Interesting Age of Conan Player Poll Results

[Ratman_tf]

Every one I start up gets old faster then the last one.  My tolerance for these shit fucking mechanics: going from quest npc to quest npc, from field of foozles to field of foozles is fucking running out.  

Agree.

I don't know whether designers are unable to think outside the WoW box or whether companies are too scared to take a risk on a different type of game when there are money hats to be had.

Well, it's bitten a few of them in the ass. (SWG, AA, E&B, etc...) And it may continue to bite buttock on AOC, WAR and STO, if they're not careful.

[IainC]

Perhaps GM's guiding the attacks of monster/alien hordes against player built settlements whatever.  Obviously the tech might not be there yet.  Clearly the vision and competence on the part of game devs isn't there because these fucks can't seem to tie their own shoes without breaking shit half the time.

Just wanted to speak to this particular point. This is something I've envisoned for years (like a lot of people). It's either a function of technology (when should the computer attack a player-run city) or a function of money (getting hired GMs to play the npc's).

To slip into game design for a sec, I always thought it would be a 3 part system:

GMs get an RTS-=style system where they can control multiple mobs from an omniscient point of view, directing spawns, attacks, and changing npc attributes & aggression level
GMs can jump into any single NPC and play them as they would a character
Each server has a storyline - so that use of the above systems fit into an arc or at the very least are responsive to what's going on on the server.

Of course to have even 20 people playing 24/7/52 would take a lot of money...but a game with WoW's level of success could fund something like this. Some people might even pay more for such an experience. /flashback to EQ Legends server...hmmm...well maybe.

I can't see this working. It's not the technology or the budget constrints but a simple community issue. If players build somethign up using player abilities and player systems and it then gets taken away by a GM controlled character, most players are going to be pretty pissed. Like quitting the game pissed.

Back in the day we used to run special events in DAoC. Scripted, one night only adventures that told a fairly basic story and took a bunch of players on a cool little adventure. Many players suggested that we should do RvR events where a GM controlled character led a raid on a relic or something. We had to keep explaining that it was a terrible idea because we'd never hear the end of the whining if we did that. To prevent complaints on an epic scale, all abilities of a GM controlled character would have to be transparent and predictable - at which point you may as well write a funky script and let the game AI run it.

[Margalis]

Neither Eve, Shadowbane or UO have an end-game centered around raiding for loot. It sounds like AOC does. That is why looting dead bodies is such a poor idea, unless the only things you can loot are rather meaningless in which case it's acceptable but mostly doesn't matter.

As far as RP-PVP, realistically speaking only 5% of the playing population is going to play on RP-PVP servers. The fact that it is a popular option in the poll means the poll is not a reflection of reality.

[JoeTF]

Darksign, IainC:
Give the control to the players. Marginalize npc controlled npcs to some fauna and occasional world catacylsm events, but let the players have their own npcs, with highly scriptable behaviour and rich advancement scheme.

I envision true virtual gameworlds, that exist purely as non-static backdrops to the stories players themselves create.  The world itself is not a gameplay experience, just a diorama for the gameplay experience the players create for eachother.  Virtual world shit.  Sandbox shit.  The type of daydreaming people seem to associate with Raph.  I imagine the next major step in MMO's will be removing the fields of static npc spawns that exist only to feed the players desire for loot and xp and replacing them with fields where the player might be ATTACKED by hostile npc's.  Dangerous npc's.  Where the world itself is attempting to kill the players.  Perhaps GM's guiding the attacks of monster/alien hordes against player built settlements whatever.  Obviously the tech might not be there yet.  Clearly the vision and competence on the part of game devs isn't there because these fucks can't seem to tie their own shoes without breaking shit half the time.

I had this dream for looong time: Early medieval world with orcs and technology, where players design and do everything. They fight monsters, they can train soldiers (and have them learn whole tactical maneuvers via scripting), they build guild settlements (from a small palisade in middle of wilderness, to hidden cave hideout to ginormous medieval city 2km in diamater), and advance the technology. By build I mean organize materials, know-how, train workers (building entire city by yourself is always possible, but time consuming) and most importantly design the whole thing like they do in Second Life. World they can establish villages, defend or raid them, where entire kingdoms are player built, goverened and fought over. World where every player lead bandit group would attack with unique strategy and tactics, where every stronghold would have unique and unexpected trap system, where every part of "civilsation" would be either player governed, player built or be the player themselves.
Of course, there would be still place for EVE style NPC kingdoms and orc invasions to keep players busy.

Essentially - marry EVE with SL, but extending SL's customization from just building NPC tactics and technology advances.

[tmp]

I can't see this working. It's not the technology or the budget constrints but a simple community issue. If players build somethign up using player abilities and player systems and it then gets taken away by a GM controlled character, most players are going to be pretty pissed. Like quitting the game pissed.

Pretty much. The few times event team in EVE did something like attack player-controlled structures there was streams of tears all over the forum how it's "unfair" some folks with magically spawned stuff dared to inflict loses on players, and how they just all should fuck off and leave players alone.

That of course running back to back with complaints how the devs never take time to run events for the players.... 

[Ratman_tf]

That of course running back to back with complaints how the devs never take time to run events for the players.... 

Well fuck them. I've never been interested in GM run events like that. And the inherent unfairness of that kind of stuff. (GM events in EQ being about splattering characters...)

[JoeTF]

On RP in EVE:
I distinctly remember when developers tried to do RP in CA-controlled space. Event team was podded so fast that even GM commands wouldn't keep them alive (afaik command to restore hp was long and EVE always sucked in chat UI department). It ended with streams of tears on ISD side with them promising they would never ever do any RP events for us meanies.   And they never did: npc empire got kicked out by player run alliance.

Real problem with GM controlled npcs is sheer level of corruption it causes in competitive game. It forced CCP to create Internal Affairs department and eventually close down volunteer teams.

[Sparky]

Well they did hire RP Event staff from within the player base.  That's just asking for trouble; especially when you're giving away supercapitals and the like when very few currently existed in the game.

[DarkSign]

I didn't really mean that the devs would take over PC assets en masse, merely playing NPCs...but with better AI. I could see why you got that from my post though. And really if you think about it, as long as you didnt grief them by overusing your powers...and played them within the reasonable parameters that computer NPCs operated...there'd not be much difference...except a better combat experience.

[Ratman_tf]

I didn't really mean that the devs would take over PC assets en masse, merely playing NPCs...but with better AI. I could see why you got that from my post though. And really if you think about it, as long as you didnt grief them by overusing your powers...and played them within the reasonable parameters that computer NPCs operated...there'd not be much difference...except a better combat experience.

I dunno. I don't play PvE to be challenged. (Narf, I said it.) Not specifically to be challenged. But to see what the mob AI is going to do. I'm more impressed with a neat scripted combat routine with lots of gee-whiz special effects than a mob with lots of hps and dps stomping me into the ground.
A GM running a mob will usually only be able to target and follow me more intelligently than an AI script. Meh.

[Wershlak]

I can't see this working. It's not the technology or the budget constrints but a simple community issue. If players build somethign up using player abilities and player systems and it then gets taken away by a GM controlled character, most players are going to be pretty pissed. Like quitting the game pissed.

In a WoW style game where players invest months/years of their lives in their characters or whatever they have built then I would agree with you. In a game where building a character or building up some personal slice of the virtual world is relatively fast then the loss is not so great.

Picture a game where your guild spends a week or two building up a virtual keep or city and then spends the next 3 months defending it from various PvE and PvP sieges. If eventually it gets destroyed I don't think many would be too upset as long as there is an opportunity to rebuild.

[IainC]

I can't see this working. It's not the technology or the budget constrints but a simple community issue. If players build somethign up using player abilities and player systems and it then gets taken away by a GM controlled character, most players are going to be pretty pissed. Like quitting the game pissed.

In a WoW style game where players invest months/years of their lives in their characters or whatever they have built then I would agree with you. In a game where building a character or building up some personal slice of the virtual world is relatively fast then the loss is not so great.

Picture a game where your guild spends a week or two building up a virtual keep or city and then spends the next 3 months defending it from various PvE and PvP sieges. If eventually it gets destroyed I don't think many would be too upset as long as there is an opportunity to rebuild.

Or conversely they might just decide that they don't want to rebuild because whatever they do will get taken away from them by a super-powered GM character* eventually. If your game revolves around (or is at least heavily focussed towards) players building up their own little hegomonies then you might just have killed your game dead.

*It's not necessary for the GM characters to actually be super powered. They might in fact be weaker than an equivalent player character but as long as they have any link to the GMs then the assumption will always be that they are super powered uber characters.

[stray]

Case in point: Wolfpack dressing up as Morloch, allying with all of our enemies, equipping them with badass mercs, and then completely burning my city to the ground.

Was fun actually, but I was finished after that.

[Wershlak]

I agree that when it is a GM then there will be a fine line to walk to make sure there is no question of fairness of even the appearance of impropriety. It may not work strictly for those reasons.

I would argue that people can handle losing. If it is a fair "game" then people will build back up and seek to get better for the next attempt.

[Soln]

How many want permadeath? 

[Nija]

I bet those 20 levels of single player are the only ones with a worthwhile story and cohesive leveling curve + skill gain.

How much do you want to bet? 

[schild]

Look, if they can't make a single player action game that's fun, there's just no chance for them.

[Megrim]

You might also ask who is willing to go through the 80 levels, even if they are fun. I know i stopped caring about this game once i saw the number.

[Venkman]

I imagine the next major step in MMO's will be removing the fields of static npc spawns that exist only to feed the players desire for loot and xp and replacing them with fields where the player might be ATTACKED by hostile npc's.  Dangerous npc's.  Where the world itself is attempting to kill the players.

The next step is actually getting players to give a crap about that level of immersion.

I would love something like this. I've long felt these worlds don't need NPCs at all, just go open PvP throughout, removing DIKU, levels, and classes as well. Go entirely skills-based where your control scheme is semi-twitch FPS and your "skills" augment damage output/absorption and other stat-able things, without going to far. TF2 with persistence, and unlockable abilities.

But the problems are two-fold:

• Design is hard. I mean true get-down conceptual rethink design here. It's because it can't be measured during the process, everyone blames you for stalling the beginning of development (which can be measured), and you don't really know if you're right until the very end of the process when the game is for sale. The budgets are bigger and bigger, and the sources for these budgets like their precedence.
  
• Players don't want this level of immersion. Us early-adopter SOE-slapping geeks are not the majority anymore. "Casual" is perceived as ding/gratz/loot, and it is a competitive advantage to do so prettier/faster/better. We're either headed down the path of the Koreans here, with monthly MMOs glutted and wasteland-d, or there's just going to be fewer games.

Eve is big, but only because WoW is ginormous. It's a percentages thing unfortunately. Being all by itself in what it is and does, Eve does not stand as good example for what "Devs should do". It's as much an anamoly as the 9mil+/$75mil WoW.

So what we need is another indie game to come outta nowhere, maybe have a gamer-centric IP or maybe not (sci-fi is still wide-open here) spend a year or two gaining steam, and be ripping players away from the DIKU-of-the-month club at a pace just enough to get some new thinking put into Starcraft MMO 

[DarkSign]

I imagine the next major step in MMO's will be removing the fields of static npc spawns that exist only to feed the players desire for loot and xp and replacing them with fields where the player might be ATTACKED by hostile npc's.  Dangerous npc's.  Where the world itself is attempting to kill the players.

The next step is actually getting players to give a crap about that level of immersion.

I would love something like this. I've long felt these worlds don't need NPCs at all, just go open PvP throughout, removing DIKU, levels, and classes as well. Go entirely skills-based where your control scheme is semi-twitch FPS and your "skills" augment damage output/absorption and other stat-able things, without going to far. TF2 with persistence, and unlockable abilities.

But the problems are two-fold:

• Design is hard. I mean true get-down conceptual rethink design here. It's because it can't be measured during the process, everyone blames you for stalling the beginning of development (which can be measured), and you don't really know if you're right until the very end of the process when the game is for sale. The budgets are bigger and bigger, and the sources for these budgets like their precedence.
  
• Players don't want this level of immersion. Us early-adopter SOE-slapping geeks are not the majority anymore. "Casual" is perceived as ding/gratz/loot, and it is a competitive advantage to do so prettier/faster/better. We're either headed down the path of the Koreans here, with monthly MMOs glutted and wasteland-d, or there's just going to be fewer games.

Eve is big, but only because WoW is ginormous. It's a percentages thing unfortunately. Being all by itself in what it is and does, Eve does not stand as good example for what "Devs should do". It's as much an anamoly as the 9mil+/$75mil WoW.

So what we need is another indie game to come outta nowhere, maybe have a gamer-centric IP or maybe not (sci-fi is still wide-open here) spend a year or two gaining steam, and be ripping players away from the DIKU-of-the-month club at a pace just enough to get some new thinking put into Starcraft MMO 

Sounds like you want to play FURY...which I hear is going down in a flame of glory. Start at the top level, semi-twitch, skills and powers to be chosen...full PvP only.


I think a lot of players would like NPCs were more active instead of being dumb-terminals. Go to any MMO forum board and you'll hear players balking for it. Even the 10 year olds.

I would argue that people can handle losing. If it is a fair "game" then people will build back up and seek to get better for the next attempt.

I agree with that. Most players want a challenge...even if it's an FPS. The poster above that said they "don't play PvE to be challenged" may have people on his side, but I don't think (well at least I hope) he's in the majority.  I know that most of the guildies I've fought beside would love for PvE to be more intelligent and more challenging. If you had someone paid to play mobs and they could target a healer or use more advanced playing skills (more advanced than regular AI)...I believe most would enjoy that more than spawn, kill dumb mob, spawn, kill dumb mob ad nauseum.

[Ratman_tf]

I agree with that. Most players want a challenge...even if it's an FPS. The poster above that said they "don't play PvE to be challenged" may have people on his side, but I don't think (well at least I hope) he's in the majority.  I know that most of the guildies I've fought beside would love for PvE to be more intelligent and more challenging. If you had someone paid to play mobs and they could target a healer or use more advanced playing skills (more advanced than regular AI)...I believe most would enjoy that more than spawn, kill dumb mob, spawn, kill dumb mob ad nauseum.

Well, let's take WoW PvP for an example of players replacing AI. After the shiny of fighting in the battlegrounds wore off, I found it to be just as boring as the current PvE paradigm. And I generally like PvP.

I would not mind PvE encounters being more interesting, but I don't necessarily equate that to challenging.

[Rendakor]

DarkSign, Fury isn't an MMO in all but the loosest of senses. It's WoW battlegrounds without the PVE. It's not a world at all, and is completely lacking in persistence.

[IainC]

I agree with that. Most players want a challenge...even if it's an FPS. The poster above that said they "don't play PvE to be challenged" may have people on his side, but I don't think (well at least I hope) he's in the majority.  I know that most of the guildies I've fought beside would love for PvE to be more intelligent and more challenging. If you had someone paid to play mobs and they could target a healer or use more advanced playing skills (more advanced than regular AI)...I believe most would enjoy that more than spawn, kill dumb mob, spawn, kill dumb mob ad nauseum.

The history of PvE in MMOs is calling you a liar. If you look at the most popular activities in PvE, it generally involves finding the mob that gives the best reward for the easiest fight. We don't as a rule want to work hard, we want shinies to flow in with the minimum effort on our part.

There are individuals who like to be challenged and try to find new ways to do difficult encounters with the fewest possible number of players, but in the main we want to grind on xp_mob_01 while complaining that PvE blows cos it's boring.

[Venkman]

Sounds like you want to play FURY...which I hear is going down in a flame of glory. Start at the top level, semi-twitch, skills and powers to be chosen...full PvP only.

I want the combat to be a part of a world. Think TF2 meets UO, where the combat is alongside an array of other things to do.

Fury was just an twitchy Battlegrounds game with character advancement. I have COD4 for that need

[Merusk]

I agree with that. Most players want a challenge...even if it's an FPS. The poster above that said they "don't play PvE to be challenged" may have people on his side, but I don't think (well at least I hope) he's in the majority.  I know that most of the guildies I've fought beside would love for PvE to be more intelligent and more challenging. If you had someone paid to play mobs and they could target a healer or use more advanced playing skills (more advanced than regular AI)...I believe most would enjoy that more than spawn, kill dumb mob, spawn, kill dumb mob ad nauseum.

The history of PvE in MMOs is calling you a liar. If you look at the most popular activities in PvE, it generally involves finding the mob that gives the best reward for the easiest fight. We don't as a rule want to work hard, we want shinies to flow in with the minimum effort on our part.

There are individuals who like to be challenged and try to find new ways to do difficult encounters with the fewest possible number of players, but in the main we want to grind on xp_mob_01 while complaining that PvE blows cos it's boring.

If the grind didn't take so damn long, you'd find people willing to take plenty of challenges.   You're using the old 'bottmfeeder' anti-pvp argument as an anti-pve argument. New twist there, but it's still a lame argument.

[Merusk]

I envision true virtual gameworlds, that exist purely as non-static backdrops to the stories players themselves create.  The world itself is not a gameplay experience, just a diorama for the gameplay experience the players create for eachother.  Virtual world shit.  Sandbox shit.  The type of daydreaming people seem to associate with Raph.  I imagine the next major step in MMO's will be removing the fields of static npc spawns that exist only to feed the players desire for loot and xp and replacing them with fields where the player might be ATTACKED by hostile npc's.  Dangerous npc's.  Where the world itself is attempting to kill the players.  Perhaps GM's guiding the attacks of monster/alien hordes against player built settlements whatever.  Obviously the tech might not be there yet.  Clearly the vision and competence on the part of game devs isn't there because these fucks can't seem to tie their own shoes without breaking shit half the time.

See, this is what I see so many of you asking for and I want no part of.  It's a bigger time waste than the MMOs you currently bitch about. I'm here to have fun, and I'm goal-oriented. Virtual worlds require so much more time that it's a second life.  Fuck that, honestly, it's tiring enough to work things out in reality I don't need some second reality that consumes just as many hours to do meaningless shit.  Yeah, I play my MMO du-jour a lot (whatever game that may be.) but the difference is I don't feel like I'm missing anything if I'm not playing.   Virtual worlds to date?  "Oh shit, I have to login and check if resources have shifted.  I have to check my vendor, I have to check my house, I have to see if xyz is dealing with <drama point of the week>"

Really, fuck it, I don't need that or the 'stories players create.'  Doesn't interest me at all.  It did when I was younger and had a ton of time, but nowadays I realize why and don't need it.

Here's the other thing.  In a virtual world of the type you describe, enjoy being a refugee or peasant struggling to survive.  The game world is there 24/7, always moving just like the real one.  Take time away from it and you'll find yourself not just linearly, but exponentially behind the curve on info, shifting alliances, whatever.   Just like in full-on PvP games, he who logs-in longest wins.  You're handing your world back to the no-lifers you all bitch about once again.

[tmp]

If the grind didn't take so damn long, you'd find people willing to take plenty of challenges.

What makes you think that? If it's nothing but the time spent on levelling that makes people go the fastest route, then if this time was made shorter, taking challenges would slow the progress back again. So why would they suddenly be willing to slow down their progress when they have zero interest in slow progress as it is?

[DarkSign]

I still reject the 2 arguments you people are making:

• people want boring PvE experiences
• PvP isnt more interesting than PvE

Go to any forum about MMOs - e.g. MMORPG.com, GuildCafe, clan boards - you'll see one of the biggest complaints is that NPCs are dumb terminals and camping static spawns is unchallenging. Players expect more from MMOs these days.

The history of PvE in MMOs is calling you a liar. If you look at the most popular activities in PvE, it generally involves finding the mob that gives the best reward for the easiest fight. We don't as a rule want to work hard, we want shinies to flow in with the minimum effort on our part.

I dont disagree with that in some respects, but that behavior by many (of course there are some that were like that from the start) is the result of a boring, challenging game. They want to do the least possible to get to the powerful parts that are...wait for it...wait for it...FUN.  Make the lower levels more fun - more challenging, exciting etc. - and players would be happier. NO ONE wants to play whack-a-mole with only one button to push to kill all mobs on the server, do they? Of course not.

Go read the Tabula Rasa thread. Look at the comments about the PvE experience. Or almost any discussion on level grinding where people repeat the mantra "if the grind were more fun, I might be into it."  Sure there are those that want the path of least resistance, but there are a lot of people who'd take fun over easy in the gaming world.  And Im not even talking about insanely hard challenges...just less boring battles.

Well, let's take WoW PvP for an example of players replacing AI. After the shiny of fighting in the battlegrounds wore off, I found it to be just as boring as the current PvE paradigm. And I generally like PvP.

So you've listed a specific example of where PvP doesnt work to prove that all PvP, which you admit you generally like, doesnt work? That makes no sense. WoW battlegrounds wasnt what I was talking about. I still think that if less predictable, more sophisticated mob combat came about through human actors players would enjoy the more "lifelike" combat.

[schild]

And so there is a line in the middle. The ones that want to get rid of the grind and the ones that want to make the grind "fun." The latter, of course, seem to think there's only one way to make MMOGs while the former seem to think there's a way to completely redefine the standard issue MMOG (while offering up no improvements, of course).

I wonder which one will meet their goal first.

[Jayce]

Go to any forum about MMOs - e.g. MMORPG.com, GuildCafe, clan boards - you'll see one of the biggest complaints is that NPCs are dumb terminals and camping static spawns is unchallenging. Players expect more from MMOs these days.

I think the problem here is that players don't really know what they want, or like.  They think they do, but for example witnesseth the NGE: SOE changed the game to what they thought the players were asking for, but it was a total disaster.

I still think that if less predictable, more sophisticated mob combat came about through human actors players would enjoy the more "lifelike" combat.

My bold prediction is that people will only like more "challenging" or "lifelike" encounters if they win over 50% of the time, and probably closer to 100%.  It's a pretty small percent of the population that enjoys being killed unpredictably at a random time and in a way that they don't feel they know how to handle.  The sophisticated mob content would have to either scale with the skill level of the player (and how do you calculate that?) or be of a low enough challenge level that the panicked keyboard turner types could handle it, which would of course leave more-skilled players wanting more.  Sounds a lot like the current situation!


I'll leave you with an example from real life (this weekend). I was working on soloing some quests* in a lowbie zone of WoW.  Each of them were close to the top of the content for this area, and entailed fighting my way into a heavily guarded area and using all my abilities, playing at the top of my game, to beat this encounter.  For the one, I had to take about 10 minutes to fight my way up and take on three mobs at the same time.  Consistently I heard from other people "those quests are just annoying", "are the rewards worth it?", "you don't have to do those, just drop them or find a group".  The interesting part was that everyone thought they were too much trouble, too challenging, even though there's no functional difference between them and say, a progression raid.  I wiped a few times until I learned the encounter, then had to execute flawlessly.  The only difference was that I was solo.



*for those familiar with them, it was the Pyrewood Village and Thule (Fenris Isle) areas of Silverpine.

[Wershlak]

If you did that for personal challenge or fun then you win. I've done those same quests a couple times and had fun myself. If you are trying to exp to max level as quickly as possible then everyone that told you "It's not worth it" is correct. The exp gain for the difficulty is not worth it.

For most people leveling up in WoW is a hurdle in getting to where they want to be, ie. arenas, raiding with guildies/friends. They will seek to get to where they want as fast as possible.

People will always take the path of least resistance to acheive the goals they set. That doesn't in any way mean that decreasing the resistance=increasing the fun.

[tmp]

Go read the Tabula Rasa thread. Look at the comments about the PvE experience. Or almost any discussion on level grinding where people repeat the mantra "if the grind were more fun, I might be into it."  Sure there are those that want the path of least resistance, but there are a lot of people who'd take fun over easy in the gaming world.  And Im not even talking about insanely hard challenges...just less boring battles.

But would dying more often make it "more fun" for these people? After all this is what more challenge leads to, more people finding more frequently they don't have skill it takes to cope with presented situation. At which point the crying starts to make it easier and then it's back to "no challenge, boring". Rinse, repeat.

Personally i don't buy the "if it was fun i might be into it" argument. Players chose to call it grind because it's monotonous routine, the same old one does to see progress bar crawl across the screen. If it can be fun and not monotonous, then it's simply not grind anymore. Hence no one 'might be into grind'... save maybe the few who'd consider it fun to have midget stab them in the cock on 15% of encounters with 5% odds to crit.

[DarkSign]

So we're stuck with boring but easily beatable as our win condition for fun? wow. I guess MMOs are doomed to suckage. Perhaps there's a smaller group that would enjoy/support an MMO that's not like that.

[Merusk]

And so there is a line in the middle. The ones that want to get rid of the grind and the ones that want to make the grind "fun."

How about both? Can't we have both, please?  Challenging fights that you only have to do 10-12 times at most to "ding" (avoiding the whole why have hps/ levels/ etc discussion because ALL games have it, yes even the "skill-system" ones.)

[Jayce]

For most people leveling up in WoW is a hurdle in getting to where they want to be, ie. arenas, raiding with guildies/friends. They will seek to get to where they want as fast as possible.

I think this is a key aspect, and one that the "increase the challenge" argument doesn't take into account.  If this increased challenge stands between the player and where they want to be, for whatever reason (OCD, high level friends, no interest in PvE/leveling, etc) then it will be strikingly less fun given their objective, even if the activity itself is more fun. 

edit: for the record, I don't think that "most people" in WoW hate leveling, or consider it just a hurdle to the "real" game.  I know several people personally who never stay 70 for long before they start leveling another alt.  I may be one myself 

So we're stuck with boring but easily beatable as our win condition for fun? wow. I guess MMOs are doomed to suckage. Perhaps there's a smaller group that would enjoy/support an MMO that's not like that.

I don't think MMOGs are doomed to suckage, they're just doomed to be MMOGs.  Someone will innovate, but probably not in the direction we're thinking about here.  They won't get harder, but they might get more interesting along some other axis.  One can hope.