Mortal Online 2 Discussion

@Yeonan

I did not say the game is dead from PvP. It is dead because for a PvP-only game loop the non-PvP activities are too much of a grind. Or you can redesign and add non-PvP end game content.

Making PvE more "fun" does not equal end game content. The end game in MO revolves around territory control. So any non-PvP activities needs end game content that plays into territory control. It must have purpose even in the absence of PvP.
 
.
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.]
Pretty much this.
If your game is going to include both elements of PvE and PvP both of those elements should fun.
Private UO servers still exist and some servers on their own tote far better population than MO does currently.

And the most popular servers (outlands/forever) are full loot unrestricted PvP.
The problem is not having pvpers roam around killing everyone and forcing "pve players" into pvp.
I run a stealth poisoner still along with a pure pve treasure hunting both pve/pvp of the game are very fun

The problem is certain systems of MO are plain ol not fun, all mobs are a loop of parry-hit or use MA. Higher end monsters are generally HP sponges with big damage, and honestly a lot of solutions can be found in the games inspiration of UO

Hell even on the endgame PvP side of the game TC is still a mess that is a good concept but in desperate need of tweaks.
Bring back forced wardecs too ;)

Fighting is hella fun in MO, though.
But certain hotspots are ded. Rip tephra crater
 
Last edited:
@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.
You are kind of wrong tho, end game territorial control is not about pvp anymore. It used to be, before the TC patch. Now wars are won via exploiting the TC system (like placing unreacheable TC towers) and having more gold than your enemy to rebuild. Most sieges are ninja ones, and if not they are mostly won via having more combat pets or guards, which is pretty much PVE.

If anything, the game right now is the most safe its ever been to non pvpers. They can do all their crafting, gathering, etc. behind walls, which if not sieged are 100% safe. You can wall up almost any resource and just farm without any threat of pvp at all. And hows the population now vs back before tc? So separating pvpers and non pvpers even more is just gonna be worse for the game, theres tons of other games that offer that kind of safety and are way more polished, MO will never be able to compete with them, the only thing they have going is the hardcore full loot & open pvp niche.
 
@chingaperros

The fact that PvP end game is broken due to current day exploits is irrelevant. MO had the same problem with low population years ago and so did DF. Obviously exploits are a serious problem but don't let it obscure the fundamental problem.

Once again... the issue is not about being safe from PvP. The issue is that non-PvP has no end game with regards to territory control. It is simply a sub-system for the PvP end game. If it did not involve a farm-grind that could be ok but it does hence... population cannibalism.

I am also saying the MO's current design separates dedicated and casual. However it is not due to walls or safe zones. It is due to PvP overwhelming all other goals and therefore dedicated PvPers separate themselves from casuals. Separation happened right at the beginning of MO. That needs to be solved. You probably didn't read my previous posts where I specifically said this. Forcing casuals to simply be constant targets for dedicated players is not "bringing players together". It is the original problem.
 
Last edited:
@chingaperros

The fact that PvP end game is broken due to current day exploits is irrelevant. MO had the same problem with low population years ago and so did DF. Obviously exploits are a serious problem but don't let it obscure the fundamental problem.

Once again... the issue is not about being safe from PvP. The issue is that non-PvP has no end game with regards to territory control. It is simply a sub-system for the PvP end game. If it did not involve a farm-grind that could be ok but it does hence... population cannibalism.

I am also saying the MO's current design separates dedicated and casual. However it is not due to walls or safe zones. It is due to PvP overwhelming all other goals and therefore dedicated PvPers separate themselves from casuals. Separation happened right at the beginning of MO. That needs to be solved. You probably didn't read my previous posts where I specifically said this. Forcing casuals to simply be constant targets for dedicated players is not "bringing players together". It is the original problem.
The endgame for territorial control is almost exclusively for non pvpers. Its all about building and logistic planning, theres very few pvp involved, sometimes there is none. I know because Ive been to tons of sieges, very rarely do you get a fight out of it. And thats a major flaw in the current MO design, they choose to promote this huge once a month siege fights instead of small skirmishes over resource hotspots by letting the players wall anything down, hence why most of the pvpers have left the game.

For the last part, this separation happens in every competitive game, you cant give everyone a participation trophy. Some players are gonna be better than others, theres no way your gonna fix that. Its true than in a full loot mmorpg this has a bigger effect, but its part of the charm. Making pvp consensual would destroy the only reason MO hasnt shutdown yet, theres tons of games that do that better.
 
@chingaperros

Err... siege logistics is part of PvP. Or at least a sub-system of PvP. I think your statement illustrates the fundamental wood-for-the-trees problem.

Non-PvP is stuff like PvE, crafting, trading, community management or other RPG related activities etc. And they need end game content that can take place without PvP, otherwise they are simply a sub-system. That is if you want a mixed playstyle end game. If not, remove the farm-grind and make access to competitive PvP quick.
 

Yeonan

Trial Member
@chingaperros

Err... siege logistics is part of PvP. Or at least a sub-system of PvP. I think your statement illustrates the fundamental wood-for-the-trees problem.

Non-PvP is stuff like PvE, crafting, trading, community management or other RPG related activities etc. And they need end game content that can take place without PvP, otherwise they are simply a sub-system. That is if you want a mixed playstyle end game. If not, remove the farm-grind and make access to competitive PvP quick.
Fyi you dont need to pvp to get into "endgame" territory control
 
CLEAN WIPE

Most important thing will be to wipe it.. people shouldn't have riches transferred, account bind stuff yes but not what is grinded. Why? Read below.

POPULATION

When MO2 releases it will bring alot of new players, aswell as veterans BUT vets from early mo/mo overall shouldn't come in fully kitted out and start clapping everyone, it will be too easy for us and too hard for new people which will eventually lead to that only the core population of MO plays MO2.

GRINDING

Another aspect is the grinding, yes, there should be grinding! But playing mortal online was more than grinding, it was almost like a second job to keep up with everything which is too much and scares people away.

THE SKILL SYSTEM

If it limits to only one character their should be different "tabs"

1 Combat tab
2 Crafting tab
3 Character tab
Also where my thoughts went is; if I can only have one char, what if I'm a fighter and I want to be a mage? This needs to be carefully planned.

BETTER NPCs and AI

Mortal online's PvE was not great at all, this needs to be changed. Running around the world of MO2 should have dangers, not just PvP dangers. Also a working AI.

COMBAT

Keep the core mortal online combat but FIX IT, good movement, balanced, different VIABLE game play types. Meaning get rid of the "you can only be viable if you use this"

Also another thing.. since I even take my time writing and getting my hopes up.

The building/guild base building.

Yes there should be walls, houses, etc.
But compensate this with harder grinding and working/fun siege mechanics.

This is my thoughts, you don't have to like them. I also reserve for spelling issues, written from my phone.

EDIT; I forgot to add that I am really hyped for mo2 and the time of mo was awesome
There is no such thing as MO2, you have thought out more on a MO2 than SV has
 
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.
They are discussing something that does not exist, nor probably will exist unless its just a name that SV slaps on a engine upgrade from UE3.5 to UE4 in maybe 2 - 3 years.

And most of those doing the discussing don't play the game nor have for a very long time
 
@Ozymandias

The low population problems of MO and DF go back years and they both share a farm-grind as feature which has not changed since. As a result experience of these games from years ago is very much still relevant. LiF has run into the exact same problem.

An end game is either PvP-only or a mix of PvP and non-PvP. Either can be successful.

If you want a PvP-only end game, which MO currently is, then you need to remove the farm-grind and make competitive PvP quickly accessible. No matter whether you have 100 or 10,000 players, in a PvP game you have a bottom x% of net losers in PvP. Please note in a PvP-only game there are only PvP players because there is no payoff for non-PvP play-styles. Those PvP players are now stuck doing the less fun non-PvP activities as punishment. This inevitably cannibalizes the population.

What I find strange is how many MO players both old and current labour under the false impression that the game is a mix of play-styles. It is not. You have to dig a bit deeper however to understand why. It is easy to simply look at the mechanics and go "there are plenty of non-PvP activities" and think this qualifies as a game of mixed play-styles but that is wrong. If the only reason to perform a non-PvP activity is to improve PvP capability then it does not have a standalone end game. For some reason people take this as a criticism. It is not. It is simply a statement of fact but that design choice can only be successful without a farm-grind. The proof is that the vast majority of non-PvP players have long since quit MO, DF, LiF etc.

Stop lying to yourselves. MO is currently a PvP-only game. That means you cannot sustain population without quick access to PvP. Non-PvP activities can exist but they should exist for flavour and complexity but not as a time sink.
 

Rhias

Junior Member
There are quite a few non PVP activities that are fun and are not "a sub system of PVP".
Maybe @Xunila could tell you when his last PVP fight was...
 

Xunila

Cronite Supporter
There are quite a few non PVP activities that are fun and are not "a sub system of PVP".
Maybe @Xunila could tell you when his last PVP fight was...
Funny, my last fight has been some weeks ago when a red player attacked and killed me next to Beth Jedda. I'm not completely sure but that could have been my only fight in this year so far. I'm a dedicated non-PvP players since beta times.
 
@Yeonan

What is the payoff from non-PvP activities outside of PvP dominance? The strongest PvP groups determine who holds territory. You also need to understand this is not a criticism.

Let me try to be more specific. There are two guilds. Guild A has 30 players of which 20 are good PvPers and 10 that simply harvest and mince about in combat getting in the way. Guild B has 30 good PvPers. Guild A cannot produce anything that Guild B cannot. The only thing that matters are the number of good PvPers, 20 v 30. If equally skilled, victory will go to the 30.

There we have our first of four major problems as I defined in my post about PvP cannibalism. I should have numbered them differently in hindsight.

Problem 1: Social segregation
Victory is determined by the number and quality of your PvPers because they have no production deficit. This causes play-style segregation between dedicated PvPers and everyone else. It is the most effective strategy; higher combat effectiveness with less cat-herding overhead.

This could be overcome if Guild A could attract many more non-PvPers to give them a production advantage. Unfortunately, those players will not be active long term because they experience no end game pay-off. This is the hardest to understand I know. Why do the non-PvPers experience no pay-off? Perhaps their Guild won the battle? What is wrong with them? That is a good question and leads us to problems 2 and 3.

Problem 2: Play-style imposition
PvP in MO is designed to be pervasive throughout the map. This would be fine in a PvP-only game but in a game where we pretend there are a mix of play-styles this is a problem. As @WestArcher stated the less dedicated should band together to fight the PvP-only groups! Good idea except that this is a never ending struggle. There is no way to enforce peace outside of outlasting your opponents' will to fight. Can you see the problem here? Guild B's only purpose is to PvP regardless of context. They are playing the exact game they want. Guild A not so much. They might like PvP some of the time but they want something else as well.

Ok, so what do these damn people want?

Problem 3: Immersive Competition
The term "immersion" might be misleading but somehow the non-PvP players needs a victory condition outside of PvP. This is the hardest problem and I don't pretend I know exactly how this would be resolved although I have made some armchair suggestions in the post linked above. Many players love the PvP drama and storytelling that comes with it but when they do have to fight (and sometimes lose) it needs to be in context of their game, not simply because a PvP-only guild wants to. There also needs to be an end. Their non-PvP actions should make it possible to avoid war at least some of the time. Their play-style needs to have a competitive element separate from PvP.

Given these problems the non-PvPers quit over time and that leaves us with...

Problem 4: Farm-grind
... a game world populated by a majority of PvP-dedicated players. With quick access to competitive PvP this is not a problem. But that is not MO. No, in MO you need to farm-grind both as prerequisite for PvP and then as punishment if you lose. Not only that but most of the non-PvPers have left so the PvPers have to do everything! This results in the losers getting tired of the farm-grind and the population cannibalizing itself.

Solution for a PvP game
Remove the farm-grind and allow quick access to competitive PvP so that the population does not cannibalize itself.

Solution for a Sandbox game
Non-PvP end game content should be (1) competitive; to turn the farm-grind into a sustainable play-style and (2) politically influential; to channel PvPers to fight other PvPers as their primary game loop. This does not mean consensual PvP but I do think it means that non-PvP should drive the occurrence of PvP rather than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
@Xunila

Tell me more as I am genuinely interested what it is you do. People have varying thresholds of pay-off they require. Yours could just be low. Once again that is not a criticism. Or maybe your enjoyment of the base activity is higher than most. Thousands of other players have simply quit so you are not representative.

Is there a competitive element to what you do?
 
Last edited:
@Rhias

This is where definition is important. Unless the non-PvP activity can exert some influence or control over when PvP happens, at least some of the time, I don't see how it has pay-off. The vast majority of the time it functions only as preparation for PvP, hence it is a sub-system. Look at this thread where the OP has to go hat-in-hand to the PvP community to "allow" him to do something non-PvP. There is simply no way to exert power outside of PvP.

The easiest way to illustrate the concept of end game content is with PvE. Themepark PvE is end game content because people compete for world firsts. I think the competition element is important here. MO is a sandbox, without regular expansions. Why do themeparks have regular expansions? Because the PvE content needs to be refreshed with new encounters, storylines, rewards etc. If huge developers can't make PvE encounters "fun" for the long term without replacing them how can SV?

Are there examples of non-PvP being competitive? Genuine question. I think I am onto something here with regards to competition being critical to end game content.
 
Last edited:
@chingaperros

I am definitely not proposing that PvP should be consensual. It can't be. However, PvP should either be easily accessible without a farm-grind OR the game needs to support non-PvP end game content that is competitive outside of PvP.

EDIT: I agree entirely small skirmishes would help instead of once a month sieges (if that is what is happening) but with that change alone you are simply picking at the edges of the problem.

The reason that SV introduced walls etc is simply a flawed solution to Problem 1: Social Segregation and Problem 2: Play-style Imposition. It is because they do not understand the fundamental dynamics at play here.
 
Last edited:
@Ozymandias

The low population problems of MO and DF go back years and they both share a farm-grind as feature which has not changed since. As a result experience of these games from years ago is very much still relevant. LiF has run into the exact same problem.

An end game is either PvP-only or a mix of PvP and non-PvP. Either can be successful.

If you want a PvP-only end game, which MO currently is, then you need to remove the farm-grind and make competitive PvP quickly accessible. No matter whether you have 100 or 10,000 players, in a PvP game you have a bottom x% of net losers in PvP. Please note in a PvP-only game there are only PvP players because there is no payoff for non-PvP play-styles. Those PvP players are now stuck doing the less fun non-PvP activities as punishment. This inevitably cannibalizes the population.

What I find strange is how many MO players both old and current labour under the false impression that the game is a mix of play-styles. It is not. You have to dig a bit deeper however to understand why. It is easy to simply look at the mechanics and go "there are plenty of non-PvP activities" and think this qualifies as a game of mixed play-styles but that is wrong. If the only reason to perform a non-PvP activity is to improve PvP capability then it does not have a standalone end game. For some reason people take this as a criticism. It is not. It is simply a statement of fact but that design choice can only be successful without a farm-grind. The proof is that the vast majority of non-PvP players have long since quit MO, DF, LiF etc.

Stop lying to yourselves. MO is currently a PvP-only game. That means you cannot sustain population without quick access to PvP. Non-PvP activities can exist but they should exist for flavour and complexity but not as a time sink.
The "grind" in MO is nothing compared to what DarkFall was, no where fucking near, and MO "grind" is nothing, you can have a maxed character in a few days, that not a fucking grind son

Well maybe it is to your spoiled generation
 
@Ozymandias

Your generation is obviously not very good at reading comprehension. At no point did I equate grind to character development. Although I agree it can be.

Wood-for-the-trees as always. It is why MO is dead. Keep circling the drain son.
 
having more combat pets or guards, which is pretty much PVE
Bite your tongue, or hammer your fingers. Combat pets and guards don't count as PVE content, either. They're Artificial PvP Substance, kind of like this

is cheese-- except that pasteurised prepared cheese product actually has to be 51% cheese. It's not a perfect metaphor.
Your generation is obviously not very good at reading comprehension.
The poor old guy can't even
weird looking clock thingys
read emojis(, even with a mouseover to help him)-- and he gets them from everywhere:
who-says-ozymandias-posts-the-same-old-tired-posts.JPG

Let's not be too harsh.
 
Last edited:
Top