I've been thinking about this topic for awhile now. I've come to two problems and I'd like to hear people's input on this. But first let me explain some things. For now I am only concerned about PvE content(PvP is easier to understand fortunately.) A lot of the challenges in MMO are no doubt very superficial. They are not very challenging at all, just time consuming. Either that or dependent on gear or other types of mechanical growth(which I don't factor into the equation.) Now it isn't outrageous to say most(if not all) MMOs are pretty simple as games(outside PvP at least). Still, I would like to be able to compare them to each other and other simple games(like JRPGs.) I am comparing the distance between good players and bad players vs the most difficult challenges in the game. This is usually the endgame raids or big named monsters. My two problems are: 1) Concerning large groups of players at once: (15-40, maybe less required) I've seen that in a big group of players there are usually two to four players actually doing an activity that could be considered difficult. The rest could be terrible players in terms of game's depth, but they are given their one option from their leader(or co-leaders). This means bad players can excel at this game without ever learning its depth. The distance between good and bad players has been shortened hasn't it? Or are these players more like NPCs in a RTS - should they even count since they are no longer making decisions as a player? 2) It is very common for challenges to fall to "farming" status. Chance of failure drops to almost 0. At this point the only way to compare players(or rather: group of players) to each other is how effectively they kill the target. This is usually measured by how long they take to down it. Certainly this could give room for skill to grow, but isn't it like adding a new rule to the game? Could you really say "MMO-X has lots of room for skillgrowth" when we are really playing MMO-X with a player-made rule attached?