But combine them somewhat, add RPG and RTS features and it would work.

Every five years, someone tries that idea. It has it's niche, but it's not what most people are looking for.
Most people already have an eight-to-six where they put together widgets for the use and consumption of others; coming home to a virtual widget-making business just isn't that compelling.
Only a few "active worlds" have had staying power (and, ironically, Active Worlds wasn't one of them :-)
Eve Online is probably the biggest example; Entropia Universe is another, although the draw there seems to be mainly the lottery aspect.

The main problem is: Most people don't want to play the role of subservient to some other player in any but the most abstract sense.
Guild leader? Seems OK, the Guild adds enough social value to put up with it.

Front-line soldier in an RTS, going where other players tell you to?
Farmer, clicking the "plow field" button over and over again?
Policeman, dealing with griefers?
Not player enjoyment.

The theme park design has not grown up because game developers "lack imagination." Imagining is easy, relatively speaking. The "free worlds where I can do anything" games aren't being kept out of the market by a lack of enthusiastic developers wanting to make it happen. The reason the MMO game world looks like it does, is much more fundamental than that, and has to do with what most people are willing to pay for as a gaming experience. Building a lasting business requires a product/market fit, which is much harder!

True, Eve has done it, but its a niche game i agree.

As for the RTS front line soldier, Planetside 2 is going strong still, people love it, and many fantasy MMO's have PVP so we know that works. Work it into the story where players are defending their territory or trying to take new land.

For farming, instead of hitting the same button over and over, let that character be a semi autonomous so you can have it doing stuff while your out adventuring or PVP'ing. It would server a purpose of adding food or raw materials to your faction. Plus making money for you. Try playing a game called "The Guild", it shows how things can be fun doing that stuff.

Who said playing subservient, social communities work together and i have seen it in many games from Wurm Online to Horizons and Darkfall.

Every five years? so 3 people have tried it then? EQ came out 17 years ago and that leaves little room for trial and error. FPS games have such short production time their evolution has been the most rapid, also helps their genre was one of the earliest to appear in graphic form. For me, RTS haven't evolved too much, look at Command and Conquer, same dynamics, but it seems to work. But I know many people who play these current games and are tired of the same old thing. And yes, many have a steady job, some are in the military or work in technical jobs and still want more meaningful MMO than level, grind gear, level, endgame, raid. raid, raid...

Just because you haven't seen it done yet doesn't mean it can't be done and not bankrupt the company. But this waiting in line to for mobs to spawn, bouncing into players where ever you go isn't what I see as ideal. Just spread out things as if you were scaling an object, instead of 1/2 a mile from the capital city to dungeons, make it so as players slowly populate towns and push into the wild, it opens ups new area's to play. Look at how a game called Horizons did it, now called Istaria, and many of us older gamers loved it who played it.

I have been watching MMO game world design since EverQuest 1. With the current technology of hi-speed internet, computers with terabyte hard drives, server technology that has come a long way, and over 17 years of learning from all the MMO's that have come and gone and are still coming out. What are the bottlenecks of larger streaming worlds?

It just feels like the MMO genre has stalled and stagnated like Richard Garriott has stated several times.

Check out shores of hazeron. The game's an MMO that's bigger than no man's sky, with procedurally generated everything (terrain/resources/animals/weather/textures/models/animations/buildings/weapons), custom ship building with no limit (well, there's SOME physical limit to size I'm sure, but I've made multi-mile long ships), and each (or at least most of. I've seen some small planets) of the (trillions of possible) game worlds is larger than Wurm online's maps. Add to that it has RTS/faction building elements of seemingly no scale (I've got a 800 soldier troop transport, with each soldier being a separate NPC), and it should be considered the ideal large-scale exploration MMO.

Yet it's not a commercial success by any means, costing money to run and dying several times. Game world simply isn't an important/fun aspect to expand on in MMO's, content and player interaction are what you want to work on.

I just posted a post in a different thread that is related to this, about how I want more "content-DENSE" worlds (with better quality of content), not merely larger land masses and not merely more generic content.

To me, "better" is not "more of what is boring", but instead "more enjoyable". I'd be delighted with games that are only 10% of the size of the GTAs and Farcrys and EQs and WoW, if the game was more enjoyable.

This post I wrote a few months ago might also be interesting to you, but is less directly relevant.

I just posted a post in a different thread that is related to this, about how I want more "content-DENSE" worlds (with better quality of content), not merely larger land masses and not merely more generic content.

To me, "better" is not "more of what is boring", but instead "more enjoyable". I'd be delighted with games that are only 10% of the size of the GTAs and Farcrys and EQs and WoW, if the game was more enjoyable.

This post I wrote a few months ago might also be interesting to you, but is less directly relevant.

I will check out that thread, thanks for letting me know.

Some people like the game where there is 100's of people on screen, and not far to do the things that are fun.

This is why I am using Atavism in Unity to test my idea's with 2 or 3 of my gaming guilds and see what the feedback is. True, many times I do bitch that its just to far to go for things. I am wanting to try using a once every 3 hours long range teleport to a friend. Maybe that will make it more acceptable. Its just that, if exploration and a battle between the forces of mankind against demon hordes, large area's seem best. We shall see. But thanks for the feedback and discussion, can't live in isolation and know whats going to work!

Some day (maybe in our lifetime) we might have games where Players produce alot of the MMORPGs Assets
(Ive talked about this before -- Tap into the Players abilities/imagination/creativity to build the game worlds)

People have been talking about that for a decade or so, and while it may work for a few games and can definitely be profitable, I don't think it's ultimately the best solution, design-wise. Let me try to explain:

By having thousands of players make content, no matter how quality-controlled, it still suffers by catering to the lowest-common-denominator of quality.
It suffers from massive lack of cohesion from many tiny variations of styles (assuming you cut the macro-variations in style), instead of unity of design. It'd require aggressive culling.

If you remember Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap. So even if you cull 90% of what is created, you're still only left with "not crap", but that doesn't make it great. 99% of everything is still not great - you'd have to cull 90% of what's left after already culling 90%. And 99.9% of everything is still not incredible. :mellow:

Basically, by heavily going towards player-generated-content, you are forcing yourself to insult 99% of your players by telling them their work is sub-par trash (to put it lightly), you are forcing yourself to invest heavily in coordinating massive amounts (hundreds of thousands if not millions) of people instead of coordinating mere hundreds, or else you are, from the very very very get go, regulating your game to merely being "average" (if not below-average) but never being incredible.

It'll be a 'reversion to mediocrity' of players contributing work, taken from a sampling 90% occupied already by poor creators. If the developers set the standards low, the game quality will be low (Second Life-esqe), and if they set the standards high, it requires immensely more labor from the development team, immensely more wasted effort from players who get their work culled, immensely more structure (which makes everything less fun except for those higher up the structure),

You mention massive planning, review, coordination - the more things are structured, the more it's no longer "playing a game" but "work" for players. For some, that's fine, but for the majority of others, it'd ruin it. You'd basically be trying to organize a player-ran government, with all the bad aspects of a government bureaucracy, and the higher you elevate players, the more they love to exercise authority and the more you turn into an ostensibly-meritocratic jerkocracy. If you look at things like Wikipedia, of the millions of people who have participated with Wikipedia, the vast majority (99%) give up and leave, and the most active are an even tinier percentage (<0.1%). And this is with unsubjective work ("is it true or not?"), and with text. How much higher do you think that will be with art and subjectivity? You'd need what in the 90's they used to call a noob hose: A continuous stream of new players ignorant of the reasons of why 90% of your old players are leaving.

Use of player-generated-content can definitely be leveraged successfully, but I don't think turning over the majority of the game to players is ideal anymore than I think turning the majority of the world over to procedural generation is ideal - for a few games/MMOs, fine, but not as the default of the future. There are four or five different major problems coordinating together to ensure such games are far less than excellent, and with the amount of work you'd have to invest to make sure it is excellent, despite the mass of players' sub-standard creation, it'd would be better invested just making the game itself, supplemented by selective use of crowd-sourcing. From where I sit, the way those kinds of games would be profitable is by tricking players (either maliciously or out of self-belief) into thinking things will be better than they will actually turn out - i.e. the end result being making money, rather than a quality creation worth playing.

There is some incredible work "the internet" does - overall, people make some incredible work. But those gems are surrounded by ten times more trash. Crowdsourcing seems to be the idea of dragging in huge trawlnets hoping to find those gem-creators and tricking them into making the developers' game for them so the developer can profit instead of the creators (sometimes developers ""benevolently"" give them a cut of the money they made for the developer), and toss back into the sea the trash-creators.

This is my opinion obviously, and others' views vary! :)

I'm pessimistic of that method of development, as I'm sure you've gathered. :P

Note: When I say 90% (or more) of artists/creators on the 'net make trash, I'm in that category also (as a 90% programmer, 90% designer). I'm not much better than the masses, even in my areas of specialization. Thankfully, I interact in real life with some writers and artists that are in the 9% category, which motivates me in my programming and design to try harder to reach the 9% tier of programming and game design, but it also gives me (I think) a broader picture when looking at the combined 99%. I don't currently know anyone in the .9% tier.