Dear MMORPG.

     A make or break for my MMO/Multiplayer gaming experience is the community of players. I know that the larger and more mainstream a game gets, the more likely you are to have a lot of unsavory folks involved (the argument made commonly for World of Warcraft).

My question to you all: What game mechanics exist that contribute to a positive MMO/Multiplayer game community? What mechanics could be invented/would be nice to see to make communities stronger, friendlier, and a better experience overall?

Thank you for your time and your thoughts!

"Forced" grouping and no group / dungeon queue.

Grouping to create an interdependence on others and lack of queue to make people go out and search for players while reducing the risk of getting grouped with one of those total douchebags that you routinely get using cross server LFD which will hopefully put more focus on someone's reputation not letting them just queue up for the next dungeon with random people you won't see again allowing the douchebagery behavior.

Take a page from UO. Create a Virtual World. Thats about all you truly have to do. I new my neighbors in UO, I saw them often enough so we got to know each other and adventured together. We'd go over and visit with each other and play board games in our respective houses. 

No forced grouping worked well as well. People weren't sitting around lfg all day. You grouped if you wanted to with whom you wanted to group with. People would go off and adventure, gather resources, complete collection quests for actual achievements and meet people along the way. Each group in UO had it's own community. Tamers run into each other all the time, help each other out, compete with each other, teach and help new tamers, share what they've learned with each other. Same with crafters and same with any group in UO. 

PK's would try to kill players doing dungeons in fel while others would try to protect them. Different communities formed but for the most part we considered ourselves as part of the larger community. 

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

the problem is very easy to analyze.

a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

Answer this question and you have your answer.

I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

1) Cause - related.

-The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

2) Effect - related.

- To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

-----------------------

in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

There is a chat block in most games.  I think if more than 25 players have someone on chat block the blocked should be sent a warning.  If more than 50 the blocked should be banned for a day.  If more than 100 the blocked should be banned for a week.  If repeat offense they should get the IP Block.

This is mostly anti gold spamming measures which would improve community chat.

make the content a lot harder..force peeps to group.afterall its an mmo.also crafting..do it like vanguard where you can group to get resources ,especially rare stuff..more peeps gathering means more resources to make the goodies.what is the point of having solo shit in an mmo..i just dont get it.saying that though i,m guilty of playing these solo type games.

pvp also should be banned from pve servers totally.  mainly because all most pvp'rs do is bitch and moan about how their class is always being nerfed and everyone else is overpowered.nothing to do with the fact the guy that just kicked your fuckin arse is better than you.(i dont do pvp can you tell ).if the guys wanna pvp do it on a pvp server.if the game does'nt have it then tough.

dont mean to offend anyone..its just my opinion guys.

p.s the whole idea of an mmo is that you most times work has a team and by doing that it makes the community better.just my 10 cents or pence

Originally posted by MadnessRealm

Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

Originally posted by Robokapp

the problem is very easy to analyze.

a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

Answer this question and you have your answer.

I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

 

1) Cause - related.

-The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

2) Effect - related.

- To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

-----------------------

in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

Would these things appeal to make a stronger community?

• The existence of world bosses, almost like Notorious/Rare Monsters in FFXI/WoW/etc that would require a large group to fell, also requiring coordination and strategy. They would have a rather large loot table, from unique-looking equipment to unique materials for crafting recipes/quests.

• Group crafting/Group crafting quests: Crafting quests with large or rare materials that are part of a main storyline/progression. Players would also have a designated area to look for group crafting/questing together.

• "Less self-sufficient classes": Classes have specific functions and can't do everything so you have certain roles, but are they limited to a specific profession as well (i.e. all Wizards are also Potion-makers only)? Open all professions to players, or limit the amount of professions and have players choose?

• A way to have what you've achieved in-game affect later content.

• Most content is group content.

• Many important crafting resources to be scarce and found in difficult areas. 

• Guild bonuses based on activity as well as longevity

Originally posted by TheStarheart

Originally posted by MadnessRealm

Might be an unpopular vote but, games that generally have less self-sufficient classes usually have better communities. At least from my experience.

Otherwise, having more challenging PvE content while moving away from a looted-centric game towards a more crafter-oriented one would be great for communities as well.

By more challenging PvE content, I don't mean strictly bosses, but the overall monsters in the world that players fight daily. Currently they serve as nothing more than static pinatas waiting to be killed. Kill a mob and the other mobs around it won't even react. That's rather sad. Chronicles of Spellborn tried to make the combat more challenging (and they did to some extent) but we all know how that game turned out sadly.

As for crafter-oriented games, I used to play as a dedicated crafters in many MMOs in the past and I'd often end up with a very large network of connections and friends of both crafter and fighters. We'd be helping each others all the time, trading ressources, learning about other players and knowing what they needed, helping create groups because we knew "x" group were looking for something similar, or just chatting in general. The amount of interaction between players was amazing and really fun.

Originally posted by Robokapp

the problem is very easy to analyze.

a community implies trading some personal freedoms for collective welbeing of the group.

So what features would make a player willingly trade his personal freedom (partially) ?

Answer this question and you have your answer.

I think the answers will differ with each person but generally fall in two caegories:

 

1) Cause - related.

-The need for mutual protection. The need to coordinate scrace resources, The need to obtain certain things in an area where they can only exist if someone brings them, and the risk of looting, ganking is great etc.

2) Effect - related.

- To achieve things that a single player would take infinitely long to achieve on his own. raid bosses, big crafting projects, territorial coquest and domination, building a city, becoming a pvp force ... things of that nature.

-----------------------

in conclusion: KILL HE SOLOCENTRIC MMOS AND YOU GOT A COMMUNITY. Don't force them to group, jsut give them a hell of a good reason to WANT TO GROUP.

 

Would these things appeal to make a stronger community?

• The existence of world bosses, almost like Notorious/Rare Monsters in FFXI/WoW/etc that would require a large group to fell, also requiring coordination and strategy. They would have a rather large loot table, from unique-looking equipment to unique materials for crafting recipes/quests.

 

• Group crafting/Group crafting quests: Crafting quests with large or rare materials that are part of a main storyline/progression. Players would also have a designated area to look for group crafting/questing together.

 

• "Less self-sufficient classes": Classes have specific functions and can't do everything so you have certain roles, but are they limited to a specific profession as well (i.e. all Wizards are also Potion-makers only)? Open all professions to players, or limit the amount of professions and have players choose?

 

• A way to have what you've achieved in-game affect later content.

 

• Most content is group content.

 

• Many important crafting resources to be scarce and found in difficult areas. 

 

• Guild bonuses based on activity as well as longevity

lol No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques". 

Look back at all the MMO's that people have complained about for having a lack of community. 

You'll notice those games tend to have forced grouping, less self sufficient classes, most content was group content. 

The bosses in FFXI kept the community in competition and in conflict with each other. It was a hinderence to the community. Many have come to verbal blows with each other over camping specific NM's.

Everyones going to have different ideas about what is going to breed a strong community so my advice is to research the games that actually did and look at the games that didn't. Try to find the differences and commonalities. 

You will have better luck doing that than asking the community. 

Originally posted by grimal

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

 

 

Pretty much the opposite of this.

Originally posted by grimal

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

 

 

+1

The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

Two from my perspective.

Eiliminate guild perks / rewards completely.  The reason for guilding should be people, not perks.

Eliminate automatic guild rankings.  Reputation with a guild is based on how the guild itself feels about a person, not by how many quests they complete.

"No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques"."

I personally felt FFXI had one of the best communities out there. What has failed from those things?

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by grimal

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

 

 

+1

The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

Originally posted by XAPGames

Two from my perspective.

 

Eiliminate guild perks / rewards completely.  The reason for guilding should be people, not perks.

 

Eliminate automatic guild rankings.  Reputation with a guild is based on how the guild itself feels about a person, not by how many quests they complete.

I'm not sure I'd really have rankings, but I think it would be nice for people to be rewarded for having a long-standing, active Guild. Whether it be just some cosmetic things or not.

My intention would not be to have any guild or PvP warfare at this point.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by grimal

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

 

 

+1

The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

Because sandbox generally means more interconectedness between players, eg crafting and economies.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by grimal

Forced grouping (traditional, not the GW2 coop way)

No solo play.

Increased difficulty.

Sandbox.

 

 

+1

The more solo-centric a game becomes the more disjointed the community becomes. I don't know why you added sandbox in there though

Themeparks are inherently detrimental to community. If they aren't near your level they aren't of use to you and with the forced grouping usually found in these games you must replace them. Same goes for the raid centric side of themeparks, they don't have the right gear, they aren't the right class, they aren't this, they aren't that lol. 

Couldn't you do the level-syncing method from FFXI, or exemplar/sidekicking method from City of Heroes/Villains to allow people to party together in a themepark even if they're at different stages?

Originally posted by Jemcrystal

There is a chat block in most games.  I think if more than 25 players have someone on chat block the blocked should be sent a warning.  If more than 50 the blocked should be banned for a day.  If more than 100 the blocked should be banned for a week.  If repeat offense they should get the IP Block.

 

This is mostly anti gold spamming measures which would improve community chat.

This is easily exploitable by a large guild

Originally posted by TheStarheart

 

"No most of that has proven to kill communities and simply breed "cliques"."

I personally felt FFXI had one of the best communities out there. What has failed from those things?

FFXI have a revolving clique system not really a community. What community it did have was disjointed and scattered. The main reason is in almost ever aspect of the game, most other players were your enemy. That healer wants my spot in PT, they RDM needs the same piece of gear I need, that Bst is attempting to camp the same NM I am camping, that Party is taking all the mobs in this area and we were here first... that kind of stuff. 

I made a lot of friends in FFXI, but it was more on the lines of the begining of the community decline in games.