Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

1. No classes / 1 Char per game - Skill based system - Skill cap so people cant be masters of everything - Can reset skills if you want to try something new

2. All items crafted by players - Monsters can amass loot by pillaging cities and ambushing merchants

3. A pretty harsh death penalty - Makes it more exciting

4. Player built / destroyed world - Allow players to build castles, cities, houses, dungeons to protect their loot - Allow players to pillage people's stashes, houses, castles, cities, dungeons - Bank in newb city only holds a very limited amount of stuff

5. Player driven NPCs - Players can hire guards, hire monsters, create monsters, etc that will do their bidding like guarding their castle / dungeon or raiding someone else's castle or city

6. Mostly slow travel world - Only dedicated mages should be able to fast travel - This helps create economy and territory control

1) hard to balance. Impossible to not have cookie cutter builds after min-maxing post them online

2) How about those players who don't like crafting? Few want to play a carpenter, you know.

4) too much freedom to grief others. People are more likely to build stuff to block others, than to do it in a fantasy context.

5) That is not a bad idea .. and lots of games already have companions, pets, ....

6) No. Slow travel create boredom.

1. As Nariuss said.

2. You can have sellable monster only loot and crafted stuff right alongside each other for sale on the market tab.

3. Will lead to a lot of players not getting into the game/leaving, making it a niche game.

4. No one wants to spend hours/day/weeks on building something just so some asshole with an army can destroy it overnight.

5. meh

6. as Nariuss said.

Originally posted by Edeus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

1. No classes / 1 Char per game - Skill based system - Skill cap so people cant be masters of everything - Can reset skills if you want to try something new

2. All items crafted by players - Monsters can amass loot by pillaging cities and ambushing merchants

3. A pretty harsh death penalty - Makes it more exciting

4. Player built / destroyed world - Allow players to build castles, cities, houses, dungeons to protect their loot - Allow players to pillage people's stashes, houses, castles, cities, dungeons - Bank in newb city only holds a very limited amount of stuff

5. Player driven NPCs - Players can hire guards, hire monsters, create monsters, etc that will do their bidding like guarding their castle / dungeon or raiding someone else's castle or city

6. Mostly slow travel world - Only dedicated mages should be able to fast travel - This helps create economy and territory control

1) hard to balance. Impossible to not have cookie cutter builds after min-maxing post them online

2) How about those players who don't like crafting? Few want to play a carpenter, you know.

4) too much freedom to grief others. People are more likely to build stuff to block others, than to do it in a fantasy context.

5) That is not a bad idea .. and lots of games already have companions, pets, ....

6) No. Slow travel create boredom.

1. As Nariuss said.

2. You can have sellable monster only loot and crafted stuff right alongside each other for sale on the market tab.

3. Will lead to a lot of players not getting into the game/leaving, making it a niche game.

4. No one wants to spend hours/day/weeks on building something just so some asshole with an army can destroy it overnight.

5. meh

6. as Nariuss said.

My game would be more of a world sim. Many, many people are not really into world sims, and would rather play in a themepark style game. No biggie. Personally I'm sick of themeparks.

There is no ultimate MMO.

What we need is more variety.

Different games for different types of players.

In general, you have two mandates that all developers should adhear to:

1. Don't fix something that isn't broken - improve it.

2. Find new solutions to old problems - not new dressings.

Which may sound contradictory, but they really are not.

If something works, use it - but try and do it better than the other guys. Faster sleeker sexier bigger etc. etc.

If it doesn't work, do something better - which means finding a new solution NOT just re-dressing the same old song and dance. We're all tired of the same lame stuff wrapped in a new package - we see throught that.

People like something to be familiar and expected, yet suprise them with how much better and more interesting it is than their old thing.

If you're going to do something completely different, you better have a good reason, it better be good, and we better have not ever seen it before.

This is what has made Apple incredibly successful and profitable. They didn't fix stuff that wasn't broken, they improved it. They also found new solutions to old problems - instead of just redressing something old.

Now, however, they are stuck - nothing they are doing now is new, it's just re-dressed and re-sized, and they are trying to fix thigns that aren't broken - and they are suffering for it.

MMO genre is in the same place. Everything is a rehash of something else, people are trying to fix things that aren't broken and making them worse, and no one is giving us new solutions to old problems.

ultimate mmorpg = lawnmower man, dot hack, sword art online (minus the dying).

WTB some next gen VR.

Originally posted by nethervoid

1. No classes / 1 Char per game - Skill based system - Skill cap so people cant be masters of everything - Can reset skills if you want to try something new

2. All items crafted by players - Monsters can amass loot by pillaging cities and ambushing merchants

3. A pretty harsh death penalty - Makes it more exciting

4. Player built / destroyed world - Allow players to build castles, cities, houses, dungeons to protect their loot - Allow players to pillage people's stashes, houses, castles, cities, dungeons - Bank in newb city only holds a very limited amount of stuff

5. Player driven NPCs - Players can hire guards, hire monsters, create monsters, etc that will do their bidding like guarding their castle / dungeon or raiding someone else's castle or city

6. Mostly slow travel world - Only dedicated mages should be able to fast travel - This helps create economy and territory control

1. Eve Online

2. Eve Online, with the exception of the basic blueprint originals and skillbooks

3. Eve Online

4. Eve Online

5. That is a bit more unique, haven't seen it done well in an MMO. If you can hire human players to do that (a-la-Eve Online), do you really need NPCs though?

6. Eve Online

Noticing a trend? :). But Eve has only 400k subs, which is small compared to the mainstream themeparks, so it shows that this kind of gameplay is rather niche.

Originally posted by CreepProphet

You may want to reword the post and highlight the bit about the 6 things people would want in their perfect MMO.  That might get the ball rolling.

1. No levels - skill based - you do something, you get better at it. 
2. No Gear requirements - you can change out elements of the gear to change stats, but the gear is just a shell
3. No Classes - let me play based on whatever skills I want to lump together, if I nerf myself, that's my bad
4. Crafting Economy - No more helmets on snakes, no buying guns from vendors. If I need it, I make it or I get the mats to someone who can. Also, multiple avenues for obtaining crafting materials.
5. Player Driven Content - We raid if/when we want to, we choose to go to war or go explore. 
6. Wide Open Spaces - Lots of roam to wander.

I hope this helps.

Might be a bit of a repeat to my last post, but still want to show:

1) Eve Online. Not necessarily by doing the action again and again, but you directly choose what you train over time so it amounts to the same thing.

2) Eve Online

3) Eve Online

4) Eve Online

5) Eve Online

6) Eve Online

I'm not even trying to make this seem like a "Go Eve!!" rant. It's simple raw fact: Eve Online has these aspects, and it's one of the only MMOs that does. I think one reason why game developers haven't created more games like Eve is because they're taken aback by the "meager" sub levels of Eve compared to games like WoW. They aren't willing to take the risk to develop something so completely outside of what they know and believe to work. It's a pity, really.

I recently wrote an article about pretty much this... well.. about what has happened to games, or me... cause it could very well be me getting older, that is the real issue at hand. But mmorpgs in general just gets worse and worse imo... :(

http://www.townportal.dk/what-happened-to-games-what-happened-to-me/

It is pretty long, so i will only list a few of my thoughts here:

A few things i think should be “undone“…

• Big servers… i dont see the need for 10.000 people to be on same server/world. 3.000 in a world, where maybe 1.000 of them are friendly? (Different factions..) That should allow anyone and everyone to have their small chance of changing the world in their own way, by providing fish to everyone, or collect ore… or get hides and skins from animals to the leatherworkers.. or whatever. There will still be competition, which is good… but you wont drown in the hordes of players.
• Quest hubs / XP. Quest hubs, maybe even quests in generel, should just be removed / spread out, it should feel special to help someone on a quest, not just another “oh… a quest, skip text, follow arrow, turn in quest, kachiiing! Why do you even gain experience from TURNING IN a quest where you had to slay 10 wolves… you should be gaining the experience from the actual slaying. Let them reward you with items/gold… its so obvious, but every mmorpg these days, have quests, where you get experience, if you turn them in. Insanity i say. You should be gaining experience from actions in the world… by using your skills. I think experience is here to stay, but the way Ultima Online did it, with skill gains… is by fat a better system, imo.
• Instant travel to open world areas. So when i click a button, and magically pop elsewhere in the world… do i feel part of that world? Not at all… when you have to travel to get somewhere, then it will actually matter, and you will feel like you are a part of the world. WoW actually did this one “OK”… in the beginning… i dont mind so much that you can travel to cities, the younger cities atleast… but they completely ruined it by adding that dungeon finder crap… i am amazed at that poor decision. Remove that system from all games ever being made… please. If people wanna go to a dangerous area, and venture into a deep cave…. shouldnt they like… actually… go there? Not just click a magic button, removing all immersion from the world? Should you risk something, and hopefully get a nice reward… which btw, could simply be the fact you managed to go to that dangerous cave… without dying. Managing to explore a dangerous place… and defeat some bad guys while your at it.
• Instances. Remove… remove… R E M O V E! Again… older mmorpg’s… had dungeons and caves… and what not. Which *shock* were enterable by every single person in the world. Even big raid dungeons in Dark age of Camelot, was enterable by everyone and anyone… no matter who was raiding in there or not. Not sure who decided a dungeon should be 5 man only, but i bet it was Blizzard aka World of Warcraft. BROKEN design. I hope all games in the future, has open dungeons. Mind you, this does not mean you cant venture inside a dungeon with 5 man… a good dungeon are big, have several different areas with different difficulties… some places are soloable, some duoable, some groupable, some raidable… you get the point. A small little dungeon world, inside your main world… where you can do whatever you want. GO for that raid boss… solo… and most likely die horrible in the try… sneak after that uber raid, getting deeper and deeper inside the dungeon, seeing stuff for yourself, knowing that anything that moves, can instawhack you. Remove instancing!

Originally posted by Icewhite

Don't people tell us every day that "catering to the majority" is a mistake?

While simultaneously discussing a dozen or so threads about some really deeply different games?

A market that's too broad and varied to be covered this way (as corporations keep rediscovering).

Sorry Cali; gotta go with 'trying to be a jack of all trades means only that you master none of them."

The issue I believe is one of scope. Worlds are too small and the cut and paste design elements too overused and over-specialised.

The limitations game designers, limited budgets and infra-paradigm thinking have brought to the 'grand MMO experiment' to date have meant that precisely what you describe has and does continue to happen....

Company after company do same thing over and over expecting different results - having been raised on 'it's done this way' even the most forward looking of them can only take baby steps from what does work to what might, and they can't of course throw away the stuff that really does work.... but the problem is....

.... you can't fly to the Moon in a plane no matter HOW good the design....

.... you need to invent the rocket!

MMO's both good, bad, and indifferent have been around for long enough that for anyone taking an intelligent and hollistic approach to their design to put in all the elements which we know currently work in catering for this crowd or that. Do that, and then add enough original material to tie it all together into a synergistic whole and the sum will be greater than the sum of the parts.

I am a natural cynic - and so always appreciate your take on things Ice, but....

....sorry - gotta reject your well reasoned argument with the one thing which could work - a game with a wider scop; a vision beyond the box all current MMOs are crammed into and a company with balls enough to do it.

Originally posted by BadSpock

There is no ultimate MMO.

What we need is more variety.

Different games for different types of players.

In general, you have two mandates that all developers should adhear to:

1. Don't fix something that isn't broken - improve it.

2. Find new solutions to old problems - not new dressings.

Which may sound contradictory, but they really are not.

If something works, use it - but try and do it better than the other guys. Faster sleeker sexier bigger etc. etc.

If it doesn't work, do something better - which means finding a new solution NOT just re-dressing the same old song and dance. We're all tired of the same lame stuff wrapped in a new package - we see throught that.

People like something to be familiar and expected, yet suprise them with how much better and more interesting it is than their old thing.

If you're going to do something completely different, you better have a good reason, it better be good, and we better have not ever seen it before.

This is what has made Apple incredibly successful and profitable. They didn't fix stuff that wasn't broken, they improved it. They also found new solutions to old problems - instead of just redressing something old.

Now, however, they are stuck - nothing they are doing now is new, it's just re-dressed and re-sized, and they are trying to fix thigns that aren't broken - and they are suffering for it.

MMO genre is in the same place. Everything is a rehash of something else, people are trying to fix things that aren't broken and making them worse, and no one is giving us new solutions to old problems.

 

I disagree with your first point Spock old chap - I firmly beleive you can take everything which works in themepark and sandbox and put them in the same game.

It hasn't been seriously tried yet - ironic as that is.

It has been mishandled and mis-sold. It has been badly designed and implemented.

All this is true.

BUT - none of that means it is right to conclude that the best elements of both game 'styles' are mutually exclusive. That confuses the limitations of designers to date with the limitations of the definitions of each playstyle.

NOT the same thing I assure you.

I''ve got some stuff that needs doing soon, so I'll just respond to the title:

"Ultimate MMO doesn't exist, too many different expectations of the same thing, different MMO space to deal with compared to the first generation, Companies should stop trying to cover massive groups of people straight from the beginning, Companies should focus on one relatively decent sized group and let people come to them, etc, etc.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

You forget that UO was pioneer in MMO space. And they trully didnt know what to expect or how to deal with things.

11 years later we do have a good idea.

Late response to this sorry...

I don't think the industry has a good idea. Because, big surprises like that. Where in an MMO company is whole heartedly confident something will go one way for them and it ends up going the complete opposite direction or in some way they had not even anticipated...well, this keeps happening. I have seen that it is only in the last year or two that developers have given up trying to predict how players will react to new things. And have instead (to greater success, I think) began to direct and guide their opinions on the matter.

• Fully interdependent systems without any specific emphasis on one of them. In my perfect game, PvP <=> PvE <=> Crafting <=> PvP. You can fully commit to one aspect of the game, but working with other players is necessary to a certain extent. A half-decent example would be: PvE player gathers resources and sells to a crafter who sells product to PvP player that made money from defeating opponents. Seems easy on paper, but really hard to pull this one off.
• Exceptional hardware, exceptional world. Make me a massive world, and host it on servers that can handle it. I think EVE does this fairly well although I'm not an actual subscriber so I can't say for sure. But games, imo, need to be vast, expansive and truly seamless worlds. No instancing. No phasing. Just the open world.
• Teach me to swim, give me a life preserver, but don't hold my hand. MMOs kind of remind me of mothers that can't let their kids grow up and make their own choices. What I need from a game is the basics and a fighting chance. Everything beyond that I want up to me. I don't need obvious landmarks or other things. Let me explore, get my hands dirty, etc. Don't hold my hand!
• Let me affect the world without breaking it. Now this is a can of worms. I want to be able to affect the world around me, but I don't want to be able to wreck it. Personally, dynamic systems are how to do it. GW2 has dynamic events, but they are all on timers and very few event chains are truly dynamic. It's sort of "faking it" I would say, but it's a good attempt. Anyways, I think dynamic, non-repeating content is the future in many ways. It's just ridiculously hard to pull off!
• Depth. Depth in every way possible. Skills, crafting, combat, even in graphics. The things that are possible but aren't being done in MMOs is a bit discouraging. This sort of comes back to point #2. Get a beefy server architecture. Pay for it up front because if you deliver a truly unique experience to players, they will be rewarded back with riches!
• Don't taze me bro! Embrace your playerbase. Ask them what they want. It's not that hard. In-game surveys aren't exactly groundbreaking concepts here.

I was actually thinking about this a lot today. I have been looking for the perfect mmo for years. Well, not in every sense of the word but pretty close. I feel the companies that make mmos have not really been paying attention (or are but do not care) to what most people want in an mmo. I know of several features in one game that would be very efficient in drawing in more players, but then there are several more feaatures not in the first game but in another. The second game's features are efficient as well, but I have always wondered why the features in both were not put together in one mmo.

What I am basically getting at is that companies need to create a game with a lot of what the usual mmo gamer, or even just gamer, would love to have in one game. I am aware the risk is high, like the OP was saying. Both finantially and sucessfully risky. There is also the possibility that maybe one of the features may not be good for the average game, whether the gamers want it or not. It just may not work out. I have a few suggestions on what could be included in such a game but I am aware that it is possible that they can be hurtful to the game as well. There are many sides to all of these features.

1. Open World - It is usually a good call but you may have people that prefer dungeon-based games.

2. Good Graphics - People with good computers thrive but others wont see a difference since it's on low settings. It is possible that it changes regardless though. (3-D is covered here as well)

3. Dungeon Finder - Many people say it takes away from the community feel of games with this feature since you are not actively going out and recruiting people. It can make things easier for people though. (Raids can be added as well)

4. Auction House - A good feature, there is probably some points that can refrute this but I don't have the brainpower right now to think of them. I'll leave that to someone else. :P

5. PvP-Based Features (Battlegrounds, Arenas, World PvP, etc..) - So battlegrounds and arenas, two of the ones listed, can be good for a game with servers primarily for PvE players so there is a way to...work out the frustration of not having any way to PvP (this is for people who like PvP but hate World PvP). World PvP is something else. It is probably best to have a seperate server for this type of feature, which a lot of games already have. It's worth mentioning though.

6. Choice of Controls - Some people like controls like WoW, some like it like Vindictus/C9. If you are able to choose between the two then more power to you and quite possibly your rate of success in that mmo. It all depends on your preference. Most people coming from console games may appreciate the latter way of controls. Not saying everyone will though.

tl;dr - Just read the bolded print. kthx

Originally posted by Lobotomist

1. Simulated world - doesnt mater how complex - but with systems realistic to given simulation.

2. Content that comes from interaction with worlds factions.

3. Posiblity to change the world trough interaction.

4. Inter player and inter community dependency.

5. Suply and demand based economy and posession.

6. Player character development that lets you be unique , specialised and needed in other player and world interaction.

 

All rest is up to imagination of developer.

Damn you Lobo.. did you hack into my computer and steal my game ideas?  Ha Ha Ha..

We both share the same ideas and desires.. I want a living breathing world where I and others can have an effect on the simulated world we live on.. To the point that no 2 servers are the same.. I want a game that promotes community organization and social interaction, then these single player premade storyline games..

Imagine a game where you go on vacation and come back a week later only to find out the world changed while you were gone.. Such as:  You go to a nearby village and discover that you are KOS to the NPC, instead of being friendly.. You ask the zone what happen, and in response you find out a guild tried to raid a regional location and failed.. Because of that the raid faction took over the local village to make an example..  So now, people need to find a way to get that village back to being friendly again.. No guarantees tho that the NPC you were dealing with in the village will still be there.. Stuff happens!!.. lol

Anyways.. I imagine a game that is more a spider web of options, then a linear themepark..

Originally posted by Lobotomist

1. Simulated world - doesnt mater how complex - but with systems realistic to given simulation.

2. Content that comes from interaction with worlds factions.

3. Posiblity to change the world trough interaction.

4. Inter player and inter community dependency.

5. Suply and demand based economy and posession.

6. Player character development that lets you be unique , specialised and needed in other player and world interaction.

 

All rest is up to imagination of developer.

wakfu is pretty much a player driven world. u make eerything from money to the mobs you fight, and have a government system.

its turn based so its not for everyone. and very polished anime.

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by CreepProphet

You may want to reword the post and highlight the bit about the 6 things people would want in their perfect MMO.  That might get the ball rolling.

1. No Classes - let me play based on whatever skills I want to lump together, if I nerf myself, that's my bad

 

This has to be done right from the start or someone will come up with the perfect build so most of the gamers are forced to use the same build to be able to compete which turns the game into a single "class" game.

Very true, and sadly I don't see that being feasible at this time..  Instead I would be happy to see more of the orginal EQ1.. Over a dozen unique classes that have a variety of skills.. I would love to see more hybrids in gaming.. In my dream game I can see atleast 18+ different classes to play.. Time to get rid of the holy trinity as we come to know it..  IMO

Originally posted by Icewhite

Don't people tell us every day that "catering to the majority" is a mistake?

While simultaneously discussing a dozen or so threads about some really deeply different games?

A market that's too broad and varied to be covered this way (as corporations keep rediscovering).

Sorry Cali; gotta go with 'trying to be a jack of all trades means only that you master none of them."

I agree. No one is a fan of compromise.

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by BadSpock
 

I disagree with your first point Spock old chap - I firmly beleive you can take everything which works in themepark and sandbox and put them in the same game.

It hasn't been seriously tried yet - ironic as that is.

It has been mishandled and mis-sold. It has been badly designed and implemented.

All this is true.

BUT - none of that means it is right to conclude that the best elements of both game 'styles' are mutually exclusive. That confuses the limitations of designers to date with the limitations of the definitions of each playstyle.

NOT the same thing I assure you.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There are too many design decision which are in direct conflict with each other and cannot be included in the same game.

Say you can feed and care for your mount in a tamagochi style - make it a minigame. Now if the minigame is not the main point of the game, that minigame can be an inconvenience to people who would like to use a mount but not take care of it. This is also why more features does not make the game necessarily better. Some players want everything simulated just because it would make it "more realistic" or "more alive", when others would be comfortable with a high level abstraction and concessions from realism to usability i.e. that same mount does not require feeding, sleep and could be summoned on demand.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by Edeus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

1. No classes / 1 Char per game - Skill based system - Skill cap so people cant be masters of everything - Can reset skills if you want to try something new

2. All items crafted by players - Monsters can amass loot by pillaging cities and ambushing merchants

3. A pretty harsh death penalty - Makes it more exciting

4. Player built / destroyed world - Allow players to build castles, cities, houses, dungeons to protect their loot - Allow players to pillage people's stashes, houses, castles, cities, dungeons - Bank in newb city only holds a very limited amount of stuff

5. Player driven NPCs - Players can hire guards, hire monsters, create monsters, etc that will do their bidding like guarding their castle / dungeon or raiding someone else's castle or city

6. Mostly slow travel world - Only dedicated mages should be able to fast travel - This helps create economy and territory control

1) hard to balance. Impossible to not have cookie cutter builds after min-maxing post them online

2) How about those players who don't like crafting? Few want to play a carpenter, you know.

4) too much freedom to grief others. People are more likely to build stuff to block others, than to do it in a fantasy context.

5) That is not a bad idea .. and lots of games already have companions, pets, ....

6) No. Slow travel create boredom.

1. As Nariuss said.

2. You can have sellable monster only loot and crafted stuff right alongside each other for sale on the market tab.

3. Will lead to a lot of players not getting into the game/leaving, making it a niche game.

4. No one wants to spend hours/day/weeks on building something just so some asshole with an army can destroy it overnight.

5. meh

6. as Nariuss said.

My game would be more of a world sim. Many, many people are not really into world sims, and would rather play in a themepark style game. No biggie. Personally I'm sick of themeparks.

No disagreement here. I am not into world sims. In fact, i find people weird to sacrifice so much gameplay just to have a world.

Oh, if you are sick of themeparks, try straight online ARPGs, MOBA, MMOFPS ...themepark MMORPGs are not the only sub-MMO genre out there.

If you want a world sim, however, you are out of luck.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by BadSpock
 

I disagree with your first point Spock old chap - I firmly beleive you can take everything which works in themepark and sandbox and put them in the same game.

It hasn't been seriously tried yet - ironic as that is.

It has been mishandled and mis-sold. It has been badly designed and implemented.

All this is true.

BUT - none of that means it is right to conclude that the best elements of both game 'styles' are mutually exclusive. That confuses the limitations of designers to date with the limitations of the definitions of each playstyle.

NOT the same thing I assure you.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There are too many design decision which are in direct conflict with each other and cannot be included in the same game.

Say you can feed and care for your mount in a tamagochi style - make it a minigame. Now if the minigame is not the main point of the game, that minigame can be an inconvenience to people who would like to use a mount but not take care of it. This is also why more features does not make the game necessarily better. Some players want everything simulated just because it would make it "more realistic" or "more alive", when others would be comfortable with a high level abstraction and concessions from realism to usability i.e. that same mount does not require feeding, sleep and could be summoned on demand.

Or you will be wasting resource building stuff few players use. Let's take LFD on WOW as an example. It let you by-pass the world and do dungeons. But you still have the CHOICE to walk 20 min going to a dungeon.

If 99% of the players choose to use LFD and by-pass the world, is there a reason for the world to exist?