UnknownXV

I've been reflecting a lot on this question recently. Keep in mind this is purely hypothetical, I don't know of any current games that fit this mold. That's kind of the point in making this thread though. The very fact that there appears to be no salvation. No option for players who want a game like I do. The only genuine exception to this rule in a popular MMO would be EvE Online, but that is too... passive for me.    What am I going on about? Think back to those days in old MMOs such as Ultima Online, Lineage 2, SWG and even Runescape. You know, I just chuckled a bit, because Runescape at least back in 04 to 07 was actually very hardcore relative to the MMOs available today. Leveling mattered because it was so incredibly difficult. It took forever. It's curious because this is a feature I told myself I disliked, but as they made the game easier and easier to level, the less I enjoyed the game. It's no coincidence. Achievement is meaningless without challenge. Reminds me of steam achievements in certain games that pop up for completing a non-optional part of the game, or even cutscenes. Is it supposed to be a joke?   To summarize the idea of this MMO:    Open world that feels like a real world. Massive in size and unexplored. Players would have a map, but it would be blank when you start off and only fill in as you explore and move about the world. Perhaps you could discover how to make a copy and sell it? Imagine that... making your trade in an MMO by literally exploring the massive world and selling copies of your map to players. Also, maps would only be accurate to the date you explored an area on so as terrain changes, new cities and towns are built, re-exploring areas becomes important.  
Crafting should be in-depth and extensive. Everything and everything, from clothes, tents, torches, fires to even the very roads that exist in the world and the boats that would be required to sail across rivers, lakes and the gargantuan oceans that would separate the continents of the world would be created by the players. Directly manipulating the very earth, and the very stone that they walk on to suit themselves, carving towns, cities, castles and anything you can imagine into the world.  
Active combat. No tab targeting. Manual swings, manual aim. (This seems more and more possible as new MMOs come out with mechanics close to genuine fps titles or like Chivalry Medieval Warfare).  
Full loot. Upon death, anyone can raid your body and take whatever you were carrying. Any stats you had accrued, however, are perfectly safe. Only items are forfeit. Keep in mind that combat skills and the best items in this game would not turn you into an invincible god like in standard games. They would make you stronger, yes; but this would merely be an edge. Whereas in typical MMOs, a level 50 (especially with gear involved) would be essentially equivalent to 10,000 level 1s, here it would be sensible. My ideal ratio would be, maxed stats and the best gear = 3 average players and 6 starter players. Only in terms of stats. Sufficient skill could make up those gaps, or by grouping up. This leads to curious events where a bandit player is terrorizing a smaller camp with less experienced players and they have to band together to defeat him. Not a static easily predictable NPC, but another human player. Far more exciting if you ask me.   
Dynamic weather as well as predictable and relevant day / night cycle and, perhaps, even regional weather patterns. As you go north, it gets colder, warming towards the equator, you know the drill. Rain slows you down, reduces visibility. Snow does the same, depending on intensity, and makes your footsteps visible until it snows again or melts. Easier to track animals. Blizzards, hurricanes... perhaps even tornadoes and tidal waves could occur. This would tie into the farming system. Hunting and fishing would also be necessary, as food would impart buffs. I'm not akin to requiring food to survive, however if you don't eat after a certain amount of time you'd become famished and eventually starve, reducing certain stats.  
Limited but powerful magic. Referring back to the massive world, whoever would develop it could scatter various spell parchments that could only be used once to learn it. Upon the reader's gaze, the parchment is destroyed never to be perused by another soul. The magic embeds itself into the user, impregnating him with its power. However magic is designed, I feel it needs to be kept mysterious, secretive, and extraordinarily rare. In this way, it can be specifically very powerful and awe-inspiring. To encounter a player who knows any magic at all would be as rare and wondrous a sight to behold as the greatest treasure.   
No classes. Skills divided between function, trained separately. My favorite system by far from any MMO I've played is that of Runescapes. Each skill, serving an individual focus, and trained as such specifically for that reason in mind. You want to be a blacksmith? Make weapons and armor. Want to be a strong warrior? Fight using weapons that require a lot of strength. Etc.. Combat skills would take a while to level, but with diminishing returns. Same way for non-combat skills, but those would take even longer. Trust me, this is important if the focus of this MMO would be the long-term. The harder it is, the more valuable and more meaning it has to achieve it. Nothing of value is easy. That would cover the bulletpoints of my dream MMO. How viable this is, and if players would want it. Well, I don't know. This generation of MMO players seem to be... neutered. Removed from thought.  I hope however that this is simply because they don't know better, they have no popular alternatives to show them what a truly engaging MMO could be.    If you read all of this, I thank you, and hope to hear any input you may have. Always fun to ramble on with other people over things we won't get for quite some time. 

Yep certainly. 
 
Although to get it stable in prime95 and longer in intel utility test I had to increase the voltage to 1.37 or so. Still, pretty happy. I'm not sure I want to go much higher though, the temperatures are still below 70 degrees even after an hour under full load, but even if temperatures don't go too high, I'm still playing with high voltages. I want my CPU to last another year at least, so I don't think I will go higher.
 
When I started to OC I didn't intend to go beyond 4.4 ghz, so I'm pretty damn happy. I was able to hit 4.4 ghz basically on stock voltage. 
 
Heres' the cinebench and cpu-z stuff. 
 
http://valid.canardpc.com/2863587
 

I got quite lucky, my chip reached 5 ghz yesterday at only 1.35 - 1.38 volts (fluctuates). I've been using it since, playing games, it seems perfectly stable in all applications I'd normally use it under. 
 
It past Intel extreme tuning stress test for 1 hour, as well as prime 95 blend for 2 hours. 
 
I tried Intel burn test, at very high stress level, and it passed 8 of 10 runs, but on the 9th I got a BSOD. Burn test pushes the temperature far too high, so I won't run it again. Frankly I don't think it's quite necessary to push it quite that much. Each run took 60 seconds at 128 Gflops/sec speed. I increased the voltage by another 0.005 volts after the bsod, I think it would be stable even in the burn test now, but again.. the temperatures are reaching 80 celcius in it. Not worth trying again. 
 
In any other benchmark, they barely go over 65 celcius.  ;)
 
I'm using a Corsair AX860i for power, Asrock Extreme 3 gen 3 motherboard, a 2500k cpu of course, and a swiftech H220 for cooling (a beast). 
 

 
http://valid.canardpc.com/2863587
 
I do have a quick question though, as per my understanding, increasing the voltage on my cpu will shorten the lifespan of it, even if the temperatures aren't very high? In stress tests (excluding the monster ibt) they don't go over 65 celcius, and while gaming they don't go over 55. Idles at about 30-35 depending on ambient temperature. With the voltage between 1.35 and 1.38 at load, (but reduced to 1.0 at idle and 1.6 ghz freqency) will it shorten it by much?
 
Keep in mind I've already had this cpu for close to two years now. Although I've done no overclocking on it at all until I started about a week ago. I'm looking to have it last for another year or so at least, that would be ideal, are the odds pretty good it will make it that far? 

I got quite lucky, my chip reached 5 ghz yesterday at only 1.35 - 1.38 volts (fluctuates). I've been using it since, playing games, it seems perfectly stable in all applications I'd normally use it under. 
 
It past Intel extreme tuning stress test for 1 hour, as well as prime 95 blend for 2 hours. 
 
I tried Intel burn test, at very high stress level, and it passed 8 of 10 runs, but on the 9th I got a BSOD. Burn test pushes the temperature far too high, so I won't run it again. Frankly I don't think it's quite necessary to push it quite that much. Each run took 60 seconds at 128 Gflops/sec speed. I increased the voltage by another 0.005 volts after the bsod, I think it would be stable even in the burn test now, but again.. the temperatures are reaching 80 celcius in it. Not worth trying again. 
 
In any other benchmark, they barely go over 65 celcius.  ;)
 
I'm using a Corsair AX860i for power, Asrock Extreme 3 gen 3 motherboard, a 2500k cpu of course, and a swiftech H220 for cooling (a beast). 
 

 
http://valid.canardpc.com/2863587
 
I do have a quick question though, as per my understanding, increasing the voltage on my cpu will shorten the lifespan of it, even if the temperatures aren't very high? In stress tests (excluding the monster ibt) they don't go over 65 celcius, and while gaming they don't go over 55. Idles at about 30-35 depending on ambient temperature. With the voltage between 1.35 and 1.38 at load, (but reduced to 1.0 at idle and 1.6 ghz freqency) will it shorten it by much?
 
Keep in mind I've already had this cpu for close to two years now. Although I've done no overclocking on it at all until I started about a week ago. I'm looking to have it last for another year or so at least, that would be ideal, are the odds pretty good it will make it that far?