Are Dev's Bad, or do MMO PVP Games Not Work?

[Venkman]

Well, yeah. But for example, I'm currently playing a healy paladin. I can use +heal equipment of any type for my healset. Whereas a priest can only use +heal cloth. The game is designed that way, but who decided that priests can't wear heavier armor in the first place? And why can't they balance around that?

That's a good example I think. Being variants on a theme they should have more latitude on gear. It's understandable why any class based game does it, but if they wanted some sort of compromise for better-healing Priests, they'd do something like slower mana regen or slower casting or something in the case of a Priest wearing plate. But that gets into a land full of more haziness than that which already exists. And along with it would come the inevitable loot arguments like the Magister/Dreadmist Warlock vs Mage days.

But I think it's solvable. There just needs to be incentive, logic, and a whole crapload more balancing to be done. Which brings me back to the gamers and boxes things. There's already people complaining about how much "choice" there is for gear in WoW.

[TheCastle]

If DAoC, Shadowbane, or Warhammer, had started you out like a FPS and made you max level, but with perks to earn, would that have sucked?  I mean Call of Duty, Battlefield series, etc... all basically let the brand spanking 'n00b' be able to aim and kill someone who has been playing forever, and with the rank comes privilages that makes it more fun to blow the other side up.

Well lets take Cod 4
Lets say it has been out for 3 years and had 2 expansion packs aimed at just the multiplayer and about 14 updates to the game over that time. Level cap was raised twice for each expansion.

Because of the MMOG model one of the key ways to keep people playing is to add more stuff. Naturally that stuff has to be better than the things already in the game to make people want it.

In the second expansion they released tier 2 perks. Just like the original perks these are 1.5% more potent and give you more options. You have access to more guns at very high levels and even new attachments that allow you to see people through walls with infrared goggles. Joe "noob" is not going to be as effective as he was 2 years ago.

Maybe it would be just fine. But I think that the second you sell a game on a monthly subscription your tactics to keep people playing has an effect on the game. You have to keep that in mind when simply comparing X mmog to a standard PVP game like cod4.

[Nebu]

A group of well-played, low rr toons could and did beat higher rr opponents in DAoC.  Were they at a disadvantage? Yes.  Did they automagically lose like they do in WoW? No.  To their credit, Mythic did produce a game where talent could overcome longevity... the odds were long, but it was possible and occurred often. 

[Jimbo]

Nebu, could a level 1 toon beat a level 40 toon (or is it 50 now? only played the first month) in a 1 on 1 fight?  How about 40 level 1's vs 40 level 40's?

Call of Duty started back in 1993, they have released 5 games (well 5th one comes out Nov 11), each one building on the other.  They give you single player and multi player fun, ways to advance in both (multi or single), and it is free.  Sure the rookie is going to get smoked more than the veteran, but the vet doesn't win just because he has "more levels", he wins by actually doing something before the other guy does it to him.  They continue to put out a well polished game, that is fun to play in small squads, and the online play is free.

The idea of a MMOG model on a FPS would be a very hard sell, I don't think you would get many to play, especially if it doesn't follow the FPS rule "just because you have the bigger gun doesn't mean you win."  Perks have to be fun, but not overpowering.

What could they sell?  How about size of battles, FPS's tend to be stuck in the small squad setting, with only Planetside and WWIIOnline offering the large engagement of 200+ people (and no they weren't slide shows, it was freaking intense!), the other is EVE (I guess, haven't played it), the problem is getting those large scale fights going, but when they happen it will burn page in your mind about how fun they were.  But, those three games need write ups on what went wrong in those games.

It sounds like we all would like a game where we took RPG and made it like a FPS, we start at max level, rank up, get new perks that are nice but not over powered, and have no pve.  They could make it with small, med, and large battlegrounds/instances, and world/persistant pvp.  Make it fast, furious, and fun.

[Job601]

example:
The difficulty of balancing open RVR is much less than balancing 1 vs 1. ( Controlled Team vs team can work either way, full class based, or all the same. So that's a non issue. )
So to focus on 1 vs 1 classes much like you would with street fighter. Then as a secondary priority you give each class a way to share bonuses with team mates or combine power attacks or something that allows people to work together.
In almost all cases PVP is better off with out a Rock paper scissors type of balancing. ( except for controlled Team vs team )

This makes me think of the way the classes are designed in Diablo II.  The characters seems like they fit into the tank, mage, rogue archetypes, but they don't -- they're all really nukers designed to kill lots of monsters quickly.  This is ok because they're all fun to play and they feel different.  In multiplayer parties, their abilities are mildly synergistic, or they have some buffs, but you never feel like you can't kill Baal because you don't have a barbarian to take the damage for you.

PVP in Diablo II doesn't even try to be balanced, but every class can be dominant in pve in its own way.  Based on this example, I'm not sure if removing the archetypes is necessarily going to help with 1v1 balance, though.

[Nebu]

Nebu, could a level 1 toon beat a level 40 toon (or is it 50 now? only played the first month) in a 1 on 1 fight?  How about 40 level 1's vs 40 level 40's?

I think you know the answer.  No.  By the time the game evolved, you could level a toon to the endgame in about 24h played with some knowledge of the game.  It would take another few hours to equip to a competitive level. 

My point was that DAoC (late in its evolution) had a very solid game mechanic in place where the endgame was fun and competitive as soon as you passed beyond the entry barrier.  I agree that removing this barrier entirely would have made the game more attractive, but it didn't seem enough fo a deterrent (post-ToA) to keep people from trying several different classes across all three realms. 

MMO gamers like their grind.  I don't know why, but they see the worthless time sinks as some nerd badge of honor and cry bloody murder when they're removed.  Sad, really.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[UnSub]

"Genre diseases" is a nice term. Might have to steal that.

[TheCastle]

I still don't know what made them decide to have rank leveling in the game. It puzzles me to no end.

A leveling system is a tool that allows people of all skills to have a tangible measurement for how much they are improving for one.
In a game like quake 3 its very easy to lose casual players because the measurements for improvement are far more subtle. Almost outright invisible to most players.
Leveling systems are a retention carrot. It helps people to keep people playing and gives both hardcore and casual players a measurable form of success.

You might not realize that you have become better at clearing a jump more efficiently however you do know that you are about to gain a level so you can use that new armor you just got.

I say the second, because aesthetics are a major part of the fantasy experience. If the models, textures and animations are not some of the best available, it will lead to disgust. For instance, Warhammer, the current favorite whipping boy, the High Elf males (especially archmages) are very difficult for me to stomach. Then again, I'm always open to the idea that I'm in the minority. (I know Mythic had little choice, but the running animation and shoulder/armpit seam...)

I disagree here.
Aesthetics are important but if your game does not play well or run on a wide verity of machines you will be considerably less likely to be successful.
Joe Walmart does not look at armpit seams and such. As a dev myself I often have to remind myself to not look at things through the eyes of a dev. Its a trap you can easily fall into in the game industry and one you will see other devs fall into often.

WOW is a good example because more often than not I see other devs mock its cartoony look and blocky characters. Yeah sure that texture they used for that wall might only be a hand painted 256x256 and my characters hair is clipping through his shoulders. These are things only devs care about however. Try your damnedest to fix these things but don't place it on a pedestal where it will have any true implications on the games success.

On this topic what is most important is to pull off an overall cohesive theme and make sure that the world and all of its inhabitants fit together. Little things like armpit seams and such are usually not going to destroy the game if the world has a cohesive style and atmosphere. Jeezus I mean look at Oblivion for god sakes... People insist the game is gorgeous right?
If you stop looking at it through a magnifying glass it actually is a gorgeous game.
edit: And don't play it in 3rd person lol...

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[Venkman]

Retention in games that don't collect money after launch is a nice-to-have.

Retention in games that collect money on a recurring basis (mtx, advertising, subscriptions) is a requirement.

While it was cool and interesting that people would play Counter Strike and Starcraft 2 for years on end, neither had business models that required it. Nor do games that get heavily modded, or more recent FPSes like COD4 (and high water mark imho). Longevity here contributes to brand awareness and then can be used to justify expansions and sequels, but that's about it. Making a new FPS doesn't automatically require you pitch some method of extracting fees after launch. It's more about IP development and sequels.

Games that make money on that retention though, it's a much different story. You're not releasing a one-and-done 50 hours of gameplay that then becomes a game lobby. It's hundreds of hours of content you expect people to pay at least three to six months for. Or basically, 200% of the box purchase itself. And they take longer and are much more expensive to make. And they require a lot more than a website and a patch two years after launch. To get to this point you need to have justified a lot, explained a lot, and used statistics and numbers and references people can grasp.

This is why the formula is currently what it is.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[TheCastle]

Well there are a lot of different points you bring up Grim.
I think you are missing the ball a bit on this first one:

MMOs in their current forms act out of desperation. Rather than count on winning retention through gameplay, they introduce time sink after time sink. This is heavy handed, and it's going to wear thin sooner rather than later with the playerbase they're targeting.

By definition all games are time sinks.
See how that makes what you are saying sound a bit off?

Cartoony or not, WoW has an amazing art direction behind it. At that point it's a matter of taste rather than quality.

These days art direction is more important than ever before IMHO. Its always going to be a matter of taste as far as I can tell now.
I can load up fallout 3 and visually see the the engine itself has changed very little from its predecessor Oblivion. The engine arms race is over so trying to push graphics is just a giant double edged sword... Unless you are Epic.. Everyone and their grandmother these days has a 3d engine with all the bells and whistles. Normals, spec, virtual displacement, physics, portals, dynamic and static lights you name it.

Anyway my point is that its better to focus on a solid art direction rather than critique details like you mention before.. I suppose I have lost my point a bit on this one. its really kind of off topic anyway. so lets continue..

Also, again, I work for an game studio that specializes in online competitive games. I'm very keenly aware of the arguments, I'm in these meetings several times a week where this is discussed as business rather than a hobby, where the wrong decision can lead to lost jobs and not a lost forum debate.

Welcome to the club.
Thing is I would not be entirely shocked if you essentially just walked into a room and said that to bunch of people who can all say the same thing.

Frankly, guys that own studios and can self fund tend to have the same reaction. You'll hear them whispering grand ideas they have, but in the end they want to play it safe, because jobs depend on it. Unfortunately for them, eventually the ones playing it safe are the ones left behind. Whether that's true today or three years from now you won't know until well after launch. Someone is going to be the first to risk straying from a safe formula and find "the next big thing." Someone is going to risk straying from that formula and flop.

People only want to spend money on something innovative but wrapped up in a safe and familiar package.
I think most of all of these things have been covered in the first 3 pages of the thread hehe.

The trend in the market in the US is that PvP generates the most media attention and the most player hype for a new MMO. It dominates the coverage. It dominates the conversation at the water cooler. Yet, these companies still continue to provide flat PvE content where you spend the majority of your time pounding away at an AI punching bag, spending literally tens of millions of dollars on content that acts as a barrier to what their players bought the game for in the first place.

From my own understanding of the topic is that the second you market a game to be PVP you cause people to get stage fright. I believe that you cause people anxiety when you say that you have 1 tutorial level and then you are blasted off into intense PVP action. I think a lot of it can boil down to marketing but I imagine that your player threshold shrinks considerably when you take a MMOG and say this is a PVP only environment. While you can in fact expect a decent amount of skill from your player base if you ramp them up to it properly and you can in fact have casual forms of PVP style games but you still have this problem to contend with.

Two different amusement parks that you will have to pay a monthly fee for the right to visit at your whim.

Amusement park 1
It has everything from the big roller coasters to the cotton candy. It has a fairly large section for a fairly decent paintball arena as well. In fact it has a few different types water sports going on. Its an established amusement park that pretty much has everything you could ever want. William Shatner and MR T apparently have been sighted there and will have tea with you..

Amusement park 2
This is actually a theme park aimed at PVP activity. So it gives up on some things like roller coasters and cotton candy and watersports.
it has a paintball arena that's also pretty decent and its a little bit bigger than the one in Amusement park 1. If you get bored doing paintball matches you have little else to do.

You have to pick one you cannot afford both.

Also, MMOs would be much cheaper to produce without leveling, as all the content you built would always be worth doing so long as it was fun and enjoyable.

if you make a game designed to keep people busy for years its not going to be in the realm of "wow this is much cheaper than if we did this instead". It might sound like it would be cheaper but it wont be. You work on a MMOG you are in it for the long haul and I am 100% sure you would eventually eat your words one or two years into the project when you said how much cheaper it would be.

The argument that its cheaper because we don't have a leveling system so we can make less unique content wont fly. Levels or not your team will be making about the same amount of content easily because the amount of time you want people to keep playing is not different. Actually I can see a potential problem where where taking out a leveling system can increase the demand for more unique events and quests to keep things interesting.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[tmp]

Fine, have it mark progress, but not be progress on its own. Leveling, as a means of increasing power, is the disease. It creates an artificial gap, and leads to power creep. Eventually your player base reaches cap and everything is equalized anyway, but now you've spent a significant sum of money on content that is worthless.

It does depend quite a lot on execution of the concept. As example, the 'monster play' in LotRO takes interesting approach -- the monster players start with max level* character but one that's granted a handful of skills. The 'progress' is provided through points rewarded by killing players of the opposite side, and as they gain these points they are awarded additional abilities along with optional traits which allow them to tweak their character towards certain strengths and at certain cost (say, increasing amount of hp by small amount at the cost of damage dealt, improved resistance to one kind of attack at the cost of weaker resistance to another kind, things like that) This allows the player to observe tangible growth but without rendering the gap between fresh players and long-time players too big. And there's no "worthless content you spent money on" to speak of because the levelling happens through fighting, in the same warzone people fight even after reaching the cap (that in case of LotRO someone has yet to reach, but that's anoter story)

WAR used similar approach for their battlegrounds with auto-levelling up these who'd enter them, but the crucial difference between both these were, WAR still left room for some level disparity and unlike LotRO PvM zone both sides are limited to equal numbers, which would leave the side with weaker players worse off. In LotRO such side can make up for the disadvantage with greater numbers and/or other mechanics (assistance of NPCs or powerful 'session play' characters which are kind of like 'hero units' with levelling path removed from them entirely)

*) max level in comparison to regular player characters who go through 'traditional' PvE-based levelling process.

[Slayerik]

Fuck, I can't be arsed to quote all the TheCastleOText stuff but basically I think you are off-base on this:

From my own understanding of the topic is that the second you market a game to be PVP you cause people to get stage fright. I believe that you cause people anxiety when you say that you have 1 tutorial level and then you are blasted off into intense PVP action. I think a lot of it can boil down to marketing but I imagine that your player threshold shrinks considerably when you take a MMOG and say this is a PVP only environment. While you can in fact expect a decent amount of skill from your player base if you ramp them up to it properly and you can in fact have casual forms of PVP style games but you still have this problem to contend with.

When you market a game into being PVP these days, people get stage fright? People have been playing wow for like 4 years now, and many FPS games much longer. This isn't the days of 'ZOMG PVP LIKE SCARY UO' , run to Everquest!!! Why is it that games like Warhammer and Age of Conan sell a million boxes? Here's a hint...it's not their IPs.

They are selling people a PVP MMO - at least that's what they claimed. They both fucked up in their own way.

I could see something similar to a Planetside 2 being a success these days. You just need the grab. The progression system was fine. How do you improve upon it and make it replayable/enjoyable for 6+ months? People have been trained to expect rewards these days, how do you reward for massive PVP (besides the fun) ? In Planetside, the fun kept me there a long time...but I had a pretty awesome outfit.

Possibly reward with awesome looking skins, customizable vehicles, etc. Maybe if you get enough defense kills you get a special suit/titles...IDK. I guess if I had the answer, I wouldn't be sitting here doing desktop support.

[TheCastle]

They are selling people a PVP MMO - at least that's what they claimed. They both fucked up in their own way.

Before I respond to the many points brought up I have one question.
Where do you place the bar for success in this case because both AOC and War seem to be staying afloat.

Sorry I have to ask its just I think that I am confused on exactly how they fucked up in their own ways. 500k subs is by no means a failure right?

[Slayerik]

Are you serious?

You sell a million boxes and have like 200k subs (is my random guess) for AOC and maybe 500k subs PRE-WOTLK for War, you fucked up. I'm not saying they are on life support just yet, but you gotta believe Mark Jacobs is not thrilled with things as is.

[TheCastle]

Are you serious?

You sell a million boxes and have like 200k subs (is my random guess) for AOC and maybe 500k subs PRE-WOTLK for War, you fucked up. I'm not saying they are on life support just yet, but you gotta believe Mark Jacobs is not thrilled with things as is.

Ok wait this is important.
we are differentiating between a game that is PVE/PVP (Like WOW) vs a game that is PVP only or PVP/PVE (Like AOC, War) right.

Well lets take a look at passed examples of games that specialize in PVP/PVE
At first glance I have rarely ever seen a PVP game like counterstrike or cod4 have more than 500k people playing. For now lets pretend that is equivalent to 500k subs.

Is there an example of a game, not just an mmo, that is either PVP only or marketed as PVP/PVE that has broke this mold?

Now don't get me wrong I bet I am off base on the whole stage fright thing and all of that. I am speculating as to why PVP/PVE seems to attract less players. I don't actually know why or if its even a fair assessment.

Lets take a look at the people who play WOW
Question:
Which has more players in world of warcraft?
Casual PVE content
Casual PVP content

How many of these people only like PVE but simply play the PVP because its there or it helps them PVE better?

As far as I can tell 500k subs sounds about right for a game marketed as PVP/PVE... So is the bar for success being kept realistic here?

[Mrbloodworth]

I have yet to see this disputed, but PvP games tend to be less popular than PvE games. That is, when RPG is tacked on to the end of the MMO part.

Something about "Other people kill me". PvE will, i wager, all ways be more popular.

[UnsGub]

How about size of battles, FPS's tend to be stuck in the small squad setting, with only Planetside and WWIIOnline offering the large engagement of 200+ people (and no they weren't slide shows, it was freaking intense!), the other is EVE (I guess, haven't played it), the problem is getting those large scale fights going, but when they happen it will burn page in your mind about how fun they were.

Planetside always had the Zerg.  They solved getting large scale fights going.  Like too much of anything after one has done large scale fights X many times they lose their fun and all the patterns repeat themselves regardless of AI or people doing the moving and shooting.  It seems to come down to maps in FPS and that applies to MMOs just the same.  Playing the same map in a FPS a week straight will lead to burnout in almost anyone.  It just seem to take longer in an MMO since there are more maps.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[Slayerik]

I think the point of this thread really isn't about sub numbers. That is probably the downfall of all these failed PVP (with tacked on PVE crap), they think their game won't retain without some worthless PVE grind and DING GRATS progression. That's their first fuck up. They aren't WoW, they never will be.

Build the game. Design it around having fun combat in a massively multiplayer world.

Don't worry about slowing players down.

Don't worry about time sinks.

Worry that your core design is good.

Figure a good reward system.

Planetside was damn close. It really was. Had air combat, armor battles, infantry, a few hundred different maps (different areas where fights happened). Had small groups that could coordinate and take out important objectives.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[TheCastle]

Two different amusement parks that you will have to pay a monthly fee for the right to visit at your whim.

Amusement park 1
It has everything from the big roller coasters to the cotton candy. It has a fairly large section for a fairly decent paintball arena as well. In fact it has a few different types water sports going on. Its an established amusement park that pretty much has everything you could ever want. William Shatner and MR T apparently have been sighted there and will have tea with you..

Amusement park 2
This is actually a theme park aimed at PVP activity. So it gives up on some things like roller coasters and cotton candy and watersports.
it has a paintball arena that's also pretty decent and its a little bit bigger than the one in Amusement park 1. If you get bored doing paintball matches you have little else to do.

You have to pick one you cannot afford both.

I'm going to be kind and just say that this is painfully posed in such a way to make it easy to push over. Something akin to saying... "Vehicle 1: It's awesome and famous people like it. Vehicle 2: Passengers die of smoke inhalation. You can only have one."

There is more to PvP content than simple arena deathmatches.

I completely failed to convey my point.
What I was saying is that on paper having a larger variety of things to do will look better to people.

PVP can have tons of different ways you can fight people. You have everything E-sport 1 vs 1 to huge 100 vs 100 player open rvr and an almost infinite number of modes you can create. Problem is, no matter how you slice it I'm killing other players. This is FINE however you have to look at that other game that lets you do everything else too at the same time.

You can cook fish only so many ways. It tastes different yes. In the end its always just fish.
After awhile you are going to get tired of eating fish. You are going to want some beef eventually.

you can use another example
2 music stores.
1 has a lot of everything
1 has a lot of one genre

that was my intended point..

[Slayerik]

Some players are really tired of PVE grinds. They don't get the urge to fuckin' grind.

What is the point in a game like WAR to even waste all those resources? Do you get the urge to go do bad PVE?

I don't know, I think you are conveying your point ok, it's just I happen to be on the other side of the coin.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[tkinnun0]

I think the point of this thread really isn't about sub numbers. That is probably the downfall of all these failed PVP (with tacked on PVE crap), they think their game won't retain without some worthless PVE grind and DING GRATS progression. That's their first fuck up. They aren't WoW, they never will be.

A tragedy is that AoC was so damn close. The real tragedy is that they know it, yet they have given up on it, or have been forced to give up. Maybe they saw that the PVP crowd was the only one they retained, so that's the crowd they were going to have to cater to.

Their initial design was a single-player PVE tutorial followed by PVP. It evolved to multiplayer PVE followed by a mix of PVE and PVP. If only... If only they had been allowed to evolve it to the logical conclusion...

Instead, the allure of inventing a better rock-paper-scissors so that your players will be their own content won. Maybe it was predestined from the first design onwards.

[tmp]

How many of these people only like PVE but simply play the PVP because its there or it helps them PVE better?

PvP to PvE better? I would say almost no one. The PvP gear is for the most part inferior to PvE gear if you intend to raid. If you don't intend to raid, you have no need of anything beyond what you find in small dungeons. There are a few minor exceptions to this, but they are exceptions. I can tell you with absolute certainty however that everyone that plays PvP was forced to play the PvE. I think you may have it backwards. ;)

Given the amount of whining done over "welfare epics" and people who would only log onto battlefields and such to /afk in corner ... i'm getting strong impression this isn't accurate. For that matter, seeing how Blizzard actually devoted some of their time to curb such practices and to take away access to PvP gear from people who'd only play to lose, it'd seem their view of the situation was also different.

Don't make a mistake -- just because people have "no need of anything beyond stuff from small dungeons" doesn't mean they won't want anything better, if just as massage for their e-peen and in lack of anything else they feel like they can aspire to.

[Ratman_tf]

I believe most of us expected Mythic to really hit this one out of the park with Warhammer, but there are so many genre diseases they've brought over, it would take a tremendous amount of effort to bring it around and do something fresh.

I still don't know what made them decide to have rank leveling in the game. It puzzles me to no end.

That's Mythic. I expected a solid, but not blockbuster or groundbreaking game. With parts that just make you go "why?"

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[tmp]

The people /afking were not there afking for gear to go PvE. They were there to get gear for PvP. (..)

This is purely based on the people I managed to talk with, work with, and hang around in game, but I cannot name a single person that joined a battleground to earn honor points for gear in order to be better equipped for 5 man dungeons.

But if these people were /afk'ing, how many did you actually manage to talk with?

Though i think if what you say is accurate, then the whole thing makes for even more interesting conundrum -- since it results in having lot of people who claim they want to PvP enter PvP part of game... and actually avoid PvP in there.

Re: their wants, wanting something better to do what? If they raid, they'll get raid gear.

Wanting something better just to have it, purely to feel better about having their character "advance" another step on the threadmill after the other way of advancement (levelling up) was brought to halt. It's people who are *not* raiding and so they don't have option to acquire that gear through such organized means. But they still can join a random battleground and get their points for being there and this way get better gear (something the game conditioned them into from level 1) while maintaining their generally solo playstyle.

[Grim]

Hello F13.

[TheCastle]

Some players are really tired of PVE grinds. They don't get the urge to fuckin' grind.

What is the point in a game like WAR to even waste all those resources? Do you get the urge to go do bad PVE?

I don't know, I think you are conveying your point ok, it's just I happen to be on the other side of the coin.

Different side of the coin or not.
I have to agree that if a game is being advertised as PVP oriented it should very obviously place its focus on PVP.
I mean take a look at War and AOC, I very clearly see a very slight difference in focus. One could actually miss the point entirely.. "hey look its WOW with Keeps you can fight over!"
Yeah I know why they did it...
Yeah if they stuck to their guns it might not ever end up with as many subs as WOW...
But lets get real here.. No matter what game you make its doubtful you will see a fraction of the subs WOW has.... WOW is an epic fluke. Its a genre king in the middle of a genre life cycle.

Hey Grim what about this for your GDD
Take some mechanics from X MMOG or PVP game, remove some of the more grindy things if applicable then skew it for multiplatform.
Its possible you can supplement lower popularity or sales thresholds by pushing your PVP mmo into the console market.

Right now there are very few multiplatform MMOs in existence. The only one I can think of is FFXI.