MMO's are working as designed.  Unless we're taking sandbox games like EVE which play quite a bit differently and don't sufffer from the same playstyles.

it only presented a problem, but in  the end, there was not solution suggestion.

Originally posted by lifesbrink

4) The problem: aggro
 Deer should never aggro, (unless they are demonic or something), and instead run away.

I've had deer nearly aggro me at a campsite once.  It was a doe with fawn nearby and me, my wife and my rhodesian ridgeback in the campsite.  She didn't like the look of us I guess and huffed and stomped her feet about 30 feet from the campsite.  She repeated this about 4 times but the Taunt didn't work and she left.

Perhaps she was trying to "pull" one of us but there was no way that was going to happen.

I played rpgs before there were MMOs.  Take the most boring, least creative, least strategic and most heavily scripted parts of rpgs and ditch everything else and there you have MMOs today.  I'd write a post detailing what I mean by that but it would be very long and very useless.

EQ1 was great.  It showed the world that 3d 1st person rpgs could exist with hundreds occupying the same very large zone.  It also showed companies that such games had widespread interest amongst people willing to pay $.  Since then we've got almost nothing but more refined clones of that game with some cosmetic variations.  All of the good was taken from EQ1 but so was all of the bad.  The worlds are still very static, character movements and environment interactions are very limited, classes are still fundamentally the same, monster/Npc AI is still the same, zoning is still going strong (except in wow), etc, etc, etc.. 

The fact that many gamers today can't imagine a game without #4 is the most tragic thing of all as far as I'm concerned.

For #1, CoH and another game I've played recently, maybe AoC, have a system that allows players to share adventures with those from different levels.  I don't like that because it makes getting levels sort of pointless.  I'd prefer a game where the difference between a level 30 and a level 60 wasn't nearly so enormous.

Originally posted by Fennris

I played rpgs before there were MMOs.  Take the most boring, least creative, least strategic and most heavily scripted parts of rpgs and ditch everything else and there you have MMOs today.  I'd write a post detailing what I mean by that but it would be very long and very useless.

EQ1 was great.  It showed the world that 3d 1st person rpgs could exist with hundreds occupying the same very large zone.  It also showed companies that such games had widespread interest amongst people willing to pay $.  Since then we've got almost nothing but more refined clones of that game with some cosmetic variations.  All of the good was taken from EQ1 but so was all of the bad.  The worlds are still very static, character movements and environment interactions are very limited, classes are still fundamentally the same, monster/Npc AI is still the same, zoning is still going strong (except in wow), etc, etc, etc.. 

The fact that many gamers today can't imagine a game without #4 is the most tragic thing of all as far as I'm concerned.

For #1, CoH and another game I've played recently, maybe AoC, have a system that allows players to share adventures with those from different levels.  I don't like that because it makes getting levels sort of pointless.  I'd prefer a game where the difference between a level 30 and a level 60 wasn't nearly so enormous.

Yep you're absolutely right. The graphics seem to improve (sort of anyway......some of them actually get worse) but the game design pretty much remains the same. MMOs are indeed just extremely basic and very limited single player games ported over to the internet and opened up to everyone for a monthly fee (problem 5). The problem is that the online versions of these single player games can never be completed. The bad guys cannot stay dead, the quests cant be truly completed and once the players reach the end of the game there is nothing to do except either repeat the end of the game into infinity or fight other players forever in a glorified arena (problem 2) which is pretty much what happens in a single player console game. It makes it pretty hard to ignore the question "whats the bloody point?"

Its certainly a pretty good money making machine for the games companies though. Problem is as the years go by the brains of many players are being turned to mush and it seems like the developers brains are growing stagnant too. Lots of them can no longer see the potential of online gaming and instead keep taking the easy route of sticking to single player game design.....which is natural really because its what these games companies have always made in the past.

Most of these single player games used a level-based system too (and still do) and because of severe lack of imagination and effort on the devs parts they just try and force it into mmos as well.......which once again just doesnt really work. Levels contribute to needlessly splitting up the players just like the original article says (problem 1) and also causes them to focus on themselves instead of the people they are playing with. Afterall what else can the player focus on when the only thing they have any vague sort of control over is the progression of their own character by increasing its level. Its not like anyone can have any kind of  meaningful impact on anything else in these games. Its silly really because in a game which is more like a world than an actual game (ie you can never "complete" it as such) it actually makes much more sense to have other ways of making progress, such as influencing the growth and decline of empires, causing world shaping events to occur, helping certain factions overcome others to gain dominace (RTS MMOs?) and generally influencing the gaming experience of the other players. This way the state of the game world would always be changing based on the players input.....kind of like a complex multiway tug of war. Instead we keep getting games that tell us stories (sigh) and all the devs time is spent on creating static content when they could be creating awesome systems, tools and game mechanics that allow the players to play out their own "stories".

The bit about aggro (problem 4) in the article is simply the devs preferred method of compensating for the fact that these themepark mmos dont really have any particularly noteworthy AI. Its just a bunch of mob "nodes" that all do the same old thing (stand still or move around a little bit) and attack players when they walk nearby. It doesnt matter if its an Orc, a boar, a skeleton or a bloody giant Dragon from an alternate dimension! They are all just "nodes" with alternate animated graphics put over them like hand puppets. Yet people continue to refer to this as "content" lol.

On the plus side I get the impression that this genre is slowly beginning to wake up. A few games have already broken the mould. I think its gonna be at least another few years though before it finally lifts up its big lazy fat leg and plonks its foot onto the next stage of online gaming evolution.

Well I can agree with everything he said.

5 - I can't think of a better way to do it without subscription fees, but paying $15 a month does encourage the developer to make the game drawn out and for everything to take increasing amounts of time to get you to play longer, this is partially why grind is added to pad the game length.

4 - Aggro does not always make sense, especially when a mob will continue to attack a player even while being killed by others.  Maybe if mobs had a list of prefered targets, like which mob is closest, more powerful and of the particular kind that the mob tries to kill, like assasin mobs attacking your healers.  And if they get attacked in the mean time they try to fight off or escape from their attacker and then go back to their objective if they can, we are deffinately going to need better AI for this though.

Aggro also lends itself to pulling, either ranged or physically, and well I figured you shouldn't be able to pull one guy from a group, the rest of the group should notice he is gone and come too.  Factor in noise too, the screams of the anguished should attract more mobs to the area.  And don't make all mobs just hate me, a thief and a harpy wouldn't work together to try and kill me because I got too close, the harpy may end up fighting both of us or ingoring the fight and pick off the winner.

3 - I agree with this too.  I think you could make people pay more attention to the action, if controls weren't just a row of buttons you hotkey to something and if they were not so cool down dependant.

Use fewer but more variable buttons.  Buttons charging for one, press it and it is this instacast spell, hold it and release and it is a AoE spell.  Button combinations this button is for regular attacks, this one is for the power attack, ress both and you get a conical AoE.  Target sensitive attacks, make it so that attacking different parts of the body do different things, want to stun him shoot him in the face, you could use an aiming system like that of the seige weapons in Warhammer, where is snaps to body parts.

Situational abilities, is stead of having a button for for execute type ability, why not just make an icon appear over the mobs head and let you press it.  Or for abilities like stealth attacks, why not just do the same thing when you are behind people, no need to add another button onto the hotbar.

Make cooldown and cast times intuative, for cast time just make me hold the button down for X time and give me visual ques to let me know the spell has charged, instead of a cast timer.  Cooldowns could use a sound que like my character saying something to let me know the ability is usable again.

Of course these don't have to be in the context of an action game, they can still be used in the math focused RPG combat.  And hotbars are still useful for some other abilities.

2 - This one is an issue.  You could do a player driven world, with player created cities, quests, governments, economy etc. but I would only use that in moderation, because players often create things and events of very inconsistant quality, and giving players the ability to do something like destroy others buildings, or tax others will be abused.  So giving players more power to change the world is good but only if you control it, maybe like lots to make player buildings organized, guild controlled keeps with the ability to add defenses and such.

Then there is what the game could do itself.  Spawning semi random events such as a bandit raid on a town, famine in an area, bridge collapse and other events that actually impact the world.  Even provide a simple public quest so people could join together and help solve the problem.

Then there are things that you don't realy want to be changed, well maybe you do but things would get messy if they did, like dungeons, they should never stay cleared, or else you are deleting content for others to do, or like cities, they should never be destroyed, captured maybe but only for a certain ammount of time.

1 - I think the problem with this one is mostly in statistical hiearchal power.  I think you need to lower the ammount of difference between high level/skill and low level/skill substantially and make the major difference in tactical options, ie power wise a newbie and vet are much closer, but the vet has many more abilities to use.  This would make it where the vet can play with the newbie because the newbie can actually contribute to the adventure and likewise the vet just can't walk all over the mobs either, though his abilities certainly help.

Then you have to add incentive to go back and play with newbies, which could be in the form of little rewards like titles and bigger ones like having new parts of the dungeon open up when a vet is there.  Though I guess the best incentive is that you want to play with your friend and as long as the game allows it you will, no other incentives needed.

There are two simple reasons why MMOPRGs are the way they are.

1. Econmics

2. Technologies.

case closed.

Originally posted by admriker4

CoH solves the problem of not being able to play with friends. Sidekicking is something all MMO's should consider

Exactly. Not only can a lower level player have fun with a higher level friend by Sidekicking, but there's also incentive for a higher level player to level down and Exemplar to others, since doing so allows for XP debt to be paid off faster.

Personally, I think the Sidekick/Exemplar system is genius. It removes the level barrier that would ordinarily exist and lets people have fun together.

MMO's aren't "Broken"... they just aren't working as well as they used too or perhaps as well as they should.  What that guy doesn't understand is that MMORPG's are Ideals. And to create something great it takes time, and it may take more generations than we want, but MMO's are about being patient. When we join a game we trust in the developers who made it an continue to make it that they have our Ideal game. Different people have different ideals, and an MMO is my ideal. My perfect game style (mmorpg) isnt broken, I am just waiting for the game I want to sink into to come out. ( Star Wars : The Old Republic). So frankly that dude can shuv it where the sun dont shine, yeah thats right... up his nose.

#5 -- The Subscription fees are fine... Some other games have pay for items... something needs to keep the game going.. Can't blame the companies for this.

#4 -- Agro I would say needs a bit of a revamp. The current model works great however it is being used and reused. I think game needs to come out with top of the line AI. What do I mean? For example: Goblins always fight in groups - if you attack a lone gobbie he'll run to the closest group the second you step into his sights -- or maybe you're playing an orc and he hates dwarves so he'll attack the dwarves first.. That way when you attack a creature you have to know how they react as well has a bit of random nature to each of them. It woud be a great way to keep combat fresh and less....routine.

#3 -- Button lock sucks but not a huge deal....I wouldn't say it breaks the game. There have been a few good suggestions thrown around on this thread. I'd like to see the EQ1 slots back... For those that did not play EQ, you had 8 spell slots and had to select what spells you wanted to cast. To me this created a bit of a challenge and required some forethought. You could swap the spells out which required opening your spell book and memorizing a new spell (which took a bit of time) For the button lock--I say not only have spells take mana but have them take stamina as well--if you chain cast you'll wear yourself out and be unable to cast. You can fire a bunch off but you'll be tired.  However, if you use them at a moderate rate you could maintain.

#2-- Static world----not a whole lot can be done with this one - someone mentioned a progressive world which is a good idea..

1# -- Can't play with people -- I've not had too many problems with this one.. just gotta get out there and make friends with people you don't know.

Overall I can't say these are the 5 things that make MMO's broken. I think its just 1 thing........Lack of variety. Break the mold!!!

Amen to that

The issue of agro inevitably addresses the holy trinity of roles. I do not think it is a bad thing, but I see it holding back AI. What I mean is, the enemy should be smart enough to know it must drop the healer first, regardless of taunting, basically what you'd expect in PVP. The mechanic could be changed to physically blocking access to healers, as we are seeing some games attempt. That's one possibility anyway.

EDIT: And this is why I am tolerant of some games obsessing over PVP balance, not that I'm big on PVP, but so games can evolve towards smarter AI.

So true, all of it.

The culprits are:

1.  Level-based advancement with ridiculously steep power curves (e.g. a level 10 character cannot even damage a level 30 character or mob....EVER);

2.  Worlds that are carved into separate zones where mobs are assigned arbitrary level values.  The level 50 wolves in zone A could devour entire armies of the heavily armed and armored level 20 Orc warriors in zone B.

3.  The entire concept of "tanking" and "healing".  Practically everyone that plays MMOs hates healing.  Why does this even have to be an element of combat?  Where the HELL did this idea come from.  I can tell you for absolute certain that I have never read a book, or seen a movie, where one person healed another person in the middle of a fight.  Why do we have this in MMOs?

Imagine a world where arrows and bolts of lighting didn't travel THROUGH your allies to hit your enemies, where a "tank" actually had to physically block a monster to prevent him from eating your mage.  It sounds crazy, but you might just have to use tactics in such a world.  Amazing.

I personally find that the problem with ALL new mmo's post WOW is that they all follow this idea that you start at the beginning and once you have done all the quests you end up at the end capped level. There isnt really much thought put into where to go because the game already tells you.

Now in city of heroes you had lots of zones you could level up in containing different leveled enemies and different types. You could start in atlas city if you wanted to but if you wanted you could also go to galaxy. You had choice as to where to level and what to kill. You could meet up with friends and do whatever you wanted.

The big change from COH to COV is that in cov you started off in the rogue isles and from there you progressed until you leveled out of that zone then unless you were really really dedicated there was no reason to ever return to the starting zone.

In dark age of camleot you had multiple starting points (until they revamped) and you eventually found yourself gravitating towards your capitals there were different zones to level up in and although the dungeons were spread out and required set levels you could choose weather to stay in an easier dungeon for a few more levels or progress to the next. There was no quest structure so it was litterally a case of forming a group going off to kill red cons OR soloing killing yellows.

Now city of heroes/villains sidekick system i think is one of the best systems to allow higher levels to help out lower levels and much in the same way EXP debt is built up when you die and to get rid of it quickly you go help lower levels.

I feel that currently the reason everyone is getting bored of mmo's and i am one of those jumping from MMO to MMO . Is that yes i want structure to the game some guidelines i tried playing potbs AGES ago and it lost me because i could go anywhere and do antyhing i became lost i didnt know what to do or where to go, in wow it was the same 5 quests from level 1 to level 63 which by the time i had reached this level i was bored to tears. And anyone saying "it gets better after level 70" then blizard should consider making it fun before level 70 or providing me with a level 70 when i log on.

Lotr was very pretty but same again the same quests cut and paste from level 1 to level whatever i got to lothlorian with my burglar before i realsed this game was a WOW clone with lotr story stamped on the back. weather or not it has changed in the months since i last played i dont know.

AOC a very very pretty game but still has some serious bordeom issues there is no reason to group except to do some dungeons and end game raiding you can also go from level 1 to level 80 in effectivly the starting gear. Fights dont require too much brain power tank or caster you will generally win with about 50% hp left.

How can companies make the games more fun is provide choice but not mindless grinding choices, i think warhammer had a pretty good idea although i think some of it was flawed with the mindset of the players they were atracting . Pvp type games atract players that want end game as fast as possible and forget about the journey.

How would i solve these problems well im currently designing my own mmo and using the realm crafter software to put it together (yes i know its not the best) and ill say this to anyone who bemoans developers and programmers. Its a very very very hard balancing job. So far ive got A warrior (tank) and mage(caster) and thats it i cant work out anything else before i hit the hurdle of ok now im ending up with game xxx.

When i even get onto ability testing ill have no idea. But i wish people would learn this, when you pay your 15 dollars a month and sit on a forum or in game proclaiming "this is boring this is s**t the developers are retards" your still paying them 15 dollars a month and until you stop paying them they wont care what you say. and until you can provide me with evidence that you have coded your own mmo and produced it to the same standards of the ones on the market then your opinions dont really mean much. Pay and enjoy or stop paying and find somthign else. its as simple as that.

i kinda agree