I like the above idea.  It gives all those solo players a greater purpose other then just for personal gain.  Nobody's asking for mandatory grouping, we just want to be interacting with people on a greater level other then just through the chat box.

Wickersham said it better than I could.  Community building does not necessarily mean forced grouping, in fact I think that's probably one of the worst ways to do it.  I do sometimes feel like playing alone, but I want to be part of a larger, living world.  Otherwise, what's the point of playing an mmorpg?

I call foul for using the word Asshat 3 times in the same post.

I agree with some of your points, but just having a game be accessible to casual players does not lead to bad community.  I think maiking it too easy to solo does.  Games also tend to be missing something that ties gamers together now.  No "For the Greater good" feeling anymore.

You use WoW as an example and I think it is a good example because you can solo to cap level.  You get there and have no idea how to group and what role your class should play in that group.  Then you complain because your DPS Warrior is not invited to raids because your warriors job is to tank. 

The other side is that Warcraft was supposed to be about Alliance vs Horde and every design decision they make has not supported that.  Raiding is guild vs guild in a meaningless progress chart.  BG's are about honor grinding and break down to honor per hour calaculations.  They also hold not impact on the game world.  Arena's are team vs team and pit same sides against each other and offer the best gear in the game for many classes.

There is no reason for me to help John Doe because him sucking means nothing to me.  If John Doe sucks it only matters to him, not the community.  If Billy is an Asshat then it only matters to him.  There is nothing that ties the two of us together in any way. 

Now if Billy being an ass means he will be ostricised by the community then maybe he will be nicer so he can get in groups and raids.  If John sucks and it means that all these players like John that suck will mean I get less reward and loose more often then I will be more willing to help John get better so we can win more.

So I agree with community being a design choice, but making games accesible and more casual friendly does not mean bad community.  But making them solo friendly does IMO. 

More tools :

BaF - Brings a Friend.
Later known as "linked mobs". Mobs that act as group when pulled depending on situation and mob type. Some mobs are naturally loners, like scouts or runners, some mobs are naturally grouped like group of soldiers. Using this approach way deeper than by far has been, dev can easily make content that is meant for soloers, small groups and bigger groups in a simple manner, that also makes sense. And no I dont mean encounters like in WoW 5 man instance, where each wave of mobs is scripted to be killable at certain DPS/HPS rate and not bellow. I mean seriously grouping mobs, that makes open world PvE require grouping.

Buffing
Strenght comes from numbers. But if buffiing is used so, that without those friends of yours in group, you're not more than half of your optimal strenght, then strenght actually is numbers. You may be able to solo that single mob type somewhere, but the real joy comes when you're fully buffed by your friends and you can buff them to their optimals, and through this you access majority of content.

Rewarding
Math is simple to create, where group gains more (xp, money, loot, content) than individual alone. Contribution based math has lately got positive attention, so that healers actually do get their share without dealing a dip of damage. This should be the easiest part.

Open world with borders
Dividing people into different small instances dont drive them to meet each other. Instead creating vast instances where many groups can work together to different directions, would make them meet and eventually work together to get deeper. Dividing PVP into instances and arenas, specially without audience, even furthers same bad cause. Dividing players over vast areas makes them less able to meet each other and work together, area size vs player amount/server should be always a factor. Better to change existing content to bring new things to do, than further divide people into larger area in smaller numbers. See EVE.

Meaning
Make that name and fame actually mean something. This is hard and depends on million factors, but eventually not quite difficult to implement when dev has got their papers in order. Googling guildhouse, bragging rights, guild controlled, ladder tournament and checking couple of youtube videos from top ranking guilds should give the idea.

Ingame community tools
Calendars, flags, suits, cloacks, emblems, tabards, wall carpets, statues, houses, ranking systems, ingame forums, gossip board, meeting locations, guild quests, cause, meaning, goal, reward, dynamicly effecting the world, guildchat, mail system, scout system, raid leading system, for gods sake give guild leaders offices, guild hierarchy, ladders, statistics, place to spend money to sit shows, blingbling, dingdong, community lead events, real resources real markets, crafted items with crafters tags, parades, meetings, influence, mercenaries, alliance systems, group leading interface and tools to preplan moves with a map, VOIP... the list is endless. But if teaming up means one more colorfull chatroom and thats it, I'd quit.

I agree completely with OP that creating communities in game is hugely effected by how the game is designed in the first place. Communities creates the addiction, and addiction creates income. Even I could sell this idea to investors.

Originally posted by ianubisi

If people want to socialize, they will do so. You don't need a system to drive social people together.

People who don't want to socialize won't play a game that mandates that they do. They will find a game that allows them to play the way they prefer.

So the question is simple: if you don't like this kind of game design, a design which allows an individual to not be interdependent upon a social group, why are you playing such a game?

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

I don't get it. Why do you think anyone wants to force anti-social people to be social?

We're asking for game mechanics that allow us social players to enjoy the game. Nobody really cares about forcing someone else to play that way.

You're saying, even though you don't realize it, that you want the social players to have fun, even though you take away the game mechanics we enjoy, just so the solo players will be happy.

Make the game solo friendly, and the people that like to group can do do that if they want to. Uh, no not really, because now that you've made the game "solo friendly" you've ruined the part of grouping that I enjoy. Has nothing to do with you, and I wouldn't care if you were in the game or not, or if you grouped, didn't group, socialized, didn't socialize, played solo,  whatever.

I enjoy grouping because of getting together with other players, and overcoming a challenge. By the time you make the game "solo friendly" the challenge for the group is gone, and sure, I can group anyway which is what you're suggesting, but why bother since it's not fun anymore?

I want game mechanics that make my group play fun. I don't see why you think that has anything to do with you, or your desire to play solo, and no, I don't want to force you to group with me, and I don't even care if you play the game or not.

I wanted to quote the OP for truth for every word he wrote, but the post is too long :)

No seriously, I monitored the same thing over quite a few years in every game I played. The social factor decreased and decreased. Nowadays you have games like AoC and to some extent WoW that play like "checklists". People in those games are socializing just if they have to and for their own motives.

Please don't confuse socializing with grouping, because grouping in AoC and WoW is mostly just for a few minutes to kill a mob which needs more than a solo player to be defeated.

While it is true that the community is made by the people, it is also true that different aspects in the newer generation of games is creating the problems the OP mentioned.

You have to look at the history this genre has gone through and where MMORPGs have their roots. On the computer based side the originate from MUDs, text based adventure games. For the first generation of played MMORPGs were such a fascinating experience, because their beloved MUDs came now with a graphical representation, but in their core they still were MUDs. Games, which were open and with freedom of where to face next. World immersion was the main focus. Due to that fact people had to interact with each other, because as a single character you would not get very far in games like EQ or DAoC, or any other title of this generation.

Nowadays, those games are designed as "video games" and are attractive to a different audience as well. The combination of game features and that audience make today's gaming communities. So yes, communities are a design choice, because with the game you create you know more or less before which audience you will attract. I mean you don't open a restaurant with "haute cuisine", planning to attract people who enjoy hot dogs. When a project like an MMORPG is planned developers are well aware of the fact that they will attract this and that type of player.  

Maybe this will help the solo advocates get the picture.

I want to play football. Football requires you have  a team.

You're telling me, you want to play, but without a team, so could I please change all the rules so you can play the game solo?

Yes, we can do that, but then it's not football anymore.

It's not that I want to force you to be on my team. I don't care if you aren't on my team. It's that I want to play football, and once we change all the rules so you can play solo, it's not football anymore.

And the solo players are saying, well you can still go off and form a team, can't you? No, I can't because you've completely changed the field to the point I can't use it to play the game of football anymore. You've removed one of the goal posts, and shortened the field by 50 yards.

Sure, I can go form a team, but what the hell are we going to do with a 50 yard field that only has one goal post?

Okay, I am going to agree with you that part of the problem I think is the current mmo design which to me is flawed.  Current mmo design seems to concentrate more toward quest grind, a more single player game type mechanic, as opposed to appealing to the more obvious strength of the genre, which is as an online medium of social interaction.

I have an analogy from my experiences as a youth.  I remember going to this dance in high school.  The DJ sucked and the music was horrible.  No one was dancing, but rather just standing around, irritated with the music and complaining.  Well, that's where I feel  we are as a community.   It's not that we don't like to dance, or that we don't like mmo's. 

Finally, enough people complained and the DJ put on some better music and people started to dance.   Happy faces and happy times, and no time to grumble and complain because we had found our groove.

I hope we can find our groove.

Originally posted by tunabun

Originally posted by vesavius

 Community as a design Choice

 

Can't agree more with what you have said here.  This mirrors my own thoughts on design so closely that I would like to discuss this further with you.  I will say in advance that if the topic of NDAs arise that we will most likely disagree somewhat on the idiology regarding breakage of those.

I think it's very uncommon for non designers to point out that developers are responsible for how there game develops to a great extent.  Most people will simply blame the community for its own pitfalls, as if it is an extension of the players rather than an extension of the designers flawed designs.  Anyway, I'll message you and hopefully you will want to discuss further.

hehe it's cool, a view on NDA breaking or anything is just a view, and though I like a good debate, it's all just forum banter :)

Gotta say though, like the other thread going on around here about group grinding, I am finding this thread a revelation.

I had no idea that others felt the same way as me and more or less given the game up... It's really refreshing that group play and the like arnt dirty words anymore and people are coming out and saying what they really want; social based MMORPGs where we can invest, co-op, bond, explore, create, and yes, even fight with each other now and again, to our hearts content.

I remember about 8 years ago sitting in the pub with my RL friends who had all just started playing these games and getting so enthusiastic about these games and the potentiol in them... Living breathing worlds that would get ever more immersive and global, places where we could build things together for fun, stories that could be created just by walking through the land....

Then it all got regionalised, linear, limited, easy, and solo, and part of me is really sad for that. So much wasted potentiol.

Yeah, please PM me, glad to chat about it :)

Originally posted by Illius

Originally posted by ianubisi

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

If 9 out of 10 people are antisocial that does not leave a lot of people to socialize with.  The fact that the majority of games caters to the antisocial gamer does not leave much choice when it comes to looking for a game that has something for the social individual.

I would gladly go and play other games but they all usually lack quality or implement some crap like item malls.

Also I couldn't agree more with the OP.  All the antisocial people have tons of choices to go where ever they choose and they always find a friendly environment to their playstile.  Their influence has put us where we are now. 

I am hopeful that devs will soon realise that it is better to have 250,000 players for 10+ years with a social game then have 750,000, dropping to 450,000, then to 200,000, 100,000... in the the following 3 or so years with a solo ez lite game as they fail to connect on a deeper level with their players.  Maybe not in short term profit terms, sure, but in the long run. It's easy to see that instead of seeing that it is better to have a golden egg for dinner every day then kill the goose for one big feast?

Maybe when we have the choice, we social gamers can 'go elsewhere' to play the game we wanna play. Until then, we can only make the same noise around the forums as the solo ez lite players make so that the devs do not think there isnt a demand for more meaningful and deeper social gameplay.

We need, I think, for the mass market bubble to burst on MMORPGs so that passion and imagination starts to dominate once more over VC cash.

Originally posted by ianubisi

If people want to socialize, they will do so. You don't need a system to drive social people together.

People who don't want to socialize won't play a game that mandates that they do. They will find a game that allows them to play the way they prefer.

So the question is simple: if you don't like this kind of game design, a design which allows an individual to not be interdependent upon a social group, why are you playing such a game?

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

You see, one of the points that I am making is that around '99 I would have said the same to a solo player, but the other way round naturally.

Why did solo players come to MMORPGs, which were pretty much all group based social games at the start, and demand they be solo? Why were they playing such a game?

And to answer the real question, I do not believe 9 out of 10 people are anti-social... I believe that some are, sure, but also some get just got sick of trying to find a group (for which there are social system solutions to, rather then just making a game solo), some need a casual short play experience (for which there are social system solutions to rather then making a game solo), and some (a lot) just don't know better (they have only experienced the genre since WoW). Also some (also a lot) just found themselves with no options because the game around them changed into something they didnt want, but they didnt want to leave MMORPGs.

I believe devs got stuck in a downward spiral of fashionable lazy thinking, blinded by greed and the excitment of MMORPGs breaking the mainstream, and that led us to where we are today.

You see, solo play in MMORPGs is an ever decreasing circle... You put some in, and people get sick of waiting 5 mins for a group and play it, taking them out of the 'player pool'. So this decreases the available amount of players in the pool, making the wait for groups longer and frustrating, so more people turn to the solo play, taking them outta the player pool... etc etc etc. It gets to point very early where even the social player cannot get a group and the devs say 'wow, everyone is playing solo..! They must all love it!", but in reality we are playing it because it is the only choice and not because we want to.

I am not advocating waiting times for groups though here, I am suggesting there were more elegant social solutions to the grouping problems of the generation 2 games then oblitering the social game with ez lite solo quest grinds.

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by ianubisi

If people want to socialize, they will do so. You don't need a system to drive social people together.

People who don't want to socialize won't play a game that mandates that they do. They will find a game that allows them to play the way they prefer.

So the question is simple: if you don't like this kind of game design, a design which allows an individual to not be interdependent upon a social group, why are you playing such a game?

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

 

This is only half truth.  People need incentive to do many things, socializing is one of them.  So yes, you do need a system that is design for such function.

 

Interdependency does not mean everyone must social with others, but that there will be player interaction in every aspect (in some form or another).  So the question becomes, can everyone do everything on their own?  if so then why play with other?  If people cannot do everything on their own, then there will be player interaction, which also counts as socializing.

 

No one cares for whether someone is antisocial or not, but to design an online game that focus on antisocial aspect is just idiotic.  Why would you need to play an online game when you can get the same experience in an off-line game?  Of course, everyone can choose what games to play, but that doesn't mean they should design with just one way of thinking...

Spot on Forcan :)

Originally posted by tunabun

Originally posted by ianubisi

If people want to socialize, they will do so. You don't need a system to drive social people together.

People who don't want to socialize won't play a game that mandates that they do. They will find a game that allows them to play the way they prefer.

So the question is simple: if you don't like this kind of game design, a design which allows an individual to not be interdependent upon a social group, why are you playing such a game?

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

 

Although it may be true that those who want to socialize will do so, the fact is that most gamers have no real freaking clue what they "want" to do when starting a new game.  Most gamers simply do what the game dictates they must do.  If questing levels you faster than grinding mobs, most players will quest.  If grinding mobs is more advantageous then they will do that. 

So his point is that if designed properly you could get a lot more people pointed in the socializing direction, as the majority of people are not anti social by nature.  The anti social nature of communities in this genre, is as stated, faultily designed and thoughtlessly implemented.  Most people are actually quite social by nature, whether online or off, and given the proper tools will act that way.  It's not about forcing people to socialize but giving them the tools to actually do so and creating a semi realistic state of interdependence throughout the game world.  This interdependence actually improves many other things, like the economic structure, gameplay opportunities, and additional plot lines.

This is not a matter of "finding" like minded people, as he isn't complaining from a gamers stand point but a designers standpoint and giving reason to horrible communities which are, in combination with other things, bad because of the poor design structures, especially regarding socialization.  The current designs of many MMORPGs are skewed as the designers attempt to simplify their desires and that of the major audience of casual gamers.  The designers want to make sure progression is lasting which they attempt to accomplish by having levels, but they also see that they need to design towards casual players as they are the majority so they make it solo-able leveling.  Along with this they see no need to add many social structures past basic chat functions, as it would be uneconomical to build social systems that that majority of the player base won't take advantage of.  This leads to a totally hermit like gameplay experience where if a different progressive system was put in place, and more social tools added, it would lead to many more players partaking in the social aspects of the game, and would still allow those who wish to solo to do so.

This is not an "add social enhancers" equals "forcing solo players to group" concept, this is simply allowing more people who want to socialize to do so and many who could care less either way to lean towards the side that actually improves the community as a whole while secondarily and positively affecting the realistic consistency of the world.

 

 

Yes yes yes :)

Very well written post and lots of great points.  I agree with you on this.

Originally posted by winter

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by Zayne3145

"Wall of text crits you for 7635."

But seriously, community for me represents the overall maturity and personality of a playerbase. Now I love WoW, but 80% of that is because I'm in a guild with some really great people. I've been on a few guild hops before after unfortunate disbands, and whenever that happens and I'm wandering the wilderness alone for a while, I lose all interest in the game.

I hear people moan about bad communities a lot, citing immaturity, selfishness or just downright idiocy, but I really do feel that MMO's are a lot like real life - you pick your friends and stick with them, and ignore the idiots.

 

7635??

But I used paragraphs and everything! hehe I didnt think people had thata hard time reading more then 5 lines these days ;)

I hear what you are saying but that really wasnt the point I was making... In every game there are obviously those to be ignored, but I am saying that badly thought out game design increases the percentage of those people to be ignored massively.

 

 

 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the type of game your discribing doesn't allow you to ignore the idiots, it forces you to group with them. Dispite what you say sometimes its good to be able to solo. Personally I hate PUG groups they generally have at least one asshat in them. I'd much rather group with my guild mates, and if I'm playing in a off hour when thats not possible I'd much rather solo. I don't like being forced to group. Sure some might be totally cool but in experience just as many are not. The old answer of "well just don't group with them, and instead get a different group" Just means I spend more time doing nothing but waiting around in the community for a group.

  The thing is I don't actually play MMO's for the community. If theresa good community its a plus, but I deal with people in RL, I have no problem calling up a friend to tell a joke etc. Community, real community is what you deal with in real life. Fake community ie little Jimmy online hoping to pick up a pixalated girlfriend, or Joe Smoo wanting to show off his latest epic to feel better about himself is not community. 

You see, there ARE idiots in MMORPGs.

I agree.

But y'know what? Those idiots are part of the MMORPG machine... No matter how cool each of us thinks we are, I am sure that at one time or another someone has thought of us as an idiot right?

In a group social game, you arnt FORCED to group up with ANYONE... In a social game people have reputations that preceeds them and you get the choice. In a social game, you get to know the bad apples on the server. In a group social game, it is for the player to develop and invest in a extended network of friends and contacts. And you know what? In a group social game there are LESS idiots because a social community self polices more effectively.

Winter, you are very hard I feel on people that want their gaming experience to be more social and deeper then casual solo lite... You might not play MMORPGs for the community, but others do, and we are not RL social outcasts with no RL friends. Why limit the good people you meet in life to meeting them in person? There is nothing fake in the friends I have met online though EQ1 at all... Nothing fake in the BBQs I go to 8-9 years fater first grouping with them, and nothing fake in our now RL friendship. And, yes, I met them in a social game. These arnt my main group of friends, but they are a valuable addition I see 2-3 times a year.

I get the feeling that you started MMORPGs with the WoW era? Not trying to be insulting here, just trying to understand...

Originally posted by altairzq

In old EQ community was decent, because everybody knew they could need the help of others at any time.

 

Moder MMOs can be played quite succesfully without much need of help from the rest of players, so some people behave like absolute morons.

 

That's it.

Yep, that IS it.

Said so much more elegantly and concisely then I could do :)

Originally posted by gillvane1

Originally posted by winter

. Personally I hate PUG groups they generally have at least one asshat in them. I'd much rather group with my guild mates, and if I'm playing in a off hour when thats not possible I'd much rather solo. I don't like being forced to group. Sure some might be totally cool but in experience just as many are not. The old answer of "well just don't group with them, and instead get a different group" Just means I spend more time doing nothing but waiting around in the community for a group.

  The thing is I don't actually play MMO's for the community. If theresa good community its a plus, but I deal with people in RL, I have no problem calling up a friend to tell a joke etc. Community, real community is what you deal with in real life. Fake community ie little Jimmy online hoping to pick up a pixalated girlfriend, or Joe Smoo wanting to show off his latest epic to feel better about himself is not community. 

 

A good example why they should make different games for different types of players. I only play MMORPGs for the community, I never solo unless it's just to whack on mobs waiting on a group, and I pretty much ONLY play in Pugs.

That's my favorite thing to do in an MMO, play in pick up groups.

I don't feel like I'm ever being "forced to group" because there's really nothing in an MMORPG I want to do, if I'm not in a group.

Doing quests solo, or grinding on mobs solo? Why would I bother, because it's so boring? If I'm playing an MMORPG solo, I'm not having any fun, so it's pointless for me.

Yep, agree with what you say here, on all counts.

Originally posted by Loira

I call foul for using the word Asshat 3 times in the same post.

 Hah! ok, fair enough :)

I agree with some of your points, but just having a game be accessible to casual players does not lead to bad community. 

No, I agree, I wasnt saying that.

I was saying that making the game too easy (fully described quests, marked objectives on GPS style full detailed maps, safe paths to all quest points etc) DOES though...

I do not feel casual games have to be easy... I am not sure where the idea they do came from... The notion didnt exist before very recently tbh...

Casual games have to be accessable, sure, but why does that not mean challenging? Even a casual MMORPG (and I think there are enough of though already... time for a semi-casual at least plz?) should be designed to be more them moving wallpaper you barely have to click on to play?

I think maiking it too easy to solo does.  Games also tend to be missing something that ties gamers together now.  No "For the Greater good" feeling anymore.

Spot on :)

There is no reason for me to help John Doe because him sucking means nothing to me.  If John Doe sucks it only matters to him, not the community.  If Billy is an Asshat then it only matters to him.  There is nothing that ties the two of us together in any way. 

Now if Billy being an ass means he will be ostricised by the community then maybe he will be nicer so he can get in groups and raids.  If John sucks and it means that all these players like John that suck will mean I get less reward and loose more often then I will be more willing to help John get better so we can win more.

So I agree with community being a design choice, but making games accesible and more casual friendly does not mean bad community.  But making them solo friendly does IMO. 

Agreed :)

Originally posted by gillvane1

Maybe this will help the solo advocates get the picture.

 

I want to play football. Football requires you have  a team.

 

You're telling me, you want to play, but without a team, so could I please change all the rules so you can play the game solo?

Yes, we can do that, but then it's not football anymore.

It's not that I want to force you to be on my team. I don't care if you aren't on my team. It's that I want to play football, and once we change all the rules so you can play solo, it's not football anymore.

And the solo players are saying, well you can still go off and form a team, can't you? No, I can't because you've completely changed the field to the point I can't use it to play the game of football anymore. You've removed one of the goal posts, and shortened the field by 50 yards.

Sure, I can go form a team, but what the hell are we going to do with a 50 yard field that only has one goal post?

Yes, QFT, nicely put.

Originally posted by Terranah

Okay, I am going to agree with you that part of the problem I think is the current mmo design which to me is flawed.  Current mmo design seems to concentrate more toward quest grind, a more single player game type mechanic, as opposed to appealing to the more obvious strength of the genre, which is as an online medium of social interaction.

 

I have an analogy from my experiences as a youth.  I remember going to this dance in high school.  The DJ sucked and the music was horrible.  No one was dancing, but rather just standing around, irritated with the music and complaining.  Well, that's where I feel  we are as a community.   It's not that we don't like to dance, or that we don't like mmo's. 

 

Finally, enough people complained and the DJ put on some better music and people started to dance.   Happy faces and happy times, and no time to grumble and complain because we had found our groove.

 

I hope we can find our groove.

Ok, I will stop spam posting now, but I was gone for a few days and the quality of so manyreplies here made me wanna reply.

Including this one.

Really nice analogy.

I find this topic most interesting, and I mostly agree with the OP. The design choice to create communities is alas a feature mostly ignored these days. One can only ponder if devs in past times were better or if the community making features came into the old MMOs by accident. Personally I suspect rather the latter.

Now a community can be established by two things, simply said:

a) creating player hubs, where people can meet in interesting places with needful things to get and do

b) by adding non-combat activities which are connected to the game and have an actual function

To (A): I was so often surprised how bad many player hubs are placed in the game world. One of the most stunning examples for me remains Vanguard. I never will forget how wonderful I found New Torgonor the capital of it's continent, and how totally misplaced it is. Instead, players mostly start in small villages, spread ALL over the world. What reason is there to go to New Torgonor? None. It is totally out of place, away from the beginner players (which is a NEED for a player hub) and most important: it lacks ANY unique feature. Take for counter example Warcraft. Ironforge and especially Stormwind have always been meeting places. Why? They are placed so every player can easily reach them right from start and with the AH there are good reasons to go there.

AoC for instance with they crafting entirely connected to the far outlying regions an took one important part of their central cities away, and their player cities, like those of Vanguard, are FAR away from everything you need and want to go to, and they totally lack any function you really need. Same to the LOTRO ghos-town player cities. They are nice to see, and thats all.

For me the best example to create communities will always be the old SWG. Both the premade cities and the player cities were busy hubs of meet and greet. People were just standing on the streets to talk, to roleplay, to duel, to haggle or whatever. SWG had actually REAL city lives! Our guild city for instance used to be busy with buyers and sellers, but one other things, which brings me to (B):

(B) For someone who played a dancer for many years in SWG it will remain one of the universes big mysteries why no other MMO ever applied the use of really functional non-combat classes. For those who dont know it: in the old days players in combat gathered so called battle fatigue, which lowered their XP income and their stats. So after a time they had to watch a dancer or listen to musicians for a while to get rid of battle fatigue and they could get combat buffs, too. This was the fundament of the best MMO community I have seen to this day. Everyone who was there in the grand old days, when Mos Eisley, Theed and many other places were buzzing with life will know what I mean. Lines waiting for an imagne designer to give them a new haircut, or just standing in some backwater cantina to listen to some musicians making a gig, or a beach party or a player made auction. It were really, litterally the grand old days of community MMO gaming. For me its a passed golden era.

These days, people use cities only to rush in, hurriedly sell their good and buy food and drink and rush back to the field to grind. Partially the mentality of the players changed. But a lot of missed opportunities and bad game design is in the bag as well, and especially the lack of functional, social  non-combat professions. In that PRE-NGE SWG was the best designed game, when it came to ingame community creation. The buzzing streets, the active city life... I have never ever seen something even remote close to it, and when I think it I have to suppress a little tear watching all those sterile, lifeless "modern" MMOs where people just rush through levels and the game worlds as if to break a record. It's sad, but it is also a design feature apparently lost to developers these days.

 Great thread! I am so glad to see that I am not the only one who believes something is very, very wrong with modern MMORPGs. 

@Yunbei

Man, you have some valid points regarding city hubs! I am alway baffled who much developers or game designers seem to underestimate the value of city hubs! It's insane. I mean, do those developers live in the wilderness or what? Do they really do not grasp the importance of cities, even in real life? Did they never talked about the importance of cities in every century? Maybe some of those developers need more free time and go out into the city to get back their feeling for real-life, don't know.

I am playing computer games for a very long time now. My first online games were those funy text-based MUDs. What I always likes about online games was the opportunity to interact with other players in a virtual world. Play together and have some fun. 

During the last years something has happened. I feel that MMORPGs are not longer multiplayer games. They have become solo player games without any kind of "soul". Player do no longer play together, no, they mostly play against each other. 

Why is that so? I think the core mechanic of many games favor solo-play over teamplay. Take WoW for example. In this game there are many collector quests. Since the required items will only drop for one member of the group it's faster to go solo. Same applies to drops/loot. When something nice drops you are forced to roll _against_ your party members. 

But I feel a good game should reward teamwork. it should be a win-win situation for everyone. The performance of the group should scale with the number of players involved. 

Vanguard has a nice feature in this regard. When you farm a resource the amount you can farm is only limited by a given timeout. So it all depends on how much you can get out of the resource in the given timeframe. The good thing is, that another player can farm the same resource in this timeframe, too! So with two players you will get more out of this resource than one player.

Another example is EvE Online. Mining alone is boring and very inefficient. But mining scales pretty well with the number of players participating. Suddenly you can mine more, have players who do the transport, have scouts, have guards and so on. So a team is much stronger and way more effective than a solo player. Of course you can still go solo. But you wlll notice that you are way more effective in a team. 

 Ah, and one more thing regarding solo-play vs teamplay. I do understand that some players prefer solo-play. Ok, I am fine with that. But why has EVERY new MMORPG out there to be a solo-game? Don't we have enough of them already? Where is the game for the rest of us?

Originally posted by woeye

 Ah, and one more thing regarding solo-play vs teamplay. I do understand that some players prefer solo-play. Ok, I am fine with that. But why has EVERY new MMORPG out there to be a solo-game? Don't we have enough of them already? Where is the game for the rest of us?

They aren't. There's nothing preventing group play. Group play should be encouraged, and is in the majority of games, but it shouldn't be mandantory. The problem isn't the ability to solo it's lack of depth at all levels of play and mechanics that encourage a "me first" mentality even in group play.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by woeye

 Ah, and one more thing regarding solo-play vs teamplay. I do understand that some players prefer solo-play. Ok, I am fine with that. But why has EVERY new MMORPG out there to be a solo-game? Don't we have enough of them already? Where is the game for the rest of us?

 

They aren't. There's nothing preventing group play. Group play should be encouraged, and is in the majority of games, but it shouldn't be mandantory. 

1. Please read first, then comment. Thank you.

2. I agree with you that group play should be encouraged. And it shouldn't be mandatory, yes. But I disagree that the majority of games is encouraging group play. No, in fact I believe they are punishing group play:

• Collector quests and low drop rate favor solo play because this way players will finish the quest faster
• Grouping is only required to get into a dungeon. It is mandatory. It does not encourage because you will have to roll against your groupmates over loot.
• Grouping hurts XP gain in many games, if not most.
• In case of Warhammer: Why do you think so many players are leaving their group in scenarios? Right, because they will gain WAY more XP and RP this way. And this is called a teambased PvP game?
• Again in case of Warhammer: many, many quests are bugged in group play. Even more worse: you have to kill certain NPCs multiple times because it doesn't count for the group. 

Group play should be a win-win situation for everyone. Unless group play provides no real benefits there's no reason to group for many players.