Three big questions of massively multiplayer games

First thing first: EVE is back on discussing features. The "no EVE rule" was made because I compared everything to an imaginary unrigged EVE and everything looked pale. After I played Albion Online, this is no longer valid, as I successfully got involved in another game, so it's sure I can (and shortly will) do it again. EVE is a good comparison standpoint for many game features, it's dumb to act like it's not existing.

Another note: I haven't given up on Albion yet, and ready to return if they at least admit that gold speculation is a game-breaking, obviously corrupted feature and pledge to remove it before release. But I won't hold my breath and make the page this week if they don't.


I'm afraid most game devs are unaware of the big questions of MMOs and design their game from the standpoint of lore, visuals or combat system, then looking puzzled why their "awesome" game failed. The reason is that while bad lore, visuals or combat can kill an MMO, good ones don't make one. MMOs need other players - a community - and they are already somewhere. An "awesome" WoW clone will be empty, while WoW will be full. Not to mention that Blizzard can just import some of the "awesome" features (like they did with AoE loot) and beat you. I claim that MMOs that give the same answers to the big questions are mods/reskins of each other and only one can be successful. Sure, if you have a billion dollar, you can make a WoW-killer, but the only way to make a new MMO that coexists with existing ones is to give a different answers to the big questions. There are no right and wrong answers to the questions, just different games for different audiences.

Below you'll see the big question and the answers of WoW, BDO, EVE, Albion, League of Legends and World of Tanks (as they claim to be, ignoring rigging)

1. Can you change the game World for other players? The simpler version is "Is there a World, or are you playing parallel single player games?" Many players prefer to be left alone, while others want to cooperate and compete with others. Please note that optional group-worlds do not apply, so just because your raid can kill a boss for a week and it's dead for all of you, it did not affect any other players who did not choose to be in your raid. Similarly distant and irrelevant elements (like who holds Tol Barad in WoW) do not count either. The World must be strongly affecting the gameplay of all players (besides total newbies in starter zones). While "sandbox" usually means a living World, they are not interchangeable. A Persistent setting where you can do whatever you want is sandbox (Hitman, Grand Theft Auto), while being a combat soldier commanded from one battle to another can be a living World, assuming your victories and defeats reshape the World for everyone.
   • WoW: Persistent
   • BDO: Persistent
   • EVE: World
   • Albion: World
   • WoT: Persistent
   • LoL: Persistent
2. Is there meaningful trading? "meaningful" refers to "buying and selling items fundamental in progressing your character and/or affecting the game World". It's a big question, because trading allows non-combat cooperation and competition between players. Please note that trading irrelevant and auxiliary items do not count. If a player gains most of his power from his personal play and not traded it from others, the answer is no. This question has a weird connection to Is it pay-to-win? (meaning "throwing money to the game makes your character more powerful") If there is trading and there is any form of in-game spending, the players can trade their premium item for power items with other players. So a "meaningful trading" game is always P2W unless every player is strictly paying the same, which has no precedent in the last years (as devs want money). So the three answers are "No", "isolated P2W" (no player trading, but there is item shop), "trade-P2W":
   • WoW: No trade
   • BDO: Trade-P2W
   • EVE: Trade-P2W
   • Albion: Trade-P2W
   • WoT: Isolated-P2W
   • LoL: No Trade(remember, ignore rigging!)
3. Is there PvP where you can lose character progression or the World changes against your will? Obviously important question. Please note that PvP being consensual doesn't nullify the question, as long as the loser loses progression or the World does change for everyone upon his defeat (for example nullsec citadel changes hands). Further question: is this PvP enforced to be at fair numbers or can one bring zerg to win? Both are valid answers, but result in very different games and cultures:
   • WoW: PvE
   • BDO: PvE
   • EVE: Zerg
   • Albion: Equal
   • WoT: PvE
   • LoL: Equal

After crossing out impossible combinations, I see 11 different options, 11 possible successful big massively multiplayer games. Instead we have a few successful ones and a bunch of WoW-clones looking puzzled why they don't grow. Let's look at the whole map:

• Persistent, Notrade, PvE: this is WoW and no one else can take its place without a billion dollars. You only progress your character and do so by gaining stuff for yourself by fighting NPCs. There are PvP arenas but they give rewards for losers too, so they are just another non-competitive grind (many people do them AFK).
• Persistent, Notrade, Equal-PvP: this is what League of Legends claims to be and probably is after Platinum. You only progress your rating and do so by fighting other players in an equal footing (you wish).
• Persistent, Notrade, Zerg-PvP: impossible option as creating a zerg always means some World-changing thing, even if not hard coded into the game. The forums, chats needed to create such zerg would also mean some meaningful sub-culture that is a World of its own. Also, no one would play a game where you can only progress your character by ... being a meaningless cog in the zerg.
• Persistent, Isolated-P2W, PvE: World of Tanks. The "PvE" part is what skyrocketed this game. As long as you play, even if you always lose (impossible due to rigging), you get XP, so you can buy new tanks. So while it sells itself as a PvP game, it's actually just a grind, that's why it can be botted. Credit income depends on your premium status and gold tank use more than on your combat results.
• Persistent, Isolated-P2W, Equal-PvP: Clash of Clans and the rest of the moneygrabbing mobile crap.
• Persistent, Isolated-P2W, Zerg-PvP: impossible option as creating a zerg always means some World-changing thing. Also, who would pay to win just to be zerged down and his progress taken?
• Persistent, Trade-P2W, PvE: Black Desert Online. Get more and more powerful gear via trading and payin that you use for nothing (unlike in WoW where you claim it yourself from "hard" bosses)
• Persistent, Trade-P2W, Equal-PvP: Impossible combination. The point of Equal PvP is to be considered (by himself or others) to be skilled. This can of course be cheated by P2W, see mobile crap. But trading would allow skilled players obtain premium currency by trading, and then pwn paying ones, giving them negative progression, killing the game.
• Persistent, Trade-P2W, Zerg-PvP: impossible option as creating a zerg always means some World-changing thing. Also, who would pay to win just to be zerged down and his progress taken?
• World, Notrade, PvE: Financially impossible, since the P2W versions will always pay more. Not P2W games can only exists where the focus is personal progression and players reject cheating via P2W.
• World, Notrade, Equal-PvP: see above
• World, Notrade, Zerg-PvP: see above
• World, Isolated-P2W, PvE: I don't know any games like this, but is not impossible. It would be a player empire fighting against an NPC empire, changing the map as they progress, players using only items they gained themselves or bought in the item shop.
• World, Isolated-P2W, Equal-PvP: I don't know of any games like this, but it's not impossible. Imagine player empires fighting each other for land, but only using self-gained items and fighting in enforced arenas. Actually WoT clan wars are somewhat similar, though they aren't really a "world" since most players can't interfere or be affected by it.
• World, Isolated-P2W, Zerg-PvP: It would be my long held dream of Knights vs Demons (parts are all over my blog, I must write a comprehensive post some day)
• World, Trade-P2W, PvE: I don't know of any games like that and not sure how it would look like, but is not logically impossible.
• World, Trade-P2W, Equal-PvP: This is where Albion is, despite the devs didn't ask the questions before designing their game, therefore copied the "small highsec, middle lowsec, big nullsec" of EVE and look puzzled why black zones (Albion nullsec) are empty: it's because 5v5 GvG can't be zerged down, so black zone play is only for a small elite, while EVE nullsec alliances hire large amount of unskilled players for F1-pushing zerg. I believe Albion has a chance for success (because it has a unique niche), if they redraw the map and strictly redesign PvP in every other aspect to rule out zerg play (not because zerg play is bad, but because those who like zerg go to EVE).
• World, Trade-P2W, Zerg-PvP: EVE Online

Please think about other games, try to place them on the map and tell me if they are somehow different than others on the map. Because I have a feeling that they are not and could be made as mods of the other game there.