I think you might be interested in reading what people actually want on mmorpg.com. After reading about 20 threads of the same "historians" and "new kids" arguing back and forth the formation of a want list was created based on the reasonable aspects of their ideas and arguments. I'll go over some of the wants and desires of both sides. Amazingly, any indie team can deliver these aspects into a mmog.

1. Players simply want as many optional mini games as possible, and they require a reward or some in game changing events for winning and losing.
2. Destroy the healer class along with every other class and make every skill available in some kind of combination process and skill support system with the exception of skills based on certain items the player needs equipped.
3. Allow the player to build their character, city, guild, raid, mount, pet, and items their own way with as much control given to them as possible.
4. Players want stability, top notch connections, and also availability of the mmog.
5. Players are willing to pay for subscriptions or cash shop items that don't ruin the balance of the game, and yes most of the people posting for this were cheap skate idiots looking for a lot for no cost to them at all.

I actually have around 25 reasonable additions any "developer" can add totheir mmog list, but "6. The mmog should be complete and without bugs" is a big pet peeve that makes games or breaks games this age.

Hope that helps, and yes no matter how much a idea may sound good, may smell good, may seem to sell good, you need to be able to hear the cries of the people before you go into a epic stun lock of ideas. Down right to the formula, games are meant to make money by immersion alongside fun.

Players don't always know what they want, nor get what they want, as it may not fit into all games. I am trying to be as broad as possible with the design without taking away from the concept. When I was younger I used to want to design MY game, but over the years I have realized what I want isn't what everyone else wants. What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.

1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.

2. Not going to happen. There will be skills that determine the overall capabilities of the combatant, but they are restricted on a per class basis. This is for balancing mainly, but also to have characters have some individualism to them. Less of the FOTM, more of the, "I play it and I enjoy it". The power curve of the game is less than your traditional MMORPG. Level 50 in this concept would be like playing as a level 35 in DAoC with both starting at the same level 1. They just gain power more slowly. I find that games that concentrate on making characters too powerful take away from the enjoyment of combat. How many people would run around different level BGs in games just to enjoy the "non-end game PVP" purely because it was more balanced?

3. Player cities will be customizable with provided structures. They can choose the layout, but there will be a max radius(square most likely) available to build in to avoid Great Walls being built every where. Outside of homes will have slight customization options, while entering a home would be in a separate zone(instance) for the player to customize as well. I would love to avoid all instances, but I don't think it would be technologically possible to have homes like Ultima Online did without bogging down those around the home. I am trying to include taming in the game without making it too powerful, but also enjoyable. Potential for pet customization would be in finding various visuals, some more rare than others, while being able to help train your pet. There is a possibility for raising pets from egg form.

4. Graphics are going to be good, but "next-gen" is out of the question unless it provides for many people battling simultaneously. I don't think it will be too hard to imagine 200+ players getting together for fights. If all goes well it could even rear up to 600+ in a close proximity(same zone). Quality of play comes before graphics to an extent.

5. I don't really see room for a cash shop, but a subscription would be a certainty if it all works out.

Gotta run.

I am sorry if it came across as a futuristic endeavor, it isn't that at all. It would most likely be considered medieval, but I don't want there just to be European Medieval influence and be done with it. I want to include a few other of the available historical design influences to give the Domains different feels. If they all play and look the same, no fun in that. Catholic/Christian influences were only mentioned as that is where the terminology and the overall basis for a few of the classes are, i.e. Paladin, Cleric, Priest, Friar. The two religions won't exist in the game. Some of the belief systems for cultures in the game will certainly have some religious inspiration, but I do not want any modern religious conflicts to be able to cause trouble amongst the players. Religion is a part of history and a great big chunk of society, so how can it be ignored for inspiration?

Oh, that was my mistake, I was thinking from the first post that you were talking about a fantasy game, but then I read your statement mentioning a science fiction novel, and I thought you meant you were saying the game's story was the science fiction novel, so I was trying to figure out where the science fiction part was, and I decided the setting must be futuristic, lol.

I'm confused how you can have a religious class without the corresponding religion existing in the game - don't you need to have some class-specific exposition explaining how they get their powers from god, or something like that?

Your last sentence there was probably rhetorical, but actually as an atheist I don't have any problem designing religion-free fantasy or science fiction settings. On the other hand I think religion is interesting in the abstract, it can be fun to design fantasy cults and things, and they can be thematically powerful 'characters' in one's fiction... that's getting quite off-topic though.

[color="#000000"]Shared dungeons give lone wolves more of a chance to experience dungeons? [/quote]
Doesn't count unless the lone wolf can kill the boss themselves. Actually lone wolves are tremendously benefited by instanced dungeons which can be scaled in difficulty to match the number of players entering.

What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.

For me, that's the core problem - I just don't want to play that kind of game. I'm actually astonished how closely the mmorpg.com list describes the kind of game I want to play - I've been anti-classes for a long time but I would have thought most people would disagree because I never see people proposing classless MMOs here on gamedev. Although I'd quibble over point 3 - my own mmo design would not have player-created guilds or cities; unsure about raiding. And I'd add an important point about how the game must be an interactive fiction experience.

1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.[/quote]
You could either give each domain a 10% bonus on the minigame scores of its members, or you could require a certain amount of minigame play per week or other time increment as 'maintenance'.

I think you might be interested in reading what people actually want on mmorpg.com. After reading about 20 threads of the same "historians" and "new kids" arguing back and forth the formation of a want list was created based on the reasonable aspects of their ideas and arguments. I'll go over some of the wants and desires of both sides. Amazingly, any indie team can deliver these aspects into a mmog.

1. Players simply want as many optional mini games as possible, and they require a reward or some in game changing events for winning and losing.
2. Destroy the healer class along with every other class and make every skill available in some kind of combination process and skill support system with the exception of skills based on certain items the player needs equipped.
3. Allow the player to build their character, city, guild, raid, mount, pet, and items their own way with as much control given to them as possible.
4. Players want stability, top notch connections, and also availability of the mmog.
5. Players are willing to pay for subscriptions or cash shop items that don't ruin the balance of the game, and yes most of the people posting for this were cheap skate idiots looking for a lot for no cost to them at all.

I actually have around 25 reasonable additions any "developer" can add to their mmog list, but "6. The mmog should be complete and without bugs" is a big pet peeve that makes games or breaks games this age.

Hope that helps, and yes no matter how much a idea may sound good, may smell good, may seem to sell good, you need to be able to hear the cries of the people before you go into a epic stun lock of ideas. Down right to the formula, games are meant to make money by immersion alongside fun.

I like this list so far, I'd love to see the full list if you're willing to post it or pm it or something.

[quote name='Caldenfor' timestamp='1304052372' post='4804288']
I am sorry if it came across as a futuristic endeavor, it isn't that at all. It would most likely be considered medieval, but I don't want there just to be European Medieval influence and be done with it. I want to include a few other of the available historical design influences to give the Domains different feels. If they all play and look the same, no fun in that. Catholic/Christian influences were only mentioned as that is where the terminology and the overall basis for a few of the classes are, i.e. Paladin, Cleric, Priest, Friar. The two religions won't exist in the game. Some of the belief systems for cultures in the game will certainly have some religious inspiration, but I do not want any modern religious conflicts to be able to cause trouble amongst the players. Religion is a part of history and a great big chunk of society, so how can it be ignored for inspiration?

Oh, that was my mistake, I was thinking from the first post that you were talking about a fantasy game, but then I read your statement mentioning a science fiction novel, and I thought you meant you were saying the game's story was the science fiction novel, so I was trying to figure out where the science fiction part was, and I decided the setting must be futuristic, lol.

I'm confused how you can have a religious class without the corresponding religion existing in the game - don't you need to have some class-specific exposition explaining how they get their powers from god, or something like that?

Your last sentence there was probably rhetorical, but actually as an atheist I don't have any problem designing religion-free fantasy or science fiction settings. On the other hand I think religion is interesting in the abstract, it can be fun to design fantasy cults and things, and they can be thematically powerful 'characters' in one's fiction... that's getting quite off-topic though.[/quote]

Well, let me just confess I started typing at around midnight and with odds and ends I didn't finish it until like 1am. Yes, I had a sci-fi novel established, but I had self doubts about being able to make it a novel so I had to place it on the back burner until I can figure out what to do with it.

To the game: I don't mind letting some of the classes in a fantasy setting gaining powers through their beliefs, and with this setting in particular, quite a few will gain power through their beliefs. Whether it is in a God, nature, science, or some other manner. The classes that I listed, Paladin/Cleric/Friar/Priest, in particular, are titled from Earth's Catholic and Christian history. I want the classes to be inspired by their namesake, but I fear letting them keep their religion would cause problems within the player base. I think it may be an unfounded fear, but I was under the assumption that it would be best for me to alter their religions just enough so that it would be a fantasy religion, not Catholicism/Christianity. I personally have no issue letting them keep their religion and having the Paladin classes be actual members of Charlemagne's court that was brought to Chern as long as it doesn't cause strife within the game from those intolerant of others' religions.

[color="#000000"]Shared dungeons give lone wolves more of a chance to experience dungeons? [/quote]
Doesn't count unless the lone wolf can kill the boss themselves. Actually lone wolves are tremendously benefited by instanced dungeons which can be scaled in difficulty to match the number of players entering.[/quote]

While there will be some named monsters within dungeons that are group(s) level difficulty there will also be some rarer mobs of lower difficulty to kill. Their difficulty will be finding them more so than defeating them. Unfortunately, for yourself at least, the game isn't being conceptualized to cater to solo players like some theme park games do. People will be able to solo fine and dandy, but they won't be able to accomplish everything there is to accomplish alone. They will certainly be able to give PVP a try solo, but as it is a Domain versus Domain design I hope that most people will choose to group up.

What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.

For me, that's the core problem - I just don't want to play that kind of game. I'm actually astonished how closely the mmorpg.com list describes the kind of game I want to play - I've been anti-classes for a long time but I would have thought most people would disagree because I never see people proposing classless MMOs here on gamedev. Although I'd quibble over point 3 - my own mmo design would not have player-created guilds or cities; unsure about raiding. And I'd add an important point about how the game must be an interactive fiction experience.[/quote]

Not every game is meant for everyone. Just because you don't aim to participate in the larger population doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to enjoy the game. Never grouping will certainly be a deterrent for some players though as it will be easier to accomplish things by grouping, by design. I do have another open world concept, but that is for a later day. How do you mean about the interactive fiction experience? Do you mean the game must have a story? Sure. There will be a story. Players can create their own as well. There will be quests, but they won't be as numerous as WoW/Rift/Etc as questing won't be a way to level. You can gain experience while on a quest, you will gain experience by completing it, but you won't be able to level 1-50 off of quests.

1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.[/quote]
You could either give each domain a 10% bonus on the minigame scores of its members, or you could require a certain amount of minigame play per week or other time increment as 'maintenance'.[/quote]

I am at work so i will have to reread this and figure it all out lol. Appreciate the discussion Lone Wolf. I many not entirely understand the concept of minigames in this context.

Not every game is meant for everyone. Just because you don't aim to participate in the larger population doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to enjoy the game. Never grouping will certainly be a deterrent for some players though as it will be easier to accomplish things by grouping, by design.

You asked me personally for my opinion. I was explaining why I wasn't in your target audience. It's not about whether I could enjoy the game, sure I could enjoy some of it. It's about the fact that when I want a new MMO to play I look for the one I'm likely to enjoy the most because it's aimed at players like me. I have already played half a dozen MMOs where I hated group activity and/or pvp that was mandatory or optional but intended to be the lion's share of higher-level content; I just don't want to experience that frustration yet again. Same reason I mostly read romance novels and rarely read non-romantic science-fiction and fantasy novel any more; sure some of them are great, some parts of many of them are enjoyable, but overall the satisfaction rate is lower for genres of entertainment where I'm not in the core demographic.

How do you mean about the interactive fiction experience? Do you mean the game must have a story?[/quote]
No, the standard RPG story is linear or episodic, not interactive. Interactive fiction is where the game behaves differently depending on the player's dialogue choices and actions within the game. Dating sims are the most common current example of interactive fiction in video games, but interactive fiction includes anything descended from the "choose your own adventure" type of story, including detective games where you decide where to look for clues and who to interrogate. For me, my guiding design principle is, playing an MMO should feel like stepping into a fantasy or science fiction novel, and getting to make choices and find a place for myself within that world in the same way the novel's main character does.

I many not entirely understand the concept of minigames in this context.[/quote]
A minigame is a non-combat pve activity with different rules, playing pieces, and available actions from the main game; the player is rewarded with money and/or resources for scoring well at the minigame. (Sometimes they also have a pvp mode or are primarily pvp). Minigames are often used to represent how the player must use skill to gathering or craft things within the MMO world, and also commonly appear in representations of carnivals or contests within the MMO world. Some RPGs contain quests which require getting a minimum score at a minigame in order to receive a quest object as a prize. Mini-games are called that because on their own they are like a simple/small game you could play on a handheld with minimal processing capacity and memory. Tetris, solitaire, minesweeper, whack-a-mole, pinball, are all mini-games. Fishing is the most common mini-game included within an RPG - it can be seen in WoW, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Gaia Online, Okami, Harvest Moon, and Animal Crossing just to name a few. The Final Fantasy series is well known for including mini-games such as the golden saucer arcade games in FF7 and Triple Triad in FF8. The Zelda series also is well known for including minigames where only a low score is needed to advance the plot but a really high score is needed to win a heart piece or bag size/wallet size/extra bottle upgrade. WoW's Capture the Flag is an example of a team pvp minigame. Puzzle Pirates is an MMO built around minigames.

[quote name='Caldenfor' timestamp='1304116587' post='4804575']Not every game is meant for everyone. Just because you don't aim to participate in the larger population doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to enjoy the game. Never grouping will certainly be a deterrent for some players though as it will be easier to accomplish things by grouping, by design.

You asked me personally for my opinion. I was explaining why I wasn't in your target audience. It's not about whether I could enjoy the game, sure I could enjoy some of it. It's about the fact that when I want a new MMO to play I look for the one I'm likely to enjoy the most because it's aimed at players like me. I have already played half a dozen MMOs where I hated group activity and/or pvp that was mandatory or optional but intended to be the lion's share of higher-level content; I just don't want to experience that frustration yet again. Same reason I mostly read romance novels and rarely read non-romantic science-fiction and fantasy novel any more; sure some of them are great, some parts of many of them are enjoyable, but overall the satisfaction rate is lower for genres of entertainment where I'm not in the core demographic.

How do you mean about the interactive fiction experience? Do you mean the game must have a story?[/quote]
No, the standard RPG story is linear or episodic, not interactive. Interactive fiction is where the game behaves differently depending on the player's dialogue choices and actions within the game. Dating sims are the most common current example of interactive fiction in video games, but interactive fiction includes anything descended from the "choose your own adventure" type of story, including detective games where you decide where to look for clues and who to interrogate. For me, my guiding design principle is, playing an MMO should feel like stepping into a fantasy or science fiction novel, and getting to make choices and find a place for myself within that world in the same way the novel's main character does.

I many not entirely understand the concept of minigames in this context.[/quote]
A minigame is a non-combat pve activity with different rules, playing pieces, and available actions from the main game; the player is rewarded with money and/or resources for scoring well at the minigame. (Sometimes they also have a pvp mode or are primarily pvp). Minigames are often used to represent how the player must use skill to gathering or craft things within the MMO world, and also commonly appear in representations of carnivals or contests within the MMO world. Some RPGs contain quests which require getting a minimum score at a minigame in order to receive a quest object as a prize. Mini-games are called that because on their own they are like a simple/small game you could play on a handheld with minimal processing capacity and memory. Tetris, solitaire, minesweeper, whack-a-mole, pinball, are all mini-games. Fishing is the most common mini-game included within an RPG - it can be seen in WoW, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Gaia Online, Okami, Harvest Moon, and Animal Crossing just to name a few. The Final Fantasy series is well known for including mini-games such as the golden saucer arcade games in FF7 and Triple Triad in FF8. The Zelda series also is well known for including minigames where only a low score is needed to advance the plot but a really high score is needed to win a heart piece or bag size/wallet size/extra bottle upgrade. WoW's Capture the Flag is an example of a team pvp minigame. Puzzle Pirates is an MMO built around minigames.
[/quote]

I understood from previous posts what play style you prefer. I didn't mean to try and sell my idea to you. I want to go away from common day big group requirements, such as Raids, so that people can enjoy the game rather than treating it like a second, or sometimes, first job lol. Big groups will certainly be able to work together, but at times they will be over kill and make content trivial. If people want to play trivially, that will be up to them, but I don't want that to be the case for PVP.

I think you would be able to get a kick out of my open world concept as it has less restrictions, no preset sides and the like. You would be able to be a thief, a murderer, a treasure hunter, etc. Again similarities with Ultima Online, but different in play and 3d of course. A world for you to do what you wish, with pros/cons to being good/bad.

As for the stories... I hear you. If someone isn't in love, what is the point? Whether the story actually contains this love, isn't always necessary, but the driving force or some other part of the plot needs love. The story I was writing was a boy hiding from those that killed his mother. He was inevitably protected by a family that secretly carried on their martial art traditions even though the study had been banned in Japan. Unbeknownst to the boy, the father of the family had played a role in his mother's death, though not the killer. He eventually falls in love with the daughter, though out of touch to him, he fights to avenge the death of his sensei, the mother of the martial family. It goes on to include mechs and other gadgetry, with some cognotechnological mind control capabilities to boot. Betrayal, death, love, hate, greed. Sorry, I want to eat dinner during this break so I typed this up quick.

As for mini-games I guess I just wasn't understanding the 10% you were speaking of. I enjoy puzzles and games as well. Crafting hasn't been fleshed out so there is potential for it there along with quests using them. As for the interactive story, I hope to have some of that, but as quests will be limited it may not be something experienced every day.

"1. You probably want a reason for there to be monster everywhere which the player can and should kill."


What if the MMO was designed to let the players advance and progress through activities other than killing mobs in this world?

I'm not a very big fan of the current MMO design since it has a forced "monsters everywhere" philosophy, It would be much more fun to have monsters be rarer and more scary (OMG itz a monster, run! *dies*)

Something really effective in MMO world building is giving the players an experience that can link them to this "supposedly living" world (Random events, constantly updated content, varying triggered events and very well hidden valuables).

Hmm, I guess this doesn't have much to do with writing, just throwing the idea out in the open ;p.

You sneaky squirrel, you! You stole some words out of my brain.

I personally feel that another important thing is visual identification with your character. I haven't played too many modern MMOs, but the ones that I have played (KalOnline, Silkroad Online, WoW) have failed largely in this respect, while older and generally less respected ones like Tibia and RuneScape do a fairly good job. Obviously I can't give my character my face or physique in these two games, but I can change his hairstyle and hair color (and in RS, skin tone) until it looks similar to mine -- or even just like mine. Quest/Mission-oriented Non-MMOs like Oblivion and Fallout 3/New Vegas excel here too, and while it might be taken a bit for granted I think that people respond to that whether they realize it or not.

The next important thing is immersion. You need to feel you're really a part of this fantasy world, not some intruder. NPC interaction is key here. Some other things, in addition to what you said about logical placement of monsters, is that monster loot and strength are realistic. Most MMOs fail horribly in those respects, but I don't think that players really respond to those things nearly as much as to lame NPCs. I would also add that music (if applicable) and visuals assist here, and depending on the theme used may actually have a big impact.

When I play an MMO, I want to explore. There needs to be multiple paths to a single point, maze-like dungeons I must traverse, and of course a reasonable number of monsters to pwn with my sword. Tibia was actually the greatest MMO I've played in this respect. If I get lost every now and then, you're probably doing it right.

Another important thing is the gameplay itself. The less interactive and more autonomous the gameplay, the less I feel involved. I've heard good things about WoW on boss enemies requiring groups to take down, but the general solo gameplay held my interest for so short a time that I never got to the point in the game where I could take part in these. Tibia and RuneScape fail horribly here, and so did KalOnline and Silkroad. If I've got to constantly make decisions about what hotkey I should use next even for simpler monsters, you're probably doing it right here. That's why everyone loves the boss monsters, and why people are willing to dish out hundreds or even thousands of dollars for higher-level characters: this is content you only get at those higher levels.

Puzzles. This is something very common in single-player games, but very rare in MMOs. Interesting puzzles can help with immersion, make gameplay less dry, and are not hard to implement in a client->server setting (they'd probably be less network intensive than combat).

The community is the most important thing. Sometimes I like to treat whatever MMO I'm playing like an open chatroom with people from all walks of life all around the world. Tibia once excelled here (it's chat console is a pretty big part of the game), but nowadays it's populated by bots and people with little or no English skills, so I don't really get it from there. I didn't get this from WoW, Silkroad, or KalOnline either. I did get this from RuneScape quite a bit and probably still would, but the sensitivity of the censor made communication a bit difficult sometimes. Which brings me to my next point...

The internet is for porn, netflix, harassing the mentally weak/ill, erection pills, committing or becoming a victim of identity theft, watching horrible ideas go horribly right on youtube, and sometimes some hardcore gaming. Aside for maybe netflix, none of those are very good things for children. Even if pedobear is playing your MMO to pick up "women", they've probably seen much worse things than the last three letters of class, which you will probably assume is my attempt at slipping a cussword past your daft censoring system. There's no need for it. Don't do it. It's annoying and disrupts clean, pleasant conversation just as often as it actually does its job, which as previously noted, is pointless.

[quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1304060361' post='4804324']
I think you might be interested in reading what people actually want on mmorpg.com. After reading about 20 threads of the same "historians" and "new kids" arguing back and forth the formation of a want list was created based on the reasonable aspects of their ideas and arguments. I'll go over some of the wants and desires of both sides. Amazingly, any indie team can deliver these aspects into a mmog.

1. Players simply want as many optional mini games as possible, and they require a reward or some in game changing events for winning and losing.
2. Destroy the healer class along with every other class and make every skill available in some kind of combination process and skill support system with the exception of skills based on certain items the player needs equipped.
3. Allow the player to build their character, city, guild, raid, mount, pet, and items their own way with as much control given to them as possible.
4. Players want stability, top notch connections, and also availability of the mmog.
5. Players are willing to pay for subscriptions or cash shop items that don't ruin the balance of the game, and yes most of the people posting for this were cheap skate idiots looking for a lot for no cost to them at all.

I actually have around 25 reasonable additions any "developer" can add totheir mmog list, but "6. The mmog should be complete and without bugs" is a big pet peeve that makes games or breaks games this age.

Hope that helps, and yes no matter how much a idea may sound good, may smell good, may seem to sell good, you need to be able to hear the cries of the people before you go into a epic stun lock of ideas. Down right to the formula, games are meant to make money by immersion alongside fun.

Players don't always know what they want, nor get what they want, as it may not fit into all games. I am trying to be as broad as possible with the design without taking away from the concept. When I was younger I used to want to design MY game, but over the years I have realized what I want isn't what everyone else wants. What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.

1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.

2. Not going to happen. There will be skills that determine the overall capabilities of the combatant, but they are restricted on a per class basis. This is for balancing mainly, but also to have characters have some individualism to them. Less of the FOTM, more of the, "I play it and I enjoy it". The power curve of the game is less than your traditional MMORPG. Level 50 in this concept would be like playing as a level 35 in DAoC with both starting at the same level 1. They just gain power more slowly. I find that games that concentrate on making characters too powerful take away from the enjoyment of combat. How many people would run around different level BGs in games just to enjoy the "non-end game PVP" purely because it was more balanced?

3. Player cities will be customizable with provided structures. They can choose the layout, but there will be a max radius(square most likely) available to build in to avoid Great Walls being built every where. Outside of homes will have slight customization options, while entering a home would be in a separate zone(instance) for the player to customize as well. I would love to avoid all instances, but I don't think it would be technologically possible to have homes like Ultima Online did without bogging down those around the home. I am trying to include taming in the game without making it too powerful, but also enjoyable. Potential for pet customization would be in finding various visuals, some more rare than others, while being able to help train your pet. There is a possibility for raising pets from egg form.

4. Graphics are going to be good, but "next-gen" is out of the question unless it provides for many people battling simultaneously. I don't think it will be too hard to imagine 200+ players getting together for fights. If all goes well it could even rear up to 600+ in a close proximity(same zone). Quality of play comes before graphics to an extent.

5. I don't really see room for a cash shop, but a subscription would be a certainty if it all works out.

Gotta run.
[/quote]

Well, I see another strong headed dreamer that doesn't think that the masses of players can speak up. When in the market of cookie cutter games versus sand box games, in which all seem to be the same, you need to listen to the community. Developers refuse to listen to the cries and changes needed to go back into pure immersion and fun. I do like some of the aspects of the game you want, and if you're dead set on that style of game that's fine, but I will head a warning that others seem to shrug off til their pockets are burnt.

1. Mostly put in what people want for mini games. I can come up with 20 mini games that will fit most mmogs. You need to design a game that will fit those mini games and make ppl happy. Design every tier to have tier specific mini games to draw ppl into leveling or achieving that tier.

2. People are tired of being told that they can not do this, or the same old mechanic systems from another game. Once more, people wish for no classes, skills to associate or penalize the player for having other skills in a reverse tree, and also to create a skill based combat system. Sure, it'll be unbalanced, but why do a linear type class system that you need balancing and just let people pick the skills they want and like and formulate a balance themselves? It's by trial and error people have the most fun finding out about formulas and such.

3. You need to think about more than just customization, you need to also think about functionality. You need to have a reason for them to take the cities, a initiative. Yeah, its cool to just take cities, but without the motives then there is no reason for them to do it more than 1x. You can implement a dynamic changing siege system for almost about everything. Also, if it's subscription spend some time into making a sandbox for their armors, characters, skills, and pets and mounts. You can also make a combo sandbox editor for the skills and various other things in the game. Allowing a player to make his own mini game is far more fun and adds tons of hours of replay value than having a preset mini game that doesn't involve or change the players interaction into the environment.

4. I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about technology. You need a T48 connection with multiple server shards and multiple T48 connections to handle lag and balancing. A good Dedicated pc for hundreds of thousands of players is $100k each, and figure around 50 or so for 1M players. I'd gauge at minimum 10-15 T48 internet connections to help reduce the lag of internet connections. It might come also down to hardware specs for the average pc end user that will play your game, but ultimately if it lags on the internet connection, if your servers aren't accessible and if your servers are always down, people will leave.

5. You're subscription can be greatly effected by what you do with your game. Your game is there to solve the communities problems, and your goal, job, directive, w.e., is to make sure that you meet their needs. Earning money by providing people with a solution to their problems by offering your game that solves that problem is 100x more profitable than making another cookie cutter mmog. Think on it, is your game in your mind worth $50 box price and a $15 monthly subscription? To you it may be, but to the community it is a totally different story. You are to cater to the masses, not to your own (butt).

Hope that enlightens someone on here, even with just my suggestions I currently think you will draw more attention and sales than just by going with what you initially wanted. You need to decide to add what the masses want, and what you might like to see together, and get rid of anything from your side, yes yours not theirs, that conflicts with each other.

~ Red

[quote name='Caldenfor' timestamp='1304084096' post='4804420']
[quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1304060361' post='4804324']
I think you might be interested in reading what people actually want on mmorpg.com. After reading about 20 threads of the same "historians" and "new kids" arguing back and forth the formation of a want list was created based on the reasonable aspects of their ideas and arguments. I'll go over some of the wants and desires of both sides. Amazingly, any indie team can deliver these aspects into a mmog.

1. Players simply want as many optional mini games as possible, and they require a reward or some in game changing events for winning and losing.
2. Destroy the healer class along with every other class and make every skill available in some kind of combination process and skill support system with the exception of skills based on certain items the player needs equipped.
3. Allow the player to build their character, city, guild, raid, mount, pet, and items their own way with as much control given to them as possible.
4. Players want stability, top notch connections, and also availability of the mmog.
5. Players are willing to pay for subscriptions or cash shop items that don't ruin the balance of the game, and yes most of the people posting for this were cheap skate idiots looking for a lot for no cost to them at all.

I actually have around 25 reasonable additions any "developer" can add totheir mmog list, but "6. The mmog should be complete and without bugs" is a big pet peeve that makes games or breaks games this age.

Hope that helps, and yes no matter how much a idea may sound good, may smell good, may seem to sell good, you need to be able to hear the cries of the people before you go into a epic stun lock of ideas. Down right to the formula, games are meant to make money by immersion alongside fun.

Players don't always know what they want, nor get what they want, as it may not fit into all games. I am trying to be as broad as possible with the design without taking away from the concept. When I was younger I used to want to design MY game, but over the years I have realized what I want isn't what everyone else wants. What I am trying to design is a game that is Domain vs Domain oriented where you have more invested in a game than just your character. I want collaborated efforts by players to be rewarding for the Domain rather than just rewarding the individuals.

1. If you can think of some mini-games that would fit into the concept without taking away from the game I am always open to ideas on bettering the game. I plan for their to be collectibles like Ultima Online, which on it's own is a form of mini-game. When I say collectibles I am not talking about saving things in your digital binder for self pleasure, I mean ones that you can buy, sell, stash away, or proudly display.

2. Not going to happen. There will be skills that determine the overall capabilities of the combatant, but they are restricted on a per class basis. This is for balancing mainly, but also to have characters have some individualism to them. Less of the FOTM, more of the, "I play it and I enjoy it". The power curve of the game is less than your traditional MMORPG. Level 50 in this concept would be like playing as a level 35 in DAoC with both starting at the same level 1. They just gain power more slowly. I find that games that concentrate on making characters too powerful take away from the enjoyment of combat. How many people would run around different level BGs in games just to enjoy the "non-end game PVP" purely because it was more balanced?

3. Player cities will be customizable with provided structures. They can choose the layout, but there will be a max radius(square most likely) available to build in to avoid Great Walls being built every where. Outside of homes will have slight customization options, while entering a home would be in a separate zone(instance) for the player to customize as well. I would love to avoid all instances, but I don't think it would be technologically possible to have homes like Ultima Online did without bogging down those around the home. I am trying to include taming in the game without making it too powerful, but also enjoyable. Potential for pet customization would be in finding various visuals, some more rare than others, while being able to help train your pet. There is a possibility for raising pets from egg form.

4. Graphics are going to be good, but "next-gen" is out of the question unless it provides for many people battling simultaneously. I don't think it will be too hard to imagine 200+ players getting together for fights. If all goes well it could even rear up to 600+ in a close proximity(same zone). Quality of play comes before graphics to an extent.

5. I don't really see room for a cash shop, but a subscription would be a certainty if it all works out.

Gotta run.
[/quote]

Well, I see another strong headed dreamer that doesn't think that the masses of players can speak up. When in the market of cookie cutter games versus sand box games, in which all seem to be the same, you need to listen to the community. Developers refuse to listen to the cries and changes needed to go back into pure immersion and fun. I do like some of the aspects of the game you want, and if you're dead set on that style of game that's fine, but I will head a warning that others seem to shrug off til their pockets are burnt.

1. Mostly put in what people want for mini games. I can come up with 20 mini games that will fit most mmogs. You need to design a game that will fit those mini games and make ppl happy. Design every tier to have tier specific mini games to draw ppl into leveling or achieving that tier.

2. People are tired of being told that they can not do this, or the same old mechanic systems from another game. Once more, people wish for no classes, skills to associate or penalize the player for having other skills in a reverse tree, and also to create a skill based combat system. Sure, it'll be unbalanced, but why do a linear type class system that you need balancing and just let people pick the skills they want and like and formulate a balance themselves? It's by trial and error people have the most fun finding out about formulas and such.

3. You need to think about more than just customization, you need to also think about functionality. You need to have a reason for them to take the cities, a initiative. Yeah, its cool to just take cities, but without the motives then there is no reason for them to do it more than 1x. You can implement a dynamic changing siege system for almost about everything. Also, if it's subscription spend some time into making a sandbox for their armors, characters, skills, and pets and mounts. You can also make a combo sandbox editor for the skills and various other things in the game. Allowing a player to make his own mini game is far more fun and adds tons of hours of replay value than having a preset mini game that doesn't involve or change the players interaction into the environment.

4. I'm not talking about graphics, I'm talking about technology. You need a T48 connection with multiple server shards and multiple T48 connections to handle lag and balancing. A good Dedicated pc for hundreds of thousands of players is $100k each, and figure around 50 or so for 1M players. I'd gauge at minimum 10-15 T48 internet connections to help reduce the lag of internet connections. It might come also down to hardware specs for the average pc end user that will play your game, but ultimately if it lags on the internet connection, if your servers aren't accessible and if your servers are always down, people will leave.

5. You're subscription can be greatly effected by what you do with your game. Your game is there to solve the communities problems, and your goal, job, directive, w.e., is to make sure that you meet their needs. Earning money by providing people with a solution to their problems by offering your game that solves that problem is 100x more profitable than making another cookie cutter mmog. Think on it, is your game in your mind worth $50 box price and a $15 monthly subscription? To you it may be, but to the community it is a totally different story. You are to cater to the masses, not to your own (butt).

Hope that enlightens someone on here, even with just my suggestions I currently think you will draw more attention and sales than just by going with what you initially wanted. You need to decide to add what the masses want, and what you might like to see together, and get rid of anything from your side, yes yours not theirs, that conflicts with each other.

~ Red
[/quote]

I never said I didn't want "mini-games", but I don't want "Gems" or whatever it was from EQ. I would want game mechanics that existed for players to interact with to fill this role. I also don't see it as being overly impossible to have little game objects that could actually be played in the game. How hard would it be to make a windowed game within the world where people could play board/card games/etc. No, not monopoly. Something more fitting to the genre.

If you are talking about me I am not entirely sure what you are talking about for most of that post. Things being expensive and technologically challenging, yes, cool. I never said I actually thought the game would be made nor that it would be inexpensive. I would certainly like to play a game with an RVR type gameplay, but there aren't many, if any, options available currently other than a dated MMO originating ten years ago.

As to the rest of it, why do you think that it is a sandbox? PVP is separate from PVE only areas so that seems quite the opposite of a sandbox. You can't attack your allies. You have limits, thus, not a sandbox.

Why is it a copy of something else? Because it has PVP objectives similar to older DAoC? I don't see as that being a bad thing. You may not have enjoyed PVP in DAoC, prior to ToA, but there are more people than just myself that really enjoyed the thought behind it as I see it on multiple forums. I already stated why player cities are of use and how they would actually be useful to the players. If you feel I didn't properly explain it, or feel the explanation was inadequate, please feel free to offer suggestions to make them of more use. Player cities aren't for PVP combat. That is a PVE only portion of the game where player cities are made.

I did, however, believe that potentially making the cities controlled by NPCs that grow over time as being part of the game, but why take that part of the game away from the players other than to implement cities with less complications, also known as humans, to worry about.

And on a final note, if you find anyone that can balance a skill based system rather than class based for a competitive and enjoyable PVP experience, please let me know. People all want cookie-cutters, sadly, classes is one of the ways of preventing that and it works quite well. People think they know what they want and think it will always work. I am not absolved from this statement either. I don't imagine a "wow-killer", I think of a quality game for people to enjoy to fill more than just a "niche" in the system. While I claim it would be similar to RVR, you could actually play the game and have fun without ever participating in RVR, unless of course the game is composed as garbage. I wouldn't expect this concept to be the next big thing and who would want to be it? Currently "the next big thing" keeps turning up to be a steaming pile.

If any of this is read as being aggressive, defensive, whatever, it isn't and is never intended.

My response was never intended to be coming off as offensive or a direct aggression act towards you. It seems that the internet can lead to things being more than they are. My post is not "aggressive" it's "informative". Currently, all it does is plug valid information from what people want, and what developers ignore into it. It also comes with insight into spec hardware, even though it is a small insight. Don't misread what I say as me forcing my ideas onto you, do as you please. I've stated that it's a suggestion to help improve mix and improve with your views and ideas, but it was left up to you to understand that. Your other response did however, show some signs that you refused to look into what people were crying out for, and that triggered my response posted above. People repeat failure theme park MMOGs because they think people don't know what they want. Yet again it points to the evidence of doing some research on the why MMO gamers flop around so much to different MMOGs.

If you find nothing I have said of value, then ignore it and go on your MMOG way. My post is for those who listen. My post is for those that want to improve their genre, not flop around with editing the same mix of cookie dough that makes cookie cutter games. Yes, you can improve upon games of old, you can do w.e. you want. Don't find my posts wanting you to follow them like a rule book. They are not meant for that.

Now, let me get back to what I was posting about since it confused you, it may confuse others. My posts are not hard to read or understand, yet people with closed minds find them hard to read. It does not mean anyone on here, or refer to anyone, including you as a closed mind. You simply just misunderstood what I had said, so it was in fact a communication error brought on by the internet.

Now lets begin with what a MMOG developer could compile as useful information.

MMOG players want social back into their games. A form of social can unite them as mini games, or in reference miniature games designed around the theme of the MMORPG that allows a player a alternative form of player other than combat. This allows the player some sort of glimpse of being able to do something other than kill or be killed. Mini games that any MMOG can have inside them can be thought up or found from ideas from other games. I won't spoon feed anyone on here.

Now think for a second here, PVP and PVE are not suppose to be separate. What you are suppose to do is encourage them to do both, but allow real world penalties to overcome those that abuse such a system. You're the developer, you come up with the risks and rewards of such a fluid system. The integration needs to be seamless else it will become another turd yet to rot away on the pile of MMORPG history.

Sandbox is where it is at. Sandbox means players can build with the tools you provide them, and build what you say they can build to a certain extent their way. Linear means you already chose everything for them, you don't give them the tools to build anything their way. Simply put, make your game as much sandbox as possible. Players will stick around much longer than 3 months.

Now, latency is a big pet peeve of everyones. Think on this part a bit. You want the best connections, best hardware, and the best looking graphics mixed in. None of this is even an argument, it's a necessity. Hands down, anyone who skips this should be shot dead in their sleep.

I hope that by now maybe someone has learned a bit more into what to do to make a good MMOG. My only hope is that at least 1 person learned some valuable information from this. This was never intended to pwn, assault, or make people feel unhappy. It's for educational purposes only. Thank you.

~ RED