Mortal Online 2 Discussion

@WestArcher

I agree entirely that the most dedicated PvPers will likely be the most active PvErs as well. They are simply the most active players in a PvP-dedicated game! Perhaps I am using the wrong terms to define the problem.

To be honest, I struggle to figure out how to adequately explain what I am thinking. My post was trying to get at the root cause of a recurring problem with these types of games, i.e. that the PvP influence is so intrusive on everything else that it inevitably cannibalizes itself... to the detriment of the PvPers themselves because the game world ends up empty! I don't believe any changes to PvE alone can resolve this because as you rightly say, PvP-PvE is pretty much part of the same playstyle. The required design change is far more fundamental.

It is interesting that you raise the point of lower-skilled players banding together to fight a threat. That is certainly a short term solution but it is also exactly the long term problem. Most of those lower-skilled players are lower skilled exactly because they are not as dedicated to PvP-PvE. They want to do other things in-game. Unfortunately, the game design ensures that they cannot without being overwhelmed and the only solution is to engage in a massive, long term struggle against the more dedicated PvPer group. The dedicated PvP group loves it because this is why they play the game but everyone else eventually realizes that there will never be an end to the struggle. They get bored or frustrated because they have no room to do anything else. Population declines. PvPers get bored. Game stagnates/dies.

The solution to my mind is to prevent that split of dedicated vs less-dedicated. Through design choices ensure that there is ample PvP but that dedicated PvPers are fighting other dedicated PvPers, either as the professional soldiers of a community or mercenaries. Controlling the produce/taxes from the less dedicated becomes the main game loop, as opposed to killing them for random loot.
 
Last edited:

Keurk

Senior Member
@WestArcher

I agree entirely that the most dedicated PvPers will likely be the most active PvErs as well. They are simply the most active players in a PvP-dedicated game! Perhaps I am using the wrong terms to define the problem.

To be honest, I struggle to figure out how to adequately explain what I am thinking. My post was trying to get at the root cause of a recurring problem with these types of games, i.e. that the PvP influence is so intrusive on everything else that it inevitably cannibalizes itself... to the detriment of the PvPers themselves because the game world ends up empty! I don't believe any changes to PvE alone can resolve this because as you rightly say, PvP-PvE is pretty much part of the same playstyle. The required design change is far more fundamental.

It is interesting that you raise the point of lower-skilled players banding together to fight a threat. That is certainly a short term solution but it is also exactly the long term problem. Most of those lower-skilled players are lower skilled exactly because they are not as dedicated to PvP-PvE. They want to do other things in-game. Unfortunately, the game design ensures that they cannot without being overwhelmed and the only solution is to engage in a massive, long term struggle against the more dedicated PvPer group. The dedicated PvP group loves it because this is why they play the game but everyone else eventually realizes that there will never be an end to the struggle. They get bored or frustrated because they have no room to do anything else. Population declines. PvPers get bored. Game stagnates/dies.

The solution to my mind is to prevent that split of dedicated vs less-dedicated. Through design choices ensure that there is ample PvP but that dedicated PvPers are fighting other dedicated PvPers, either as the professional soldiers of a community or mercenaries. Controlling the produce/taxes from the less dedicated becomes the main game loop, as opposed to killing them for random loot.
the solution is for thoses people to go play other games because that is not the game they want to play. And there is no steam workshop for them to mod the game how they want. It is why you have a billion other games and they should go play thoses .Because why did they come play a hardcore full loot game with no safe zone and with everything related to pvp (even hunger system, you cant die from starving, you just have maluses for pvp. You can decide to go do pve, thats still full open world without instance, so it is pvp, people can come and rape the fuck out of you just because they better, more number, or simply cause they don't like you. Only your skill and your brain should help you in such situation, not some artificial bullshit restriction for themepark assisted brainless kids that want to be free to do their own things, thats not supposed to happen like that in mo, even if the developpers killed the game hard by making it this way. guess what, they don't even realise what they did on that matter, so support them with your shitty ideas, i bet they could implement it for a easier and more friendly environement for weakest individuals
 
the solution is for thoses people to go play other games because that is not the game they want to play. And there is no steam workshop for them to mod the game how they want. It is why you have a billion other games and they should go play thoses .Because why did they come play a hardcore full loot game with no safe zone and with everything related to pvp (even hunger system, you cant die from starving, you just have maluses for pvp. You can decide to go do pve, thats still full open world without instance, so it is pvp, people can come and rape the fuck out of you just because they better, more number, or simply cause they don't like you. Only your skill and your brain should help you in such situation, not some artificial bullshit restriction for themepark assisted brainless kids that want to be free to do their own things, thats not supposed to happen like that in mo, even if the developpers killed the game hard by making it this way. guess what, they don't even realise what they did on that matter, so support them with your shitty ideas, i bet they could implement it for a easier and more friendly environement for weakest individuals
I am more or less in agreement that there must be few safe areas. Part of the charm of the MO was that adult theme and survival.
Cities are more or less safe for those who do not want to be exposed to being assaulted. Although in my opinion all cities should be conquerable and their lords should be the ones who decide whether to remove guards or not. On the other hand, they should not be totally secure either. I love the idea that in cities there are secret passages, catacombs, caves and unsafe places.
I have never been afraid of insecurity despite being a banker and merchant. I love the risk and always enjoy the vertigo of transporting 30,000 g on my elite horse, while all the bandits were looking for my head. It was fun and exciting.
The stone or metal walls for villas should also be removed and the NPC guards should disappear in the players' quarters.

more risk, more role, more drama, more territorial struggle, more mystery, adventure and the imperial throne room. ajjaa
 
@Keurk @ruben ibarruri

Would either of you want a more active and stable player population in the long term?

I think lots of people enjoy the drama of open-PvP but something is putting them off. I really do not follow that many games anymore but my impression is that there are too many FPS-like games out there that provide the same small squad PvP activity as Mortal, except they do not require the same farm-grind.
 

Keurk

Senior Member
@Keurk @ruben ibarruri

Would either of you want a more active and stable player population in the long term?

I think lots of people enjoy the drama of open-PvP but something is putting them off. I really do not follow that many games anymore but my impression is that there are too many FPS-like games out there that provide the same small squad PvP activity as Mortal, except they do not require the same farm-grind.
So if they do not involve the same farm or grind , it is not the same. Also, you can get things in full loot by not risking much usually ,like in Mortal you can grief people naked, there is many way to actually make yourself a good wealth without grinding too much, or by being lucky killing the appropriate guy. Your question about more population is complete bs that already been proved many times wrong, cause killing people is not what drive the players outside the game. Im not sure there is still Dhan post about all the steam reviews ,he done a good job showing basically (even if stats means not much on that matter ) than pking was one of the last issue people were having. The issues mostly driving people outside the game :
Issue to log in, no answers from supports , people stuck losing loot as new players or veteran sometimes many times a day, horrible incohesion with immersion and walls or tc structures in weirds spots, lack of responsivity with some things , various bugs, predominance of mounted.
All the " people being killed will leave the game " is completly retarded , it is like saying " i m not living my life cause i will die at the end" it is just the arguments of the people who are either trolling ,or not having a clue about what MO is all about. I think you stand in the second category ,your statement about "small scale pvp the same " show you know nothing or barely a thing about mo pvp. So stop going further with wanting to change things that have no meaning to get changed ,just because you fail at seeing the full picture of this
 
@Keurk @ruben ibarruri

Would either of you want a more active and stable player population in the long term?

I think lots of people enjoy the drama of open-PvP but something is putting them off. I really do not follow that many games anymore but my impression is that there are too many FPS-like games out there that provide the same small squad PvP activity as Mortal, except they do not require the same farm-grind.
I agree farming and grinding in MO is a hell. For other side is good have treasures and luxury items is hard. But i not like too grinding
 
So if they do not involve the same farm or grind , it is not the same. Also, you can get things in full loot by not risking much usually ,like in Mortal you can grief people naked, there is many way to actually make yourself a good wealth without grinding too much, or by being lucky killing the appropriate guy. Your question about more population is complete bs that already been proved many times wrong, cause killing people is not what drive the players outside the game. Im not sure there is still Dhan post about all the steam reviews ,he done a good job showing basically (even if stats means not much on that matter ) than pking was one of the last issue people were having. The issues mostly driving people outside the game :
Issue to log in, no answers from supports , people stuck losing loot as new players or veteran sometimes many times a day, horrible incohesion with immersion and walls or tc structures in weirds spots, lack of responsivity with some things , various bugs, predominance of mounted.
All the " people being killed will leave the game " is completly retarded , it is like saying " i m not living my life cause i will die at the end" it is just the arguments of the people who are either trolling ,or not having a clue about what MO is all about. I think you stand in the second category ,your statement about "small scale pvp the same " show you know nothing or barely a thing about mo pvp. So stop going further with wanting to change things that have no meaning to get changed ,just because you fail at seeing the full picture of this
That is not what I said at all.
 
So if they do not involve the same farm or grind , it is not the same.... [* * * wall-o-text that I might read later* * *]
There's a word for what a game is when it does not involve the same farm or grind:
better.
There's a two word phrase for it, too:
"more fun"
This is what a lot of players boil it down to.

"I don't like it, any more than you men"... perhaps it's a dream.

/headdesk

Ow! Nope. It's real. We're stuck with it.
 

Luminia

Trial Member
This discussion seems to circle around, players that dont want casuals in their game ruining fearing there might be changed to skill based combat systems. And people saying skill is nice and all but the weak players will struggle and loose interest resulting in a circle of dieing population. Both sides have valid arguments. Lets hope SV figures out a good middle to satisfy both sides equally and making it enjoyable for everyone. Else the games population will probably end up the same as Mortal Onlines population.
 
he done a good job showing basically (even if stats means not much on that matter ) than pking was one of the last issue people were having.
NO, @Keurk ; just no. He didn't.

Only in your dreams.

Your memory is untrustworthy.
Im not sure there is still Dhan post about all the steam reviews
I am certain there are, and here is what he had to say, and all he had to say in the thread
https://www.starvault.se/mortalforums/threads/negative-steam-reviews.123394/ :

Why do we have to flood the steam page with our positive reviews? You could have left it at honest reviews and it wouldn't have fallen into the white knight thing others are claiming. How do you know someone is an obvious liar, where is your proof that any of the obvious lies in your OP are actually lies and not true in one way or another?

Let's go through the list:

"A community of less than 1000 ( that's be generous. )"
Depends how you define community, if it's active players than yes, that statement was definitely accurate pre-steam. I also wouldn't count all of the people that try the game out for a day or two part of the community just yet.

"Do you want to get treated badly and mocked cause you aren't kissing dev behinds..? ( In-game favors anyone..? )"
There are quite of a few examples of this existing here on the forums. As far as in game favors is concerned, I'd rather not get into that because one, it's mostly tin foil hat theories and two, I'd just get my post removed if I did.

"Be prepared to share too much real-life info,"
This has been removed quickly after steam release, and isn't valid anymore... but was still a valid complaint seeing as it was probably true (I'm assuming) when the person wrote it. Why bring it up in your list of obvious misinformation?

"Pay more per month, than most MMOs too date."
Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard of russians paying a shit load more than $15 a month due to fucked up currencies.

"Mortal is supposed to play like an RPG, not a survival game. You can spend hours amassing materials and crafting items as a simple craftsman with no intent of combat, only to be slain and lose all of your items rather unceremoniously."

This isn't misinformation; it's something that can definitely happen, albeit easily avoided.

--Dhan
http://archive.fo/YFJYm#selection-2437.0-2547.93

* * *

nasko said:​
"Reviews are usefull for people who like stuff only becouse everyone else like them."​
Not really. If you only look at the percentage of good to bad then yes. But there are also very useful comments in the reviews that may influence my purchase of a game. When you see shit like "game is pay to win for x reason," or "server is crashing every 10 minutes," that is quite useful information for me. Not saying that it's the only thing I look at, but it helps bring some issues to light that the developers don't tell you about.

--Dhan
http://archive.fo/aIHLB#selection-1587.0-1615.438

* * *

Bernkastel_Kues said:​
"Very new to this game but I love the idea behind it so I don't really want to see it buried because of people that don't "get" the idea behind it. That being said it really seems like there are a lot of adamant people out there determined to thumbs down any positive reviews and thumbs up all the negative reviews in the recent reviews section."​
The same is true in reverse. Both are equally lame.

--Dhan
http://archive.fo/4iuqI#selection-993.0-1017.51

he done a good job showing basically (even if stats means not much on that matter ) than pking was one of the last issue people were having.
No.
 
Last edited:

Keurk

Senior Member
That is not what I said at all.
"I really do not follow that many games anymore but my impression is that there are too many FPS-like games out there that provide the same small squad PvP activity as Mortal, except they do not require the same farm-grind. "
your impression is wrong. and so all the reasoning behind it
 
This discussion seems to circle around, players that dont want casuals in their game ruining fearing there might be changed to skill based combat systems. And people saying skill is nice and all but the weak players will struggle and loose interest resulting in a circle of dieing population. Both sides have valid arguments. Lets hope SV figures out a good middle to satisfy both sides equally and making it enjoyable for everyone. Else the games population will probably end up the same as Mortal Onlines population.
Its all about the risk vs reward factor. I believe SV has learned a thing or two from MO... Hopefully.
 
@Dorier

Just remember.
UO was mostly PvE focussed as all hell and it had nearly unrestricted full loot PvP.
and quite a lot people still play it on private servers UOF usually sat around 1k constantly however I think it bled some players to UO Outlands (which I don't know how to check playercount)

The problem with PvE players not interested in PvP on Mortal is that the PvE is very basic and becomes boring relatively quickly.
If you can manage to make PvE and dungeons fun, without the difficulty creep it would be the healthiest for the game.
Even bringin in the 2x dungeon skill bonus that UO had.
It was attractive even to dedicated crafters, always trying to sneak their way into orc forge

The moment your start slapping on in game mechanics that allow people to ignore PvP or other players is the moment the game will die, MMOs are all about player interaction and while most people are still going to want to kill you, bored players are even more likely to kill you because it is fun.
 
@Luminia

For my part I don't think it is simply that casuals or less dedicated players want a less skill based game at all. That idea stems from the old themepark vs sandbox argument but most people that try MO did not quit because they wanted a themepark.

In MO, as in DF and maybe others, there is only one end game... territory control and that is achieved through PvP. If you are not PvPing, you are preparing for it. That in itself is not a problem if the game is built around quick access to competitive PvP action.

I need to be careful with terminology. Most players have a play-style that is a mix between PvP and non-PvP. When I use the term non-PvP I mean the 80% of the population that do not have an exclusive focus on being better at PvP on an individual level. As @WestArcher stated PvPers might even be the most dedicated to non-PvP activities such as PvE or crafting but it is only to improve their PvP capability. Most players want non-PvP activities that have a non-PvP payoff. This is extremely important in context of motivating players to keep playing. Without that payoff non-PvP activities are a farm-grind.

Games like MO/DF can't decide what they want to be. Either you provide players with quick access to competitive PvP with the winners controlling the most territory OR you also support non-PvP play-styles in which case the end game territory control cannot be exclusively about PvP. MO's "non-PvP activities" are a farm-grind because they have no end game purpose separate from PvP capability. It also means not only do PvP players not have quick access to competitive PvP but neither is it suitable end game content for the non-PvP (i.e. not exclusively focused on improving individual PvP capability) play-styles.

Over the years I have seen many comments that state "if we fix X feature" or "make Y feature more fun" then players will stay. Obviously it goes without saying a feature should be functional but what makes something "fun"? Generally it means there is a goal for the player. MO's non-PvP activities have no end goal, you are simply supplying PvP activities. That is why dedicated MO players do everything themselves. Non-PvP play-styles simply stop playing. It is at this point where you can't maintain a stable PvP-only population because that PvP requires a farm-grind both as prerequisite and punishment. Hence my cannibalism post.

I think the reason guys like @Keurk react so aggressively is because they want the end game to be decided by PvP only and have many little sub-systems that you use to prepare for PvP. This is perfectly fine but for that to work the sub-systems (currently an onerous farm-grind) cannot be as time consuming.

To summarise if you want something to be time consuming there has to be an end game payoff:

1556284862155.png
 
@Najwalaylah I agree, the polls of "reasons people quit" are not that useful. They will inevitably focus on the most obvious, closest-at-hand reason. They also assume that simply fixing a feature will give it longevity, which it won't. If the end game excludes that play-style it will not be sustainable.

I hope it goes without saying that giving non-PvP play-styles end game content in a territory control game is not an easy matter. It will require fundamental redesign. Unfortunately at this point very few people are even acknowledging it as a problem.
 
@Dorier
The moment your start slapping on in game mechanics that allow people to ignore PvP or other players is the moment the game will die, MMOs are all about player interaction and while most people are still going to want to kill you, bored players are even more likely to kill you because it is fun.
I don't mean to be a dick but from what I hear the game is dead. Or at least struggling with a very low population.

Players shouldn't be able to ignore PvP but neither should PvP overwhelm everything else. The issue as I see it is the split in the player base between PvP-only and everyone else. Non-PvP players (i.e. they are not solely dedicated to improving their individual PvP ability) should be viable partners for PvP players within the same community. That however can only be achieved with in-game mechanics making it viable.

Improving PvE is certainly part of the solution, but is it enough by itself? If the end game content revolves around territory control, how does PvE content play into that? I feel like you are looking at PvE from a traditional themepark perspective, with world firsts etc. That was end game content. In MO I don't believe PvE would or could work like that unless you want to start paying for expansions. Simply killing the same beasts over and over... to what purpose? Without a fundamental redesign PvE has little purpose outside of supplying PvP activities.

EDIT: I should probably also state that when I said PvP disabled I meant when you are at peace. What I have in mind is a total, from the ground up redesign that changes when for what reason PvP happens. PvP players moving as mercenaries to where the wars are already taking place rather than starting a random fight because they want to PvP. That out of context PvP is what imposes, not PvP itself. Contextual PvP and the drama-story-telling that comes with it is very much enjoyable for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Endgame for “nonpvp” people should be building and sustaining kingdoms with planning architecture , logitistics of city survivability , providing crafted goods , importing food on caravan lines (hunger and thirst should matter this time, not just for debuffs) ... basically the non PvPers should be like the wise old men on city councils that did everything to keep the towns and cities running without using physical force .

If only MO2 could have a robust city building feature that had advanced defense and siege mechanics to go with it ; on top of this mo 2 could have thirst and hunger which would play into a survival planning aspect in which these “non-PvPers” end game could be maintaining cities and making sure we the inhabitants paying taxes on dwellings and food and such don’t die of tainted water or no food imports / farms , or not to be stomped by an opposing cities demands via diplomacy.

All the strife of real feudal / medieval city life should be included in MO2 - if that can’t happene then non PvPers will never have an end game beyond gearing us up for battles and making mad stacks of gold .
 

Yeonan

Trial Member
Non-PvP players (i.e. they are not solely dedicated to improving their individual PvP ability) should be viable partners for PvP players within the same community. That however can only be achieved with in-game mechanics making it viable.
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Because it's wrong.

I hope it goes without saying that giving non-PvP play-styles end game content in a territory control game is not an easy matter. It will require fundamental redesign. Unfortunately at this point very few people are even acknowledging it as a problem.
Because your assertion is wrong.

PvE has little purpose outside of supplying PvP activities
PvE should be fun plain and simple. It's not, and that's a huge issue. It has fleeting moments but all in all it's a chore and that is what drives people away.

A noob spends an hour smacking rocks and gets killed? Leads to frustration because that hour was not spent doing something fun.

That same noob spends an hour killing crocs and gets killed? Lead to frustration because again, killing things in MO is not fun, it's simplistic and boring.

If gathering and PvE were fun and engaging by themselves the sting would be much less when you get killed. But as it stands you spend an hour not having fun and lose all the reward? That's what drives people away.

from what I hear the game is dead
The reasons for the game being dead are not from PvP. Last years breach and the recent MO2 announcement have been the overwhelming factors (toss in some unpopular design choices) but it's pretty straightforward those 2 things are got us to where we are.
 
The reasons for the game being dead are not from PvP. Last years breach and the recent MO2 announcement have been the overwhelming factors (toss in some unpopular design choices) but it's pretty straightforward those 2 things are got us to where we are.
This is exactly correct and makes me really doubt this company's ability to create a new game that will be successful. Hey SV hows the kitty game going is it paying the bills because MO can't be.
 
Top