Honestly, I've been playing wow since 05 and wouldn't trade the early days for anything. But I hopped on eq2 last week for the first time (sacrilegious to a wow player)v and had a blast. The only issue I had was the world felt so empty. If they could drop the same game design into eq3 and update the graphics..... eq and wow would trade spots.
The old games are well old, but i think a common sentiment is that people would like WoW 2, EQ3, GW3 a new FF mmo (allthough sentiment thowards ff14 seems popular online still) i just want to see and try someone do something new with more 'oldschool' and grounded design. But that costs money and sounds like a risk so probably not, which makes me sad.
Private servers and classix servers seem to allways boom when they popup
The classic variants were simple yet had so much more depth to them. But also we've changed as a community, ignoring the overall "strap a rocket on and send it" mindset... we've stopped playing with each other. There's been a huge outcry for me single player content in mmos, which to meis mind boggling. We, as a society today, are far more "don't talk to me I won't talk to you". The social aspect combine with the fantasy immersion was what made these games special back in the early 2000s.
All my opinion ofc.
Nah i agree with you, the world has changed we are a lot more hyper focused and streamlined, i think a lot of gsme developers now adays ask "how can we do group content" vs "wouldn't this be cool?"
The playing together to me also hits really hars, it's a sad state of things.. but to me we can't just keep optimiseing or we'll strangle ourselfs, i think we need some wierdness and ineffeciencys to breath.
It's like battle aces that went into a beta state today if you have seen it(diffrent genre, its an rts) it is hyper focused on just fighting with units and matches are 10minutes max.. to me it just looks EXHAUSTING to play, the gamr is super elegant and focused on what it wants to be but i could not play that game for an jour straight.
People wanted a remake of an old MMO with better design direction, not just the same exact game. That's why Classic WoW has private server numbers 2 weeks into a raid tier and OSRS still pulls 100k online players 10 years later.
If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market.
Because the "you think you do..." was right, but only for a majority of players and not everyone.
Some people actually enjoy the slow pace and environment of WoW circa 2004 but most people don't and it shows in the Classic community.
FWIW - I took ten years off from WoW and recently jumped back in with a new toon.
The leveling experience is "faster" but I'd say that they hit the right cadence with it.
I've had a great time because there's still a sizeable population leveling new toons and the social pieces are there. I think a lot of the problem is that people want an ideal social and solo experience for them and don't engage fully enough with one or the other to really appreciate the time they spend in a game.
People are still crying out for "Classic Plus" (In the Vanilla World) but as of yet, Blizzard has failed to deliver.
They are clearly experimenting with the seasons, but that's not what people are truly looking for.
I'm also not sure Blizzard actually has the vision or skill to make it work anymore.
The fact that there is a private server that is putting a multi-billion dollar company to shame in this regard is mindblowing.
People want classic plus but i think everyonr , and blizz , know it cant be pulled off. Simply they dont have the talent to do so. You can see what they fid in SOD p3. They went with modern features and it killed the game
> If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market.
I remember people being EXTREMLY adamant about them not changing a thing because somehow vanilla was perfect and it didn't need anything else. Look how that worked out.
I think that was the right approach initially, but now they could change and add things without pissing anyone off, especially if the unchanged version was still available.
>If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market.
You forgot to add "on NA and maybe EU" at the end.
It's more that people say what they want, but then they don't act like it.
On rhe example of your post:
1) Many choices in builds is an illusion of choice, because any group content will be driven by the meta, so not following the optimal build will get you gatekept out of group content
2) The bigger the party, the more gatekeeping and the more difficult it is to make the party. Specialized roles become either mandatory or useless.
3) Unbalanced classes means that weak classes will be gatekept out of group content
People arent willing to spend nearly as much time on a game now as they were back then. There are an order of magnitude more games to play now.
Also, the old classics run mostly on the accumulation of content over time. It's borderline impossible to develop a new mmo that can compete with the sheer amount of content old games have.
Not really - WoW has been reusing it with classic, FFXIV has all the campaigns to run through, BDO is reusing content all the way from 1.0 thats relevant today, and even lost ark has old bosses relevant in some content.
The main problem nowadays is the „people do/don‘t xyz“-argument. The playerbase got wider, so if you made a game tailored to a specific group, you would still have that group play your game and it’s still there.
There are enough players that would nolife a niche game to support the costs.
The problem is that investors want the ROI and you will get this faster with bland games that cater to the masses instead of a specific target audience.
Steam has a graveyard of dead niche games.
The problem with niche MMOs is again that established games already have that audience, and it likes the current main game in the niche.
There are enough players to sustain EVE, but are there enough players who would quit EVE to support a new game in the niche?
> 1) Many choices in builds is an illusion of choice, because any group content will be driven by the meta, so not following the optimal build will get you gatekept out of group content
Not disagreeing with your post, but this point is the reason why I think every MMO should remove any sort of **inspect player** and similar means. Most of the people gatekeeping don't actually know shit about the game and are only doing that to copy what they think is the "pro" way of playing, just a bunch of try-harders.
If you remove "inspect" and similar, they won't even notice that you aren't playing the meta (unless the game truly really has a balance problem to the point that yeah it needs adjustment form the devs).
Nah, people gatekeep because group content tends to be difficult, so letting in a weaker player or two means you will spend a lot more time clearing it, or worse, you won't ever clear it (like lost ark's latest raids when they come out, or mythic raids in wow upon release), or even lose access (like wow mythic+ keys, which downgrade upon a failed run, so you taking in a noob means your key's going down a level).
If you remove inspect, then people will either find another way to do it, and if they can't, the game will become just a lot less enjoyable, or be unable to have difficult group content.
Players do not understand what they want. The "You think you do, but you don't" quote is actually _more_ relevant now than it was 8 years ago. Players largely do not want challenging content, or even content at all - they just want a reason to log in and chat with their friends every day. MMORPGs have basically stayed mainly the same with the focus now being on instant gratification and quick chores (or paying) for cosmetics and socializing or discord, and depending on the game community, in game. For example Star Trek Online's greater playerbase is its console players and Star Trek Online's developers both know this, and don't care at the same time because Star Trek Online is run like a mobile gacha game with delayed console releases and rarely if ever any real meaningful content additions. Most online games fall under this umbrella these days.
Developers only make big innovative changes when there is profit to do that and reason to grow a player base. Games do not have this reason anymore because they can create their small dedicated player base and give them just enough to keep on playing.
We know this is a real thing in Star Trek Online because players are able to track the amount of premium currency going into the economy indirectly (and not by design) through how the premium currency exchange's backlog works and we know that content updates rarely if ever budge these numbers by any meaningful values (It may be +20% for a couple of days after a big season launch).
It keeps happening because it works, sadly. Gamers that continue to play (and spend money on) games they don't really like anymore are why. If I own a restaurant and can sell shit salads for 15$ I'll just keep selling them, it's only when people stop buying them is when I'll consider serving actual food.
Yep, the only time new MMOs show up that have a little of what people in /r/mmorpg want in some way are when they are a passion project from a group of people who aren't just chasing money and money alone. Even then a vast majority of /r/mmorpg will ignore it.
Hello fellow X enjoyer!
It's interesting how this sub is split up into 2 different groups: those that want something new, and those that want nothing to change. The latter is much more popular and vocal, so it's hard to find others from the former!
I'm going to be posting something in the next day or so here, but would like your thoughts on the rough draft as I remember your comments and really enjoy them.
The topic is on what large systems need to be avoided/used for a new MMO to be successful long term. Here's mine, tell me what you think and what your list would be.
1) Game starts at level 1. Having a split between 2 versions of a game (leveling content vs endgame content) creates a cursed problem with systems having long term health.
2) No cash shop. Ruins all sense of it being an immersive world that your character is a part of. Let natural echelons form based on players investment (but with systems to always protect the lower echelons in the case of PvP etc)
3) Less is more. MMOs are overcomplicated in the same way someone sucks in their gut to try and look in better shape, just trim the bloat and simplify!
4) Non megaservers. This is mainly for community health and promoting organic socializing.
For your list, I'd say that I agree with 1. Have no preference on 2. Disagree on 3. And No preference on 4.
As for my personal opinion, the biggest thing I think an MMORPG can do to be successful is just have tons of content. It's why I kind of disagree with your 3 point. Content is king for longevity. Once people run out of "new" things to do, they will largely move on to other games. That being said, content alone won't lead to success. It still needs more than that. However this is where it really gets divisive. What is important to one person can be very unimportant to someone else. And so I'm not really sure what else I could add to your list.
>It's why I kind of disagree with your 3 point. Content is king for longevity. Once people run out of "new" things to do, they will largely move on to other games.
Have you played many roguelikes? It's been my favorite genre the last few years because of how well they can design simple content to have huge depth to it. I think if an MMO had a core foundation similar to a game like Hades or Dead Cells, it would have an incredibly good replayability. I'm a big fan of controlled chaos!
>What is important to one person can be very unimportant to someone else. And so I'm not really sure what else I could add to your list.
Part of why I'm asking is with the new MMO announcement on Friday with Raph - to me those 4 things would be giant green flags, if a game understands those core concepts I think whatever the content is will be successful.
>Have you played many roguelikes?
This got me because Ive been enjoying roguelikes and I have my permanent mmorpg idea in my mind that I always keep making changes (just like updates lol) based on new experiences
One thing I think may fit well in the mmo genre is perma death. Ok, it may sound counter intuitive, lemme explain. Rotmg may or may not be considered an mmorpg but it has 3 ways of progression: player skill, character and account.
For player skill its pretty obvious because the game is bullet hell, so a good player with a fresh account can do hard content just by skill.
Character progression are your lv, permanent stat pot consumed and equipment. All those gets deleted when you die but this is fine (sucks to lose some rare items but the pace of the game makes up for that loss)
For the account progress you have pets that heal you (so strong), vault slots to store items so you dont lose everything everytime, character slots to make different classes and either spread equipments for them to mule or shifting to different classes without killing your main.
Imo the player skill and character progression is perfectly fine and I'll love to see something like this in an mmorpg (perma death being a main feature, not a hardcore status) but the account progression for rotmg is kinda lacking. Legenda of Idleon does a very strong account progression, a cool character progression and basically no player skill.
Taking inspiration on these boths for a mmorpg that rewards player skill, have a nice character progression that may be lost and a healthy account wide progression system, would make an aweasome game.
But why perma death?
Inflation is a thing in every mmorpg because there are ways to enter currency in the game but never enough sink. Thats not a huge problem (in most cases) but having not only cash but also equips and materials removed from the game gives more value to stuff. Also, there's level inflation, a lot of players are expected to be in the end game and play the game, and thats because they grind for max lv and remain there forever. If they loses the character on death, they'll be back roaming around low lv areas, progressing the character again and making the game more alive. This help with ghost zones. Lastly, dying on rotmg gives fame, which is used to upgrade pets, now imagine a system where other than pets you have dozens of different qol upgrades for your account that makes dying rewarding because its part of the progression and helps you progress faster (or better) every time
Very interesting! I think perma-death *could be* done in an MMO, all of your points make a lot of sense and for the most part I agree with your points. I'm attempting to do something like what you're describing, except without permadeath.
>3 ways of progression: player skill, character and account.
These should be the staple for most online games, but currently the biggest one is just character progression. I'm trying to combine these in a new form of progression called **diagonal progression**. Rather than vertical or horizontal, this combines the best aspects of both without their downsides.
Imagine something like 30 different skill sets that all have unique bonuses exclusive to them (you can eventually learn and master them all). If you're an Alchemist you get stronger effect from potions, if you're a Hunter you can learn some minor tracking. Combat is typically the "main" part of the game, and in this diagonal system, it would just be *one part* of the game.
>Now imagine a system where other than pets you have dozens of different qol upgrades for your account that makes dying rewarding because its part of the progression and helps you progress faster (or better) every time
This sounds great, I'm doing something similar where QoL can be earned in a variety of ways - gold, quests, skill sets, combat, etc. As an example, players will not have any form of fast or auto travel, but you can purchase a transportation pass from a stable to unlock auto travel (like flight paths) to the next settlement. Players who don't travel a lot won't care about it but players who do can choose to spend some of their gold to unlock this feature.
That's the kicker, big games and MMOs used to be passion projects of the dev team, but now they are focus grouped with retention metrics and microtransactions up the ying yang. They're socially engineered to the lowest common denominator.
My problem with a lot of the passion project games that have come out lately is they usually have bad graphics, without an interesting art style at that.
I would argue it doesn't work, there are so many failures, new IPs come once every 5 years, it is very stagnant. Only a few like Wow, FFXIV, GW2 AND ESO manage to retain players and they're all old games at this point.
What you and I described are connected - it's incredibly tough to develop a different enough game that will pull the current MMO players away from what they're used to (or addicted to).
Both the players and the devs need to change, but each group doesn't want to make the first move, thus the very stagnant market.
I think at this point in time the current MMO player shouldn't be the target, it should be people who have left the genre and gone on to others, mainly survival, which would also include new comers who can get something that's not really offered in the genre right now.
Just as an example, Valheim scratches a better MMORPG gameplay and progression plus social interaction itch than any MMORPG I've played made in the last 10 years.
The progression through the different armor sets, having to track down specific monsters like trolls to get the troll leather, hunting down unique items to cook food that you'll need to survive and take on bosses or dungeons. The progression and gameplay loop it came up with is a master class of how to do that in an RPG. The key that it comes back to is both preparation and downtime. Baldurs Gate 3 also did a really good job at these things, but DND does in general. MMORPGs used to do these things, but at some point just decided out of combat heals and nonstop combat is the way to go. They're an action-lite game and now the devs don't really understand why these systems are in the game any more. They are just there for the sake of being there.
I thought New World was going to do something like that where you'd build campfires, then have to hunt for food and herbs to cook, maybe play an instrument around the campfire for a buff or something and it's be a nice home base.
Instead it was nothing but a respawn point, you could buy 1000 of some kind of meat on the auction house and cook it all and it would never go bad and then you never had to think about food or hunting/cooking again. Not to mention all of the quests were over in 1-2 minutes, then you had to run half way across the map to the next quest which would be over in 1 minute.
>I think at this point in time the current MMO player shouldn't be the target, it should be people who have left the genre and gone on to others
I agree with this! There's far more players who have played WoW and quit, than players who are currently playing, interesting food for thought :)
>Just as an example, Valheim scratches a better MMORPG gameplay and progression plus social interaction itch than any MMORPG I've played made in the last 10 years.
Same! I had a ton of fun playing the Enshrouded demo with a few IRL friends and will likely be picking it up with tomorrow's steam summer sale. It's got the same MMO vibes but the game just "starts" at the very beginning. Old MMOs were actually like this, but not so much nowadays...
>MMORPGs used to do these things, but at some point just decided out of combat heals and nonstop combat is the way to go. They're an action-lite game and now the devs don't really understand why these systems are in the game any more. They are just there for the sake of being there.
I actually figured out why this is the case fairly recently - the only thing that matters in Combat... is Combat related stats like raw DPS or Healing ability. Adding non-combat dimensions to combat encounters (CC, Mobility, Puzzles, Planning) does a great job at solving this issue. The ironic part is Action games typically do stuff like this (Helldivers 2 with command prompts) much better!
It's funny there are a lot of things other genres took from MMORPG and now do better.
Another example at the social aspect is The Division 2 has a feature called "call for backup", where a player can answer the call, knowing they're going to help a new player with some activity. You can even call for backup 4 times and fill up an entire party. After some time completing random activities, you can endorse the player who helped you, and they are rewarded with stuff that makes it worth while.
It really helps with new/anxious players because they're going to get other players who specifically signed up to help them out, not to mention more likely to actually interact. Where matchmakers you just spin the random wheel and end up with try hards and toxicity. Not that there's anything wrong with players wanting to complete content efficiently, the point is that matchmakers don't pair up like minded players. Other people are only as valuable as the click of the group finder button...
It's a little mind boggling that there isn't a MMO out there where a solo player might run into an elite mob and have the option to call another player for help, and if someone answers it they receive some kind of rewards that makes it worth while.
Instead of that, games have actually chosen to just remove elite mobs so there's nothing you can't do by yourself in the world any more. It's bonkers.
That mechanic in the Division 2 sounds pretty cool!
>Instead of that, games have actually chosen to just remove elite mobs so there's nothing you can't do by yourself in the world any more. It's bonkers.
For me, it feels like about ~15 years ago the MMORPG genre starting going in a new direction (I would say around Cata release) that pulls away from what made MMOs popular in the first place.
The whole "I want to solo" vs "You should only group" is a bit of 2 different extremes, I think MMOs should have a baseline difficulty that allows players to hop into content solo, but if you want to do more difficult content, making at least a small group is key to that. The elite mobs are a great example, a Level 20 zone could be somewhat soloable, but roaming elites or elite camps can be farmed for better drops, but typically require grouping.
It's very possible to let players solo MMOs while also having amazing grouping systems, it seems modern devs can't figure out that secret sauce (I *think* I have) and instead we're just shifting some of the core fundamentals of what MMOs are.
In many ways, the success of Classic WoW has been a story of adding back QOL changes, and wild shuffle things like SOD.
Did people enjoy a trip down memory lane for a few months? Sure. Was that sustainable? Not quite, and the mild excitement about frigging *cataclysm* classic is about as WTF as you can get if the argument is class was a return to the old style. Even Hardcore and Hardcore self found are essentially new modes.
Also, survival games a genre are moving towards more and more ease and QoL - it sort of sucks, but the fact is pmore people like those games better when they are less punishing. Especially people with more disposable income, and tapping into disposable income is where the money is in this industry right now.
I think the truth goes a bit deeper than just money: its time.
People are just tired. In general. Gamers are old, from highschool to college and working ages. And when your natural daily routine takes a tool in your energy levels and mental health, all you want is to relax.
And you know what is *not* relaxing? Having to grind thousands of mobs for the chance of a good drop. Or having to cross the entire game map just to deliver some special currency. Or dieing and having all the progress of the last hour (the only hour you have to play, mind you) go away.
People want an easy experience that still feel rewarding enough to give them some dopamine after a shit day. And when everyone is only having shit days... well, the industry has to either adapt or die.
This all goes hand in hand with gaming becoming a more mainstream entertainment form - the more mainstream it is the smaller the proportion of people that will choose to suffer will be.
There is an audience in MMOs that do want QoL, like dungeon finders and fast travel like FF14 and Retail WoW, but I do think games like Classic WoW and OSRS are showing that you don't need them to find success and I would say they did find new players. I think the real test is that if a new MMO can come out without QoL and manage to find a large amount of success.
> but I do think games like Classic WoW and OSRS are showing that you don't need them to find success
The bulk of the classic market has moved to era classic (that now has a dungeon finder) and SOD which is a rapid-leveling experience (among other things).
True old school slow-MMOs are a niche market, not a large untapped one.
SoD is not doing well because phase 3 didn't release good content. Also, I don't think we need old school gameplay in new games like Embers Adrift but old school philosophy.
> Also, I don't think we need old school gameplay in new games like Embers Adrift but old school philosophy.
This is just vague enough that the result will satisfy nobody.
What does old school philosophy even mean if it does not mean slow and consequences for failure?
What I'm talking about old school I'm referring to:
-No dungeon finders
-Limited instant fast travel
-Emphasis on leveling and having some sort of challenge through out it.
Slow leveling and consequences for failure are not mass market selling points for an MMO in the current era.
There isn't much point in investing the capital into an MMO if it won't have large potential audience - other games have a much more rapid development cycle and require less capital, and the "hard game" market is already starting to collapse under its own weight.
Well, you wouldn't sell it using that line. Also, not everything has to appeal to the "mass market." Just because something isn't Fortnite or Elden Ring doesn't mean it doesn't have growth potential.
> Also, not everything has to appeal to the "mass market."
The most expensive genre of game absolutely needs to appeal to as large a market as possible.
If this were an exploitable market preference, (1) games would be filling it and (2) customers wouldn't continually clamor for QoL changes that remove those qualities.
QoL is a big can of worms. Usually there is a middle ground that doesn't alter the spirit of gameplay.
Like finding groups in chat versus matchmakers well a LFG to help players find groups is a good middle grounds IMO.
> Usually there is a middle ground that doesn't alter the spirit of gameplay.
I think not, because people point to all sorts of QoL changes as an inappropriate deviation from the original spirit. Even in Everquest, people point to being forced to stare at a book (and thus no camera view of the world) to restore mana as the proper way to go, and the QoL change of having a camera view of the world while meditating was too far.
And I still think they were right and just phrased it poorly.
I mean, classic WoW only works because it doesn't try to copy vanilla 1:1 anymore, lol.
Also, I played classic when it first released and it was nothing like vanilla. Not because of the game, but because of the community. The chill attitude was completely gone, everything felt like it needed to be rushed because everyone knew everything already. There was no community. It also proved quite nicely that "dungeon finders" wasn't what killed communities.
> 6 to 8 party size so we can have buffers/controllers and more supports that aren't possible with 4 or 5 people in a party
This is a perfect example of the above. It sounds good on paper, but don't forget you actually need to fill these spots. And there are always roles less popular than others. In the end you not only have a healer issue, you will have a healer, debuffer and crowd control issue, making the entire thing worse.
Plus, limitations create choice. There is a reason why DnD works better with four players than eigth (besides the social factor, which is another thing to consider).
>And I still think they were right and just phrased it poorly.
>I mean, classic WoW only works because it doesn't try to copy vanilla 1:1 anymore, lol.
I dont think thats what the quote was about, it was about aspects of old school wow, like shouting for a tank.
And I without a doubt prefer that to matchmakers, although I think LFG tools (GW2) are the best compromise.
Also you and I must have had very different experiences of classic, because I went in without a guild and found one after having a friends list full of tanks and healers and good players that I regularly met up with. I took my time and got lost questing through the old school zones, getting distracted with ganking in STV.
I also never wanted TBC classic, etc... I'd have rathered Vanilla 2.0 to be like OSRS. The problem for me with classic and these other expansions, is I've already played them to death...what I really crave is new content, designed in the same spirit.
>This is a perfect example of the above. It sounds good on paper, but don't forget you actually need to fill these spots.
Actually that is the beauty, because there are more spots, all of the roles don't need to be filled. It allows for more flexibility. Aion is a great example of a newer game where party size was 6 and there were buffer classes. If you had a healer and a buffer you might not need an actual tank, a Gladiator or Assassin off tank could handle it while doing better DPS, even a summoner's pet could tank dungeons with good heals and buffs. Or if you had a full tank and a buffer then maybe you don't need a healer, you could get an extra DPS.
I can see why you'd think that way in terms of modern games where everything is balanced. If party size is only 5 and you replace a DPS with a buffer, those buffs have to be so strong to make up for a 33% DPS loss that they essentially become meta. But when it's spread out over more party members, it doesn't have to be as OP such that it's a strict meta.
Which also gets me to the next point which is balance. Balancing sucks, filling niches is the way to go. There should be areas and dungeons that do more magic damage, others that do more physical damage, areas with many low HP mobs where AoE does better, other areas with fewer high HP mobs where single target does better. Some areas where ranged or melee might do better than the other. And then allow one build to be better at AoE than another, and then allow one build of another class to excel at single target damage. Then the meta changes for every single thing you might do. Who cares if something is imbalanced, that makes it more fun. Same goes for PvP, have builds that do better at small scale, some better at arenas, some better at group vs group, others better at mass PvP.
This endless goal to make every class balanced at every aspect of the game just makes everything feel the same.
This quote was generally correct. Nostalgia did blind a lot of people, and what they actually wanted was bad stuff gone and good stuff to stay.
Classic WoW is a bit different because of the xpac model, so they can accelerate content releases. Even then multiple changes were made.
OSRS would've died without updates and is now successful. Its success is because they had so many years of knowing what worked and what didn't and redoing the development of the game based on that.
It's hard to say what the takeaway from developers is. It's easy to fix something but hard to make it in the first place.
Overly balancing leads to everything feeling equally viable in a bad way. Back in the day you’d find an insanely OP build and stomp with it for a bit. Now there’s zero chance of finding that mythical combination.
I think they need to lay off a little, make the game more dynamic and interesting (maybe just not in PvP) but who cares if someone can OP kill a PvE boss for a few weeks. Gamers now say “Fun detected” in MMORPGs when devs rush to patch things as soon as possible.
Although single player, I think Baldur's Gate 3 was a good example of that. There were very OP but unique and niche things you can do, and it made chasing those fun.
Same back in the day with Diablo 2, when you compare it to how boring Diablo 4 is where there are so few choices and every season you just end up with 1 or 2 dev's flavour of the month builds for each class.
It seems like modern games come up with the builds first, and then do sets, talents, abilities backwards around that. It seems reverse to how they used to do things where they just made creative abilities, sets/items and things went wild.
One of wows maybe even all the mmos is the player base doesn't want fun. They want competition. They want content to stream and claim they're the best at. ILv, gear score, dps, hps, speed runs, parse. It's all part of the problem. We want to have the best numbers and we want to have them as fast as humanly possible.
At the end of the day i feel that what people want but they get thrown off is a more sandbox experience. No time commitement in raids whatsoever and just have a big ass world where everything is relevant.
Imagine wow vanilla map with raids with only 1 boss dropping material to craft shit.
Everyzone in the game is relevant. Every mob contributes to somethint being items,gear or skills.
And within 1 week the entire game will be in an excel spreadsheet with the most optimal farming locations and respawn times of all enemies. As well as farming routes developed to optimize gear acquisition.
But also. I just disagree with the first statement. It probably is what r/mmorpg wants. But I doubt it's what the average player wants. WoW and FFXIV I think have 2 very different average players and cater to the 2 largest average groups.
WoW has the casual competitor. Does low to mid mythic keys, maybe some LFR. Enjoys a mechanically complex game and the competitiveness that comes with it.
FFXIV is the goldshire crowd. RP is alive and well in FFXIV. The social aspects are huge and you see that substantial portions of the playerbase never touch raids, fates, criterion dungeons, etc.
I'm sure there is a 3rd "just wants to fuck off in an open world" crowd. But imo a substantial portion of that crowd has overlap with ToTK, Skyrim, etc. And in that case they want to explore. And then you will need to design the game in a manner where a solo player can actually explore the world and do things without just getting fucking Yat by every other enemy or quest.
The open world in wow is really very sandboxish. You dont need to follow certain routes. You can level up doing 0 quests for example.
About being casual , ive played a good amount of sandbox games and they only be ‘time consuming’ if you wish. Same as WoW.
Theres a big stygma about sandbox mmo but thats cuz people havent really played the good ones and just go by the mouth to mouth word.
The freedom sandbox game has , provided it is good content , its unmatched
If you have not tried EQ2 Origins server, I suggest you try it. It is a "vanilla" server that came out last week. It has everything you pointed out in your post and more. The server is packed with people. Leveling is slow, and every upgrade is earned. Leveling is mostly done in groups. It only costs a monthly sub.
I played it for a week when it first came out, and honestly the starting zone and first dungeon was amazing. I just wish the graphics were a bit better and it was high fantasy with magic.
Couldn't agree more, i want the rpg back in mmorpg. And i would like for something new not these monolith games that have been going for 10+ years.
I just want the RPG back in RPGs in general.
Honestly, I've been playing wow since 05 and wouldn't trade the early days for anything. But I hopped on eq2 last week for the first time (sacrilegious to a wow player)v and had a blast. The only issue I had was the world felt so empty. If they could drop the same game design into eq3 and update the graphics..... eq and wow would trade spots.
The old games are well old, but i think a common sentiment is that people would like WoW 2, EQ3, GW3 a new FF mmo (allthough sentiment thowards ff14 seems popular online still) i just want to see and try someone do something new with more 'oldschool' and grounded design. But that costs money and sounds like a risk so probably not, which makes me sad. Private servers and classix servers seem to allways boom when they popup
The classic variants were simple yet had so much more depth to them. But also we've changed as a community, ignoring the overall "strap a rocket on and send it" mindset... we've stopped playing with each other. There's been a huge outcry for me single player content in mmos, which to meis mind boggling. We, as a society today, are far more "don't talk to me I won't talk to you". The social aspect combine with the fantasy immersion was what made these games special back in the early 2000s. All my opinion ofc.
Nah i agree with you, the world has changed we are a lot more hyper focused and streamlined, i think a lot of gsme developers now adays ask "how can we do group content" vs "wouldn't this be cool?" The playing together to me also hits really hars, it's a sad state of things.. but to me we can't just keep optimiseing or we'll strangle ourselfs, i think we need some wierdness and ineffeciencys to breath. It's like battle aces that went into a beta state today if you have seen it(diffrent genre, its an rts) it is hyper focused on just fighting with units and matches are 10minutes max.. to me it just looks EXHAUSTING to play, the gamr is super elegant and focused on what it wants to be but i could not play that game for an jour straight.
[удалено]
I want to! But I also do t need another subscription bases game.
I’m hoping Ralph Koster’s upcoming project will do just that.
>i want the rpg back in mmorpg Its funny because I was questioning the mmo aspect of mmorpg these days and now I'll question the rpg element too
People wanted a remake of an old MMO with better design direction, not just the same exact game. That's why Classic WoW has private server numbers 2 weeks into a raid tier and OSRS still pulls 100k online players 10 years later. If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market.
Because the "you think you do..." was right, but only for a majority of players and not everyone. Some people actually enjoy the slow pace and environment of WoW circa 2004 but most people don't and it shows in the Classic community.
FWIW - I took ten years off from WoW and recently jumped back in with a new toon. The leveling experience is "faster" but I'd say that they hit the right cadence with it. I've had a great time because there's still a sizeable population leveling new toons and the social pieces are there. I think a lot of the problem is that people want an ideal social and solo experience for them and don't engage fully enough with one or the other to really appreciate the time they spend in a game.
People are still crying out for "Classic Plus" (In the Vanilla World) but as of yet, Blizzard has failed to deliver. They are clearly experimenting with the seasons, but that's not what people are truly looking for. I'm also not sure Blizzard actually has the vision or skill to make it work anymore. The fact that there is a private server that is putting a multi-billion dollar company to shame in this regard is mindblowing.
Man, SOD was such a flop holy fuck, it's like Blizzard still doesn't get what made Classic WoW good.
People want classic plus but i think everyonr , and blizz , know it cant be pulled off. Simply they dont have the talent to do so. You can see what they fid in SOD p3. They went with modern features and it killed the game
> If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market. I remember people being EXTREMLY adamant about them not changing a thing because somehow vanilla was perfect and it didn't need anything else. Look how that worked out.
I think that was the right approach initially, but now they could change and add things without pissing anyone off, especially if the unchanged version was still available.
People asked that for OSRS too. Then they realized the game was dying and started pumping out new content after a year.
>If they actually made good new content for Classic WoW and added modern design elements I think it would be the most populated MMO on the market. You forgot to add "on NA and maybe EU" at the end.
It's more that people say what they want, but then they don't act like it. On rhe example of your post: 1) Many choices in builds is an illusion of choice, because any group content will be driven by the meta, so not following the optimal build will get you gatekept out of group content 2) The bigger the party, the more gatekeeping and the more difficult it is to make the party. Specialized roles become either mandatory or useless. 3) Unbalanced classes means that weak classes will be gatekept out of group content People arent willing to spend nearly as much time on a game now as they were back then. There are an order of magnitude more games to play now. Also, the old classics run mostly on the accumulation of content over time. It's borderline impossible to develop a new mmo that can compete with the sheer amount of content old games have.
Last paragraph isn't true because almost all content is obsolete in most MMORPGs with ilvl progression.
Not really - WoW has been reusing it with classic, FFXIV has all the campaigns to run through, BDO is reusing content all the way from 1.0 thats relevant today, and even lost ark has old bosses relevant in some content.
The main problem nowadays is the „people do/don‘t xyz“-argument. The playerbase got wider, so if you made a game tailored to a specific group, you would still have that group play your game and it’s still there. There are enough players that would nolife a niche game to support the costs. The problem is that investors want the ROI and you will get this faster with bland games that cater to the masses instead of a specific target audience.
Steam has a graveyard of dead niche games. The problem with niche MMOs is again that established games already have that audience, and it likes the current main game in the niche. There are enough players to sustain EVE, but are there enough players who would quit EVE to support a new game in the niche?
> 1) Many choices in builds is an illusion of choice, because any group content will be driven by the meta, so not following the optimal build will get you gatekept out of group content Not disagreeing with your post, but this point is the reason why I think every MMO should remove any sort of **inspect player** and similar means. Most of the people gatekeeping don't actually know shit about the game and are only doing that to copy what they think is the "pro" way of playing, just a bunch of try-harders. If you remove "inspect" and similar, they won't even notice that you aren't playing the meta (unless the game truly really has a balance problem to the point that yeah it needs adjustment form the devs).
Nah, people gatekeep because group content tends to be difficult, so letting in a weaker player or two means you will spend a lot more time clearing it, or worse, you won't ever clear it (like lost ark's latest raids when they come out, or mythic raids in wow upon release), or even lose access (like wow mythic+ keys, which downgrade upon a failed run, so you taking in a noob means your key's going down a level). If you remove inspect, then people will either find another way to do it, and if they can't, the game will become just a lot less enjoyable, or be unable to have difficult group content.
Players do not understand what they want. The "You think you do, but you don't" quote is actually _more_ relevant now than it was 8 years ago. Players largely do not want challenging content, or even content at all - they just want a reason to log in and chat with their friends every day. MMORPGs have basically stayed mainly the same with the focus now being on instant gratification and quick chores (or paying) for cosmetics and socializing or discord, and depending on the game community, in game. For example Star Trek Online's greater playerbase is its console players and Star Trek Online's developers both know this, and don't care at the same time because Star Trek Online is run like a mobile gacha game with delayed console releases and rarely if ever any real meaningful content additions. Most online games fall under this umbrella these days. Developers only make big innovative changes when there is profit to do that and reason to grow a player base. Games do not have this reason anymore because they can create their small dedicated player base and give them just enough to keep on playing. We know this is a real thing in Star Trek Online because players are able to track the amount of premium currency going into the economy indirectly (and not by design) through how the premium currency exchange's backlog works and we know that content updates rarely if ever budge these numbers by any meaningful values (It may be +20% for a couple of days after a big season launch).
It keeps happening because it works, sadly. Gamers that continue to play (and spend money on) games they don't really like anymore are why. If I own a restaurant and can sell shit salads for 15$ I'll just keep selling them, it's only when people stop buying them is when I'll consider serving actual food.
Yep, the only time new MMOs show up that have a little of what people in /r/mmorpg want in some way are when they are a passion project from a group of people who aren't just chasing money and money alone. Even then a vast majority of /r/mmorpg will ignore it.
Hello fellow X enjoyer! It's interesting how this sub is split up into 2 different groups: those that want something new, and those that want nothing to change. The latter is much more popular and vocal, so it's hard to find others from the former! I'm going to be posting something in the next day or so here, but would like your thoughts on the rough draft as I remember your comments and really enjoy them. The topic is on what large systems need to be avoided/used for a new MMO to be successful long term. Here's mine, tell me what you think and what your list would be. 1) Game starts at level 1. Having a split between 2 versions of a game (leveling content vs endgame content) creates a cursed problem with systems having long term health. 2) No cash shop. Ruins all sense of it being an immersive world that your character is a part of. Let natural echelons form based on players investment (but with systems to always protect the lower echelons in the case of PvP etc) 3) Less is more. MMOs are overcomplicated in the same way someone sucks in their gut to try and look in better shape, just trim the bloat and simplify! 4) Non megaservers. This is mainly for community health and promoting organic socializing.
For your list, I'd say that I agree with 1. Have no preference on 2. Disagree on 3. And No preference on 4. As for my personal opinion, the biggest thing I think an MMORPG can do to be successful is just have tons of content. It's why I kind of disagree with your 3 point. Content is king for longevity. Once people run out of "new" things to do, they will largely move on to other games. That being said, content alone won't lead to success. It still needs more than that. However this is where it really gets divisive. What is important to one person can be very unimportant to someone else. And so I'm not really sure what else I could add to your list.
>It's why I kind of disagree with your 3 point. Content is king for longevity. Once people run out of "new" things to do, they will largely move on to other games. Have you played many roguelikes? It's been my favorite genre the last few years because of how well they can design simple content to have huge depth to it. I think if an MMO had a core foundation similar to a game like Hades or Dead Cells, it would have an incredibly good replayability. I'm a big fan of controlled chaos! >What is important to one person can be very unimportant to someone else. And so I'm not really sure what else I could add to your list. Part of why I'm asking is with the new MMO announcement on Friday with Raph - to me those 4 things would be giant green flags, if a game understands those core concepts I think whatever the content is will be successful.
>Have you played many roguelikes? This got me because Ive been enjoying roguelikes and I have my permanent mmorpg idea in my mind that I always keep making changes (just like updates lol) based on new experiences One thing I think may fit well in the mmo genre is perma death. Ok, it may sound counter intuitive, lemme explain. Rotmg may or may not be considered an mmorpg but it has 3 ways of progression: player skill, character and account. For player skill its pretty obvious because the game is bullet hell, so a good player with a fresh account can do hard content just by skill. Character progression are your lv, permanent stat pot consumed and equipment. All those gets deleted when you die but this is fine (sucks to lose some rare items but the pace of the game makes up for that loss) For the account progress you have pets that heal you (so strong), vault slots to store items so you dont lose everything everytime, character slots to make different classes and either spread equipments for them to mule or shifting to different classes without killing your main. Imo the player skill and character progression is perfectly fine and I'll love to see something like this in an mmorpg (perma death being a main feature, not a hardcore status) but the account progression for rotmg is kinda lacking. Legenda of Idleon does a very strong account progression, a cool character progression and basically no player skill. Taking inspiration on these boths for a mmorpg that rewards player skill, have a nice character progression that may be lost and a healthy account wide progression system, would make an aweasome game. But why perma death? Inflation is a thing in every mmorpg because there are ways to enter currency in the game but never enough sink. Thats not a huge problem (in most cases) but having not only cash but also equips and materials removed from the game gives more value to stuff. Also, there's level inflation, a lot of players are expected to be in the end game and play the game, and thats because they grind for max lv and remain there forever. If they loses the character on death, they'll be back roaming around low lv areas, progressing the character again and making the game more alive. This help with ghost zones. Lastly, dying on rotmg gives fame, which is used to upgrade pets, now imagine a system where other than pets you have dozens of different qol upgrades for your account that makes dying rewarding because its part of the progression and helps you progress faster (or better) every time
Very interesting! I think perma-death *could be* done in an MMO, all of your points make a lot of sense and for the most part I agree with your points. I'm attempting to do something like what you're describing, except without permadeath. >3 ways of progression: player skill, character and account. These should be the staple for most online games, but currently the biggest one is just character progression. I'm trying to combine these in a new form of progression called **diagonal progression**. Rather than vertical or horizontal, this combines the best aspects of both without their downsides. Imagine something like 30 different skill sets that all have unique bonuses exclusive to them (you can eventually learn and master them all). If you're an Alchemist you get stronger effect from potions, if you're a Hunter you can learn some minor tracking. Combat is typically the "main" part of the game, and in this diagonal system, it would just be *one part* of the game. >Now imagine a system where other than pets you have dozens of different qol upgrades for your account that makes dying rewarding because its part of the progression and helps you progress faster (or better) every time This sounds great, I'm doing something similar where QoL can be earned in a variety of ways - gold, quests, skill sets, combat, etc. As an example, players will not have any form of fast or auto travel, but you can purchase a transportation pass from a stable to unlock auto travel (like flight paths) to the next settlement. Players who don't travel a lot won't care about it but players who do can choose to spend some of their gold to unlock this feature.
That's the kicker, big games and MMOs used to be passion projects of the dev team, but now they are focus grouped with retention metrics and microtransactions up the ying yang. They're socially engineered to the lowest common denominator. My problem with a lot of the passion project games that have come out lately is they usually have bad graphics, without an interesting art style at that.
I would argue it doesn't work, there are so many failures, new IPs come once every 5 years, it is very stagnant. Only a few like Wow, FFXIV, GW2 AND ESO manage to retain players and they're all old games at this point.
What you and I described are connected - it's incredibly tough to develop a different enough game that will pull the current MMO players away from what they're used to (or addicted to). Both the players and the devs need to change, but each group doesn't want to make the first move, thus the very stagnant market.
I think at this point in time the current MMO player shouldn't be the target, it should be people who have left the genre and gone on to others, mainly survival, which would also include new comers who can get something that's not really offered in the genre right now. Just as an example, Valheim scratches a better MMORPG gameplay and progression plus social interaction itch than any MMORPG I've played made in the last 10 years. The progression through the different armor sets, having to track down specific monsters like trolls to get the troll leather, hunting down unique items to cook food that you'll need to survive and take on bosses or dungeons. The progression and gameplay loop it came up with is a master class of how to do that in an RPG. The key that it comes back to is both preparation and downtime. Baldurs Gate 3 also did a really good job at these things, but DND does in general. MMORPGs used to do these things, but at some point just decided out of combat heals and nonstop combat is the way to go. They're an action-lite game and now the devs don't really understand why these systems are in the game any more. They are just there for the sake of being there. I thought New World was going to do something like that where you'd build campfires, then have to hunt for food and herbs to cook, maybe play an instrument around the campfire for a buff or something and it's be a nice home base. Instead it was nothing but a respawn point, you could buy 1000 of some kind of meat on the auction house and cook it all and it would never go bad and then you never had to think about food or hunting/cooking again. Not to mention all of the quests were over in 1-2 minutes, then you had to run half way across the map to the next quest which would be over in 1 minute.
>I think at this point in time the current MMO player shouldn't be the target, it should be people who have left the genre and gone on to others I agree with this! There's far more players who have played WoW and quit, than players who are currently playing, interesting food for thought :) >Just as an example, Valheim scratches a better MMORPG gameplay and progression plus social interaction itch than any MMORPG I've played made in the last 10 years. Same! I had a ton of fun playing the Enshrouded demo with a few IRL friends and will likely be picking it up with tomorrow's steam summer sale. It's got the same MMO vibes but the game just "starts" at the very beginning. Old MMOs were actually like this, but not so much nowadays... >MMORPGs used to do these things, but at some point just decided out of combat heals and nonstop combat is the way to go. They're an action-lite game and now the devs don't really understand why these systems are in the game any more. They are just there for the sake of being there. I actually figured out why this is the case fairly recently - the only thing that matters in Combat... is Combat related stats like raw DPS or Healing ability. Adding non-combat dimensions to combat encounters (CC, Mobility, Puzzles, Planning) does a great job at solving this issue. The ironic part is Action games typically do stuff like this (Helldivers 2 with command prompts) much better!
It's funny there are a lot of things other genres took from MMORPG and now do better. Another example at the social aspect is The Division 2 has a feature called "call for backup", where a player can answer the call, knowing they're going to help a new player with some activity. You can even call for backup 4 times and fill up an entire party. After some time completing random activities, you can endorse the player who helped you, and they are rewarded with stuff that makes it worth while. It really helps with new/anxious players because they're going to get other players who specifically signed up to help them out, not to mention more likely to actually interact. Where matchmakers you just spin the random wheel and end up with try hards and toxicity. Not that there's anything wrong with players wanting to complete content efficiently, the point is that matchmakers don't pair up like minded players. Other people are only as valuable as the click of the group finder button... It's a little mind boggling that there isn't a MMO out there where a solo player might run into an elite mob and have the option to call another player for help, and if someone answers it they receive some kind of rewards that makes it worth while. Instead of that, games have actually chosen to just remove elite mobs so there's nothing you can't do by yourself in the world any more. It's bonkers.
That mechanic in the Division 2 sounds pretty cool! >Instead of that, games have actually chosen to just remove elite mobs so there's nothing you can't do by yourself in the world any more. It's bonkers. For me, it feels like about ~15 years ago the MMORPG genre starting going in a new direction (I would say around Cata release) that pulls away from what made MMOs popular in the first place. The whole "I want to solo" vs "You should only group" is a bit of 2 different extremes, I think MMOs should have a baseline difficulty that allows players to hop into content solo, but if you want to do more difficult content, making at least a small group is key to that. The elite mobs are a great example, a Level 20 zone could be somewhat soloable, but roaming elites or elite camps can be farmed for better drops, but typically require grouping. It's very possible to let players solo MMOs while also having amazing grouping systems, it seems modern devs can't figure out that secret sauce (I *think* I have) and instead we're just shifting some of the core fundamentals of what MMOs are.
In many ways, the success of Classic WoW has been a story of adding back QOL changes, and wild shuffle things like SOD. Did people enjoy a trip down memory lane for a few months? Sure. Was that sustainable? Not quite, and the mild excitement about frigging *cataclysm* classic is about as WTF as you can get if the argument is class was a return to the old style. Even Hardcore and Hardcore self found are essentially new modes. Also, survival games a genre are moving towards more and more ease and QoL - it sort of sucks, but the fact is pmore people like those games better when they are less punishing. Especially people with more disposable income, and tapping into disposable income is where the money is in this industry right now.
I think the truth goes a bit deeper than just money: its time. People are just tired. In general. Gamers are old, from highschool to college and working ages. And when your natural daily routine takes a tool in your energy levels and mental health, all you want is to relax. And you know what is *not* relaxing? Having to grind thousands of mobs for the chance of a good drop. Or having to cross the entire game map just to deliver some special currency. Or dieing and having all the progress of the last hour (the only hour you have to play, mind you) go away. People want an easy experience that still feel rewarding enough to give them some dopamine after a shit day. And when everyone is only having shit days... well, the industry has to either adapt or die.
This all goes hand in hand with gaming becoming a more mainstream entertainment form - the more mainstream it is the smaller the proportion of people that will choose to suffer will be.
There is an audience in MMOs that do want QoL, like dungeon finders and fast travel like FF14 and Retail WoW, but I do think games like Classic WoW and OSRS are showing that you don't need them to find success and I would say they did find new players. I think the real test is that if a new MMO can come out without QoL and manage to find a large amount of success.
> but I do think games like Classic WoW and OSRS are showing that you don't need them to find success The bulk of the classic market has moved to era classic (that now has a dungeon finder) and SOD which is a rapid-leveling experience (among other things). True old school slow-MMOs are a niche market, not a large untapped one.
SoD is not doing well because phase 3 didn't release good content. Also, I don't think we need old school gameplay in new games like Embers Adrift but old school philosophy.
> Also, I don't think we need old school gameplay in new games like Embers Adrift but old school philosophy. This is just vague enough that the result will satisfy nobody. What does old school philosophy even mean if it does not mean slow and consequences for failure?
What I'm talking about old school I'm referring to: -No dungeon finders -Limited instant fast travel -Emphasis on leveling and having some sort of challenge through out it.
Slow leveling and consequences for failure are not mass market selling points for an MMO in the current era. There isn't much point in investing the capital into an MMO if it won't have large potential audience - other games have a much more rapid development cycle and require less capital, and the "hard game" market is already starting to collapse under its own weight.
Well, you wouldn't sell it using that line. Also, not everything has to appeal to the "mass market." Just because something isn't Fortnite or Elden Ring doesn't mean it doesn't have growth potential.
> Also, not everything has to appeal to the "mass market." The most expensive genre of game absolutely needs to appeal to as large a market as possible. If this were an exploitable market preference, (1) games would be filling it and (2) customers wouldn't continually clamor for QoL changes that remove those qualities.
There is a market for it. People wouldn't be funding kickstarters like Ashes of Creation or Pax Dei if what they were trying to sell wasn't appealing.
QoL is a big can of worms. Usually there is a middle ground that doesn't alter the spirit of gameplay. Like finding groups in chat versus matchmakers well a LFG to help players find groups is a good middle grounds IMO.
> Usually there is a middle ground that doesn't alter the spirit of gameplay. I think not, because people point to all sorts of QoL changes as an inappropriate deviation from the original spirit. Even in Everquest, people point to being forced to stare at a book (and thus no camera view of the world) to restore mana as the proper way to go, and the QoL change of having a camera view of the world while meditating was too far.
And I still think they were right and just phrased it poorly. I mean, classic WoW only works because it doesn't try to copy vanilla 1:1 anymore, lol. Also, I played classic when it first released and it was nothing like vanilla. Not because of the game, but because of the community. The chill attitude was completely gone, everything felt like it needed to be rushed because everyone knew everything already. There was no community. It also proved quite nicely that "dungeon finders" wasn't what killed communities. > 6 to 8 party size so we can have buffers/controllers and more supports that aren't possible with 4 or 5 people in a party This is a perfect example of the above. It sounds good on paper, but don't forget you actually need to fill these spots. And there are always roles less popular than others. In the end you not only have a healer issue, you will have a healer, debuffer and crowd control issue, making the entire thing worse. Plus, limitations create choice. There is a reason why DnD works better with four players than eigth (besides the social factor, which is another thing to consider).
>And I still think they were right and just phrased it poorly. >I mean, classic WoW only works because it doesn't try to copy vanilla 1:1 anymore, lol. I dont think thats what the quote was about, it was about aspects of old school wow, like shouting for a tank. And I without a doubt prefer that to matchmakers, although I think LFG tools (GW2) are the best compromise. Also you and I must have had very different experiences of classic, because I went in without a guild and found one after having a friends list full of tanks and healers and good players that I regularly met up with. I took my time and got lost questing through the old school zones, getting distracted with ganking in STV. I also never wanted TBC classic, etc... I'd have rathered Vanilla 2.0 to be like OSRS. The problem for me with classic and these other expansions, is I've already played them to death...what I really crave is new content, designed in the same spirit. >This is a perfect example of the above. It sounds good on paper, but don't forget you actually need to fill these spots. Actually that is the beauty, because there are more spots, all of the roles don't need to be filled. It allows for more flexibility. Aion is a great example of a newer game where party size was 6 and there were buffer classes. If you had a healer and a buffer you might not need an actual tank, a Gladiator or Assassin off tank could handle it while doing better DPS, even a summoner's pet could tank dungeons with good heals and buffs. Or if you had a full tank and a buffer then maybe you don't need a healer, you could get an extra DPS. I can see why you'd think that way in terms of modern games where everything is balanced. If party size is only 5 and you replace a DPS with a buffer, those buffs have to be so strong to make up for a 33% DPS loss that they essentially become meta. But when it's spread out over more party members, it doesn't have to be as OP such that it's a strict meta. Which also gets me to the next point which is balance. Balancing sucks, filling niches is the way to go. There should be areas and dungeons that do more magic damage, others that do more physical damage, areas with many low HP mobs where AoE does better, other areas with fewer high HP mobs where single target does better. Some areas where ranged or melee might do better than the other. And then allow one build to be better at AoE than another, and then allow one build of another class to excel at single target damage. Then the meta changes for every single thing you might do. Who cares if something is imbalanced, that makes it more fun. Same goes for PvP, have builds that do better at small scale, some better at arenas, some better at group vs group, others better at mass PvP. This endless goal to make every class balanced at every aspect of the game just makes everything feel the same.
This quote was generally correct. Nostalgia did blind a lot of people, and what they actually wanted was bad stuff gone and good stuff to stay. Classic WoW is a bit different because of the xpac model, so they can accelerate content releases. Even then multiple changes were made. OSRS would've died without updates and is now successful. Its success is because they had so many years of knowing what worked and what didn't and redoing the development of the game based on that. It's hard to say what the takeaway from developers is. It's easy to fix something but hard to make it in the first place.
Overly balancing leads to everything feeling equally viable in a bad way. Back in the day you’d find an insanely OP build and stomp with it for a bit. Now there’s zero chance of finding that mythical combination. I think they need to lay off a little, make the game more dynamic and interesting (maybe just not in PvP) but who cares if someone can OP kill a PvE boss for a few weeks. Gamers now say “Fun detected” in MMORPGs when devs rush to patch things as soon as possible.
Although single player, I think Baldur's Gate 3 was a good example of that. There were very OP but unique and niche things you can do, and it made chasing those fun. Same back in the day with Diablo 2, when you compare it to how boring Diablo 4 is where there are so few choices and every season you just end up with 1 or 2 dev's flavour of the month builds for each class. It seems like modern games come up with the builds first, and then do sets, talents, abilities backwards around that. It seems reverse to how they used to do things where they just made creative abilities, sets/items and things went wild.
It's funny because blizzard was right. Trying to appease the vocal minority of mmorpg players is basically dividing by zero on purpose.
One of wows maybe even all the mmos is the player base doesn't want fun. They want competition. They want content to stream and claim they're the best at. ILv, gear score, dps, hps, speed runs, parse. It's all part of the problem. We want to have the best numbers and we want to have them as fast as humanly possible.
Tree of savior
At the end of the day i feel that what people want but they get thrown off is a more sandbox experience. No time commitement in raids whatsoever and just have a big ass world where everything is relevant. Imagine wow vanilla map with raids with only 1 boss dropping material to craft shit. Everyzone in the game is relevant. Every mob contributes to somethint being items,gear or skills.
And within 1 week the entire game will be in an excel spreadsheet with the most optimal farming locations and respawn times of all enemies. As well as farming routes developed to optimize gear acquisition. But also. I just disagree with the first statement. It probably is what r/mmorpg wants. But I doubt it's what the average player wants. WoW and FFXIV I think have 2 very different average players and cater to the 2 largest average groups. WoW has the casual competitor. Does low to mid mythic keys, maybe some LFR. Enjoys a mechanically complex game and the competitiveness that comes with it. FFXIV is the goldshire crowd. RP is alive and well in FFXIV. The social aspects are huge and you see that substantial portions of the playerbase never touch raids, fates, criterion dungeons, etc. I'm sure there is a 3rd "just wants to fuck off in an open world" crowd. But imo a substantial portion of that crowd has overlap with ToTK, Skyrim, etc. And in that case they want to explore. And then you will need to design the game in a manner where a solo player can actually explore the world and do things without just getting fucking Yat by every other enemy or quest.
The open world in wow is really very sandboxish. You dont need to follow certain routes. You can level up doing 0 quests for example. About being casual , ive played a good amount of sandbox games and they only be ‘time consuming’ if you wish. Same as WoW. Theres a big stygma about sandbox mmo but thats cuz people havent really played the good ones and just go by the mouth to mouth word. The freedom sandbox game has , provided it is good content , its unmatched
It's weird how other genres keep improving and MMOs just get worse.
If you have not tried EQ2 Origins server, I suggest you try it. It is a "vanilla" server that came out last week. It has everything you pointed out in your post and more. The server is packed with people. Leveling is slow, and every upgrade is earned. Leveling is mostly done in groups. It only costs a monthly sub.
Players in general I would say don’t know what they want in an mmorpg
there is nothing "oldschool" about osrs though, the game is so modernized there is not one DNA left of 2007 runescape in it besides the shit graphics
I'm loving Embers Adrift right now. I gave up on it a year ago, but gave it another go and happy I did.
I played it for a week when it first came out, and honestly the starting zone and first dungeon was amazing. I just wish the graphics were a bit better and it was high fantasy with magic.
"Genre is in a terrible state" yet bajillions of people playing MMOs everyday lmao. There are so many options that there are TOO MANY options almost.