Massively^™

Everyone seems to be talking about Wrath of the Lich King at the moment. It's busting sales records at the stores and seems to have attracted attention away from the other MMOs released this year. However, I'm sure most of Blizzard's competitors aren't that worried. After all World of Warcraft may be a monster, but it's one that only comes out to eat once every two years. Mythic was just unlucky enough that the schedule for Warhammer's release coincided with the monster coming up for dinner. Still even if Warhammer released further away from Wrath of the Lich King I have to wonder if the results would be any different. World of Warcraft seems to have the unusual ability to maintain a high subscription based even with a slow development cycle for its expansions. The subscription numbers do dip in between releases, but the game never really seems to lose its momentum.

I expect this can be partially explained by Blizzard's habit of holding back content from its expansions and then releasing it in later patches. This helps stretch out the expansion content over a wider time period and gives the development team a chance to work on brand new content. However, even this trick can't account for why World of Warcraft keeps its numbers in the face of multiple new MMO releases.

The season of war has come upon us and we have not one, but two great fantasy war games out in the stores. I have to stress the term "fantasy" though since neither game is truly designed around anything remotely resembling real warfare. That kind of action can really only be found in the less structured gameplay of MMOs like EVE Online. Of course, in those games the side with the most money and the best equipment tend to always win. This makes it a little too similar to real life for most people and it can be a bit boring. Not many people want to worry about managing a supply chain when they can be clashing swords. This is why games like Warhammer and World of Warcraft with their resetting objectives and instances are much more popular. The rules for these games might not be realistic, but it's entertaining.

---

	Did you enjoy this? Make sure to check out our Warhammer guides: Massively's Character Creation Guide and our WoW Player's Guide to Warhammer. Plus, don't miss any of our ongoing coverage as Massively goes to WAR!

It's not just the reward systems either, both games also have very different opinions on how to achieve class balance. World of Warcraft has increasingly been balancing its classes towards small-scale combat. Almost every class has methods of crowd control and ways of incapacitating other players. Warfare in the game has become more about timing your special abilities correctly to counter crowd control spells then about actually dealing damage. This may make arena combat more exciting, but it has the price of making larger scale encounters less balanced. Simply having that one extra person with a stun, fear, or root gives enough of an advantage to completely shut down the opposing side.

In Warhammer, combat seems more about large-scale combat and sticking with the basics: healing and dealing damage. The only crowd control abilities I have seen so far have been root spells which seem to be given only to cloth wearing casters. There are some interesting knock-back abilities, but these don't stun or incapacitate the target. If want to defeat an opponent then you are going to have to deal enough damage to kill them while they fight back. This would seem to be the better combat system, but it actually encourages running away in small-scale encounters. In particular, any sort of PvP system where the objective is simply to stay alive would last forever. This is probably why we won't be seeing arenas in Warhammer any time soon.

It's no secret that modern MMO design has changed drastically in the years following World of Warcraft. The secret of the game's success has been the topic of discussion for every gaming blog and review site for the past four years. Yet while everyone tends to focus on what World of Warcraft did right, there are a few areas where the game underperforms. In particular, the grouping and guild systems seem to encourage quid pro quo relationships between players as they are leveling or gearing up their characters. That's not to say that Blizzard was trying to discourage strong bonds between players, but more that they were concentrating on making one of the first solo friendly games in the genre. They eventually reached this goal by developing the questing system we now see emulated in almost every modern game. Unfortunately, this focus on solo questing has had some major unintended consequences for those who like leveling in groups.

As long as World of Warcraft remains the top performing MMO on the market most game developers are going to assume that only the minority of players actually prefer grouping. I've seen people compare the subscription numbers of World of Warcraft to games like EverQuest 2 to support this argument. It's obvious that most players would rather keep the solo friendly format then be forced back into the days of required grouping. However, the situation doesn't require that MMOs have to be designed to cater to just one style of gameplay. Some minor changes could be implemented in modern questing and leveling design, which would greatly encourage cooperative grouping. Most MMOs that are oriented on solo questing only discourage grouping by accident and not on purpose. Still some of these "accidents" tend to be very annoying to anyone trying to level with a group of friends.

It's not that gamers are overly fond of the subscription model. Indeed a lot of console and FPS gamers specifically avoid MMOs because of monthly fees. This hasn't stopped game developers from continually using the subscription model though. Despite all the different payment models being explored by industry, the subscription model continues to be the most popular for AAA titles. There seems to be an underlying notion in the west that subscribing to a MMO is still the most beneficial payment method for the consumer. If you look at the history of early MMOs it's not hard to see how this notion was formed.

I continued to hack and slash the isometric sprites until I noticed they were starting hit a lot harder. Thinking it was time to repair I checked my inventory and was greeted with the sight of a naked me! Unlike its MMO cousin, the first Diablo actually destroyed armor when its durability reached zero. I felt somewhat sheepish about it, but then I had a funny thought. Could you imagine if World of Warcraft followed the same design? Raiding would take a lot longer as people constantly left to repair after every two or three deaths. Tanks would be even rarer since they would have a much higher chance of losing items. The problems with that scenario quickly mount up and it's easy to see why Blizzard changed the durability system slightly when putting it into MMO form. That's not to say you will never find item decay in a MMO, especially if you explore some of the less mainstream games.

Traveling has always been one of the least popular parts of playing a MMO. It doesn't matter if you are marching through the lengthy Connall's Valley in Age of Conan or travelling across the galaxy in EVE Online. It can be tedious no matter what the setting. Nice visuals and guild chat can occupy you part of the time, but you still check the map every other minute. We're lucky that MMO design has come a long way since the early days, where the only option was to hit the road on foot. Most games now give us vehicles, mounts, and in some cases mechanical ostriches to speed up the pace a bit. After all, if it's the journey and not the destination that matters then you definitely want to travel in style.

There is one underlying reason why travel times continue to be prevalent in MMOs today and it's directly related to player expectations of virtual worlds. Developers are very sensitive to the issue of making their games seem like a real world and not a collection of three dimensional video game levels. Any MMO that has too many instances and separate zones often gets complaints for breaking the feel of a seamless world. This can actually turn players away from the game. As a result, the most successful games are often those with an over-world where players don't find themselves constantly having to load data as they zone. Just look at how World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, and EVE Online handle their world design.

There are a lot of reasons for the increasing popularity of MMOs and the amount of game developers who are entering into the market. I personally think that MMOs with their rich and complex fantasy worlds have a huge advantage over most single player games. There are a few exceptions like Baldur's Gate and Oblivion, but in general if you want to experience a completely different world then you need a MMO. I think this goes back to the days when online fantasy games were text based and developers tried their best to create immersion through good lore and storytelling.

In fact a lot of players enjoy the immersion in MMOs and have fun exploring the hidden areas in the game. Going into the unknown has always had an attraction for some people and history is filled with the names of famous explorers. However, in modern times the world doesn't really contain that much which is unknown and it will probably be a while before we get to another planet. Thus virtual worlds offer a false, but satisfying sense of exploration. Not everyone wants to be an explorer when playing a game and the majority of players tend to fall more into the achiever player type.

Players often feel like they have no control over their favorite MMOs, but the truth is every major design decision is made with them in mind. Developers listen to forums and every complaint and suggestion has a chance of changing the direction a game takes. Player Consequences is a new feature that follows some of the modern trends in MMOs and the player concerns that created them.

Item binding has become a fact of virtual life for most of us nowadays. We get an item, pick it up, and it somehow magically attaches itself to us like some kind of lamprey. We usually don't mind that much when we first get the item, but eventually we find something better. Then it becomes time to peel it off and sell. This is when we usually find out that the favorite item we worked so hard to earn is only worth a small pittance to the NPC merchant. It would be nice if we could sell it to another player or save it for one of our lower level characters, but most games don't allow this anymore.

You see, a long time ago back in the early and mysterious age of first generation MMOs, there wasn't really any reason for item binding. Oh some items might have a "required level" on them and some special quest rewards might be "no trade", but in general "bind on equip" and "bind on pickup" didn't exist. If you got lucky on a mob's loot table and won the Sword of Ultimate Uberness then it was yours to do with as you please. This usually meant that it became somewhat of a family heirloom and was passed down to every new character you created, much like that hand me down jacket from your older brother.