Well, I think a lot of the trash you don't like would still be on the age restricted servers.  Adults are plenty capable of acting like idiots on the net.

To me wow is shallow and barely even a mmo, so I don't play it.  But I agree with the OP in every way, even flueting :)

Would love nothing more than a hybrid.  I'd give a shot to a sandbox without full loot pvp.  Heck, I don't even mind open pvp.  But full loot?  Nah.

bind on pickup

The very definition of what a mmo is can be quite questionable nowadays.  Is a game a mmo if it has this and that or doesn't have this or that.  There are just so many variables that a mmo for one person may not even feel like a mmo for another.

So that being said, I argue that the grind is what defines a mmo.  Progression.  Without it, you're just playing an online game.  You can try to hide it and sugar coat it as much as you want, but the moment you actually make a mmo that truly doesn't have a grind, then imo the game is no longer a mmo.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with your idea or that there's not a market for it.  Indeed I think there's a huge market for it.  I'm just saying that we've nearly reached the point where we simply can't use "mmo" as a catch-all phrase for multiplayer online games.  You make a game that truly has no grind, and it's simply not a mmo to me, whether that be my misinterpretation or yours.

Originally posted by jdnewell

IMO they should concentrate on making a co-op game not yet another MMO in an already saturated market.

But I wish em luck, in this market they will need it.

The mmo market is saturated, but with 95% trashy games.  I still see tons of potential in the market once developers get out of their entrenched design decisions.  Not every game should be a wow clone, and the other competitors don't all need to be full loot pvp UO clones or f2p cash shops.  There are markets out there for the crafters, the dungeon runners (who despise bop and like trading), and the sandbox fans.  Torchlight will focus on those dungeon runners, and if they have any sense whatsoever they will do all they can to encourage trading by removing the foul bind on pickup mechanic from the genre.  Just that one simple mechanic will drastically change the genre and give people real MEANING playing mmos again.  

In general, sandboxes do not add any linear content.  This is good for some, but to most gamers it makes the game unattractive for a variety of reasons.  Most gamers are pretty content to play the game without needing to think much about it, and thus the reason linear games do so well.  That being said, I also feel that most gamers would be interested in participating in sandbox content, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF LINEAR CONTENT.  This is why I have repeated over and over that the next "big game" will be a hybrid.  The sandbox is too niche.  Linear is not.  The combination of the two playstyles is necessary to have any sort of highly successful sandbox.

When you think about it, this isn't really that hard to do.  We could even use SWG for an example.  About a year in, they added the Correlian Corvette instance.  Although I wouldn't call it a huge hit, it was the right direction.  More instances like the Corvette would have provided a nice amount of linear focus inside the sandbox, and a lot more people would have stayed rather than the niche market of crafters and those who had to have the alpha class jedi (I'm not even gonna get into alpha classes now).  SWG had some issues, but its primary failure was not satisfying the population that wanted to do some good old-fashioned linear dungeon running.  When you have the option to BOTH craft AND participate in linear content, your gameplay options increase dramatically.  Take away one or the other and you'll rarely get a subscriber for more than 1.5 - 2 years.

In the end, sandboxes fail BECAUSE they are sandboxes.  By refusing to break out of the "must be non-linear" mold, sandboxes doom themselves from the very start.

Well, I liked the concept, particularly the sandbox with large world with player housing and pvp control of resources.  However, I can't stand full loot pvp (why would you make a mmo that caters to such a niche market and drives everyone else out?), I can't stand harvesting resources "by hand" (much more prefer SWG's harvestor system), and there is no information whatsoever on the company.  I couldn't even begin to guess if they're legit.  No way I'm signing up for a beta by putting in all my personal information for a company that won't tell you anything about themselves and has only an e-mail address for contact.  Great ideas, shoddy execution imo.

Funny how I'm looking for a sandbox game and every one I've checked out recently (mortal online, dawntide, darkfall) are ALL full loot pvp.  Amazing how these indie devs just completely ignore the market.  Most players do NOT like full loot pvp.  Get it through your thick skulls devs.

Players like instancing.  I personally like a good mix, but most people prefer a good fight without interruption or even sided pvp battlegrounds/arenas.  Could a successful game be developed with far less focus on instances?  I certainly believe so.  But remove instances entirely and I think the game fails.

Players also like to trade.  Make currency notrade and you certainly aren't gonna get a mmo to rule them all.  Heck, you might as well make a single player game.  Unless that is you're talking about trading just in items, then I'm with ya.  However based on your apparent bias against rmt, I'm guessing you'd utilize bind on pickup as well.

Your replay the game idea is slightly intriguing, sorta a page out of D2, but ultimately I'm against it.  If you've gotta have a storyline, one time is enough for a mmo.  Even if you tried the normal nm hell idea, I see players getting bored with it, even with a much wider scope of story.

Technically, there can be some botting aspects when dealing with multiboxers, so there can definitely be eula issues.  However, I believe that most people would consider that even when multiboxing you are still basically "playing" the game.  Whereas with cashshops and rmt you'd be paying someone else to play for you.  Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a rmt supporter, but this argument does make sense (for however much "sense" you wanna make of the anti-rmt argument).

I'm afraid that it's likely only us as more extreme gamers would care about anything such as a gamer's bill of rights.  I imagine the very vast majority of regular joe gamers don't really have any problem with the industry.  Most people aren't mmo gamers after all.  Consider EA.  Most of us as mmo gamers (and even some fpsers) probably have some negative thoughts about EA for a variety of reasons.  However, the vast majority of their customer base are console gamers who pick up their yearly copy of Madden football (or whatever sport) and would wonder just what in the heck we're complaining about.

In the end, we're pretty small potatoes to these developers.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by zaxxon23

Originally posted by Ruyn

Games with instancing do not deserve to have the first "M" in MMORPG.

 

Whether you're extreme to the right or left makes no difference.  You're still an extremist.

 

As with all things in life, balance is the key.  Instancing when done properly brings a lot of positives to a mmo.  Anybody who is even remotely reasonable understands and appreciates this.

Sure, but I prefer the level of instancing seen in Asheron's Call 1 as opposed to the over abundant use of it today.

 

edit: used a word I didn't mean (judicious). Multi-tasking has it's down moments for sure.

Agreed that instancing is overused.  Sure wish I woulda played AC1.  :(

Not much in your description that says mmo to me.  All just online rpg like most of the supposed mmos being released today.  Add in economy, crafting, housing, mining, social professions, and in general a much larger amount of variety, and then you start to really get into what a mmo is (at least for me).  There's more games out there than I care to imagine that have the features you listed.  There's very few true mmos left in my book.  

Originally posted by Varny

The easy solution is to make it so raids offer gear equal to the top gear gained in smaller groups but to make it look different so people who want to make themselves look leet can do. That way people can do smaller group instances, get the same stat gear and not feel left out.

Nice to see someone else thinking along these lines.  I usually look at mmos through the eyes of a sandbox fan (although I like good old dungeon crawling and linear content too), so I see lots of great things that you could add to raids outside of gear.  Novelty rare items, special artwork, rare player housing, larger schematic runs, the best components/enhancements (must be tradeable), special equipment for guild fortifications, rare clothing designs, rare resources, etc etc etc.  There's all kinds of stuff that you can make unique to the raider without upsetting the balance of the game and forcing raiding as *the* endgame.

Originally posted by teldath

and if you dont raid then all you have left is pvp, its too 1 dimensional

A good mmo has a lot more to do than raiding and pvp.  Seriously, man.

I don't think I'll ever really miss raiding.  There were definitely fun aspects, but the fun aspects just didn't make up for the hassles of bad internet connections, parents leaving in the middle for family reasons, wipes and retarded runs back, lag wipes, late nights well beyond the working man's bedtime, trash mobs that took 40 people to kill, etc etc etc.  Such a waste for loot that was gonna be replaced in nine months anyways.  Bleh...

I'd raid again, but I'd never play another game where raiding is *the* end game.  Alternative advancement is necessary.  That's really all there is to say about it.

Originally posted by Ruyn

Games with instancing do not deserve to have the first "M" in MMORPG.

Whether you're extreme to the right or left makes no difference.  You're still an extremist.

As with all things in life, balance is the key.  Instancing when done properly brings a lot of positives to a mmo.  Anybody who is even remotely reasonable understands and appreciates this.

SWG was my first true mmo, so I admit I may be biased.  SWG was also buggy and had lots of issues, as you easily pointed out in the OP.  However, I've played a lot of mmos since then and none of them come close to SWG in pure freedom to do what you want.  Wanna start a business, no problem.  Wanna socialize as a hair stylist or entertainer, no problem.  Wanna hunt for loot all day, no problem.  Wanna get in a war with a rival guild, no problem.  Wanna manage a player city, no problem.  etc etc etc etc etc

Despite all of SWG's flaws, it is still to this day heads and shoulders above the rest in the aspects I consider important to mmos with the exception of one single aspect, which is linear content.  In that aspect, SWG failed, and that is why most of its population went to wow when it was released.  This is why I'm a huge fan of the (yet unseen) hybrid model between linear themeparks and the sandbox.  IMO, neither is truly successful without the other.  When the day finally comes that a true AAA hybrid mmo is released, I have no doubt that many of SWG's best concepts will be included.

Originally posted by demarc01

Originally posted by pojung

Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though?

A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?

 

Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.

You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.

In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.

Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.

It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.

Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.

The thing that turned me off about AOC was that it was just a battle for a guild hall.  I want to see battles for resources.  E.g. you scan for resources, find a good concentration, test out the resource, find it has great stats, and start the process of controlling the resource.  First you setup mining operations, then you setup your fort.  From there you enhance the fort's defensive capabilities (depending on how really great or not so great that resource is), and defend the resource until the resource cycle is complete.  During that cycle, other guilds would want that same resource, and they would have to fight your guild for control of the resource.  As others have discussed there are a lot of different ways to do this, so I won't get into that.  

Anyways, the point is that resources make it dynamic, which greatly increases the player economy (particularly as far as structures are concerned).  You don't just buy one guild keep.  You have to keep buying fort structures to protect the resources you want to control.  The better the resources, the more you want to invest in protection structures.  Then you'd make enough from the resource to get even better defensive structures and wait for the next resource to control.  All together this adds up to dynamic gameplay with depth, and keeps the economy rolling. (economy to me is really what makes a mmo a mmo)

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.

In general I agree.  However, I did like the idea of item drops in pvp (not from the player) in WAR.  It shouldn't happen all the time, but if you kill a badass I think that having a one in a million shot of "looting" a super rare item (again, not from the inventory of the player you killed) could add good value to the pvp scene.