SOE's Next Step?

[Neric]

Originally Posted by tad10

There is no doubt in my mind that if Blizzard had actual competition in the MMO marketplace that they would ship content faster. Since such competition does not, as yet exist, they can get away with crappy CS and uber slow dev times.

Why should Blizzard ship content faster? Why do you want to accelerate Mudflation? Do you want to pay $39 every 6 months for a 5-zone-trash-expansion SoE-style? It is a contradiction to race to max level within a few days and then complain about the lack of content, but that's exactly what people are doing all the time.

[spentmotiff]

Kind of back to the subject, I'm actually looking forward to "The Agency." It looks like a fun title that seems to be a step further down the "MMO meets FPS" path that games like TR and HGL are treading.

Not looking forward to the DC Online game, however. While CoX is far from perfect, I'm betting that Cryptic is smart enough to learn from past mistakes and make their Marvel Universe game kick all levels of holy ass.

I can't shake the picture in my head of plastic, barbie-doll looking heroes with clunky gameplay for DC Online....It maybe a wrong and outdated impression, but I just...can't...shake..it.

[Gecko]

City of Heroes is a fun game, it's just not good enough to pay a monthly fee for. It also is too limited in the Heroes vs Villains capacity and what is capable.

I can't see SOE deviating from their EQ -> WOW -> New MMO titles cloning EQ/WOW design to actually release an innovative new MMO. If they would go in a completely new direction, they could make a killer comic book MMO. Unfortunately, it'll probably be EQ/WOW in the DC Universe.

[Venjenz]

The EQ1 changes thread got me thinking about something SOE could definitely consider for any upcoming game design - use EQ1 as a test platform for certain mechanics.

For example - the idea of the hired NPC and squad based MMO play. WoW has shown that casual friendly for most stuff, raids with real people for teh hardcore is the way. But the middle ground between them is one player controlling a group. Yes, you can already box these games, but why not let it happen without requiring the player to buy multiple copies of the game and have multiple subscriptions? And you have a game in place with 300+ unique zones to test the mechanic. So launch an EQ server where all us EQ1 nostalgia junkies can go be little helpers who try out this new mechanic, come here and tear it to shreds, rinse, repeat, and voila, a well tested mechanic with free testing, on machines you already own, using a game you already have running.

Another example of applying the single player running a full group is PVP. The hardest thing in PVP balancing in class based games is the 1v1 encounter, because of the rock, paper, scissors model. But if you can run a squad, then 1v1 puts balancing in the hands of the player. Will it work? Beats me, but why not allow FFA PVP on this new server where you allow hired henchmen, and we'll all figure it out for you just by experimenting.

And how hard can it be to just add a few more pet control bars and summoning devices to get people up and running? That is all we are talking about, running multiple pets. And the mechanic for different types of pets already exists as well, minus healing pets, because the mage and necro pets are all different flavors. Can a single player running these hired bots run your group content? Too easy, too hard? Can someone hire henchmen to do a flag trial? Can they pull off the coordination to do it that way, which would allow for guilds to stop the hated processing of backflagging new people when adding members? again, I have no clue, but an EQ1 server with these new mechanics gives me all the tools I need to find out, and no team of designers can figure out what works and what doesn't faster than a few hundred geeks who are trying to get ammo to talk smack on discussion boards can.

That's the next step. Use EQ1 junkies and your 8 year old laboratory as your sandbox to conjure new and improved MMO mechanics. Then port the tried and tested stuff that everyone agrees on toa new game with shinier bells and louder whistles.

[Bongk]

Originally Posted by Venjenz

Stuff

hell yea, sign me up.

[Vithe]

Isn't that was test servers are for on other games? (I know most games dont use test servers to the fullest...)

[Venjenz]

The test servers should be used for testing new content that is going gamewide. Think DEV, QA and PROD in the normal IT world. The standard test server for most games is really a QA server that ensures when something goes live, it won't wreck all your PROD servers.

What I am talking about is letting the playerbase be in on the DEV server level. Take design ideas and put them on this new server and let the players goof around in a dev environment. I am here to tell ya, if they made a squad based server for EQ1 where I could hire henchmen of different classes, I'd play on that server for at least 6 months, probably a year, no sweat. I can't believe I am the only player who would. Considering how grouping in WoW and EQ2 is, which is the whole "group long enough to collect quest items I can't solo" model, why is it such a leap to simply allow people to summon NPCs to do what they sit around LFG'ing for PUG morons to do?

And if it turns out to be a borked idea, then a couple hundred players beating it up on your DEV environment costs you nothing to figure that out. Matter of fact, it will be paying subscribers, so you're making money while testing out new mechanics of MMO play. It would take maybe a month to implement the server and new rules using maybe one or two people you already pay. Meaning, the cost is low, but has huge potential upside.

I think the folks making Gods and Heroes had the right idea, just no money. Squad based MMOs is the next logical step, which is basically tapping into something Blizzard proved with WoW and extending the model. I don't really care who comes up with it, but whoever has it working in a large scale MMO first will make a lot of money. Maybe not Blizzard money, but they'll make money. Why? Because Blizzard made playing an MMO easy for the masses, but of those masses who play WoW, who hasn't wished they could just solo those elite quests at the right level instead of waiting for a group or leveling to the point they can solo? Who has felt bad that they still need that one quest item out of Scholomance or Lower Blackrock, and have to find some people to roll it yet again? Probably the same kind of people who tried EQ1 and really wanted to make a tank, or a rogue, or anything other than a necro, wizzie, mage or druid and just wanted to go get exp without having to LFG.

If SOE wants to take market share, then provide something the market wants. Making yet another wannabe version of what Blizzard already has isn't enough. Take what Blizzard has and extend it to include more content that 1-3 people can do, and make it work on average machines. Squads controllable by a solo player is the way.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

The Agency could turn it around for SOE.

[Vithe]

I get what you're saying, but doing that really starts to steer away from what MMORPGs are suppose to be. If I could create bots to group with and equip them, level them, etc, that sounds awesome, but why would I ever group with someone, the only time I would think would be on a raid.

I like the idea of having bots, that is pretty much what MQ2 does for you, except you have to pay for each bot monthly. I just don't know how it would fit in a MMORPG environment.

[Bongk]

Originally Posted by Vithe

I get what you're saying, but doing that really starts to steer away from what MMORPGs are suppose to be. If I could create bots to group with and equip them, level them, etc, that sounds awesome, but why would I ever group with someone, the only time I would think would be on a raid.

I like the idea of having bots, that is pretty much what MQ2 does for you, except you have to pay for each bot monthly. I just don't know how it would fit in a MMORPG environment.

same as Guildwars, they would be far inferior players and you could not do difficult content with them. But if you cannot find a group in a game that requires grouping you could still advance at an albeit slower pace than with a real group and fighting in a lesser area meaning lesser loot.

[Trebla]

Originally Posted by Neric

Why should Blizzard ship content faster? Why do you want to accelerate Mudflation? Do you want to pay $39 every 6 months for a 5-zone-trash-expansion SoE-style? It is a contradiction to race to max level within a few days and then complain about the lack of content, but that's exactly what people are doing all the time.

Not counting Ykesha (which was $12.99 or $13.99, btw) when was the last EQ expansion that was a "5-zone-trash-expansion"... just out of curiosity.

[Slick Willey]

Originally Posted by Neric

Why should Blizzard ship content faster? Why do you want to accelerate Mudflation?

For the more "casual" raider like myself, I am actually happy with Blizzard's "glacial" pace of producing content due to their model of wiping out equipment with the first new solo quests in an expansion. I want to see Black Temple -- I don't want it to be another Naxxrammas, where nobody goes there because the expansion solo and 5-man instances gear is better.

WOTLK doesn't come out until June 2008? Cool by me . . . .

[Goliath]

I can't believe that there are actually people that exist who will argue 1 year is not the optimal best expansion time. There is no valid argument, 1 year is the best hands down. Anyone that argues for 6 months or for 2 years is stupid and there is no proof necessary.

Good day.

[Venjenz]

Originally Posted by Vithe

I get what you're saying, but doing that really starts to steer away from what MMORPGs are suppose to be. If I could create bots to group with and equip them, level them, etc, that sounds awesome, but why would I ever group with someone, the only time I would think would be on a raid.

This is how WoW works right now. You solo until forced into a group by the needs of a quest, and even then only if the reward is something you can't come close to by getting off the Auction House. Rading is really the only time people group consistently, and even then more out of necessity than by choice. Path of least resistance and all that happy jazz. And you can make whatever judgment you'd like about WoW and the direction of MMO and purity and all that, but the bottom line is WoW bringing in close to $1 billion in annual revenue from subscriptions alone. They got there by offering a path of lesser resistance than the one SOE had people on, but their path has resistance as well, and someone reducing that resistance further will draw people in like a moth to a flame.

I personally think the henchman thing is the next thing to grab share. 90% of the WoW playerbase is casual and chats in IF while putzing around for an hour or two. Why not let them be capable of more content?

Originally Posted by Vithe

I like the idea of having bots, that is pretty much what MQ2 does for you, except you have to pay for each bot monthly. I just don't know how it would fit in a MMORPG environment.

I personally would peg bot level at (player-4) and make the bot ability sets a developed thing. Like how necro and mage pets get dual wield at a certain point. Just make it a more expandable set of abilities. Then have their presence tied to loyalty points, or exp drain, or something else, so their use would be more limited or at least more calculated on need. I think it has a lot of potential, and what I see as the most likely result is the duo/trio of real players rounding out a full group with selected bots and developing along that path. For raids and other multi-group content, the level limitation would handle most of that because bringing gimp cannon fodder doesn't get the job done on well designed raid content, but you could also have the bots get to the entrance to Molten Core and simply tell you there's no way they'll pass through that portal. Lot of fun dialogue could added for stuff like that.

I have no idea what the exact solution is, and that's why using a game we all know to do some idea testing is a good idea.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

It would be interesting to have a progression of having a follower in an MMO. For the earlier levels 1-20, perhaps not a follower but a quest or series of quests completed in order to qualify to have one.

You could set it up similar to the cohort system in D&D where once you complete a "leadership" quest, you can select (or do a further quest) for a cohort, and be able to select their class. Also be able to assign their abilities commonly used from their class trees/abilities, or what not.

Like Venjenz suggested, limits on their use might be advisable, and would add a more levels of complexity to encounters: solo - cohort (or duo) - group (6 or 3+ cohorts) - large group (10-12 or 5-6+ cohorts, basically mini-raid) - raid (10-12+ cohorts or 20-24 or more).

Now what would be really interesting imo would be a system allowing you to swap out controlling your cohort directly, or controlling your leader directly. Essentially unlocking a second "concurrent" play slot.

For me, while groups are traditional, especially in high-fantasy MMOs, a leadership-cohort setup would be more in the flavor of the genre, the AI would likely be better to some extent with only one additional character to control, and it would still encourage group/raid interaction.


Larger-scale numbers of "bots" (5-6 per player) would be great in more massive PvP scenarios. Heck, even in the high fantasy described above, have instances where, based on your class and level, you're able to recruit a certain number of soldiers/mercenaries, etc. (dependent on your faction, battleground, whatever) and go to it. The AI and commands couldn't be as complicated, but shrewd tactics could certainly make a difference.