Decline Why do MMOs suck so much?

[anvi]

I've been playing the revamped Tera and it is really good. I've only done solo stuff so far but the combat is amazing, it makes games like Dragons Dogma look retarded. I hope the grouping is good though, and I hope there is something to keep me playing later on. But for now it is fun.

this one?

Meh class lineup.
Modern MMOs don't even acknowledge support classes anymore.

Dungeons I did with a group so far have only been 3 people, tank, dps, healer. I think it gets deeper later on. The combat is so cool but the rest of the game not so much. I also don't like how grouping is just all about perfecting your build and dps routine. I'd like to try the PVP though. The game overall seems better than ESO.

 

[MajorMace]

Just checked google image for TERA.

No thanks.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Modern MMOs don't even acknowledge support classes anymore.

That's because the "me" generation doesn't really grok the concept of a team. It's so bad that if you actually have a team and play as one, they'll accuse you of being robots.

That's why I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

You say this but I just got done setting up my WoW Single Player Project server for WotLK. It's basically a modified private server you run on your machine with a slightly modified client. It adds bots you can control similarly to a CRPG. I hate WoW's community. I might as well play with bots. They're better conversation and more reactive than actual WoW players. And they actually play their fuckin roles properly.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Just checked google image for TERA.

No thanks.

 

[anvi]

The graphics are a shame but it is worth playing to see the combat. Imagine that combat in a proper game.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

the combat is basically ESO except without the retarded animation cancelling shit

 

[anvi]

I think it way better than ESO, at least the Sorcerer is, I haven't tried any others. ESO feels like clunky old jank compared to it. It is so fast and fluid, feels like a single player action game. I just wish it was deeper. You get the slick combat engine but all you are doing is mass slaughtering hoards of mobs. There's no challenge and it is too mindless, but I guess if it works for Diablo clones it can work for MMOs too. The PVP might be worthwhile though, I haven't tried that yet. It seems > GW2, ESO.

These modern MMOs are such a completely different species to old MMOs though. They are like a completely different genre.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I wouldn't know a good mmo if it fell through my roof. And there's this dude's evaluation...

 

[Morenatsu.]

That guy seems like kind of a retard. Who gives a shit about ‘ugh, games are suck, they came out in like... 2014!! so fukin old lol’.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Yeah, I don't know wtf he wants? Armies of guilds fighting, tons of pvp, blah blah. I find the games I used to play casually I enjoyed. The more I grinded for w/e and however, the more it became like work. So, I just became a casual. I hate games that changed hands (esp korean, oriental ones). Change out currency, change out items, clearing all collections, deleting alts and shit under new management, erasing favorites areas/bosses/items/etc all because of new ownership of the company. That makes me go FUCK THIS GAME. And seeing that happen more often turned me away. The few I still casual don't change (or change little) and all my old shit is still around. I'd be annoyed if my lvl 500 - 1,000 alts were just gone.

 

[LizardWizard]

WoW was only ever fun back in the friends and family alpha when it most resembled EQ and you could gank casuals.

 

[anvi]

It is too big of a genre to even talk about. That guy has a few ok points but he is pretty ignorant. YouTubers are WoW generation, they are too young for UO or EQ and yet that was a completely different experience. There are also games like EVE which are very different. They shouldn't all be the same genre. EQ is so different to all the later MMOs.

Also that guy is talking about things that really do not need to be part of MMOs. He says MMOs are all about players working together to change the world, but MMOs were a success before that was even possible. You couldn't change the world in EQ yet that was a big success.

That feeling he felt in WoW with hundreds of people working together to achieve something is great, and it did you make wonder how cool it would be in the future, and it is sad to see the genre die and that conclusion will never be seen. But people were doing that same thing a decade earlier in MUDs and in UO and EQ, and it really has nothing to do with changing the world. It can be... but it can not be too. People were getting together in the hundreds to fight massive Gods and dragons and stuff. They would kill them and loot something awesome, but then the dragons would respawn a week later. So that's not changing the world at all. Does it matter? Those games were still huge and popular.

A year or two later they made an EQ expansion where you really could change the world in a permanent way. If the players would get together and awaken The Sleeper then it permanently changed part of the game. This was done with a "scripted patch", yet it was still the players in large numbers who chose whether to do it or not, and it did change the world. Why is it "lame" to be done with a patch? What examples can that dipshit give me of a lame scripted patch? Because I bet he has knows zero scripted patches that changed games. I only know a few. My point is none of them were 'lame' in any way. They were fucking awesome, they were making an online world permanently change based on what the players chose to do. The server got scheduled updates anyway so it coming back with world changes was a good thing. So he shouldn't be talking about lame scripted anything when he has no clue what he is talking about and when hardly anyone on the planet has even ever experienced any of this...

There are a lot of games that hyped up being able to change the world with your actions, Rift, GW2, etc., but it is all cosmetic gimmicky bullshit. Imagine going to a town in Skyrim only a bunch of goblins spawned nearby and took over the town. So you kill the goblins and then the town will respawn as it should be. That's basically all the world changing is in modern MMOs. Some games did a bit better than others, Shadowbane etc, but it is always jank. And yes you could make that far more interesting and advanced.... but there are a million other things that are more important to this and have nothing to do with world changing... And early games were a success without it.

Things people should think about are how the whole genre is based on a design that had 56k in mind. Also the fact that the entire genre is based around the idea of grinding, which was only necessary to keep people playing the game and paying the monthly subscriptions. So with no subscriptions, why do we still have grind? Also the fact that most games are designed to progress in a straight line, through the levels and you get x y z gear as you go. Only a few games tried to design to the other way (wide or something), which means if you rush through the levels you end up weaker than someone who travels the world and explores, talks to NPCs all over and finds rare quests and hidden passages and rare items and stuff. I only played a few like that... but I played them long and hard because it was fun to see it pay off. The other 99% of MMOs are all about just going down a very linear journey. And with terrible itemization, tedious questing, stupid endgame, etc... These are all much easier problems to fix than making a world that changes in real time.

 

[HeyCheckOutHowHardICanPee]

tl;dr: mmos are just worse co-op games meant for grinding addicts

 

[anvi]

Some more thoughts in a row. EQ was so much more hardcore than the newer games, and yet you could be a lot lazier in it and I much preferred that. So like in Tera that I'm playing now, I love killing stuff but questing barely lets you fight stuff. You go to an NPC and get a quest but the quest only takes 5 seconds, literally. Then you run back to the NPC who rewards you and sends you to some other NPC to repeat. So you spend your whole time in game running from place to place and clicking these NPCs. There is almost no actual time spent fighting.

I find it really tedious to be constantly checking my map and figuring out where I'm heading and who I'm clicking. I hate it. I am looking forward to uninstalling because of it. Drives me crazy.

EQ was nothing like that. Most people would set up camp somewhere to hunt something, or in a room of a dungeon. Then sit there for hours, you kill stuff and wait 10 mins for it to respawn and kill it again and again. You can AFK in between each fight or hunt other enemies nearby for experience or gear. But it is more chill to stay in one place. It can have some really intense battles, as can exploring, it was still kind relaxing to be based in one spot and not having to go anywhere. This constant running around questing is a total pain. EQ despite its name didn't have much questing. It had some important longer quests but mostly you progressed by setting up camp somewhere and hunting the enemies. But WoW went the endless questing route which I find to be worse, and this Tera games takes it to the furthest extreme I've seen.

EQ was known for "the grind" so WoW's thousands of little quests idea was their solution. Which I find worse. But also the EQ grind wasn't really an issue in terms of what you did. Camping some pumas for hours or in some dungeon was fun. The problem was how long they required you to do this... So you play all evening, slaughtering thousands of pumas and at the end of the night you log out with just 10% of a level gained. Play for hours, every night for a week and now you're at 70% of the level. So it took weeks to see progress. To reach max level in the original (which I did), it took 12 months of playing regularly. To reach max level and get everything I wanted in Rift, took me 1 month. ESO, GW2, more or less the same. So EQ's time investment was insane, but it wasn't necessary. It isn't an essential part of the genre. And it sucks that the camping in one spot is associated with the grind and the endless running fedex quests is now somehow not a grind...

tl;dr: mmos are just worse co-op games meant for grinding addicts

The grinding doesn't need to be in an MMO any more than it does in Skyrim or anything else. There are some MMOs with no grind that I can complete in a week. Also there never was much co-op in gaming, a few LAN enabled games and then it went straight to massively multiplayer. A good MMO is 100 times better than any co-op game though. The problem is a good MMO is rare. And they don't last forever either. I would pay $1000 right now just to play Vanguard, but I'll probably never get to play that again.

 

[anvi]

Gah he mentioned changing the world again, it bothers me. But he is also talking PVP and gankers which again, doesn't need to be part of MMOs at all. It could be 100% PVE, or PVP, or a mixture... And the PVP in EQ was never given any development time. They made the game entirely for PVE, so providing a PVP server was just for fun. When people then started complaining about how some classes are super powerful in PVP, the devs straight up said yes that's because the classes are not designed for PVP at all... And that game never got any PVP development. It had a few fun but janky PVP servers and eventually people stopped playing those. So again EQ was a big deal in the MMO world and yet PVP wasn't really a part of it.

I love PVP but my point is that guy is talking about MMOs like they are defined by A B and C and yet they really aren't. It doesn't need PVP to be an MMO, and I also think it shouldn't have PVP unless it is designed well for it. Part of the problem with MMOs is trying to do too many things. If you have to be able to completely change the world, and in real time with no server updates.... and it has to also have PVP and PVE, etc. Then by this guy's definition you are gonna need 500m to make it. But some low budget indie MMO could end up being amazing. And it may have no PVP at all. Also when he talks about, "Nobody has ever really done awesome PVE where anyone cares about what you loot," that was what EQ was all about! And he missed it all, the entire massive history with 26 years and 26 expansions or whatever it has, that whole history is missing from his MMO history and future.

Also when he was talking about it not being massive enough. EQ had bigger raids than WoW does, the tech got better yet the numbers went down. But more people doesn't necessarily make it better or more fun anyway. I killed a dragon with 100 people, it was a lot less fun than a really great dungeon I did one time with 5 other people. More numbers doesn't automatically make it more fun.

It could amazing to have a huge game with thousands of people all in the same region at the same time, massive LOTR type battles with thousands of orcs vs thousands of elves and humans and whatever. But I feel like the MMO genre needs to splinter off into at least 3 or 4 different directions. Because trying to do it all in one game is too much and all these dead MMOs that did a wishy washy job of everything are proof.

 

[anvi]

Also about grind.. EQ design was that people would desperately want these famous items, say The Journeyman Boots for example which let your character run faster at all times! But it would drop from 1 giant, which had a 30 minute respawn time, and the giant only has 2% chance of having the boots! So you sit there all day, killing him every time he respawns, hoping he has your boots. But it is completely random and that low chance... You could get lucky and he has the boots as soon as you show up, or you could spend weeks. I spent 40+ hours on that item.

This is the grind that people complained about in EQ, as well as the xp grind. And it mostly only existed because the designer was convinced that it made the success a player achieved taste sweeter. Which I agree with, but I still think he totally overdid it! But it is so easy to fix. If the giant gives everyone the item every time they show up, then the item is no longer special and it doesn't feel like an achievement. But make it drop parts you need to combine, 100% chance to drop, 30 minute respawn, and 1-2 hours gets you the item. Long enough to feel earned, but a lot more sane than 40+ hours.

But this and all EQs other wacky ideas were basically never seen again. Everything else went to the other extreme of instant gratification instead. There are hardly any games in between!

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

How many MMOs have a permanent death/hardcore server pvp or pve? You die, and its time to make a new alt?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

How many MMOs have a permanent death/hardcore server pvp or pve? You dieanc its make a new alt?

DDO regularly runs a hardcore league. I don't consider DDO to be a 'true' MMO any more than games like diablo 2 on b.net, etc.,
Runescape has a hardcore mode as an option as part of their ironman mode. You're required to be entirely self-sufficient and can't even trade with other players.
In LotRO there's achievements for attaining levels without dying that reward titles

Original Jedi in SWG were permadeath, and it was designed around you eventually dying no matter what to fit into the story timeline. How long you lived dictated how you'd die, but if you survived long enough to get a real notice, it would be Darth Vader himself coming to kill you.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Also when he talks about, "Nobody has ever really done awesome PVE where anyone cares about what you loot," that was what EQ was all about! And he missed it all, the entire massive history with 26 years and 26 expansions or whatever it has, that whole history is missing from his MMO history and future.

It's amazing how few people -- especially those designing MMOs now it seems -- have never even played EQ. You can go play for free right now, both the live version and the original game on P99. It's like discussing western fantasy with someone who decided to skip over Tolkien's works and read the derivative works instead.

Also when he was talking about it not being massive enough. EQ had bigger raids than WoW does, the tech got better yet the numbers went down. But more people doesn't necessarily make it better or more fun anyway. I killed a dragon with 100 people, it was a lot less fun than a really great dungeon I did one time with 5 other people. More numbers doesn't automatically make it more fun.

I personally never thought the raids in EQ(or even WoW which were much more detailed, I raided up to Sunwell in TBC) were very interesting. I enjoyed EQ's world.
MMOs focusing on only one activity is completely wrong and a misunderstanding of the genre.


SWG is another example of a game designers should be studying. That game was years ahead of its time, it would be a smash hit right now.

 

[Ninjerk]

How many MMOs have a permanent death/hardcore server pvp or pve? You dieanc its make a new alt?

Mortal Online and Darkfall revolve around permadeath, I think. There was a whole meme about players proving their worth by naked ganking others with the leafblade or w/e that you start with and getting full gearsets.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Also that guy is talking about things that really do not need to be part of MMOs. He says MMOs are all about players working together to change the world, but MMOs were a success before that was even possible. You couldn't change the world in EQ yet that was a big success.

That feeling he felt in WoW with hundreds of people working together to achieve something is great, and it did you make wonder how cool it would be in the future, and it is sad to see the genre die and that conclusion will never be seen. But people were doing that same thing a decade earlier in MUDs and in UO and EQ, and it really has nothing to do with changing the world. It can be... but it can not be too. People were getting together in the hundreds to fight massive Gods and dragons and stuff. They would kill them and loot something awesome, but then the dragons would respawn a week later. So that's not changing the world at all. Does it matter? Those games were still huge and popular.

A year or two later they made an EQ expansion where you really could change the world in a permanent way. If the players would get together and awaken The Sleeper then it permanently changed part of the game. This was done with a "scripted patch", yet it was still the players in large numbers who chose whether to do it or not, and it did change the world. Why is it "lame" to be done with a patch? What examples can that dipshit give me of a lame scripted patch? Because I bet he has knows zero scripted patches that changed games. I only know a few. My point is none of them were 'lame' in any way. They were fucking awesome, they were making an online world permanently change based on what the players chose to do. The server got scheduled updates anyway so it coming back with world changes was a good thing. So he shouldn't be talking about lame scripted anything when he has no clue what he is talking about and when hardly anyone on the planet has even ever experienced any of this...

There are a lot of games that hyped up being able to change the world with your actions, Rift, GW2, etc., but it is all cosmetic gimmicky bullshit. Imagine going to a town in Skyrim only a bunch of goblins spawned nearby and took over the town. So you kill the goblins and then the town will respawn as it should be. That's basically all the world changing is in modern MMOs. Some games did a bit better than others, Shadowbane etc, but it is always jank. And yes you could make that far more interesting and advanced.... but there are a million other things that are more important to this and have nothing to do with world changing... And early games were a success without it.

You definitely could change the world in EQ, but it tended to be more subtle and (as you stated) required direct developer interaction. e.g., Protection of the Cabbage would blow most MMO players away today. Not just in how difficult it was to accomplish, but that it was a quest added without telling anyone about it. The reward of the quest was named after the player who discovered it(Xanthe's Earring of Nature.)
For those unaware, there are ten books scattered throughout the world in various languages(yes, languages were a very important part of EQ -- I don't think it launched with a 'common' language iirc) that detail how to craft the earring. You had to not only speak all the languages, but find all the books then craft the items to combine them together to get the earring.

Also, EQ GMs used to interact directly with the players and GM-lead quests were a thing.

One feature EQ has(had?) was merchants changing their buying/selling prices depending on how frequently they were used. I really liked this mechanic and it did a crude but good job of simulating an economy and giving players a reason to explore or visit merchants typically not visited. Also, you could buy back items from merchants that were sold by other players, with merchants only resetting after server reboots. It was common to find some decent stuff on merchants if you did some hunting around. Just an example of cool mechanics that are completely forgotten now.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Hmmm merchant mechanics. I used to wonder if karma, reputation, and the like was implemented a lot in mmos (or rpgs for that matter). I still recall the rather crude system in the crpg Alternate Reality: the City where you buy enough drinks and eventually that particular bar WILL REMEMBER YOUR NAME. I played a bit of fable as well but reactions never stuck and you could go from goid to evil and back it seemed. Surprised they didn't make Fable online tbh.

 

[J1M]

The MMO kids play today is called bullying people on twitter.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Hmmm merchant mechanics. I used to wonder if karma, reputation, and the like was implemented a lot in mmos (or rpgs for that matter). I still recall the rather crude system in the crpg Alternate Reality: the City where you buy enough drinks and eventually that particular bar WILL REMEMBER YOUR NAME. I played a bit of fable as well but reactions never stuck and you could go from goid to evil and back it seemed. Surprised they didn't make Fable online tbh.

In EQ, each character had a reaction towards you based on various factors(including reputations, your gender, and your race.) If the reaction was too low, they wouldn't even sell you things. Higher reaction reduced prices, so did charisma.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Ah! That's nice.