Ugh, not this thread again. Why do people keep thinking the "solution" to MMOs is different content for different players? It's not. T_T What players are really satisfied by is feeling that the game is telling them a story focused on them, but that isn't actually related to whether the player is given different random stimulus than another player, and is absolutely not helped by limiting later players' opportunities because earlier players have already used them up. If anything it should be the other way around, players need protection against other players screwing up the story the game is telling them about their character's adventures.

The solution to MMOs is to separate boring themepark WOW clones from actual MMOs. If you have to call MMOs VOWs or something w/e. The label is not important except in conveying the idea, which is the main thing.

If you want a game to tell you a story you shouldn't be playing something prefixed with massively multiplayer. That's just the stupidest thing ever.

Whether or not there are a large amount of people who want to play a REAL MMO is a whole other question from the idealized concept of the games. EVE Online and ATITD both work well are are incredibly social compared to themeparks.

I get that you love JRPGs and what not but not everyone does and jrpgs have very specific rules that are anathema to massively multiplayer game play.

Ugh, not this thread again. Why do people keep thinking the "solution" to MMOs is different content for different players? It's not. T_T What players are really satisfied by is feeling that the game is telling them a story focused on them, but that isn't actually related to whether the player is given different random stimulus than another player, and is absolutely not helped by limiting later players' opportunities because earlier players have already used them up. If anything it should be the other way around, players need protection against other players screwing up the story the game is telling them about their character's adventures.

The solution to MMOs is to separate boring themepark WOW clones from actual MMOs. If you have to call MMOs VOWs or something w/e. The label is not important except in conveying the idea, which is the main thing.

If you want a game to tell you a story you shouldn't be playing something prefixed with massively multiplayer. That's just the stupidest thing ever.

Whether or not there are a large amount of people who want to play a REAL MMO is a whole other question from the idealized concept of the games. EVE Online and ATITD both work well are are incredibly social compared to themeparks.

I get that you love JRPGs and what not but not everyone does and jrpgs have very specific rules that are anathema to massively multiplayer game play.

Wow that's prejudiced. I get that you have an ideal MMO in mind, but that does not make it a "REAL MMO". There are a lot of people who like low-socialization MMOs better than either high-socialization MMOs or single-player games. The fact that you don't understand why people who are different from you like that kind of MMO best does not meant that they aren't MMOs or that they are "the stupidest thing ever".

An Idea I have been investigating (for a long time) is the use of 'bubble' scenarios, where the quest/missions lead the player(s) to their own section of the map (server bubble) which has other (non-party) players blocked from entering (and interfering). Virtual on-the-fly built terrain (world map huge so the not-seen-by-anyone-else locations can be justified and whatever-is-needed-in-the-bubble can be accommodated). Small enough so 'baking' a custom level isnt overly taxing...

Note - NOT random but some random variations to make elements in the various 'quest' scenarios different much of the time (10 factors each with 4 substitutions = million plus variations...). Auto-generation used with and templated scenario elements (and sets of prop object/opponets viable for the basic quests plot). Solo games could even use this to increase replay particularly with the falling play-thru-hours. Fitting rules logic to place elements properly and nix conflicting details.

Hierarchical templates with parameterized elements to increase variations (but also to inherit and apply 'themes' to make the scenes somewhat cohesive).

For the World Map a kind of influence control map with NPC 'faction' entities which define areas of control (and spawns and local variations of theme flavoring and events). Player's actions kill off spawns (a resource token of the faction entity) which effects that area which a particular faction controls (or multiple factions contend for), thus adjusting the spawns and making them push back or move their influence elsewhere - thus shifting the behaviors and reactions and motives of various NPCs on the map (and what they use their spawned minions for). When a vacuum forms the factions pour in to take that area, potentially conflicting with each other. They attempt to rebuild their token resources, but with different strategies (risky vs conservative, warfare vs economics, power centering vs diffused, etc..)

Thus players can have a visible impact (modifying local influence of the entities), but when they move-on, the factions reassert themselves and 'heal' (adjust) for later players to encounter - the currect placements somewhat differnt than earlier.

MMO with an overall plot and player development pushes them to new areas as they 'progress' ??? Just implement the above stepwise in the progressive zones the players work themselves thru. Each progressive are can have overall themed flavoring (and different factions) following the main plot (ie- the closer you get to The Lonely Mountain the more and more wastelandish the areas get....)

Problem - its alot more complicated than the static stuff MMOs are currently. The logic of the high level influence entities might not be complex, but tuning them so they dont unbalance the whole world suddenly is hard. (GM override needs to be provided for (meaning proper tools to tweak factions) for the inevitable manual adjustments when things do go out of whack).

Programming locations and NPCs be able to operate under the different theme/situational modes (ie- town is in Peace Mode or Warzone Mode or Border Chaos Mode or Depopulated Wasteland Mode and flavors of Faction A B C controlling differently in that local area -- props and NPC demeanor/mix/behavior adjusted appropriately) --- so thats a hell of alot more scripting to make things fit local factors/situations. Alot of the logic can be shared and somewhat generalized, but the endcases explode -- all that having to be developed/tested/fixed/tuned (and largely work in production)

SO what game company wants that expense and risk when they have trained customers to expect nothing better than they already get (or actually degraded from MMOs of 10+ years ago) ??

It's just that playing with complete strangers all the time sucks.

I made a lot of online friends while playing WoW. The thing is, they all started as strangers. It takes time to get to know someone online and you miss a lot of the type of people that you actually want to get to know. Eventually this wears you out and you just start loving solo more. I don't think anyone can argue that accomplishing things with "friends" is more exciting than doing it solo in an MMO. I think MMO's should start focusing MORE on the social side. How do you do this? Well it might sound funny but they need to take a page from the online dating pages. They need to be smarter at teaming you up with people that you'd actually want to team with. Leaving it up to chance just doesn't work all that well and I think that's why we see the trend of soloing in MMO's.

So I think the future of MMO's need to give you a starting area that basically is filling out an online "friend" profile based on the decisions you make. Take the online dating profile questions (a subset anyway ), and hide them in the choices you make at the start of the game. Then based on how you played the starting area (filled out your questionnaire), the game will find the best matches for you when you want to group up.

Honestly, this seems so obvious to me now, but back when I played WoW I never thought of this before. I mean why wouldn't you do this? This gives players the best chance to have fun with "friends" in an MMO. Yes, there are technical issues with this, but they can (and I'd almost say NEED) to be resolved in order to make the best group experience for the players in a genre that is supposed to be built around group experiences.

I just gave someone a billion dollar idea. I'll take 5% :)

Ugh, not this thread again. Why do people keep thinking the "solution" to MMOs is different content for different players? It's not. T_T What players are really satisfied by is feeling that the game is telling them a story focused on them, but that isn't actually related to whether the player is given different random stimulus than another player, and is absolutely not helped by limiting later players' opportunities because earlier players have already used them up. If anything it should be the other way around, players need protection against other players screwing up the story the game is telling them about their character's adventures.

The solution to MMOs is to separate boring themepark WOW clones from actual MMOs. If you have to call MMOs VOWs or something w/e. The label is not important except in conveying the idea, which is the main thing.

If you want a game to tell you a story you shouldn't be playing something prefixed with massively multiplayer. That's just the stupidest thing ever.

Whether or not there are a large amount of people who want to play a REAL MMO is a whole other question from the idealized concept of the games. EVE Online and ATITD both work well are are incredibly social compared to themeparks.

I get that you love JRPGs and what not but not everyone does and jrpgs have very specific rules that are anathema to massively multiplayer game play.

Wow that's prejudiced. I get that you have an ideal MMO in mind, but that does not make it a "REAL MMO". There are a lot of people who like low-socialization MMOs better than either high-socialization MMOs or single-player games. The fact that you don't understand why people who are different from you like that kind of MMO best does not meant that they aren't MMOs or that they are "the stupidest thing ever".

This is the traditional bullshit defense of people who like to play certain kinds of games. I understand perfectly why people like those games. I just also understand that massively multiplayer is an adverb and that older MMOs and MMOs not optimized for massive games publishers profits actually attempt to do justice to said adverb.

I even said you could call real MMOs something else since MMO has been coopted for a different purpose than it was originally intended.

You were the one who brought this bullshit up and you didn't expect anyone to respond to you? Its clear what the OP is asking for but you just had to drag this same bullshit argument that pops up in all MMO threads here about how your kind of MMO is the one true MMO. As if the massive cultural and economic support for that idea can't buoy your fragile gaming ego enough.

The god damn topic is "Being Relevant In An MMO" and its clear what relevant means in this context. In no way whatsoever does a single player story focused MMO fit that description. Aside from taking the Online out I can't see how people in most MMOs could be LESS relevant to either the game itself or other players.

Chill out just a little bit, AltarOfScience. It's not necessary to take that tone here.

Ugh, not this thread again. Why do people keep thinking the "solution" to MMOs is different content for different players? It's not. T_T What players are really satisfied by is feeling that the game is telling them a story focused on them, but that isn't actually related to whether the player is given different random stimulus than another player, and is absolutely not helped by limiting later players' opportunities because earlier players have already used them up. If anything it should be the other way around, players need protection against other players screwing up the story the game is telling them about their character's adventures.

The solution to MMOs is to separate boring themepark WOW clones from actual MMOs. If you have to call MMOs VOWs or something w/e. The label is not important except in conveying the idea, which is the main thing.

If you want a game to tell you a story you shouldn't be playing something prefixed with massively multiplayer. That's just the stupidest thing ever.

Whether or not there are a large amount of people who want to play a REAL MMO is a whole other question from the idealized concept of the games. EVE Online and ATITD both work well are are incredibly social compared to themeparks.

I get that you love JRPGs and what not but not everyone does and jrpgs have very specific rules that are anathema to massively multiplayer game play.

Wow that's prejudiced. I get that you have an ideal MMO in mind, but that does not make it a "REAL MMO". There are a lot of people who like low-socialization MMOs better than either high-socialization MMOs or single-player games. The fact that you don't understand why people who are different from you like that kind of MMO best does not meant that they aren't MMOs or that they are "the stupidest thing ever".

This is the traditional bullshit defense of people who like to play certain kinds of games. I understand perfectly why people like those games. I just also understand that massively multiplayer is an adverb and that older MMOs and MMOs not optimized for massive games publishers profits actually attempt to do justice to said adverb.

I even said you could call real MMOs something else since MMO has been coopted for a different purpose than it was originally intended.

You were the one who brought this bullshit up and you didn't expect anyone to respond to you? Its clear what the OP is asking for but you just had to drag this same bullshit argument that pops up in all MMO threads here about how your kind of MMO is the one true MMO. As if the massive cultural and economic support for that idea can't buoy your fragile gaming ego enough.

The god damn topic is "Being Relevant In An MMO" and its clear what relevant means in this context. In no way whatsoever does a single player story focused MMO fit that description. Aside from taking the Online out I can't see how people in most MMOs could be LESS relevant to either the game itself or other players.

Feeling irrelevant in a game is the other side of the same coin of feeling that one's actions in a game are meaningless, and I run into that feeling all the time. Having the same root complaint as the OP, of course it is on-topic to the thread to share my thoughts about what causes this problem. Feeling relevant in any game is strongly impacted by story. Even in wordless games the world and the player's role within it are story. The actions the player can take within that world and the way the world reacts to those actions are the core of what gameplay is. Massively Multiplayer means nothing more than that lots of people play it at the same time, in such a way that they can interact easily. That doesn't AT ALL mean "the game" is only or primarily what happens between players. "The game" is the virtual world and its rules. The opposing category to MMO would be massively parallel singleplayer, which some browser and facebook games are.

I don't think my personal ideal kind of MMO is a "one true MMO". I think both mine and yours are subgenres under the MMO umbrella, along with other types of MMO. (And BTW my ideal MMO isn't a themepark WoW-like game. It's a hybrid sandpark game with a much more interactive story.) I don't actually care if you want to rename your or my ideal type of multiplayer online game, what I think is the real bullshit here is the idea of "one true game" of any kind.

Chill out just a little bit, AltarOfScience. It's not necessary to take that tone here.

I have a better idea. Specifically, putting the first name ever on my ignore list.

It's just that playing with complete strangers all the time sucks.

I made a lot of online friends while playing WoW. The thing is, they all started as strangers. It takes time to get to know someone online and you miss a lot of the type of people that you actually want to get to know. Eventually this wears you out and you just start loving solo more. I don't think anyone can argue that accomplishing things with "friends" is more exciting than doing it solo in an MMO. I think MMO's should start focusing MORE on the social side. How do you do this? Well it might sound funny but they need to take a page from the online dating pages. They need to be smarter at teaming you up with people that you'd actually want to team with. Leaving it up to chance just doesn't work all that well and I think that's why we see the trend of soloing in MMO's.

So I think the future of MMO's need to give you a starting area that basically is filling out an online "friend" profile based on the decisions you make. Take the online dating profile questions (a subset anyway ), and hide them in the choices you make at the start of the game. Then based on how you played the starting area (filled out your questionnaire), the game will find the best matches for you when you want to group up.

Honestly, this seems so obvious to me now, but back when I played WoW I never thought of this before. I mean why wouldn't you do this? This gives players the best chance to have fun with "friends" in an MMO. Yes, there are technical issues with this, but they can (and I'd almost say NEED) to be resolved in order to make the best group experience for the players in a genre that is supposed to be built around group experiences.

I just gave someone a billion dollar idea. I'll take 5%

I like this idea. I promise that if I make a $Billion, I'll gladly hand you 5%. Unfortunately, odds I'll make this is low. It's still a fun topic.

Take WoW (most popular example). When I played, I got tired of soloing after a long while. So I got in line for some dungeons. Every time a dungeon started, everyone took off running and steamrolled the place. I had a hard time keeping up because I didn't know the dungeon like the back of my hand. I enjoy a good story and I didn't even get to stop and smell the roses as it were. Whenever I tried to get my bearings and read some quest dialogue, I was quickly ostracized. (Who cares about story? Go read it on the Wiki if that's what you like! We're here trying to get drops! Dammit! It didn't drop! Do over!) If I could find and run with a "slow and careful" group, that would match my preferred playstyle. Suffice to say, I don't play WoW anymore.

If I could play with maybe up to 25 friends on a server, I'd be OK with someone else getting the Armor of Awesomeness from a BadAssBoss knowing I won't be able to get that piece now. Maybe I can score the Sword of I-Win from someplace else. That adds value to everyone's efforts and the loot earned. (And there's a rant for another day about unrealistic random loot drops! Full Loot please!) Unique genuinely means unique! If that someone else scores some better armor later, he can then give his old armor to someone else as a hand-me-down without cheapening the uniqueness of that piece or robbing someone of an experience that is no longer available to them. If there's a jerk problem, the server could hold a vote-ban on that individual. Just don't invite jerks in the first place, right? It wouldn't be open-enrollment like MMO's have today. Not just anyone could join. Keeping the population small makes players rely on each other more since there is a massive reduction in the number of productive work-hours in gathering and crafting materials. Sure, someone could still barter off another player for quest materials, but those materials could very well be more expensive or the seller may want you to help them move into their new real-world apartment in exchange. It's more personal now. You are more relevant in that world as a player. Your actions might very well matter to the other players and affect them. Your actions might very well irreversibly change the dynamics of the entire game world. (Don't just rub any dirty oil-lamp you come across now, hear?)

I guess the big issue is griefing. (Both intentional and accidental.)

Playing with friends and minimizing bots minimizes griefing and increases teamwork.

And screw auction houses. Those just enable the lazy and/or frustrated. Boring!

Team up with someone you know to solve issues and have fun doing it.

It would be kind of nice to be able to mark players in your group as "I would like to play with them again". So when a group is trying to be formed it can use this as weighing who matches up with who. It wouldn't directly show anyone else who you marked as wanting to play with more, but over time it'll really start narrowing down the people you enjoy playing with and the people you get in your group each time you queue if both decide they would like to play with the other. Combine this with personality traits you enjoy and I think MMO's will become a much better social experience than it is today. These match up players better than pure luck of the draw. It might even make some players act better/nicer.