Multiplayer is missing from these games because most the content that requires grouping is instanced and with people from different servers. People called SWToR a singleplayer experience, but it has parts of the zone that require groups to do some quests. Zenimax added a zone created for four players, not sure how that is going but it sounds like a good concept to get players to group.
Levels hinder from playing together cause I might have more time to play than my friend, but I don't want to wait so I go ahead and level. Usually the only way I could level with a friend is make an alt to level with him while I play my main when he's not on.
I know how it was , special levels hinder part, it suck.
That's why i used to love tank and healer class which you don't need to same level to play with other,
but it still suck when in some game you can't party with lower level because they don't get (or get less) exp.
Then when you mix it with quest hubs , things become worst.
Just few quest difference and the party broken , exp from mobs get cut off so the progress wasn't "like the designer planned" .
The current MMO market sucks because of people like the author of this article who sit around and theory craft shit all day long, but the practical application of their ideas ends up being terrible. Too bad these people never make their games like they talk about constantly. Cash grab marketing and empty promises, that is about all we have seen in the past 5-10 years.
I watched EQ go from an almost totally group based game to an almost total solo experience.......I remember at the time when the transition was happening that players would rather quit than either wait for a group or have a bad group experience....Soe, not one to ever miss out on a buck, started catering to these people and slowly but surely changed the game to accomodate the whiners...This was about the time WoW came out....WoW was privy to these things and really took advantage of alot of the disgruntled former EQ players...They offered a solo leveling experience while also offering group content ( that was much easier than EQ) so it was a win-win and the industry really has never been the same since.
I don't even have to read the article to know why multiplayer is missing. Too many people had bad experiences that went like this:
I played with this player and they were a D-bag. I tried playing with other people and I found more D-bags. D-bags D-bags D-bags. They're everywhere! So I started playing solo and I demanded the ability to solo 95% of everything in every game I play.
A few developers started catering to this type of person and the industry became flooded with more of the same B.S. over the past couple of years. If developers would just stop trying to please everyone with every game then gaming would start getting back to the way it should be.
Or maybe people who want others to play with them in other MMOs should stop being dbags?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Or maybe people who want others to play with them in other MMOs should stop being dbags?
That's what I always thought. Sad part is that the people who are the d-bags either don't realize their behavior is driving others away or they enjoy being irritating little pricks.
Whenever I'd encounter such terrible behavior I always tried to keep my mouth shut for as long as possible for the benefit of the team, but when I start getting private messages from teammates regarding the irritating behavior of that player it becomes increasingly difficult when I know that others feel the exact same frustration as me. Some times you "just have to solo" in order to remove yourself from those bad encounters and let your mind clear. It really is a shame how just a small percentage of players can drive so many away from the fun you can have while teaming.
I understand why "some" people would prefer to solo for this reason. After reading all of the preceeding comments I see that there are many more reasons that people prefer soloing. I didn't take all those other incidents and causes into account before I posted and I apologize if my comment was taken the wrong way.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
Or maybe people who want others to play with them in other MMOs should stop being dbags?
That's what I always thought. Sad part is that the people who are the d-bags either don't realize their behavior is driving others away or they enjoy being irritating little pricks.
They know exactly what they're doing and they continue doing it because there are no repercussions. There used to be, that's for damn sure.
None of that matter anymore since dbags can either swap servers, change names, or reroll in less than a week.
Or maybe people who want others to play with them in other MMOs should stop being dbags?
That's what I always thought. Sad part is that the people who are the d-bags either don't realize their behavior is driving others away or they enjoy being irritating little pricks.
They know exactly what they're doing and they continue doing it because there are no repercussions. There used to be, that's for damn sure.
None of that matter anymore since dbags can either swap servers, change names, or reroll in less than a week.
Pretty much this, it has far less to do with soloability or accessibility and more to do with why people don't want to deal with other players. If games weren't so afraid to lay the hammer down on people who acted inappropriately, design mechanics that discouraged exploitave behavior etc... then as people have less and less bad experiences with other players they become more and more open to socializing and team play.
You don't need 40 main raiding to be an MMORPG, just because games have it doesn't mean that is what the MMORPG is all about. There are tons of ways people can connect, socialize and play together, you don't have to lower accessibility to increase group play. You simply need to give people opportunities and benefits for socializing. The more games support drop in and drop out group play, the more people who will be willing to group together. The more people group together, the more opportunities they have to socialize and create relationships. The more relationships they create in a game the more likely they are to stay.
Fixed class on character creation with forced grind = bad
Classless system with templates for stereotypical skill builds (tank, mage, cleric, etc) with capped progression (lets say only a certain number of skill points) which can be reset but require re-grinding = best.
The EQ/WoW system is hated for a reason and homogenization is not dumbing down it is actually trying to get back to where it started off in UO and other early sandbox titles but by the stupidest means possible.
though sometimes is fun (or required) to play in groups, most of the time i prefer to developt the games's story on my own way and time, if u play whit others they will rush you to get to the goal asap, i rather like to enjoy the ride than rush.
And to do that all classes must be able to survive on their own, where is the fun on being a mage class or healer and needing other to progress or survive, no sir, dependency like that is very un-fun.
I don't even have to read the article to know why multiplayer is missing. Too many people had bad experiences that went like this:
I played with this player and they were a D-bag. I tried playing with other people and I found more D-bags. D-bags D-bags D-bags. They're everywhere! So I started playing solo and I demanded the ability to solo 95% of everything in every game I play.
A few developers started catering to this type of person and the industry became flooded with more of the same B.S. over the past couple of years. If developers would just stop trying to please everyone with every game then gaming would start getting back to the way it should be.
Probably not, because of your comments in paragraph two. If they are forced to group 100% of the time with the DBs who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves social players will just give up and quit MMOs. They are the main reason I rarely group. Even the guilds I have joined have been full of the same type of people and I'm tired of guild shopping to find the right one. It's easier to just solo to end and then quit or re-roll.
Originally posted by mbd1968 Originally posted by Blaze_RockerI don't even have to read the article to know why multiplayer is missing. Too many people had bad experiences that went like this:I played with this player and they were a D-bag. I tried playing with other people and I found more D-bags. D-bags D-bags D-bags. They're everywhere! So I started playing solo and I demanded the ability to solo 95% of everything in every game I play. A few developers started catering to this type of person and the industry became flooded with more of the same B.S. over the past couple of years. If developers would just stop trying to please everyone with every game then gaming would start getting back to the way it should be.
Probably not, because of your comments in paragraph two. If they are forced to group 100% of the time with the DBs who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves social players will just give up and quit MMOs. They are the main reason I rarely group. Even the guilds I have joined have been full of the same type of people and I'm tired of guild shopping to find the right one. It's easier to just solo to end and then quit or re-roll. I believe his point was stop trying to force completely different play styles into the same "sandbox" or "theme park ride" and expect nothing but warm fuzzzies. The wider the differential between demographics all pushed into one little room well yea their is bound to be conflict; and since mmo's market "everybody".... well you do the math.
The same thing that has depleted the multiplayer aspects of these games is the same thing that has depleted many of the other aspects of MMORPGs that made them immersive worlds. FEATURES.
It goes a little something like this. WOW releases, only has a bit of fast travel, leveling is slow, no LFG, less homogenization, etc. People play wow for years, leveling alts gets boring, dungeons have been farmed a million times so spending time to get a group ready isn't as worth it because the dungeons aren't as fun, etc. etc.
People then get tired of this, it wasn't tedious before, but after a few years it gets tedious, so people stop subscribing to the game. WOW's numbers start to drop so they need a solution, "lets add some features to speed things up!" So they add lfg, they add more solo content, and they cut leveling times and travel times.
So the timesinks that made the game immersive and fun at first tend to get a little tedious as the game ages, devs respond by changing things to make the timesinks not quite so tedious in order to maintain the playerbase. OK, this is FINE at this point, for THIS game.
The problem arises when a new game comes out and everyone is upset because these features aren't a part of this game, or the features are a part of this game and are just expected to be there. The immersion is then killed as the things that made the games what they are in the first place are GONE.
This problem, imo, stems from a few other problems that these new games are having.
1) MMO players have changed, a broader audience that aren't as nerdy/geeky/whatever have been drawn to the genre and in the search for the almighty dollar these game companies are attempting to appeal more to these people. These games aren't about having immersive worlds anymore, they are about being fast paced moba lobby games.
2) The "WOW-Clone", I'm not faulting wow for this, i loved wow. However, WOW created this concept that the leveling process is some boring precursor to the "fun" of end-game "raiding" as the method for playing MMORPGs. Due to WOW's success developer companies have copied this formula and as games have released it has become about the race to endgame, NOT about the immersion into the world. For example, in my first MMORPG i had just as much fun at level 14 as I was having at level 70 because the content wasnt end game restricted.
3) The novelty of mmorpgs has worn off from the average mmorpg player. I have nothing to support this but it seems to me that the average player of mmorpgs today came to them because of WOW and they didn't come to wow for the same reasons that people went to UO/AC/EQ/MUDS, they came because it was "new" and neat and EVERYONE was doing it. These people don't want the same mmorpg's that the original population of these games wanted, they want fast access lobby games, like mobas, or gw2.
I even read in another post in this thread "The problem is that people are expected to plan their lives around playing these games". Well, thats a problem for YOU, but I assure you that us players from the older generation had no problem doing this, the same as a snowboarder must plan their lives around when the ski-resort is open to enjoy their hobby. Some of these people want fast games that they can squeeze in between the 15 other things they are trying to do in the day. Some people, however, have no problem giving up a few things to play these games.
This is why the genre needs to split. I guess it's not really anyones fault as I dont think there is a general assumption that everyone who plays MMORPG's wants to play the same game, I just think that the niche-market gamers are being totally ignored. I would really like to see some quality AAA sandbox games released but unfortunately this just isnt happening and hasn't for a long long time. Sure we get them, but we get junk, buggy broken, unfinished, crap-indie-ware.
Maybe there has been some metrics examined that says it's impossible to make these games be financially successful, maybe companies don't really care and no one is even trying for no reason at all. But, we won't know, truly know, that these games wont or can't be successful until a few TRULY QUALITY versions of them are released.
I agree with the article. The problem raised, requires a solution that considers the needs of players who want that codependence, the needs of the players who want to play solo, and the needs of the game development company ($).
I still wonder if different server rule sets might be an answer.
Regular servers: players can do anything and everything, including shooting fire out of their arses. Every player is a God, able to slay the lowliest orc and the mightiest Dragon. Everyone is "happy." Everyone is equal. No one is better than anyone else, and everybody gets a prize or award for participating.
Hardcore servers: players have to depend on others to survive. Protection (tanking or recurring buffs), healing quickly, unique damage abilities. Players might be able to take on a single Orc, or two, but they couldn't even tickle a Dragon without working together. Some players are better at some things than others. Nobody is equal. There might be treasure to be had, but Players true accomplishment might come from working together.
I'm being a little bit passive – aggressive in my thinking, but that's Okay. Players would know what they're getting into from the start.
I would even go as far as saying players could switch from The hard-core server to the regular server at any time if they decided that they felt like they were being limited by their particular rule set. There would be no need to whine about your lack of time, or the inability to find groups, or people not wanting you or your particular class in a group. There would be no need to whine, beg, plead or threaten developers to cater to players who wanted all delivered to them on a silver platter. there would be a server for that. Go for it. Have fun. Make lots of friends.
of course this would require some development time and it might segregate the game into two different communities. But I don't think one would miss the other.
And if we're really looking for a solution, then isn't that where development time and money should be invested?
_____________________________ "Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
I don't even have to read the article to know why multiplayer is missing. Too many people had bad experiences that went like this:
I played with this player and they were a D-bag. I tried playing with other people and I found more D-bags. D-bags D-bags D-bags. They're everywhere! So I started playing solo and I demanded the ability to solo 95% of everything in every game I play.
A few developers started catering to this type of person and the industry became flooded with more of the same B.S. over the past couple of years. If developers would just stop trying to please everyone with every game then gaming would start getting back to the way it should be.
Probably not, because of your comments in paragraph two. If they are forced to group 100% of the time with the DBs who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves social players will just give up and quit MMOs. They are the main reason I rarely group. Even the guilds I have joined have been full of the same type of people and I'm tired of guild shopping to find the right one. It's easier to just solo to end and then quit or re-roll.
I submit that a lack of dependence upon other players for absolutely anything has contributed to breeding the player who devalues other players. Once that happens, you get players who are all about themselves and are "D-bags."
Bring back a good reason for players to work together, and you'll begin breeding the type of player who values other players again. Those who refuse get thrown to the wayside.
We need to get back to building worlds instead of mere backdrops. An area in a game-world needs to be designed to be more than just a reflection of a single moment in time. It must be designed as a living, breathing part of a real world. This can only succeed if the developers encourage player interdependencies which have a direct impact on a shared, open world environment.
Designers need to think of massively multiplayer online roleplaying games as being more akin to a hobby than a just another form of mindless entertainment.
My personal view on this is that developers focus to much on the "multiplayer" part in a MMORPG then trying to deliver a living breathing world.
Grouping is actually the least social part of social in MMORPG's unless I count guild/clans.
The "social" comes from how things are connected in the world. In a way like OP said we need each other but this goes well beyond merly grouping.
Regardless LFG tools I still do it the old fashion way and either get invited into a PUG or invote others, never used LFG tools ever. Though have to admit in themeparkish MMO's I tend to solo more then group because I get my "social"from other activities then grouping. And in sandbox games......wait not really playing any worth my time.... so apart from SWG I can not comment.
The Massive Multiplayer part placed far to much focus on the multiplayer part that they forgot the massive and the massive doesn't mean grouping with 20/40/100 people, it just means we all share a common world and should be free in chosing how to play either solo or groupeed, guilded but make it a world where it doesn't feel forced but becomes natural.
I find it humorous that the people who make these games write articles on how to make these games better. It's like me writing an essay on the obvious and then patting myself on the back for having written it. Just read any of the posts in the sea of posts on this site and you will have read very much the same thing, in pieces time and time again. Like "we" need to know what isn't working? We pretty much know what isn't working.
Instead of telling us what should be done or how you'd do it better or how it was done wrong, why not do it, do it better, or do it the right way? Way too much talk, far little action. That's the problem here... people seem to think they need to have a consensus before they do a damn thing. Just do it. Build it, stop defining it. Build it, stop analyzing it. Build it, stop second guessing it.
We have to find a way to create worlds that players have strong social ties and high attachment to characters. Re-introducing class dependence, in a modern way, is key to this. The MMO that can recapture the group play aspects of older games is going to feel more special and be far “stickier” for players than current MMO offerings.
Lots of this. The only way to truly experience an MMO in my opinion is with other players and immersing yourself into the game with your character.
MMO's need to stop making their leveling experiences 2 day solo all nighters and turn them into journeys. Not a grind journey, one with lots of character progression and social group play and then evolve from that into end game.
Not that anyone reads down this far, but here's my two cents:
Before anyone starts screaming at me, please hear me out.
The biggest change in multi-player gaming is the maturity level of the players.
Think about it: When I used to play MUDs or even my first graphical MMO, the average age of the people I interacted with was mid 20's, low 30's. This is because computers were still fairly expensive pieces of equipment even 10 or 12 years ago. That meant that either using a parent's computer, a university computer or you grew up, got a job and built/bought your own. There's a certain maturity level that went with that. (Also, internet access was a different beast back then.)
These days computers are incredibly powerful, yet cheaper than they've ever been, so nearly every family has one, and each child in that family probably has their own in their bedroom, away from monitoring eyes.
These days your average age has gone down a lot, and in an era when computers can be had so cheaply, and nothing is valued anymore -- you're going to get a lot of "d-bags" in game.
This has only been my personal experience, but in the "good old days" we multi-player gamers were a relatively small group of people (geeks) who loved computers and Role Playing Games. Because of our commonality, we (mostly) got along and have wonderful memories of long gaming sessions, etc. Now there is no commonality - now there are a bunch of pre-pubescent kids from the "gimmie" generation who simply want to be L33T.
This article has nothing to do with multiplayer, it's just an entitled whine-fest about how classes should define a player's importance and role within a structured rpg environment.
If a chest is sealed with a simple pad-iron lock, why can't a warrior simply bash the lock open?
If a chest is sealed with a powerful spell, why can't a capable wizard remove the spell?
It's all really fucking stupid when you think about the constraints of the classic rpg games.
This article has nothing to do with multiplayer, it's just an entitled whine-fest about how classes should define a player's importance and role within a structured rpg environment.
If a chest is sealed with a simple pad-iron lock, why can't a warrior simply bash the lock open?
If a chest is sealed with a powerful spell, why can't a capable wizard remove the spell?
It's all really fucking stupid when you think about the constraints of the classic rpg games.
You forget some trap will active if you simple bash the lock open or randomly remove the magic seal without right keyword or trick.
And you know what will happen when the trap active ? ... RUN or get buried LOL.
Can't agree more. This is a well written article. I mean, you nailed it on the head. But we won't see any industry changes anytime soon.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Comments
I know how it was , special levels hinder part, it suck.
That's why i used to love tank and healer class which you don't need to same level to play with other,
but it still suck when in some game you can't party with lower level because they don't get (or get less) exp.
Then when you mix it with quest hubs , things become worst.
Just few quest difference and the party broken , exp from mobs get cut off so the progress wasn't "like the designer planned" .
Or maybe people who want others to play with them in other MMOs should stop being dbags?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
That's what I always thought. Sad part is that the people who are the d-bags either don't realize their behavior is driving others away or they enjoy being irritating little pricks.
Whenever I'd encounter such terrible behavior I always tried to keep my mouth shut for as long as possible for the benefit of the team, but when I start getting private messages from teammates regarding the irritating behavior of that player it becomes increasingly difficult when I know that others feel the exact same frustration as me. Some times you "just have to solo" in order to remove yourself from those bad encounters and let your mind clear. It really is a shame how just a small percentage of players can drive so many away from the fun you can have while teaming.
I understand why "some" people would prefer to solo for this reason. After reading all of the preceeding comments I see that there are many more reasons that people prefer soloing. I didn't take all those other incidents and causes into account before I posted and I apologize if my comment was taken the wrong way.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
They know exactly what they're doing and they continue doing it because there are no repercussions. There used to be, that's for damn sure.
None of that matter anymore since dbags can either swap servers, change names, or reroll in less than a week.
Pretty much this, it has far less to do with soloability or accessibility and more to do with why people don't want to deal with other players. If games weren't so afraid to lay the hammer down on people who acted inappropriately, design mechanics that discouraged exploitave behavior etc... then as people have less and less bad experiences with other players they become more and more open to socializing and team play.
You don't need 40 main raiding to be an MMORPG, just because games have it doesn't mean that is what the MMORPG is all about. There are tons of ways people can connect, socialize and play together, you don't have to lower accessibility to increase group play. You simply need to give people opportunities and benefits for socializing. The more games support drop in and drop out group play, the more people who will be willing to group together. The more people group together, the more opportunities they have to socialize and create relationships. The more relationships they create in a game the more likely they are to stay.
Class inter-dependency = good
Fixed class on character creation with forced grind = bad
Classless system with templates for stereotypical skill builds (tank, mage, cleric, etc) with capped progression (lets say only a certain number of skill points) which can be reset but require re-grinding = best.
The EQ/WoW system is hated for a reason and homogenization is not dumbing down it is actually trying to get back to where it started off in UO and other early sandbox titles but by the stupidest means possible.
though sometimes is fun (or required) to play in groups, most of the time i prefer to developt the games's story on my own way and time, if u play whit others they will rush you to get to the goal asap, i rather like to enjoy the ride than rush.
And to do that all classes must be able to survive on their own, where is the fun on being a mage class or healer and needing other to progress or survive, no sir, dependency like that is very un-fun.
Probably not, because of your comments in paragraph two. If they are forced to group 100% of the time with the DBs who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves social players will just give up and quit MMOs. They are the main reason I rarely group. Even the guilds I have joined have been full of the same type of people and I'm tired of guild shopping to find the right one. It's easier to just solo to end and then quit or re-roll.
I believe his point was stop trying to force completely different play styles into the same "sandbox" or "theme park ride" and expect nothing but warm fuzzzies. The wider the differential between demographics all pushed into one little room well yea their is bound to be conflict; and since mmo's market "everybody".... well you do the math.
The same thing that has depleted the multiplayer aspects of these games is the same thing that has depleted many of the other aspects of MMORPGs that made them immersive worlds. FEATURES.
It goes a little something like this. WOW releases, only has a bit of fast travel, leveling is slow, no LFG, less homogenization, etc. People play wow for years, leveling alts gets boring, dungeons have been farmed a million times so spending time to get a group ready isn't as worth it because the dungeons aren't as fun, etc. etc.
People then get tired of this, it wasn't tedious before, but after a few years it gets tedious, so people stop subscribing to the game. WOW's numbers start to drop so they need a solution, "lets add some features to speed things up!" So they add lfg, they add more solo content, and they cut leveling times and travel times.
So the timesinks that made the game immersive and fun at first tend to get a little tedious as the game ages, devs respond by changing things to make the timesinks not quite so tedious in order to maintain the playerbase. OK, this is FINE at this point, for THIS game.
The problem arises when a new game comes out and everyone is upset because these features aren't a part of this game, or the features are a part of this game and are just expected to be there. The immersion is then killed as the things that made the games what they are in the first place are GONE.
This problem, imo, stems from a few other problems that these new games are having.
1) MMO players have changed, a broader audience that aren't as nerdy/geeky/whatever have been drawn to the genre and in the search for the almighty dollar these game companies are attempting to appeal more to these people. These games aren't about having immersive worlds anymore, they are about being fast paced moba lobby games.
2) The "WOW-Clone", I'm not faulting wow for this, i loved wow. However, WOW created this concept that the leveling process is some boring precursor to the "fun" of end-game "raiding" as the method for playing MMORPGs. Due to WOW's success developer companies have copied this formula and as games have released it has become about the race to endgame, NOT about the immersion into the world. For example, in my first MMORPG i had just as much fun at level 14 as I was having at level 70 because the content wasnt end game restricted.
3) The novelty of mmorpgs has worn off from the average mmorpg player. I have nothing to support this but it seems to me that the average player of mmorpgs today came to them because of WOW and they didn't come to wow for the same reasons that people went to UO/AC/EQ/MUDS, they came because it was "new" and neat and EVERYONE was doing it. These people don't want the same mmorpg's that the original population of these games wanted, they want fast access lobby games, like mobas, or gw2.
I even read in another post in this thread "The problem is that people are expected to plan their lives around playing these games". Well, thats a problem for YOU, but I assure you that us players from the older generation had no problem doing this, the same as a snowboarder must plan their lives around when the ski-resort is open to enjoy their hobby. Some of these people want fast games that they can squeeze in between the 15 other things they are trying to do in the day. Some people, however, have no problem giving up a few things to play these games.
This is why the genre needs to split. I guess it's not really anyones fault as I dont think there is a general assumption that everyone who plays MMORPG's wants to play the same game, I just think that the niche-market gamers are being totally ignored. I would really like to see some quality AAA sandbox games released but unfortunately this just isnt happening and hasn't for a long long time. Sure we get them, but we get junk, buggy broken, unfinished, crap-indie-ware.
Maybe there has been some metrics examined that says it's impossible to make these games be financially successful, maybe companies don't really care and no one is even trying for no reason at all. But, we won't know, truly know, that these games wont or can't be successful until a few TRULY QUALITY versions of them are released.
I agree with the article. The problem raised, requires a solution that considers the needs of players who want that codependence, the needs of the players who want to play solo, and the needs of the game development company ($).
I still wonder if different server rule sets might be an answer.
Regular servers: players can do anything and everything, including shooting fire out of their arses. Every player is a God, able to slay the lowliest orc and the mightiest Dragon. Everyone is "happy." Everyone is equal. No one is better than anyone else, and everybody gets a prize or award for participating.
Hardcore servers: players have to depend on others to survive. Protection (tanking or recurring buffs), healing quickly, unique damage abilities. Players might be able to take on a single Orc, or two, but they couldn't even tickle a Dragon without working together. Some players are better at some things than others. Nobody is equal. There might be treasure to be had, but Players true accomplishment might come from working together.
I'm being a little bit passive – aggressive in my thinking, but that's Okay. Players would know what they're getting into from the start.
I would even go as far as saying players could switch from The hard-core server to the regular server at any time if they decided that they felt like they were being limited by their particular rule set. There would be no need to whine about your lack of time, or the inability to find groups, or people not wanting you or your particular class in a group. There would be no need to whine, beg, plead or threaten developers to cater to players who wanted all delivered to them on a silver platter. there would be a server for that. Go for it. Have fun. Make lots of friends.
of course this would require some development time and it might segregate the game into two different communities. But I don't think one would miss the other.
And if we're really looking for a solution, then isn't that where development time and money should be invested?
_____________________________
"Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
I submit that a lack of dependence upon other players for absolutely anything has contributed to breeding the player who devalues other players. Once that happens, you get players who are all about themselves and are "D-bags."
Bring back a good reason for players to work together, and you'll begin breeding the type of player who values other players again. Those who refuse get thrown to the wayside.
IMO instances make people feel multiplayer missing .
Why ?
Because instances , everyone all play they own "game", while in open world , everyone play same "game" .
Basically , in open world without instance even not party with other , it still count as "multiplayer".
But when everything instance , multiplayer become option .
Like single player game with Multiplayer option ,
I think we jump here and there from player's behavior to the gameplay design but forget the natural of multiplayer in Massively Multiplayer games.
The MMOs naturally big multiplayer "game" where massive players playing multiplayer ,
but when you add INSTANCE the multiplayer natural of the game lost and people feel it missing.
in the end , all lead to instance lol .
We need to get back to building worlds instead of mere backdrops. An area in a game-world needs to be designed to be more than just a reflection of a single moment in time. It must be designed as a living, breathing part of a real world. This can only succeed if the developers encourage player interdependencies which have a direct impact on a shared, open world environment.
Designers need to think of massively multiplayer online roleplaying games as being more akin to a hobby than a just another form of mindless entertainment.
My personal view on this is that developers focus to much on the "multiplayer" part in a MMORPG then trying to deliver a living breathing world.
Grouping is actually the least social part of social in MMORPG's unless I count guild/clans.
The "social" comes from how things are connected in the world. In a way like OP said we need each other but this goes well beyond merly grouping.
Regardless LFG tools I still do it the old fashion way and either get invited into a PUG or invote others, never used LFG tools ever. Though have to admit in themeparkish MMO's I tend to solo more then group because I get my "social"from other activities then grouping. And in sandbox games......wait not really playing any worth my time.... so apart from SWG I can not comment.
The Massive Multiplayer part placed far to much focus on the multiplayer part that they forgot the massive and the massive doesn't mean grouping with 20/40/100 people, it just means we all share a common world and should be free in chosing how to play either solo or groupeed, guilded but make it a world where it doesn't feel forced but becomes natural.
I find it humorous that the people who make these games write articles on how to make these games better. It's like me writing an essay on the obvious and then patting myself on the back for having written it. Just read any of the posts in the sea of posts on this site and you will have read very much the same thing, in pieces time and time again. Like "we" need to know what isn't working? We pretty much know what isn't working.
Instead of telling us what should be done or how you'd do it better or how it was done wrong, why not do it, do it better, or do it the right way? Way too much talk, far little action. That's the problem here... people seem to think they need to have a consensus before they do a damn thing. Just do it. Build it, stop defining it. Build it, stop analyzing it. Build it, stop second guessing it.
We have to find a way to create worlds that players have strong social ties and high attachment to characters. Re-introducing class dependence, in a modern way, is key to this. The MMO that can recapture the group play aspects of older games is going to feel more special and be far “stickier” for players than current MMO offerings.
Lots of this. The only way to truly experience an MMO in my opinion is with other players and immersing yourself into the game with your character.
MMO's need to stop making their leveling experiences 2 day solo all nighters and turn them into journeys. Not a grind journey, one with lots of character progression and social group play and then evolve from that into end game.
Enjoyed this article.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Not that anyone reads down this far, but here's my two cents:
Before anyone starts screaming at me, please hear me out.
The biggest change in multi-player gaming is the maturity level of the players.
Think about it: When I used to play MUDs or even my first graphical MMO, the average age of the people I interacted with was mid 20's, low 30's. This is because computers were still fairly expensive pieces of equipment even 10 or 12 years ago. That meant that either using a parent's computer, a university computer or you grew up, got a job and built/bought your own. There's a certain maturity level that went with that. (Also, internet access was a different beast back then.)
These days computers are incredibly powerful, yet cheaper than they've ever been, so nearly every family has one, and each child in that family probably has their own in their bedroom, away from monitoring eyes.
These days your average age has gone down a lot, and in an era when computers can be had so cheaply, and nothing is valued anymore -- you're going to get a lot of "d-bags" in game.
This has only been my personal experience, but in the "good old days" we multi-player gamers were a relatively small group of people (geeks) who loved computers and Role Playing Games. Because of our commonality, we (mostly) got along and have wonderful memories of long gaming sessions, etc. Now there is no commonality - now there are a bunch of pre-pubescent kids from the "gimmie" generation who simply want to be L33T.
This article has nothing to do with multiplayer, it's just an entitled whine-fest about how classes should define a player's importance and role within a structured rpg environment.
If a chest is sealed with a simple pad-iron lock, why can't a warrior simply bash the lock open?
If a chest is sealed with a powerful spell, why can't a capable wizard remove the spell?
It's all really fucking stupid when you think about the constraints of the classic rpg games.
You forget some trap will active if you simple bash the lock open or randomly remove the magic seal without right keyword or trick.
And you know what will happen when the trap active ? ... RUN or get buried LOL.
Can't agree more. This is a well written article. I mean, you nailed it on the head. But we won't see any industry changes anytime soon.