoring critical hits with his mutalisks. The only way to crush an opponent was to control them better (better micro). Translated to our MMO will mean, who ever has the better skill will have a greater chance to succeed.

Crafting, harvesting and building will be activities that non competitive people will be interested in.

If you read all this, you might think GW2 will provide most of this, and you are absolutely right. If you are hardcore you will level yourself in one week probably and skip the entire dynamic events, exploring, achievements thing and get right down to PvP. What I'm worried about is that this PvP could be highly instanced and pose no scope in the actual world you play in, unlike DaoC. But we will see.

[superfly2000]

Its not a "problem" to go "against" WoW and its clones.

In fact it is still probably a safe way because there are so many players that there will always be some who will be fooled by a new game. There will be some minor changes to their gameplay and they will instantly feel that is refreshing...

I was hoping PFO would go a radically different path from most standard MMO's...but judging from developers statements and also the overhelming amount of standard MMO players on this forum says pretty much...

[Kryzbyn]

Being contrary to WoW just for the sake of being contrary to WoW does not a good MMO make.
Take what is sucessful, and burn the rest.

[superfly2000]

I didn't say contrary...

"Take what is successful" .... hasn't this been done enough already?

Heed my words...there will be one day when a WoW-clone doesn't make money...hopefully soon....

SWToR kind of proves me wrong...but there will be one day...

[Gorbacz]

So far all points to PFO being more akin to EVE than WoW.

Unless EVE is a WoW clone as well, in which evenr I rest my case. ;)

[Kryzbyn]

Well, Superfly what would you keep from WoW, and what would you discard?

They, as Scott has pointed out, must be doing something right to get 9 million subscriptions.

So what is their formula for success, in your eyes?

[Kryzbyn]

EVE is definately not a WOW clone. I've never played it, but from what I've heard on these forums, it's radically and completely different mechanicly.

[superfly2000]

Gorbacz,
As you said, EVE is definately not a WoW clone but EVE is very far from an RPG also...and we should really stop making parallells between EVE and PFO. Maybe some sandbox logics....some economics thinking...but thats it...

Kryzbyn,
umm you asking me what makes WoW successful? I couldn't care less really but I think its the ability to play single player, cartoony graphics and world/lore as well as well as a way to simple game system.

As I've said many times before: If you want a WoW-clone...sure...go ahead...you will probably get it from PFO anyway...

I'm just standing here in the corner waving a fading flag...

[Kryzbyn]

I don't want a WoW clone.

So, to sum up, it's because they:
1) Cater to the casual gamer.
2) Have graphics that don't demand you have a high end system to play
3) Have familiar and extensive Lore.

Are these bad things?

[superfly2000]

Kryzbyn,
...if thoose are your only demands on a new game you really won't have problems finding one...

I kind of agree with all your wantings except 1)....

[Kryzbyn]

Those aren't my demands or wantings. They are what you said makes WoW sucessful.
I'm trying to understand why you feel these things are bad, make for a bad game, or rail against games that have these features.

[LazarX]

hmarcbower wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm telling you that any service with millions of people paying for it must be offering something compelling.

QFT.

However, I think what we're running up against here is the classic struggle: do we give the most people what they want (which is often diluted to the point of uselessness but that they find enjoyable and fulfilling on some level which is all that matters) or do we give people what we think they *should* enjoy (a rich game that does away with or minimizes level/achievement-based progression in favour of something more cerebral or spiritually awesome)?

It's the same reason democracy sucks: do you trust the majority of people to actually make decisions on your behalf? I don't (maybe that's just me, though :). But when you're trying to make money, you appeal to the lowest common denominator (which, by definition, will appeal to almost everyone at some level) and make money hand-over-fist (i.e. WoW). You can try something else, but it's considered "niche" - and when you're talking about a MMO set somewhere that is already "niche", you're greatly reducing the possibilities of its financial success. It's been established that this isn't being done for charity - it's a business and needs to make money.

So the question is this: do they give the most people what they want (which causes the self-appointed "true" fans to be pissed off) or do they cater to the narrower, nichier market to make them happy but produce something that isn't widely popular or profitable?

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

Actually there is no SIMPLE answer. Blizzard doesn't cave in to every stupid idea that the masses churn out on their forum boards. Caving to the lowest common denominator in the long run won't sell games. Appealing only to the prima donnas won't sell games either. The art of succeeding is finding a sweet spot balance point between the extremes.

[GrumpyMel]

hmarcbower wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm telling you that any service with millions of people paying for it must be offering something compelling.

QFT.

However, I think what we're running up against here is the classic struggle: do we give the most people what they want (which is often diluted to the point of uselessness but that they find enjoyable and fulfilling on some level which is all that matters) or do we give people what we think they *should* enjoy (a rich game that does away with or minimizes level/achievement-based progression in favour of something more cerebral or spiritually awesome)?

It's the same reason democracy sucks: do you trust the majority of people to actually make decisions on your behalf? I don't (maybe that's just me, though :). But when you're trying to make money, you appeal to the lowest common denominator (which, by definition, will appeal to almost everyone at some level) and make money hand-over-fist (i.e. WoW). You can try something else, but it's considered "niche" - and when you're talking about a MMO set somewhere that is already "niche", you're greatly reducing the possibilities of its financial success. It's been established that this isn't being done for charity - it's a business and needs to make money.

So the question is this: do they give the most people what they want (which causes the self-appointed "true" fans to be pissed off) or do they cater to the narrower, nichier market to make them happy but produce something that isn't widely popular or profitable?

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

hmarcbower,

I believe you are a bit off the mark here. Very few business's actualy end up making money or being successfull by targeting the largest market sector. The reason for that is one word - competition. If your the first one in a market...it's a no brainer to go for the widest possible segment in that market. However, very few enterprises have the luxury of being first in a brand new market, and fewer still hold onto that luxury long.

Once you've got competition....you've got to offer a product that is more attractive to at least a portion of your market then your competition....or no matter how wide the market segment your targeting is, you'll go broke.

The MMO market is not brand new anymore, not only is it saturated it's oversaturated with offerings. That's why you are seeing so many MMO's (even big budget ones) fail...get put on life support....or have ROI that dissapoint their investors.

I can pretty much assure you that if a Developer wanted to make a "WOW style clone" unless they came in with a budget of at least 75-100 million, an extremely experienced team and a very well recognized IP, thier chances of doing well are slim to none. Because not only does that Developer have to make an MMO that's attractive to the WOW style target audience... they have to make one that's MORE attractive to a significant number of them then Blizzard has! They also have to make one that is more attractive then TOR, Rift, Aion, LOTRO, EQ2, etc. They've got to fight all those Developers that are thinking the exact same thing "Let's make a game that appeals to the largest possible market segment" for market share.... that's pretty much a recipie to fail not succeed....10 years ago that would have been different...not today.

The way an enterprises actualy have the best chance for success ( not perhaps the largest degree of success, but the best odds of actualy returning a decent proffit) is to identify a market segment that is currently UNDERSERVED by the existing offerings and put together an offering that is compelling enough to interest them at a cost that's less then the revenue you can pull in from that expected market.

Guess what? That's exactly what CCP did with EVE and that's why they happen to be rather financialy successfull - They are consistantly ranked in the top 5 MMO's in the West in terms of subscription and the to 10 world-wide....better then most WOW style clones, in fact.... and they did it with a very modest Development budget... a small fraction of that devoted to many of the AAA MMO's that they are currently beating the paints off of....and to top it all of they did it with a game where you play a spaceship!

Fortunately for us, from everything they've revealed about thier game concept and plans so far... I believe that none of this is news to the guys at Goblinworks. It looks like they get it...they seem to be very realistic with thier plans and goals.... and I very much doubt that we'll see a game that even remotely resembles WOW from them. I think they've indentified thier target audience and they are going to go for it.

Maybe if they had a budget of 150 million plus, a huge IP that was recognized outside of the gaming audience, a string of very well selling SPRPG's under thier label and the marketing support and backing of one of the worlds largest publishers like EA-Bioware has with TOR they could try to jump into the ring with Blizzard and fight it for share among it's own target audience. They don't....and they are smart enough to recognize it... and for that we should be thankfull.

[hmarcbower]

Jagga Spikes wrote:

hmarcbower wrote:

...

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

problem with going for "standard" MMO is that is direct confrontation with WOW. and Blizzard has money, expertise and experience that Goblinworks don't have and can't afford. besides, anything Goblinworks manages to do better than WOW, Blizzard can just copy into their own game.

imo, Goblinworks best chance is to design something that Blizzard can't copy back into WOW.

That is a very good point.

But what could that be which will also be financially viable and of enough interest to get the user base that will be required to make the sandbox fun to play in?

[hmarcbower]

@GrumpyMel (I won't quote, it was a long post... just read back... it's not that far!)

What you say makes sense - I don't think that the PFO guys are even considering challenging WoW for the top spot... it doesn't sound like their goal (which is good, as it would fail - Blizzard has had many years now of bringing in $100M every month, over a billion dollars a year).

I guess the question partly comes down to what their goal really is. Is it to find something new that hasn't been done before? If so, then that's great. Will it be financially viable? Unknown as nobody has done it before. :) It's like the iPad... one of the best descriptions I heard of it early on was "it's a solution looking for a problem." It was totally unnecessary at the time, but look at what it's created - a whole new market. Can PFO be the iPad of the MMO world? That would be awesome if it could.... but as you pointed out it would likely take a LOT of money, not a shoestring budget. I am willing to bet that Apple put a crapload of money into developing their product... a product that they didn't even know had a market when they started.

More likely "success" (which would have to be defined by Goblinworks) would come from using tried-and-true methods that will be "good enough" to get the level of player buy-in that they need to be financially successful. I'm totally on-board with you - I would love to see an MMO that actually caters to a different crowd than the WoW crowd. I don't play WoW - I fiddled with an emulator a few years back, and even for free (and most of the content had been replicated at that time - it was just the vanilla, I think... before Burning Crusade came out) it didn't hold my interest that much. I can only do so many inane quests that have no reason or story behind them beyond "oh noez, my flugelcabbage is being eaten by the snorfers! Bring me 10 snorfer heads and I'll give you a whifflebanger!"

Do I think that there are enough of us around who would be willing to pay for this to keep it up and running? I don't really know.

[lungdisc]

superfly2000 wrote:

Heed my words...there will be one day when a WoW-clone doesn't make money...hopefully soon....

SWToR kind of proves me wrong...but there will be one day...

I'm quite sure SWTOR will fail from 3 reasons:

1) They spent way too much money and the income needs to be very large to turn into profit

2) Players will burn through the content like there's no tomorrow and a lot of players will finish everything in 1-2 months. And they released the game during holidays when people are in vacation.

3) And when the voice overred content is finished, players will have to resort to repeatable activities like raids, arenas, etc but these are similar to WoW and people will get bored fast.

This is why I'm saying PvE is not good for long term play, because like any good story or movie, it needs to end at some point. If it doesn't end it will be boring, and if it ends people want more. But to make more, you need to spend more time/money on PvE. It's a very vicious cycle.

[Kryzbyn]

They already have over a million subs...and that was before people opened their gifts on Christmas.
Assuming all million only bought the standard edition, thats 59,950,000 bucks, in pocket. How much did it cost to make?

Your second point is true. I've done most every quest I can do, I started on the 13th and am already level 40, cap being 50. I hope I like raiding and pvp...

The third point here is kind of odd. There are alot (millions) of people who have been playing WoW since 2004. So if SWTOR is "that boring" I suppose they'll be ok.

Overall, I have to agree, though. SWTOR aside from a few minor thigns, isn't that much different than existing offerings in the MMO field, but it is star wars, and will do well for that reason alone.
I'm hoping they have a hybrid game...like all new content they add will be sand boxy. Blank worlds to inhabit and explore, random events that trigger side quests, etc.

[Onishi]

hmarcbower wrote:

The MMO market is not brand new anymore, not only is it saturated it's oversaturated with offerings. That's why you are seeing so many MMO's (even big budget ones) fail...get put on life support....or have ROI that dissapoint their investors.

Indeed, these days an untapped or barely tapped niche that strongly appeals to 500K gamers and partially appeals to 200k gamers, has a much better chance of being succesful then a general game that will partially appeal to 20 million gamers. Because those 20 million gamers already have no shortage of games that partially or even fully appeal to what they want. It is better to actually catch 1 fish, then to almost catch 100 fish.

[Ross Byers]

I removed a couple posts. Be civil.

[Kryzbyn]

I thought that was civil...
I'll be nicer. You've had to remove way too many of my posts for my liking.

[Uchawi]

In the end content is king, unless you buy into other time sinks, such as leveling your character, item collection or crafting, auctions, factions, achievements, pvp, world building, or socializing/guilds. If the environment remains static over a long period without any new offerings, all the the above will become stale. I guess that would leave an environment that can be developed by the players to expand the content, i.e. create a semi-developer role on a small scale.

[GrumpyMel]

hmarcbower wrote:

@GrumpyMel (I won't quote, it was a long post... just read back... it's not that far!)

What you say makes sense - I don't think that the PFO guys are even considering challenging WoW for the top spot... it doesn't sound like their goal (which is good, as it would fail - Blizzard has had many years now of bringing in $100M every month, over a billion dollars a year).

I guess the question partly comes down to what their goal really is. Is it to find something new that hasn't been done before? If so, then that's great. Will it be financially viable? Unknown as nobody has done it before. :) It's like the iPad... one of the best descriptions I heard of it early on was "it's a solution looking for a problem." It was totally unnecessary at the time, but look at what it's created - a whole new market. Can PFO be the iPad of the MMO world? That would be awesome if it could.... but as you pointed out it would likely take a LOT of money, not a shoestring budget. I am willing to bet that Apple put a crapload of money into developing their product... a product that they didn't even know had a market when they started.

More likely "success" (which would have to be defined by Goblinworks) would come from using tried-and-true methods that will be "good enough" to get the level of player buy-in that they need to be financially successful. I'm totally on-board with you - I would love to see an MMO that actually caters to a different crowd than the WoW crowd. I don't play WoW - I fiddled with an emulator a few years back, and even for free (and most of the content had been replicated at that time - it was just the vanilla, I think... before Burning Crusade came out) it didn't hold my interest that much. I can only do so many inane quests that have no reason or story behind them beyond "oh noez, my flugelcabbage is being eaten by the snorfers! Bring me 10 snorfer heads and I'll give you a whifflebanger!"

Do I think that there are enough of us around who would be willing to pay for this to keep it up and...

Honestly, I think they are looking more at the business model CCP followed with EVE. That was more of a modest investment upfront and a slow but steady increase in customers over time.

It's a very viable model if you can pull it off....so I think thier strategy is sound for the situation they are in....it all comes down to execution.....which is, of course, the big question.

From what they've described of thier design goals so far.... I think they've got a large enough potential audience to do well. I mean really, if EVE can pull in enough subscribers to rank in the Top 5 MMO's in the West.... a Pathfinder based sandbox MMO with a heavy PvP focus SHOULD be financialy viable....if they put together a good product.

The problem that alot of the Developers that have aimed for a similar design goal in recent years is that they were not just Indie Developers.... They were TINY Indie developers with very little development or business experience and very, very shoe string budgets.
For the most part, thier general concepts weren't bad....but they absolutely did not have the capability to deliver on those concepts. Not enough resources and not enough experience.... and I do believe it IS a trickier concept to deliver well on then the Themepark model.

If Goblinworks can avoid the same pitfalls though...I think they have a very decent shot.

[KitNyx]

While we are throwing out numbers, I just wanted to insure Minecraft is represented. Minecraft is the most "sandboxy" game I have ever played...but I admit it severely lacks the tools for social engineering. And, of course it is only an MMO in the loosest use of the word...more multiplayer enabled (Users can create servers and invite people into them).

Minecraft did something new...made a new market where none previously existed. It was written by a single individual (who I think as since expanded), and has exactly 1 PvE mission (I have only been told this, I have never found the mission). This means, the mechanics themselves are what keep the players busy by enabling them to entertain themselves...this to me is the definition of a sandbox. I hope Goblinworks figures out how to do the same with PFO, empowering the players to entertain themselves through the use of good mechanics.

Oh, and this indie game written by a single individual in his free time has sold 4 million copies as of November 2011.

[Uchawi]

One benefit EVE has is the lack of contenders in the sci-fi based market, and therefore customers who like sci-fi will tend to stay loyal, even if the system is not their first preference. The fantasy based market is full of contenders.

[Diego Rossi]

hmarcbower wrote:

...

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

Scott posts aren't "let's clone WOW" even if several poster try to picture them that way to gather support to their suggestions.

What at least a few of those posters seem to miss is that they are suggesting things that will marginalize the game to a extreme level.
I would very much like to have the game customized to my personal tastes and the others be damned, but I am not rich enough to pay for that. To prosper PFO will need at least 100.000 subscribes with a adequate turnover for the people leaving the game.

So the game can't aim to a excessively small audience. Most of the suggestions Scot adverse would please a small audience or have other problems (I, for one, would really dislike the idea that a guy hacking the program would get substantial advantages in a mostly PvP game, so the idea of "significant" darkness is one that I don't like).

[GrumpyMel]

Diego Rossi wrote:

hmarcbower wrote:

...

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

Scott posts aren't "let's clone WOW" even if several poster try to picture them that way to gather support to their suggestions.

What at least a few of those posters seem to miss is that they are suggesting things that will marginalize the game to a extreme level.
I would very much like to have the game customized to my personal tastes and the others be damned, but I am not rich enough to pay for that. To prosper PFO will need at least 100.000 subscribes with a adequate turnover for the people leaving the game.

So the game can't aim to a excessively small audience. Most of the suggestions Scot adverse would please a small audience or have other problems (I, for one, would really dislike the idea that a guy hacking the program would get substantial advantages in a mostly PvP game, so the idea of "significant" darkness is one that I don't like).

Diego,

I believe that many of us simply disagree with Scott's conjecture that the suggestions under contention will marginalize the game to an excessive degree.

Firstly this is all conjecture... since none of us have access to any real market research about the preferences of PFO's target audience. In fact, we may not even really know for sure what PFO's target audience is...though I suspect Goblinworks probably has a pretty decent idea of who they are looking to target by now. Even with rather extensive market research it can often be rather difficult to predict what will end up working and what won't. (See "New Coke" as an example, all the market research Coca Cola did indictated it was supposed to be a smash success rather then the abject failure it ended up being).

The only real data we have to work with is by looking at other existing games but that's a very problematic approach. Alot of the arguements I've seen forwarded that certain suggestions will marginalize the audience essentialy boil down to "Well, WOW & Rift don't do that and thier big." That's true and those things may not work well in the context of WOW & Rift or even for thier target audiences....doesn't mean they won't work well in a different game aimed at a different audience. An equivalent arguement would be to say "Well, McDonalds & Burger King don't serve scallops or lobster, therefore those foods must not be popular and a resteraunt can't be succesfull selling them." Really? someone better send a memo to Legal Seafoods. Not only that, but alot of the people that eat at McDonalds also like eating at Legal Seafoods. I do, but I wouldn't go to Legal Seafoods for a quarter pounder with cheese and I wouldn't neccesarly goto McDonalds for Lobster and Scallops.... things work well in certain contexts that don't work well in others.

Secondly, in constricting ourselves to only look at existing games it runs the trap of forcing the game into a model that's too similar to those existing games and that DOES have the potential to marginalize it's audience.... because there are only so many people who's tastes run similarly and it will have to fight those other games for that audience.....and in that sort of fight the entrenched players with the bigger budgets have a HUGE advantage. Being similar to those games in any one feature will not do that but when you combine all the different features where you want to do that, they are going to start to add up. You are essentialy limiting PFO's ability to try to be innovative and differentiate itself....or to reach a substationaly different audience then those other MMO's are reaching.

Thirdly, even if we do look at existing games for guidence, following the logic of Scott's presumptions, EVE should not exist. Yet it does, and not only does it exist...it is doing far better then the MAJORITY of games that do follow his perscriptions. So clearly there is potential to break those perscriptions and still be successfull. I don't know if what applies in EVE's case will apply in PFO's but it certainly could.

Bottom line, I think you guys are speaking presumptively and I challenge many of those presumptions. I think they are built on a house of cards that may not hold up well when put to the test. We're all just people offering our conjectures of what we believe may work...and often colored by our own prefernces.

Note, I DO take Scott at his word that he's not trying to "clone WOW" , but SO FAR....when I add up the sum of his positions, the end result is largely indistinguishable from that (to me.)

That doesn't mean the discussions can't be fruitfull. On the "darkness hack" thing...you guys have actualy convinced me of the practicality of that issue...and I've shifted my position from "Lets have true darkness" to "What things mechanicaly could be done to simulate SOME of the effects of limited vision...and what other things could be done to give Night a meaningfull difference from Day."

[Kryzbyn]

I think there is a disconnect here...
The things that Scott, and to a lesser part I, argue against are things that have been removed from MMOs over time or just plain bever existed in them, because the fun/playability to realism/challenge ratio was too far to one side or the other to be implemented or kept.
It's not that WoW is some God's gift to MMOs mentality, it's that they do not exist in any successful MMOs to date because they've already gone through those headaches, and removed them or they never were a good idea to begin with, in such a format.

Please don't misconstrue push back on certain ideas as WOW fanboi behavior when it's mostly just a reminder that some things don't exist in current MMOs for good reason, that's all.

[lungdisc]

Every pve MMO that came before WoW was an Everquest clone. And every pve MMO that came after WoW is a WoW clone. People toss this term around, but they are referring to the kill 10 rats MMO, the pve MMO.

Even if you innovate something like Public quests (WAR), Voice overred quests (SWTOR), Dual classing (RoR), you are still a wow clone. This term "wow clone" has become almost similar to MMORPG and it's very degrading for all the MMOs that focus on PVE.

In order to have an unique MMO, we need to focus on the ugly step child feature of the MMOs, the PvP. If the combat feels great and is done for a meaning like capturing areas in a field of battle and getting rewarded, then people will play the game.

Basically you are swapping killing NPCs with killing players. But it needs to keep the entire rewards system from PVE MMOs like titles, achievements, new skills, gear, xp, unlockables, ranks, etc. Pve MMOs have demonstrated what works and what doesn't work. All we need to do is break the monotony of killing 10 rats with killing 1 player. You can even throw quests at it and even public quests.

And for this to work, the PvP system needs to be as easy to get into as with PvE. Hey someone killed me, no problem, I will just re-spawn 10m away. Death should be embraced and seen as it is in a game: a simple restart from a certain point. No xp loss, no full loot, no death sickness debuffs, no buffs loss, full hp/mp recovery and maybe even a pat on the back saying "hey, don't sweat it, it happens to the best of us".

I believe death penalties were introduced to increase the PvE difficulty so you don't agro too many mobs, but I guess it servers no purpose when your fighting players (it's challenging enough).

[GrumpyMel]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I think there is a disconnect here...

The things that Scott, and to a lesser part I, argue against are things that have been removed from MMOs over time or just plain bever existed in them, because the fun/playability to realism/challenge ratio was too far to one side or the other to be implemented or kept.
It's not that WoW is some God's gift to MMOs mentality, it's that they do not exist in any successful MMOs to date because they've already gone through those headaches, and removed them or they never were a good idea to begin with, in such a format.

Please don't misconstrue push back on certain ideas as WOW fanboi behavior when it's mostly just a reminder that some things don't exist in current MMOs for good reason, that's all.

I think the ASSUMPTION that X [fill in whatever you like here] doesn't in todays MMO's because it's bad idea/can't work/isn't popular is NOT a safe ASSUMPTION to make.

X may not have been popular with the audience of THAT PARTICULAR MMO...

...or X may not have fit in well with the CONTEXT of what that MMO was doing or how it's OTHER systems work.....

... or X may not have been popular in a particular MMO because they happened to IMPLIMENT it POORLY.

.... or simply put some people (even some Developers/Investors) may have seen that a particular popular MMO didn't do X and made the unfounded ASSUMPTION that lack of X was WHY it was popular...and that became "common wisdom".

Nothing about that implies that X is INHERENTLY a bad/unworkable/unpopular idea.

That's specificaly why I made the McDonalds/Legal Sea Foods analogy....
or if you prefer "Ketchup sucks on top of vanilla ice cream but people sure seem to like it on thier fries though"

Quite Frankly I'd also like to point out that some of the concepts (like slow travel times, significant death penalties or large investments of effort to construct items) that have been argued as "known" to be bad/unpopular/unworkable because they don't exist in "todays MMO's" DO, in fact, exist as features in SOME of "todays MMO's" ...including ones that have done very well for themselves... EVE as a prominant example. So those arguements are pretty much invalid even according to thier own internal rationale.

Note, I am now a "WOW hater" just in case I gave anyone that false impression. I played WOW for about 1-1/2 years...enjoyed my time there...don't have much bad to say about it. WOW delivers the type of experience it was aiming for very well, IMO. Blizzard deserves most of the success it has enjoyed (a far amount of it was good timing too, but that's beside the point).

What I don't want to do is use WOW (or any other big name themepark MMO for that matter or even non-themepark ones) as some sort of litimus test
for what can/can't work in PFO.... Just like I don't want to use McDonalds for a litimus test for what can/can't work in Legal Seafoods.

I'd much rather discuss what might/might not fit in with what we know about PFO's design goals and what it's intended audience might be.... and try to be open minded about the permutations of how things could work HERE.

I am not accusing anyone of "WOW fanboism"...but I do think you guys MAY be falling into the trap of seeing everything as a nail because you are used to working with hammers.... and I also can't help but note some rather selective blindspots about some of the features that exist in "todays MMO's". I mean EVE does exist...does it not?

[Onishi]

GrumpyMel wrote:

Nothing about that implies that X is INHERENTLY a bad/unworkable/unpopular idea.

That's specificaly why I made the McDonalds/Legal Sea Foods analogy....
or if you prefer "Ketchup sucks on top of vanilla ice cream but people sure seem to like it on thier fries though"

Quite Frankly I'd also like to point out that some of the concepts (like slow travel times, significant death penalties or large investments of effort to construct items) that have been argued as "known" to be bad/unpopular/unworkable because they don't exist in "todays MMO's" DO, in fact, exist as features in SOME of "todays MMO's" ...including ones that have done very well for themselves... EVE as a prominant example. So those arguements are pretty much invalid even according to thier own internal rationale.

I have to agree and disagree with you here. I absolutely agree that because some MMOs scrapped certain features they are inherently bad ideas. As I've mentioned before, considering the stated goals of the game, I believe slow travel time isn't just a possibility, it is inherently required to meet several stated goals of the game.

A noticeable cost of death is something I also believe is needed to meet the inherited goals of the game, I believe a lack of any consequences is what causes PVP in many games that add in PVP after the fact to be the griefer havens that they often turn into. For PVP to be meaningful, there must be effects, both positive and negative to it's existence.

However I also have to say, there are stated differences at some point. Mechanics should be introduced based on meeting the goals of the game.

Now goals we have heard stated as the intention
1. Political focused PVP, control for territory, resources etc... Also tied with the options of high risk high reward, low risk lower reward.
2. Robust economy that varies by area, as well as getting the most bang for the buck to involve taking items across several different locations.
3. High accuracy to the Goloreon campaign setting. (Not the actual ruleset however, only the setting).

Now many ideas are appropriate, and unique and uncommon mechanics for the sake of meeting the goals of the game, are a very good idea.

On the other hand, mechanics etc... that are purely for the sake of WoW dosn't do this so it must be right, is no better then mechanics for the sake of WoW does this so it must be right. Change for the sake of change, and conformity for the sake of conformity, are both terrible practices. Things like darkness and sight obstructions, are a can of worms that may add a bit, but the technical flaws of them pretty much rule them out. Friendly fire, falls into a grey area, honestly knowlege of the skill system, combat mechanics etc... are necessary to know if they are good or horrific ideas.

Bottom line, people should keep throwing ideas out, yet also acknowledge that not every idea is great, not every idea will fall into the realm of positive change, and not every idea fits in with the things planned that we don't even know about. Do not consider it a personal attack, nor consider it always "Well because this idea is unpopular everyone must want a WoW clone" etc... That is the point of discussion, Ideas are to be posted, others are supposed to either expand upon them, or point out the holes within them.