MMO: How do you level?

Personally, I believe that once you have dungeon-finder style lobbying in place, the world simply doesn't matter and probably can't be made to matter to the majority of people who like the LFG system you have built. You've created an entirely different game, no different from the lobby-based match games we've had for years. You've also neatly segregated your player base. You'll have people that run around doing quests because they like it, and you'll have people slamming the LFG queues and sitting on their glowy mounts in Org in the meantime; and rarely shall the twain ever meet. I don't like Blizzard's cross-realm LFG; it's sins are, to me, especially egregious. It's tantamount to ripping the living soul out of a server. In my opinion, the guild perks were band-aid fixes to the problem of people not knowing each other on their home servers, and not caring to know each other. I think that if you're going to go ahead and design a game around an LFG system, then it is pointless to also set it in a large, rich, and open world. Just my two cents.

Personally, I believe that once you have dungeon-finder style lobbying in place, the world simply doesn't matter and probably can't be made to matter to the majority of people who like the LFG system you have built. You've created an entirely different game, no different from the lobby-based match games we've had for years. You've also neatly segregated your player base. You'll have people that run around doing quests because they like it, and you'll have people slamming the LFG queues and sitting on their glowy mounts in Org in the meantime; and rarely shall the twain ever meet. I don't like Blizzard's cross-realm LFG; it's sins are, to me, especially egregious. It's tantamount to ripping the living soul out of a server. In my opinion, the guild perks were band-aid fixes to the problem of people not knowing each other on their home servers, and not caring to know each other. I think that if you're going to go ahead and design a game around an LFG system, then it is pointless to also set it in a large, rich, and open world. Just my two cents.

I completely disagree with this, but I want to focus on the bolded part because that's more on the side of fact and philosophy, less just opinion due to the fact that I personally like solo questing and only run dungeons if it's quick and easy to find a group and get to the dungeon. But it's true that in general people don't care to know each other. I don't understand why some game designers are completely unwilling to let people not know each other if that's what people want to do. It's NOT an MMO designer's job to try to force people to get to know each other. A game should let players do what they find fun and not do what they don't find fun, or it's failing at the most essential part of being a game. If a designer wants to encourage group play, making it convenient is the approach likely to please the most people and offend the least people.

Although I'm not a very social person, I can enjoy making friends if it's a natural and convenient process within the game. For example I like doing my own thing next to someone else who is doing the same thing so we can chat about it or maybe study the other's technique. I like chatting on regional or global chat channels, but no enough to spend cash items to do so. I'd be more interested in guilds if they were more set up to facilitate crafting and trade or it was easier to find a guild that shared a common interest outside the game. I enjoy in-game social activities like mount parades, fireworks shows, and costume balls. But I hate required multiplayer content. I don't like being begged by lower level people to help them with obnoxious things that are too hard for them to do on their own, and I like even less being put in the position where I can't accomplish something that really interests me without help, especially if it takes a substantial investment on the part of the person helping me because it's not something they want to do for their own reasons.

Back to the OP's question, the world matters to me because of the story and atmospheric landscape, developing relationships with specific NPCs, and developing a relationship with a faction (and a nemesis relationship with that faction's enemies).

How do you level in an MMO? Whatever way is available to me at that time and I enjoy doing. This can mean questing, group content or PvP. I even spent a lot of time simply grinding earlier in my MMOG career. I have tried levelling solely through the LFG system and it is bloody awful. The limited number of dungeons per level leads to even faster grinding fatigue than questing does.

As for the LFG system, I agree with FLeBlanc in some respects. I think the system, the way it is implemented within WoW, is awful and fosters a drop in drop out attitude with little care for others. This can largely be traced to it being cross realm and through that bringing about the classic "Anonymous on the Internet" attitude of players using it. Having it limited to the player's server would solve this somewhat but then you face the problems of large wait times. That will probably not be resolved until games have a single server or servers with a much bigger population. Rift uses a single server LFG system and it works well apart from the wait times making it unusable at low levels. Even when implemented in such a way there are still negative implications, I know of an example where a player joined the LFG system only to find themselves put into a group consisting entirely of their own guild, this basically meant that 5 people where online all wanting to do an instance but not one thought of trying to ask in their own guild. Although this is a minor issue and frankly speaks more of that particular guild than anything is still shows there is a negative side to this system even if it is implemented so conservatively.

One personal issue I have with the system is the "easing" of content because of it. By this I mean making a dungeon easier simply because developers expect a random group not to function as a group. This to me is lunacy, instead of trying to get player to work together at a group task they only continue to foster the attitudes currently found in the LFG system. Gameplay should not be dictated by what was initially a system to stop the repetitive chat spamming that used to go on.

I do agree with Sun that you should not be required to do multiplayer content while generally playing but in an MMOG I think there is a point where you have to draw the line and say you need other to experience X content. It is somewhat on the developers to try and foster a good group atmosphere in these situations and at least with WoW's LFG I don't think they are.

How do you design an MMO assuming you have a dungeon finder system in place? Still pout focus on exploring/finding or even completing the dungeons before having access such a feature, implement it well into the game itself instead of just a GUI feature and having it on a single server. I would honestly implement it simply as a way for people to find groups without having to manually spam chat instead of some guaranteed way to level though only dungeons.

The introduction of a sidekick system could work but, in a similar way to Sun, I hate feeling a responsibility to boost other players. Putting in bonuses may resolve this but that would require an awful lot of thought and balancing to hit a sweet spot. Additionally, as I may have said before in another thread, it's easy to ruin a player sense of power gain if you constantly boost them up to a higher level.

[font="Times New Roman"]It is pretty obvious that WOW was not designed from the ground up with this system in mind. My hope was to talk about how a new game could be designed with this system in mind.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]I agree that ideally you have everyone on one server. IMO the thing that is problematic is having to break people apart as is. You have a million people playing but they are all in small blocks. Once you account for a mature game and 90 levels and two realms the players become really spread out.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]Crossing servers is an imperfect solution but it works. Ideally you don’t have to resort to it but that means other changes.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]As for the lack of people being social, obviously they are being more social if they are going from doing quests solo to doing dungeon runs with a group. Of course people will drop in and drop out without talking. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]I agree that there is not enough dungeons in WOW to support the system. When WOW was created the effort was clearly put into solo quests. The world was even designed around solo quests. If a game is designed with this in mind then there can be a lot more dungeons and less quests. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]I think questing should be about a personal story that unfolds for the character which should be catered to the character. So instancing might be the ideal way to provide this content. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman"]I think that this system can be used for more than just instanced dungeons. The entire world should be designed around the idea of players tagging themselves as lfg and porting them to where they need to be to do group content. Obviously instanced content will still be used but it doesn’t have to be the only content that is part of the dungeon finder. [/font]

As for the lack of people being social, obviously they are being more social if they are going from doing quests solo to doing dungeon runs with a group. Of course people will drop in and drop out without talking.[/quote]
No, the problem is that the LFG system is designed to isolate people, to prevent them from bonding in the social arrangements that ""alienate"" the playerbase the system is designed to reach. There's no real safeguards against getting stuck with griefers and, more importantly, there's no way to socially bond with most people you encounter in the queue - once the run is over, you go back to your separate servers and likely never see each other again. While the cross-realm friends-list invite (which they decided to make free, iirc?) is designed to somewhat counter this, the fact is the system is still heavily slanted toward individualism and actively prevents social contacts in order to keep the pool of players large.

The entire system is predicated on using greed to alleviate players' inhibitions regarding who they'll play with. Which is the point: players aren't being social, they're being greedy. As a side effect, the incentives to join have to keep rising and, per tier, eventually flatten out to where players no longer do so. This is why the system is frustrating for the first week after an initial dungeon content release (all the good players are grouping amongst themselves, leaving the middle tier who solely use the LFG with no social structure to fall back on) and is still largely ineffective at combating end-of-tier/expansion apathy (when all players have no interest).

I agree that there is not enough dungeons in WOW to support the system. When WOW was created the effort was clearly put into solo quests. The world was even designed around solo quests. If a game is designed with this in mind then there can be a lot more dungeons and less quests.[/quote]
Er, no. Vanilla (and BC) WoW *insert sigh of nostalgia here* had a significant portion of quests (at all levels) given over to required group quests (unless you were a Hunter or a Warlock, but that's beside the point). While it is certainly true that one of the aims was to encourage solo play, it would be disingenious to suggest that Vanilla and BC WoW were more solo friendly than Wrath of the Lich King or Cataclysm. Vanilla WoW was "solo friendly" in the same way a bear infested forest is "solo hiker friendly". You can do it alone, if you feel like it, but it's much more fun - and far more safe - to hike with a friend or three. The biggest design change from other MMOs was that in WoW the bears didn't actively seek you out and weren't, as a general rule, ridiculously powerful to the point of frustration. That said, even today, top-tiered content is still designed around the assumption of group-play.

Also, the entire point of the world in Vanilla was to be large and explorable. Which is what the game mechanics at the time encouraged.

I think questing should be about a personal story that unfolds for the character which should be catered to the character. [/quote]
Guild Wars 2 aims to do this.

I think that this system can be used for more than just instanced dungeons. The entire world should be designed around the idea of players tagging themselves as lfg and porting them to where they need to be to do group content. Obviously instanced content will still be used but it doesn’t have to be the only content that is part of the dungeon finder.[/quote]
Pretty sure Warhammer did something similar with their questing system (or whatever it is they called it).

My hope was to talk about how a new game could be designed with this system in mind.[/quote]
Plenty of reasonable ways to go about it. The biggest consideration, I think, is to design your dungeons (and your world at large) to be fulfilling. WoW's LFG has morphed into an end in itself, which is unfortunate as even the better looking dungeons are simply glossed over in the interest of loot and badges. When you have to continually bribe players to participate in your content, something is wrong.

I agree with most of your points Kyan. The main point I don't agree on is that the LFG system was designed for the reasons you say, instead I think they are just the negative side effects of the way it has been implemented. I do think that as time has gone on the LFG system has been used with other systems (daily/weekly dungeons) to create a system to strong arm players into playing the game longer but that is more of a bastardization of a system that initially (from what I know) was meant to make players lives a bit easier.

I guess the question would be "Was it needed in the first place?" and to be honest my answer would be no. The act of going to a dungeon after gathering a party (of your mates or just random people on the server) compounded the idea that you were in a world and not just a game, something I feel a lot of MMOGs miss the mark on. Issues such as long wait times getting groups together and the like could have been solved by other means.

I think that this system can be used for more than just instanced dungeons. The entire world should be designed around the idea of players tagging themselves as lfg and porting them to where they need to be to do group content. Obviously instanced content will still be used but it doesn't have to be the only content that is part of the dungeon finder.[/quote]

Instancing is the scourge of the modern MMOG (outside of dungeons since I have yet to see an alternative that provides the same experience). It is simply a band-aid for developers to make personal experiences easier to create while also providing an easy way for them to overcome server limitations. Couple that with porting, which again is a bad idea since it removes the need for having an open and persistent world in the first place, and you may as well make a game similar to the original Guild Wars or even World of Tanks. Now those are good multi-player games in themselves but they are most defiantly not MMOGs.

Personal quests are fine to an extent, but not if they start to remove the multi-player aspects of MMOGs. There is in fact no reason for such content to be instanced or located in a dungeon for the most part. To be honest one of my pet hates in MMOGs is that they try and make you feel "special", I get that enough in single-player games. In my view an MMOG shouldn't be making you feel special but merely giving you the tools to make yourself special. In games like Rift and Aion the fact my character is either some demi-god or immortal does nothing but make the situation feel forced, I would much rather be just another adventurer helping people out who through hard work and commitment is one of those few who slew a boss in the final dungeon.

Pretty sure Warhammer did something similar with their questing system (or whatever it is they called it).[/quote]

They are called Public Quests and apart from the fact they reset to stage 1 after you complete ruining any sense of achievement they weren't that bad. Guild Wars 2 seems to be refining the system to be more organic.




EDIT: I probably should add that the LFG automated system was in place long before patch 3.3. It came in the form of meeting stones and innkeepers in patch 1.3/1.5 although it was severely underused from my own experience it avoided the majority of issues that are now found with the current version. With this you could argue that WoW was designed with a LFG system in mind from the start/near start albeit one that was more involved than a simple GUI feature.

I agree with most of your points Kyan. The main point I don't agree on is that the LFG system was designed for the reasons you say, instead I think they are just the negative side effects of the way it has been implemented. I do think that as time has gone on the LFG system has been used with other systems (daily/weekly dungeons) to create a system to strong arm players into playing the game longer but that is more of a bastardization of a system that initially (from what I know) was meant to make players lives a bit easier.[/quote]
Absolutely, sir, and I'm not implying that the LFG system was initially created to be this evil, horrible force. I was around in Vanilla (as a Warlock, no less) and I can attest to the quality of life improvements that the LFG brought. Yes, even at the cost of the Looking for Group world channel.

For the record, the only reason I launched into that particular tirade was because the OP seemed to be referring to the current implementation. That said, I think you've hit on the important distinction several times - the current LFG (3.3+) is completely different than the old one. Which, in my mind, is a point worth remarking upon: it went from a grouping tool to an end in and of itself. I would agree that perhaps they did not forsee the [3.3] system becoming as skewed as it has, but one would be naive to think that the intent [to destroy the playerbase's social structure in the interest of forced longevity] wasn't there.

EDIT: I probably should add that the LFG automated system was in place long before patch 3.3. It came in the form of meeting stones and innkeepers in patch 1.3/1.5 although it was severely underused from my own experience it avoided the majority of issues that are now found with the current version. With this you could argue that WoW was designed with a LFG system in mind from the start/near start albeit one that was more involved than a simple GUI feature.[/quote]
Certainly. Most games that feature group combat are, broadly speaking.

They are called Public Quests and apart from the fact they reset to stage 1 after you complete ruining any sense of achievement they weren't that bad.[/quote]
Ah, appreciate the information. I only played the beta for a little bit. Was not a fan of the game itself, but the concept was interesting.

Guild Wars 2 seems to be refining the system to be more organic.[/quote]
Aye! I can't decide if I should get my hopes up or just assume it'll be mediocre so I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Guild Wars 2 seems to be refining the system to be more organic.

Aye! I can't decide if I should get my hopes up or just assume it'll be mediocre so I'll be pleasantly surprised.
[/quote]
Well there's a couple of videos from EuroGamer Expo ( Part 1 / Part 2 if you haven't seen them) that details it along with some other general elements of story/character development. Interesting enough quest chains (or event chains depending on how you view them) involve some sort of team play but they don't require the players to be in parties or raids. Almost like they want to push people towards working as a team but don't require you to constantly group with random players. Will be interesting if they intent it to be like this, RIFT did something similar with their event system but had to implement public groups soon after launch.

MMOs are first a foremost about advancement. This is just how they work. Whether you are talking solo questing or camping mobs or dungeon crawls the behavior of the group is based on the incentives in place. Change the incentives and you change the behavior.

I will disagree with the idea that Vanilla and BC WOW was not solo friendly. Obviously end game is different. The vast majority of content in the game was for solo players. Even crafting was built around solo play.

Instancing is not going anywhere. You can try and take the high road and make a game without it but that doesn’t mean you will make a better game. If you can design a game that is good without it then say how you are going to do it. Otherwise it is just a false hope IMO. Just because instancing is used that doesn’t mean the game is like Guild Wars. That is hyperbole.

The reason why single player questing would be instanced is because you don’t want it to be based on the character’s level. One of the major problems with mixing solo quests with dungeons is when players outlevel the solo quests. Another reason is because the world itself will not have to be designed around solo questing like the WOW world is. Instead the world is specifically designed with groups in mind. This allows for a vastly different approach to world design.

The system that Warhammer had with public group quests is not really what I had in mind but then again Warhammer is another example of a game where the world is mostly built with the assumption that people will be walking around solo looking for content.

WOW was clearly not designed assuming that players will just click "lfg" and run dungeons from level 15 to 85. The clear assumption is that classes are built around solo play and the classes and the content was made more and more solo friendly as time passed. The key aspect of the current system is that it finds groups fast enough.

Being social in an MMO is usually the result of limiting solo play options. For leveling this just isn't a serious option in the modern MMO market.

I have been talking in the abstract but I will try and create a quick blueprint of what a game may look like with content built around a lfg system. I will use WOW as a starting point and assume the game is catering to a the same audience as WOW. Also assuming a class based game with tank, healer, dps(trinity) gameplay.

Starting areas. Mostly the same. Throw in some instances that have the player run dungeons with non player characters who fill the roles of the trinity.

Choosing a specialization: Make it so that players have to unlock and develop each specialization. The basis of this development will be independent on the level of the character. So the way this could work is if the player chooses to be a Warrior and then has to choose between the tank specialization or the DPS specialization. If they choose tank then they have to complete the tank specialization development process. At some later point they can choose to develop the DPS specialization which involves its own quest lines.

So the specialization quests would need to be independent of level or flexible enough to adapt to the level of the character.

Instead of hoping from solo quest area to solo quest are the player has dungeons to choose from based on their level and what they have unlocked. This is where the lfg system comes in and where the majority of the content is built around.

So the player wanders out of the elvish starting area with their first specialization chosen. The dungeons available and the content available will be based on their level and the locations they have unlocked. So if they want to run the dwarf content they would have to walk there or there can be specific content that creates a group based on the trek from the elvish starting area to the dwarf one. This can be in the real world.

Once they reach the new area they can run content that is linked to either area. This content can be in the world or instanced. There can also be specialized content that involves an NPC in the non instanced world so that other players are not just zerging the non instanced content.

A player they is say a ranger or a rogue may have the ability to just sneak their way through this content or players could spontaneaously create a large group to charge through it. The worst case scenario is if a player can’t get through the content and can’t find a group. In this case I think the player could be given NPC helpers.

By making the game based on group play and not solo play you can make the world a lot more dangerous. You can still have areas and classes that can cater to solitary types but in my experience those players wouldn’t mind a more dangerous world to explore by themselves.

If you are going to rely on group content then there needs to be a lot of it and you don’t want to segregate players. The COH system of making everyone in the group the same level is a great idea IMO. In addition there should be multiple levels of difficulty for a dungeon and group content.

So one way to achieve these goals is to have dungeons and have areas that open access to a dungeon. For example there can be randomly generated cave passages that lead players to an underground city. The underground city is the typical designed dungeon but the passageways are more random. The passageways can be easier (not just lower level) than the dungeon itself.

In addition if there is going to be a lot of dungeon crawls then the enemies should be more randomized. Random content doesn’t really have to be hard. The purpose is not to just kill the player but to break things up.

So in summary, once the player logs in they can mark themselves lfg. The content they have available to them will either open up new content or complete a chain of content.

It's NOT an MMO designer's job to try to force people to get to know each other. A game should let players do what they find fun and not do what they don't find fun, or it's failing at the most essential part of being a game.

Well some MMO designers disagree with you. Some argue that it is entirely their job to get people playing together because that is the whole point of an MMO. Soloers have single player RPG's to play by themselves. In some games, soloers get in the way of everyone else, so in future games they have tried to promote grouping. Some do this with encouragement, some use punishment, some use a mixture of both, some don't care. My favourite one uses encouragement, offering XP bonuses the more people you have in the group. Solo XP is still a decent way to play, but really, everyone wants to group up together. Another game is more strict and does it by only offering good equipment from dungeons, and all dungeons have mobs that are not only more difficult, but are linked in groups to make it impossible for a soloer to even get inside.

You can of course have both, content for soloers and content for groupers, but the two things are sometimes at the detrement of each other, and you are also splitting your content in half. Some people might appreciate the freedom to do both, but if you are only interested in either grouping or soloing, then you basically have half a game because it's a game that tried to please everyone.

I would also say that in regard to the rest of your post about giving players what they want, there are some people who want the exact opposite of what you want. For example some people want to be able to help newbies and dislike game mechanics that stop them from doing this. Some people also resent solo players being able to do whatever they want, because they are putting in less effort than those who are coordinating groups/raids. I would also say that in general terms, one of the key principles of game design dating back to the very dawn of gaming, was actually NOT giving players what they want but rather deliberately withholding things. Often games would impose things on the player that were not fun, deliberately, because they knew that it is human nature to not give up when met with failure, but rather to try to overcome in the hope that you will bleed out some more fun from the game. It's this desire that "hooked" gamers.

[font="Arial"]

MMOs are first a foremost about advancement. This is just how they work. Whether you are talking solo questing or camping mobs or dungeon crawls the behaviour of the group is based on the incentives in place. Change the incentives and you change the behaviour. [/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]MMO[/font][font="Arial"]RPG[/font][font="Arial"]s are about the advancement of the players character. MMOGs in general are not about that although they will often use some sort of advancement system in the game to keep the player hooked. I am puzzled as to what you are replying to with this statement though. [/font]

[font="Arial"]

I will disagree with the idea that Vanilla and BC WOW was not solo friendly. Obviously end game is different. The vast majority of content in the game was for solo players. Even crafting was built around solo play. [/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]The vast majority of content was for group play as with most MMORPGs. The questing in place could be completed solo but it was not ideal and there was still a fair number of group based quests dotted around the world at the time. [/font]

[font="Arial"]Crafting was a very small part of the game in Vanilla and is still not that prominent now. It was designed around player interaction to some extent, players would rely on other to gather needed materials or craft specific items, again just because it could be completed solo doesn't mean it was the best/only way to do so. [/font]

[font="Arial"]

Instancing is not going anywhere. You can try and take the high road and make a game without it but that doesn’t mean you will make a better game. If you can design a game that is good without it then say how you are going to do it. Otherwise it is just a false hope IMO. Just because instancing is used that doesn’t mean the game is like Guild Wars. That is hyperbole. [/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]It may not be going anywhere but that doesn't meant it is good and excluding it/not overusing may not make a better game but I will argue it will make a better MMOG. My argument was not to remove it entirely; it is currently used for dungeons/flashpoints/instances and works well for that single purpose. It allows a group of friends to have an experience that is in-depended from the rest of the world. What I detest is its overuse outside of that. [/font]

[font="Arial"]I was also not over exaggerating. You said you wanted to combine the ability to port directly to a location "more than just instanced dungeons". If you include porting to any location in the game then the persistent world is pointless, you combine that with more instanced content then you will end up with a game very similar to Guild Wars which was not an MMORPG. That is not a bad thing, but it is not the type of game being discussed here. [/font]

[font="Arial"]

The reason why single player questing would be instanced is because you don’t want it to be based on the character’s level.One of the major problems with mixing solo quests with dungeons is when players out level the solo quests. Another reason is because the world itself will not have to be designed around solo questing like the WOW world is. Instead the world is specifically designed with groups in mind. This allows for a vastly different approach to world design. [/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]Then what is the point in the characters level? Single player content being instance has more to do with providing a personalized environment for the player to play it where they can directly affect the world (and not impact on the play of others). The problem is not that players "out level" solo quests, if that is experience by the majority of players then the pace at which people level is too fast and you may well be providing the player the quest to late. [/font]

[font="Arial"]You don't have to design a world around solo play.A lot of older MMORPG and some modern ones assume you will be in a group 90% of the time and don't have instances solo content for the player. In fact you can mix the two quite successfully, a modern example of that is SWTOR, which is surprising considering the large amount of instanced content they use. [/font]

[font="Arial"]

WOW was clearly not designed assuming that players will just click "lfg"and run dungeons from level 15 to 85. The clear assumption is that classes are built around solo play and the classes and the content was made more and more solo friendly as time passed. The key aspect of the current system is that it finds groups fast enough. [/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]It was designed with the idea of the player taking part in regular dungeon runs(not constantly but there is a reason for this); this can be seen from the distribution of quest content in Vanilla WoW. At later levels there was an inordinately small number of quests available to the player compared to earlier levels, a reason for this can be the fact designers assumed by that point player would be spending a large amount of their time in instances. [/font]

[font="Arial"]Dungeons and other instanced content is not idea for player to play more than once. Dungeons provide a very tailored and specific experience meaning they soon become tedious and boring if ran more than a couple of times (especially in a short space of time). Open world quests are resilient to this because they are out in the “living breathing world”. That alone means the player experience can vary wildly even if they are conducting the same quest, something that is very hard, if impossible,for a dungeon to provide. [/font]

[font="Arial"]Dungeons excel when coupled with other content. On their own they are only an expensive and less effective version of group quests. [/font]

[font="Arial"]

Being social in an MMO is usually the result of limiting solo play options. For levelling this just isn't a serious option in the modern MMO market.[/quote][/font]

[font="Arial"]Being social is an MMOG is because it is a massively [/font][font="Arial"]multiplayer[/font][font="Arial"] online game.MMOGs are appalling at providing a single player experience when compared to a single player game. It’s not their strongest point and not something they should strive for. Instead they should play to their strengths, to the very fact they are huge multiplayer games, and do things that single player games are just not capable of doing. [/font]

[font="Arial"]Singleplayer content should be in a MMOG to provide the player something to do when they can’t/don’t want to play with others. It should not remove the player from the world and it should in no way negatively affect the multiplayer aspect of the game. If you want a single player experience with some multiplayer elements then make a multiplayer RPG like Diablo 2/3 don’t make an MMOG. [/font]

[font="Arial"]Including single player content in an MMOG also has the effect of messing with the perceptions of the player. Spend half the time making them feel like special snowflakes and they will develop a very single player attitude to the game. To then plonk them into a multiplayer environment can cause some awful behaviour as well as downright confusing the player. If you want an example look at AoC’s first 20 levels at launch.[/font]


[font="Arial"]PS: there have been some issues with transferring this from Word to the forums meaning some words are stuck together. I have tried to fix what I can find but there may still be a few example in the text so sorry in advance. [/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"]PSS: Microscope goes into some more detail/makes similar points as I do in the last section of my reply from what I can see. That was not trying to double post, I had just not read his reply when I created this one. [/font]

I thought I should also post this reply that someone at Funcom did then asked about not having a dungeon finder in their game:

Bruusgaard: A quick comment on not having a dungeon finder. We will have a matchmaking system, but it won’t be in the form of a dungeon finder. That’s too impersonal, just throwing you into a group where you never say ‘hi’. I don’t like that at all. But we will provide tools for a player to find a group, but it’s up to them to get to the dungeon, which they can do in various ways.[/quote]

Source

MMOs are about advancement as long as they are trying to get people to keep playing. This is their hook. The reason for this is the persistence of the world itself. This was in response to a complaint about greed.

[font="Arial"]The vast majority of content was for group play as with most MMORPGs. The questing in place could be completed solo but it was not ideal and there was still a fair number of group based quests dotted around the world at the time. [/font]

WOW redefined the genre by making it more group friendly in vanilla. There was a shift from solo play to group play at end game which was and still is a massive shift for players. It is like 2 different games. They worked to improve both aspects of the game as they introduced expansions. The lfg change and the specialization system for example.

Solo play and group play in WOW can be divided into two types of progression. Solo play for leveling and group play for getting items. For leveling there is quest after quest. For items there is a lot more repetition of content.

The vast majority of content in vanilla WOW was for solo play. Especially at launch.

As for other comments. I never said you needed solo content but there is a clear demand for it and the biggest hurdle to grouping is the time it takes to get a group. IF you are using a lfg tool like is being talked about then having solo content to run through is a good thing but the major hurdle is that you are leveling with the dungeon tool. So the time it takes to get to the solo content and start running quests is not worth it or you are just doing random solo quests. Plus if you are using instancing even the solo content can be group content AND level independent.

What I have described is nothing like Guild Wars. Instancing is here to stay.

Look at the world of WOW. The vast majority of the land mass is devoted to solo questing. I am suggesting this is flipped so that the vast majority of the land mass is devoted towards groups. I am suggesting that travel becomes easier (once you travel to a place for the first time) so that players can experience the great wide world that has been created.

Basically the idea I put forth brings back not only grouping but grouping in the actual game world while maintaining the ease of grouping and play found in WOW.

Another issue worth discussing is the impersonal nature of the PUG and how to transition to a system that builds relationships.

The key is to get rid of the things that divide them. Levels for example.

Another way is to increase the difficulty. Increasing failure rates tend to push people towards making friends. This is why having the ability to increase the difficulty of a dungeon is important. You get a PUG and cruise through a dungeon, well increase the difficulty on the next one and get better rewards. Get in a bad PUG, scale down the difficulty.

One of the major problems with WOW's current system is that due to item levels of most players the content is trivial and very hard to balance.

WoW redefined the genre by making the game more “friendly” to the average player and the vast majority of content was for both solo and group play, with the system favouring group play. The “massive shift” you talk about was not that great since almost all aspects of the game favoured you grouping with other. That has changed now but simply because questing is even more single player friendly.

The LFG tool does little to change that, instead of pushing a player to join a guild to do instance they can now click a button, be put into a random group of people and left to experience the “joys” of group play. If anything it causes even more hostile attitudes towards other players/group play.

By specialisation system you mean “duel spec”? That does allow players to change their current role on the fly but does little to soften the “massive shift” you talk about.

Solo content can already be group content. Additionally there is a reason for solo content being found out in the world. It allows the player to still feel like they are part of that world with all the benefits that brings. By instancing off single player content you are creating an even greater divide between players who enjoy single player content and those that don’t.

If you prefer not to have levels factor into aspects of the game then it is probably better to base a game around not having levels in the first place. Removing them at points during play has a negative effect on the player sense of progression.

GuildWars is an example of a heavily instance multiplayer RPG. I used it as an example because the majority of content was instanced and allowed easy access to said instances, similar to what you described. I will state again that while instancing is “here to stay” it doesn’t mean it is good or be used so liberally.

You could flip it, or you could include single player content along with group content on the same world. Solo content could also provide benefits to those who do it in a group. Basically what some MMORPGs currently do. It also removed the need for heavy instancing, making the world seem like a world and less like a bad single player game.

Faster travel, this can range from porting to very fast mounts, doesn’t help player experience the “great wide world” in fact it makes the world seem small and especially in the case of porting makes the player see even less of the world. Having the player travel their first does more to irritate them than anything else at that point.

The idea of having the world = group play and all solo play = instances doesn’t really bring back the idea of grouping. It makes solo play even more solo while meaning solo players will get cut to pieces if they venture outside of a city or town. Add the LFG feature makes grouping easier but at the cost of the quality of group play.

Another issue worth discussing is the impersonal nature of the PUG and how to transition to a system that builds relationships.[/quote]

I covered that in an answer further up and I think others have as well so I won’t repeat myself.

While I agree with increasing a dungeons difficultly by assuming the group will work as a group is good I’m skeptical about allowing players to change the difficulty of a dungeon themselves. When you add that sort of system you end up with the heroic/normal instances/raids in WoW where you effectively require a player to run the same dungeon over and over. Once the player has complete edit on normal and acquired the gear they must do it again on heroic to get the next level of gear.

I prefer the starter dungeons being easier and then getting progressively harder as time goes on. It may be more expensive from a developer point of view but I find it more enjoyable for the players.

The problem with WoWs system isn’t really the items players have but the requirement for those players to continually run the same dungeons even after they “out gear” them. This was something discussed above as well.

I think there are lots of smaller things that all play a part in promoting or hindering the social aspects of MMO's. For example in Everquest, the players were a LOT more friendly and sociable, in the early days at least. I think this was largely due to longer fights and very long downtime. You usually would have a big tence fight and then you would all have to 'meditate' and rest for at least a minute, to recover your health and mana. If it was a particularly tough fight, this could be a few minutes, maybe even 5 minutes or more. If this coincided with buffs wearing off and perhaps if someone died they will also need to be resurrected and then rebuffed.. this can become several minutes. This is a lot of time to be sat around, so people chatted. It was generally very mature and friendly (relatively speaking). So when I first played WoW, this was one of the main things that struck me. Fights generally were a lot shorter, and then downtime was almost none existant. So even when doing a dungeon crawl, it was fight fight fight, loot up and leave. There were no breaks and little opportunity for chatting. Seeing as this was the first MMO for most people, it created a completely different mood and etiquette to what I was used to.

Not only that, but the constant questing (rather than 'camping') changes it too. In Everquest, you got XP by sitting in one spot and someone would run off and annoy enemies and bring them back to the party. You all kill them, and then sit around waiting while the 'puller' goes off to collect more enemies. So the more chilled nature was more condusive to chatting too. Unlike with WoW, where you generally are grabbing a quest, rushing off to kill whatever it wants you to kill, rush back to hand in the stuff for your reward, and then you are rushing off to the next quest in your list. This constant 'on-the-go' nature makes it a lot less sociable too.

There are many other things too. Instances etc, and the fact that players are generally self sufficient in WoW affects matters. Unlike EQ where people regularly needed help from other people for binds, ressurections, buffs, teleports, etc. In other words, the entire philosophy behind these games is different. One of them paid a LOT of thought to the social aspect of the game and the other game seemed content with just letting people play the entire game by themselves. I think if you intend your game to be either one or the other, you need to think about all this stuff.


p.s. I should also mention that difficulty played a big part in this too. In WoW, every class can solo easily. In Everquest, this was not the case. Some classes had a really hard time soloing, perhaps even impossible, and the game was very dangerous and brutal in general, especially in the early levels of the game. Unlike most modern MMORPG's, the world was not designed to be enjoyed, it was designed to be feared. The mobs were not just wandering around waiting to be picked off one by one like a shooting gallery, but rather, they wandered around looking for newbie blood. You could be fighting a wolf, and it could be a close fight... and a huge Orc might creep up behind you and will start attacking you too. This would often happen, even at level 1, and no consideration was given to the player being new and low level. The game seemed completely guilt-less in this respect. The enemies would seemingly happily team up together (in what people called Trains), to slaughter innocent players. For this reason, many people actually WANTED to play together, as a means of survival - simple safety in numbers. When out in the middle of a forest, if there are 3 or 4 players together in a group, you are a lot more likely to survive one of the regular 'mishaps', like a passing wolf jumping you at the wrong moment. I think it was only a bit later through the levels, once you finally learned your class (and the game) better, that some people started soloing sometimes, carefully. But for classes that couldn't solo very well, that entire game was all about finding groups. And to think that this was done before "LFG Tools" even existed!

WoW redefined the genre by making the game more “friendly” to the average player and the vast majority of content was for both solo and group play,

Which is solo content. There is no limitation to grouping but that doesn't make it group content. It is also clearly different content than their actual group content. ie instanced dungeons.

There is a clear distinction between the non instanced world in WOW which is almost all solo content and the instanced world which is all group based.

There is no point arguing these facts.

Instancing is used to create content that caters to the situation. You can always use the game world to provide group or solo content but it will lack the flexibility of instancing. The idea of solo instancing ties into an idea I have for specializations. Currently in WOW specialization is based on level. I am suggesting that specializations have to be leveled up independently of the base level of a character.

Essentially each specialization has a quest chain that unlocks the special abilities and benefits of a specialization. This means that someone might be level 20 and developing their tank specialization or level 40 and developing it. This allows the game to add specializations down the road and provides a less linear progression model.

Group instancing is done to avoid zerg scenarios. Zerging in MMOs makes a lot of dungeons trivial and is the major problem with using the game world for high end content. The rewards from this type of activity will be very hard to balance.

Right now I would say at least 90% of non instanced land in WOW is devoted towards solo play. A lfg system should be able to drastically reduce that number. A server system that duplicates the game world may be needed to get more people onto a server. This is in contrast to WOW which uses server grouping.

Although WoW doesn't, other MMOs have mechanisms in place to make both outside-dungeon and inside-dungeon content adapt to the number of people in group, from 1 (solo) to whatever the game's max is. For outside-dungeon content, the number of monsters that spawn or join can be limited based on the number of players. Wizard 101, for example, has battles where a maximum of 4 players and 4 monsters can participate. If one player starts a fight with a random monster, a second monster will join, but no more. If two players start/join a fight, a third monster will join. And if three or more players start/join, monsters will fill all four slots. Perfect World among other games has instanced dungeons which spawn a different number of monsters and different difficulty of boss depending on the number of players entering the dungeon.