Why the next generation mmorpgs are failing
Update 46 is now available for testing on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676209
-
firstdecan✭✭✭✭✭
✭I don't agree with a lot of the OPs lesser points, but I do believe he is fundamentally correct.joshdm2001_ESO wrote: »Let me pose a theory on why I think the next generation mmorpgs are failing. There is a fundamental lack of social and reward integration which has led to a breakdown in gaming success. I'm not going to write a wall of text and a thesis paper here, but I think it's important that the industry refocus on what is important to be successful.
This game isn't designed to be social, especially when you first start playing. Almost all of the levelled content is the storyline rollercoaster, which is hard to do with friends unless you play every step of the game in lockstep with each other. There's also very little content designed for groups, each zone has one public and one instanced dungeon. The public dungeons are probably the most fun, but when you play with friends anyone else can come along and interfere with what you're working on (like killing a boss before you get to it). The instanced dungeons are good, but they seem designed to require four people (a team of good players can do with fewer) instead of dynamically changing difficulty based on the group composition (size and levels). It would be nice to have content that can scale to groups of 2-8 so people can play with their friends.
At level 10 you can go to Cyrodiil, but that doesn't appeal to everyone. It's pretty much zerg or bust for PvP, and not everyone wants to accept the challenge of dodging gankers for Cyrodiil PvE. Don't get me wrong, Cyrodiil was the reason I played the game, but it won't appeal to everyone.
If you do choose to group with people who are at different levels than you, there will be no reward for doing so. Being grouped with people too far above your level significantly affects the experience you get.
So in effect, until you and your friends get to "max level" your only social interaction is with the random handful of people who happen to be in the same zone at the same time with you, who are people you are likely to not see again. Different rates of character progression and differences in play time make you very unlikely to see those same people again.
Before reaching "end game" content, the only real social activity that people grouped up for in this game was grinding. You and people you knew (or pugs) would get together, mash on some mobs and enjoy watching the levels go up. For whatever reason ZoS capitulated to a vocal minority, killed almost every grind in the game, and eliminated any incentive to group up for the grinds that still exist. The path to an enjoyable game shouldn't include removing the activities that people were enjoying.
There is a previous comment disparaging people who expected "Skyrim with friends," but that expectation was a reasonable expectation given the fact that this is an Elder Scrolls title. If there had been more emphasis on making the game "Skyrim with friends," and as such more emphasis on group content at all levels, there would have been a better quality game.
4 -
Valymer✭✭✭✭✭I mostly agree with the points written by @Danikat
my contributions to this thread with be this one: No MMO on PC will ever manage to repeat the success of World of Warcraft. We can mock WOW as much as we want, it still have today more than 7 millions of players suscribed. No other MMO can dream even half of that population.
But does numbers make everything?
Sure it's fun to play that big game everyone is talking about. you feel like part of the gang. But I believe that nowadays, it's a lot better when games renounce to please the masses, and try to do their own thing and succeeed at it. Might be more in the line of a niche game, but the community is a lot better when truely dedicated to its game, smaller and driven by the desire of seeing their game succesful.
I believe that ESO is not a game for everyone and it should not try to be. Yet it still appeal to different crowd and style of gamer and that's great.
I disagree that modern MMORPG are failing. But maybe we are failing as community, because we have become impatient, demanding, un loyal and undedicated, unable of commitment and effort. Yes, we can partially attribute the wrongs to Blizzard which badly educated the players to have everything easy, but seriously....in the end of day, aren't we responsible for ourselves?
If MMO are failing today, it's because the players behave as spoiled kids and devellopers are getting white hair, trying to satisfy our unrealistics wishes.
;
ESO is not a game for everyone but the problem is that it tried to be. And in doing so it never quite managed to do one thing really well.
This is probably due to the unrealistic expectations of the higher-ups (aka bean counters), who want to maximize profits and are likely unable to understand that making a great game for a smaller audience may be more profitable than making a mediocre game for a large one, in the long run.
If our wishes were unrealistic regarding ESO, the blame for that rests at least partially on the false promises made by Zenimax. I personally only chose ESO because it was a subscription-based game, because I believed that the subscription model would lead to a better community and more importantly, frequent content updates. I was also disillusioned with the idea of a cash shop from other games I've played.
I think that we can all agree that ZOS made a big mistake in promising a 4 to 6-week content release cycle. But is that the fault of the players? No.
So while you are labeling the ESO community as "unable of commitment and effort," perhaps it would only be fair to point out that Zenimax was also unable to commit to its professed belief that a subscription model was the correct choice for Elder Scrolls Online -- as well as the fact that the amount of effort that we as players see going into fixing game-breaking bugs on the PC version is sorely lacking.1 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NewBlacksmurf wrote: »Here is why MMO games are failing
-people come to play them and in large masses they go and pressure the developers to change the game to be like features in another game vs playing the game as the developer intended.
You forgot: ... and then, after the developers change the game, the players leave the game for something else and the cycle repeats.
If they stick around, it is not so bad.firstdecan wrote: »There is a previous comment disparaging people who expected "Skyrim with friends," but that expectation was a reasonable expectation given the fact that this is an Elder Scrolls title. If there had been more emphasis on making the game "Skyrim with friends," and as such more emphasis on group content at all levels, there would have been a better quality game.
They did not make Skyrim with Friends, but I realized yesterday that they made Oblivion with Strangers. ESO's main quest is very similar to Oblivion's main quest and if you toss in strangers you get the main part of ESO, really the only part worth playing right now.
This is entirely the wrong approach. Oblivion with Strangers, like Skyrim with Friends, focuses on being a single player TES game in a multiplayer environment. We get that with the main portion of the game, but the single player TES games are not masters of player retention. Once the single player model ran out of steam, the ZOS designers had to do something, and we got Veteran Ranks, Craglorn, Dragonstar, and Trials.
I am not sure how ZOS would go about fixing the fact that ESO is essentially a short term game, or if they even care. My guess is that even if they did care, they would not have the money to turn the game into something with long term interest that will hold the attention of more and more players. They will solve their problem by releasing a few new zones, which is sort of like using duct tape on a leaky dam. Thus begins the endless tail chase for new content, which ZOS does not have the attention span and staying power to provide. Even if they did have that, they could not provide it fast enough to meet the demand.
Edited by Elsonso on May 30, 2015 3:59PM3 -
F7sus4✭✭✭✭✭
✭Ironically, Craglorn is quite hated for the forced group interaction that you initially praised.
It's not the game that is failing, but the players.joshdm2001_ESO wrote: »Why the next generation mmorpgs are failing Bookmark Let me pose a theory on why I think the next generation mmorpgs are failing. There is a fundamental lack of social and reward integration which has led to a breakdown in gaming success.
I kinda hate posts in which people are complaining on what is wrong, yet they are the last to provide information on what exactly would work for them.
Edited by F7sus4 on May 30, 2015 4:14PM2 -
MyNegation✭✭✭
I kinda hate posts in which people are complaining on what is wrong, yet they are the last to provide information on what exactly would work for them.
stage 1: remove megaserver. break the population to equal shards. first month free transfer, later it will cost 5000 Crowns and you can do it only once a month and your PVP rating reset to zero.
the Cyrodill campaign will be server campaign instead of 7-14 -30 etc.
stage 2: build proper grouping tool, not a silly "match maker" but grouping tool as an exact copy of what successfully works for DDO and GW2. - it took me one second to find a group in GW2 yesterday for the dungeon i wanted. in ESO i can sit on dungeon finder for two hours as a tank and get no-where.
stage 3: make three difficulties for every dungeon and trials: casual- for casuals that want to experience content but don't like to sweat, normal - for pugs, and hard - for skilled organic groups.
balance the rewards accordingly.
stage 4: remove all instancing from open world. rework the quests so the instancing will occur only in dungeons and buildings.
stage 5: add new content whether it is the imperial city, the dark brotherhood or the jewel-crafting or instanced PVP or all of the above and new levels for everything.
the new levels will require mastery in order to proceed, if you choose mastery ( you don't have to and you can remain jack of all trades) in some field you will have to abandon some other field:
guild skills: fighters guild or mages guild or undaunted. (if you are vampire or werewolf you cant have mastery in fighters guild either)
hard crafts: clothing or blacksmithing or woodworking.
soft crafts: enchanting or provisioning or alchemy
alliance war: assault or support.
armor: light or medium or heavy
legerdemain or soul magic ( soul magic will have to be reworked because picking chest locks is too good, maybe open lock spell?)
stage 6: profit awesome game.
Nine worlds of lore, Such was the world in dark days of yore
Safekeeper of the world then was Thor, Such was what they believed in before
Nine were the worlds of lore0 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭MyNegation wrote: »
stage 1: remove megaserver. break the population to equal shards. first month free transfer, later it will cost 5000 Crowns and you can do it only once a month and your PVP rating reset to zero.
the Cyrodill campaign will be server campaign instead of 7-14 -30 etc.
stage 2: build proper grouping tool, not a silly "match maker" but grouping tool as an exact copy of what successfully works for DDO and GW2. - it took me one second to find a group in GW2 yesterday for the dungeon i wanted. in ESO i can sit on dungeon finder for two hours as a tank and get no-where.
stage 3: make three difficulties for every dungeon and trials: casual- for casuals that want to experience content but don't like to sweat, normal - for pugs, and hard - for skilled organic groups.
balance the rewards accordingly.
stage 4: remove all instancing from open world. rework the quests so the instancing will occur only in dungeons and buildings.
stage 5: add new content whether it is the imperial city, the dark brotherhood or the jewel-crafting or instanced PVP or all of the above and new levels for everything.
the new levels will require mastery in order to proceed, if you choose mastery ( you don't have to and you can remain jack of all trades) in some field you will have to abandon some other field:
guild skills: fighters guild or mages guild or undaunted. (if you are vampire or werewolf you cant have mastery in fighters guild either)
hard crafts: clothing or blacksmithing or woodworking.
soft crafts: enchanting or provisioning or alchemy
alliance war: assault or support.
armor: light or medium or heavy
legerdemain or soul magic ( soul magic will have to be reworked because picking chest locks is too good, maybe open lock spell?)
stage 6: profit awesome game.
CANNOT happen first off, because it is impossible to do ANY of what you want without making a new game from the ground up, and you KNOW FOR A FACT it would NEVER happen, EVER.
1. the game is ALREADY empty, seperating it into shards would just make it even MORE empty
3. while i agree, you would then have casuals complain about how the game is too hard to get teh best stuff. Whiners ALWAYS win when it comes to balance and thus everything would be nerfed.
4. no instance.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, please, do nto make me laugh, a game this big REQUIRES instancing or else it would cause trouble for even high end computers
5. they have already proven they are not going to make new content very much if at all without getting taking forever and getting your money.
6. not profit from a game that was already bad, then pushed away most of the original players by making a game that is Compeltely different style in every way AND likely not get new ones because of bad reputation and that fact the same problems that plauge the original will plague this one since they clearly have shown they do not actually care about the game.Edited by PKMN12 on May 30, 2015 8:29PM0 -
Rust_in_Peace✭✭✭✭✭None of the games listed in OP are "Next Gen". They were just the games that popped up that tried to cash in on WoW's success and helped saturate the market with very similar products. ESO got released on the tail end of this trend and a lot of people were already too familiar with shoddy products that were released before they were finished so the customers were jaded before the game even came out.
Games like this are in a bad place right now and until they can get out of it there won't be any "next gen" of MMOs. People want an MMO to be everything; it has to have amazing graphics, "action" combat, raids, pvp, exploration, random events, crafting, open world sandbox but also themepark quests and bosses, social integration and on top of that be free to play and run on a toaster. No game is going to be able to hit all these benchmarks.
MMOs used to be a niche market but now they try to make them appeal to everybody because of how popular WoW was. Imagine how much better ESO could have been if they focused all their assets on it being an open world pvp game and ignored making stuff like trials, or vice versa. Instead they tried to market it as a game where you could do EVERYTHING and instead it failed to meet peoples expectations and the game did poorly.
The only MMO I'm looking forward to these days is Black Desert Online; an open world action combat game from Korea that is trying to fill a niche and do a good job at just that. That's what developers and consumers need to come to terms with; your game shouldn't be for EVERYONE. Corner a niche and expand from there as the game grows don't try to be everything all at once on release day or it's bound to fail.
2 -
Rust_in_Peace wrote: »MMOs used to be a niche market but now they try to make them appeal to everybody because of how popular WoW was. Imagine how much better ESO could have been if they focused all their assets on it being an open world pvp game and ignored making stuff like trials, or vice versa. Instead they tried to market it as a game where you could do EVERYTHING and instead it failed to meet peoples expectations and the game did poorly.
Your opinion is a bit tunnel visioned in where you expect PvP to save everything. They already went down that route in fact this game launched with nothing but PvP to do at endgame.
What actually went wrong was a difference of expectations, most people were expecting an elder scrolls game they can play online with friends but what they got was an MMO that generically copied most MMO's out on the market (a lot of GW2 and Rift influence) instead with the elder scrolls name attached and a hotfixed in first person view. Combine that with the fact questing was a complete railroad, and that after downing molag bal you were pretty much forced to grind through the two other alliances in order to be competitive...1 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭wrlifeboil wrote: »Once you use a microwave oven, you can't do without the convenience of one ever again.
Used to use a microwave extensively, haven't used one - even to defrost stuff - in close on 5 years.
Once I realised how bland food from a microwave tastes in comparison to conventionally cooked food I just stopped using it.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.5 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »
Used to use a microwave extensively, haven't used one - even to defrost stuff - in close on 5 years.
Once I realised how bland food from a microwave tastes in comparison to conventionally cooked food I just stopped using it.
All The Best
that is nice, but most peopel do not mind the microwave and even if they do not always eat microwaved food, they still use it too heat up leftovers. just because YOU do not care about it, does not mean most people do not.
Have fun.0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭just because YOU do not care about it, does not mean most people do not.
Nor did I ever suggest such a thing.
My comment was framed in such a way as to, quite precisely, highlight the danger of taking a specific set of events and assuming they then apply universally.
Much like your "no mmo listens to ideas from forums" post in another thread - I posted an example of one that does - thereby showing the universality of your claim to be false.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.3 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »
Nor did I ever suggest such a thing.
My comment was framed in such a way as to, quite precisely, highlight the danger of taking a specific set of events and assuming they then apply universally.
Much like your "no mmo listens to ideas from forums" post in another thread - I posted an example of one that does - thereby showing the universality of your claim to be false.
All The Best
and as i proved in that thread, it was a PR move that happens ONCE and had nothing to do with them EVER listening.
and yes, 99% of the population have a Microwave and use it, yeah, there are some who do not, but 99% of that 1% who do not do not even have a computer, so they matter very little to Zeni.0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭[and as i proved in that thread, it was a PR move that happens ONCE and had nothing to do with them EVER listening.
You proved nothing of the sort.
You claimed something, and then presented not one single shred of evidence to support your claim, and in fact provided evidence to support my counter-claim.
I refer you to my comment in that thread about a bridge.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.2 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »
You proved nothing of the sort.
You claimed something, and then presented not one single shred of evidence to support your claim, and in fact provided evidence to support my counter-claim.
I refer you to my comment in that thread about a bridge.
All The Best
I mean, if you honestly belive it was NOT a PR move and nothing more, go ahead, just understand you are always going to be VERY, VERY disappointed.Edited by PKMN12 on May 30, 2015 11:05PM0 -
srfrogg23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭joshdm2001_ESO wrote: »Let me pose a theory on why I think the next generation mmorpgs are failing. There is a fundamental lack of social and reward integration which has led to a breakdown in gaming success. I'm not going to write a wall of text and a thesis paper here, but I think it's important that the industry refocus on what is important to be successful.
In the old days, why was d&d paper so successful? Because it revolved around social integration. It was more than just games designed to progress and win. They were games designed around building up relationships and conquering challenges through those relationships. The problem with the industry today is, is the business model. The business model hasn't changed since EQ. Sure, each game comes with its own gimmick. Rift was randomly spawned dark anchors. STWOR was storyline, hirelings, and story choices. AoC was open world brutal pvp siege vs siege. WAR was rvr. GW2 is free to play. AION was gliding and portaling between enemy worlds. EQNext is voxels to create an environmentally interactive world. Terra is fps style pvp with no targeting locks. ESO's gimmick is mega server and play the way you want by choosing any race using any armor weapon type. The list goes on and on. The idea of let's create a world with content and design a gimmick to differentiate our product from someone else's is not working.
The games I listed above don't last and here's why. They all excite the masses because of their "gimmick" when the gimmick novelty where's off people get bored and leave. The game becomes nothing but a recycle of the same rinse and repeat garbage that has been released since WoW. Peel the onion and what are you left with? The same grind, pvp, alternate advancement, and quest racing that has been around since EQ and MUDs. This is the de facto standard. Every gaming company that releases an mmorpg thinks they nailed it. They think they figured out the gimmick that will be the next wow killer and become the next 10million+ copies sold mmo with millions of subscribers or players. all examples above have never gotten to where they want to be. Save Eqnext because it's not out yet, but it's only a matter of time before that one falls into the same trap.
The problem becomes the Developer mentality of if you build it with a gimmick, they will come and stay. No. These games need to be designed and built beyond the idea of let's build a new world with a gimmick and release new content periodically to keep gamers interested. No. These games need to be built around social interactions that go beyond "raids". People want living breathing worlds that evolve based on player interactions. Worlds need to be developed from the start with social tools. Integrate voice chat. Integrate LFG tools that work. Integrate player housing, integrate more dynamic trade systems. Integrate mobile device apps that allow trading in real time and player instant chat tools. Integrate esports and a world wide tournament system. Sponsor events. Advertise tournaments at conventions. Allow for more character customizations. Allow characters to design their own costumes. Allow more combat skill choices options so characters aren't forced to re-roll. Allow for titles that mean something with big rewards. Allow for big rewards. People want challenge! Remember back in the day when someone killed the king in ultimate online! That was a big deal in the gaming industry! Allow for challenges. Allow for consequences both in pve and pvp with bigger rewards. Remember that feeling of accomplishment when beating dosha when game first came out? Now it's watered down. Do something with achievements. Integrate an online achievement system so players can see others achievements. Calculate and advertise player statistics so players can see who is the best in the world at stuff. For example, killing dosha the fastest. Give players records to beat. Add Guild halls where player guilds mean something. Stop segregating factions.why in gods name are companies doing thIs? Integrate people! Not separate worlds and then develop a doofy silver gold quest line after the fact. Look I get it. Stupid that a Jedi would be with a sith. But there's ways to make this work so that players can play with each other. Bring the world to the player don't expect the average player to go off on his own and download vent or mumble and re login to a new IP server every time he wants to group with a random group of people. Don't be lazy and put the social development on the player. Don't wash and dry your hands and say, I did my job, I created a world, now it's up to the player to develop social relationships. No. Hire knowledge managers and statistically aggregate and determine what people want. Developers need to be more interactive with players. Not just question and answer sessions or forum presence. Developers need to challenge players with contests in and out of the game. Let players develop content ideas. Let players develop reviewed contents. More in game random and coordinated events. (Rift was actually good at this). The developer MUST design a world that forces social interaction and makes it easy and convenient to do so. You want this game to be successful? Bring it to the player. Not the other way around. All of these examples need to be implemented when a game is released otherwise it's too late. People have moved on and Lost interest.
Eh, I don't know. First of all, my definition of "failure" for an MMO is total shutdown, servers offline. With that being said, if the game is still up and running I don't think I can classify it as a "failure". Taking that into account, every game I've ever seen that has built itself around the idea of "forcing" social interaction has for the most part been shutdown completely - SWG for example.
How well would Star Wars Galaxies do if it was re-released today? Why hasn't it been brought back if that is genuinely the formula for success? I'm sure the OP isn't the only person that has had this thought...2 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭
Eh, I don't know. First of all, my definition of "failure" for an MMO is total shutdown, servers offline. With that being said, if the game is still up and running I don't think I can classify it as a "failure". Taking that into account, every game I've ever seen that has built itself around the idea of "forcing" social interaction has for the most part been shutdown completely - SWG for example.
How well would Star Wars Galaxies do if it was re-released today? Why hasn't it been brought back if that is genuinely the formula for success? I'm sure the OP isn't the only person that has had this thought...
THIS, VERY MUCH THIS! THANK YOU!
There is a SWGemu, that lets you play the original version of the game through a private server...and the server is rarely above 75-100 people, yet it is all over the internet, and a pretty well-known youtuber had A LOT of videos on it.
If SWG was such a perfect game, then why is this server not full of people, why is it still so obscure.0 -
traigusb14_ESO2✭✭✭✭✭
THIS, VERY MUCH THIS! THANK YOU!
There is a SWGemu, that lets you play the original version of the game through a private server...and the server is rarely above 75-100 people, yet it is all over the internet, and a pretty well-known youtuber had A LOT of videos on it.
If SWG was such a perfect game, then why is this server not full of people, why is it still so obscure.
Because it wasn't done.. and on an EMU it never will be.
Instead of finishing it (Most MMOS release really not done at release ) They remade it (actually twice.. one super secret NGE plan replaced a combat revamp that never got a chance to do anything).
A big part of any MMO is not just what it is now, but what it will become (What we are all worried about for ESO). AN EMU of a game never becomes anything.
SWG needed some system work as well as new content (just like ESO and all other MMOs need new content). EMU games (even if the manage to get them up and running 100%) are dead. MMOs are about living worlds.
SWG would probably do pretty well today if released for the first time (Interest in non- EP 1--3 games is pretty high). They would still have a lot of fixes to make and promises to keep... being a SOE game they could still fail in other ways for bad choices.
Wouldn't happen though. SOE is a different place now (even before it became Daybreak). A modern SW game from SOE would look like SW Rebels (if it actually wan't that franchise to start with) and be FTP.
0 -
firstdecan✭✭✭✭✭
✭lordrichter wrote: »
You forgot: ... and then, after the developers change the game, the players leave the game for something else and the cycle repeats.
If they stick around, it is not so bad.
They did not make Skyrim with Friends, but I realized yesterday that they made Oblivion with Strangers. ESO's main quest is very similar to Oblivion's main quest and if you toss in strangers you get the main part of ESO, really the only part worth playing right now.
This is entirely the wrong approach. Oblivion with Strangers, like Skyrim with Friends, focuses on being a single player TES game in a multiplayer environment. We get that with the main portion of the game, but the single player TES games are not masters of player retention. Once the single player model ran out of steam, the ZOS designers had to do something, and we got Veteran Ranks, Craglorn, Dragonstar, and Trials.
I am not sure how ZOS would go about fixing the fact that ESO is essentially a short term game, or if they even care. My guess is that even if they did care, they would not have the money to turn the game into something with long term interest that will hold the attention of more and more players. They will solve their problem by releasing a few new zones, which is sort of like using duct tape on a leaky dam. Thus begins the endless tail chase for new content, which ZOS does not have the attention span and staying power to provide. Even if they did have that, they could not provide it fast enough to meet the demand.
I love the line in your post that I bolded, you hit the nail on the head with that. This is what the game really feels like.
If they didn't have the structural problems with the game mechanics they had at launch, they *might* have been able to produce new content at the 4-6 week schedule they promised. I don't think it would have been an entire new zone every 4-6 weeks, but a new dungeon to explore *might* have been enough. I do absolutely agree with your assessment, the game is essentially a play through of a single player game, and they just happen to require an internet connection so you can be surrounded by people you don't know. Once you get through that storyline, there's not much left and you realize this is really a short term game.
I still believe that focusing on a "Skyrim with friends" delivery would have improved the product. It's certainly not a panacea for what ails this game (which is still good enough to keep me somewhat interested), but it would have addressed the deficiency the OP originally identified. Honestly, I think they could improve the game by up\down scaling group members to the group leaders level, and providing better dynamic difficulty for instanced dungeons (scaling difficulty to the number of players in a group and their level). It might also be nice to make the solo \ group delves available as instanced content after you've completed them. Combined with proper scaling that could add some replayability. And at that point, they could easily make the main quest scale with the number \ level of people in a group, and then you have your "Skyrim with friends."
The only two mechanics they would need to introduce are the "player down scaling" mechanic, which would enable higher level toons to play at the same level with people they know, and expand the dungeon scaling mechanic to make allowances for variations in group numbers. This can't be that hard.1 -
wrlifeboil✭✭✭✭✭Rust_in_Peace wrote: »None of the games listed in OP are "Next Gen". They were just the games that popped up that tried to cash in on WoW's success and helped saturate the market with very similar products. ESO got released on the tail end of this trend and a lot of people were already too familiar with shoddy products that were released before they were finished so the customers were jaded before the game even came out.
Games like this are in a bad place right now and until they can get out of it there won't be any "next gen" of MMOs. People want an MMO to be everything; it has to have amazing graphics, "action" combat, raids, pvp, exploration, random events, crafting, open world sandbox but also themepark quests and bosses, social integration and on top of that be free to play and run on a toaster. No game is going to be able to hit all these benchmarks.
MMOs used to be a niche market but now they try to make them appeal to everybody because of how popular WoW was. Imagine how much better ESO could have been if they focused all their assets on it being an open world pvp game and ignored making stuff like trials, or vice versa. Instead they tried to market it as a game where you could do EVERYTHING and instead it failed to meet peoples expectations and the game did poorly.
The only MMO I'm looking forward to these days is Black Desert Online; an open world action combat game from Korea that is trying to fill a niche and do a good job at just that. That's what developers and consumers need to come to terms with; your game shouldn't be for EVERYONE. Corner a niche and expand from there as the game grows don't try to be everything all at once on release day or it's bound to fail.
I think you are right about one thing. Asia is where the innovation in mmorpgs is happening. They have lower costs to develop/publish, greater growth potential plus relatively good Internet service. They don't have the rep of being innovative but that's changing if the variety of niche mmos being released is any indication.0 -
PKMN12✭✭✭✭✭wrlifeboil wrote: »
I think you are right about one thing. Asia is where the innovation in mmorpgs is happening. They have lower costs to develop/publish, greater growth potential plus relatively good Internet service. They don't have the rep of being innovative but that's changing if the variety of niche mmos being released is any indication.
South Korea is FAMOUS for being the hub of pretty much half of the F2P, P2W, MEGA-grindfests.............which means it is likely that it is what Black desert online is.0 -
Cry_Wolfe✭✭✭The bottom line is, we have a ton of MMO choices nowadays. Back in the day we had maybe 2 choices tops. There was Everquest 1 and a little later Dark Age of Camelot. Then Eq2 and WoW came out. Then to me at least, around the time Vanguard came out and then LOTRO, there has just been tons of MMO's. If players are bored or have to many bugs, or don't like something its easier to move onto another game.
Also, WAR is Warhammer Online. Probably most disappointing MMO ever, such a same it turned out the way it did and is now shut down.
EvE Online is older than Wow by a smidge iirc, and City of Heroes slightly predated WoW as well iirc.
EvE online is a good and bad example of a socially driven MMO, the social ties are very strong but that also means that players have revolted against Dev decisions. I'd love to see High Sec be a safe place for carebears but it will never happen, the suicide gankers always throw up a hissy fit.
CoH wasn't a hugely successful game, but it had a large loyal player base, and NCSOFT only canned it because Guild Wars 2 was nearing release (IMHO). CoH had player housing, THE BEST costume system ever, a robust crafting system that allowed for important character customisation (imagine being able to craft a set in ESO that made each tick of an AoE have a chance at knockdown, or blind, or confuse, etc). CoH is still held up by its players as relevant today, many years after its demise, in many ways because its Devs listened to its players and used their heads about how to incorporate ideas into the game.
If either of these games came out now, unchanged apart from better cosmetics, they may or may not be successful. Star Citizen (made by an EvE player) is trying to do just that, re-release a better EvE (IMHO).
The problem isnt that games do or don't have the goods, most of all the expectations of either or both of the DeVs and Players, that a game isn't successful unless it has full servers and login queue times, is what is wrong with the MMO scene today.
The OP touched on the real corner stone of a successful MMO: the opportunity for unexpected or new social experiences. MMO(RPG) are the only genre of Game that presents the greatest chance at meeting another person or getting to meet a new friend, at any moment whilst logged into the game. Even when such interaction is minimal, as with "limited duration World Events", it is the interaction between real people that differentiates such an experience from single player experiences (even if that single player experience teams the player with NPC's such as with Guild Wars' Nightfall).
Any MMO that facilitates player interaction, for good or ill, increases its chance of Retaining players and retaining players is the first hall mark of a successful Game. Server Wide Population Density is not a measure of success, Profit = Development. Expenditure should be tied to player retention. And for the love of all that is geek, never hire from that pool of "Development" programmers, whose migratory and resume quoting habits resist the transition to Live, as they seek Secure Employment at the cost of the Productions they work for.Edited by Cry_Wolfe on May 31, 2015 1:24AM1 -
Blackmoon777✭✭✭it is little old but i think it is what we are talking about, what we want from mmoRPG games
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Str0J97pPy4
The World...1 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭traigusb14_ESO2 wrote: »
Yeah, "don't last" is kinda sensational. it is more ... They have massive launches and bleed huge player numbers after 2-3 months.
Rift did slow down. A huge number of people who bought it stopped playing (I know literally 50).
It stabilized at a much lower population, but imagine if it kept even 1/2 the people that stopped playing.
BTW this is a huge issue in MMOS too. They have to rent massive amounts of hardware and do huge tests on load scaling.. then 2-3 months after release a huge number of people wander off because they feel "done" and have no community hooks to keep them.
Theres more MMOs on the market now a days. And the current F2P/B2P set up allows you to put one down and focus on another while you take a break from the first one. Back in the old days MMOs werent as common place and you had to make a financial commitment every month. This meant you had to make a choice. And after dropping 15 bucks month after month you felt dropping it and moving on to another MMO just wasnt worth the hassel. Now with the F2P/B2P models you dont have to worry too much as you can easily bounce between games and not feel as if you sunk too much money into one or the other and hence need to stay.
The few games that have successfully kept the Sub Model were games that were generally just before or on the cusp of the markets change from Subs being popular to F2P models being popular.
Games like SWTOR and STO might not have the numbers to compete with WoW but they definitely arent suffering and make more then a fair share of profit month to month, quarter to quarter. MMOs arent failing because a lack of social interaction. If theyre failing its because they arent bringing anything particularly different to market or they fail to live up to the expectations the playerbase comes to have for them prior to launch. F2P/B2P is not a failure though. Its simply a restructuring and makes the MMO more likely to not fall through the cracks as it opens itself up to far more potential players then before.
As for bleeding players. Thats nothing new in MMOs. Every game, including WoW experienced a severe drop off of players after the 2nd and 3rd months. Its apart of the lifecycle of an MMOs content. Same thing happens with their expansions and DLCs.Penniless Sellsword CompanyCaptain Paramount - Jorrhaq VhentKorith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the GrimjawlTenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'LesAban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia SeverinusWhat is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax0 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Blackmoon777 wrote: »it is little old but i think it is what we are talking about, what we want from mmoRPG games
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Str0J97pPy4
The World...
Very interesting. I didn't care for the Star Wars game but interesting points made in the video. Thnx for sharing-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5010 -
JamilaRaj✭✭✭✭✭
✭Why all that hate for megaserver? There are some things ESO's devs did right and that was one of them. They had this idea but when it came to PvP campaigns, they as though got afraid of their own boldness, went ahead with more traditional servers instead and results were queues, dead campaigns and guesting that did more harm than good.
PC/console split is too source of constant gripes.Edited by JamilaRaj on May 31, 2015 11:42AM0 -
reften✭✭✭✭✭Too many quests. "Grinding" gets such a bad rep. The best eq days were fighting in unrest for no reason other than to fight. And it was dangerous. And you made some lasting friendships. ESO has non of that except for PvP. And that is why I love PvP.Edited by reften on May 31, 2015 12:00PMReften
Bosmer (Wood Elf)
Moonlight Crew (RIP), Misfitz (RIP), Victorem Guild
VR16 NB, Stam build, Max all crafts.
Azuras & Trueflame. Mostly PvP, No alts.
Semi-retired till the lag is fixed.
Love the Packers, Bourbon, and ESO...one of those will eventually kill me.1 -
MornaBaine✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭People laugh at me but I've been saying for some time that what is needed is the *** love child of ESO and The Sims. I STILL play TS3 because I LOVE building things. What do I build these days? The things I WISH I were able to build in ESO. Shadevale Manor, the fictional IC home of my guild exists in extraordinary detail...in The Sims. As does my concept for a Temple of Dibella. What do I hate about The Sims? The fact that I can't share it with my friends and play WITH them in the worlds I have created there.
What a lot of players want is an IMMERSIVE world. That doesn't mean just battling monsters in a cool setting. It means the ability to LIVE in that world. To have your own hearth to relax in front of with friends and hang your sword over between adventures. It means being able to sit down to a meal with your friends in your own or shared Hall. It means interactions between characters, whether that be fighting duels or giving each other a hug. It means weddings with the Rings of Mara in a beautiful setting created for that, not some little shrine off to the side of a temple. And I cannot stress enough the importance of CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION, not just at creation but as an ongoing, any time the player feels like it, kind of thing. You know, all that "roleplay" stuff that some folks are so quick to sneer at.
Because the truth is there are a LOT of roleplayers out there. From us old folks who played the original D&D with pen and paper to kids today who really want the experience of "being" their characters for a little while. THESE are the people who form communities and remain loyal even to a game that treats them terribly because of the bonds they have forged with each other as players. The MMO maker who manages to figure this out is going to be very, VERY rich. I was hoping it was going to be ESO.Edited by MornaBaine on May 31, 2015 12:28PMPAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!2 -
Tankqull✭✭✭✭✭
✭joshdm2001_ESO wrote: »
That's no excuse. In today's day and age it's what is expected. If wow set the bar to be that high than upcoming competitive gaming companies need to meet that standard right out of the box on day one.
i know its a wiered comparison - gaming industry is reinventing the wheel with every game released.
its like one of the car producers is delivering a car without brakes anouncing brakes will come with the 1st extention...spelling and grammar errors are free to be abused
Sallington wrote: »Anything useful that players are wanting added into the game all fall under the category of "Yer ruinin my 'mersion!"0 -
Tankqull✭✭✭✭✭
✭Why all that hate for megaserver? There are some things ESO's devs did right and that was one of them. They had this idea but when it came to PvP campaigns, they as though got afraid of their own boldness, went ahead with more traditional servers instead and results were queues, dead campaigns and guesting that did more harm than good.
PC/console split is too source of constant gripes.
there is no hate for "mega server" because that simply does not exists. what we have is a mega accumulation of micro shards nothing else.spelling and grammar errors are free to be abused
Sallington wrote: »Anything useful that players are wanting added into the game all fall under the category of "Yer ruinin my 'mersion!"0 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OP, You have so many good ideas I can't even touch upon all of them. I wish someone at ZOS would give you a job. I think if you had any power whatsoever you might really make a positive difference in this game.
You 100% have the right intent and the right ideas of how to keep people engaged and interested. People play mmo's for the PEOPLE. Giving people new and exciting ways to interact and compete would generate buzz and interest in the game.
The segregation between factions was just plain DUMB on zeni's part. It was a HUGE lost opportunity.
For PVP'rs- The fact that you can't glare and talk crap to your enemy in PVE zones and then take it to Cyrodiil to hash it out, just dumb. Really dumb. That right there would add so much to the game. Add in titles with true purpose or skill associated with them and imagine people interacting in Craglorn with their guild colors on, jumping around their enemies while they wait for the queue to pop.
For PVE'rs- imagine having 66% more people to play with. Imagine 66% more guilds to join. Imagine spamming zone chat and knowing more than your 1/3 (truly, 1/6) of the game can see and respond and INTERACT with you.
It's the lack of care and insight with things like this that lead to players not really caring about the game. When content is stalled and things are stale, people invest in each other more than in the actual game. And when you don't give them real and creative way to do that, AND you don't release content for 8+ months, you fail. And underneath all the other broken things about this game, that is the reason why it fails.
Great write up again. Thank you for posting.
You seem to use very strange maths. Access to all factions and people would mean 200% more for each of us, not 66.
Furthermore, mixing the factions would make absolutely no sense.
And if the "enemies" would talk "crap" to me while I'm doing my own stuff solo or with my friends with RL words showing an IQ of 10 and an agressivity of 1000 would make me quit the game immedialtely instead of wishing to socialize.
There is no need for "joining more guilds" since there are already more than enough of them and you cannot honestly socialize properly in more than 2 or 3 (depending on size).
There is no need for "more people to interact with" since there are already more than enough and you cannot honestly socialize properly with more than 30-50 of them (depending on time and temperament).
What's missing is new content, that's all. Anything else, while being good or bad ideas for new or better ingame features, won't change the VERY BASIC fact that players need a sense of progression in the game, that said sense of progression necessarily implies a "beginning" to start with and an "end" to progress towards, which in turn is contradictory with the "neverending" nature of a "lasting MMO", thus the need for new content.
I agree though that social bonds made within the game make our game experience last much longer after the actual "end of content" but this cannot last forever either. You don't go anymore to a place where you have absolutely nothing left to do. You might go there again and again if your friends are in this place, but sooner or later you won't go back there. You'll leave eventually for some other place - possibly taking your friends with you ;-)
Edited by anitajoneb17_ESO on May 31, 2015 2:13PM0
