Interview here with Jack Emmert on MMO design. A couple of interesting article quotes:
What might surprise new entrants of the game development industry is that these failures and successes rely in some part on trial and error. “Research, to be honest— we don’t use it in the commercial industry. I wouldn’t even know where to look for it,” says Emmert. But he does know that “ownership is key. Make players own stuff. That way, they’re not going to own you.”
Another way to improve the chances of creating a successful massively multiplayer titles is to use groups. “Grouping is absolutely vital in an MMP,” Emmert says. “If people are playing online and they meet friends, then they are going to play. I have no other evidence of this other than the exit surveys in City of Heroes. “We want to keep people playing. What are the mechanisms MMPs have used to keep people playing?” Some of these mechanisms, from Emmert’s point of view, are not only grouping, but also
classifying player types, such as fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. The designers then need to find a purpose for those player types, which gives them reason to rely on other player types for other purposes.
“You cannot play Everquest alone,” says Emmert of one example. “You have to find other people online. The [enemies] are so tough that no one person can do it. And in fact, you have to get just the right players” to move forward. And while some may questions the true strength of player grouping in games, enough MMOs have succeeded due to the very nature of their grouping that the trend cannot be ignored.
Lots of other good stuff on grouping, too.
Emmert realized, in developing City of Heroes that there is a deeply rooted fear in most people of, essentially, grouping with strangers. He asks by example do you know your neighbors well enough to have them over to dinner? Do you know and trust your neighbors well enough to let them take care of your children. These rhetorical questions beg yet another question about irrational fears, namely, if the odds are absurdly low that we should be wary of our neighbors, why do many people still not know
or trust them?
“We need to develop mechanisms that circumvent this fear that we have. In City of Heroes, we used a few classic mechanisms,” the primary one being “sidekicks,” Emmert says. Using sidekicks, partners in the game play alongside each other and advance to new levels together, so friends playing together can stay together. Emmert notes how the use of sidekicks helped Cryptic Studios maintain a 90 percent conversion rate when their players’ free trials expired. This design choice, he says, was intentional, and
is one that serious game makers can learn from.
“The other thing we did was create super groups,” says Emmert, “large amounts of people willing to cooperate,” otherwise known as guilds in other MMO games. “Super groups are purely a social mechanism that allow people to have a chat chain and that’s about it.”
But the grouping can’t be forced. And a lot of the individual stuff is even more important.
Emmert highlights other facets of the game that players appreciate, such as costume creation and player creation. He also notes that groups often used their costumes to show group identity rather than individuality, illustrating that some of the best team-building, again, originates from the players themselves.
But not all the game design put in place in City of Heroes and City of Villains worked out for the best. For example, “Players don’t ever want to be in a situation when they’re forced to group,” Emmert says. Another example is a facet created by the game designers, that, according to Emmert, were “probably the best designed game element ever.
“We spent more time developing [bases] than any other feature in City of Heroes or City of Villains,” he says. Although bases are built by a team, Emmert and his team viewed them as being “incredibly, incredibly individual” because each piece of the base is designed and added by individuals.
“What happened was players hated it. It’s the most underused facet of the game. It received almost no coverage in the press. And there’s nothing like it in any other MMP.” Emmert’s hypothesis is that “people don’t like contributing money to a group to express individuality. … At its heart, these MMPs are individual game experiences in front of a computer terminal.”
That led to a bunch of discussion on the boards, prompting States to actually comment on it.
Let’s take a look at costume creation. It’s been embraced beyond belief by players…we have in game costume contests and events organized by you the players…Some say it’s the best part of the game. The single most requested item in CoH is to make the costume creator standalone…
Intestingly, costumes have no gameplay value. They don’t boost damage. They don’t boost resistance. They don’t boost defense. They’re only for show.
Now, let’s take a look at bases. Take away the teleporters, take away anything game related.
As just a resource for expressing something unique, base creation is on par tech wise with costume creation. Admittedly, there’s not quite the same amount of textures, colors, etc., but there’s still a lot of versatility. And the layout possibilities are endless.
But what’s clear from this thread – and from many, many posts – is that bases are “too expensive”. To me, that’s interesting (as it is to the Serious Games crowd). Costume changes come with a minimal cost that no one really complains about, but we complain about the costs of bases. Evidently, the costs exceed the perceived value of creating one’s own HQ (btw, I confess that many other games have the notion of personal property, but aside from Second Life, I don’t think they offer as much customizability as our
bases).
Let’s turn to the idea of an architect. We foresaw that some people would feel alienated if they weren’t the architect. That’s why some things (Personal Items) can be “crafted” by individuals and placed in the base. But even if there’s an architect: many super groups have a member who designed a single costume which all then use. In other words, they’re more than willing to accept someone else’s opinion in the group identity for their avatar appearance. Again, the primary difference is cost (I think).
That’s what the point of the talk was. I completely agree with many of the suggestions raised in the Base Construction forum, as well as one’s mentioned here, would improve Bases to some degree or another. Posi and I go through them at length; really, it’s just a question of time & resources. Some things would take astronomically long to do – or perhaps there’s something else even more requested or popular.
Interesting stuff. Honestly, the whole base thing has never been nearly as interesting to me as I suspect the devs intended — if base entry simply changed into a “where do you want to teleport to?” I would have very few regrets.
But costumes? Yeah, they rock.
Been a while since I did an in-game screen cap — but also been a while since we built new characters, as were awaiting I8. 
First off, Kazima, with the Angel Wings she should have always had. Fabulous in actual flight and movement. These are just damned spiffy! I so want to see Margie run this character again. 
Secondly, another test character, this one with Demon Wings and various pieces of Oriental Armor (another Vet reward, with various sorts and which show up in various odd places in the costume designer). I have some serious thoughts about the bat wings, but they’re not nearly as cool as the angel ones.
Fun times. We got started with the Hostess Heroes a bit late — Margie and I did Trick-or-Treating. Doyce got on first, and we figured we’d do the Respec Trial — until we discovered it took 4. Then we got someone to start it with us … and did fine, until the mission that was full of +3 to +5s.