I would recommend Vindictus but I'm not sure how the player base is like these days. And it's an Action MMO. Looks like you need a Korean MMO though.

 

I'm all for it... as long as it's not in Korean.

 

Oh god I remember playing Aion. The grind got to me by like level 10, and the graphics made me hate myself. I actually love the cartoony look in my games over the hyper-realistic attempts, especially realistic attempts filled with stupid overly pretty everyone.

 

Nah Nexon did a pretty good localisation of it.

More information if you want:
-The game is essentially un-soloable. You can solo it up to level 50, but its hard and only doable with one character really. All the recent updates are raid content.
-Classes are locked to certain characters. There is a mage, an archer, a tank, and two dual wielders.
-Character customization is micro transactions.

 

@Stojil

You can technically level purely through dungeon grinding in WoW, from 15 to max.

It's not a super fast process, but can be pretty fun.

I've done it a few times in the past.

It'd fit the group requirement, since you can basically choose the way you want to level - solo questing, group dungeons, or a mix. (With pvp as an option too).

I still have an account though I play less these days. Old friends have mostly quit, etc.

 

Star Citizen.

It's not out yet, and won't be any time in the near future. If you don't already know about it, do yourself a favour and check it out. It has raised a ridiculous amount of funding purely from crowdsourcing, and it just keeps growing.

 

Seconded. Star Citizen is going to be fucking incredible.

 

Yeah, I have come to the conclusion that the game I'm looking for doesn't exist, not even partially. This is the closest I could find (it's actually pretty spot-on), but of course it never reached its goal and it's now being accused of being a scam so, even if it actually wasn't, it will never see the light of day.

It's very sad. The MMO scene has entirely (and inexplicably, imo) moved away from those old-school types of game. I mean... not one of them has tried to avoid competing in that same space-market by offering something that, by today's standards, is simply totally different. It's... weird.

I'm not sure what I'm gonna end up playing. Maybe nothing. Thanks anyway, guys.

 

Well, the same aversion to risk which kills innovation in other genres is magnified exponentially for MMOs. They cost a ridiculous amount of money to develop and a substantial amount after that just to keep them operating. Add in the cost of developing new content and you quickly reach the point where you need hundreds of thousands of people paying you every month just to keep the lights on.

It's basically unthinkable for a developer or publisher to look at the numbers, then say "Hey, let's target our game towards a small, niche audience!"

 

I disagree with it being a small niche audience. Smaller? sure. Enough to survive and make loads of money for a long time? Absolutely, imo.

I don't have any actual data, of course, but I did scrounge the internet in the last few days and found countless articles, discussions and reviews either longing for that experience or mourning the fact it's been lost.

It has worked before and in a classic subscription-type system, to boot. Everquest, Final Fantasy XI, Dark Age of Camelot, even vanilla WoW to a lesser extent... they all catered to that audience and were very successful. Then WoW was made casual-players-friendly and became much bigger, sure, but every new MMO has then tried and failed to actually follow in those footsteps. Some bombed and some were moderately successful, but nothing more. So why hasn't this relatively low success-rate and low success-high (if you get what I mean) pushed any company to try a new (but actually old) route?

Also, the market is definitely bigger in this day and age. There are more gamers, casual and not, and many casual gamers become more "hardcore" often times (the opposite is true as well, sure). At the same time, there is more choice in this day and age. But it's pretty much more of the same choice, and one that has so far proven incapable of competing with WoW, or straight-up competing. Why not change?

Is it because hard = unsuccessful? Beside the old-timers I mentioned above, Dark Souls and games of its ilk beg to differ. Is it because team-play = unsuccessful? MOBAs, MMOFPS, Co-ops and the endgame of every single MMO out there beg to differ. The last example is the most baffling to me. The endgame of pretty much all MMOs is group-based. Most players rush to endgame. Why do companies seem sure that it's not also, to a big extent, because of the grouping element, aside from the shiny final gear or whatever? Why not make leveling like endgame in many aspects?

I really don't get it. It makes so much sense from a game-designer point of view, too! Do devs want their players to breeze through the early content, barely paying attention to so many areas that are in effect a huge chunk of the world they have worked hard to create? Do they want to see so many items, so much gear (and that includes at least early crafting) that they spent a long time designing and balancing being effectively useless because superfast leveling means it's going to be discarded and replaced immediately? What about mobs and skills and interplayer-combinations that add so much depth but simply fly over the heads of the rushing-to-max soloing players?

And it's as much a problem for the game community itself. Many effective noobs get to max with no idea of how to use their character, no idea of how to manage it and no idea of how to work in a group, which again, it's what most of the endgame is based on. Farming is always gonna be more crowded than it could be, simply because most of the low level stuff won't be worth it, which will leave less actually lucrative areas/mobs/etc. Crafting is gonna be mostly useless, or simply self-used, as well. And I'm sure I'm forgetting or simply not realizing many other affected aspects.

I just... I really don't get it.

/end of rant

 

mmm... Eve online is a special type of game where you are kinda encouraged to join other people otherwise its completely boring. But its definitely not consensual pvp. Thus, difficult.

Have you considered any MUDs? They're super niche, but they've got the depth and complexity. Some of the REALLY encourage grouping. Hell, you mentioned you like Final Fantasy right? Check out the end of time mud. http://www.eotmud.com/gameplay.html (Its a mud with a Final Fantasy/Chrono trigger twist/flavor)

Its got a decent population, somewhat dying. But theres a lot of grinding you can do, and it heavily heavily encourages grouping.

 

I'm a MUD enthusiast and I played A LOT of them (never End of Time, though... it seems nice). But it's quite a different experience from a MMORPG.

 

This sort of question has been answered piecemeal by many MMO developers over the last decade or so. There's no way I'll ever be able to track down sources, but the tl;dr is something like the following.

- Hardcore players, the type who do raiding or competitive PVP, make up an almost insignificant portion of the total playerbase in any game. We're talking about 'black people in Japan' levels of minority here. Most players will never even consider setting foot inside a 40 man raid or a rated arena match.

- The content that hardcore players most value - raids and dungeons - is the most expensive type of content to produce. It requires unique environments, new encounter mechanics, hundreds of new models for items, creatures and bosses... and in a matter of weeks it's old news and the players want the next tier.

- Hardcore players will always try to rush to endgame anyway, even in a game where the level up experience is just as difficult, because a level capped character is more powerful, endgame gear is better, and the content is perceived as harder and more exclusive. Even if that's not actually the case.

Given those three points, the simplest way an MMO can ever be viable is by splitting the game into two distinct parts. designing the majority of the game for the casual players. Give the casual players relatively easy, soloable level up content which the hardcore players will just rush through anyway on their way to endgame. Then you take the money the happy casuals give you and you spend it on producing endgame content to make the hardcore players happy.

That is, of course, if you even want a hardcore endgame. Guild Wars 2 seems to be getting along doing just fine by producing additional story content rather than raids and dungeons.

 

Warning: there's a fair bit of rambling later on.

I didn't think it was so small, but I have nothing but limited personal experience to base this on, so I trust you on this if you say there's data on it.

Why is it more expensive than new early content? Can't early content also require all those things you mentioned?

I would replace "difficult" with "slow", but sure (also for "hardcore" look at my definitions disclaimer below).

This is where it simply stops making sense to me, because I strongly disagree with the implied premise that you need "relatively easy, soloable level up content" to make the casual players happy. But first, I think we should get on the same page as far as many of the terms we are using go, to make things more clear (I've been inconsistent, as well).

Easy leveling = leveling that requires little effort
Fast leveling = leveling that requires little time (not the same thing as effort)

Casual player = player investing relatively little time in the game
Hardcore player = player investing relatively much time in the game

Hardcore player =/= endgamer

Do you disagree with any of these? I could see you differentiating casual and hardcore players into players wanting their game easy and players wanting their game hard/challenging, but difficulty is very relative so I don't like this much (and I will use mine for the rest of this post, next period aside). If that's the case, though, I would argue that the numbers of these casual and hardcore players are much closer than those of the definitions I use.

I think players want countless different things (status, challenge, variety, social stuff, novelty, sense of accomplishment, etc.) in countless different combinations and to countless different degrees, and that applies to both large groups of players, casual and hardcore.

Hardcore players can easily spend most of their playing time doing different things rather than leveling as quickly and single-mindedly as possible so as to reach the endgame fast. Sure, spending more time playing generally translates into progressing more and reaching the endgame, but that doesn't mean that the destination is their goal.

Going back to your last quoted bit, then, why would a casual player only be happy with a "relatively easy, soloable level up content"? Some of them would, sure. Some hardcore players would, too. But what do you think is the general percentage of them? I think it's low, very low. Why? Because most others wouldn't play an MMORPG if they wanted to play solo. Because many others wouldn't like an experience that isn't challenging. And because some others wouldn't like an experience that isn't challenging for long. If with "easy" you actually meant "fast", then it would be because many wouldn't like an experience that eventually feels meaningless. There's overlapping, of course, but there are also many more sort-of-tangential reasons for why a player plays the game that are negatively affected by both soloability (for example social stuff, status, variety, novelty, etc.), easiness (status, sense of accomplishment, etc.) and speed (sense of accomplishment, etc.).

You can watch the other side of the coin and say that unsoloability, difficulty and slowness can also negatively affect a player experience, and I definitely agree (I did it in the previous paragraph, too). But it's simply wrong, imo, to think that only this particular limited range of players' types is worth creating an MMORPG for.

 

To take World of Warcraft as an example, Blizzard have said that less than 1% of level 70 players ever saw Sunwell Plateau, the final raid of The Burning Crusade expansion. The same goes for Naxxramas, the final level 60 raid of the original game. In fact so few players saw it the first time around, Blizzard retuned Naxxramas for level 80 players and made it the entry level raid for Wrath of the Lich King. For the current final raid tier in Mists of Pandaria, Siege of Orgrimmar, less than 0.2% of all level 90 players have killed Garrosh Hellscream on Heroic mode.

I remember one developer specifically saying that they weren't going to develop any more raids because, essentially, there were so few active raiders that they simply couldn't justify the effort. I think that was Turbine posting on the LotRO community forums, but I'm not sure. I know Cryptic have said similar things at various points too.

If you have a zone full of quests sending players off to collect sixteen boar testicles or whatever, it's very easy get away with reusing art assets. I mean, a boar in one zone is going to look basically the same as a boar in another zone, right? And if one of those boars happens to drop a sword, does it matter if it looks really similar to a random sword you found on a turtle eight levels ago?

You can't really do that with a raid zone. When you're sending players off to fight The Elder Hogg, Boarthulhu, it feels like bullshit if it's just a normal boar with a larger model and extra hitpoints. And when it drops the legendary sword Excalibacon, you know that bad boy needs a unique model. And you sure as shit can't make Sty'lyeh look anything like any other zone in the game!

I thought that too, but then Jeremy Gaffney (Wildstar's executive producer) said that around 60 percent of MMO players play alone. And thinking about it... he's right. Hell, I'm one of those players. Most of the time when I'm playing an MMO I don't actually want to play with other people, I just want to play around them. Having other people in the world is nice, it helps makes the game feel alive, but that doesn't mean I want to actually interact with them. It's like going to a bar to drink alone compared to staying at home with a six pack.


As for the hardcore vs casual thing...

I usually say 'hardcore' when I'm talking about achievement-focused players who take the game seriously and want to prove that they're the best, through things like having the best possible gear, having the highest PVP rating or being the first to beat the newest content. Usually - but not always - reaching that goal involves dedicating a substantial amount of time and effort to the game. Hardcore players are the kind of people who raid three days a week, compete in tournaments, set up DKP systems for distributing loot and use MATLAB to work out their theoretical maximum DPS output.

Casual would then mean the opposite, the players who aren't interested in that sort of thing. They progress at the pace they're comfortable with and prefer to play in ways that entertain them, rather than whichever path gives the best or quickest result. Some of them will raid, but they're the type of raiders who'll ask if there are any pickup groups forming in trade chat on a Friday night, or maybe tag along with their guild if there's a spot free. If they PVP then it's not because they want to be rank 1 or because they need to farm points for that best in slot weapon, it's because they decided that doing a battleground would be fun.

Obviously those aren't two mutually exclusive groups and there's going to be a lot of crossover there, but that's how I've come to think about it. I actually hate the hardcore and casual labels, but when everyone else in the world is using them I'm not left with much choice but to follow.


Maybe I shouldn't have said level up content is easy, fast or casual. I probably should've said that level up content is aimed squarely at the masses, while the endgame content is aimed towards that niche raid audience.

 

You sure as shit shouldn't make any zone, period, look like an already existing one, but I get your point. I certainly saw it happen all the time with mobs (not so much items, though).

First, I'd say that 40% is still a big amount. Second, I'd say that number is that low at least in part because every game is designed to be ran solo more easily than in group. Do you participate in endgame group activities, ElDee? If yes, do you do it just for the loot and the accomplishment or also because it requires you playing with a team? Don't you enjoy the coordination, the preparation, the cooperation, the sharing etc.? I really can't believe that only 40% of players in MMO like those things.

I think the bold part is the real difference. The goal really doesn't matter, it's how they go about it that makes them hardcore. So, time and effort. That's what I think it comes down to. "Serious business" vs. "for the fun of it" just doesn't sound right to me, but I guess there's no right or wrong definition and it's all pretty fluid.

So the masses are basically a little below 100% of the playerbase in MMOs, right? If they are and we established that they don't do much endgame content, then shouldn't leveling (together with the various "side" activities) be the fulcrum of their experience? And shouldn't the game make sure they play for as long as possible, for its own sake?

So, observations:

1) Fast leveling for a player can mean more meaningless and less rewarding experience. That means boring and quitting.
2)) Slower means postponed endgame, which we already said the majority of casuals (which is the majority of the playerbase) doesn't do much.
3) Easy becomes boring fast. Boring means quitting. Challenging means more engaging.
4) Shallow becomes boring, too. Deep means more engaging. It's much easier to add depth or have it emerge naturally in a group experience rather than in solo.
4) Community bonds are one of the strongest ties stopping a player from quitting. Forming them is much easier to do when playing in a group rather than solo.

I'm sure that making the game too slow, too hard, too difficult and too imbalanced is a difficult job, but come on... today's MMORPG look so... defeated.

 

I think you're going to have to accept that, unless you make an MMO yourself, that perfect MMO will forever be out of reach.

___

You want an MMO that encourages grouping up with other players, even as you level up, and that's a great thing to want. The problem is there's only so many ways you can encourage grouping. Either by making the areas you level in so hard you just can't do it yourself, which hurts people who are leveling in low population areas/servers/etc.

Or you go the way Guild Wars 2 went and make it so there's no penalty to grouping up, but the difficulty doesn't really go up either, which makes it a cakewalk. Admittedly you can do what Guild Wars 2 did and scale some encounters to be harder with more players in the area, but again, not foolproof since not all of those players are necessarily fighting the mob/boss/event.

___

You want a game that's kind of grindy which again is a nice thing in a game, (On occasion, anyways), except you'll inevitably end up with people who just don't want the game because they can't invest the time needed to level up. Now, admittedly there's the whole 'Enjoy the level/area you're at, rather then the levels/areas you could be.' but, at the same time you eventually get bored of doing the same old thing in the same old area.

___

You want a somewhat active low level playerbase, but that's only really possible in newer MMO's, where everyone is lower level, or MMO's that encourage multiple characters. MMO's that encourage multiple character's are typically also ones where you level faster, since you don't generally want to grind the same areas all the time just to level a new character.

__

You want a focus on PvE over PvP, except AI in games are notoriously stupid. And most of the really skilled players lately seem to prefer PvP simply because player's can be a lot smarter, and a lot more challenging then monsters.

Also, PvE content is generally harder to create for a company, since each area should have something unique and new about it for it to be at all worthwhile. Whether it's new scenery, new monsters, new mechanics, (Terrestrial vs Underwater combat, as an example.)

Whereas for PvP, if you take Guild Wars 2 as an example, just adding even one new map or a new game mode would more or less completely change the way some players are forced to play.

__

So basically, you're not likely to find all of your wants in a single game, since some of them are more or less mutually exclusive.

That said, if you want to ignore the 'somewhat grindy leveling' you might enjoy Guild Wars 2.

It regularly will have you semi-grouping with players to do events as you level. Although most of the time it's less you're grouped with them and more you're all just working together at the same event, although this also depends on if you talk in chat at all often. I've often ended up partying with complete strangers after helping them do an event and chatting with them.

It has a very active low level population, especially since they introduced the mega-server system which makes it so whatever map you're on will have people from multiple different servers meaning pretty much every map has people on it doing something or other.

It's currently very much focused on PvE over PvP, although it hasn't had that much new content released since game launch, compared to games that release entire expansions. (Although the new 'season' of living story has them adding new content that a lot of players seem to be enjoying.)

It's a buy-to-play game, and although it does have a 'Gem Shop' (Cash Shop) you can also exchange in game gold for Gems.

Ultimately I hope you find what you're looking for, since everyone deserves to play the way they enjoy.

 

There are various mechanics to avoid hurting players in low population areas/servers, like capped content, level sync (or whatever name you want to give it), mentoring, etc. Also, penalizing the solo experience by making it simply unavailable isn't the only or even the best way to go about it. Just strongly enhance the group content and rewards. Make it so that defeating much higher level enemies - so more difficult to beat and almost certainly more engaging - in sequence gives increasing exp or exponentially better loot (mob chaining), create combat mechanics that make an already more engaging - compared to solo - group fight even more so (skill chain and magic burst, flanking, etc.), tie grouping more strongly with the social aspects of the game, etc.

And how is this different from alienating players that don't want the game because they don't like not having a challenge, not having (as much) variety, and breezing through levels like they're nothing? You can't make everyone happy and I'm certainly not advocating for every MMORPG to be like the one I'd play, but there is not one like that, and every single one is a copy of the other, as far as these things go.

Variety really shouldn't be a problem in an MMORPG. There are many areas and mobs of similar level in such huge worlds, there are distractions and other activities, group play inherently makes it more diverse and exciting by adding variables, etc.

Simply by making the leveling process slower, the game already gives itself more time to come out with new expansions and add-ons, breathing new life to both endgame and early content (you get new areas to level up in, new races/classes to try as an incentive to reroll, etc.). Also the previous paragraph applies here, too.

This is all true, although you can make AI sophisticated enough to keep it interesting, and it's all about the balancing and the mechanics in the end. Also, many players just don't enjoy PvP as much as PvE or at all, and like I said, you can't make everybody happy.

I'm assuming you mean slow leveling and low-level playerbase? With my limited understanding and knowledge of it, I still disagree. They're not inherently mutually exclusive and there are many ways to make it work.

Thanks. And at least I'm getting something-of-a-kick out of this discussion. It's not all bad.

 

FREE Wildstar trial keys if you want to try.