Taking the best ideas of other mmos

[bionh]

Hey all,

I've been wanting to put all my ideas in writing to help me organize my thoughts. I'll make this post into a list of these ideas, many of which are taken from other mmos. I think that it's important to look closely at the successes and failures of other similar games.

Please reply if you like them!

1) Open PVP: Player buildings, and sieging

In terms of MMO PVP, I really enjoy the idea of player built cities/keeps and the sieging thereof. It gives players a sense of pride and ownership, making them really invested in what happens, and also leads to a constantly changing battlefield, with guild politics and nefarious deeds, and of course, huge goddamn battles.

I like the idea of mercenaries in Age of Conan; non guildies can join a siege battle and help out, letting even loner players get involved in the huge fights. Siege weaponry, seen first in DAOC, is another great touch. It really gives a sense of great scale (and makes sieges more than just meleeing a stinking door for 10 minutes)

I also like the idea of 'vulnerability times' and also the bane system in SB; I think that forcing players to defend their cities 24/7 is unrealistic, unless the cities are well-defended by NPC guards. The guards should certainly be self-functioning, but should be adjustable, controllable, and should only be as strong as the guild resources devoted to them. Hell, put in a feature to let players get a cell-phone text message when their city is attacked! (Silly idea) Banes were good in that they prevented attacks from becoming commonplace and meaningless; they also gave defenders an effective way to 'win'.

How would I improve on past ideas? Well, I'd like to see destructible buildings with physics. The computing power is certainly there, and it's quite silly to hit a wall with a trebuchet and inflict no damage at all. Doors are great, but lets knock down walls, too!

I would also like to see huge benefits to city ownership. It should be a ton of work to maintain a city, and there should be big rewards. Resources should be limited. If everyone can build a city, there's no real reason to fight. You could let players build their city anywhere, but perhaps require a "relic" to own a city.

There would of course be a finite number of relics, and players can attack other cities to get this relic, then use it to build their own city. Cities that already have a relic should be able to raid and get more of them--the more relics, the better the bonuses, but the more liable you are to being attacked!

2) World PVP Quests, Objectives, and NPC Contribution (Generals!)

I would like to see PVP quests. For instance, one party is charged with escorting a caravan. Another party is charged with raiding it. The winner gets the goods! Many similar quests could promote world pvp in interesting ways.

Objectives should be meaningful and contested. Holding objectives might be necessary to improve your guild city; many guilds would want to do this, and they would be fought over. Perhaps a guild that is too small to create its own city could set up camp on one of these objectives and demand payment from guilds for its use. A guild would have to hold multiple objectives at once in order to advance their city (maybe a huge guild would need proportionally more objectives), so it couldn't devote its full resources to a single one.

NPC contribution. It would be interesting to see npc factions battling it out. Guilds could align with these factions and reap certain benefits, but face the wrath of the opposing faction. Maybe players could quest to become high-ranking officials in these factions, and control the npc army as a general. Maybe guilds could hire npc henchmen.

Caravans should carry goods from NPC capital cities to the player cities; enemies could raid these caravans for resources, and to 'cut off supplies' to their enemy, perhaps weakening the guards or the defenses.

3) Arena PVP

This is just about the only thing that I enjoyed about WoW. The BGs were terrible and I avoided them like the plague, but I found a good 2300+ rated arena match to be really really fun. The quick turnover time let you get a ton of games in really fast.

However, I think the rewards were slightly overboard. If arenas are implemented in Mortal, they should just be another route to things you can get through world pvp or raids. They should certainly not be the only source of good gear or the only way to advance your character.

4) PvE: Instanced Dungeons and Raids.

I like the idea of instanced dungeons; they allow an excellent quality of experience. Scripted encounters will always be more complex and interesting than non instanced encounters, and instances let many players get that 'hero' feeling of contributing to the big storyline, as opposed to just being another cog in the wheel.

Improvements? I dislike the endless raiding grind. PvE should have an end-result that leads to changes in the game world. Perhaps raid bosses could be one way of improving guild rating, which is then used to improve ones city. It should not be required (more on this later). There should be other ways (objectives, arena, raiding, territory, resources), of improving your guild just as much.

I like the public quests from Warhammer. Its a great idea, and it would be good to implement something similar.

5) UI and Combat System

The UI needs to be easily modified! You can't please everyone, so let them customize!

Combat-wise, I really enjoyed the combat system in WoW. It is tight, handles well, and is easy to learn...plus there's the added benefit that millions of people already know it. The classes were all unique and felt good, but they are balanced for PVE, and not PVP.

Arena often excludes certain classes in favor of cookie cutter builds. This is bad. Also, it is a bit too simple; the global cooldown cuts down on a lot of the skill involved, as does the somewhat simple ability set.

I'd like to see a guild-wars like system of abilities combined with a wow-like control scheme; abilities in guild wars can be combined in interesting ways to gain an edge, and not every character of the same class is alike, because they can take different skills. This system lets players advance themselves through variety, instead of sheer numbers, allowing less advanced characters to compete just as well, if in limited ways.

The tactics and morale abilities of warhammer are good ideas. I like PVP ranking/levels/achievements, so long as low pvp level characters can compete with high level pvp characters.

6) Guilds!

I like the idea of the guild as an improvable entitity rather than just a chat room. These improvements should be apparent in the player city, and should provide useful combat bonuses to members. A standard/tabard/symbol is a great idea.

Maybe give ranking officers certain leader abilities a la Planetside. The ability to set waypoints for your group is a GREAT pvp feature, and it would be interesting if guild officers gained spells as they commanded more troops or their guild ranking increased.

Raiding other guilds should be purposeful. Maybe you could steal items that allow you to construct or upgrade certain buildings (like the relics i talked about earlier, but small-scale) Should a guild be able to own multiple cities? I'm undecided, but I lean towards no.

Guild officers should have an RTS-like responsibility. They should decide the location of defenses, choose which buildings are constructed where, and allocate funds to certain procedures. Maybe you could devote resources to defenses, or research (spells? abilities?), or trade (npc craftsmen could construct items for the players). If you spend too much on one, the others would be weak.


Anyway, to avoid carpal tunnel, I'll end here. Tell me what you think!

Thanks,

"nubbey"

[Shinzon]

One thing I disagree with is instanced dungeons. The "Heroes" of the story should emerge naturaly through their gameplay choices, so if a player takes down some one time spawn creature, he is a "Hero". Instances should only be used in the technical sense to lighten server load in a certain area, beyond that most MMO's have made too much use of instances to compensate for an otherwise small and static world, instead of using them as a technical tool to relieve congestion...

[OMGPIE]

Originally Posted by Shinzon

One thing I disagree with is instanced dungeons. The "Heroes" of the story should emerge naturaly through their gameplay choices, so if a player takes down some one time spawn creature, he is a "Hero". Instances should only be used in the technical sense to lighten server load in a certain area, beyond that most MMO's have made too much use of instances to compensate for an otherwise small and static world, instead of using them as a technical tool to relieve congestion...

Agreed.

[SnowMiser]

Arena pvp for PvE servers ( if there are any at all, this looks like a open pvp game)

PvP should take place anywhere, if this is to be a real pvp game.

[Warpath]

Originally Posted by bionh

Please reply if you like them!

I will!

Originally Posted by bionh

In terms of MMO PVP, I really enjoy the idea of player built cities/keeps and the sieging thereof. ...........
I like the idea of mercenaries in Age of Conan; ........
I think that forcing players to defend their cities 24/7 is unrealistic, unless the cities are well-defended by NPC guards.......

I agree with all the above. I had an idea based off an old text-based game where people could attack you as you slept. they could bribe the innkeeper to give you a key to the room you were in. In the same way implement this in this game. If you select this city as your spawn point or if you logout in this city, when it is under attack you become its defense. An NPC of you is made and fights as an NPC guard with all your similar skills. If the city is taken they get whatever you were wearing when you logged out. This idea is not fleshed out but you can see the benefit and realism behind it.

Originally Posted by bionh

Well, I'd like to see destructible buildings with physics. The computing power is certainly there, and it's quite silly to hit a wall with a trebuchet and inflict no damage at all. Doors are great, but lets knock down walls, too!

I like this idea a lot, but the programming involved is another story. I'd rather they get this game out and into our hands before they makes a fully destructible world.

Originally Posted by bionh

I would like to see PVP quests. For instance, one party is charged with escorting a caravan. Another party is charged with raiding it. The winner gets the goods! Many similar quests could promote world pvp in interesting ways.

This would be cool but I think that world pvp in a sandbox will promote itself. That and I see this being abused, one side starts the quest and lets it go as the other wins and loots. But it is an Idea. I think if they make crafting much more worthwhile than it is in other games you might see people carrying a ton of goods. So I hope it will happen on its own.

Originally Posted by bionh

Objectives should be meaningful and contested. Holding objectives might be necessary to improve your guild city; many guilds would want to do this, and they would be fought over. Perhaps a guild that is too small to create its own city could set up camp on one of these objectives and demand payment from guilds for its use. A guild would have to hold multiple objectives at once in order to advance their city (maybe a huge guild would need proportionally more objectives), so it couldn't devote its full resources to a single one.

I just get the feeling you've never played a sandbox style mmo. It seems like you want it to be a themepark. Making mini-games inside a game. Not saying that you can't make a themepark in a sandbox or put a sandbox in a themepark. But these things will happen naturally. Let me try to explain even though I have never played this game.

A small guild builds a small city or even just sets up a house. First, they won't be enough of a threat. Nor will killing them and destroying their house be any good except to loot, claim territory or the like. Now this small guild is happy, they have 3 houses 2 room in each house. They have 10 members. so 6 of those members get a room in the houses or they share. 2 people to each room. This is a wealthy guild in my opinion. Houses won't be easy to get. But if the guild triples in size. 30 people. they were once a wealthy guild 3 houses was awesome. But now they have to put 5 people in each room. The founding members are getting upset because they did all the foundation work. So this guild needs more housing. So they all work hard and are able to get a few more houses. They want their houses to be near each other or maybe they want houses spread out to use them as bases. Either way, they have to find land to build on, they have to get the money and or materials to build the house. And to upgrade it they also need money and or materials.

Getting materials takes a lot of time. Yeah it would be nice to have peasants just walking from the gold mine to the town hall, but its not that easy when you first start out. someday your guild will be able to buy guards and peasants to do its dirty work.

When the guild gets to 60 members you find a good chunk of buildable land. You sell off most of the houses and are able to start a city. This took a long time, well over a half a year. This city have 3 houses in it along with a shop where you can set up your vendors, it also has an inn, a spawn point and a bank. So your guild after 8+ months now has place to rest, sell their goods, and spawn if they die. Now this isn't something that they will ever want to lose. No, in fact their efforts double to making it better. In the meantime the guild grows to 100 really fast because any guild with a city is amazing.

You notice smaller guild are building around your land, it begins to limit what you can do, so you tell them move, pay taxes or be destroyed. So they pick and you do your part. So eventually you have allied guilds surrounding you, smaller guilds that pay you taxes so you are keeping your city running and you can now hire guards and pay them. So your city is surrounded by friends and is prosperous. It would be damn hard to take your guild out, but it is also really hard to keep things organized, you start paying guild members forming ranks and what not. All this stuff is difficult. Keeping players inline when they really just want to have fun.

Its not like other games or RTS games where you don't do the hard work. Your guild still has to provide the vendors with goods to sell and you still have to pay the guards that keep order in your town. Even putting the newer guildies to work as guards. You have your crafters still crafting, you have your miners still mining, but you also have to protect them as they work from thieves and monsters. So being and running a successful guild is really hard work. It is NOT for everyone. It truly takes a rare breed to be a guild leader.

Eventually other guilds will want to be your ally or start attacking you and causing problems because they think you are a tyrant or a dictator. Or perhaps they were a guild that you kicked off your lands 5 months ago. Huge Battles will happen but I doubt it will be the name of the game.

At times you think, wow, it would be easy if there were just objectives that I could tell my guild to hold all day so that our city could advance. Then you realize that in 2 weeks your guild would be bored to death. Not only that but you wouldn't feel challenged at all.

In a sand box you are left to your own devices. Yes, they give you a shovel and a bucket and let you go with it. The bigger the guild is the harder it is to keep organized. If there is profit to having a city then people will strive for that. Guilds will form and try to get that far.

Relics and the like, if there are only a few that is really limiting and really unrealistic. Objectives reminds me of Team Fortress or Day of Defeat. Objectives are a simplification of something that is already simplified. In w0w there were places where you could capture these ruins and then alliance or horde would gain superiority bonuses. WHY?

They were ruins, they weren't strategic, their wasn't magic and people didn't have to stick around. They go change it from horde to alliance then run off and do their thing. Now in tabula rasa cities could be taken over by the monsters. So players would take it back and there was a constant battle going on. That made since, but they are both themeparks. This is a sandbox. They program things in that make the game more fun but also limit the game. A sand box gives you the tools and says, GO!

So if you want to hold objectives make your own objectives. Claim a mine for your guild. Have your guild watch it and makes sure only allied miners can used it.

Originally Posted by bionh

NPC contribution. It would be interesting to see npc factions battling it out.

I agree, if there is a large population of NPCs they should have disputes of their own. And you should be able to get involved.

Originally Posted by bionh

This is just about the only thing that I enjoyed about WoW. The BGs were terrible and I avoided them like the plague, but I found a good 2300+ rated arena match to be really really fun.........
They should certainly not be the only source of good gear or the only way to advance your character.

Well, MO, to me, doesn't seem like they are going for the themepark style. w0w was a themepark. If anything, fighting in an arena in MO will get you a little fame. Like a sports star.

Originally Posted by bionh

I like the idea of instanced dungeons; they allow an excellent quality of experience. Scripted encounters will always be more complex and interesting than non instanced encounters, and instances let many players get that 'hero' feeling of contributing to the big storyline, as opposed to just being another cog in the wheel.

I like being another cog in the wheel, basically because I don't believe players are heroes. Heroes are 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1,000 or 1 out of 10,000. In a themepark, you go on the Indiana Jones ride and you are Indiana Jones. In a sandbox you are just another person that could be heroic someday, right place right time, or you are just plain heroic. In w0w I felt like a nobody because everyone was a somebody. Everyone killed the big boss.

Please read: http://www.mortalonline.com/feature/...-repeat-itself

Originally Posted by bionh

Improvements? I dislike the endless raiding grind. PvE should have an end-result that leads to changes in the game world. Perhaps raid bosses could be one way of improving guild rating, which is then used to improve ones city. It should not be required (more on this later). There should be other ways (objectives, arena, raiding, territory, resources), of improving your guild just as much.

Guilds will be improved by natural means. You get more gold, you pay for more materials, the more materials you have the more you can build. There won't be a score card.

Originally Posted by bionh

The UI needs to be easily modified! You can't please everyone, so let them customize!

I agree, and controls too.

Originally Posted by bionh

Combat-wise, I really enjoyed the combat system in WoW. It is tight, handles well, and is easy to learn...plus there's the added benefit that millions of people already know it.

Maybe I am missing something, but I thought this game wasn't anything close to w0w other than being massively multiplayer. There isn't any auto attack, this is more like oblivion from what I heard. Block and attack. More FPS style. w0w is a Cookie Cut Themepark MMORPG. Play Everquest 2 and you will see how close the two are. This game will have a totally different play style, I hope. It is more based of player skill than character skill. Unlike w0w and eq2.

Originally Posted by bionh

I like the idea of the guild as an improvable entitity rather than just a chat room. These improvements should be apparent in the player city, and should provide useful combat bonuses to members. A standard/tabard/symbol is a great idea.

I believe the opposite, guilds should form through effort and be successful through effort. An example is in order.

The most fun I have ever had in a guild was in Diablo 1. Because we had a reason. We were all legit players, we didn't cheat. Before that We were an anti-pk clan.

Guild Definition:
An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards.

That Diablo guild was a real guild. But these days it is all about winnings. Mostly because they offer you to have a guild. The guild rarely has to do with what guilds were really meant for. Once you start giving benefits to guilds it becomes the name of the game. Anytime you get more power out of doing something one way over another, the higher power thing becomes the name of the game.

The only reason to be in a guild would be to get those benefits. So you have people of all walks of life in a guild and they share no interests other than winning.

I can't stress SANDBOX enough. Don't have the developers program "FUN" in the game.

If you want your guild to have benefits make a FUNCTIONING guild. A guild where the benefits come naturally Not through programming. Not through guild wide standard.

Disliking the idea that a guild is just a chat room tells me that you've never been in a true functioning guild.

Originally Posted by bionh

Maybe give ranking officers certain leader abilities a la Planetside. The ability to set waypoints for your group is a GREAT pvp feature, and it would be interesting if guild officers gained spells as they commanded more troops or their guild ranking increased.

Guild officers should have an RTS-like responsibility. They should decide the location of defenses, choose which buildings are constructed where, and allocate funds to certain procedures. Maybe you could devote resources to defenses, or research (spells? abilities?), or trade (npc craftsmen could construct items for the players). If you spend too much on one, the others would be weak.

I am undecided towards making a system where the general has a top down view of what is going on and giving waypoints. There is a Half-Life Mod called Natural Selection. As a marine you could get into the command center and you could build buildings but you'd have to have another marine finalize the repairs. So you could give waypoints. It was really quite nice. If a higher ranked person in a guild could give way points that would stay on the other players maps. Unlike how it is just a blinking radar dot in some MMOs. Its a nice idea.

But again, I don't like programmers programming "fun" into a sandbox. If your generals are smart enough they can form groups and make group commanders, give the commanders the plans then execute them through a chain of command rather than a command center or a RTS top down god view.

Originally Posted by bionh

Should a guild be able to own multiple cities? I'm undecided, but I lean towards no.

I lean towards yes, don't limit success. Allow monopoly.

I likes a lot of your thoughts but Not sure how much you've read about this game. Read the F.A.Q. especially about the themepark/sandbox. http://www.mortalonline.com/faq#q8

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by bionh

Hey all,

1) Open PVP: Player buildings, and sieging

In terms of MMO PVP, I really enjoy the idea of player built cities/keeps and the sieging thereof. It gives players a sense of pride and ownership, making them really invested in what happens, and also leads to a constantly changing battlefield, with guild politics and nefarious deeds, and of course, huge goddamn battles.

I like the idea of mercenaries in Age of Conan; non guildies can join a siege battle and help out, letting even loner players get involved in the huge fights. Siege weaponry, seen first in DAOC, is another great touch. It really gives a sense of great scale (and makes sieges more than just meleeing a stinking door for 10 minutes)

How would I improve on past ideas? Well, I'd like to see destructible buildings with physics. The computing power is certainly there, and it's quite silly to hit a wall with a trebuchet and inflict no damage at all. Doors are great, but lets knock down walls, too!

I would also like to see huge benefits to city ownership. It should be a ton of work to maintain a city, and there should be big rewards. Resources should be limited. If everyone can build a city, there's no real reason to fight.

2) World PVP Quests, Objectives, and NPC Contribution (Generals!)

I would like to see PVP quests. For instance, one party is charged with escorting a caravan. Another party is charged with raiding it. The winner gets the goods! Many similar quests could promote world pvp in interesting ways.

Objectives should be meaningful and contested. Holding objectives might be necessary to improve your guild city; many guilds would want to do this, and they would be fought over. Perhaps a guild that is too small to create its own city could set up camp on one of these objectives and demand payment from guilds for its use. A guild would have to hold multiple objectives at once in order to advance their city (maybe a huge guild would need proportionally more objectives), so it couldn't devote its full resources to a single one.

NPC contribution. It would be interesting to see npc factions battling it out. Guilds could align with these factions and reap certain benefits, but face the wrath of the opposing faction. Maybe players could quest to become high-ranking officials in these factions, and control the npc army as a general. Maybe guilds could hire npc henchmen.

Caravans should carry goods from NPC capital cities to the player cities; enemies could raid these caravans for resources, and to 'cut off supplies' to their enemy, perhaps weakening the guards or the defenses.

3) Arena PVP

This is just about the only thing that I enjoyed about WoW. The BGs were terrible and I avoided them like the plague, but I found a good 2300+ rated arena match to be really really fun. The quick turnover time let you get a ton of games in really fast.

However, I think the rewards were slightly overboard. If arenas are implemented in Mortal, they should just be another route to things you can get through world pvp or raids. They should certainly not be the only source of good gear or the only way to advance your character.

4) PvE: Instanced Dungeons and Raids.

Improvements? I dislike the endless raiding grind. PvE should have an end-result that leads to changes in the game world. Perhaps raid bosses could be one way of improving guild rating, which is then used to improve ones city. It should not be required (more on this later). There should be other ways (objectives, arena, raiding, territory, resources), of improving your guild just as much.

6) Guilds!

I like the idea of the guild as an improvable entitity rather than just a chat room. These improvements should be apparent in the player city, and should provide useful combat bonuses to members. A standard/tabard/symbol is a great idea.

Raiding other guilds should be purposeful. Maybe you could steal items that allow you to construct or upgrade certain buildings.

Guild officers should have an RTS-like responsibility. They should decide the location of defenses, choose which buildings are constructed where, and allocate funds to certain procedures. Maybe you could devote resources to defenses, or research (spells? abilities?), or trade (npc craftsmen could construct items for the players). If you spend too much on one, the others would be weak.

i agree with everything above:

FFA PvP with full loot (and i mean real full loot, with no invulnerable banking system), city building & city sieging, a player economy & resource gathering, food consumption & good NPC faction AI, should organically achieve all of that, without having to write any of the specific features into code.

notice what i cut out:

Originally Posted by bionh

I also like the idea of 'vulnerability times' and also the bane system in SB; I think that forcing players to defend their cities 24/7 is unrealistic, unless the cities are well-defended by NPC guards. The guards should certainly be self-functioning, but should be adjustable, controllable, and should only be as strong as the guild resources devoted to them. Hell, put in a feature to let players get a cell-phone text message when their city is attacked! (Silly idea) Banes were good in that they prevented attacks from becoming commonplace and meaningless; they also gave defenders an effective way to 'win'.

open PvP has a side-affect: you can not tell people what & when can they attack.

I'm not saying that this doesn't need a solution:
while mercenary/guard NPCs & NPC inhabitants in player cities in general are something i am not entirely sure of: i would rather this game sty an action-RPG MMO and not become an RTS game of numbers & cannon fodder... i am not entirely against NPCs, but I'm saying it should be considered very carefully.

on the other hand, i do find your "silly" mobile phone text message to actually be a good idea. would be useful.

however, a much better way to solve this, is to make it time consuming to mount & attack, & time consuming to siege a town.

the first would mean player guilds can use an intelligence network, with [players] scouts & spies to get warning on nearby cities they consider a threat.

the second would mean players should have at list a couple of real life days to organize a defense. however, when i say prolonged siege, i do not mean magically powerful walls: the fact is, if we use standard pre-made castles, over time each keep model would be studied by players to death & will be easily overcome.

instead, to prolong sieges, we need the freedom & the tools to construct our own strategic & elaborate defensive systems.

Originally Posted by bionh

You could let players build their city anywhere, but perhaps require a "relic" to own a city.

There would of course be a finite number of relics, and players can attack other cities to get this relic, then use it to build their own city. Cities that already have a relic should be able to raid and get more of them--the more relics, the better the bonuses, but the more liable you are to being attacked!

Should a guild be able to own multiple cities? I'm undecided, but I lean towards no.

Maybe give ranking officers certain leader abilities a la Planetside. The ability to set waypoints for your group is a GREAT pvp feature, and it would be interesting if guild officers gained spells as they commanded more troops or their guild ranking increased.

let me explain to you how power works: leadership is any body that can hold a monopoly over the execution & empowerment of legitimate violence.

it sounds complicated, but it's very simple really:
1) executing power: claiming a territory, giving a command, etc...
2) convincing others.

those should be the only limits on what you can own, where you can build, and how you can lead.

convincing others is often used through a mix of force, economical power, diplomacy, & charisma.
< the later 2 are entirely player skills, the first 2 require a local player economy & a combat system with a high degree of player skill involvement.

which is why this is a bad idea:

Originally Posted by bionh

Combat-wise, I really enjoyed the combat system in WoW. It is tight, handles well, and is easy to learn...plus there's the added benefit that millions of people already know it.

and it requires absolutely no player skill. you are defined by how many hours you spent playing. you see, without player skill involvement you can not overcome others through your guilds individual merits rather then numbers or time spent playing, and that is exactly why this is a bad idea.

other things i disagree with are:

Originally Posted by bionh

I like the idea of instanced dungeons; they allow an excellent quality of experience. Scripted encounters will always be more complex and interesting than non instanced encounters, and instances let many players get that 'hero' feeling of contributing to the big storyline, as opposed to just being another cog in the wheel.

really? you feel like a hero?

you've taken no risk what so ever, you've gone hiding from the rest of the world into your own little world, and therefore you had absolutely no contribution to the big story line or any storyline for that matter, and you feel like a hero?

when does the emptiness behind all those delusions kick in?

Originally Posted by bionh

The UI needs to be easily modified! You can't please everyone, so let them customize!

i personally am for minimum UI. yes, you should be able to modify whatever UI there is, but i am personally to have as little of a UI to modify in the first place. the game should be in the world, not the menus.

Originally Posted by bionh

The classes were all unique and felt good, but they are balanced for PVE, and not PVP.

Arena often excludes certain classes in favor of cookie cutter builds. This is bad. Also, it is a bit too simple; the global cooldown cuts down on a lot of the skill involved, as does the somewhat simple ability set.

I'd like to see a guild-wars like system of abilities combined with a wow-like control scheme; abilities in guild wars can be combined in interesting ways to gain an edge, and not every character of the same class is alike, because they can take different skills. This system lets players advance themselves through variety, instead of sheer numbers, allowing less advanced characters to compete just as well, if in limited ways.

i have the unfortunate 'luck' to tell you that you get your wish: the Dev's do not think we have the mental capacity to augment mixed-unit tactics, so the game has a class system, despite claiming to be a sandbox.

[Ultenth]

I would like to simply see a game where what we do has a permanent effect on the landscape of the world we play in. For example, stuff like waking the Sleeper in EQ. Or if there are multiple races in the game, make some of them unplayable until the players on that server rescue them from some evil empire, after which you can create characters of that race. I'm sick of instanced everything and repeated quest after quest. Like in WoW how even after 3+ years Onyxia is still managing to hide out in Stormwind Keep, evne though she's been killed umpteen million times in her true lair.

Personally I'll never find an MMO truely immersive until one exists that has an actual storyline that players can impact and change similar to a single player game, but tweaked to work for MMO's. I know it's an extremely difficult prospect, but to me that should be the ideal ultimate goal of ever MMO game developer. Create a game that doesn't make anyone feel too left out, but by the same token doesn't make players just feel like nothing they do ever really changes the world they play in.

[admiralnlson]

What's with the walls of text, guys? My eyes are bleeding now.

I'm against vulnerability windows for player cities, instanced dungeons, arena rewards (bets yes, rewards no), etc...

"Taking the best ideas of other mmos", why not. But I disagree all the things you talked about in the OP are "best ideas".

Like Warpath said above, seems to me you're trying to promote a theme park/sandbox mix... (ie "taking the best ideas" suited for theme park mmos) which is not good.

[Warpath]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

What's with the walls of text, guys? My eyes are bleeding now.

Sorry