Because different rule sets complicate the management of the game immensely, which means the cost rises dramatically.
All existing features and items (and all new ones) have to be balanced and evaluated under each separate rule set. The game code for each rule set has to be kept separate and have its own version control.
When patches are applied, great care has to be taken to apply the right patch to the right server. This appears to be difficult enough with current single version games, imagine the chaos if a company had multiple versions of the same game ?
Over time, each separate rule set will become a different game requiring a full development/support team, but with each game only having a fraction of the player base that a single version would have had. So higher costs per player but most probably the same number of total players at best.
Every point you make is countered by Minecraft's existence.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Originally posted by DMKano Accoring to a recent Bioware SWTOR dev speech - 25% of the swotrs playerbase are introverted and prefer solo experience. I think that this is pretty true for most MMOS - so majority still plays MMOS socially.
If you define "social" as hit the LFD button, wait and queue, run a dungeon treating each others like NPCs, and quit whenever you dislike someone .. then yeah, a majority still plays MMOs socially.
Ha Ha.. you beat me to it.
Originally posted by nilden
Isn't this just custom server rule sets and modding?
Pretty much what games like Minecraft do with mods and custom servers.
I"ve been advocating custom server rule sets for years, no one is listening.. I would love one good explanation from a dev/company as to why they only offer 2 different server types.. PvE and PvP.. nothing more..
Because different rule sets complicate the management of the game immensely, which means the cost rises dramatically. I disagree.. many changes in the code can be done in a day's notice. I'm not buying that "cost" is any issue..
All existing features and items (and all new ones) have to be balanced and evaluated under each separate rule set. The game code for each rule set has to be kept separate and have its own version control. Disagree.. Each server has it's own code, so if you have 20 servers, you have 20 codes running them.. Now granted all you need under the current method is one master code and copy it to the needed 20 servers. Using one of the 20 servers and take a day in changing the code to meet a new rule set is not a game breaker or profit issue for companies..
When patches are applied, great care has to be taken to apply the right patch to the right server. This appears to be difficult enough with current single version games, imagine the chaos if a company had multiple versions of the same game ? I see no chaos here..Oh sure if you are talking about 40 different rule sets, then yeah, maybe that becomes an issue.. but most games now have 2 or 3 different server types, not including a public test server.. Adding a handful of server types shouldn't cause a problem.. Most patches would be universal anyways..
Over time, each separate rule set will become a different game requiring a full development/support team, but with each game only having a fraction of the player base that a single version would have had. So higher costs per player but most probably the same number of total players at best.
Naaa I doubt that.. As I said, most changes would be minor code changes, but have a substantial impact on how the game is played.. Let me give you one easy example.. We are all accustom to the "leash" rule in combat.. This is where you reach the maximum allowable distance a mob will chase you, then reset and return back to it's spawn point.. Change that NUMBER in maximum distance from 20 meters to 200 meters or zone line.. Easy code change that doesn't require any dev team to babysit, but has a HUGE impact on how the game is played on that server..
Another easy example.. Change the HIT POINTS on a various trash mobs from 100 points to 300 points.. This would be like having elite mobs in the open world zone.. BRING some friends if you wish to fight these mobs.. Again, it's just a simple change in numbers that doesn't take a dev team to babysit..
I think the real issue is population appearance on each server.. These companies boast they have thousands playing all the time, etc etc..however, do they really? If so, losing 10 to 20% of that server population to go play the New server shouldn't be a problem.. Or are the server populations that fragile that losing 20% would be a problem.. We've all seen games like SWtOR go from 100 servers to 15 in a short time.. Bioware said that was because they went to using "mega" servers.. cough cough.. maybe, or just maybe population did drop that much ( I know I was one of many that quit after 6 months )..
I think it would be a great experiment for WoW to try custom servers as I hinted to above, and see what happens.. I know I would go back to playing WoW again if they had customer servers similar to what I gave..
Because different rule sets complicate the management of the game immensely, which means the cost rises dramatically.
All existing features and items (and all new ones) have to be balanced and evaluated under each separate rule set. The game code for each rule set has to be kept separate and have its own version control.
When patches are applied, great care has to be taken to apply the right patch to the right server. This appears to be difficult enough with current single version games, imagine the chaos if a company had multiple versions of the same game ?
Over time, each separate rule set will become a different game requiring a full development/support team, but with each game only having a fraction of the player base that a single version would have had. So higher costs per player but most probably the same number of total players at best.
Every point you make is countered by Minecraft's existence.
That's because my argument does not apply to Minecraft. Please stay on topic.
Are you implying that Minecraft is a popular MMO with a storyline, character progression, quests, loot itemization and set in a vast persistent world ? And that one developer creates multiple versions of Minecraft with different rule sets and hosts them on different server clusters ?
My arguments don't apply to Skyrim either, but that is also not a current MMORPG. My arguments do apply to the MMORPG version of Skyrim (ESO) though.
Because different rule sets complicate the management of the game immensely, which means the cost rises dramatically.
All existing features and items (and all new ones) have to be balanced and evaluated under each separate rule set. The game code for each rule set has to be kept separate and have its own version control.
When patches are applied, great care has to be taken to apply the right patch to the right server. This appears to be difficult enough with current single version games, imagine the chaos if a company had multiple versions of the same game ?
Over time, each separate rule set will become a different game requiring a full development/support team, but with each game only having a fraction of the player base that a single version would have had. So higher costs per player but most probably the same number of total players at best.
Every point you make is countered by Minecraft's existence.
That's because my argument does not apply to Minecraft. Please stay on topic.
Are you implying that Minecraft is a popular MMO with a storyline, character progression, quests, loot itemization and set in a vast persistent world ? And that one developer creates multiple versions of Minecraft with different rule sets and hosts them on different server clusters ?
My arguments don't apply to Skyrim either, but that is also not a current MMORPG. My arguments do apply to the MMORPG version of Skyrim (ESO) though.
I am on topic. The correlation between what the OP describes as segregation and custom server rule sets along with modding is obvious to anyone who knows what's possible in Minecraft.
A popular current MMORPG or whatever you want to call it could do exactly what Minecraft did and have custom server rule sets and modding.
Edit: Food for thought, back when I was programming MUDs in C++ I could have just set all of these as player flags on character creation. That way you don't even need segregated servers you just tailor the selection to the character creation.
"PvP- some zones, all zones, no zones. PvP full loot- On, Off Mob difficulty- Solo, Some Group, All Group Death Penalty- None, Experience lose, Items stay on corpse, Start over Map click Travel- On, Off Portal Travel- On, Off Experience gain- Fast, Medium, Slow Class Types needed for group content- 3, 4, 5, 6 Class ability Limits- None, Hybrid, Class specific Max Group size- 4, 5, 6, 7 Raids- On, Off Max Raid Size- 10, 20, 30, 40, Unlimited Loot drop rate- 100%, 50%, 10%, 1%"
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Naaa I doubt that.. As I said, most changes would be minor code changes, but have a substantial impact on how the game is played.. Let me give you one easy example.. We are all accustom to the "leash" rule in combat.. This is where you reach the maximum allowable distance a mob will chase you, then reset and return back to it's spawn point.. Change that NUMBER in maximum distance from 20 meters to 200 meters or zone line.. Easy code change that doesn't require any dev team to babysit, but has a HUGE impact on how the game is played on that server..
Another easy example.. Change the HIT POINTS on a various trash mobs from 100 points to 300 points.. This would be like having elite mobs in the open world zone.. BRING some friends if you wish to fight these mobs.. Again, it's just a simple change in numbers that doesn't take a dev team to babysit..
I think the real issue is population appearance on each server.. These companies boast they have thousands playing all the time, etc etc..however, do they really? If so, losing 10 to 20% of that server population to go play the New server shouldn't be a problem.. Or are the server populations that fragile that losing 20% would be a problem.. We've all seen games like SWtOR go from 100 servers to 15 in a short time.. Bioware said that was because they went to using "mega" servers.. cough cough.. maybe, or just maybe population did drop that much ( I know I was one of many that quit after 6 months )..
I think it would be a great experiment for WoW to try custom servers as I hinted to above, and see what happens.. I know I would go back to playing WoW again if they had customer servers similar to what I gave..
You "don't think it's a problem" because you clearly don't understand the concepts.
Changing parameter values in the database (leash distances, hitpoints, etc.) are NOT rule set changes. It doesn't even involve code changes and would typically not even be done by a programmer.
A rule set change would be something like:
spell X causes a 2 second stun
PVE server rules: NPC's can be "stunlocked" by repeated use of the spell
PVP server rules: a player may be stunned once, but receives a 10 second immunity after recovering from the stun
That requires a code change, because the same event has different outcomes in different rule sets.
But that aside, if you have 10 different sets of parameters (damage numbers, mob heatlh, potion effects, etc.), you need 10 different databases to contain those values. And how do you test the impact of changes to each of the 10 different versions of the game ? You'd need to have 10 different test server instances. Or would you just prefer to "put it out there and see what happens" ?
Each of the 10 different parameter value sets will also have to be clearly documented, and the documentation has to be kept up-to-date. If you don't know what is different or why it's different, how do you keep everything under control and keep the player experience consistent in each different version ?
Games are typically not just random values thrown together on a whim. The amount of hitpoints a mob has will determine the length of the fight, yes. But it will also define the usefulness of various attacks and their resource (e.g. mana) usage. The mob may also have health regen rates. The respawn rate of mobs in the immediate area is also important. Change any one of those things and the fight can go from trivial to impossible or the other way around.
So even relatively "simple" differences like parameter values can keep designers and testers really busy. Add in the additional complexity of rule set changes (logic changes), and it becomes clear why developers typically try to avoid multiple rule set servers like the plague.
You "don't think it's a problem" because you clearly don't understand the concepts. Actually, I understand programming just fine.. I haven't taken a course in in since the 80's but I have done Basic , Fortran and Cobalt.. Once a master code is done, to tweak it from server to server is not rocket science..
If it was simple, everyone would be doing it.
It is just that simple, maybe the reason why everyone is not doing it, is due to the fragile population most games have.. The only game that probably has the population to experiment with it would be Blizzard's WoW.. I personally would like to see 3 or 4 different types of PvE servers, not just 2 that most have..
I"ve been advocating custom server rule sets for years, no one is listening.. I would love one good explanation from a dev/company as to why they only offer 2 different server types.. PvE and PvP.. nothing more..
Because it is too costly, and too little return? And why would they listen to you, or explain anything to you?
I doubt the problem is technical. But no matter how they do it, can you imagine the volume of support calls from people who did not read the manual carefully enough and want to ask simple basic questions of how to use the system?
You offer more server types, and make rules customizable, you are opening up yourself to lots of support call, complaints, confusion, and stuff like that. And i doubt they can make much more money by doing it.
Another way I have pictured this concept is that it would be like merging a multi-player game like civilization with an mmorpg like EQ. In civilization you set up the game by selecting a number of different rule sets, which can change the game play a lot, and 1 to 8 people play against each other until you have a winner.
So my idea is that you could take a RPG and select a set of rules that could change the game from being a single player at different difficulty's to playing with 1000's in a persistent world or anything in between. Having the freedom to make it a pvp free for all to just having a personal server for your guild to work on pve content. You could set it up on a server or host it yourself.
I know this has been done before on private servers for some older mmo's. So why not package it into an easy to use interface for people to buy and sell expansions.
You "don't think it's a problem" because you clearly don't understand the concepts. Actually, I understand programming just fine.. I haven't taken a course in in since the 80's but I have done Basic , Fortran and Cobalt.. Once a master code is done, to tweak it from server to server is not rocket science..
If it was simple, everyone would be doing it.
It is just that simple, maybe the reason why everyone is not doing it, is due to the fragile population most games have.. The only game that probably has the population to experiment with it would be Blizzard's WoW.. I personally would like to see 3 or 4 different types of PvE servers, not just 2 that most have..
The "concepts" I was referring to were "rule sets" as opposed to "parameter values". One relies on code changes (technically complex), the other on database value changes (technically trivial). Your understanding of the fundamentals of programming should give you an appreciation of that, but perhaps you have forgotten (btw, it's COBOL, not Cobalt).
Developers are struggling to keep "all their ducks in a row" even with games that have only ONE rule set version. Patches regularly break things that were working, exploits appear, all requiring emergency fixes. Game systems are frequently tweaked (nerfed and buffed), new content doesn't always work as intended, etc. Now imagine multiplying that by TEN VERSIONS !
"Once a master code is done, to tweak it from server to server is not rocket science.."
It's not difficult THE FIRST TIME. But the next time you want to change one of the servers, you are no longer working with the "master code", you are working with a changed version. What's different and why was it originally changed ? Now imagine what happens after a year or two and several dozen server-specific patches ? Each server version now has a vague resemblance to the "master code", which has become useless and irrelevant to the evolved version on each server.
Another way I have pictured this concept is that it would be like merging a multi-player game like civilization with an mmorpg like EQ. In civilization you set up the game by selecting a number of different rule sets, which can change the game play a lot, and 1 to 8 people play against each other until you have a winner.
So my idea is that you could take a RPG and select a set of rules that could change the game from being a single player at different difficulty's to playing with 1000's in a persistent world or anything in between. Having the freedom to make it a pvp free for all to just having a personal server for your guild to work on pve content. You could set it up on a server or host it yourself.
I know this has been done before on private servers for some older mmo's. So why not package it into an easy to use interface for people to buy and sell expansions.
To some extent, it is already done with different game modes (like those in D3, or Starcraft 2).
I think the only reason why it is not done in a MMO is because the interface is going to be much more complicated, and there will be lots of support issues. It can be (and have been) done in private servers because no one has to worry about customer complaints, and bugs, and things like that.
OP - breaking up the playerbase goes against the basic MMO principle.
All MMO devs strive to have the cohesiveness as much as possible - segregating players with infinite rulesets is not only unscalable from a server hosting perspective but it also kills the community.
If basic MMO principles no longer work, junk them.
It is not like much of the population play games for the community anyway.
Accoring to a recent Bioware SWTOR dev speech - 25% of the swotrs playerbase are introverted and prefer solo experience. I think that this is pretty true for most MMOS - so majority still plays MMOS socially.
20% of the population is largely introverted. Getting away from people is how we recharge so we can stand being around the other 80%. Ask someone if they like having a phone. Introverts can't stand the things.
You are misusing the concept of being introverted. Introverted people are NOT asocial. The popular description of them recharging by not being around other people is also a gross simplification.
You cant simplify the world that much and link solo MMO play with introverts, it simply wont hold up under scrutiny.
I am pretty sure that you would find that many introverts actually are quite comftable socializing through MMO's while they are locked up in a room "rechargeing".
I am introverted. I have first hand knowledge of such. I get away from people because they drain me. The same goes in MMOs. Guilds are good organisations but when I want to be alone? Not so much.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Another way I have pictured this concept is that it would be like merging a multi-player game like civilization with an mmorpg like EQ. In civilization you set up the game by selecting a number of different rule sets, which can change the game play a lot, and 1 to 8 people play against each other until you have a winner.
So my idea is that you could take a RPG and select a set of rules that could change the game from being a single player at different difficulty's to playing with 1000's in a persistent world or anything in between. Having the freedom to make it a pvp free for all to just having a personal server for your guild to work on pve content. You could set it up on a server or host it yourself.
I know this has been done before on private servers for some older mmo's. So why not package it into an easy to use interface for people to buy and sell expansions.
To some extent, it is already done with different game modes (like those in D3, or Starcraft 2).
I think the only reason why it is not done in a MMO is because the interface is going to be much more complicated, and there will be lots of support issues. It can be (and have been) done in private servers because no one has to worry about customer complaints, and bugs, and things like that.
In certain game types, private servers are the obvious answer to this demand of multiple rule sets. The first major MMO-oriented game to promise multiple sever rule sets (more than just PVE and PVP) seems to be SOE's upcoming H1Z1. But then it could be argued that Hizzy is not really an MMO anyway...
The biggest problem I have with "private servers" is the concept of longevity. Playing CoD or DayZ on someone's private server is no problem, because if the server vanishes from the list tomorrow, it's no loss to me. But if the game requires that you build-up a character over time, would you be happy trusting that data to a private server that could be shut down or altered (modded) at the whim of the owner ?
Private servers are rarely (legally) funded, so whoever runs it pays the costs. Are they keeping regular backups of their database, or will your 4-months of character building go poof the first time the database crashes ?
When a new patch of the core game is released by the developer, how many of the modded private servers will be able to run it without a single issue ? What if the server owner just applies the patch and corrupts their database ? Got backups ? "Too busy with RL stuff, will try to fix it next month, sry peeps..."
OP - breaking up the playerbase goes against the basic MMO principle.
All MMO devs strive to have the cohesiveness as much as possible - segregating players with infinite rulesets is not only unscalable from a server hosting perspective but it also kills the community.
If basic MMO principles no longer work, junk them.
It is not like much of the population play games for the community anyway.
Accoring to a recent Bioware SWTOR dev speech - 25% of the swotrs playerbase are introverted and prefer solo experience. I think that this is pretty true for most MMOS - so majority still plays MMOS socially.
20% of the population is largely introverted. Getting away from people is how we recharge so we can stand being around the other 80%. Ask someone if they like having a phone. Introverts can't stand the things.
You are misusing the concept of being introverted. Introverted people are NOT asocial. The popular description of them recharging by not being around other people is also a gross simplification.
You cant simplify the world that much and link solo MMO play with introverts, it simply wont hold up under scrutiny.
I am pretty sure that you would find that many introverts actually are quite comftable socializing through MMO's while they are locked up in a room "rechargeing".
I am introverted. I have first hand knowledge of such. I get away from people because they drain me. The same goes in MMOs. Guilds are good organisations but when I want to be alone? Not so much.
Also an introvert here. Yes I hate phones, hate forced grouping or pressure to join a guild, hate group-required gathering or crafting, and hate games that penalize soloing. I don't really have a problem occasionally working with a small group for half an hour or an hour to do a boss or dungeon, but it's not what I want to do with the majority of my time because it is stressful and does take energy, which means that as I use up that energy it starts to become draining.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Isn't the population of MMORPG players already segregated by the games they play or want to play? It's just not managed by a disinterested third party. Speaking for myself, I would much rather something like this not be managed because our only option is for people to manage it, and they'll just bork it all up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online,
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online.
What an ignorant statement. There are a ton of posts in this very forum already explaining that soloing in an MMO is definitely not the same as playing a single player RPG, and spelling out why. Please do a litle research and try to gain some understanding about why soloing is a legitimate style of MMO play, and the preferred style for many players. Also please give a bit of thought to the fact that it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online.
What an ignorant statement. There are a ton of posts in this very forum already explaining that soloing in an MMO is definitely not the same as playing a single player RPG, and spelling out why. Please do a litle research and try to gain some understanding about why soloing is a legitimate style of MMO play, and the preferred style for many players. Also please give a bit of thought to the fact that it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other.
They do develop for solo players, it's called a single player game. You didn't answer my question, why do you play an online game if you don't like playing online with people?
You say "it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other."
The existence of solo players is why they have to do this, can't you see how you contradict yourself?
The rise in solo ability has killed the community aspect of MMORPGs, which are what made them originally successful.
Don't get me wrong, some aspects should be soloable, I solo often while leveling, but the ability to get from level 1 to the max on your own, kind of, defeats the purpose of playing an online game.
The biggest problem I have with "private servers" is the concept of longevity. Playing CoD or DayZ on someone's private server is no problem, because if the server vanishes from the list tomorrow, it's no loss to me. But if the game requires that you build-up a character over time, would you be happy trusting that data to a private server that could be shut down or altered (modded) at the whim of the owner ?
There is really no good solution for this.
Companies are going to stay away because of support costs. Private servers are viable precisely because they don't provide support and you have no recourse if they close down.
They do develop for solo players, it's called a single player game. You didn't answer my question, why do you play an online game if you don't like playing online with people?
The rise in solo ability has killed the community aspect of MMORPGs, which are what made them originally successful.
That is easy .. .because of unique IPs and gameplay. There is no recent single player game if I want a ARPG with marvel characters except Marvel Heroes (now there are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance, but i have already played that, and they don't have as many characters, or features as MH).
What makes MMORPGs "originally" successful may not be relevant today. Yes, soloability killed the community aspect of MMORPGs. That does not prevent WoW from going beyond 10M subs, nor TOR making >$200M in 2013, nor the huge success of LoL when the community is toxic.
Hence, I would conclude that community is not that crucial for gaming anyway.
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online.
What an ignorant statement. There are a ton of posts in this very forum already explaining that soloing in an MMO is definitely not the same as playing a single player RPG, and spelling out why. Please do a litle research and try to gain some understanding about why soloing is a legitimate style of MMO play, and the preferred style for many players. Also please give a bit of thought to the fact that it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other.
They do develop for solo players, it's called a single player game. You didn't answer my question, why do you play an online game if you don't like playing online with people?
You say "it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other."
The existence of solo players is why they have to do this, can't you see how you contradict yourself?
The rise in solo ability has killed the community aspect of MMORPGs, which are what made them originally successful.
Don't get me wrong, some aspects should be soloable, I solo often while leveling, but the ability to get from level 1 to the max on your own, kind of, defeats the purpose of playing an online game.
Guess I was too optimistic to hope you wouldn't be too lazy to look for the many existing posts already answering your question. For me personally, I like being in the same world as other players, doing the same activities as they are, I just don't want them in my face; across a meadow full of monsters or in the same city street is close enough. I like to talk to other people in regional chat while playing, and I like the fact that my hobby is something that other people think is important and are having conversations about. But other people have even more good reasons to love soloing in an MMO.
And no, I definitely didn't contradict myself. There are a ridiculous number of 'compromise' MMOs in existence. It would be better for everyone if some of them were divided into half group-focused MMOs and half solo-focused MMOs.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online.
What an ignorant statement. There are a ton of posts in this very forum already explaining that soloing in an MMO is definitely not the same as playing a single player RPG, and spelling out why. Please do a litle research and try to gain some understanding about why soloing is a legitimate style of MMO play, and the preferred style for many players. Also please give a bit of thought to the fact that it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other.
They do develop for solo players, it's called a single player game. You didn't answer my question, why do you play an online game if you don't like playing online with people?
You say "it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other."
The existence of solo players is why they have to do this, can't you see how you contradict yourself?
The rise in solo ability has killed the community aspect of MMORPGs, which are what made them originally successful.
Don't get me wrong, some aspects should be soloable, I solo often while leveling, but the ability to get from level 1 to the max on your own, kind of, defeats the purpose of playing an online game.
This is why I feel that people that like to solo should have there own server that caters to solo game play and people that like to group should have there own server that caters group game play. The game play could be much more enhanced for both types of play if them didn't have to combine them.
I can understand why a solo player would want to play an mmo. Even though they prefer to play through the content solo they can still interact they each other. But I do agree that a game is much more fun for people that like to group if there wasn't so much solo content.
Like I said before trying the cater to every type of player just make a mediocre game.
Nope. For big name developers with the pedigree, dividing the masses equates to less profit. It will never happen. Your best bet is to look for indie games, or games from little known development teams/companies.. Just be-warned, as soon as those small companies become big or see an opportunity to make it big, they will either heavily alter their games to cater to wider audiences, or they will discontinue service for the game and "venture onto new projects" IE: Games for the masses.
Comments
Every point you make is countered by Minecraft's existence.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Naaa I doubt that.. As I said, most changes would be minor code changes, but have a substantial impact on how the game is played.. Let me give you one easy example.. We are all accustom to the "leash" rule in combat.. This is where you reach the maximum allowable distance a mob will chase you, then reset and return back to it's spawn point.. Change that NUMBER in maximum distance from 20 meters to 200 meters or zone line.. Easy code change that doesn't require any dev team to babysit, but has a HUGE impact on how the game is played on that server..
Another easy example.. Change the HIT POINTS on a various trash mobs from 100 points to 300 points.. This would be like having elite mobs in the open world zone.. BRING some friends if you wish to fight these mobs.. Again, it's just a simple change in numbers that doesn't take a dev team to babysit..
I think the real issue is population appearance on each server.. These companies boast they have thousands playing all the time, etc etc..however, do they really? If so, losing 10 to 20% of that server population to go play the New server shouldn't be a problem.. Or are the server populations that fragile that losing 20% would be a problem.. We've all seen games like SWtOR go from 100 servers to 15 in a short time.. Bioware said that was because they went to using "mega" servers.. cough cough.. maybe, or just maybe population did drop that much ( I know I was one of many that quit after 6 months )..
I think it would be a great experiment for WoW to try custom servers as I hinted to above, and see what happens.. I know I would go back to playing WoW again if they had customer servers similar to what I gave..
That's because my argument does not apply to Minecraft. Please stay on topic.
Are you implying that Minecraft is a popular MMO with a storyline, character progression, quests, loot itemization and set in a vast persistent world ? And that one developer creates multiple versions of Minecraft with different rule sets and hosts them on different server clusters ?
My arguments don't apply to Skyrim either, but that is also not a current MMORPG. My arguments do apply to the MMORPG version of Skyrim (ESO) though.
I am on topic. The correlation between what the OP describes as segregation and custom server rule sets along with modding is obvious to anyone who knows what's possible in Minecraft.
A popular current MMORPG or whatever you want to call it could do exactly what Minecraft did and have custom server rule sets and modding.
Edit: Food for thought, back when I was programming MUDs in C++ I could have just set all of these as player flags on character creation. That way you don't even need segregated servers you just tailor the selection to the character creation.
"PvP- some zones, all zones, no zones.
PvP full loot- On, Off
Mob difficulty- Solo, Some Group, All Group
Death Penalty- None, Experience lose, Items stay on corpse, Start over
Map click Travel- On, Off
Portal Travel- On, Off
Experience gain- Fast, Medium, Slow
Class Types needed for group content- 3, 4, 5, 6
Class ability Limits- None, Hybrid, Class specific
Max Group size- 4, 5, 6, 7
Raids- On, Off
Max Raid Size- 10, 20, 30, 40, Unlimited
Loot drop rate- 100%, 50%, 10%, 1%"
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/You "don't think it's a problem" because you clearly don't understand the concepts.
Changing parameter values in the database (leash distances, hitpoints, etc.) are NOT rule set changes. It doesn't even involve code changes and would typically not even be done by a programmer.
A rule set change would be something like:
spell X causes a 2 second stun
That requires a code change, because the same event has different outcomes in different rule sets.
But that aside, if you have 10 different sets of parameters (damage numbers, mob heatlh, potion effects, etc.), you need 10 different databases to contain those values. And how do you test the impact of changes to each of the 10 different versions of the game ? You'd need to have 10 different test server instances. Or would you just prefer to "put it out there and see what happens" ?
Each of the 10 different parameter value sets will also have to be clearly documented, and the documentation has to be kept up-to-date. If you don't know what is different or why it's different, how do you keep everything under control and keep the player experience consistent in each different version ?
Games are typically not just random values thrown together on a whim. The amount of hitpoints a mob has will determine the length of the fight, yes. But it will also define the usefulness of various attacks and their resource (e.g. mana) usage. The mob may also have health regen rates. The respawn rate of mobs in the immediate area is also important. Change any one of those things and the fight can go from trivial to impossible or the other way around.
So even relatively "simple" differences like parameter values can keep designers and testers really busy. Add in the additional complexity of rule set changes (logic changes), and it becomes clear why developers typically try to avoid multiple rule set servers like the plague.
If it was simple, everyone would be doing it.
It is just that simple, maybe the reason why everyone is not doing it, is due to the fragile population most games have.. The only game that probably has the population to experiment with it would be Blizzard's WoW.. I personally would like to see 3 or 4 different types of PvE servers, not just 2 that most have..
Because it is too costly, and too little return? And why would they listen to you, or explain anything to you?
I doubt the problem is technical. But no matter how they do it, can you imagine the volume of support calls from people who did not read the manual carefully enough and want to ask simple basic questions of how to use the system?
You offer more server types, and make rules customizable, you are opening up yourself to lots of support call, complaints, confusion, and stuff like that. And i doubt they can make much more money by doing it.
Another way I have pictured this concept is that it would be like merging a multi-player game like civilization with an mmorpg like EQ. In civilization you set up the game by selecting a number of different rule sets, which can change the game play a lot, and 1 to 8 people play against each other until you have a winner.
So my idea is that you could take a RPG and select a set of rules that could change the game from being a single player at different difficulty's to playing with 1000's in a persistent world or anything in between. Having the freedom to make it a pvp free for all to just having a personal server for your guild to work on pve content. You could set it up on a server or host it yourself.
I know this has been done before on private servers for some older mmo's. So why not package it into an easy to use interface for people to buy and sell expansions.
The "concepts" I was referring to were "rule sets" as opposed to "parameter values". One relies on code changes (technically complex), the other on database value changes (technically trivial). Your understanding of the fundamentals of programming should give you an appreciation of that, but perhaps you have forgotten (btw, it's COBOL, not Cobalt).
Developers are struggling to keep "all their ducks in a row" even with games that have only ONE rule set version. Patches regularly break things that were working, exploits appear, all requiring emergency fixes. Game systems are frequently tweaked (nerfed and buffed), new content doesn't always work as intended, etc. Now imagine multiplying that by TEN VERSIONS !
"Once a master code is done, to tweak it from server to server is not rocket science.."
It's not difficult THE FIRST TIME. But the next time you want to change one of the servers, you are no longer working with the "master code", you are working with a changed version. What's different and why was it originally changed ? Now imagine what happens after a year or two and several dozen server-specific patches ? Each server version now has a vague resemblance to the "master code", which has become useless and irrelevant to the evolved version on each server.
To some extent, it is already done with different game modes (like those in D3, or Starcraft 2).
I think the only reason why it is not done in a MMO is because the interface is going to be much more complicated, and there will be lots of support issues. It can be (and have been) done in private servers because no one has to worry about customer complaints, and bugs, and things like that.
I am introverted. I have first hand knowledge of such. I get away from people because they drain me. The same goes in MMOs. Guilds are good organisations but when I want to be alone? Not so much.
In certain game types, private servers are the obvious answer to this demand of multiple rule sets. The first major MMO-oriented game to promise multiple sever rule sets (more than just PVE and PVP) seems to be SOE's upcoming H1Z1. But then it could be argued that Hizzy is not really an MMO anyway...
The biggest problem I have with "private servers" is the concept of longevity. Playing CoD or DayZ on someone's private server is no problem, because if the server vanishes from the list tomorrow, it's no loss to me. But if the game requires that you build-up a character over time, would you be happy trusting that data to a private server that could be shut down or altered (modded) at the whim of the owner ?
Private servers are rarely (legally) funded, so whoever runs it pays the costs. Are they keeping regular backups of their database, or will your 4-months of character building go poof the first time the database crashes ?
When a new patch of the core game is released by the developer, how many of the modded private servers will be able to run it without a single issue ? What if the server owner just applies the patch and corrupts their database ? Got backups ? "Too busy with RL stuff, will try to fix it next month, sry peeps..."
Also an introvert here. Yes I hate phones, hate forced grouping or pressure to join a guild, hate group-required gathering or crafting, and hate games that penalize soloing. I don't really have a problem occasionally working with a small group for half an hour or an hour to do a boss or dungeon, but it's not what I want to do with the majority of my time because it is stressful and does take energy, which means that as I use up that energy it starts to become draining.
Sounds like every single player game out there... are you sure you're talking about an MMO?
Isn't the population of MMORPG players already segregated by the games they play or want to play? It's just not managed by a disinterested third party. Speaking for myself, I would much rather something like this not be managed because our only option is for people to manage it, and they'll just bork it all up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have to wonder why you even play MMOs, the very concept of the genre is playing with other people. Why not just play a single player RPG?
I don't mean this as an insult to you personally (though I'm sure it might sound like one)...
Developers catering to your playstyle is hurting the genre. If you want to play alone that's fine, go play a single player RPG.
MMOs are supposed to be played with other people( though it doesn't feel that way because developers catered to the solo players) that's the entire reason they are online,
edited for spelling
What an ignorant statement. There are a ton of posts in this very forum already explaining that soloing in an MMO is definitely not the same as playing a single player RPG, and spelling out why. Please do a litle research and try to gain some understanding about why soloing is a legitimate style of MMO play, and the preferred style for many players. Also please give a bit of thought to the fact that it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other.
They do develop for solo players, it's called a single player game. You didn't answer my question, why do you play an online game if you don't like playing online with people?
You say "it's not the existence of solo players that hurts the genre, it's the developers deciding to make MMOs that try to half-assedly cater to both soloers and non-soloers instead of properly developing for one or the other."
The existence of solo players is why they have to do this, can't you see how you contradict yourself?
The rise in solo ability has killed the community aspect of MMORPGs, which are what made them originally successful.
Don't get me wrong, some aspects should be soloable, I solo often while leveling, but the ability to get from level 1 to the max on your own, kind of, defeats the purpose of playing an online game.
There is really no good solution for this.
Companies are going to stay away because of support costs. Private servers are viable precisely because they don't provide support and you have no recourse if they close down.
That is easy .. .because of unique IPs and gameplay. There is no recent single player game if I want a ARPG with marvel characters except Marvel Heroes (now there are old games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance, but i have already played that, and they don't have as many characters, or features as MH).
What makes MMORPGs "originally" successful may not be relevant today. Yes, soloability killed the community aspect of MMORPGs. That does not prevent WoW from going beyond 10M subs, nor TOR making >$200M in 2013, nor the huge success of LoL when the community is toxic.
Hence, I would conclude that community is not that crucial for gaming anyway.
Guess I was too optimistic to hope you wouldn't be too lazy to look for the many existing posts already answering your question. For me personally, I like being in the same world as other players, doing the same activities as they are, I just don't want them in my face; across a meadow full of monsters or in the same city street is close enough. I like to talk to other people in regional chat while playing, and I like the fact that my hobby is something that other people think is important and are having conversations about. But other people have even more good reasons to love soloing in an MMO.
And no, I definitely didn't contradict myself. There are a ridiculous number of 'compromise' MMOs in existence. It would be better for everyone if some of them were divided into half group-focused MMOs and half solo-focused MMOs.
This is why I feel that people that like to solo should have there own server that caters to solo game play and people that like to group should have there own server that caters group game play. The game play could be much more enhanced for both types of play if them didn't have to combine them.
I can understand why a solo player would want to play an mmo. Even though they prefer to play through the content solo they can still interact they each other. But I do agree that a game is much more fun for people that like to group if there wasn't so much solo content.
Like I said before trying the cater to every type of player just make a mediocre game.