lf. However, I also understand that many of these games declined to the point where only starved wolfs would log in if all the sheep don't have anything to do while trying to dodge us. The game can't be too favorable to PKers, else there's nobody to PK.
Yup, and persistent games with territorial control are one of the strongest examples of entrenched advantage. Imagine being the guy who arrives late to a game of Civ with your one lousy primitive shitty vs. guys who have empires filled with tanks and planes and nukes. It would be a complete waste of time to play the game at that point.
The thrill of organized PvP like a battleground is different to the thrill of zerging a populated zone, or ambushing a wandering newbie. The later was lost, the former was embraced, and now all the sheep larp as wolves in the instanced battlegrounds, separated form the grazing fields, while all the wolves play DOTA2 or Overwatch or whatever.
Yup, and neither of these experiences is entirely satisfying. PvP constrained by battlegrounds and arenas fundamentally lacks free-association high-impact gameplay of old. In the old days, the quality of players was higher so it was more desirable to associate with the selected ones of your choice. In the new ones, factions are typically predefined by the setting of the game and so you're lumped in with a bunch of mouthbreathers, making the multiplayer that much less appealing. This is why you see the rise of the "solo MMO player" and increasing amounts of development effort aimed at catering to the people who want to solo. I fall into the category where I don't have any particular commitment to "soloing", but I also have a strong antipathy towards the mouthbreathing masses, and this has pushed me into being a multiboxer and increasingly see demands for having numbers of players as a demand for greater multiboxing. Having kids has helped reduce this impact, but once you start seeing the world in this way, you don't really go back. When you demand a group of 20 people for progress, I just see "how do I get me and my fambly to multibox that", because there sure as fuck ain't no way to find 20 people who aren't mentally retarded that will show up on demand.
Anyways, I still think a Rimworld type game would make a good MMORPG.
A setting like that is largely unexplored, but also a real challenge to design for: This is, in essence, the kind of dog-eat-dog setting that demands free-association and open PK. I won't even say PvP, because PvP is a watered down concept of what was simply PKing. There's no versus, there is only killing. The most recent attempt at this kind of setting in an MMO was Failout 76, and that went about as well as I could have expected. This is basically your worst case scenario for game as far as the entrenched advantage situation is concerned.
Personally, if I wanted to create a game with a setting of this kind of flavor, which is basically any kind of wild lawless frontier where a player makes his own way in a world that's dog-eat-dog, I'd probably put it in space. Why space? Because the only way to have new players that can even feasibly stand a chance in a world where stuff gets increasingly taken over by those who came first is for there to be a nigh infinite amount of probably-procedurally-generated territory so that the newbies can always be sent West. In any kind of terrestrial environment, though, you quickly run out of West and your players get ganked by the Chinese.
It's a tough set of challenges to work out in order to create a game that is sustainable in the long term as an MMO.
One where you control multiple pawns, not just one.
So, multiboxing as central to gameplay.
Though it would need ways to set jobs and automate shit for when you aren't logged in, and one thats good enough so that you don't need to start over every day, losing it all while you sleep.
Ah, yes, the days of insomnia games. I used to be a hated contender in those because I never fucking sleep.