The first MMORPG I played was Asheron's Call back in 1999 / 2000 and there hasn't been any MMO game since than that held my attention like that one did. World of Warcraft was the only one that kept me playing for about 6 months when it first came out.
It's all just shit.
Oddly enough, Asherons Call was also one of the first MMO's I really enjoyed. I'd played Ultima online, but I'd not really liked it.
I've also played WoW (since late beta) and through all of the expansions. The last three expansions I've averaged two to three months before I burn out. I suspect that the formula in use is WELL past its best by date.
That includes the various WoW clones as well.
I'm currently playing Warframe and some limited Destiny 2 (just an hour or so a week in Destiny 2 at this point). Unless there is a major change in Destiny 2, I can see myself not even playing that.
I'm not sure what I can tell you. The target audience has changed (older and all that), and as I mentioned the typical formula hasn't changed much beyond the surface trimmings.
I suspect the age of AAA MMO's is behind us. They simply cost too much, take too long to create, and aren't nearly the ROI that they once were.
Bottom line, look at the various indi groups and crowd funded projects. If any of them survive, they might be of interest.
I will add to my earlier post that the entire 2007-2011 era was filled with games that the average casual couldn't run.
A large part of this was because the distinction between Indie and AAA games has always been made via the graphics fidelity of those games, and the system requirements of those games.
This is fine for FPS games and other genres who targeted a specific player base likely to have machines equipped for this, but it became a huge issue when MMORPGs got on that bandwagon, because this genre is dependent on Casuals to fund them.
There aren't enough "competitive raiders" and "competitive PvPers" in the market to do it with them alone - especially as the market became more and more saturated with increasing numbers of competing MMORPG games.
In that timeframe, games overspending their target market WAS THE NORM. This persists, to a large degree. The only difference now is that PCs are much cheaper (so the average PC offers considerably more comparative power today than it did back then), which renders it less of an issue.
Back then, it was a huge issue.
PS3 and Xbox 360 were a Godsend to a lot of people, because of the way games were being developed in relation to the Computing Power they had at their disposal.
I played RPG games like Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls predominantly on Consoles back then, and pretty much continue to do that as this trend has not really let up recently.
I have to ask, which MMORPGs on this list from 2007 to 2011 could the "average casual" not run? Also a bit of evidence backing your claim up would be appreciated.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
What is a "low end MMORPG?" I'm talking about the system requirements locking out a large number of casuals. Games like Overwatch, for example, are huge and a lot of that has to do with the fact that almost anyone with a PC built after 2014 can play it decently - even with integrated graphics.
I'm not even sure what that moniker is supposed to mean.
I'm talking about the viability of MMORPGs which are specced and developed in a way that disallows even interested parties from playing the game. If the game looks terrible and runs terrible, then people won't play it. They aren't single player games. Even if it's the best game in the world, I'm not going to play it if there is barely a community there.
Everyone wants to talk like they're some "veteran," but casuals pay the bills.
GW2 runs terribly on any laptop from 2009. I have two older laptops here - one Intel, and one AMD. It is unplayable without putting it on low settings, and running reduced resolution (i.e. 800x600, etc.). That's the problem I'm pointing out. GW2 is a demanding game. The game was developed with an emphasis on eye candy. It looks terrible when you cannot run with those things turned on. That's typical of AAA titles.
Those games were not exceptions...
Rift was awfully optimized, this was well known. Warhammer. Vanguard was a mess because it required PCs that were too powerful - the developers speak of this mistake. Age of Conan. EQ2. GW2.
I don't believe that a 2009 machine runs that game acceptably, given I have newer laptops which choke on it - and the CPUs and iGPUs in those machines are way better than the CPUs and discrete graphics available in any 2009-era laptop, easily. I have SSDs in my Machines. SSDs don't matter in a laptop that old, it's likely running off a SATA 2 Bus, anyways. The bottleneck is usually the CPU, usually, not the GPU or Storage ;-)
Consumer PC specs increased quite a bit post-Vista release. You were noticing the general increase of PC power across the market. Funcom did fix bugs, but they didn't really lower the requirements. The requirements just became more attainable as the average PC caught up with it. iGPUs also increased massively in performance following Vista's release.
And yes, the strength of the IP is a huge bonus. I've mentioned this in other threads and posts on this forum. They capitalized well on their IP, while games like AoC didn't and companies like SOE/DBG allow theirs to atrophy.
A low end MMO runs basically on everything.
Really? My old Sony Vaio runs it fine. Yes, it is a quad core (was pretty expensive at the time, something like $1200) and I run it a low settings with my max resolution. I assume your old laptops are rather cheap or filled up with junk then. Something with an intergrated GFX card that old can hardly run Wow though. You really need to reinstall Windows every 2 years or so or you loose a lot of speed.
But anything you can't run on a 9 year old cheap laptop is hardly "high end". A laptop without a dedicated graphics card is not really made to game on and a good modern phone would beat one that old and that cheap.
Now, a 5 year old standard gaming desktop should be able to run a undemanding game with at least medium settings and a good FPS at a regular screen.
If you want a game that can run on a cheap 10 year old computer you need to look on games with rather ugly graphics, a new MMO needs to at least look acceptable at launch and I don't think lowering things too much is a good idea. Imagine how a game like that looks 10 years after release?
Anyways: Never buy a laptop with intergrated/dedicated GFX card if you plan to game on it.
The first MMORPG I played was Asheron's Call back in 1999 / 2000 and there hasn't been any MMO game since than that held my attention like that one did. World of Warcraft was the only one that kept me playing for about 6 months when it first came out.
It's all just shit.
I think those of us who started in AC know how hard the struggle really is, when MMOs went main stream they didnt go " our " rout. they went with classes, quest hubs and raid/gear grind. I personally have tried many of them and allways ended up back in AC. until they shut it down =(
Back then it was all about Fun. Now it's all about Profit. Lesson over.
It has always been all about profit. Costly commercial services aren't operated for the sake of fun.
The method of earning revenue has simply changed to become more obtrusive and intrusive than the previously ubiquitous subscription model, bringing the aspect of monetization more to the forefront than in the past.
Because the true lovers of the genre who started out with UO, EQ, AC, AO, DAOC, etc are a niche customer base and not where the $$$$$ is. The masses just started getting into MMO's when WoW made them more accessible and casual, even though vanilla WoW was hardcore compared to today's crap. MMO's were meant to be virtual, persistent communities where you actually cared about what was going on without you while you were at school or work. Sadly, there is more money to be had by catering to the "play for a month f2p/p2w" crowds than the original MMORPG design....so that is what we get.
In before the "it's just nostalgia" turds.
I one hundred percent agree. UO, EQ, AC, AO, DAOC were seriously amazing
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1) f2p model forces the devs to make the game annoying in order to entice people to pay for it to be less annoying. The problem is that creating a game that's forced to be annoying will still be annoying if you pay for it to go away, because it's ingrained in the game mechanics.
2) everyone makes the same game. Almost all MMO's are interchangeable, they just differ in graphics (and sometimes not even that) and background but they're the same game. People get bored one of one MMO, get another and get bored again really quickly because... it's exactly the same. The funny thing is that when a new MMO comes that IS different people go "ewwww, that's different from what I'm used to" and simply won't adopt it, which is hilarious because they got BORED of doing what they're used to.
And the main one: back then (talking UO & DAoC times) PC's were expensive and unless specifically kitted out for it crap at games. This means that the demographic for MMO's was "people who are invested into it". These days the demographic is "people who play Candy Crush". Which means that the "old guard", folks who are invested into it, are no longer the target customer and that shows in the games that are created.
There's 2 MMO's on the horizon that give me some hope: Camelot Unchained and Chronicles of Elyria. The latter has a bigger risk of turning out to be vapourware but I still have my hopes up.
Moreover, these days the industry is scared to even try and there are other genres trending. But all things in life are cyclical and eventually, it will be the time of MMORPGs once again.
Virtual Reality will see the rise of MMOs again, for a while.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
NO! They all suck, it is all terrible! Those horrible companies, those shallow games, nothing is wrong with a certain subgroup of consumers, NOTHING!
Back in the day man, back in the day. Well you know what? I am a turd: Its just nostalgia. It was pretty good back in the day, but better? Nah, different more like it. When niche was still niche and the "incrowd" was still special. Old UIs make me strangle myself for instance. Or idiotic downtime for the sake of it. Or when people confuse convulted with depth.
I like yesteryears MMOs, I like current MMOs just as much, I am a turd.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I'm about to renew my ESO+ subscription for 6 more months. An awesome game, the freedom you have with character build and world questing/hunting reminds me a lot of AC1, which I also played many years. And they add content regularly like AC1, the latest one Clockwork City is nothing short of amazing and the next one with the resurrected dragon will most likely be of the same quality than ever.
Please Bethesda/Zenimax, take my money, and thank you for your awesome game.
I dunno, I think both ESO and GW2 are pretty good games and there are a few others as well but I wouldn't call any of them "awesome".
That might be my personal preferance but newer games are generally far too easy for me to really get into them as much as the old games.
And the average modern MMO is far worse then 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
ESO & GW2 are both 5 years old as well, they are not that modern for that matter, and we certainly havn't got much in Western AAA MMOs since them, and it doesn't look like we are getting much more either.
Yeah, all MMOs made in the last 10 years don't really suck and if they just could up the open world difficulty I wouldn't complain on anything but the lack of new games in development and the pay2win model many game uses.
Still, I miss the time you actually died if you didn't play smartly even in the open world. Nowadays that only happens in PvP or if I fall of a cliff and I doubt it is me that started to play better... Lowering the difficulty so even the worse player will do fine was a huge mistake, that means people stopped bothering to actually learn how to play their characters.
I am having trouble deciding between FFXIV, GW2, or ESO. I am loooking for heavy PVP action. thank you.
For PvP, either GW2 or ESO, without hesitation. Both have gigantic PvP zones where hundreds of players of 3 factions battle.
If you prefer the more classic MMORPG "roles", where you have healers and tanks, you may prefer ESO, GW2's gameplay is a bit different.
I can't seem to get into the classes in ESO myself. I played it for a while but just didn't enjoy any of them much. I think it would have been more enjoyable for me if the game remained true to its classless system and just let people make their own class.
I am having trouble deciding between FFXIV, GW2, or ESO. I am loooking for heavy PVP action. thank you.
For PvP, either GW2 or ESO, without hesitation. Both have gigantic PvP zones where hundreds of players of 3 factions battle.
If you prefer the more classic MMORPG "roles", where you have healers and tanks, you may prefer ESO, GW2's gameplay is a bit different.
I can't seem to get into the classes in ESO myself. I played it for a while but just didn't enjoy any of them much. I think it would have been more enjoyable for me if the game remained true to its classless system and just let people make their own class.
100 % this I really wish they followed that route and gave us at least 4 more abilities on the bar to use.
I am having trouble deciding between FFXIV, GW2, or ESO. I am loooking for heavy PVP action. thank you.
For PvP, either GW2 or ESO, without hesitation. Both have gigantic PvP zones where hundreds of players of 3 factions battle.
If you prefer the more classic MMORPG "roles", where you have healers and tanks, you may prefer ESO, GW2's gameplay is a bit different.
Agreed, if you want trinity PvP, go for ESO. If you want more action combat or to play arenas go for GW2.
Both can get a bit zergy in the massive PvP though, but that is a general problem in massive MMO PvP. Since formations and flanking doesn't affect combat as such you get a rather chaotic combat. It is too bad that no MMO I seen implemented things like shield walls for the massive PvP.
I am having trouble deciding between FFXIV, GW2, or ESO. I am loooking for heavy PVP action. thank you.
For PvP, either GW2 or ESO, without hesitation. Both have gigantic PvP zones where hundreds of players of 3 factions battle.
If you prefer the more classic MMORPG "roles", where you have healers and tanks, you may prefer ESO, GW2's gameplay is a bit different.
Agreed, if you want trinity PvP, go for ESO. If you want more action combat or to play arenas go for GW2.
Both can get a bit zergy in the massive PvP though, but that is a general problem in massive MMO PvP. Since formations and flanking doesn't affect combat as such you get a rather chaotic combat. It is too bad that no MMO I seen implemented things like shield walls for the massive PvP.
Agreed, but note that one of the better points about ESO's RvR is that flanking manoeuvres are quite possible and very effective. You need to be in an organized guild/group to see it work, but many of my favorite in game moments involve some kind of strategic play that results in my smaller group taking out a zerg.
Not sure if you can do the same thing in GW2 RvR (I haven't played that part of the game much), but ESO's mounts and stealth mechanic seem to help facilitate that kind of play.
Agreed, but note that one of the better points about ESO's RvR is that flanking manoeuvres are quite possible and very effective. You need to be in an organized guild/group to see it work, but many of my favorite in game moments involve some kind of strategic play that results in my smaller group taking out a zerg.
Not sure if you can do the same thing in GW2 RvR (I haven't played that part of the game much), but ESO's mounts and stealth mechanic seem to help facilitate that kind of play.
In GW2 the only tactics besides zerging I seen used is skirmish tactics and ambushes. Well, maybe a bit of siege tactics as well. Far too little for my taste sadly.
My point anyways is that usually in any massive MMO things tend to deteriote into a zerg rather fast unless there is guild Vs guild. And it is too bad, massive combat have a huge untapped potential for the genre.
Soloing gameplay can be done in any kind of RPG, and single player games does it best. Dungeon gameplay can be done in multiplayer and MMOs. Massive combat though can only be played in certain FPS games and MMOs. Sadly have they worked really hard on the first 2 but done very little with the massive PvP part (a bit more on the massive PvE but that can certainly be improved as well).
I have some ideas on how to handle it myself (like having squad officers that could flag a place for you in a formation for instance) but there is a lot you could do with it and really tactical massive combat would require teamwork in a way few other genres could even try.
Imagine an army with squads from different guilds working together under a general with a tactical view giving his/her officers objectives as the combat goes on. Pinning down opponent cavalary with pikemen as your own cavelery goes for the opponents archers and spellcasters while the infantery face eachothers. I think that could be really fun no matter if you play a general, a sergant or a regular soldier.
Agreed, but note that one of the better points about ESO's RvR is that flanking manoeuvres are quite possible and very effective. You need to be in an organized guild/group to see it work, but many of my favorite in game moments involve some kind of strategic play that results in my smaller group taking out a zerg.
Not sure if you can do the same thing in GW2 RvR (I haven't played that part of the game much), but ESO's mounts and stealth mechanic seem to help facilitate that kind of play.
In GW2 the only tactics besides zerging I seen used is skirmish tactics and ambushes. Well, maybe a bit of siege tactics as well. Far too little for my taste sadly.
My point anyways is that usually in any massive MMO things tend to deteriote into a zerg rather fast unless there is guild Vs guild. And it is too bad, massive combat have a huge untapped potential for the genre.
Soloing gameplay can be done in any kind of RPG, and single player games does it best. Dungeon gameplay can be done in multiplayer and MMOs. Massive combat though can only be played in certain FPS games and MMOs. Sadly have they worked really hard on the first 2 but done very little with the massive PvP part (a bit more on the massive PvE but that can certainly be improved as well).
I have some ideas on how to handle it myself (like having squad officers that could flag a place for you in a formation for instance) but there is a lot you could do with it and really tactical massive combat would require teamwork in a way few other genres could even try.
Imagine an army with squads from different guilds working together under a general with a tactical view giving his/her officers objectives as the combat goes on. Pinning down opponent cavalary with pikemen as your own cavelery goes for the opponents archers and spellcasters while the infantery face eachothers. I think that could be really fun no matter if you play a general, a sergant or a regular soldier.
I like the thinking here. One little point, the squad officer (or general, or whatever in between rank), could use predesigned formation flags for various sizes of combat groups. If a group has a area radius on an overhead map for the officers to click on, they could easily hash out orders and make major changes on the fly. Hold shift and click on several adjoining squads, click on their new formation layout that send an "order" to each player, then send another order as to what to do (advance, tactical withdraw, etc.) Even multiple components could be drawn up like football plays, and in one click of the button a group could be issued an order for a strategic tactical maneuver.
I like the thinking here. One little point, the squad officer (or general, or whatever in between rank), could use predesigned formation flags for various sizes of combat groups. If a group has a area radius on an overhead map for the officers to click on, they could easily hash out orders and make major changes on the fly. Hold shift and click on several adjoining squads, click on their new formation layout that send an "order" to each player, then send another order as to what to do (advance, tactical withdraw, etc.) Even multiple components could be drawn up like football plays, and in one click of the button a group could be issued an order for a strategic tactical maneuver.
My thoughts exactly. You can see your flag the officer put up (not any other) and the flags would follow the officer in a charge or similar.
Then you need enough bonuses so it is worth the bother to use the mechanics of course. It would also mean that if you can ambush your enemy when he/she isn't prepaired a weaker force can defeat a far greater like the Germanic tribes did to the Romanin the Teutoburg Forest and that an army on the move would be at it's weakest.
It would add a bit of realism to the game but not too much.
Comments
I've also played WoW (since late beta) and through all of the expansions. The last three expansions I've averaged two to three months before I burn out. I suspect that the formula in use is WELL past its best by date.
That includes the various WoW clones as well.
I'm currently playing Warframe and some limited Destiny 2 (just an hour or so a week in Destiny 2 at this point). Unless there is a major change in Destiny 2, I can see myself not even playing that.
I'm not sure what I can tell you. The target audience has changed (older and all that), and as I mentioned the typical formula hasn't changed much beyond the surface trimmings.
I suspect the age of AAA MMO's is behind us. They simply cost too much, take too long to create, and aren't nearly the ROI that they once were.
Bottom line, look at the various indi groups and crowd funded projects. If any of them survive, they might be of interest.
Lesson over.
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
https://biobreak.wordpress.com/mmo-timeline/
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Really? My old Sony Vaio runs it fine. Yes, it is a quad core (was pretty expensive at the time, something like $1200) and I run it a low settings with my max resolution. I assume your old laptops are rather cheap or filled up with junk then. Something with an intergrated GFX card that old can hardly run Wow though. You really need to reinstall Windows every 2 years or so or you loose a lot of speed.
But anything you can't run on a 9 year old cheap laptop is hardly "high end". A laptop without a dedicated graphics card is not really made to game on and a good modern phone would beat one that old and that cheap.
Now, a 5 year old standard gaming desktop should be able to run a undemanding game with at least medium settings and a good FPS at a regular screen.
If you want a game that can run on a cheap 10 year old computer you need to look on games with rather ugly graphics, a new MMO needs to at least look acceptable at launch and I don't think lowering things too much is a good idea. Imagine how a game like that looks 10 years after release?
Anyways: Never buy a laptop with intergrated/dedicated GFX card if you plan to game on it.
The method of earning revenue has simply changed to become more obtrusive and intrusive than the previously ubiquitous subscription model, bringing the aspect of monetization more to the forefront than in the past.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1) f2p model forces the devs to make the game annoying in order to entice people to pay for it to be less annoying. The problem is that creating a game that's forced to be annoying will still be annoying if you pay for it to go away, because it's ingrained in the game mechanics.
2) everyone makes the same game. Almost all MMO's are interchangeable, they just differ in graphics (and sometimes not even that) and background but they're the same game. People get bored one of one MMO, get another and get bored again really quickly because... it's exactly the same. The funny thing is that when a new MMO comes that IS different people go "ewwww, that's different from what I'm used to" and simply won't adopt it, which is hilarious because they got BORED of doing what they're used to.
And the main one: back then (talking UO & DAoC times) PC's were expensive and unless specifically kitted out for it crap at games. This means that the demographic for MMO's was "people who are invested into it". These days the demographic is "people who play Candy Crush". Which means that the "old guard", folks who are invested into it, are no longer the target customer and that shows in the games that are created.
There's 2 MMO's on the horizon that give me some hope: Camelot Unchained and Chronicles of Elyria. The latter has a bigger risk of turning out to be vapourware but I still have my hopes up.
Virtual Reality will see the rise of MMOs again, for a while.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
PEBKAC
~~ postlarval ~~
Back in the day man, back in the day. Well you know what? I am a turd: Its just nostalgia. It was pretty good back in the day, but better? Nah, different more like it. When niche was still niche and the "incrowd" was still special. Old UIs make me strangle myself for instance. Or idiotic downtime for the sake of it. Or when people confuse convulted with depth.
I like yesteryears MMOs, I like current MMOs just as much, I am a turd.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
That might be my personal preferance but newer games are generally far too easy for me to really get into them as much as the old games.
And the average modern MMO is far worse then 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
ESO & GW2 are both 5 years old as well, they are not that modern for that matter, and we certainly havn't got much in Western AAA MMOs since them, and it doesn't look like we are getting much more either.
Yeah, all MMOs made in the last 10 years don't really suck and if they just could up the open world difficulty I wouldn't complain on anything but the lack of new games in development and the pay2win model many game uses.
Still, I miss the time you actually died if you didn't play smartly even in the open world. Nowadays that only happens in PvP or if I fall of a cliff and I doubt it is me that started to play better... Lowering the difficulty so even the worse player will do fine was a huge mistake, that means people stopped bothering to actually learn how to play their characters.
I really wish they followed that route and gave us at least 4 more abilities on the bar to use.
Agreed, if you want trinity PvP, go for ESO. If you want more action combat or to play arenas go for GW2.
Both can get a bit zergy in the massive PvP though, but that is a general problem in massive MMO PvP. Since formations and flanking doesn't affect combat as such you get a rather chaotic combat. It is too bad that no MMO I seen implemented things like shield walls for the massive PvP.
Not sure if you can do the same thing in GW2 RvR (I haven't played that part of the game much), but ESO's mounts and stealth mechanic seem to help facilitate that kind of play.
My point anyways is that usually in any massive MMO things tend to deteriote into a zerg rather fast unless there is guild Vs guild. And it is too bad, massive combat have a huge untapped potential for the genre.
Soloing gameplay can be done in any kind of RPG, and single player games does it best. Dungeon gameplay can be done in multiplayer and MMOs. Massive combat though can only be played in certain FPS games and MMOs. Sadly have they worked really hard on the first 2 but done very little with the massive PvP part (a bit more on the massive PvE but that can certainly be improved as well).
I have some ideas on how to handle it myself (like having squad officers that could flag a place for you in a formation for instance) but there is a lot you could do with it and really tactical massive combat would require teamwork in a way few other genres could even try.
Imagine an army with squads from different guilds working together under a general with a tactical view giving his/her officers objectives as the combat goes on. Pinning down opponent cavalary with pikemen as your own cavelery goes for the opponents archers and spellcasters while the infantery face eachothers. I think that could be really fun no matter if you play a general, a sergant or a regular soldier.
One little point, the squad officer (or general, or whatever in between rank), could use predesigned formation flags for various sizes of combat groups.
If a group has a area radius on an overhead map for the officers to click on, they could easily hash out orders and make major changes on the fly.
Hold shift and click on several adjoining squads, click on their new formation layout that send an "order" to each player, then send another order as to what to do (advance, tactical withdraw, etc.)
Even multiple components could be drawn up like football plays, and in one click of the button a group could be issued an order for a strategic tactical maneuver.
Once upon a time....
Then you need enough bonuses so it is worth the bother to use the mechanics of course. It would also mean that if you can ambush your enemy when he/she isn't prepaired a weaker force can defeat a far greater like the Germanic tribes did to the Romanin the Teutoburg Forest and that an army on the move would be at it's weakest.
It would add a bit of realism to the game but not too much.