Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

 

 

Actually, you're missing my point entirely.

I WANT the game to cater to the PUG.

I can play perhaps on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. My real life friend or guild mates are playing on Tuesday at 9 o'clock.

therefore, if I want to  play in a good group, whenever I have time to play, it's often going to be a PUG.

I don't want the game to be watered down at all. I want it to be much harder pre-raid than anything I see in WAR, LotRO, WoW, and similar games.

The problem IMO, is once you make it harder, you have to compensate players for this difficulty level, or screw it, might as well solo.

So yes, we're in agreement on making the game with tough content for groups, be they rl friends or pick ups.

We're not in agreement on making the solo player the easier path to choose if grouping is challenging. Soloing should be A path to choose, but not to the point you're pushed in that direction because grouping is not rewarding enough.

Did you ever play EQ or DAoC? Real life friends and guilds did not "steam roll" content, IMO. When the game is designed so that the content is challenging, AND seriously encourages grouping, pick up groups can get very good.

I was often in Pick Up Groups in DAoC and EQ where you did not have to say a word. Everyone fell into their roles, and worked like a well oiled machine with in minutes.

I never saw guilds complaining that the content was to easy, and they could just steamroll the content. It simply wasn't the case.

Rather, the pick up groups had to step up their game. Why? Because the incentive was there.

 

I see the deal now for you.  You were gaming when gaming was still nerdly computer geek thing before the WoW generation. Right before WoW games starting caring more about subscription numbers than how much of a challenge their game was.  Then WoW came along and made a game not only for the hardcore gamer, but for everyone.  With the success of WoW and EQ2, hardcore gaming isn't where the money was at so there was a fundamental shift at that point.  You may get a server on a big game to your liking, but I don't think we'll ever see again a major title with that as the core game.
 

Originally posted by Darth_Osor

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

 

This is pretty much sums my feelings on grouping up until the last sentence.  Until grouping is less of a chore that doesn't require certain classes, more people will choose to solo over the hassle of standing around waiting on (usually) a healer or two for half their gaming time.  The fact that most MMOs, even ones that are more grouping dependent,  actually punish grouping doesn't help.  

A large portion of this problem is the players themselves. It is often not a question of CAN you do the content with a certain set of classes, it is a question of ARE the players willing. Most groups will refuse to accept anything less than the best class performing in a specific role, even if other characters are available to willing to act in the needed role.
 

I can hundreds of instances of this.

Two current examples would be my Conjurer (pet class) and Mystic (healer) in EQII. I am both willing and capable of tanking with either of these characters, yet groups I agree to join will sit around and spam "looking for tank" for hours rather than allow me to act as tank.

Man does it burn their feathers when I leave the group and start soloing the content they were heading for.

An older example was all pet groups in EQ. Pet classes there would often have difficulty getting groups because we were not the "best" dps. Sometimes a group of us would get tire of advertising lfg and put our own group together. Interestingly enough, without a healer, tank, or crowd control, we always managed quite well. Sometimes we even out performed the "perfect" groups.

Don't even get me started on Ranger tanks or Shaman Crowd Control in EQ.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

One problem with making competent groups is the amount of customization available in certain games.

Let's say WoW had a system where you could toggle on LFG with a display of which classes/archetypes you needed. So, if you needed a healer...

 

And you've already hit the biggest problem, intrinsic to class-based game design.  The more a group *needs* specific classes, the more a group is going to be exclusionary. This detracts from grouping for many people.

The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.

 

True. However, the more you open up the skills in  a game, the less the group play is about coordination, and becomes more like a mini zerg.

Certainly there are players that will be fine with the mini zerg approach, but many will miss the coordination required with either classes, or skill systems that have  restrictions.

There is a different feel to a group where I'm counting on one guy to mez two mobs, the tank to engage the third mob, the nuke to wait on the tank to get aggro, the healer to heal the tank, etc., or two hybrid tanks to take turns aggro, and things like that.

What I do, depends on what you do. And if we all do everything right, we become much more powerful as a team, than just the combined stats we have.

However, let's say it's a skill system and combat is designed so no specific skills are needed. We all take some healing, some DPS, and some tanking skills.

I will attack the mob, since I can tank a bit, I'll do some good damage, and throw myself a heal now and then.

You will do the same.

Even though we are in a group, I don't really care what you are doing, you dont' really care what I'm doing, we're all just attacking rather like we would if we were not in a group. That's not really as much fun, IMO.

The argument between Group and Solo play is a moot point. Games will always require that both styles are taken into consideration. The question that becomes important is "How do we reward both styles of play?".

Solo play is by far the most common mode of play in any MMO. Few players outside of specialized "twink" characters have spent more time grouped with others than solo and the vast majority of quests designed for experience gain are single player quests.

But the rewards for multi-player quests and other group play are better. Occasionally a long solo quest chain will give a reward that is comparable to a multi-player quest reward, but these are the exception and not the rule.

It all comes down to risk versus reward. And as far as risk goes, what is risk? Is risk the chance you take of your character to die? Is the penalty for that death any worse than the penalty for a solo players death?  What makes the risk of dying in a group bigger than the risk of dying alone?

What if its an effort vs reward system? By effort, do we mean the effort to form a balanced group? Or maybe its the teamwork required against some raid bosses, where everyone has a role and has to fulfill it well for the group to succeed. Why is that effort worth a greater reward than a solo player completing a long and complex quest chain?

In many cases, rewards are status symbols as well as needed tools. But what if there was a way to equally reward all styles of play? Again, WoW has the beginnings of just such a system.

For raid roles, characters gear reflects the focus of their role. Stats and mods on gear are focused on maximizing their role inside a raid group dynamic. Rewards from those raid tighten and improve that focus. PvP gear focuses on survivability within the PvP environs at the sacrifice of stats and mods that raiders look for in role situations.

So why not have specialized gear that is rewarded to solo players that allow survivability in the solo environment at the cost of PvP survivability and raid role focus? The gear would have to fill a need that the characters class could not but without pushing aside raid or PvP gear. It would have to be balanced against the solo environment but should never allow a solo player to complete an comparable level group quest.

Bottom line? Games have to encompass all styles of play in a manner that leaves players feeling, if not satisfied at least not feeling cheated or discriminated against for their style of play. Everyone pays the same fee, everyone should be able to enjoy themselves during gameplay.

more people would also group if you had the huge array of content groupable past the levels they are currently at. For instance, if people could say do Deadmines at level 60 -and the content being equal to that then maybe as an extra choice for grouping having every single instance being an option for players then people would group.

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

 

 

Actually, you're missing my point entirely.

I WANT the game to cater to the PUG.

I can play perhaps on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. My real life friend or guild mates are playing on Tuesday at 9 o'clock.

therefore, if I want to  play in a good group, whenever I have time to play, it's often going to be a PUG.

I don't want the game to be watered down at all. I want it to be much harder pre-raid than anything I see in WAR, LotRO, WoW, and similar games.

The problem IMO, is once you make it harder, you have to compensate players for this difficulty level, or screw it, might as well solo.

So yes, we're in agreement on making the game with tough content for groups, be they rl friends or pick ups.

We're not in agreement on making the solo player the easier path to choose if grouping is challenging. Soloing should be A path to choose, but not to the point you're pushed in that direction because grouping is not rewarding enough.

Did you ever play EQ or DAoC? Real life friends and guilds did not "steam roll" content, IMO. When the game is designed so that the content is challenging, AND seriously encourages grouping, pick up groups can get very good.

I was often in Pick Up Groups in DAoC and EQ where you did not have to say a word. Everyone fell into their roles, and worked like a well oiled machine with in minutes.

I never saw guilds complaining that the content was to easy, and they could just steamroll the content. It simply wasn't the case.

Rather, the pick up groups had to step up their game. Why? Because the incentive was there.

 

I see the deal now for you.  You were gaming when gaming was still nerdly computer geek thing before the WoW generation. Right before WoW games starting caring more about subscription numbers than how much of a challenge their game was.  Then WoW came along and made a game not only for the hardcore gamer, but for everyone.  With the success of WoW and EQ2, hardcore gaming isn't where the money was at so there was a fundamental shift at that point.  You may get a server on a big game to your liking, but I don't think we'll ever see again a major title with that as the core game.
 

 

We can of course discuss any and all aspects of gaming and the MMORPG industry in these forums.

However, I don't think that monetary issues are very important in these discussions.

We all know the biggest money maker, WoW. We're mostly here because we arent' playing WoW.

So if we want something different than WoW, we should enjoy discussing what we like and why, not so much will what we like be as sucessful as WoW.  We know it will not.

If that's all that is imporant, we can stop these discussions and go play WoW and then the next big game when it becomes popular.

I think most of us are here because we're looking for something that will not be as popular as WoW.

Like Star Wars Galaxies, like Darkfall, like Shadowbane, like what some people hoped Age of Conan would be, like FPS combat based MMORPGs, and so on.

None of those have WoW potential. So what?

I'd say the same thing you said about Darkfall and a game based on FFA PvP, but it got made.

I kind of agree with the OP. If the developers designed the communities to help one another rather than compete against one another, therefore you would be grouping without even realizing it, it might work. Public quests with purpose beyond mere loot rewards would be nice to see. As long as they changed frequently (area and objective) and were not completely static as in Warhammer.

This will probably sound like a silly thing to say but oddly enough the reason I tend to avoid grouping with people is because it breaks what little sense of immersion I can get out of an MMO. If an MMO insists on telling me a story and guiding me through it then what the hell have all those other people running around got to do with it? I mean.....the npcs have their place and purpose in the world......but xxKillaSnipaxx who says "wanna do an instance and farm some phat loot?" is kinda out of place.

I think the only reason I am drawn to MMOs is because it feels less lonely while I play what is essentially just a watered down single player game alongside everyone else. I also have the option in most mmos to do a bit of pvp if the fancy takes me which is something I cant get from a single player game obviously. Grouping can of course sometimes be fun (if I meet someone who makes an effort to roleplay a character for example) but usually I just find it ruins my experience of the game because of the immersion breaking thing. Generally once a particular quest or objective is achieved then we go our seperate ways.....and then I go back to playing the game on my own while occasionally typing stuff in general chat. I dont really want to have conversations with people about who has what quests, the best stats, the latest piece of gear someone found, the number of times they have beaten the quest on their alts, the number of alts they have and the best way to do things. All of that just contributes to reminding me of how pointless and silly the game I'm playing is (ie immersion breaking).

What I might find interesting is if an MMO didnt have a general chat channel, so you had to actually meet people to talk to them (as in real life). If the world was really big then meeting people out in the wilderness would perhaps have more importance. On top of that if the game was actually really difficult and challenging, with monsters and other denizens that were a real threat to my character then yeah sure I would feel more inclined to talk to the people I meet. I also expect there would be more respect for each other too as an ally would be a valuable asset in a harsh game world. I'm wondering if Mortal Online will be able to offer this......although I have severe doubts about that. Its more likely that it will just be full of people wanting to kill each other and steal each others stuff.

I'm currently playing Fallen Earth which by MMO standards is rather good. However apart from typing in general chat, I havent actually spoken to a single player. The game just hasnt given me any reason to at all. Oh....no....I tell a lie. I did talk to someone earlier. I got to a harvesting node to harvest some scrap copper before another player did and he said "Damn you" to me and I replied "You love it". Thats the only interaction I've had with any fellow players. I could of course team up with some complete stranger but why would I bother when I can do stuff on my own and ask anyone for help in the help channel?

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what.  People will solo.

For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry.   Conversation is over.  I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game.  To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make.  The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time.  For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

One problem with making competent groups is the amount of customization available in certain games.

Let's say WoW had a system where you could toggle on LFG with a display of which classes/archetypes you needed. So, if you needed a healer...

 

And you've already hit the biggest problem, intrinsic to class-based game design.  The more a group *needs* specific classes, the more a group is going to be exclusionary. This detracts from grouping for many people.

Well, for open world questing, you don't have to fill specific slots. You can have a group of five Mages if you like. Instances are obviously less tolerant of unusual groupings.

The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.

 

I disagree.

Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.

Not to mention that the archetypes comprise the 'role' of 'role playing game'.

I dislike classless games because a world of jacks of all trades is less interesting to me that one populated by strong iconic personalities.

Originally posted by Shannia

If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry.   Conversation is over.  I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game.  To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make.  The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time.  For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.

 

I see no problems there.

The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by LynxJSA

The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.

 

I disagree.

Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.

But... we just agreed, no?

I think everyone believes that most people are NOT soloers or groupers.

All games, including the game everyone called "forced grouping" Everquest, have both types of players, soloers and groupers, always have.

The debate has always been which side do you cater to the most, solo play or group play, even though the game will have both players.

EQ catered more to the group, but some people preferred to solo that game and did.

WoW pre-raid caters to the solo player, but some people prefer to mostly group in that game and do.

it  can't be Everquest/WoW, at least no developer has ever done that so far.

That would mean you made it hard to solo and easy to group and easy to solo and hard to group at the same time.

How are you going to do that?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry.   Conversation is over.  I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game.  To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make.  The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time.  For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.

 

 

I see no problems there.

The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.

If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money

WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money

FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!

you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.

(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)

Originally posted by LynxJSA

 

But... we just agreed, no?

Hmmm...I don't think so.

I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.

I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by LynxJSA

 

But... we just agreed, no?

Hmmm...I don't think so.

I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.

I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.

I agree. It becomes a zerg, only about numbers not cooperation and coordination.

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry.   Conversation is over.  I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game.  To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make.  The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time.  For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.

 

 

I see no problems there.

The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.

 

If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money

WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money

 

FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!

 

you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.

 

(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)

And the calculation also requires knowing how much the development costs are.

Tabula Rasa spent 100 million dollars in development. That's a recipe for disaster unless you get WoW numbers.

Development costs can vary tremendously depending on numerous factors.

Make good game with low costs and high sub numbers are not required to make a profit.

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.

If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.

Originally posted by Palebane

I kind of agree with the OP. If the developers designed the communities to help one another rather than compete against one another, therefore you would be grouping without even realizing it, it might work. Public quests with purpose beyond mere loot rewards would be nice to see. As long as they changed frequently (area and objective) and were not completely static as in Warhammer.

Yeah I agree. Public quests are perhaps a good way to go.......but like you said as long as they arent like what we saw in WAR.

There should be large-scale achievable goals that alter the game world which players can work towards. For example cities, villages, buildings, locations etc in games could deteriorate over time if they are left alone or certain negative actions are taken......such as killing town guards, completing quests that are detrimental to the location (eg stealing from townsfolk to help the local bandits, plundering the houses as a favour to a nearby goblin etc). In contrast they could improve if positive helpful things are done (eg hunting down those pesky bandits, helping to supply the town with food and raw materials etc).

As these places deteriorate or improve their "states" would change accordingly.......and those states would determine what quests, mobs, events etc are occuring in the surrounding area (like switches). In this way we could have a continually changing gameworld where the quests arent static and the players can take actions to change the world and cause certain events to occur. Of course the quests actually ARE static but each and every one would be getting turned on or off depending on what the players are doing.

This would also provide a gameworld where ALL the players can contribute and take part. Advanced and beginning characters would all be able to work together to get things done. The super hard Orc warchief is at the city gates with his warband and he's too tough for you and your fledgling companions? Well maybe its time to ask that hardened adventurer you met earlier to come and help deal with the threat.

No more players being divided due to what level they are. If an event gets triggered which causes a massive epic balrog to appear under your home city (damn that bungling mage and his friends for completing that summoning quest!) then although you might personally not be capable of taking it down, you will still be able to have a damn good go alongside your more powerful allies.

You might log in one day and find that the city you were in has really gone downhill. Now all of the npcs are complaining about gobin infestations and corrupt guards and generally asking for help with things close to home, whereas before they were seeking adventurers to venture into other lands to reclaim lost treasures and escort merchants to other towns.

All of this would give players a reason to rally together and help each other........and also oppose each other too. Various goals and objectives would be open to everyone all the time just like in real life.......and those goals would be achievable as well. Players would actually get to watch the world around them change as they worked together to achieve stuff.......and as other players worked together to undo the fine work they have done. It would also encourage (if not enforce) roleplaying, which is the entire bloody point of a massively multiplayer online ROLEPLAYING GAME. Roleplaying games arent supposed to tell you a story. You are supposed to be dictating what happens through your actions as a player. I would certainly feel more inclined to roleplay in MMO's and form adventuring groups with like-minded players if I knew that doing so made a difference to something. That would be awesome.

All of this is something we will NEVER see in games while they continue to be rigid stories that are immune to player intervention. They are partway there though. What they need to do is cut those stories up into "situations" which can appear and disappear depending on what gets achieved. At the moment MMOs have a start and finish point which is silly. You should not be able to complete the story (as there shouldnt really be one as such) of an MMO and yet we can. Currently we get to the end and then.....thats it. The stories over. Time to go off to the repeating end game land.

Tis bollocks.