An old thread on F13. Discussing about instancing and why it belongs to PvE.

—
Instancing is surely needed and valuable today but not because it’s an evolution. The exact contrary.

Instancing is now required because the genre collapsed on itself and noone has been able to create a world. Basically the genre has failed and it’s going back to “just a game” that requires a better compromise to be fun.

Darniaq has pointed some of the reasons about why instancing is interesting and they are all true. My opinion is that instancing is a workaround because the design of these MMOGs hasn’t been able to valorize the massive value.

The fact that these games are massive is becoming a problem. The design failed. So we go back to try to get the best from both worlds: the quick, tailored fun of the instances (cooperative play) and the social aspect of the hubs (like IRC or the message boards).

This is exactly what Richard Garriott anticipated in his interviews years ago. I find it quite depressing.

—
The basic idea about why I said that mmorpgs have failed is just because they simply don’t take advantage of the massive aspect. This aspect is just a way to be included in a popular genre but it’s obvious that even huge projects like WoW don’t have A CLUE about why they should be massive instead of cooperative/instanced.

We have a bunch of mmorpgs that don’t know why they are mmorpgs. Like a case of lost identity.

And by looking at the concete examples I just see how this fact of being “massive”, in general, it’s not a strenght. But a problem.

So I notice that the easy road is to go back to a model of gameplay that FITS better with these games. The fact is that noone is really developing a mmorpg and now these games are pushing to go back at their origin.

—
Darniaq, what eldaec said. Instancing not “bad” because it’s a wrong solution. Instancing is the OPTIMAL solution for a type of design. Instancing is the (best) consequence of that type of game.

I don’t like what happened before instancing. I criticize the design that brought to instancing as an optimal solution. This is why I say that the genre has lost its identity.

There are other solutions. No, not in the market it seems. If you simply observe what we have now I agree that instancing is the way to go. But if you look toward a new model you could see how much instancing is the result of a flawed genre.

The fact that another example isn’t present doesn’t mean it is impossible. Or not.

—
No Geldon, it’s not about a technologic innovation, it’s about a dry design. The genre has hit a wall and now it’s going back to rediscover old technology. Instanced is everything cooperative you already play, from Doom to Counterstrike.

This is Diablo with NOTHING different aside that you have a graphical chat instead of a textual chat.

I don’t see an innovation, nor progress. I see a natural collapse of a situation that hasn’t found an effective way to develop. We are going back because the technology ALREADY supports massive worlds. But the *ideas* still don’t support them.

We are underdeveloped on the ideas, not the technology. We are taking the easy path to dumb down everything and this strategy doesn’t apply just to the gaming industry but pretty much everywhere.

—
And imho CoH and even WoW aren’t innovative from this perspective. They are the good result of a company that was able to learn from the mistakes of others. It’s about “polishing”. In this case CoH offers PvE. PvE has nothing to share in a massive world and in fact they use instances.

As I said above the result is better and funnier because they brought the game where it belongs: in a cooperative experience. But CoH isn’t a mmorpg from this point of view. Take Ultima Online and CoH and you see that, aside the setting, one strives to be a word, the other strives to be an arcade.

Now I don’t say CoH isn’t a good game because it is an arcade. I don’t think that building a good game like that isn’t noteworthy, but it’s simply not what a mmorpg should be. Or where the true potential to discover is.

—
Instancing is a profitable workaround but isn’t about addressing the real problem to move further.

Instead of surpassing the obstacle they are going backward.

I save here a mail I wrote on MUD-dev months ago where I delve some more in the problem between new/casual players within a game world shared with old/hardcore players. Touching important problems like the content segregating the players and the difference in power in a PvP environment based on treadmills (Realm Points, perks, abilities). This also corresponds to a port of the old forum to the forum engine in Drupal. It isn’t great but since I use it mostly as a lumber room it will do the work without needing to mantain multiple engines and databases.

It’s interesting because my opinion changed on some core points. For example it is true that treadmills create gaps between the players as a direct consequence, but they also build groups, helping the players to find themselves in the same problem/situation and cooperate. This within a “manageable” condition (a small group of players in a specific zone and with a specific purpose/quest). Typical example where World of Warcraft shines (and the PvP system works because of this zone-based fragmentation). Instead other games like Eve-Online are so open-ended and without a specific direction that groups are way harder to build and need a lot more effort from the player to really pierce the surface of the game instead of just drifting and playing in solo-mode.

As I wrote recently in various forums: I find myself having a way better social experience in Warcraft than, say, Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies or Eve-Online. Even if the focus of the design of all these games is effectively reverted.

—

Raph Koster:
I think we can agree that designing a game that discourages players from playing regularly is probably a bad idea (at least in terms of mass acceptance–some games, like turn based games, PBEM, etc, have some flex here). Designing a game which allows players not to HAVE to play regularly, however, seems desirable.

I agree here. I was attacking the idea because there are games going in this direction. For example Eve-Online has an advancement system (aside the money) that is time-based and really just requires you to log in from time to time, start train a skill and log off.

So a more interesting point is surely about *how* we give depth to a game without requiring the players to play more than they are able to. This is an inner problem for every power treadmill that has the result of producing gaps between the players. It’s an interesting design problem for one of the core issues about mmorpgs and the “mass market”.

But the context of the discussion was different. The context was that, from the money perspective, it’s better to have the players in the game as little as possible to spare on the bandwidth costs. In this case the players and the gameplay aren’t anymore the reason of the design and it’s where the situation becomes “dangerous”. Because a possible result following this strategy isn’t good and won’t be successful.

Abalieno:
I have many design ideas on how to solve the problem about “Casual Crowd vs.Time Rich Crowd” and they are along the lines of creating different structures inside the game where different players have different roles and goals. Where casual players have a specific role and goal and where time rich crowds have another. And the *key* is about giving them different roles but making they play *together* with the same general goal.

The difficulty here is that is the roles have contributions to the goal inversely proportionate to the time investment required, that people will start to cross the roles in search of maximum return. The time-rich players will take on the casual roles because they offer greater reward for time invested. And if the casual roles do NOT offer greater reward for time invested, then they will not feel rewarding to the casual players either, who will compare themselves to the time-rich players and cry foul.

The difficulty would be sharing a given metric across both roles–and if there is a shared goal, there will most certainly be some form of shared metric. I’d tend to approach this in terms of orthognal but equally valid goals, ideally with interesting intersections.

I find hard to keep reasoning on an abstract level. While writing I was thinking to a particular PvP model where the players have access to different ranks and roles based on a treadmill. These ranks and roles define how you play in the -same- battle allowing each player to still group together and play in the -same- situation. What isn’t considered is the strict “power difference”. An higher rank doesn’t gain more powerful skills for himself (so that he could be able to kill more easily a lower rank in a 1vs1 battle). Instead it just gains access to a different role and specific gameplay. For him to gain this role he must be in a group where there are other players with lower ranks. Without lower ranks he isn’t “high rank”. To play his role he needs the support of the lower ranks. So they play side by side (the goal and focus of my idea).

The point is that a casual player can join the battle even if still at the bottom of the treadmill. This won’t mean that he’ll be uneffective or forced in an unfun role. The gameplay can still be designed to be fun for everyone but different for various players. As it happens when you have different classes in a group: a different role for each player but within the same situation.

In my more specific idea a greater rank actually IS more powerful. But the power works inside a battle system where we can build a group of ten players and only *one* of those can be designed as a “General” and so with a specific set of powers. In this case you can go through a treadmill and become a general yourself but:
1- You’ll never reach a point where EVERYONE MUST be a general. Because there will be only 1 each 10 players. Nominated by them through a voting system.
2- Whoever doesn’t have the time to “apply” for that position will keep enjoing the game in that precise moment and will still have available an advancement system to pursue but not where he is *forced* to arrive to reach the fun or see new content previously forbidden.

This is similar to the point above: “Designing a game which allows players not to HAVE to play regularly” but still rewarding you when you do. Incentivating to play without rushing to play.

A possibility without an obligation. Accessibility, not necessity.

The idea just came out from observing the actual organization of mmorpgs. In raids there are always leaders. These leaders have obviously an higher time investment into the game but their characters are still powerful as any other player. What I did with my idea is to institutionalize what already was happening adding gameplay depth to the system. Building more different roles needing active players.

I’d love to read some opinions about this because it’s part of the basics of my “dream mmorpg” and I want to know how solid or possible is what I planned.

P.S.
Just to explain better from a different perspective. Think to a traditional mmorpg where you can choose various classes/races. The system is simply built so that you only have “x” classes/races unblocked as you open an account. But if you max out one, gain “x” numbers of special points (treadmill based on the endgame, after you maxed out your power), you are able to “unblock” a new race or class that can bel cool but still not more powerful or effective than what you played till that moment. This means that in the game there’s a reward but this reward isn’t required.

My battle system for PvP goes even beyond this. In fact you will be able to “unblock” ranks and roles in PvP. But you don’t automatically gain everything. Instead in each specific situation you can be “choosed” to be a general or remain a normal player.

-HRose / Abalieno

I’m following various boards that are frequented by jaded mmorpg veterans and even boards where I can discuss with players less experienced.

Till now the Stress Test is a success. The server was supposed to explode, instead everything seems quite smooth and, so far, beyond the level of many games at release. This made the players complain about smaller issues, like the customization of the characters, the interface, the camping of spawn points and so on.

I tried to gather a list of the complaints to examine them and see what could be the possible solutions.

– Problem: Players complain about the lack of customization, in particular after we all got spoiled by games like SWG, CoH and even EQ2. WoW feels like a 1st generation mmorpg where everyone looks the same and where you are forced to choose one of the few combinations that the devs prepared.

– Solution: The discussion got deeper and I think we started to agree that the customization doesn’t mean that much when just after a few levels your body will be completely covered by the armor. So we concluded that the possibility to customize and look differently with the use of equipment is way more important for this game. The fact that all the players will directly min/max the equipment will mean that if an objects is powerful everyone will use it. So the solution is about working on the “aspect” of the equipment even more that its power. Having the same stats on something, but a different aspect, could help to offer a graphical customization without having to loose “power”. On the other side Blizzard could work to, at least, add the height for a model. DAoC has three choices: small, medium, tall. I think the same system can be implemented in WoW without ruining the racial differences. It was stated before that there could be problems with animations but what I ask is a simple “rescale” of the model. So you rescale everything, animations and equipment included. It shouldn’t be hard to implement and won’t affect the performance. On the other level we’ll have a possibility of customization that will matter above the equipment.

– Problem: Crowded newbie zones. Considering that the servers held the stress, this became the biggest problem. As too many players join the game, various bottlenecks are created, ruining the experience for everyone.

– Solution: I don’t think that making the newbie zone large will help. We must remember that this is a situation that will only last a few days and a mmorpg, instead, has a value on the long distance, along the years. Blizzard could as well completely ignore this issue and let the players suffer this problem for the first days. But at the same time we all know that it’s *crucial* the impression you get of the game right at the start. So. My opinion is that nothing should be done aside working perhaps on the respawn rules. A good idea should be about tweaking them by looking constantly at the number of player in the zone. Another good idea could be about adding a “cool off” effect to a spawning mob, so that it won’t aggro a player before 15-20 seconds have passed (like spawning the mob in a shaded form and make it 100% solid after the cool off timer is over). This will avoid the problem of mobs popping over players but it’s also a cheap trick that may broken even more the suspension of disbelief. Another, even better, solution could be to instance the newbie zones. This could happen in the very few occasions when the place gets *too* crowded. So you put an “emergency” limit to these newbie zones and create another instance when things go beyond that limit. In this way we erase overcrowding during the first days without messing and triggering other problems (like making newbie zones too dispersive when the number of players will decrease).

Dealing with instances is dangerous, though. The problem is deeper and I’ve wrote about this back in May:
http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/view/162

– Problem: Players complain about default options and general interface issues. For example it’s *not acceptable* that an user must edit a config file to play in windowed mode or to set the Hertz of the monitor. Other questionable choices are about not showing NPCs names by default and the drag and drop occurring to equip an object (peoples complain about the inventory being separated from the character sheet).

– Solution: If the game is going to be released soon it’s time to focus even on the polish. You need to figure out what’s the best for the default options. EQ players complain that the inventory doesn’t come up if you press “i”. This isn’t a big issue but you need to go throughout all the options and define what’s better for a default mode that is easy to manage for a new user. In particular NPC names MUST be on by default. It’s important that everything you need should be enabled so that the user, with the experience, can choose something else. Not acceptable is when you cannot access the options from the interface. This needs to go *completely*. We must be allowed to choose the windowed mode, the refresh of the monitor and other more “hard-core” issues by the options menu. Perhaps in an “advanced” tab. But noone should be forced to mess with a config file. It’s actually ridiculous that you just put up a page for the screenshots explaining to the players how they can use the console to type a command and remove the “onscreen names” (I’m referring to the screenshot page). These options MUST be in the game and keymapped. About the issue of “drag and drop” equipment: clicking to equip isn’t possible because of the “risk” to sell stuff while fiddling with a vendor. My suggest solution is to create a “drop area” near where the bags are so that we drag and drop there, and not throughout the screen. This worked back in Beta 2 when it was possible to drag an item to an empty bag slot to equip it. Another important feature that vanished without a reason.

– Problem: Players love the “discovery exp” when you discover a new place on the map.

– Solution: Well, this isn’t a problem. but we know that it’s a broken system later on, because the experience you gain remains ridiculous. So I suggest Blizzard to look into this. Players love this feature so you need to make it a bit more valuable. Balancing the experience so that it will still matter even at high levels.

– Problem: The Rest System is incomprehensible.

– Solution: This is an issue. You cannot expect players to read complex patch notes to figure out a mechanic. If the Rest System is supposed to remain in the game it must be polished so that the players will understand how it works easily. They should be able to check how much they have rested and the exact effect that the rest will have in “x” hours. This should become easy to understand with the use of the interface. Right now I don’t know if the system is bugged or not but it’s absolutely impossible to understand its behaviour.

– Problem: The game needs a more social environment. Players complain about the lack of depth aside mob-bashing.

– Solution: This is a complex issue that I’ll partially dodge here. My solution is about giving more depth to the cities without forcing downtimes into the players. We need fun and interesting activities to pass time in a city. A lot, a lot of potential lies here. So please step down from EverQuest’s model for a moment and start to develop something that will offer this. Different activities not directly involved with achieving more power (treadmills). Different development paths, different aims. I’m not asking for a completely new game but just for something that will give the game some depth aside the treadmill. I have too many ideas about this. Just use some creativity and detach on this aspect the game from the mmorpg model.

– Problem: There are dreaded “collect quests” that are no fun to do (due to the incostant behaviour of drops) and disrupt the incentive to group with other players because, if you do, your chance to get the rare stack of loot will drop exponentially and you’ll hit the other big problem: not enough mobs to gather all the drops you need to complete the quest. A major issue that becomes critic when there are many players around doing the same quest and chasing the same drops.

– Solution: This goes directly against a basic issue that is being discussed in various boards and is also a basic mechanic shared between various mmorpgs. The “rule” is: a mmorpg should reward and incentivate the players to group and play together. The more the better. But still trying to make the solo experience viable, because noone wants to log and sit down for an hour to find a party. “Collect quests” are broken because they go against this concept without any good reason. Grouping with other peoples is good for “kill” quests. Because the goal is shared and so you benefit from having other players with you. Instead the drops (aside named drops) aren’t shared, this means that if you are in a group your “successful rate” will go down. This is stupid in a mmorpg, it’s a mechanic that goes *against* the social aspect, something that should be *always* rewarded even if not enforced. It’s a good thing to make solo a viable path but it’s wrong if you incentivate to play solo when it’s *possible* to form a group. This problem is also tied to overcrowding because you are creating a “competition” between the players. Since they aren’t able to cooperate, you are forcing them to go against each other and this is a CONSTANT for griefing, killstealing and other bad behaviours. This doesn’t help the game, nor the fun of the players. A very simple solution should be, at least, to let the quest-drops to be shared between the players in a group. This will reward once again grouping (so healing a broken mechanic) and will help the bottleneck that are formed when too many players are camping the same spot for the same quest.

MAKE THE PLAYERS COOPERATE IN *PvE*, NOT FIGHT AGAINST EACH OTHER.

Other suggestions here

—

Now I want to add a few words on the “general impression”. The impression of the players varies a lot. There are some who love the game but I think that in general everyone is pleased but absolutely not surprised or particularly excited. Many have already branded the game as EQ 1.5. A lot is about the expectations. My personal expectations are set *extremely low* after years of experience in the genre and in fact I love WoW. I love the setting and I love how it plays. But one thing is sure: this is far from being a “dream mmorpg”. It feels like a single player game and, as you see, as we introduce the “massive” aspect everyone starts to fight because there’s competition for a spawn point.

After a bit all this feels faked, pointless and boring. WoW is really, really polished but not different from a single player game with basically no purpose and depth that tries hard to roleplay as a “mmorpg”. Because this is what I criticize in the game from months: a single player/cooperative game roleplaing as a mmorpg.

What this Stress Test teaches is about the genre as a whole. This time we are not at Star Wars Galaxies launch, dealing with server and client crashing and broken design and bugs everywhere. This game isn’t about broken promises. WoW delivers what it is expected to deliver:

Yes, it’s a polished EQ type game. That is the aim, that is what they are delivering.

Or as someone else defines it: “It’s a nifty world as a background for a specific narrow type of gameplay”.

So peoples are pleased and at the same time already bored because things have improved without really changing. Something that is shared with other games. For example this is what Loral wrotes on Mobhunter, one of the most places discussing EverQuest:

Omens of War brings us over a dozen new zones, half of them instanced. It expands the physical worlds of Norrath even further. I wonder if SOE might best spend their time working on new expansions that take Everquest into directions other than new zones to explore. Everquest is certainly wide, it is the largest physical game I’ve ever played, but it isn’t very deep. The vast majority of content builds around combat against bosses. The numbers increase but the gameplay is generally the same. New lines of progression need to be developed.

I really think that it’s still possible to push on the experimentation without loosing the touch with the mass market. Actually I think that this genre still isn’t mass market BECAUSE there’s little to no improvement.

One of the directions that WoW should explore is about creating systems and dynamics. In particular when it comes to PvP. Systems make the game lively, with a purpose. This without throwing continuously at the players “more of the same”. Rising the level cap to excuse the process.

I think that veteran players are bored of this but I’m also sure that new players are full of dreams that will shatter when they’ll touch what this genre really delivers (sorry Raph ;) )

I keep hearing that Blizzard is working on a PvP reward and I really fear this because noone talks about a PvP “purpose”. A reward without a purpose is “yet another treadmill” and this is depressing.

A lot should be done to polish and work out the problems that will become manifest with the time. In particular the combat can result fast and fun in the initial levels but after a bit it also becomes completely chaotic and messy. This is due to many technical problems like a lack of integrity. Mobs warp everywhere, have strange pathing issues, lack of a Line of Sight. The animation system is broken with stuck and out-of-synch animations. And the spells behave strangely when offscreen, appearing in wrong locations. The last straw was about adding Hunters and enormous pets that in a dungeon take the whole screen making nearly impossible to play.

What will happen when we are supposed to fight in large raids both in PvE and PvP? The game will become a random mess of colored polygons? Things must be looked at. The animations and spell effects must be polished and synchronized. The mobs should move around in a realistic way and should stop “cheating”. Hunters’ pets must be rescaled.

And along this work about basic issues, the design should be developed to give some depth to the game. To stop adding treadmills and attach to the game a real purpose. Without it the PvP will continue to be a grief fest. Because griefing is still the only “impact” possible you have on the world.

I also suggested some time ago a complete system to make the PvP fun and interesting:
http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/view/135

What is important is that a different path must be choosed and developed to give the game a future and some ambition *after* release. Both for new players and mmorpg veterans.

Also, in regards to your PVP article ( http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/view/135 ) I was kind of curious how zerg gameplay would be discouraged by the things you suggest.

I’m a long time DAoC player and ranter. So I know extremely well the zerg issue. I also wrote a lot about it in the last months.

Population issues cannot be solved in a traditional way because you cannot force the players to play this or that. So, or you force the system with instanced zones where you are able to cap the population (this will happen in the Battlegrounds) or you deal with the problem more directly.

The “zerg issue” is a non-issue. It’s true that, as you say, there’s a bad zerg form that “cause battles to be too quick, unstrategic, and one-sided”. The point is to give some depth to this.

There are three ways to deal with the problem. Or you follow Mythic strategy about ignoring the issue and applying really silly workarounds like they are doing now, or you “minimize” the effect of the unbalance how you suggest (but how? that’s the point). Or you follow my idea: use the unbalance to originate fun and interesting gameplay.

I start from the idea that playing in an overpowered faction isn’t so interesting or cool. From a roleplay point of view it’s a lot more exciting to play in the faction that is outnumbered. It will give your actions a bigger epic purpose and what you’ll achieve will have a greater value. This is exactly where the unbalance can become DIRECTLY a strength for the game, instead that a big issue.

The strategy, so, it’s exactly about how you can make the gameplay still fun when fighting for a faction that is outnumbered. The unbalance isn’t anymore a gameplay problem, instead it can be transformed in a source for interesting gameplay. The rules of the game must obviously support and incentivate the fun of playing within these conditions.

In WoW it’s still impossible to shape all this because we don’t know the reward nor the purpose of the PvP (if it will have one). And unbalance problems can only be solved by shaping “systems”. WoW at this moment lacks completely of any game system that isn’t grief. Because, as I said, griefing is the only impact you can have on the world.

My suggestion was about fleshing out a complete battle system that is aimed to give depth to the zerg play. Because I consider it a lot of fun if designed in a good way. The unbalance problem wasn’t adressed because it lies on a level above. The control and purpose of various structures that you can conquer will have a role into this.

The strategy is about making a list of the strength of an unbalance faction. This is easy to do even by looking at DAoC. Large zergs are unorganized, chaotic. They move slowly and have a general “dumb” reaction. A smaller group could be able to attack the bigger realm on different points, quickly and before the bigger realm can react. The goal is exactly to focus on all these dynamics to then give them value into the game and incentivate them.

—

But *before* discussing all this Blizzard must solve basic flaws in the combat system. I really think that we are discussing something completely out the scope of the game and, once again, we should better set the expectations really low because I don’t think Blizzard is going to develop a PvP system that isn’t different from another excuse for a treadmill (since they focus on the “reward” and not on the purpose).

I suppose the PvP will mostly become an alternate path to level up (in Battlegrounds). While the PvP on the landmass won’t change from the actual state, aside more rules to patch the grief problem. What I mean is that there’s still no sign of a possible endgame based on a game system that is able to renew itself without requiring a continuous flow of new content.

After a bit it will happen for WoW what happened for EQ. A flat development that will throw continuously the player “more of the same”. Making the old content obsolete by offering “new shinies” and excusing the process by rising continuously the level cap (or new skills or similar systems).

This not only cannibalizes the old content without really adding anything to the game. But it will make harder and harder for new players to join and have fun. Because the gap between new characters and veteran will simply increase with the time as the result of the “flat development”.

This is one of the reason why this genre still isn’t mass market. Too much time dependence for games that don’t offer any kind of depth. New players approach this genre really hoping for a simulation of a fantasy setting. Not only they discover that the game doesn’t offer anything of what they expect, but they also continuously expereince accessibility problems (check the link above from Raph’s homepage)

Another frequent complaint I hear from stress testers has been discussed many times during the beta and it’s still a big issue that shouldn’t be ignored:

– Problem: There are dreaded “collect quests” that are no fun to do (due to the incostant behaviour of drops) and disrupt the incentive to group with other players because, if you do, your chance to get the rare stack of loot will drop exponentially and you’ll hit the other big problem: not enough mobs to gather all the drops you need to complete the quest. A major issue that becomes critic when there are many players around doing the same quest and chasing the same drops.

– Solution: This goes directly against a basic issue that is being discussed in various boards and is also a basic mechanic shared between various mmorpgs. The “rule” is: a mmorpg should reward and incentivate the players to group and play together. The more the better. But still trying to make the solo experience viable, because noone wants to log and sit down for an hour to find a party. “Collect quests” are broken because they go against this concept without any good reason. Grouping with other peoples is good for “kill” quests. Because the goal is shared and so you benefit from having other players with you. Instead the drops (aside named drops) aren’t shared, this means that if you are in a group your “successful rate” will go down. This is stupid in a mmorpg, it’s a mechanic that goes *against* the social aspect, something that should be *always* rewarded even if not enforced. It’s a good thing to make solo a viable path but it’s wrong if you incentivate to play solo when it’s *possible* to form a group. This problem is also tied to overcrowding because you are creating a “competition” between the players. Since they aren’t able to cooperate, you are forcing them to go against each other and this is a CONSTANT for griefing, killstealing and other bad behaviours. This doesn’t help the game, nor the fun of the players. A very simple solution should be, at least, to let the quest-drops to be shared between the players in a group. This will reward once again grouping (so healing a broken mechanic) and will help the bottleneck that are formed when too many players are camping the same spot for the same quest.

MAKE THE PLAYERS COOPERATE IN *PvE*, NOT FIGHT AGAINST EACH OTHER.

I also suggest to make the respawn timers variable. Making them quicker if a monster-type is killed repeatedly.

Another good choice should be to add a bonus for the group directly on the experience to incentivate grouping. The experience drops too much when playing in a group and this, once again, isn’t a good mechanic.

—

Other discussions are still about the depth of the game. Many are commenting that WoW offers a very narrow gameplay type. Which isn’t bad on itself. But there’s surely a need to “develop” it toward the strength of a mmorpg: the social aspect, the cooperation, the interaction with the world. Many agree when I say that WoW feels too much as a single player game. It isn’t bad because it will help newbies to slowly experience this fascinating genre. But then? It’s important that their entree is easy but, then, you also need to offer them something more. Something unique. Something that is *different* from a standard, singleplayer game.

Something that will “stand out” when games like “Guild Wars” will try to sell something else as a mmorpg.

And this is exactly what a mmorpg SHOULD offer. A community that cooperates to achieve a result, to modify or control the world and the systems ruling the world. More concretely: the players also need something that “excuses” this level-based treadmill. There’s the need of something important and different at the end and not just another, longer treadmill for powerful loot and elite professions. Or even an higher level cap.

The endgame should excuse the treadmill. To offer a purpose, to offer involvement. It shouldn’t be another checkpoint for an infinite treadmill that will become just boring and, above all, pointless.

So it’s here that the game should and needs to change. It’s where a more complex form of PvP can be deployed to give more power to the players and let them *change* the world, fight an epic war that isn’t just faked between various static quests or instanced battlegrounds with no real history.

It’s both where the players should cooperate and where the world should become dynamical. Where the mmorpg, as a genre, should show its strength.

If you fail to do so you’ll still have a beautiful game but players will keep asking themselves if it wasn’t better as a single player game:

Even though the systems for kills and quests in WoW work fairly well, it still makes me think the same thing all mmos make me think. ‘Man, this game would be sooo much better if there weren’t any other people.’

I also add another comment review from a guy called El Gallo:

WoW is not revolutionary and not intended to be so. It is EQ 1.5. Slightly dumbed-down, technologically updated, much more user-friendly, low downtime, soloable, and more directly involves your character in the game’s story/lore. I have been enjoying it a lot, but then again I enjoyed EQ for a long time, I just wished that it wasn’t so punitive, had less downtime, a little more story involvement, and was more soloable. WoW fits that bill, and does so with a well-done world that matches EQ’s level of atmosphere and detail. WoW is, imo, the only “EQ clone” that is better than EQ. All the others are “EQ done worse”.

If you are one of the people who rage against core EQ style gameplay, WoW is not for you. If you spend evenings furiously &@$%&#$@%ing over UOs dread lord days, WoW is not for you. If you want "EQ done better” then WoW might work for you.