A better Sci-Fi MMO

Anarchy Online, Neocron (1&2), Eve Online, and several others have tried, but why isn't there a top-tier Science Fiction MMO out there right now? I'll tell you what I think...

Author: BigDaddyTee

You're wanting things that really can't coexist. "classless" and then "balance". By classless, I'm assuming you want 'skill' based. Skill based systems end up being class based systems "The flavor of the month" etc. 3-5 templates that you have to follow to be 'good' at what you do.

Now, what it REALLY sounds to me what you want is a Shadowrun version of Neverwinter Nights. The fewer real people, the more liberties you can take. The more MMO you become, the more baseline driven you make it. For instance, in a 6 player online game, you could have your CEO take off and leave his corp tower when closing time comes, and you and your gang could infiltrate his office, etc etc... but in a MMO, that CEO has to be there 24/7 because some OTHER people might have to meet him in his office to do some mission of their own.

You're absolutely right and that was kind of the point.  It's not something that can be done.  But it is still something that I want.  The point I guess I failed to make is that I understand why it can't happen.  That, however, doesn't stop me from wanting it to happen.

This was kind of a laundry list of things that I want in a game.  In any development process, you have to start with "The List".  That is continuously whittled down until you have a viable product. 

You're right though, about the classless systems that currently inhabit the MMO landscape.  You still have to follow specific paths to get what you want, creating specific types of characters.

I think the main hurdle that any new mmo faces today is the financial one.  As computers and technology become more complex, our expectations increase exponentially and with it hte costs of producing such a game.

Ultimately computers will be able to run a game such as you describe, but how much will it take to produce and who will want to take on that risk.

Hehe, reminds me of the saying "You can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills first" ;)

I'd love a game like you describe as well, but alas, between cost issues, gameplay issues, and people  issues (people tend to act differently in games than in real life, so the dork quotient gets out of hand in game), it just won't happen :(. At least until we can develop AI which is as fun or more fun to play against than other people.

I want a Sci-Fi mmorpg with the all the good stuff from EvE online and SWG pre-cu/nge, and the FPS / Space Combat style of Planetside and Wing Commander.

Basically I want darkfall in space :p

A skill based system can be just as balanced as a class based system. There really is no difference in potential between the two systems. In the end they are the same, its all in how you make it. Guild wars is an example of a hybrid. It is both class and skill based.

 The problem with balance is that it aint easy. With PvE most people do not really care about balance. A majority of the games out today are PvE based with PvP thrown in. So they have not put forth much effort toward balance in PvP. WoW is a good example of unbalanced classes in PvP. Most have a stock templates (just like eric_w66 mentioned about a skill based system). If you see a PvP warrior, he will have mortal strike. Is this the fault of the game being class based? No it is not. Its the fault of the developers not trying to balance and make several viable options for PvP.

You are all looking for Starquest Online.

Oddly enough, Sir_Daniel, I had just downloaded that game...  And while, as a Trekkie, I found it quite entertaining, it still didn't do justice to what I'm talking about.  Also, t0nyd, I don't think eric_w66 was knocking the skill-based vs. class-based systems.  He was pointing out how even in a skill-based game, you tend follow similar paths in order to create characters that are good at specific things. 

Terranah is also correct about the financial issues surrounding a new development.  Anytime you create new software, significant risk is incurred by the group providing funds.  It's a risk that most companies can't afford to take. 

Excellent discussion, folks. 

When Doom (or Duke Nukem, been awhile) was the talk of the town. A person sent in a letter (not email) to a well known gaming magazine back then, might have been Computer Gaming World. He wrote about the great time he had playing Doom multiplayer. But wouldn’t it be awesome that games like that would not only be played by several people, but several hundred thousand people. I remember the editor stating that it would never be done in our lifetime.

I have always hated the nay-Sayers. If we put our mind to it, it can be done. I have yet to see when it hasn’t. And that is not just in gaming, but any field of knowledge.

The problem with what you have mentioned, especially the skill based game is this:

We listen to the people that say this skill set is the best. And the bad part is when they are right. Just like EQ2 right now with my Necromancer and SK with the achievement line. I chose my line and it really just ok. I went to the forums and behold someone gave a different line up. I tried the line up and DAMN, was it a ton better. I was taking out things I would never dare to challenge.

Now how do you kill that? You make a lot of primary skills that are great, but only have the ability to chose 1. Then you have the supporting skills, which are good but could only chose 2 and for the third tier of skills could only be quested or whatever. Basically you make so many skills; no one would have the time or energy to try all the combos. Some could be quested; some could be random book drops. Just food for thought.

That's the problem with MMO's Gkarn, whether they be skill based or class based. Basically, unless you do red vs blue and have everything identical you can't have balance (and even then, you can have imbalance based on # of players, etc). Once you start adding skills or items with varying attributes that are restricted to one side/class (class or skill based, doesn't matter) that affect your in game character, you're going to have problems with balance. WW2 Online is a good example. Usually, at the start of the campaign, the allies will do ok in the northern half of the map where the Matilda II tank is king, the axis players don't like fighting against it because its extremely tough to kill. In the south, the french have the Char1bis, but it is super slow, not nearly as tough, with a worse gun, and extremely poor situation awareness. When used right, it can be a powerhouse, but often, it is not. So the axis players like to fight down south, and typically roll the southern half of the map. Once tier 1 equipment comes into the game, the situation starts to reverse. The axis now have the best tank, in fairly large quantities, and up north, the Matilda II and the crusader 2 cannot handle the Pz3H very well, and so the north starts to move west, while the french have the Stuart, while practically unarmored, has a nice gun, and is super fast and maneuverable (can flank the 3H fairly easily in the hills/forests of the south).

That game has no 'skills' or 'classes' beyond just which branch of the armed forces you're in. All the 'skill' comes from the player. And while this sounds balanced, it isn't, because the equipment isn't 'balanced'. CRS tries to keep things even, but that's an impossible task, especially when the population levels of the game vary so wildly. Having 600 vs 400 might be acceptable for a while, but early mornings USA time, when its 60 vs 40, its horrible gameplay.  The axis have the perceived advantage in equipment after tier 0 (the first week or two of a campaign), and it shows numbers wise. Giving one side more people AND better gear....well.... that's a recipe for having a niche game for eternity as the masses of people won't pay to be a baby seal and be clubbed all the time.

How do you 'stop' template of the month syndrome? You can't. People will communicate, people will parse the data to find the maximum defense or DPS, etc... its human nature. Even by making a system like you suggested, people WILL compare data, and they will find the optimal path. You can try to moderate it like SWG did by having all the combat skills be practically the same, except the ranges were different. But then, you're back to red vs blue.

I remember Dungeon Siege was a fantastic game when it came out -- one of the most interesting aspects to the  game was that instead of predefined classes or buying skills, you basically improved whatever you used. 

So if you like to do a lot of melee, with a little bit of healing, you'll end up with a skillset that is mostly combat heavy, but with some healing ability.  And so forth.  This is a really innovative way of making each character "unique" and should be reexamined.