web analytics


Ideal MMO Group Size

June 15, 2013 by 10 Comments

What is the ideal MMO group size?  I’ve been giving raids a lot of thought lately, but the most enjoyment I get out of MMOs comes from a really good group.  I was talking to Graev tonight, and we both prefer groups in the 6-8 member range.

More Group Variety

Having 6-8 members of a group means that every spot isn’t met with the same scrutiny as a group having to truly choose how to fill only five slots.   Larger groups can take a support class, more DPS and less heals, or more heals and less DPS.  Group balance becomes an art, and customizable.

When groups are larger, classes can be more unique.  I’m a fan of specialization, and I really hate homogenization.  I want to see every position in a group filled by someone bringing entirely unique skills.  Fewer slots in a group means that classes have to begin filling more roles.

To go against what I just said, larger groups also allow hybrids to shine.  In LotRO I played a Captain, and a group of six had that extra spot to let me be that class who made all the other members of the group perform better.

How many MMOs these days recruit a class to be the puller, or the buffer, or the debuffer?

Dungeon and Content Challenges

Groups were subjected to rigorous challenges, and often impossible odds when group sizes were larger. This makes sense, though.  A group of 6-8 people is right between enough to increase the challenge, and few enough to prevent zerg mechanics.  Content can still be difficult with fewer people, but overcoming that challenge is extremely different when there are fewer players — this goes back to having less to go on because of group variety being narrow.

I remember the holy trinity used to be Tank, Heals, and Crowd-control.  I don’t know if this can be backed by anything other than my observation, but the smaller groups have been simplified to emphasize DPS over control.

I like off-healers and backup healers.  I like off-tanks and contingency plans.  I like room for error and having the ability to adapt.  The flexibility and options come more naturally to a larger group of players.

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

MMO Mounts

May 31, 2013 by 22 Comments
MMO mounts

Many players in the WildStar community want mounts limited to ground only.

I can remember when mounts were only something we dreamed about in MMOs. I think I was playing Dark Age of Camelot one night, probably in a group without a bard, and I had the thought that it would be awesome to see an army of mounted players riding into battle on the backs of mighty steeds. The visual is awe-inspiring, but I’ve learned over the years that I might prefer everyone on foot.

Like my post about MMO alts yesterday, I’m conflicted about mounts.  I think they’ve become status symbols like luxury vehicles. Heck, some of them, even in medieval fantasy games, ARE vehicles. Runspeed buffs in games without mounts are coveted — highly sought after — and not 100% available all the time.  MMO Mounts are common, mandatory, and everyone has one.  When everyone had a mount, the dream was the go faster.  Epic mounts were introduced.  Then we thought… wouldn’t it be awesome if we could FLY?!  Then flying mounts, epic flying mounts, rare mounts, cash shop mounts, and somewhere in the middle mounts became so worthless that we just teleport everywhere.  It’s now inconvenient to even leave a town to go to a dungeon.  Players are spoiled, and games are dumbed down.

Now there’s a growing trend to get rid of flying mounts.  Heck, I’d be in favor of getting rid of mounts entirely.  Bring back traveling by foot and having to rely on the players who play classes who are designed to provide speed boosts.  Make the worlds feel bigger again, and give people a reason to leave town.  If MMOs have to have mounts, perhaps someone can be innovative and come up with a new way of implementing them.  Maybe give them abilities or tie them into your class.  Require them to be stored at a stable or garage. I want them to be more than these tokens in my bag that instantly appear out of thin air and simply make me go way too fast for the world to support.

MMO mounts are a perfect example of a really cool idea taken way too far, but still a really cool idea if someone can manage to rein them in and do something new.

Tagged with , , , , , ,

PvP rewards without a cost for failure

January 1, 2013 by

Let’s start the new year off with a discussion about PvP.  I was thinking about why PvP — more specifically RvR/WvW — hasn’t succeeded or ultimately been a lot of fun for me in the past few years.  We had a brainstorming session on our Ventrilo server, and I think we nailed it.

PvP has too many rewards in all the wrong ways, and there is never any consequence or punishment for failure.

Take Guild Wars 2 where taking a keep grants a huge sum of points.  What happens when that keep is lost?  Nothing that matches the bonus for taking it.  What happens when you retake that keep?  You get another huge sum of points.  Why defend?  Why would anyone when there is more to gain from losing it and taking it again. Players will always seek the path of least resistance where they gain the most reward.  Then there’s the fact that death means nothing.  Die and you can be back at the keep in 4 minutes tops.  You probably miss out on next to nothing.

Here’s why taking and holding keeps in DAoC mattered: Losing them sucked!  The frontiers were a great place to exp.  When the enemy owned the keep near my favorite spot, guards would patrol and often kill me.  More players were also likely to be in the area.  Losing that keep also meant losing a bonus to experience; Leveling in DAoC wasn’t easy.  Losing a keep also meant losing relics with bonuses we wanted.  All of that might have been enough, but there’s another reason losing the keep sucked: Darkness Falls.  Whoever owns the most keeps has access to a dungeon with the best loot exp’ing locations.

Here’s a way to start fixing WvW/RvR and that type of PvP:

  • Remove immediate rewards for taking keeps.  No point gains, no experience.
  • Implement more indirect rewards like a dungeon for having the most keeps and meaningful/sought after rewards for being on the winning side.
  • Create ways to indirectly punish players for losing them. For example: Guard spawns I mentioned or not having access to an extremely desirable location.  Losing ground also means you probably won’t be killing as many players, so you probably won’t be on the winning side gaining points for killing other players.
  • Make keeps/holdings more difficult to siege.

The lack of risk and indirect loss for failing in PvP is game breaking for me.  If you’re not happy with the PvP in a game you’re playing, see if the rewards outweigh the penalties.  Chances are you’re not actually PvPing at all — you’re just gaming the system.

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Next-Gen MMORPG: If you could name 3 things…

December 30, 2012 by

One of my favorite things about having a blog is how often I’m forced to think about what I want in MMORPGs.  Do you ever stop and think what would cause you to want to play a next-gen MMORPG, or what would cause you to lose interest entirely in that same game?  What if you had to narrow your list down to just three things?

Thinking about these things causes people to think about what they want instead of just going along with what they are given.  When people start to think, they start to question, and when they question they begin to expect better.

Mark Jacobs wrote the following on our forums:

If you could name three things that would make you want to play a next-gen MMORPG what would they be? Also, what three things would cause you not to play the same MMORPG?

Please keep in mind the following:

1) That the MMORPG would be created by an independent studio, not backed with stupid amounts of money. Think old school MMORPGs, before the coming of the Blizzard-like budgets and way beyond that now.

2) That the MMORPG could be either FTP, BTP, Subscription, Light Subscription+ or Full Subscription+

3) That the MMORPG would follow more of the Minecraft approach to beta releases of the game. In other words, put out early builds and let people truly participate in the evolution of the MMORPG.

Just curious of course. :)

Mark

Obviously I want a game that emphasizes 3+ faction RvR with safe areas to PvE as the foundation. I’m not against the idea of a completely PvE game, though.  EQ was a PvE game and I played it longer than any other MMO.  I’ll focus on details that can happen across any type of game.  I’m in a very basic, traditional, and broad mood right now.  You certainly don’t have to be as old school in your ideas as I am.  Really think about what you want!

3 Things that would make me want to play:

1. Open world.  One of the best parts about older games was how open and connected the world felt.  DAoC and EQ are great examples.   Even the dungeons are open to everyone at the same time.  The world should also be connected and not truncated into bits and pieces with linear zones forcing the player down a road into the next zone to do the same.

SWG Skill Tree

SWG’s skill system gave players a limited number of points to spend.

2. Skill-based system.  I really like the skill systems that SWG and UO used.  If a next-gen MMO had a skill system that allowed players to use a sword and gain sword skill, or craft and skill up, and have to monitor where they spend skills because they have a limited number — that would really interest me.  If I could make a character use any combination of skills, without being forced into an archetype or class, that’d be intriguing.

3.  Crafting and Socializing getting equal emphasis.  (I cheated and combined 2 into one).  A game that focuses on providing an experience deeper and richer than just combat would get my attention.  I want people to -want- to group not because they have to (though that’s a plus for me personally) but because communicating and socializing with others is fun and rewarding.  I want people to be able to open shops and sell their goods, entertain people in taverns, and have ways to play other than going out and killing monsters or other players.  Items shouldn’t be permanent;  DAoC, SWG, and UO all did a good job with that.    Crafted gear should be very competitive.

3 Things that would cause me not to play:

1.  “Instancing” or “phasing”.  I’m not a fan of lobby-instancing, redundant instancing, instancing, or whatever you want to call it.  SWTOR and GW2 use this way too much to break up the world.  I’ll take this one as far as not wanting instanced dungeons either.  I don’t want a dungeon just for me or my group.

2.  Questing. I don’t have it in me to do another quest.  I really don’t.   I’m not even sure how I stand on public quests to be honest.  When I talked to Mark back at E3 2008 he mentioned how everyone is going to start copying his PQ idea.  Well, they did.  GW2 improved upon them slightly,  but now I’m burned out on them.  Give me camps of mobs instead.

3.  End-game gear grinds. Gear progression is fine.  Getting better items is fine.  Killing big bosses is fine.  I think it’s silly to rule out finding items from a game, but having the entire end-game be about raiding to get gear, to raid to get gear, to do the same thing… to the point of creating actual tiers or “seasons” makes me sick.

I could probably list 10 things on each side, but at this very second those are my 3.  Give me 20 minutes and I’ll probably change my mind.

Creativity loves constraint.  How would you answer Mark’s questions?  Head over to our forums and post in the thread with everyone else, or respond here if you like.  This is a an interesting, and I’m sure useful, type of feedback for developers.

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts