THE BIG MMOG MISCONCEPTION, PART 1: Why They Play MMOGs

Oh, I want to play a good MMORPG. I played EQI, EQ2, AC2, WoW. I tried Age of Conan. However, I've realized why I now spend my time playing Sins of a Solar Empire and Mass Effect, rather than playing an online game: in all online games, I am a 2nd class citizen doomed to achieving 3rd rate results. What's the point in buying a game, and paying a subscription, when you are coded out of enjoying the best rewards?

Somewhere along the line, probably with the original EQ, guys that had all kinds of time, in fact were employed to play games, decided that what they found to be the compelling factor in online games - where they could form massive guilds and feed their enjoyment of power and ego - should be rewarding their kind of playstyle. In other words, people that programmed and played games for a living in big corporate groups decided that people who played like they did should be exclusively rewarded in MMOGs.

I'm reminded of when sound first came to moving pictures, and every movie for a long time was a musical, full of staged dance numbers and songs. One movie exec opined, "Why would anyone want to go to a movie that didn't have music and singing?" In other words, just because you can put something into an online game that you can't put into a non-MMOG, doesn't mean that's what everyone - or even most people - want in an online game.

Sure, what you can do in an online game, that you can't do in other games, is group up, form massive raids, and kill otherwise unkillable foes. But, does this mean that this is why most people would play an MMOG? Not necessarily. It's not even logically connected. Just because you can put music and song into a "talkie" movie, and you can't put it in a silent movie, doesn't mean that people want music and dance numbers in their movies, or that a movie with sound but without music and dance cannot be successful.

I argue that the group and raid concept for MMOGs is the same kind of misconception; just because you can do it in an MMOG setting, doesn't mean it's actually what most people want in an MMOG; furthermore, I argue that developing a game around "raid" and "group" parameters necessarily limits every other aspect of the game, limits the diversity and variety potential of such games, and generates a common relationship and political climate in MMOGs - mostly, IMO, in a negative way.

Now, that people play most MMOGs to raid, or to group, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the only movies out there are musicals, then people go to movies to watch musicals. If all of the content in a game is geared around end-game raiding and grouping, then of course most people that play MMOGs (or have any experience at all with them) play them to raid and group. That doesn't mean that's what they would prefer to do, and that doesn't mean that all those people who play Oblivion or are going to play Dragon Age wouldn't rather play a similar game online; it only means there is no MMOG that offers them the experience they are seeking.

One might argue that all the content in an MMOG is "not" geared around end-game raiding or grouping, and that the developers include solo content. Oh, you can make that argument, but you will be wrong. If all the top rewards and exclusive content is only available through grouping and raiding, then those set the standards by which all other rewards and achievements are judged. When developing content, developers make sure that the raiding, end-game content is "the best" .. then everything else is tweaked down from there. MMOGs that claim that the crafting system delivers the best rewards overlook the fact that the ingredients for those crafted items can only come from ... you guessed it ... group and raid encounters.

In other words, if you are a casual or solo player (especially soloer), you must be satisfied being a 2nd class player with 3rd rate rewards. Period. The easy question to ask here is, why should anyone buy a game and pay a subscription in order to be a 2nd class player earning 3rd rate rewards? Are we supposed to pay for the privilege of being the "commoners" and "scrubs" by which powergaming raiders can feel superior? Why would a person that doesn't enjoy musicals go to the movies, if all movies are musicals?

I have advocated "alternate but equally time-consuming" routes for soloers and casual players to achieve any reward in the game on many forums. One of the common rebuttals is that if there are solo routes to achieve the same results, then nobody would raid, because raids are difficult to organize and carry out. Really? If people would prefer solo routes to top rewards, why are game developers forcing the group/raid model on them? Is it because they can't imagine why anyone would play an MMOG if they didn't have to group and raid? The logic there is entirely faulty; if people didn't want to raid, and would rather be able to solo content, why arent' they playing solo, offline games?

The answer is simple; people like being part of online communities whether grouping and raiding is involved or not. People will form and join guilds just to be part of a larger society or group because it's what humans do. You don't have to force them to group up and socialize via a carrot and whip system. People hang out in chatrooms, join avatar communities, play the SIMS, haunt these boards because they enjoy the interaction. Will everyone abandon these boards, chatrooms, and the SIMS because we don't group up and raid? Is there any "grouping up and raiding" in online poker, chess, or other such community games?

However, MMOGs have a compelling reason for perhaps millions of people to not play, to not choose that vehicle for social interaction, community, comparison, ego, meeting people, etc., to avoid such avatar-rich, beautiful-world, deeply interesting scenarios: they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens with 3rd rate "stuff" because of the group/raid system; because professional players in professional guilds that can form raids determine every aspect of how that community is defined, organized, the politics, relationships, comparisons, evaluations, the programmed content, what is achievable, etc. The game is designed, from the bottom up, with that in mind.  Claiming there is "content" for soloers and casual players is like telling people who can't afford the prices at the restaurant that there are scraps in the garbage bin in the alley.  Gee. Thanks.

It is my opniion, one that I will be exploring in the future, that the very thing that programmers think must be included in such games - the group and the raid as primary content focus as an "end game" scenario, is what is limiting the potential of the entire genre and keeping people away in droves.
 

The simple solution for you seems to be playing something outside of raid-focused EQ derivatives, but I get the feeling from your post that you aren't really looking for a solution.

The real question is, why do you want to pay $15 a month to play in a massive online world by yourself? You can play by yourself in a single player game for no monthly fee.

Also, why is it that in games where grouping/raiding is not a focus, actually not even done a lot, people leave those games because its so quiet, silent, and anti-social?

Without incentive, people will either just solo quietly for the most part, or leave. Socialization takes effort, and even if they actually enjoy doing it, a lot of people cant get themselves to spend that effort in the first place.

I am sorry, you just sound like someone who hates it that he has to socialize in order to advance.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

The simple solution for you seems to be playing something outside of raid-focused EQ derivatives, but I get the feeling from your post that you aren't really looking ofr a solution.

 

 

Which doesn't give him/her much choice considering all the well-known developer houses seem to prefer to make the EQ/WoW pattern games. Those companies have the most realistic chance of having a game make it to launch in a buggy but playable state which is why I point to them. Indie groups haven't really proved reliable in that measureable yet, though there is EvE. But one out of how many? And it doesn't sound as if the OP wants to play a F2P RMT game so we can keep it to P2P games (and not judge the person for not wanting to go the F2P/RMT route).

I hope you put a summary of your part 2, if there is such a part. You've been repeating yourself endlessly on a topic that has been discussed extensively on these boards.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter as long as you have fun. When you want to go to the beach with your girlfriend, does it matter that you have an average car instead of a super car. Now, if you were to participate in super car racing, then I would understand your concern.

This is going to be a multi-part analysis.  I intend to not only offer argument that the raid/group model as it is today is not only detrimental to sales and success, and that it limits potential market growth, but also that restricts innovation and diversity available within such games.  It forces a certain model on the structure of classes, characters, options, abilities, etc. I will also be making suggestion on how to rearrange the nature of grouping/raiding so that it can still be available in a meaningful way and not drive away casuals and soloers.

But, one thing at a time.  The first step is to introduce the concept that the "raid/group" endgame model is a self-fulfilling assumption, and to provide a reasonable argument (and analogy) why it should be questioned.  Then we can move on to an examination of what that model does in  real terms to real games.

Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard. Everything is going to be all right. Its a rare talent you have that lets you use 1000 words to say "Different strokes for different folks". See? Wasn't that easy?

The OP has a very sound point in his argument. The problem I have is that both point and argument are so limited in scope. Yes, those issues arrive and confound players but only when those players are focused on raiding and other 'end-game' content. If those aspects of the game are not a priority for players, then the problems that are pointed out by the OP lose their relevance.

If a player's priorities when playing a game are raiding and other end-game content, then of course they will find faults in the raiding and end game content. They will play find those games that cater to their priorities.  Or dismiss those elements of games they play that do not cater to those priorities. Which just reinforces their attention to their priority and how development issues surround it.

Just like the OP has.

/shrug

-w

Ya the 11 million people playing WoW alone for it's raid model is clearly getting in their way. The only thing actually getting in their way is the loads of money piling up.

Clearly you are angry, it would seem that you can't get into good groups (with this long rant I'm not too shocked) and as such you are always a step behind. So because you personally can not do what it takes to make your character good, you want the entire industry to change to fit your specific play style.

Originally posted by Khaunshar

Also, why is it that in games where grouping/raiding is not a focus, actually not even done a lot, people leave those games because its so quiet, silent, and anti-social?

Now, that's a statement that I really need to contest. Historically, which MMOs have shown examples of community building?

How many player events, player organizations and player communities form from grouping/raid focused MMOs? The answer is few, if any. In those games, the only semblance of community is within the guild unit. Even then, many join the guilds solely for access to the upper tier content and not for the express purpose of being part of a coimmunity. On the other side is ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, Ultima Online, EVE Online, Second Life and a host of other MMOs where the players consistently have displayed very social behavior and contributed actively to community building. Games like ATITD, UO, Puzzle Pirates and EVE Online tend to have longer rentetion than other MMOs which is very possibly something that can be attributed to the social ties made within the game.

The games that offer tools for community building and encourage players to work together become growing social environments. The games that mandate banding together in order to progress further in the content have little social activity outside of DKP meetings or discussions about merging with another guild to do higher level content.

You do have games that ride the line between, and EQ2's Antonio Bayle server is one of the great examples of that - where both raiding and community are significant parts of the gameplay for many on the server.

It is when players are allowed to flexibility and paths of advancement as individuals that there is a greater chance of communities developing.

Now, a lot of people will be quick to cite EQ as a raid-focused MMO that developed great communities. That is true, and it is also the exception. The reason being is that the players that came to EQ came with a differnt miindset. These were the DnD players, the LARPers, the SCA/reenactment crowd, and the fantasy CRPG players where were already used to attending an event or activity for the sole purpose of banding with others for a team journey to save the fair maiden, fight the dark knight or slay the dragon. They were bringing to the game a pre-existing interest in and desire for community and social intereaction.

I think it will be worth reading.

Originally posted by AllNewMMOSuk

Ya the 11 million people playing WoW alone for it's raid model is clearly getting in their way. The only thing actually getting in their way is the loads of money piling up.

Musicals also made a lot of money.  The point I'm making isn't that the raid/group model isn't successful, but that focusing on it as the guiding principle in making MMOGs might be unnecesarily limiting the potential success of the MMOG industry.  In the days of early musicals, you were laughed out of the studio if you pitched an idea that didn't have song and dance numbers. If you were an actor or actress, you had to be able to sing and dance, or else someone would be dubbing over you.

What happened to musicals?  Where are they now?  Here's the thing; the concept that movies had to have song and dance numbers limited many things about movies.  Everything - from hiring actors to developing plots and scores - had to accomodate the musical format.  My point is that a similar assumptive structuring has gripped MMOG development since EQ first came out.  For instance, let's look at class and subclass or talent development; the developer must design such things keeping in mind the "role" the character will be able to fulfill in groups and raids.   End product of class structures, of gear lines, of abilities and stats must be "balanced" in regard to being able to fulfill an end-game role.  Every part of the game is defined in terms of stats and efficiency - dps, crowd control, armor, health, healing ability - in terms of what is most efficient for end game raiding and grouping.

What could be developed in terms of an MMOG if developers cast off these "end game" balancing constraints?

Well, that's for another part of my analysis.

The games that offer tools for community building and encourage players to work together become growing social environments. The games that mandate banding together in order to progress further in the content have little social activity outside of DKP meetings or discussions about merging with another guild to do higher level content. 

Great point, and precisely on-topic.  The group/raid-end content model allows developers to rely on that model to drive social interactivity and community-building, so what kind of "community" develops? One geared for efficiency, powergaming, and the politics of getting into the top guilds.  "Community" interaction largely consists of comparing class builds and gear and how suitable (or better) they are for raids. Discussions center around raids and raiding. What one gets in a raid becomes the primary element of social interaction.  As such, those who do not raid are social outcasts, or "scrubs".

One of the reasons role-playing is virtually non-existent in MMOGs is because role-playing is not efficient, and the entire MMOG world revolves around efficiency, because it must due to the raid/group powergaming endgame model.

The question is, if one removes the goup/raid powergaming end-game model, what kind of community will develop? Well, at least the developer has more options, more freedom, in providing inefficient content that aids in other playing and community concepts, because "efficiency" is no longer the driving force behind everything in the game.

What the OP is saying, and what I agree with fully 100% is...

If you made the rewards for group play, be it small group or large raids, equal in terms of power and stats, to what could be achieved through solo play...

What would happen?

People would only solo and avoid the group stuff because it is more challenging? 

I don't think so.

People would form guilds and groups and raids and go tackle the challenging group content because they wanted to.

What it comes down to is that by placing the "best" stuff in group/raid encounters, the developers are forcing us to play in groups and raids. We don't have a choice. We do it, or we don't get to experience the best stuff in the game.

But take that away and people in an online game will still group up and be social and do things together with their friends and guilds because they want to, even if it doesn't yield the best rewards.

Players will generally find the best/most efficient way to get the best possible rewards the fastest. So if all gear is equal but it's easier to get/takes less time to get in a group then people will do it in a group. This is true. 

But people who will not or cannot group should be entitled to the same rewards if they put forth the same level of commitment and dedication.

This is the basic reason why Blizzard introduced the Heroic badge rewards. So people who couldn't do the really big group stuff could still get the same level of rewards, it'd just take them a little longer to do so.

And what happens? People start calling them "wellfare epics" when in fact it's actually easier and faster to get the gear through the group/raid stuff then it is to "grind" the smaller group stuff.

But Blizzard messed up it up. They had it right in TBC when they'd introduce a new level of raid content, they'd introduce a new tier of badge rewards of similar power but all the raids/dungeons still used the same badges. The small group player could still keep up.

The same in Arenas to an extent, you could get the gear faster, with less work by doing Arenas. A few matches a day, done. Wellfare epics. It was actually harder work to grind the battlegrounds for the honor gear.

But what happened? The elitist players, the ones in the big raiding guilds that grew up playing Everquest and the ego-centric power-gamer mentality complained that other, lesser players could get the same shiny pixels as they could... even though the "casuals" had to put in a lot more time and effort to do it.

You can't argue that point, I've seen a player get new shiny epics in nearly every slot, upgrades from greens and blues by getting power leveled through a raid by their guild mates. It'd take weeks of dedicated play (if not longer) to get the same quality of gear through crafting, heroic dungeons, and badge turn ins.

So Blizzard actually listened to the "hardcore" whiners for WotLK. They made the badges on different tiers. This way the "casual noobs" could never get the same level of shiny pixels as they could by doing raids. They succeeded in shutting out any casual player who wasn't in their little raiding clubs from getting the best rewards. Their e-peens were safe.

I can say this because I was in a big raiding guild. I was in the top tier, the elite club of raiders on my server that had all the best and most shiny rewards. And I got drunk on the feeling of power and superiority I'd look down on other players. I'm ashamed to admit it. My main toon is named Kaedin, an Undead Warrior on the Dalaran server. Look her up. I don't play anymore, got burned out on Ulduar but I thought I'd throw this in so no one thought I was just a "casual noob whining I couldn't have the best stuff" because I did have all the best.

Vertical progression through linear gameplay encourages this top-down mentality and has ruined MMOs.

What we need is a game where progression is horizontal or flat. Where people who want to solo can solo up to the pinnacle of game play. Where small group players can play in small groups up to the pinnacle. Where large raid groups can do their large raids.

Imagine a WOW where long, solo quest chains and difficult crafting recipes held the same level of rewards as 5 person dungeons and heroics/badge turn in, and these both held the same level of reward as large group raids.

Would people still raid and do group stuff or would everyone solo? 

Throw in an achievement system that does nothing for your character but add meaningless points and bragging rights, like WOW has (which is a good thing) and people will have all the motivation they need to continue to raid and do group stuff instead of just soloing.

Why?

Because it's there... because they want to. Because they can.

Well written.  Well thought-out ideas.  Poor analogy! 

I agree with your thoughts.  I have been a gamer for 20+ years, and I have played many mmo's.  I found the raid system overly complicated, time-consuming, and utterly wasteful.  I have some fond memories of raids from EQ, EQII, WOW, Eve, Anarchy, DAoC, (not SWG), and FF; however, considering the time put into getting a raid-ready character and the time put into raiding, I feel cheated.  I was looking for something more than what was offered in the MMO's I played.  I wanted quests of distinction.  I wanted  worthy ends to long travels. I wanted the whole rewards-to-effort ratio to be permeated throughout every playstyle.  Be it raiding style, solo play, or something in between, the rewards should be...rewarding.  

I'm not sure how much this affected my choice to leave each MMO, but I am sure it was there.  All of my choices were based on boredom, however.  Even raiding became a grind.  But I am sure that missing out on key gear that could only be attained by grind raiding was also a factor.

Raiding was too time consuming.   I, like many other adults, have more important things to attend to than games, and games that mandate raiding are going to be out of the question.  I wish that I did have enough time to play extended hours of games, but like you said, I would be putting all that time into raid-style mmo's, and that becomes boring, too. 

Now, I don't play any MMO's.  I only play games like Mass Effect, Oblivion, and console sport games.  I first thought that my gaming tastes just evolved; however, after reading your post, I understand that part of me leaving mmo's was the fact that I was a second class citizen in the games I did not have time or the will to raid in.  In EQII, my guild (TLW) was the first to guild level 50 on our server, we were the first to raid the high-level content, and for a time it was fun. But it wasn't my play style choice.  I left that game quickly after reaching the top level.

I'm still interested in MMO's.  As I can see by my presence here, but I am not interested in any MMO, and your post explained my reasons very well.

Originally posted by Meleagar

 

Originally posted by AllNewMMOSuk

Ya the 11 million people playing WoW alone for it's raid model is clearly getting in their way. The only thing actually getting in their way is the loads of money piling up.

Musicals also made a lot of money.  The point I'm making isn't that the raid/group model isn't successful, but that focusing on it as the guiding principle in making MMOGs might be unnecesarily limiting the potential success of the MMOG industry. 

I think I would have gone along the lines of...

Can you provide the link where a Blizzard rep said 100% of their player base actually raids...     Have they ever said what percentage of their player base raids?

It is an important question to ask... it should be obvious why.

Just as this should be obvious...   If you have a 10 ton gorilla in any industry.  You do not make your way and compete in the exact same market they are in.  There is this odd word diversity... (which I probably spelled wrong.. deal with it).

short version:

I'm not sure anyone ever claimed WoW was successful due to raiding...

and I'm not sure you become successful by trying to create the same game they are already selling.

Originally posted by Meleagar

THE BIG MMOG MISCONCEPTION, PART 1: Why They Play MMOGs

I have advocated "alternate but equally time-consuming" routes for soloers and casual players to achieve any reward in the game on many forums. One of the common rebuttals is that if there are solo routes to achieve the same results, then nobody would raid, because raids are difficult to organize and carry out. Really? If people would prefer solo routes to top rewards, why are game developers forcing the group/raid model on them? Is it because they can't imagine why anyone would play an MMOG if they didn't have to group and raid? The logic there is entirely faulty; if people didn't want to raid, and would rather be able to solo content, why arent' they playing solo, offline games?

The answer is simple; people like being part of online communities whether grouping and raiding is involved or not. People will form and join guilds just to be part of a larger society or group because it's what humans do. You don't have to force them to group up and socialize via a carrot and whip system. People hang out in chatrooms, join avatar communities, play the SIMS, haunt these boards because they enjoy the interaction. Will everyone abandon these boards, chatrooms, and the SIMS because we don't group up and raid? Is there any "grouping up and raiding" in online poker, chess, or other such community games?

Humans also don't swim upstream, piss into the wind, or purposely do things that are inefficient if there is a more efficient manner to do them.

If you can solo something faster, people will solo, even if they like to group because it's human nature to do things in the most efficient manner available.

Nobody wants to group, if grouping means you do something less efficiently than soloing. It's stupid, IMO, to say if you like to group, then go ahead what's stopping you! in a solo friendly game. Why would anyone do anything in a game or in real life the hard way, and then say that's more fun? That seems simply retarded.

I don't think you can give both groupers and solo players and EXACTLY equal path to the same goal.

Grouping takes time, lots, and lots, and lots of time. Solo takes zero time. I do exactly what I want solo, when I want, no waiting for bio break, travel, discussion, negotiation, splitting loot, buying gear, reading quests, etc., etc. ,etc.

How do you compensate the group player for all this time? Make leveling faster, give them more loot.

But how much? That's the question, and you can never get it perfect. To much, and the solo player says "FORCED GROUPING!". To little and the group players says, I can level faster solo, grouping is pointless since the purpose is gone.

Excellent post, it echoes what I have been saying and posting for some time.

I do think in an MMO it is important to encourage grouping, to not make soloing more efficient.   People will, in general, take the path of least resistance.

However, I would love to see more MMOs where it is possible to acquire any and every piece of gear you want without ever once being forced to group.

There's nothing wrong with grouping; I have done so many times and it can certainly be fun.   But I oh so resent it when a game forces me to just to experience content.   "I'd love to tell you about this important quest, go find x number of friends and I will".   Grrrr.   That's just a wall to me.  It's forced grouping, and I think it sucks everytime.

It's not a question of being anti-social, it's one of wanting to be self-reliant.

Having grouping/raiding in an MMO = great, and absolutely belongs in an MMO

Forcing grouping/raiding to get the best shinies = an tired game mechanic I wish would just go away.   Utterly unnecessary.

To the OP:   there are a few MMOs out there without this restriction, City of Heroes is one of them.

I have played several online games; I only grouped occasionally with relatives or friends for a very simple reason; I can't pay that close of attention to the game for very long periods of time, and I cannot be counted on to fulfill whatever "role" I'm supposed to be filling in a group or raid.  In order to learn your roles and undestand what is expected of you, you have do it, and do it often, learn it, and develop your character to be able to do it efficiently.  Inflicting my poor grouping skills , my inattentiveness and poor role skills on a group or on a raid would be irresponsible. 

Obviously, I can't be a valuable member of most current MMOG groups or raids, simply because my circumstances make me very inefficient. I also like to joke a lot.  I don't like being in 2-3 hours scenarios where I must perform my "role function" with a high degree of attention and precision or else other avatars are going to die, time is wasted, and people get angry. It's a game, for crying out loud, if I want that kind of pressure and consequences, I'll get a 2nd job.

But, I was a really good gatherer and marketed my 2nd rate potions and stones well in WoW.  I'm not saying that **all** MMOGs should change, I'm just trying to make a case for what I think would be an alternative MMOG concept. First, however, one has to make the case that the current model **might** not be much more than an assumption, the relative value of which can only be tested by attempting something entirely different - i.e., musical vs non-musical movie.