Imagine: It would be updated with each book and Dragon release.
It would be epic, if it took a Guild Wars approach: Buy it, then play-monthly fees suck.
I know I would play.
Would you?
Discuss.
If you don't have the grid system, most of the combat rules would be wasted. I suppose the game could be free roaming (akin to how you move around in Guild Wars, WoW, Oblivion, etc.) then when combat begins, the land is gridded and you move in turns...
That could be fun but I'm not sure if it would be popular.
I would love to play any 4e video game if one is made (not just an MMO). I think 4e rules are much easier to implement than the previous editions. Give me D&D Tactics 4e and I'll be happy.
Hmm...
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance with character creation and online multiplayer.
:D
the Virtual Game Table'll be enough for me.
It's never coming.
I feel your loss.
I have yet to see reason to change my stance on this. I wouldn't play that game.
I love 4e's mechanics and I do agree it would probably be pretty easy to adapt it to an MMO, or any other video game for that matter.
4e console RPG. Yes.
I would have to like the setting. One reason why I refused to play DDO. Who would want to play that crappy system setting. And judging by the numbers a VERY small amount of people.
They have to hit it right.. Neverwinter Nights with a true multiplayer matchmaker would be great. I would settle for a Diablo2 lobby if I had too. Gamespy just doesn't seem to work for me.
4e MMO? No.
4e console RPG. Yes.
Console games really blow. I mean Oblivion has been herald as the best graphics and it sucks to anything on a PC.
Look at LoTRO on dx10. Even on 9.0c the trees actually move. They don't look like 2d cardboard cutout stands like they do in oblivion.
Console games really blow. I mean Oblivion has been herald as the best graphics and it sucks to anything on a PC.
Look at LoTRO on dx10. Even on 9.0c the trees actually move. They don't look like 2d cardboard cutout stands like they do in oblivion.
I've never played Oblivion on a console. When most games, actionRPG/FPS style games especially, are on consoles AND PC I go with the PC version. PC Oblivion is very nice, especially once you put in a few of the 3rd party mods that drastically upgrade the models, textures, and environmental effects.
I don't know if I'd do 4e as an MMO, it'd be hard to pull off as a WoW-esque MMO I think. But something akin to Guild Wars where you can do a player party, a player/henchment party, and instances that allow you to have an actual progression and see the world change I think that'd work.
As others have mentioned the hardest part would be converting the turn-based rules to something reasonable for multiplayer since you can't do the turn-based without some sort of player timeout to keep the game from progressing and you'd need instances for most things or else you'd always be in 'encounter mode' and dealing with rounds.
The options would also be limited and there'd be a large delay between the books/magazines and the game not to mention they'd probably do something akin to RPGA and not allow everything (yes RPGA and LFR actually has a list of things from the books and dragon that aren't allowed).
Console games really blow.
Not to start a console vs PC war, but at least console games actually run without a complete, $1000+ hardware retrofit every six months. When I buy a game, I want to play it, and not perform electronic surgery.
As for a 4e MMO, no I wouldn't play one. I have precious little free time as it is.
Not to start a console vs PC war, but at least console games actually run without a complete, $1000+ hardware retrofit every six months. When I buy a game, I want to play it, and not perform electronic surgery.
As for a 4e MMO, no I wouldn't play one. I have precious little free time as it is.
I want quality over crap.
My PC blows my 360 out of the water and My PC is over 2 years old.
They have yet to make a game that my rig can't play and I'm taking Crysis on max in fact.
Don't go budget and expect it to last. Pay for it now and you won't later. I should still be able to get many more years out of this before it has to be replaced. MAYBE the graphic card but nothing needs more than what I have so no need.
SINGLE PLAYER!
TURN BASED!
EBERRON!
FINAL DESTINATION!
On a side note, Oblivion = shite.
Play a real game that doesn't pander to all the graphics w****s out there. Say, something like Mount&Blade.
SINGLE PLAYER!
TURN BASED!
EBERRON!
YES!
———
As for a MMORPG, unless they figure a way for turn-based combat to work in one, it's not viable. Still propably wouldn't play it, especially if there were monthly fees.
But then I don't like MMOs anyways.
FINAL DESTINATION!
The Final Destination films would adapt terribly to an MMO.
Oh, wait...
However, the mistake the first DnD game made was that it literally was nothing but Dungeons. To get me to invest time in an MMORPG, I need to feel like I'm part of a living and breathing world. DnD Online didn't even TRY to do that.
I agree that the best video game adaptation of the game would be in a strategy RPG, in the vein of Fire Emblem, Nippon Ichi games like Disgea, or the Final Fantasy Tactics and Ogre Battle series. I could actually see a very lucrative market for that.
Remember Dungeons and Dragons Online: Stormreach?
Anyone?
You there in the back? No? Thought I saw a hand...
Anyway
It was actually pretty fun, but the drab color pallet, combined with fewer races and classes than one would hope for in a D&D game was probably its downfall, and the failure to add content in a timely manner (oh they kept tellng us we'd get the half orc, half elf, gnomes, monks, and druids, but they sure didn't by the time I quit... though I heard they finally added the monk).
I liked the focus on instanced dungeons rather than wandering around killing endlessly respawning things wandering back and forth between towns. Combat system was actually pretty darn good, retaining the rules while somehow being real time, yes there were differences sure, but knowing how to build a character in Table Top let me build effective characters in that MMO.
So yeah I'd give a 4e mmo a shot.
God now I'm thinking about the VONs, Goodblade, HIPS, The Pit, and farming for Muckbane.
I want quality over crap.
I'm getting 6 years of maintenance-free gaming, and what is 'crap' is subjective. Most likely by 'crap' you mean 'any game on a console'.
Pay for it now and you won't later. I should still be able to get many more years out of this before it has to be replaced.
How do you know that? There's no standard for PC game hardware requirements - the requirements for anything and everything could suddenly leap past the upgrades you just bought. And the game companies will do it, because they can. Because they don't really have to make games that PCs can run outside of a theoretical supercomputer.
MAYBE the graphic card
This puts the lie to everything else you've said. I DO NOT WANT to have to keep upgrading my system just to play games I also have to buy. When I buy a console, I get 6 years of maintenance-free gaming for a fifth of what it costs to buy a gaming PC that's obsolete in six months.
Anyways, I'm all for a Turn-Based D&D game, ideally with custom maps and scenarios and such, but not an MMO. An MMO just wouldn't be the same game. If they were going to do a D&D MMO, they would need to just grab the setting and make an entirely new system for online play. I'd love to play in Sigil Online, but it wouldn't be D&D.
I'm getting 6 years of maintenance-free gaming, and what is 'crap' is subjective. Most likely by 'crap' you mean 'any game on a console'.
Some PC games are crap as well. I just like how some of the real games look in dx10.
How do you know that? There's no standard for PC game hardware requirements - the requirements for anything and everything could suddenly leap past the upgrades you just bought. And the game companies will do it, because they can. Because they don't really have to make games that PCs can run outside of a theoretical supercomputer.
In 2+ years I have no reason to upgrade. Nothing out there even taxes it so I am good. With the Quad and 8GB of RAM I have I am good for a long time down the road
This puts the lie to everything else you've said. I DO NOT WANT to have to keep upgrading my system just to play games I also have to buy. When I buy a console, I get 6 years of maintenance-free gaming for a fifth of what it costs to buy a gaming PC that's obsolete in six months.
I think you fail at critical thinking severely. I have stated nothing is out there that taxes my system. The first thing that will tax would be a game needing 1-2 GB of Video. Then I will have to replace what I have on a video card. I don't see that coming down the pipeline for years.
What is this obsolete ******** you are talking about in six months. Mine is still out ahead of the gaming industry and it will be 3 years old in Jan 2010.
I dont make the kind of gold to maintain such a hobby.
plus some people wont even hire WoWers.
Console games really blow.
Gameplay-wise? Cuz that's all I really care about.
Regardless, I suppose I shouldn't have said 'console.' I meant single player RPG, which I typically associate with consoles and not PCs. If it's on the PS3, all the better. :D
What do I want?
SINGLE PLAYER!
TURN BASED!
EBERRON!
FINAL DESTINATION!
Well said!
The world is split into multiple servers. Some will host major towns, and the rest will host instances. (For those not familiar with the lingo, an instance is a copy of an area that a character or group of characters has all to themselves; so while there may be hundreds combing the sewer dungeon for treasure, each party has their own personal dungeon). In major towns, all players share the same area. This allows them to buy, trade, craft, and (most importantly) find other players with whom they can adventure.
The adventures take place in instances. This way, the thrill of spelunking to the Underdark city for ancient relics isn't dampened when you find there's a line to slay the illithid lord :P. The online game comes with a number of instances (not necessarily just dungeons, maybe also small towns or large areas like a lake) that span the levels of play, so that you can always have something cool to do with the game as is out-of-the-box.
But now the selling point. Include a robust mod creation tool, so that players can make maps, monsters, NPCs, events, and quests. Then, when they log on, players can choose to either play as one of their characters to go dungeon-delving, or play as a DM. If they choose to be a DM, they will be able to choose an adventure they designed. Then they log in as a character from that adventure in a town. Here, they're free to recruit players to go on their adventure (maybe as a wealthy nobleman hiring help in the tavern, or even as an urchin who dropped his teddy down the storm drain). Once the adventurers accept the quest of the DM, they go outside and now have additional instanced zones available: those the DM's adventure includes. The DM can hide and reveal zones as he wants, to better direct the story. Combat is done using the grid and turn system of 4e, so as to stay true to the rules.
Outside of combat, when a DM is running an adventure, he can allow many more things to happen with a toolbar. If your players want to get drunk and hit on the tavern wench, the DM can place beers for sale and have the wench NPC become very friendly with the players (maybe even talking through her, weird as that it). If your players use a torch to light the curtains on fire, the DM can place terrain objects for fire on the curtains (and maybe turn an AoE damage on and off).
I know this is getting complicated, but I always believe that it's better to overshoot in theory and be conservative in implementation.
I played the 3.5 MMO.
Remember Dungeons and Dragons Online: Stormreach?
Anyone?
You there in the back? No? Thought I saw a hand...
Anyway
It was actually pretty fun, but the drab color pallet, combined with fewer races and classes than one would hope for in a D&D game was probably its downfall, and the failure to add content in a timely manner (oh they kept tellng us we'd get the half orc, half elf, gnomes, monks, and druids, but they sure didn't by the time I quit... though I heard they finally added the monk).
I liked the focus on instanced dungeons rather than wandering around killing endlessly respawning things wandering back and forth between towns. Combat system was actually pretty darn good, retaining the rules while somehow being real time, yes there were differences sure, but knowing how to build a character in Table Top let me build effective characters in that MMO.
So yeah I'd give a 4e mmo a shot.
God now I'm thinking about the VONs, Goodblade, HIPS, The Pit, and farming for Muckbane.
I remember it. I remember all those and more.
I loved it, because it was what I wanted in an online game. I don't like the sit in a spot and grind mobs for XP to level up to the good stuff.
I don't like having to spend a week getting enough copper to buy the stuff I need to make the silver, to buy the stuff to get the gold....you get it.
I don't like quests that take weeks and months to complete, because the spawn for them happens that often.
DDO let you log on, find a group if you didn't have friends and do a quest and actually complete something each and every time you played! I had a great group of friends that I could count on being on at any given time.
But yeah, they needed a few more races and classes. They have only added the monk recently I hear, and no druids yet. The dungeons just kept getting better and better visually, and the puzzles trickier and trickier.
I know people poo poo it, but I often find those people haven't given it a try before doing so. My favorite is I was at my gaming group, and and meet Melissa, who used to game with the group, moved and now was back in town.
I get introduced, she askes, hey do you play WoW, I replied no. My friend Mike sneers and snickers saying, He plays DDO. She makes a face and goes Ugh. I asked, "Oh so you've tried and and didn't care for it?"
"No, I just read it was bad on the WoW forums."
"Oh I see..."
plus some people wont even hire WoWers.
Huh?
As to the original question, yes I would... but would prefer a non-MMO PC game. I really didn't care for Stormreach and I don't like the kind of people an MMO brings in. This isn't an attack on MMOs mind you, as I until recently played and enjoyed WoW and EverQuest before it... it's just impossible to create a "true" RPG within the limitations of an MMO.
What about a pseudo-MMO?
The world is split into multiple servers. Some will host major towns, and the rest will host instances. (For those not familiar with the lingo, an instance is a copy of an area that a character or group of characters has all to themselves; so while there may be hundreds combing the sewer dungeon for treasure, each party has their own personal dungeon). In major towns, all players share the same area. This allows them to buy, trade, craft, and (most importantly) find other players with whom they can adventure.
The adventures take place in instances. This way, the thrill of spelunking to the Underdark city for ancient relics isn't dampened when you find there's a line to slay the illithid lord :P. The online game comes with a number of instances (not necessarily just dungeons, maybe also small towns or large areas like a lake) that span the levels of play, so that you can always have something cool to do with the game as is out-of-the-box.
But now the selling point. Include a robust mod creation tool, so that players can make maps, monsters, NPCs, events, and quests. Then, when they log on, players can choose to either play as one of their characters to go dungeon-delving, or play as a DM. If they choose to be a DM, they will be able to choose an adventure they designed. Then they log in as a character from that adventure in a town. Here, they're free to recruit players to go on their adventure (maybe as a wealthy nobleman hiring help in the tavern, or even as an urchin who dropped his teddy down the storm drain). Once the adventurers accept the quest of the DM, they go outside and now have additional instanced zones available: those the DM's adventure includes. The DM can hide and reveal zones as he wants, to better direct the story. Combat is done using the grid and turn system of 4e, so as to stay true to the rules.
Outside of combat, when a DM is running an adventure, he can allow many more things to happen with a toolbar. If your players want to get drunk and hit on the tavern wench, the DM can place beers for sale and have the wench NPC become very friendly with the players (maybe even talking through her, weird as that it). If your players use a torch to light the curtains on fire, the DM can place terrain objects for fire on the curtains (and maybe turn an AoE damage on and off).
I know this is getting complicated, but I always believe that it's better to overshoot in theory and be conservative in implementation.
This sounds a lot like the NWN / NWN2 layout just a bit more internet based rather than focusing more on singleplayer standalone. It's also a lot like how Guild Wars works with 'hub' points where you can buy/sell/trade and add people (players or NPCs) to your party before going out into the bulk of the gameworld in an instance tied to just your team where you can travel to another hub or progress your storylines.
Only if they let another company be in charge of it. WoTC sucks in almost all of it's online endeavours.
Hasbro has licenses ALL 'video game' related development to Atari/Activision for the next 9 or so years (they renewed the expiring contract just before 4e hit the shelves). So WotC wouldn't be handling it, and I don't think Atari/Activision could handle something on the scale of an MMO any better.
Hasbro has licenses ALL 'video game' related development to Atari/Activision for the next 9 or so years (they renewed the expiring contract just before 4e hit the shelves). So WotC wouldn't be handling it, and I don't think Atari/Activision could handle something on the scale of an MMO any better.
I believe only Atari has the rights, not Activision. If only it was the other way, since Activision and Blizzard merged not too long ago.
I enjoy WoW enough, but if they had a game just like it, in the D&D world, that had no similarity to DDO, I'd try it.
I am asking if WotC came out with a 4E MMO, would you play it?
IF it actually followed the D&D rules and IF it was better than DDO and IF it wasn't set in Eberron... yes i would.
I played DDO for a while, but I didn't like that they played fast and loose with the D&D rules. When Beholder's did suppress magical effects on you but dispelled them, it was highly annoying.
DDO let you log on, find a group if you didn't have friends and do a quest and actually complete something each and every time you played! I had a great group of friends that I could count on being on at any given time.
But yeah, they needed a few more races and classes. They have only added the monk recently I hear, and no druids yet. The dungeons just kept getting better and better visually, and the puzzles trickier and trickier.
I know people poo poo it, but I often find those people haven't given it a try before doing so.
I poo poo it and I played it for over a year.
Your experience was way different than mine. I could never get anyone to run quests. It was always the same quests over and over. I was even in the largest guild on my server, and the problem was everyone had maxed PCs and they just kept grinding away with their maxed PCs and never ran anything lower.tryign to get pick up groups was even worse. Ugh... I finally gave up with my highest level PC being level 9 (out of 14).
I poo poo it and I played it for over a year.
tryign to get pick up groups was even worse. Ugh... I finally gave up with my highest level PC being level 9 (out of 14).
Well, I would say that because your experience was different then mine, yeah the game wasn't fun for you.
But that doesn't always equal the game is bad. The game solved a lot of issues I had with other MMOs.
I am asking if WotC came out with a 4E MMO, would you play it?
Imagine: It would be updated with each book and Dragon release.
It would be epic, if it took a Guild Wars approach: Buy it, then play-monthly fees suck.
I know I would play.
Would you?
Discuss.
Oh yes!
Big and epic like WoW. With fast real-time combat (not turn-based - I want to play RPG not tac-sim please) something akin to Age of Conan or Dark Messiah of MM. That would be great!
And monthly payments are OK for me - there are no good MMORPGs without them.
P.S. And let Blizzard do it. They know how to make it good. Besides WotC and Blizzard already collaborated in the past (D&D Diablo and Alternity Starcarft).
That said, I'll agree with several other posters that a single-player RPG along the lines of FFT would be great, and I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Oh yes!
Big and epic like WoW. With fast real-time combat (not turn-based - I want to play RPG not tac-sim please) something akin to Age of Conan or Dark Messiah of MM. That would be great!
And monthly payments are OK for me - there are no good MMORPGs without them.
P.S. And let Blizzard do it. They know how to make it good. Besides WotC and Blizzard already collaborated in the past (D&D Diablo and Alternity Starcarft).
Uh, no? I don't know what kind of quality you are used to, but WoW is complete and utter crap. It was a good and decent game with lots of potential...once...long ago. If you want a company that really knows MMOs then give it to SOE. Besides Jeff Kaplan (Tigole) and Alex Afrisiabi (Furor) taint anything they touch.
Anyway I would play a D&D MMO if it was nothing like DDO, which was a complete failure. I actually want a world to explore thank you very much, not be stuck in the same city running the same tired dungeons over and over again with absolutely nothing else to do in the game. Oh sur eyou could run the other dungeons, but they were not optimal at all, so you get stuck ruinning the same three for several levels, then you get to run two others for the next few, so on and so forth. Blech. Turbine screwed that game up royally. Now if they were to do a 4e game like they did LotRO, I'd be all for that.
As for your view on MMOs Dane, you obviously haven't played any MMOs released after the year 2000. Yes EQ, Ultima, FFXI and DaoC were all like that, where you grind the same respawning mobs over and over, but the next generation changed how MMOs are played. Now you do quests to get xp, and killing mobs are an incedental part of questing.
As for your view on MMOs Dane, you obviously haven't played any MMOs released after the year 2000. Yes EQ, Ultima, FFXI and DaoC were all like that, where you grind the same respawning mobs over and over, but the next generation changed how MMOs are played. Now you do quests to get xp, and killing mobs are an incedental part of questing.
Well lets have some names of these post 2000 MMOs.
Vanguard? Lets make travel seem real! What, long and boring? No thanks. Oh wait turns out that was also a grind, the biggest grind. Why, because the people who made it were there original EQ makers.
Conan hasn't fared to well.
Ever Quest 2 started out nice, and turned into a grind again.
Lotro - best game out there. When you factor in graphics, gameplay, and IP.
Eve Online
some others are the free ones but I don't really count those.
Well lets have some names of these post 2000 MMOs.
Vanguard? Lets make travel seem real! What, long and boring? No thanks. Oh wait turns out that was also a grind, the biggest grind. Why, because the people who made it were there original EQ makers.
Conan hasn't fared to well.
Ever Quest 2 started out nice, and turned into a grind again.
How about the elephant in the room, World of Warcraft? I've been playing it for more than four years now, and your list of complaints:
I don't like the sit in a spot and grind mobs for XP to level up to the good stuff.
I don't like having to spend a week getting enough copper to buy the stuff I need to make the silver, to buy the stuff to get the gold....you get it.
I don't like quests that take weeks and months to complete, because the spawn for them happens that often.
bear little to no resemblance to my experience in that game.
There is one thing I wish D&D would take from MMO design. Choice of role. All classes should have builds for more than one role. There is no reason why a fighter can't be a defender or a striker. If they'd replace the marking class feature with a once per round bonus damage "mighty swing", the powers would only take a bit of tinkering to make them fit the new role.
I disagree very strongly with this. I like the one role per class. I hate when they make it so a class can really seem like a different role because then they don't do their main role very well. It hearkens back to the 3.X days of having one cleric at the table who doesn't heal. Now if you sit down with a cleric, you know he will heal and also give bonuses. You know a fighter will be a tank (well, unless it's a tempest fighter who is a poor mans striker... not a great striker, not a good defender, but good enough for those people who want to be a fighter and say they're a striker).
A fighter who's a striker is a ranger, or a barbarian, or...
Considering the COST of hosting the servers and paying the developers for continuous work on it and a new big patch every 3 months? Pretty fair.
Plus you know that Blizzard is putting the cash into MORE ways to make cash, which ultimately means we get D3 and SC2 in the next year (or two)... Which means that I get the sequels to games hailed as some of the greatest of all time.
Which reminds me WHY I need to renew my subscription... I support Blizz because they have consistently churned out games I enjoy. Of course I'll probably pick up Guild Wars first, too bad Tabula Rasa bombed though.
We live in a consumer world, everyone wants money and they'll do what gets them money. 4e is really on a basic level "tabletop WoW." Not bashing the edition, just making it clear that the decisions made in content distribution make it into what amounts to "pay-to-play" in the tabletop world.
I would most certainly play a 4e MMO. I would LIKE it to be free, but I have no unrealistic hopes that a company like WotC won't charge me for the privelege of using their oh-so-expensive servers.
Of course, I'm holding out for 4e tactics anyway. Preferably with an option for "Homebrew." THAT would be great, so that I decide on how to interperet the rules.
If WoW sucked it wouldn't get played. The main gripe people have is that it's pay-to-play.
Considering the COST of hosting the servers and paying the developers for continuous work on it and a new big patch every 3 months? Pretty fair.
Plus you know that Blizzard is putting the cash into MORE ways to make cash, which ultimately means we get D3 and SC2 in the next year (or two)... Which means that I get the sequels to games hailed as some of the greatest of all time.
Which reminds me WHY I need to renew my subscription... I support Blizz because they have consistently churned out games I enjoy. Of course I'll probably pick up Guild Wars first, too bad Tabula Rasa bombed though.
We live in a consumer world, everyone wants money and they'll do what gets them money. 4e is really on a basic level "tabletop WoW." Not bashing the edition, just making it clear that the decisions made in content distribution make it into what amounts to "pay-to-play" in the tabletop world.
I would most certainly play a 4e MMO. I would LIKE it to be free, but I have no unrealistic hopes that a company like WotC won't charge me for the privelege of using their oh-so-expensive servers.
Of course, I'm holding out for 4e tactics anyway. Preferably with an option for "Homebrew." THAT would be great, so that I decide on how to interperet the rules.
Actually the main reason WoW gets played is because it was easy and accessible, and still is. So as a result it is a lot of people's first MMORPG. Because of that no one is willing to try any other MMORPG without comparing it to WoW, which is blatently ridiculous. I don't know how many times I've seen on forums or in chat channels that a game is too much like WoW, or not enough like WoW and therefore sucks. Sometimes I've heard both about the same game! This tells me that most WoW junkies are completely uninformed about other games because they won't play them with an open mind.
Besides comparing WoW to other MMORPGs is a bit confusing to me, it's like comparing Street Fighter to Soul Caliber. Or comparing Final Fantasy to Phantasy Star. Yes they are in the same genre, and thus share some of the same elements, but they are completely different games otherwise.
As for why I don't like WoW? Has nothing to do with pay to play. It has everything to do with the fact that they flushed the game down the toilet by giving us the same content over and over again. If next expansion raises the level cap again I'm just going to laugh at them. Honestly once they lost half their original design team and hired on Kaplan and Afrisiabi, WoW started its downhill slide. It had a lot of potential once, not so much anymore. After four years you'd figure they'd give us something at least a little different and stop trying so hard on the PvP front since their PvP sucks and was a tacked on system from the get go. The game has no depth, and needs a huge graphics upgrade. I'm fine with the graphics style mind you, but they can give us shading and dynamic lighting at least, and maybe make the plants look more like plants rather than wires with leaves on them. And I won't even get into the retarded ten year olds who apparently play WoW, conidering that's what a good majority of the game's population acts like.
I play EQ2 because it is the far superior game. It has depth, more mature players, and obviously better graphics, especially since they gave us two completely different types of character models to choose from for each race. And before you ask me how that's possible since they don't have millions of players, ask yourself this: Is McDonald's superior to say...Red Robin? Or any other half way decent sit-down burger joint? No it's not. But yet McDonald's has billions and billions served. Why? Convience. Same as WoW. Speaking of the millions of subscribers they have, you do realize they count cancelled, trial, banned, and gold farming accounts in all that right?
Again if they do a D&D MMORPG they need to take hints from EQ2 and LotRO.
A better 'model' of MMO to base 4e D&D off of would be City of Heroes. Different genres (comic book superheroes vs fantasy) but the style of play would be a bit closer since your character's combat effectiveness is more based on power selection with minor boosts from 'loot' than entirely dependent on raid grinding for a purple. They also have in common a mix of city zones with most missions/quests being in private instances.
Guild Wars leans closer to the WoW side as far as gear goes and way past CoH for the instance aspects. I think 4e would have to fall closer to CoH for gear and a lot like Guild Wars for quest/game progression.
The big flaw I've always seen with MMOs is a lack of levelling content. WoW especially is way too focused on end-game content (which leaves large raid instances barren when they raise the level cap and create a new batch of raid content). Guild Wars tries to solve that by making it really really easy to reach 20 but then you're grinding to get the rare good gear and skills to be effective. CoH added a system to get around that by giving you a method to 'flashback' and play lower level content that you either enjoyed or missed while levelling without it being a massacre and waste of time.
4e wouldn't work that way but also shouldn't be end-game content heavy. Especially if they put in ED's. I think the solution to that would be 'generational' play: get a character to 30, retire them after an ED quest, get a legacy bonus on the next character (item that grows as they level, occasional help from the previous char, etc. based on ED chosen) as long as the new character matches the class or race of the old one. Take the focus off one character and instead focus on a progressing game world and a feeling of having some lasting effect from a character's actions.
With your idea, it allows those of us who like playing alts to have a good reason to. Though maybe take it a step further? Maybe you can play the level 30 character every once in a while to set up in game plots and stories, or to thwart some huge threat to the world or something. Random GM events that are run by the devs. That sort of thing. The thing that could sell the D&D MMORPG is honestly story. I have yet to see a MMORPG pull off an intriguing, indepth story that has consequences based on your character actions, though Bioware's Star Wars Old Republic MMORPG is supposedly going to have that sort of thing in it. We'll see.
By the way EQ2 is nowhere near the equipment grind that WoW is. I don't feel subpar if I don't have the right equipment in EQ2. In fact my wife can nuke down a triple heroic mob with her wizzy with no equipment on. Granted at endgame there is some equipment grind from what I've seen, but I have yet to experience it, will be doing so soon though, so I'll get back to you on that one.
True being able to bring back the 30 for such events would be nice, and they could even have areas as 'end-game' just for level 30s that others couldn't go, or maybe once you reach level 30 and finish your quest you go into an alternate advancement mode in new areas sort of like ascending did back in the D&D days with the Immortal set. Just because you're at the top of the 'combat' bracket doesn't mean the story has to end there, a lot of muds do that with reincarnation into new, more powerful classes and such.
Vanguard I liked but it was a bit too grindy and buggy even after more than a year. It had some nice storyline concepts and class concepts though, but it wasn't quite enough to keep me there. I really liked the diplomacy card game system.
A couple things that City of Heroes has/is doing that could work well for a D&D MMO is alignment shifts (though only if they let you play a 'villain' in the D&D MMO, otherwise alignment shouldn't really change for the most part), and player-created content. CoH has added a mission builder that basically allows players to create story arcs of 1-3 missions complete with custom text, custom enemies (or ones already in the game), and 'publish' up to 3 arcs at a time for other players to play. Of course obscene language and stuff gets the arc taken down so there is content control. Players in the arc can rate it or flag it for CS to look at. A D&D MMO could work with something similar, especially for those with level 30s who can send lower level characters on quests they create with some sort of instance editor.
DnD is a turn based game - it always has been and it works as a turn based game. Changing it into a real-time game doesn't work - if you want to play an MMO play one; there are lots to choose from.
NO!
DnD is a turn based game - it always has been and it works as a turn based game. Changing it into a real-time game doesn't work - if you want to play an MMO play one; there are lots to choose from.
Dude, D&D is a role-playing game... ;)
Now I will admit there was several huge problems with gameplay that needed to be worked on but it was during this time I found pvp to be the most exciting. One on one pvp was over very quick so the long drawn out dueling and template and gear optimization was gone but what I found to be the fun of pvp was learning to pvp as a group. I joined a guild and we all logged in every night and learned to fight as a team and for about three years we enjoyed group on group pvp fights that lasted for hours where our smaller sometimes grossly outnumbered group would out perform the larger unorganized group. It didn't matter that we all played medics, officers and commandos and lost against jedi and bounty hunters in solo fights it was when our group of 8 to 10 got together and continuely beat down the 20 to 30 who eventually began to hate us. But that is a whole other story.
The point I want to make is that our guild thrived and loved the game when there was no pve what so ever. No grinding for gear, no constant changing of templates and suits or questing for more buffs. Everyone's character was on the same level so it was where teamwork and tactics won the fight. I quite playing WoW after I hit 80 when I saw that pvp wan't so much about teamwork as it was all just battlefield verging with a never ending grind for top end gear. I want to play a game and team up with friends and fight against other players. I do not want to spend hundreds to thousands of hours grinding so that I can beat someone due to having superior gear.
The mechanics of the game are similar, but only to a certain extent. City of Heroes works on a recharge basis, which would sound familiar to people used to 4e, but it's a real-time thing and most powers have a recharge rate that allows them to be used often in a fight, generally every few seconds.
But, y'know, I think that a real-time adaptation of the 4e rules could really work. The full-technique stuff for monks sounds especially apt. Every six seconds, you'd have to worry about a standard action, a move action and a minor action, but with a little bit of restructuring I think that should be doable. Move actions would mostly be a matter of toggles, the primary toggle being between shifting and regular movement. Minor actions would probably just be eliminated altogether -- who needs 'em, if you've got other things to worry about. So the real skill would be in choosing the proper attack every six seconds.
Having to wait five minutes for your good attacks would probably annoy people, though. Waiting all day (or even some equivalent) for the really good ones would be even worse. Recharge rates would probably have to be reduced considerably, to the point that powers can be used multiple times in a long fight. Seems like this would swing balance in favor of the PCs, obviously -- but maybe that would be a good thing.
Then again, maybe you could leave the recharge rates as they are -- there are powers that aren't much different in City of Heroes, with recharge rates of an hour. Maybe that should be what daily powers are brought to?
I don't know. It seems like it could work in my head.