General Discussion

I like the above idea.  It gives all those solo players a greater purpose other then just for personal gain.  Nobody's asking for mandatory grouping, we just want to be interacting with people on a greater level other then just through the chat box.

Wickersham said it better than I could.  Community building does not necessarily mean forced grouping, in fact I think that's probably one of the worst ways to do it.  I do sometimes feel like playing alone, but I want to be part of a larger, living world.  Otherwise, what's the point of playing an mmorpg?

I call foul for using the word Asshat 3 times in the same post.

I agree with some of your points, but just having a game be accessible to casual players does not lead to bad community.  I think maiking it too easy to solo does.  Games also tend to be missing something that ties gamers together now.  No "For the Greater good" feeling anymore.

You use WoW as an example and I think it is a good example because you can solo to cap level.  You get there and have no idea how to group and what role your class should play in that group.  Then you complain because your DPS Warrior is not invited to raids because your warriors job is to tank. 

The other side is that Warcraft was supposed to be about Alliance vs Horde and every design decision they make has not supported that.  Raiding is guild vs guild in a meaningless progress chart.  BG's are about honor grinding and break down to honor per hour calaculations.  They also hold not impact on the game world.  Arena's are team vs team and pit same sides against each other and offer the best gear in the game for many classes.

There is no reason for me to help John Doe because him sucking means nothing to me.  If John Doe sucks it only matters to him, not the community.  If Billy is an Asshat then it only matters to him.  There is nothing that ties the two of us together in any way. 

Now if Billy being an ass means he will be ostricised by the community then maybe he will be nicer so he can get in groups and raids.  If John sucks and it means that all these players like John that suck will mean I get less reward and loose more often then I will be more willing to help John get better so we can win more.

So I agree with community being a design choice, but making games accesible and more casual friendly does not mean bad community.  But making them solo friendly does IMO. 

More tools :

BaF - Brings a Friend.
Later known as "linked mobs". Mobs that act as group when pulled depending on situation and mob type. Some mobs are naturally loners, like scouts or runners, some mobs are naturally grouped like group of soldiers. Using this approach way deeper than by far has been, dev can easily make content that is meant for soloers, small groups and bigger groups in a simple manner, that also makes sense. And no I dont mean encounters like in WoW 5 man instance, where each wave of mobs is scripted to be killable at certain DPS/HPS rate and not bellow. I mean seriously grouping mobs, that makes open world PvE require grouping.

Buffing
Strenght comes from numbers. But if buffiing is used so, that without those friends of yours in group, you're not more than half of your optimal strenght, then strenght actually is numbers. You may be able to solo that single mob type somewhere, but the real joy comes when you're fully buffed by your friends and you can buff them to their optimals, and through this you access majority of content.

Rewarding
Math is simple to create, where group gains more (xp, money, loot, content) than individual alone. Contribution based math has lately got positive attention, so that healers actually do get their share without dealing a dip of damage. This should be the easiest part.

Open world with borders
Dividing people into different small instances dont drive them to meet each other. Instead creating vast instances where many groups can work together to different directions, would make them meet and eventually work together to get deeper. Dividing PVP into instances and arenas, specially without audience, even furthers same bad cause. Dividing players over vast areas makes them less able to meet each other and work together, area size vs player amount/server should be always a factor. Better to change existing content to bring new things to do, than further divide people into larger area in smaller numbers. See EVE.

Meaning
Make that name and fame actually mean something. This is hard and depends on million factors, but eventually not quite difficult to implement when dev has got their papers in order. Googling guildhouse, bragging rights, guild controlled, ladder tournament and checking couple of youtube videos from top ranking guilds should give the idea.

Ingame community tools
Calendars, flags, suits, cloacks, emblems, tabards, wall carpets, statues, houses, ranking systems, ingame forums, gossip board, meeting locations, guild quests, cause, meaning, goal, reward, dynamicly effecting the world, guildchat, mail system, scout system, raid leading system, for gods sake give guild leaders offices, guild hierarchy, ladders, statistics, place to spend money to sit shows, blingbling, dingdong, community lead events, real resources real markets, crafted items with crafters tags, parades, meetings, influence, mercenaries, alliance systems, group leading interface and tools to preplan moves with a map, VOIP... the list is endless. But if teaming up means one more colorfull chatroom and thats it, I'd quit.

I agree completely with OP that creating communities in game is hugely effected by how the game is designed in the first place. Communities creates the addiction, and addiction creates income. Even I could sell this idea to investors.

Originally posted by ianubisi

If people want to socialize, they will do so. You don't need a system to drive social people together.

People who don't want to socialize won't play a game that mandates that they do. They will find a game that allows them to play the way they prefer.

So the question is simple: if you don't like this kind of game design, a design which allows an individual to not be interdependent upon a social group, why are you playing such a game?

Actually, the real question is: why do you care if 9 out of 10 people around you are antisocial? Go find your like-minded people and ignore the rest...I guarantee you that they are there.

I don't get it. Why do you think anyone wants to force anti-social people to be social?

We're asking for game mechanics that allow us social players to enjoy the game. Nobody really cares about forcing someone else to play that way.

You're saying, even though you don't realize it, that you want the social players to have fun, even though you take away the game mechanics we enjoy, just so the solo players will be happy.

Make the game solo friendly, and the people that like to group can do do that if they want to. Uh, no not really, because now that you've made the game "solo friendly" you've ruined the part of grouping that I enjoy. Has nothing to do with you, and I wouldn't care if you were in the game or not, or if you grouped, didn't group, socialized, didn't socialize, played solo,  whatever.

I enjoy grouping because of getting together with other players, and overcoming a challenge. By the time you make the game "solo friendly" the challenge for the group is gone, and sure, I can group anyway which is what you're suggesting, but why bother since it's not fun anymore?

I want game mechanics that make my group play fun. I don't see why you think that has anything to do with you, or your desire to play solo, and no, I don't want to force you to group with me, and I don't even care if you play the game or not.

I wanted to quote the OP for truth for every word he wrote, but the post is too long :)

No seriously, I monitored the same thing over quite a few years in every game I played. The social factor decreased and decreased. Nowadays you have games like AoC and to some extent WoW that play like "checklists". People in those games are socializing just if they have to and for their own motives.

Please don't confuse socializing with grouping, because grouping in AoC and WoW is mostly just for a few minutes to kill a mob which needs more than a solo player to be defeated.

While it is true that the community is made by the people, it is also true that different aspects in the newer generation of games is creating the problems the OP mentioned.

You have to look at the history this genre has gone through and where MMORPGs have their roots. On the computer based side the originate from MUDs, text based adventure games. For the first generation of played MMORPGs were such a fascinating experience, because their beloved MUDs came now with a graphical representation, but in their core they still were MUDs. Games, which were open and with freedom of where to face next. World immersion was the main focus. Due to that fact people had to interact with each other, because as a single character you would not get very far in games like EQ or DAoC, or any other title of this generation.

Nowadays, those games are designed as "video games" and are attractive to a different audience as well. The combination of game features and that audience make today's gaming communities. So yes, communities are a design choice, because with the game you create you know more or less before which audience you will attract. I mean you don't open a restaurant with "haute cuisine", planning to attract people who enjoy hot dogs. When a project like an MMORPG is planned developers are well aware of the fact that they will attract this and that type of player.  

Maybe this will help the solo advocates get the picture.

I want to play football. Football requires you have  a team.

You're telling me, you want to play, but without a team, so could I please change all the rules so you can play the game solo?

Yes, we can do that, but then it's not football anymore.

It's not that I want to force you to be on my team. I don't care if you aren't on my team. It's that I want to play football, and once we change all the rules so you can play solo, it's not football anymore.

And the solo players are saying, well you can still go off and form a team, can't you? No, I can't because you've completely changed the field to the point I can't use it to play the game of football anymore. You've removed one of the goal posts, and shortened the field by 50 yards.

Sure, I can go form a team, but what the hell are we going to do with a 50 yard field that only has one goal post?

Okay, I am going to agree with you that part of the problem I think is the current mmo design which to me is flawed.  Current mmo design seems to concentrate more toward quest grind, a more single player game type mechanic, as opposed to appealing to the more obvious strength of the genre, which is as an online medium of social interaction.

I have an analogy from my experiences as a youth.  I remember going to this dance in high school.  The DJ sucked and the music was horrible.  No one was dancing, but rather just standing around, irritated with the music and complaining.  Well, that's where I feel  we are as a community.   It's not that we don't like to dance, or that we don't like mmo's. 

Finally, enough people complained and the DJ put on some better music and people started to dance.   Happy faces and happy times, and no time to grumble and complain because we had found our groove.

I hope we can find our groove.