There are, of course, many aspects, but the need to group is the basis of it.
I have found, in games where the challenge level is so low you don't need to group, that grouping with friends can even make the game feel worse, not better, as everything is trivialised.
When content is challenging enough to need others, you will form new synergies and bonds with your existing friends and you will make new ones.
"Fun" is the glue that keeps everything together. When it comes to MMORPG's ... there is a long list of culprits that seem to eventually pop up and extinguish the fun, for me. In no particular order:
1) Lack of replay value.
2) Lack of interdependence.
3) Lack of player-driven content.
4) Lack of consequence.
5) Lack of player agency.
6) P2W.
7) Treadmill Design / Expansion Resets.
8) Illusion of Choice.
9) Abominable Rail Monster.
10) Unhealthy reliance on instancing.
Many of the these branch off into other problems and it becomes a complex spider web of tragic cause and effect. We don't get to have nice things because everybody wants to be the hero, slay the monster, save the princess, and obtain the magic sword. People get too caught up in the idea of treating chance open-world encounters as winning or losing "the game" rather than trying to be a fun person to be around in shared social spaces. Conflict gets replaced with convenience, grinding gets replaced with log-in bonuses, and effort takes a back seat to entitlement. There is eventually no concept of peaks and valleys as the playerbase gets inundated by the infinitely-replenishing-but-never-satisfying bag of rotten carrots. It's the filthy casuals and executives chasing corporate bonuses that ultimately end up destroying the glue that makes these kinds of games sticky and fun.
It’s difficult to point to one specific thing. However, here’s the truth when it comes to trends in mmorpg’s: oldschool thrived and mainstream died. The period of oldschool saw a continuous increase in subscriptions whereas major changes leading to mainstream saw a sharp decrease in subscriptions. That‘s a fact. What’s also interesting is the positive trend happened during a time when computers were not a dime a dozen. That’s impressive. Thus if I am looking for proof, then it is quite crystal clear for me to say that the tenets of oldschool were the biggest factor in the community thriving. I am glad to see VR understands this, as they implement these tenets into the future. <3
In my experience communities tend to be more for a server than for the game as a whole. At least if one looks at the game itself rather than discussions on the forums.
The two things that improve the community the most may be small to medium size and a monetary threshold to play. As in a server that requires subscription even if the game as a whole does not. In terms of size a basic rule is that community civility is inversely proportional to community size.
So to keep things really nice a server should be smaller than average for the game and cost more. In a pure subscription game that might mean a higher cost subscription giving extra benefits.
Geography is also a factor - in games with both North American and European servers I have never, ever, seen a situation where the European server was not a lot more civil. Even where it had too many trolls and juveniles the North American servers were a lot worse.
oneADseven said:"Fun" is the glue that keeps everything together. When it comes to MMORPG's ... there is a long list of culprits that seem to eventually pop up and extinguish the fun, for me. In no particular order:
1) Lack of replay value.
2) Lack of interdependence.
3) Lack of player-driven content.
4) Lack of consequence.
5) Lack of player agency.
6) P2W.
7) Treadmill Design / Expansion Resets.
8) The illusion of Choice.
9) Abominable Rail Monster.
10) Unhealthy reliance on instancing.
Many of these branch off into other problems and it becomes a complex spider web of tragic cause and effect. We don't get to have nice things because everybody wants to be the hero, slay the monster, save the princess, and obtain the magic sword. People get too caught up in the idea of treating chance open-world encounters as winning or losing "the game" rather than trying to be a fun person to be around in shared social spaces. Conflict gets replaced with convenience, grinding gets replaced with log-in bonuses, and effort takes a back seat to entitlement. There is eventually no concept of peaks and valleys as the player base gets inundated by the infinitely-replenishing-but-never-satisfying bag of rotten carrots. It's the filthy casuals and executives chasing corporate bonuses that ultimately end up destroying the glue that makes these kinds of games sticky and fun.
I have to agree with 1ad7 here but I want to throw in a caveat as well.
Early on, most games develop communities because a) people need each other, b) people have a lot of goals to pursue, and c) people are genuinely invested in the world they're playing in, and feel as if they are part of it. When a community is healthy you see people logging on just to spend time with their friends, setting up social events, and so on. When a community starts to fade, you find that everyone is focused on the game only. They may still be logging on to chase a gameplay goal like progression raiding, but with so little else holding their interest, the social bonds they've established start to fray. Over time, they become strangers, and eventually, they start running out of reasons to log on.
So in addition to everything that 1ad7 has said, I think it's also very important that the world remains relevant to the players inhabiting it. Over the course of levels and expansions, you never want to reach the point where the only thing people care about (in general) is beating the next piece of content. To prevent this means rethinking how content is designed and integrated into the game, and focusing expansions as much on new activities to pursue as on adding more to existing activities. If you can do that, and still ensure that players need each other, then you can prevent the community from starting to fade away.
stellarmind said: freedom of choice for players to unite under a common cause while allowing a nation of guilds to form with indomitable wills that strengthen the spirit of the world and keep knowledge fleeting thus eternalizing the pursuit of secrets by yeeting players with easter eggs and foreplay(maybe i should use the word tease?)
I see what you did there...
If we are just talking about all MMORPG's in general, then it would probably be Pay to win. It just allows a community to rip through content at a much faster pace while not effecting the bottom line. This just speeds up the inevitable: I’ve seen everything, done everything, it's time to move on, process.
I'd much rather answer this question in the context of Pantheon though, because then I wouldn’t be talking about things that are irrelevant. In the case of Pantheon's community, I think the biggest factor that might cause a thriving community to shrink over time is revision. If Pantheon does happen to foster a thriving community in its early years, it will be because the "formula" was just right. This formula will be made up of a number of key elements that people will inevitably form an emotional connection to and if these key elements begin to stray from their original identity through later revision, then the formula will have been broken and that would likely cause an exodus.
Community thriving? When the playing field is level.
Community dying? When the playing field is not level.
A level playing field means no customer has an advantage over another due to RL $$$. If I can open my wallet and pour it into the game, and gain any advantage, no matter how small, that affects the personal power of my character, allies, or guild? Not cool.
The necessity of: paying customers must group together as individuals (not bots, boxes, or similar) to consume content will cause a community to thrive, in my experience.
As soon as that's not required (forced grouping) then the community thrives less, again, in my experience.
IMO:
Of course there is a massive difference between gaining huge quantities of paying customers and having a thriving community.
Any game that permits solo to max level will have a much less thriving community than one that does not.
187 did a good job outlining reasons why people quit playing MMOs, we can call that the quantity value of an MMO community.
Neph started hitting on the quality value of an MMO Community. Two things heavily influence the positive qualities of a game community.
1) Ratio of content that requires interdependence between players. The more interdependence then the more being a member of the community is a part of character progression.
2) A vested interest in improving other players characters. If you are nearly as interested in improving the abilities of your community members the more you care about them. That caring then helps build actual bonds that turn competitors into buddies.
Whatever keeps the population from hitting a wall at the top end and running out of things to do. Things like progeny/mentoring systems and decent horizontal progression, zone level ranges that keep people coming back... whatever keeps the end game from just being boss kills by maxed out characters. I always hate when a population all hits max level and gets stuck in an artificial rut that funnels them into the same zones without any variety. Also, when newer players hit barriers of content that is outdated/disincentivized. Big turn-off. Looking at you, planar flags on Agnarr (yes, the game was never designed to stop at the same content for years).
Kilsin said:Community Debate - In your opinion, what's the biggest factor in a community thriving or dying out when it comes to MMORPG's, and why? #MMORPG#CommunityMatters
I whole heartedly agree with nearly all the points listed above as to why a game dies or why it thrives. Each one of them has an effect. Individually each might not be strong enough to kill a game, but when you get multiples added together they become much more than the sum of their parts.
For me, it's that je ne sai quoi, that appealing quality that you just can't quite describe in words which, for me, comes from wholesale approach of moderation. Moderation in player growth over time; in the use and application of instancing; in keys,/flags/gatekeepers; in the proliferation of spells/abilities; in the historical ever expanding horizon of new lands always being further and further away; in the use of teleports and travel enhancements, as examples.
All these are necessary, but their application and only through very long term planning can their application benefit the long term health of the game.
I think its mindset. I think that mindset can be set prior to the player playing the game when they know what to expect from the game and that mindset established when being informed how to play the game.
I'll make the comparrison to real life examples. Some will say: give us a manual to read! and let us figure out all the nuances as we go and maybe finally get to the back pages after we have been playing for 3 months. But most of the games these days have a hand holding tutorial to show you everything from the get go as part of minute one game play.
Real life example: while at work you need to make contact with a stranger also at another place of work related to your business, you have email, text, and Phone. In most cases, the most non-direct method will be chosen, instead of the quickest and most direct and most effective being the phone. Possibly to not give as much of yourself with such a personal interaction with Phone but rather more confortable to hide behind a screen in text or better still anonymously(not quite, but feels that way) send an email and passivley-aggressively put the onus on the other person to reply. If they dont, not your fault, you did your job.
The phone call is an analogy to socialize and be sensitive to the other person at first. That sounds too wierd, lets say situationally aware of the other people around you (european vs american comment above- I'm an american, the good kind)
I could go on, but I think establishing the mindset for the game at or prior to purchase will be important in affecting alot of these things that can also be spelled out in the rules, rulsets and even the EULA hopefully policed and enforced by impartial devs not subject to bribery.
In my opinion I would say Content. There doesn't have to be a lot of content, but if players can keep an even pace and the content they are consuming is rewarding and fulfilling I think that's most important in keeping player base active. Whether thats forming a small group to kill some mobs for some good loot or highering a crafter to craft some potions for you. It's all rewarding and I think having to rely on others is another really important factor in having an active player base. Doing almost anything by yourself is pretty boring in an MMORPG. Relying on others and allowing group play to matter makes the community matter all that much more.
Content, both solo content and group content.
Just sitting there waiting for something to do is the worst. Toxic people are in many games, but toxic people you can avoid.
There need to be several branches of content you can do, raid, dungeon, achievements, collecting, exploring, learning, seeing, everything.
Downfall said:
Content.
Wellspring said:
Content.
WalkingWaste said:
Content.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think continuous additions of content, (What are we up to now, 26 expansions?) wasn’t enough to keep but only the most diehard eq fans playing live over the years rather than the large community that used to exist back in the day?
A thriving community needs a VARIETY of content: raids, dungeon crawls, solo adventuring, exploration, questing, farming mobs for drops, node hunting, crafting, bartering, parlor games, fishing(!!), socializing, community events, GM events, talking to NPC's for emersive lore discovery, drinking(!!!), pickpocketing, twinking alts (my personal fave), perusing the campanion website to see your character's stats and server rank, campanion card games, etc.
EDIT: I forgot some stuff. Duels, PvP servers, guild wars, getting trained, telling your guild about the guy that just trained you, talking to your therapist about the guy who just trained you, having to explain to your therapist what training is, complaining about the guy to GM's, complaining to your guild about the GM's not doing anything about the guy who trained you, tell your therapist about the GM's not helping you, having to explain to your therapist what GM's are, stop caring, start an Elf alt, start training people with your soulless Elf character, denying starting said trains in chat, explain to the GM's that you're innocent, plan your next train excursion, and more fishing.
This question is difficult to answer, as it is more than just the MMO that is the problem... and moreso that the world's viewpoint is changing at an alarming rate. As I endure this new age of the mmo and relive tainted progression servers attempting to falsely replicate the past, I begin to realize that these newer mmos are created to divert it's player-base and espcially the youth into a particular mindset (usually very political).
This mindset (at least in my Country) has devolved into and promotes a concept of laziness and servitude towards not what the player wants, but rather what the game's creators want you to do, when you will do it, and how you will think... viewing hardwork and personal growth as an abhorant concept and a discriminatory factor. These concepts are being further supported and indoctrinated into educational facilities as well, reinforcing these ideals even further and making matters of autonomy in entertainment more difficult to support and proliferate.
With this in mind, It's really a very important matter of insuring player freedom and choice when it comes down to it, and making the experience feel refreshing and beautiful... as freedom and autonomy should. Player Automomy and choice, not only in character development, but also story development is always a key attribute.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - In your opinion, what's the biggest factor in a community thriving or dying out when it comes to MMORPG's, and why? #MMORPG#CommunityMatters
oneADseven has a pretty good list. I, myself, have for a long time tried to put my finger on it. Why did I log into EverQuest every single day for years but lose interest in almost every other MMO after it far sooner despite them having more interesting mechanics and systems? It's a canundrum I still haven't really worked out. But that MMORPG had the staying power. And I think there were a lot of moving parts that just made it a rare working machine. Let's be honest, gameplay wise MMOs are far inferior to almost every other kind of game. But still, they are unique and way more fun when done right. Why is that?
I guess a lot of it are things we can no longer get back. Mystery is forever lost as anyone can just hop on a website and learn everything less than a week out from launch. So the hidden mysteries of the world that groups explored in the past are lost. And that is just one thing. Maybe that can be brought back one day by certain randomized mechanics and dynamic content. EverQuest Next and by that extention now Ashes of Creation, had/have lofty goals in this department with changing world nodes. But I'm not convinced the tech is right just yet. It's something that's been tried in the past and has never quite panned out.
But mystery and danger of exploration was one of the big things that made EverQuest so memorable and gave it that staying power. If you're a player that's never played EverQuest, just go get a group of friends and try it without looking up anything. While the MMO is a shell of it's former self, you'll get a feel for what I mean. But I feel that's a lost thing that is just one of many pieces that makes this sort of thing work.
And that's the crux of the situtation. There is no one "biggest factor." But instead a number of factors that work in unison. Mystery, exploration, cool things to see and do as a group. Little mysteries, lore, and of course, loot. Real, honest to god, rare loot. Those things that require a bit of work to get so we all don't look exactly alike. I'd even argue smaller stat numbers all around. Hell, anyone remember getting giddy over a Fine Steel Sword?
I'm not sure any of us have that answer that will make the perfect mix. All I know is that I'm ready to see it.
disposalist said:I have found, in games where the challenge level is so low you don't need to group, that grouping with friends can even make the game feel worse, not better, as everything is trivialised.
This is very true. In many modern MMOs grouping can actually be more of an anchor at times. Especially the way quest progression is made. Almost everything is a chain and when you swap group members or get a group going that's all in different parts of the chain, it leads to a lot of backtracking which frustrates a lot of people.
I started my MMO experience with UO and moved to EQ once it was released. One thing that strikes me about the "Early" MMO's is they had a strong community due to the hardships of the game. As MMO's became more "mainstream" the difficulty of the game was reduced and the community was less present.
I will come at this from the opposite direction: what makes a community less strong?
I'm going with 100% community. I have played a single game for years with little new content simple because of my friends. I have also quit playing games with a ton content fairly quick because of the lack of in-game friends.
Especially in these days where people are eager to connect with others, while being locked inside their homes.