Ok I am chiming in way late here, but recently i check
my mail less often than a good MMORPG comes out. After
reading the article I can definately see what he's
saying.

I've helped develop a few Online games, and have
played even more. I have seen what he is saying from
both sides. The biggest problem with most games is
they aren't complete when they come out. Companies
don't test the games long enough or complete enough
before releasing them because they have deadlines and
are too eager to get their game in the black. The game
then needs changes made that in turn cause more
imbalances, you are basically entering a never ending
loop of updates and each update "shafts" a group of
players. Many times the changes have to be put in
place by people like myself who were not on the
original design team and in some cases have no idea
where the creator was going with a certain feature.

Some of the biggest problems
1) too much variation in characters vs not enough
variation in characters - Many games have such a wide
variety of races classes sub classes and other
character attributes that it becomes hard to balance
them properly. There needs to be diversity but alot of
games have too much, and some games try to solve this
problem by ignoring the existing parameters and just
adding another new race/class/whatever in the next
installment of the game. Why update racial/class
imbalances? because it's no fun playing a game where
everyone is a human paladin or dark elf necromancer
just because it's the most advantageous class (or
perceived to be so anyway) I would prefer to see a
game with 4 races and 4 classes that are well defined
and relatively balanced than see a game with 10 races
and 10 classes that is in constant need of tweaks

2) Risk/Reward factor - Many games that come out are
built so that you can reach the "end game" far too
easily, If the game is released in this state it is
doomed. Players will always feel it is their right to
reach that max level just for paying their monthly fee
, yet at the same time if the end game is reached too
easily the game becomes boring. On the other side of
the coin if the early stages of the game are too
difficult many players fail to stick around to see the
end game. I have yet to see a game that properly
balances Risk/Reward though the better ones come
close. A good game will have a risk/reward system that
make sit so that you don't want to die but don't throw
your keyboard/controller across the room if you do.
Meaning the higher levels make you better but not so
uber that you suck if you don't get there

2a) Level Balance and Min/maxing - Alot of players and
probably alot of people on this list enjoy trying to
build the perfect character and will pour many
countless hours into their character aquiring items
building levels. While some of us will not have the
time for such activities and in some cases don't enjoy
them as much. These players do deserve to have what
they have rightfully earned however most games do not
allow for the casual player to still be involved. They
turn into a race for the "end game" and if you aren't
up to the highest of levels with the best gear you are
an afterthought. Alot of this has to do with the
current familiar levelling system . There are ways it
can be aleviated but alot of them would involve
removing aspects of the game alot of hard core gamers
cling to with an iron death grip

On Perma death - The best idea for perma death i have
ever seen presented for an Online game gave each
player a chance to be permanantly killed each time
he/she was killed, there were no other penalties for
death. If he was permanatly killed which would happen
one in every 20-30 deaths on average he was given the
option to leave an inheritance. his account would be
flagged and he could then roll up a character that had
75% of the original characters levels and aquired the
original characters gear. The benefit to this was the
payer could pick a different class and would be able
to reappropriate any stat/skill/whatever point his
character earned at the cost of 25% of his levels. It
should be noted that the game this idea was presented
for was not as black and white about levels equalling
power. the more levels you had the more skills you had
the better chance you had but the game was more based
on skills aquired than the actual levels in
determining effectiveness in combat. Meaning if you
lost 25% of your levels you could still get into a
group and fight the same things you had been fighting
previously

~Sean