The Ideal Purge Game

[Slamz]

From that other thread, I thought this was worth elaborating on...

Elements of the perfect Purge game (IMO) --

Meaningful deaths and kills

This could manifest in a number of ways.

For example, in Planetside, your death didn't personally impact YOU but it did hurt your TEAM.  Death could basically mean the enemy was that much closer to taking over the tower or the base or overrunning your position -- your team (and thus, indirectly, you) could lose something meaningful as a result of deaths.

EVE and POTBS tended to make it more personal.  Your death could impact the team (depending on conditions) but generally it was just a personal loss.

Either way, you go into a fight knowing that something is at stake.  Win or lose, something important is on the line and it matters if you live or die.  You aren't just out there in the wilderness fighting to see who gets shiny coin.

Goal oriented gameplay

I think we're happier when we have a clear goal to shoot for, be it beating a dungeon or obtaining a particular piece of equipment or overrunning a particular stronghold.

Planetside also did well here, in that there was always another tower or another base to go for.  Planetside's failure, I think, was that it didn't present any long term goals, only short term ones (day long at most).  I think WAR largely falls into this same pit -- there are some good short term goals but the long term goals seem insubstantial and not very strategic in any case (there aren't a lot of options).

A good Purge game would have solid short term goals (take over the base) combined with some overarching long term goal that persists from day to day and week to week.

Combat which is more strategic/tactical and less twitchy

This seems to be a given for most MMOGs anyway -- I think we prefer battles that last a decent amount of time and involves some good individual tactics as well as opportunities for group movement and strategy.  POTBS PvP battles may be the best type of combat I've ever experienced in an MMOG.  Lots of negatives about that game but when you actually got a good 6v6 rolling, that was good stuff -- all about tactics and maneuvers and not just who can hit their "kill" button the fastest.

I enjoy some "one shot one kill shooters" too but I don't know that I'd like it as an MMOG.  I think that's a big reason why we've never had a good Purge presence is World War 2 Online.

Gameplay which easily allows you to come and go without disrupting everyone else

It baffles me when MMOGs fail at this one.  It seems like such a simple, obvious idea: someone logs in at 8:42pm on a Tuesday.  They would like to play the game.  The game needs to facilitate this, not discourage them because "it's too late to join the raid" or whatever.

Planetside did good at this, too.  The world was wide open so whenever you logged on, you just needed to find out where everyone was and go there.  You might find yourself blocked by enemy players or something but at least you had a fighting chance to join up with your friends and you weren't simply stonewalled by some silly game mechanic (like backspawn in a private dungeon).

Character balance that lets you hit the ground running and be useful without having to spend a lot of time playing catch-up

Along the same lines as the last point, you need to be able to bring in a new player and play with them.  MMORPGs are particularly bad about this.  The tendency there is to say, "Hey come join us in Lord of the Worldhammer!  ... Well, we're all level 90 but if you play for 2 months straight you should be able to start playing with us."

That's just ridiculous.  COH/COV took the step of allowing "sidekicks" I think they called it, which at least made the game playable for newbies who wanted to join vets but I think the better solution is, again, the Planetside model, where there simply isn't a vast difference in killing power between vets and newbies.  Or something like EVE, where a veteran can always beat a newbie but 3 newbies can beat most veterans and no matter how big your fleet is, there's always room and value to bring in one more newbie.

Linear games based around leveling through content will always fail at this.  Even if they allow sidekicking, you're bypassing a lot of content which is a form of failure in itself.

[Kakarat]

Character balance that lets you hit the ground running and be useful without having to spend a lot of time playing catch-up

Along the same lines as the last point, you need to be able to bring in a new player and play with them. MMORPGs are particularly bad about this. The tendency there is to say, "Hey come join us in Lord of the Worldhammer! ... Well, we're all level 90 but if you play for 2 months straight you should be able to start playing with us."

That's just ridiculous. COH/COV took the step of allowing "sidekicks" I think they called it, which at least made the game playable for newbies who wanted to join vets but I think the better solution is, again, the Planetside model, where there simply isn't a vast difference in killing power between vets and newbies. Or something like EVE, where a veteran can always beat a newbie but 3 newbies can beat most veterans and no matter how big your fleet is, there's always room and value to bring in one more newbie.

Linear games based around leveling through content will always fail at this. Even if they allow sidekicking, you're bypassing a lot of content which is a form of failure in itself.

Everquest 2 had a mechanic called mentor. Say you were level 20 and your friend was level 65. He could mentor down to your level, keeping his 65 abilities and gear. It was a fun way to level up.

[Hoofhurr]

I've come to the conclusion that I don't have an ideal game. I actually like the variation in my playtime experience that comes from playing different games in different settings in different genres. I don't think mmogs will ever scratch the itch of commanding thousands of tiny miniatures. Or satisfy my need to peer through a sniper rifle and deliver consecutive headshots.

[Slamz]

I don't think the goal is to find one game that satisfies all gaming forever, but rather, the characteristics that a game would likely have to have in order to be ideal for us as a group of gamers.

We may still quit after 2 years and switch to another game but ideally, both the game we played and the one we switch to would have the following characteristics: _____



In the long run I think we'd get tired of anything, even the perfect game, but there are a number of obvious pitfalls that could be avoided so that we'd burn out in years rather than weeks.

[Hoofhurr]

Fair enough. I like games that have a quirkiness to them. Games that contain unintended artifacts of the programming that enhance the game to some degree without being game killers.

[GreenTurnip]

I've thought about this a little bit... and I think that the main reason why EQ go you SO invested and interested... was because the Death Penalty sucked hard. You did everything you could to avoid it. I read Griz's post about Kithicor Forest and how he used to sit at the zone line just to wait for daylight... I totally remember doing that exact same thing because that zone scared the shit out of me at night. It was a zone of horrible, horrible death at night. But, you know what... we still remember Kithicor Forest 10 years later. So much in EQ was made memorable because of the Risk involved. So many games these days don't even come close to that feeling. It pains me to really tout EQ so much as I am right now... but that game had something that i don't think any game to date has been able to capture since.

A feeling of really getting scared or excited... really on edge trying to get through an enemy zone... Sure it was cool finishing a big boss in WoW... but it wasn't the same. I don't know if I ever want to play a game with that kind of death penalty again... but i'm not entirely sure you will find a game that gets you as vested in it as EQ did without something like that death penalty to motivate it.

-turnip

[Slamz]

That's EVE's major win too.

We're small time in that game. These cruisers we're flying aren't throw-away. Going into battle has to be a calculated risk and it's a bummer to lose that cruiser. But it's the fear of the loss that creates tension and suspense when going into battle or when trying to avoid the enemy.


It's like.... on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is "Pssht, it's just a ship, no big deal, I don't really care that I died" and 10 is "OMG WTF I JUST LOST MY SHIP /RAGEQUIT" you want your game to be somewhere in the middle. You should care that you died but you shouldn't feel like shouting profanity into the mic for 10 minutes.

So,
1 is no good.
10 is no good.

EQ and EVE could tend to rate almost from 1 to 10 depending on circumstances but generally you could keep things at around a "6" and play an interesting, fairly dangerous, high stakes game with a potential for big wins.

WOW and WAR always kept the game pretty much at a 1-3 where "3" was simply "we wiped and can't continue the raid". You cared that you died but only because it put you in an annoying position of having to re-clear shit mobs.

I think the sense of loss and the sense of investment go hand in hand. If you don't care about losing, you probably don't care about winning or quitting either.

[OrsunVZ]

Combat which is more strategic/tactical and less twitchy

This seems to be a given for most MMOGs anyway -- I think we prefer battles that last a decent amount of time and involves some good individual tactics as well as opportunities for group movement and strategy. POTBS PvP battles may be the best type of combat I've ever experienced in an MMOG. Lots of negatives about that game but when you actually got a good 6v6 rolling, that was good stuff -- all about tactics and maneuvers and not just who can hit their "kill" button the fastest.

This is the one area that I think you have to strike balance. Once again I go back to EQ1. The time to death was long enough that there was strategy in the actions you chose to perform. However, it still had a tremendous level of twitch aspects to its gameplay. EVE as I understand it, is mostly won by your ship's buildout vs. your opponent's - what you do in the course of combat is much less important (basically don't be retarded). I actually have an issue with this type of set up because I believe strongly in providing a player time to shine. I believe "twitch" play is where the rubber meets the road, and it separates skilled players from not-so-skilled players. (by the way one of WAR's problems is that it's lack of individual contribution diminishes a large portion of the community interaction - there HAS to be those moments when you go, "Oh shit so-and-so just arrived, time to put your A-game on", and WAR doesn't really deliver on this). On the flip side, twitch-play at it's extremes ... ala "BOOMHEADSHOTMUTHAFOCHER!" doesn't lend itself to the strategy component, which I totally agree needs to be there.

I also think the MUST be communications between factions. Problems with trash talking, collusion, etc. are completely outweighed by the community/competition that cross faction communication fosters. EVE actually has it right, where you can attack anyone. Even in EQ, the break down of 4 team got a little closer to the type of dynamic that EVE has set up. Even though EVE didn't totally stick with me, there are so many elements that have been handled so damn well.

In fact I think if you were able to cross EVE and EQ (vallon zek of course), you might have the perfect game.

[Vllad]

EVE and EQ both are exciting games but have huge flaws in the most important area's. Tactical goals.

Games should have Strategic goals and Tactical goals. Tactical being the things you try to accomplish to forward your side on a daily basis. Strategic being the long term goals.

I still say Shattered Galaxy was the best version of an MMO that Purge would have enjoyed. It was certainly flawed but to date it fits the written criteria I see people looking for on this board. Plus it had great character development. Again like Planetside the Strategic goals of Shattered Galaxy was poor.


Vllad

[OrsunVZ]

The closest thing I've played that speaks to your point is perhaps Planetside, so throw that into the EQ/EVE bucket. I think you're absolutely right.

The one thing I would like to see though (which kind of exists in EVE) is turf wars that have much larger (and defendable) battlefronts. The longer you control and area the more difficult it is to take over. I would love to see the truly long term goal (5-6 month) of taking an entire sector and being able to horde resources only found in that region, not game breaking resources like "teh Primal" mind you - just stuff people really want.

[Hoofhurr]

The goals are a lot less important to me than who I'm competing with and against. As long as the goals are enticing enough to bring players to the fight again and again I'm having a good time. I agree completely with Orsun that cross-team communication is critical. You really snip the balls from any competitive game if you muzzle your opponent. Yes you're going to get 13 year old idiots but muting players or groups of players or entire factions should be a click of the button action in today's games and should be entirely voluntary. I've long outgrown the need to trash talk myself but I still get a kick out of watching someone rage-squirm when they get shutout and I still get pissed at cross-teamers of any variety.

[OrsunVZ]

The reasons why EQ and EVE appeal to me is because the community is entirely player driven. Consequences were/are dispensed by players. Give me the ability to make xxXXChucknorrisXXxx bleed for being so retardedly cliche, and I'm a happy camper - literally.

[Slamz]

Goals are the difference between TF2, which we enjoy but quit after a month or two, or an MMORPG that we can play for 2 years.

Sure, TF2 or Battlegrounds can bring people together for a fun fight but I think it wears out pretty quickly unless you have some long term goal to shoot for. TF2 didn't have one, being just an FPS. WOW/WAR have you shooting for levels and loot as your long term goal. World War 2 Online has you looking to conquer the map as your long term goal (but then the map resets...)


I think this is a challenging aspect to come up with if you were going to design the "ideal Purge game". What's the long term goal? "Take over the world" is easy to say but what happens if you actually take it over, or reach the point where you realize the game is conspiring to make it impossible?


Maybe you can create two goals...

1) Take over the world (or as much of it as we allow)
2) Having done that, see how long you can hold out

#1 is like a lot of strategy games. At some point you simply win and the game starts over.
#2 is a lot like old arcade games. You never "won", you just tried to see how long you could hold out. In terms of an MMORPG it basically means that while you wiped out the major opposing powers to accomplish #1, there are always upstarts and revolutions and you can never fully "control" the world.


EVE almost has this, I think.

Where EVE fails, I believe, is that there is no real pressure for #1. Your neighbor doesn't have anything you don't have. There's no reason I know of to attack them other than for amusement. Small corps (like us) stand to gain by attacking big corps, but big corps don't seem to have a big reason to attack each other.

[Fretty]

But once again, Eve is not JUST pushing PvP, and what you all are saying is assuming that PvP IS their goal, when it is not. PvP in EVE is merely a feature, something that CAN be done, but doesn't have to be. The entire game is a bunch of "can be dones" and very little "have to be dones". You keep referring to what drives people in EVE to attack eachother etc...well...nothing, unless they want to, because the game is not a PvP revolving game. EVE is completely player driven, even the goals are player driven.

"What do YOU want from EVE?"
"I want to be rich and be a successful business man who owns a corporation of other successful business men"
"Then do it, on your own, however you see fit to get it done."
"Wait, aren't you going to tell me exactly how to do this? Isn't there something I need to do to make this happen step by step?"
"No. Do it yourself. Have fun."

Players who just want to own territory for the sake of it, but don't aspire to control the galaxy, should not be forced to complete objectives on a daily basis just to continue to own the territory that they ALREADY own. If they want to attack their neighbour, then so be it, but they should never be forced to.

The one thing I like and dislike about FPS/shooter games is that fact. In order to win, you are forced to kill your enemy. Ok, no problem. After the match is over though, it all resets and you're forced to do it again! Your first battle was all meaningless in the end because everything was reset. This also applies to WAR, where you could take your opposing teams BO and Forts and work all night to do it, just to have the damned timer run out and everything resets again. You look back at the night before and realize you have NOTHING to show for it. This fact alone is what made me stop caring if Destro took over any of our areas, because guess what, in 45min, we get them all back anyways. The only thing I like about this style of game is that it allows for a quick jump in / jump out play style, for those nights that you don't have much time but would like to kick some butt for the little time you DO have.

"What did you do last night?"
"I spent all night defending a keep from a destro invasion."
"Oh wow, that's amazing, what would have happened if they captured it?"
"Well, they would own it and be able to move on to our fortress."
"Oh man, and it must be a hard fight to get it all back huh?"
"Not really, I'll just log off and go shower and eat dinner, I'll come back in a few hours and everything will be reset."
"So you spent all night defending something that would have taken less time to just let reset naturally?"
"Yes."

[Hoofhurr]

Oy I agree. But something like TF2 gets a lot more interesting if you join a well run league with a squad of your mates. Doing well in a league provides the meta-game goals that entice for longer time spans.

We definitely aren't a twitch based community but there's something to be said about a league format even for MMOGs or strategy. The only problem here is that eventually you'll come up against someone better than you as games that are run via leagues don't cater well to the "Trap and Pounce" with overwhelming numbers type strategies that we seem to excel in.

[Slamz]

But once again, Eve is not JUST pushing PvP, and what you all are saying is assuming that PvP IS their goal, when it is not. PvP in EVE is merely a feature, something that CAN be done, but doesn't have to be. The entire game is a bunch of "can be dones" and very little "have to be dones".

I'm not saying they should "have" to kill their neighbors, but rather, the game should always provide an incentive to do so -- even if you are perfectly friendly with your neighbor and act as trading partners and a defense coalition, there is still an underlying incentive of something you could maybe gain by taking them over.

Failure to insert this type of element can result in stagnation, which I think a lot of EVE corps suffer from. As far as I understand it, there is no reason for CVA and Goonswarm to go to war. The only thing either of them would stand to gain is more space which they probably have no actual use for. But if each area had something unique, then there's an element of tension -- maybe CVA and Goonswarm ally and cooperate and trade these unique resources freely. Maybe they try to murder each other. But something happens.

Without that element, EVE can turn into a whole lot of nothing-happening with large entities that mostly ignore each other.

We definitely aren't a twitch based community but there's something to be said about a league format even for MMOGs or strategy. The only problem here is that eventually you'll come up against someone better than you as games that are run via leagues don't cater well to the "Trap and Pounce" with overwhelming numbers type strategies that we seem to excel in.

Yeah I've never really liked leagues, duels or any other sort of pre-arranged PvP.

Planetside was fine because while you might say the entire world was "pre-arranged PvP", at least it was big enough that you couldn't be sure where the PvP was going to be next -- you had some ability to "trap and pounce", as you say.

I tend to tire of Battleground setups quickly, and the smaller they are the faster I get bored of them, because there's no "trap and pounce".

When it comes down to it, head to head gameplay isn't my style (and I daresay, isn't Purge style) simply because I don't have the time or energy to sit at my computer 8 hours a day and compete with 14 year olds who sit at their computer 8 hours a day. But I can compete with them when they don't know what's about to hit them and I've had a chance to create a favorable condition (sure you're badass; sure you could kick my ass one on one in a fair fight; that's why I brought 3 friends and attacked you on a moonless night in the rain in a swamp while you were injured and wrestling a bugbear).

[Vllad]

I think this is a challenging aspect to come up with if you were going to design the "ideal Purge game". What's the long term goal? "Take over the world" is easy to say but what happens if you actually take it over,

You move to the next world.


That is the problem with games strat games. You have only two choices. Make the world huge so it takes a year or two to accomplish stratigic goals or you have to make them turn so quickly so you avoid the POBS problem of "Hey France has already one lets take a week off until the map change".

I don't think either one of them is the best option.

I would create a world where it is impossible to put the resourses together to control the whole world. You can try to control as much as possible but make it just to big for anyone faction to control it.

We talked about this before when we talked about the factional game. You build and fight to hand onto what ever you can. Constantly fighting off those that want to take it. This way everyone can find a home and map changes aren't relevant.




Vllad

[OrsunVZ]

What I like about EVE is there there is room for the MEGA guild who likes to go toe to toe, as well as the small pirate group that is almost purely hit and run. Both avenues are rewarding. Both provide you with meaningful long-term goals to strive for. I like the idea of making a game world large enough to make it next to impossible for any single faction to conquer. I also really like the ability to switch sides as you like. Hell, you guys have made a decent little reputation in and around Nakah, but people on the other side of the galaxy have no clue you even exist. I really like that dynamic.

I like mixing carebears and pvphounds in a single game. It creates conflict by its very nature. EVE could be a near perfect game if the pvp was a little more defined. I'd like to see spheres of control. I'd like to see front lines. I'd like to see a little more twitch, and a little less foregone conclusions. But what would make it perfect for me, is a planetary minigame, whereby you can win planetary control through pitched battles (not only in space, but on the ground as well <<enter mechwarrior>> ). To me, some kind of conquest mechanic in the game (whether you choose to directly participate or not) is what is needed to tie everythign together. I think it is imperative to see who the top dogs (guild-wise) are. What better way than to be able to carve out your own piece of the game world that, when entered by other players, is clearly depicted to be YOURS. Where YOU control material harvested there (ie taxation to those outside your faction). Material harvested enables you to pay for defense, etc...

Reading about ERepublik, there was a comment there that struck me. USA can't come to help Ireland because they would leave themselves open to attack from other sides. I think a game mechanic whereby the resources you control dictate the number of active fronts you can have would be really interesting. Playing with that idea, could realy be the solution to any one faction totally dominating the world. Hell you could even have to worry about NPC factions revolting in your regions if your resources are stretched too thin. Say a guild leaves your alliance, and they take with them their portion of the resources. Suddenly your grand empire is crumbling, and smaller guilds are there for the land-grab. Things like this can ONLY occur in a world that is player run.

But what it seems like we are talking about here is a multi-layered game where in a macro-pvp sense you are talking more along the lines of a very complex many-factioned RTS. On a micro level, you have individual players on the battlefield itself.

Overall, there are some really interesting ideas in this thread. I swear if I had the wherewithal, this would be a project I would love to be a part of.

[Slamz]

One strange thing about EVE...

I think I like being an administrator. I like that the crafting model is so big and complex and deeply entwined to the gameplay that it really takes several people to do it.


I think the breakdown is something like:

Administrator - the guy who watches the corporate wallet and equipment usage and tries to determine what will be needed and whether or not we're gaining or losing money.

Marketer - the guy who watches the market and helps the corporation profit and tries to simplify logistics by locally buying stuff we use and selling stuff we don't.

Industrialist - the guy who handles the construction of needed equipment

Researcher - the guy who obtains and improves upon the blueprints used to make equipment

Logistics - the guy who ships materials in for use, or out for selling


Right now, I'm basically administrator and marketer while Veraphim has been industrialist, researcher and logistics, with additional logistic help from the alliance.


Star Wars Galaxies had a more intricate crafting system, particularly when it came to designing and building stuff, but somehow it didn't seem to integrate into the game quite as well as the market does in EVE. I guess because in EVE, when you die you lose a ship and even though the financial loss may not be a big deal, there can be a fair amount of administrative, marketing, industrial and logistic overhead to replacing the physical ship.

POTBS did this pretty well too, although POTBS took measures to force you to spread out the workload. In EVE, one person can technically do all of the work above and keep the corp in ships. In POTBS you had limited lots so you'd need a fairly sizable number of players (or accounts) to do a complete ship building operation.


Anyway, I think I really like these deeply integrated crafting systems where a sizable percentage of equipment comes from obtaining (and fighting over) resources and then turning them into goods.

Although I don't think it's necessary to make the obtaining of resources be so mind numbingly boring.

[Crice]

In EvE you need a leader that has the time will and knowledge of managing a corporation similar to RL. You have directors that do different things. Some run Fleet ops, some run recruiting, some building or filling the POS. If you can continue to bring in people to your corporation in EvE you can evolve in EvE as a whole and take more space, have bigger challenges and deligate more duties.

Our failure or mine is setting goals. In most cases our coporation would have moved already to somewhere else. People play EvE to do stuff. There isn't anyone planning operations or roaming ops. With that not happening people don't get to really experience the real fun in EvE that makes your heart pound.

EvE continues to change. I look forward to our next evolution in the alliance.

Crazy about EvE, all these corps with limited numbers lol. I hope we can continue to recruit so we can keep what we have and maybe shoot for something better.

WoW didn't matter as much with recruits because you could pug stuff, EvE you choose to pug you can get killed or be the killer and grab all the loots or share it....

I will try not to be AFK so much at the POS

crice

[Vllad]

If a game needs a single leader to succeed then it is broken. Having leaders should enhance the experience not drive it.

Any game will fail with that need.


Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

That's an interesting concept. I'm not aware of any MMOG I've ever played (Planetside aside) where leadership wasn't necessary when more than 5-6 people wanted to do something together. Even getting those 5-6 people together took a bit of work and initiative sometimes. Naturally, the larger the group the more leadership is necessary. Games that are very pugable or soloable seem to lack the continuity that make MMOGs persistent or evolving.

[Vllad]

That's an interesting concept. I'm not aware of any MMOG I've ever played (Planetside aside) where leadership wasn't necessary when more than 5-6 people wanted to do something together. Even getting those 5-6 people together took a bit of work and initiative sometimes. Naturally, the larger the group the more leadership is necessary.

Planetside and Shattered Galaxies didn't require leadership. Leadership enhanced the game but they were not required. These were zerg war games with the largest most fun PVP battles I have ever had. The larger the PVP fight the less leadership it needs.

You can have complex goals with out making the goals complex. I know that sounds like a Yogyism but just look at the two games above for good examples.

If the goals are easy enough for the zerg to understand leadership isn't criticle for success. That doesn't mean that a well run squad can't make all the difference in the world in winning a scenario however that is totally different then requiring leadership to determine the success of the game itself.

EQ and WoW rely on strong leaders to pull off complicated PVE raids. The success of the games rely on this. Planetside and Shattered Galaxies succeeded with out that requirement.



Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

Succeeded as being fun games for a short while but it almost seems that they were too simple to keep players playing for month after month year after year. This is where I think the problem resides. I think it's very hard and totally unprecedented to have a game that requires relatively little complexity on the player's part but has enough complexity to hold an audience for a year straight or more. I see complexity as going hand in hand with longevity.

I think you might achieve both by having a game with two overlapping spheres. An accessible, pugable, tactical game with the option to get into a strategic, more complex game if it suits you. The only issue I see with that is the 'herding cats' dilemma where the complex game becomes more trouble than it's worth because there are too many pugs and not enough strategic minded folks.

[Slamz]

I think there's a good case to be made that if a game requires leadership, then the game is not doing enough to drive gameplay.

This is most definitely true of EVE. There is literally no reason for one alliance to attack another alliance except out of boredom. It's the old Shadowbane mistake. They forgot to populate the landscape with rare, highly desirable resources that can be claimed and fought over. Lacking leadership, puggies should still understand that "this is valuable and worth fighting over" and they would do so.

A leader would enhance their organization but he wouldn't drive gameplay -- the game would drive gameplay.

Planetside and WW2O do great jobs of this. The game basically drives itself. Log in as a pug and it's fairly clear where you can attack and defend and what, in general, you can or should do. A leader helps a lot but he's not mandatory.

Even WAR does a decent job of this. Pugging it in ORvR or battlegrounds, you know basically what the objective is and what you need to do. A leader helps keep things organized but you don't need a leader to play. You open your map, you look at it and you see an objective.


In EVE, you need a leader to play. The game provides no objectives. There are a number of entertaining options but someone has to stand up and create an objective or you don't really have one.


Some would say it's "the ultimate sandbox" and I guess some people like that but I find it to be less than ideal and I think it's a huge part of why EVE has always schlepped around the bottom of the MMO pile.