Thanks for mentioning the wow socket and enchants.  I've modified the post.

I'm sorry you feel it is loaded, but perhaps it is.  I don't really like raiding for gear as the primary end-game activity and that probably shows through.  That doesn't mean I necessarily dislike raids on occasion though. 

In my "perfect mmo", raids would provide a guaranteed drop for each player, where as smaller dungeons could drop the same stuff but would be much much less.  Like less than 1%.  e.g. you'd have to run x smaller dungeons (x would vary greatly according to difficulty and group size) to be equivalent to one raid.

One of the areas I'd like to see greatly improved in the modern mmo is itemization, as I find raid tier boring.  The first rpg I got addicted to was D2, and the first mmo I got addicted to is SWG.  For those who have played both, you could understand the drastic differences in itemization.  One is a dungeon crawling loot fest, and the other is a player economy.  However, I love both!  And I want to see them integrated!  Crazy, right?

Or is it.  I guess that's what I'm hoping to find out here.  The idea of great mmo itemization to me comes down to finding gear components ala SWG, albeit with a bit more flair.  But, we all know that in the end SWG failed.  Now, it's my opinion that SWG didn't fail because it was so crafting oriented, but rather it failed because they focused too much on crafting at the expense of end-game activities.  In other words the crafting sytem wasn't bad, but it couldn't stand on its own.  But, I question that reasoning due to itemization, seeing as it is very different from a game like wow which drops items rather than crafting components, and in every basic sense has been a huge success (even though I don't think it's a very good mmo).

So I question if itemization played a part in SWG's downfall, and thus brings up my primary question.  How important is it that people find full gear in a mmo, in comparison to components that can be used in a player economy?

Examples:

In wow you'd find the folllowing item from raid boss X

Super sword of slaying

250-697 2-hand damage

+100 stamina

+240 strength

+175 accuracy

sockets for jewels (player crafted)

Enchants (player crafted)

In a player economy, items would be similar to the following:

Super sword of slaying (player crafted)

(197 - 430) - (510 - 841) 2-hand damange (based on materials used to craft the item with experimentation)

+40-100 stamina (based on materials and boost mods(player found))

+175-250 strength (based on materials and boost mods(player found))

+100-175 accuracy (based on materials and boost mods(player found))

3 sockets (can be filled with player crafted mods or enhancements found in the world)

See the differences?  In one you find just the item.  In the second the player crafts the item and you find the boost mods and enhancements rather than finding the actual item.  Keep in mind that this is the most basic of designs, and in a real mmo you can't just find mods and enhancements.  There would be all kind of other things that aren't worth getting into in this post.  Just try to keep the basic idea in mind though.

So, which do you prefer?  Finding the item?  Or finding item components? 

How about stirring the pot a bit?

D3.  Player to Player sanctioned RMT. 

I think it's gonna make Blizzard serious bank, I even think it'll make wow numbers look small.

So how long before you start seeing this model in mainstream mmos?

Originally posted by Ghost12

Ultimately, these forums are a reflection of the state of the MMO genre. The genre is slowly imploding, and the forums are a reflection of that.

Disagree.  These forums represent a sliver of a percentage of mmo players, and the more extreme ones at that. 

Sandbox is dead.  The hybrid is the future.

Of course, one person's idea of sandbox likely varies from that of another.

D3

Originally posted by fenistil

Cause Diablo is not more of an MMO than for example Call of Duty is.

Don't know how anyone could say this with a straight face, but I'm not going to try and convince you.  That's a waste of our time.

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Suraknar

 

Because adding multiplayer function to KOTOR does not make it an MMORPG.

It is posts like this that always confuses me.

Why do you think your personal definition of 'what an MMORPG is' is the only one?

Absolutely agreed. 

As far a I am concerned a mmo is any game you're playing with a ton of other players, and that doesn't mean forced grouping either. There is absolutely nothing wrong playing primarily solo in a mmo if you so choose. There's nothing wrong with a preference for 5-10 man groups, and heck there's nothing wrong with raids either. It's when one of those groups make the others suffer that there's a problem, ala raiding and gear gating.

Even though D2 (and soon to be D3) is technically not a mmo, I've always considered it more "massive" in terms of players than any mmo.  D3 is going to be even more massive as there are very few servers to support a larger market for the RMAH.  Compared to a mmo that shards people up into roughly 30k groups (or shards of shards like SWTOR or STO), a Diablo game feels like I'm playing in a much more robust mutliplayer environment despite the fact that it does not have an open world.

Bottom line, if a person thinks they absolutely know what a mmo is, odds are they don't know much about mmos.  Because anyone who actually does know a lot about mmos knows that they can be very different, and that is not a bad thing.

Originally posted by travamars

Most of the people here with 1000's of post aren't actually gamers. They do buy games and play games but only enough so that they can come to this forum and complain or give some super logic of why the game works. They spend more time on this forum than in any game. People do still still play and like games, just not most of the people on this forum.

I don't think this is remotely close to true.  What I've noticed is that most posters here are "old school" gamers.  They played EQ, DAOC, SWG, etc.  MMOs were different back then, much more engaging and much more community oriented.  Most forum posters have likely tried WOW and found it not to their tastes over time.  So now, they come here to discuss mmos in the hope that someday another mmo worth playing is released.  The moment that happens, they'll be spending much more time playing their mmo than posting on the forums.

At least that's what happens with me.

As with most things in life, a middle ground is usually the best option.  Most reasonable people understand that removing quests is unnecessary.  However, quests today are equivalent to grinding, and diminish the entire idea of a quest.  So, use something like SWG's mission terminals for grinding quests (kill 10 boards for 10gold), and make quests truly quests again.  They should be long and adventurous with a good storyline behind them.

When quests actually become quests again, people will care about the story and become more immersed in the game.

Originally posted by PukeBucket

A smiley? Should've ended with /nohomo

Regardless, top PC games are all player vs player games. All MMOs that make it tout it as a major feature.

PvE only MMOs fizzle out pretty quick. 

So, you're wrong. No smiley needed.

What exactly are you smoking?  The biggest mmo by FAR is clearly a PVE-focused game (WOW).  Name one PVP-focused game that has more than 1% of the market.

Don't get me wrong.  I like PVP in the right forms.  I'm just pointing out that your statement is really off the mark.

lol great article.  that really helped me let of some steam by laughing.  :)  But seriously, devs spending time on a mmo "romantic companion".  That's a serious turnoff to the game for me.  Just such a waste of dev resources imo.

But, the game's not made just for me, so I'll shut my f***In' retarded mouth!  :P

Originally posted by Grand_Nagus

Just a clarification: Cryptic's deal is with CBS, not Paramount. Back in 2006 the Star Trek IP was divided between CBS(the TV series) and Paramount(the movies). So CBS is the one that is involved with STO.

Thank you for clarifying.

Originally posted by Aori

I finally figured out a way to fix this dispute. Game companys need to institude a new ban policy, if you can't meet the hour requirements for each month you are banned. So in order to keep your account active you have to play a minimum of 160 hours a month. While they're at it they'll have to remove the warnings of playing to long and to not go outside or spend time with your family or friends.

Next problem.. legalizing hacking so the bots can play 160 hours a month instead of the player.

Or people could simply accept the fact that there are varying ways to "get ahead" in the game.

Originally posted by Illyssia

I guess you could say that just like college you may have to take out a loan to get everything you want out of a cash auction house-based game.

Really, just give up the college example.  :)  If you bought your degree, you'll be found out and fired.  If you buy Diablo gear no one will ever care.  Comparing apples and donkeys here.

Because they're sociopaths.  No other explanation is needed.

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by Vercinorix

I had to think about this one for a while.

I thoroughly agree that people play games that are fun for them. People stop playing games when they are no longer fun.

Difference between new MMO gamers and ones that are MMO veterans? The veterans have stopped playing one or more MMOs because they are no longer fun. Those veterans want something different, yet many of the veterans have a laundry list of favorite features that they consider 'must haves' in any new MMO game that they would play long term. So what the vets want is really a mix of the old and the new. But the mix of the 'old' that the vets want isn't all the same thing, and often are contradictory.

...snip...

A truly phenomenal and well thought-out post. But, sadly, since you sympathized with game developers rather than mercilessly vilifying them, not a soul on this forum is going to take what you've said seriously. :/

Well, I take what he says seriously.  But for all the different "must-haves" that the vets want, everyone knows they won't get a game personally tailored to their playstyle.  In other words, reasonable people realize that they will have to give a little on their expectations.  I think vets do this, even if they're vocal in their mmo desires.

As for villifying devs, I don't think I need to defend that much.  The proof is in the pudding, and the last five years of pudding simply suck.  The sub numbers prove this as much as anything.

In my book, the solution is the fight for resources.  Open pvp is fine, as was shown in wow pvp servers.  Full-loot pvp might as well just be called gank pvp and nobody but the gankers want to play that crap.  So if open world doesn't provide the incentive, then you have to create an open pvp environment that actually gives real incentive.  Resources can give that incentive. 

To each their own, but if I wanted realistic, I'd step outside.  Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I like those darn elves and dwarves and pixies and shit.  I also liked SWG's futuristic setting.  I'm open to just about anything that isn't realistic.  :)