Sarducaa Assessment / Moving Forward:

[Emdash]

I should post this somewhere else so that people might read it.

Now that I feel we have settled into the new update, I can say we figured out some more things. We figured out what the game plays like with a large amount of population (with no server issues!) It goes to show that with population, this game CAN BE GREAT. However, time passed and it seems like all of those players simply bought the game on sale and tried it for about 2 weeks. This means, to me, that there are problems. And now that the game is on a similar track to what Myrland was, I will try to explain my point of view on said problems.

First off, the grind is trash. THE GRIND IS TRASH. I could make a topic with the title THE GRIND IS TRASH and the body as THE GRIND IS TRASH and it would provide more meaningful feedback than half of the shit people are saying. It is unacceptable. There should be no grind to be viable, and there should be no grind to go from viable to actually high level. There should not be stacking soul bound percentage boosts. It should not require so long to spec your character to do basic shit. The game works best when people are pushed into the real world as fast as they can be. This is SANDBOX THEORY. The whole "there are no quests, no levels" thing doesn't work when you know you are at a % disadvantage vs people who are already probably better than you. How will you learn other than just A. finding some open spot and no lifing grind or B. joining a zerg.

Secondly, there is still a huge lack of personal customization. I can tie this back to percentages as well. "I have a ruber. I have a damage bonus..." That should not be the way you progress in this game. It would be nice to be able to lean into certain playstyles and take gifts that are like clade gifts, but with many, many more. Instead of having 5% blunt, 3% pierce kinda garbage, it would be cooler to have a skill you can that that is like SWORD MASTER that would increase your ability with a sword. Extrapolate that to basically every aspect of the game until people can make their character play like they want, more or less, regardless of race / trinkets. I still think there need to be personal profiles / custom titles or something else to allow people to express themselves more as well. There need to be, at least for some people, a level of exploration upon meeting people opposed to just fighting or running.

Third, the game needs factions. Factions actually solve some big problems. I do not agree with a game where you can't pvp your own faction, but there should be incentives to not, the whole of TC should be more about FACTIONS than guilds. FACTIONS should get the outpost boosts and fight over outposts. This fixes the zerg issue, also, believe it or not. I am not a huge fan of free placement TC, but I don't think it's going away. The only issues, post adding factions, are 'what do we do with TC, then?' and 'how many factions?' I think it would make sense to have three factions. There would be two main factions that fight each other and then a chaos faction that would kind of intermix. Could make it so chaos faction couldn't get outpost boosts / take outposts, but they could build camps n shit. Dunno, exactly, but there needs to be an imaginative way to make this work. MO needs a total rework in how it develops because it is on a track to failure. This is not a genre limitation; this is bad design!

Then w/ factions, you can add in trade, you can add in more ways to gain prom as a character, so merchants can get prom, cities can develop, e t c. In MO you have SAMEY WORLD that you can shit all over with TC. Put more TC by your fav POI. Wouldn't it be better to have a world that actually develops and is constantly changing with constant large scale (for those who want it) pvp of faction warfare. Dudes could actually put set timers on outposts and have fights for them on schedule. There are a bunch of options, and yeah, they have downsides, but they are still BETTER. Anything is better than stagnancy and if the pop does not want hardcore siege warfare, at least this creates a similar changing world.

I don't think anyone is going to listen to me. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why MO2 is still so bare in ways that it doesn't need to be bare. The engine is good, first person is good, and we have a decent amount of vibrant players who want to influence the world, beyond that, need to really rethink how everything is working from the ground up.

CUZ IT'S A MEME GAME. END THE MORTAL MEME GAME ERA.

 

[Iloros]

I should post this somewhere else so that people might read it.

Now that I feel we have settled into the new update, I can say we figured out some more things. We figured out what the game plays like with a large amount of population (with no server issues!) It goes to show that with population, this game CAN BE GREAT. However, time passed and it seems like all of those players simply bought the game on sale and tried it for about 2 weeks. This means, to me, that there are problems. And now that the game is on a similar track to what Myrland was, I will try to explain my point of view on said problems.

First off, the grind is trash. THE GRIND IS TRASH. I could make a topic with the title THE GRIND IS TRASH and the body as THE GRIND IS TRASH and it would provide more meaningful feedback than half of the shit people are saying. It is unacceptable. There should be no grind to be viable, and there should be no grind to go from viable to actually high level. There should not be stacking soul bound percentage boosts. It should not require so long to spec your character to do basic shit. The game works best when people are pushed into the real world as fast as they can be. This is SANDBOX THEORY. The whole "there are no quests, no levels" thing doesn't work when you know you are at a % disadvantage vs people who are already probably better than you. How will you learn other than just A. finding some open spot and no lifing grind or B. joining a zerg.

Secondly, there is still a huge lack of personal customization. I can tie this back to percentages as well. "I have a ruber. I have a damage bonus..." That should not be the way you progress in this game. It would be nice to be able to lean into certain playstyles and take gifts that are like clade gifts, but with many, many more. Instead of having 5% blunt, 3% pierce kinda garbage, it would be cooler to have a skill you can that that is like SWORD MASTER that would increase your ability with a sword. Extrapolate that to basically every aspect of the game until people can make their character play like they want, more or less, regardless of race / trinkets. I still think there need to be personal profiles / custom titles or something else to allow people to express themselves more as well. There need to be, at least for some people, a level of exploration upon meeting people opposed to just fighting or running.

Third, the game needs factions. Factions actually solve some big problems. I do not agree with a game where you can't pvp your own faction, but there should be incentives to not, the whole of TC should be more about FACTIONS than guilds. FACTIONS should get the outpost boosts and fight over outposts. This fixes the zerg issue, also, believe it or not. I am not a huge fan of free placement TC, but I don't think it's going away. The only issues, post adding factions, are 'what do we do with TC, then?' and 'how many factions?' I think it would make sense to have three factions. There would be two main factions that fight each other and then a chaos faction that would kind of intermix. Could make it so chaos faction couldn't get outpost boosts / take outposts, but they could build camps n shit. Dunno, exactly, but there needs to be an imaginative way to make this work. MO needs a total rework in how it develops because it is on a track to failure. This is not a genre limitation; this is bad design!

Then w/ factions, you can add in trade, you can add in more ways to gain prom as a character, so merchants can get prom, cities can develop, e t c. In MO you have SAMEY WORLD that you can shit all over with TC. Put more TC by your fav POI. Wouldn't it be better to have a world that actually develops and is constantly changing with constant large scale (for those who want it) pvp of faction warfare. Dudes could actually put set timers on outposts and have fights for them on schedule. There are a bunch of options, and yeah, they have downsides, but they are still BETTER. Anything is better than stagnancy and if the pop does not want hardcore siege warfare, at least this creates a similar changing world.

I don't think anyone is going to listen to me. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why MO2 is still so bare in ways that it doesn't need to be bare. The engine is good, first person is good, and we have a decent amount of vibrant players who want to influence the world, beyond that, need to really rethink how everything is working from the ground up.

CUZ IT'S A MEME GAME. END THE MORTAL MEME GAME ERA.

Didn't mention absurd balance issues of Alvarins and MAs that are by themselves bottlenecking the game to only about 30% of potetenial players (interested in those playstyles/no variety with normalized appeal)

Didn't mention zerg issue either.

Not worth reading. You just cant ignore that Campadon in a room and expect support.

And to help you understand why the game is doing poorly as simple and short as possible.

It's a pvp game with mandatory pvp in which 99% of the fights are pre determined and have no outcome variety due to unfairness of builds, skill level, and numbers.

The game will NEVER have retention if every single fight is pre determined, everyone with playstyles that are weaker including class preference or group size will leave and then almost everyone that was winning will also leave due to snowball effect of there being no player in a massive mmorpg.

To fix it, balance the game, add antizerg, and separate content by early mid and endgame and make it all soloable.

3k pop incoming.

Albion has millions with way worse graphics and combat (potential) This game had may 2000 with no subs when it had way lower sys req (Ue4) because it always had this issue.

if you removed antizerg mechanics, solo content and made class balance horrible in Albion IT WOULD ALSO DIE LOL.

 

[Teknique]

Didn't mention absurd balance issues of Alvarins and MAs that are by themselves bottlenecking the game to only about 30% of potetenial players (interested in those playstyles/no variety with normalized appeal)

Didn't mention zerg issue either.

Not worth reading. You just cant ignore that Campadon in a room and expect support.

And to help you understand why the game is doing poorly as simple and short as possible.

It's a pvp game with mandatory pvp in which 99% of the fights are pre determined and have no outcome variety due to unfairness of builds, skill level, and numbers.

The game will NEVER have retention if every single fight is pre determined, everyone with playstyles that are weaker including class preference or group size will leave and then almost everyone that was winning will also leave due to snowball effect of there being no player in a massive mmorpg.

To fix it, balance the game, add antizerg, and separate content by early mid and endgame and make it all soloable.

3k pop incoming.

Albion has millions with way worse graphics and combat (potential) This game had may 2000 with no subs when it had way lower sys req (Ue4) because it always had this issue.

if you removed antizerg mechanics, solo content and made class balance horrible in Albion IT WOULD ALSO DIE LOL.

Are gigantic thursars that wield 2h axes and mauls like flake and hit nakeds for 150-200 bottlenecking people to heavy armor classes yes or no.

 

[Iloros]

Are gigantic thursars that wield 2h axes and mauls like flake and hit nakeds for 150-200 bottlenecking people to heavy armor classes yes or no.

Incoherent rambling. You are so out of character on this topic.

 

[Emdash]

if you removed antizerg mechanics, solo content and made class balance horrible in Albion IT WOULD ALSO DIE LOL.

If you shit in a bag and ate it, YOU would die LOL

There are actually suggestions to fix zergs. Factions into consistent outpost war, requiring large numbers to be focused on that would help zerging a lot. There is no such thing as anti zerg in a game like this. All the anti zerg shit they did, which sounds good in theory, flopped. They need to change the actual game and make it so that large groups of people are doing different things than zerging or farming. Farming is the actual death of this game. Why is there so much farming? Farming is something you do when you are bored as you drink coffee. It's not a play style. The game is balanced around what you can farm and loot.

This is supposed to be a living world with serious long term pvp. Otherwise, what's the point of even playing? What can this game offer that other games cannot? I suggest you re-read my OP.

 

[Iloros]

If you shit in a bag and ate it, YOU would die LOL

There are actually suggestions to fix zergs. Factions into consistent outpost war, requiring large numbers to be focused on that would help zerging a lot. There is no such thing as anti zerg in a game like this. All the anti zerg shit they did, which sounds good in theory, flopped. They need to change the actual game and make it so that large groups of people are doing different things than zerging or farming. Farming is the actual death of this game. Why is there so much farming? Farming is something you do when you are bored as you drink coffee. It's not a play style. The game is balanced around what you can farm and loot.

This is supposed to be a living world with serious long term pvp. Otherwise, what's the point of even playing? What can this game offer that other games cannot? I suggest you re-read my OP.

????

It flopped in mo2 because it wasnt evem antizerg

Albion has antizerg and it works great

If they just added counter reduce like mechanic to archery and magic, a stat bonus based on conssitent attackers on you AND added solo and instanced dungeons and POIs the game would have great antizerg.

Your OP doesnt touch on the biggest issue at all its just usual suggestion slop.

"Oh just make everything better without focus even tho you are on borrowed time"

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

My biggest problems with MO2 as it stands right now, is that everything feels so grindy, and the clades are so unbalanced it's not even funny.

Want a guild tabard? Grind 500 gold and what, 50k prominence? Really SV? For a piece of cloth to represent one's own guild?

Don't even get me started on the Mastery and Orb progression systems. I take one look and I already know I won't ever max them in my rl schedule. Meanwhile, those with the time and means will have them maxed out, plus the best trinkets on top.

Then you have the Alvarins who can outrun, out-dps and out-manoeuvre the non-Alvarins on average. But the worst of all? They can see through walls and any obstacle, and set up the fight in their favour without you ever knowing they were there.

In before anyone tells me, "Well, why don't you just roll an Alvarin as well?"

These are trash mechanics, and I don't know how to say it any other way.

/end rant

 

[Dargelar]

My experience with Mortal Online 2 in the beta version started with playing in a large clan of 40+ people — maybe that left its mark and charmed me.

I get the appeal of small‑scale group play with 5–6 people, but I just don’t understand solo gaming in MO2 at all — like, not even a little bit. In my view, it’s just… pointless. The whole charm and beauty of the MO2 world lie in large‑scale battles with 20–40+ players. Anything smaller is just meh, simply because other games handle that aspect way better. Why would I want some awkward sword fight between two players spinning around like tops and standing with their backs to each other, or brawls in dark dungeons with people using extreme filter settings?

What really killed MO2 wasn’t so much the lack of duel balance as the lack of guild‑focused content:

• The damage values for magic and physical attacks are way off. When the game was designed, they didn’t consider gameplay styles like focusing damage on a single target with multiple players assisting.
• There’s a huge penalty for death and defeat. The issue isn’t just losing loot (though that mattered too) — it’s the loss of time. Every dungeon run required a massive time investment, multiplied by the number of people involved (who all log in at different times), and all of that for a single attempt. Getting a chance to redeem yourself or try again was almost impossible because of the huge distances across the map, and losing was way too easy, especially if you got ambushed. While people still had that sense of novelty, it worked. But once they started weighing the actual return on investment from all those attempts, they realized it was completely nonsensical and just a waste of time.
• Lack of guild‑oriented content.
• Lack of social coordination tools. Sure, the chaos is part of the challenge, but they should’ve added at least some basic management tools.

The developers put in a lot of work, but the game still hasn’t left the beta stage.

 

[Iloros]

My biggest problems with MO2 as it stands right now, is that everything feels so grindy, and the clades are so unbalanced it's not even funny.

Want a guild tabard? Grind 500 gold and what, 50k prominence? Really SV? For a piece of cloth to represent one's own guild?

Don't even get me started on the Mastery and Orb progression systems. I take one look and I already know I won't ever max them in my rl schedule. Meanwhile, those with the time and means will have them maxed out, plus the best trinkets on top.

Then you have the Alvarins who can outrun, out-dps and out-manoeuvre the non-Alvarins on average. But the worst of all? They can see through walls and any obstacle, and set up the fight in their favour without you ever knowing they were there.

In before anyone tells me, "Well, why don't you just roll an Alvarin as well?"

These are trash mechanics, and I don't know how to say it any other way.

/end rant

Guild tabars is 2k LOL and you are right progression hits a massive stalemate after a bit and you cant change your build often at all mastwries cost 5k gold to reset realistically.

And yes Alvarins are so fame breaking I wont let anyone pretend literal balance of the game is not a big deal in retention


If meta in your pvp game is miserable

Your pvp game is bad.

This game will NEVER make it if they dont balance combat. No game will.

 

[Iloros]

My experience with Mortal Online 2 in the beta version started with playing in a large clan of 40+ people — maybe that left its mark and charmed me.

I get the appeal of small‑scale group play with 5–6 people, but I just don’t understand solo gaming in MO2 at all — like, not even a little bit. In my view, it’s just… pointless. The whole charm and beauty of the MO2 world lie in large‑scale battles with 20–40+ players. Anything smaller is just meh, simply because other games handle that aspect way better. Why would I want some awkward sword fight between two players spinning around like tops and standing with their backs to each other, or brawls in dark dungeons with people using extreme filter settings?

What really killed MO2 wasn’t so much the lack of duel balance as the lack of guild‑focused content:

• The damage values for magic and physical attacks are way off. When the game was designed, they didn’t consider gameplay styles like focusing damage on a single target with multiple players assisting.
• There’s a huge penalty for death and defeat. The issue isn’t just losing loot (though that mattered too) — it’s the loss of time. Every dungeon run required a massive time investment, multiplied by the number of people involved (who all log in at different times), and all of that for a single attempt. Getting a chance to redeem yourself or try again was almost impossible because of the huge distances across the map, and losing was way too easy, especially if you got ambushed. While people still had that sense of novelty, it worked. But once they started weighing the actual return on investment from all those attempts, they realized it was completely nonsensical and just a waste of time.
• Lack of guild‑oriented content.
• Lack of social coordination tools. Sure, the chaos is part of the challenge, but they should’ve added at least some basic management tools.

The developers put in a lot of work, but the game still hasn’t left the beta stage.

Truth quite simply is

Vast majority of potential players and gamers in general are more interested in solo small scale than large scale.

99.99% of fights in all games are sub 10 participants for a reason. You cant jusr di somethinf that doesnt intrest people and just hop it intrests them


Game is dying because of horrible balance which includes no class balance and zegrs being way too strong due to no antizerg other than counter reduce.

 

[Dargelar]

Truth quite simply is

Vast majority of potential players and gamers in general are more interested in solo small scale than large scale.

99.99% of fights in all games are sub 10 participants for a reason. You cant jusr di somethinf that doesnt intrest people and just hop it intrests them


Game is dying because of horrible balance which includes no class balance and zegrs being way too strong due to no antizerg other than counter reduce.

As an old player, I’ve noticed that the general trend in game requirements has changed. If earlier a guild of 100–200 people was the pinnacle of development, now it’s quite hard to even keep 40 people together. Players’ demands have shifted toward solo and squad modes — that’s true. In a game without a strong PvE component, solo players have nothing to do in MMOs; it’s wrong to redesign all MMOs to cater to them.

It’s like building a PK-city and holding a key regional point for 1–2 visitors every three hours (the dumbest idea ever). Battles with groups of fewer than 10 people are explained by the closed and toxic nature of the gaming community and the inability of a huge number of people to communicate.

Zergs or large guilds are “bad” only in the context of fighting a weak opponent; in terms of internal economy and communication, it’s a huge amount of work done by the players themselves and their leadership. You can’t punish people just because they know how to organize themselves while others don’t. Clashes between large guilds, by the way, very clearly show the fragility of such relationships. I like large guilds in games like MO2, where the relative value of items is low, which allows internal guild production to form.
That means you don’t have to spend hours gathering tons of resources; in such communities, there are always people who are more interested in that, while you can “sell” your time to complete guild tasks in an area that interests you. If the officers aren’t idiots or overzealous maximizers squeezing every drop out of people, I enjoy just coming in, asking who needs +1 fighter in their squad, going out to get knocked around a couple of times, and then heading off to rest. If the gear on me isn’t my concern, why can’t I help other people?

Yes, this isn’t specifically about MO2, but the balance of large numbers smooths out the 1‑on‑1 balance issue. But for MO2, the undoubtedly best solution is to reach a comfortable point for the people who play it.

 

[Emdash]

Truth quite simply is

Vast majority of potential players and gamers in general are more interested in solo small scale than large scale.

It's nice when you are not talking shit and trolling.

This is what I have been trying to get at in regards to solo and small-scale as well as 'the idea of Sandbox.'

The larger control of territory is going to be 'zergy,' and that's why something like factions where it's not 50 people in 1 guild but like 300 people under 1 flag vs 300 people under a diff flag makes sense. I think it's OK to let those people influence the game on the highest level because they have the most investment.

The idea of sandbox, and what I liked about it, was that I could do whatever I wanted. Instead of being gated by having to be a certain level to hit mobs or being forced to farm x amount of mobs to progress, I could just log in and go walk somewhere and see what happened. It sounds boring, and once you have played awhile, it is boring, but that is essential. What allows that to happen is that people are doing shit in the world. Those people who are zerging each other are 'creating the game,' and yeah you are limited in some way, but it's a dynamic limitation that is fun to play within.

I think there are a lot of players and small groups that are interested in that sort of game play, and I do think that is the core audience of potential new players. The problem with MO is that they added in a bunch of solo stuff like boosting the fuck out of your character, but it wasn't content that couldn't much more easily juice zergs haha. If you look at how the game is designed, and not just how it plays, you will see that the game is designed not just for zerging but it's actually designed to boost zergs, which is kinda dumb. The only boosts zergs should be getting over a good small group are like siege weps and shit that help them TC.

Summary of that: If the game is about loot and farming mobs, zergs will always be better at that.

The grind is truly awful and that has to be what makes people quit. The grind to spec is brutal given the time lost when you die, like dude said. I can stomach the latter, but the former... nah, and most people are not invested in all at MO, so they just say nah.

Again, here are my core issues:

1. Too much grind.
2. Personal customization. Allow people to make their characters unique. Not more powerful. Don't let people's game sense of self worth be determined by what % boosts they have. Let people establish a role for themselves, in the world, and represent that in various ways. Stuff like a tabard is pretty jokey given where we are in the "MMO arc."
3. Factions fix the zerg issue better than anything else. The only downside is deciding what then is left for guild-based TC. It will be slightly tricky to keep that balance.

Imagine: EASY SPEC. BIG CUSTOMIZATION FOR SINGLE PLAYERS, GOOD CUSTOMIZATION FOR GUILDS, LARGESCALE PVP IS CONSTANT OUTPOST FACTION WARFARE. That's a good start.

Read the last line again and again. That is the core of my post.

 

[Teknique]

As an old player, I’ve noticed that the general trend in game requirements has changed. If earlier a guild of 100–200 people was the pinnacle of development, now it’s quite hard to even keep 40 people together. Players’ demands have shifted toward solo and squad modes — that’s true. In a game without a strong PvE component, solo players have nothing to do in MMOs; it’s wrong to redesign all MMOs to cater to them.

It’s like building a PK-city and holding a key regional point for 1–2 visitors every three hours (the dumbest idea ever). Battles with groups of fewer than 10 people are explained by the closed and toxic nature of the gaming community and the inability of a huge number of people to communicate.

Zergs or large guilds are “bad” only in the context of fighting a weak opponent; in terms of internal economy and communication, it’s a huge amount of work done by the players themselves and their leadership. You can’t punish people just because they know how to organize themselves while others don’t. Clashes between large guilds, by the way, very clearly show the fragility of such relationships. I like large guilds in games like MO2, where the relative value of items is low, which allows internal guild production to form.
That means you don’t have to spend hours gathering tons of resources; in such communities, there are always people who are more interested in that, while you can “sell” your time to complete guild tasks in an area that interests you. If the officers aren’t idiots or overzealous maximizers squeezing every drop out of people, I enjoy just coming in, asking who needs +1 fighter in their squad, going out to get knocked around a couple of times, and then heading off to rest. If the gear on me isn’t my concern, why can’t I help other people?

Yes, this isn’t specifically about MO2, but the balance of large numbers smooths out the 1‑on‑1 balance issue. But for MO2, the undoubtedly best solution is to reach a comfortable point for the people who play it.

I would agree with this if the sieging system wasn’t so bad in this game.

Guilds were as fragile as a gear set once upon a time and that was the balancing factor.

 

[Iloros]

It's nice when you are not talking shit and trolling.

This is what I have been trying to get at in regards to solo and small-scale as well as 'the idea of Sandbox.'

The larger control of territory is going to be 'zergy,' and that's why something like factions where it's not 50 people in 1 guild but like 300 people under 1 flag vs 300 people under a diff flag makes sense. I think it's OK to let those people influence the game on the highest level because they have the most investment.

The idea of sandbox, and what I liked about it, was that I could do whatever I wanted. Instead of being gated by having to be a certain level to hit mobs or being forced to farm x amount of mobs to progress, I could just log in and go walk somewhere and see what happened. It sounds boring, and once you have played awhile, it is boring, but that is essential. What allows that to happen is that people are doing shit in the world. Those people who are zerging each other are 'creating the game,' and yeah you are limited in some way, but it's a dynamic limitation that is fun to play within.

I think there are a lot of players and small groups that are interested in that sort of game play, and I do think that is the core audience of potential new players. The problem with MO is that they added in a bunch of solo stuff like boosting the fuck out of your character, but it wasn't content that couldn't much more easily juice zergs haha. If you look at how the game is designed, and not just how it plays, you will see that the game is designed not just for zerging but it's actually designed to boost zergs, which is kinda dumb. The only boosts zergs should be getting over a good small group are like siege weps and shit that help them TC.

Summary of that: If the game is about loot and farming mobs, zergs will always be better at that.

The grind is truly awful and that has to be what makes people quit. The grind to spec is brutal given the time lost when you die, like dude said. I can stomach the latter, but the former... nah, and most people are not invested in all at MO, so they just say nah.

Again, here are my core issues:

1. Too much grind.
2. Personal customization. Allow people to make their characters unique. Not more powerful. Don't let people's game sense of self worth be determined by what % boosts they have. Let people establish a role for themselves, in the world, and represent that in various ways. Stuff like a tabard is pretty jokey given where we are in the "MMO arc."
3. Factions fix the zerg issue better than anything else. The only downside is deciding what then is left for guild-based TC. It will be slightly tricky to keep that balance.

Imagine: EASY SPEC. BIG CUSTOMIZATION FOR SINGLE PLAYERS, GOOD CUSTOMIZATION FOR GUILDS, LARGESCALE PVP IS CONSTANT OUTPOST FACTION WARFARE. That's a good start.

Read the last line again and again. That is the core of my post.

Zerg is inherently less looked forward to than small scale, proven by everything? Zerg is just more effective but if people are gonna have fun in a game fun>realism/effectivness.

All the games sports, social structutes run in smaller groups or very often solo.

Theres no games or sports with 30v30 god forbid 100v100

because you are an irrelevant ant in that format and people regardless of what you think dont wanna be irrelevant ants if they are paying for experience. It unbalanced, unfair and boring.

It works in some games up to 30v30 BECAUSE OF INSTANT RESPAWN MECHANIC but even those are way less popular than their smaller scale counterparts (think Chiv 2 vs For Honor)

Again those are super rare idk why I even mentioned it.

Anyway in short. Zerging doesnt need to be catered to at all, people who like actual zerging rather than absurd unfariness and benefits it brings to the table are close to 0% its just that this game caters to zerging so much you might see a bit higher than that until they fix it.

Forced PvP Mmorpgs need antizerg mechanics and instances or they dont work. They just dont if every fight you get yourself into is unfair the game stops being fun quickly. Man every other game I played has more antizerg THAN THE MOST UNFAIR GAME NUMBERS WISE check this out

1. For Honor is a 4v4 8v8 game so no unfair numbers, and it has revenge system and you automatically parry people you arent focused on if you parry their general direction, 2 huge antizergs. Revenge system possibly the strongest antizerg I will list is in a game thats 4v4 8v8 LOL.

Revenge system in short gives you massive bonus damage, full health shield that later turns to health when revenge burns out people fall from your strikes and you have max poise meaning you cant fall.

Requirement? You get hit/parry in a 1vx a few times

HAS NO COOLDOWN!

2. Chivlary 2 is a 32v32/20v20 game

EVERY SINGLE ATTACK IS A CLEAVE AND TTK IS 2 HITS AND IF YOU RIPOSTE 1 GUY EVERYONE ELSE HITTING YOU IS BLOCKED WHILE YOU HIT

Do I need say more? Theres no magic archery is much weaker than in mo2 and much lower % playrate so counter reduce they have works in 90% of the cases versus mortals 30% on a good day.

3. League of legends is a 5v5 fair game with fair numbers has tons of AOE tons of stuff that scales off killing people like deaths dance takedown Darius ult you do more damage the lower you get tons of toplaners have clear 1vx mechanics, theres flash theres burst theres dashes TTK extremely low.

a mid game Renekton is almost guaranteed to be able to 1v2 at least 2 of the enemy team players if he plays well and if it happens.


Now lets look at a game similar to MO2, and what an unfair game does to prevent zergs from killing their game.


4. Albion is the closest comparison to MO2, yes closer than Chiv2, Chiv is nothing like MO2 excluding meele combat. It has clear for zerg and not for zerg places so the amount of 1vxing or outnumbered fighting youll have to do is much lower than in MO2

However

If 1vx/outnumbered fight was to happen

You have

1. dissaray which straight up nerfs zergs in the open world depending on the number of player

2. Focus fire, based on how many players hit you, you take less damage

3. Massive amounts of AOEs and clear 1vx class mechanics

4. Lower 1v1 ttk than mo2 (lower ttk=higher variety outcome coz anything can happen)

5. Higher xv1 ttk due to focus fire and dissaray and the fact that mortal is balanced around just fighting 1 person it seems (purify, healing, parrying all are 10x better in a 1v1 than 1vx)

6. BLUE AND YELLOW AREAS literal paradise for noobs they can farm there and only go to pvp/higher risk spots when they want to

7. Tons of solo small scale content bosses you can solo and get good stuff from, places 10 people cant even enter etc.

8. 5v5 1v1 area mode where you can just bang fair numbers.




So like Albion is more fair to solo small scale players infinitely more than mo2 which has nothing except counter reduce.

5. Every shooter ever

TTK is absurdly low = 1vx is much more possible.

So we can see that even games that are fair in numbers bring more antizerg 1vx mechanics to their gameplay than mo2 in which every single fight is unfair.

There, to me, is a clear few reasons as to why this game is flopping so hard, and it has nothing to fo with TC, content, or anything like that.


Its 1. Absurdly low level of balance 2. Zergs. (hate the game not the player I dont blame anyone playing, its on SV for not adding any antizerg)

 

[Dargelar]

Zerg is inherently less looked forward to than small scale, proven by everything? Zerg is just more effective but if people are gonna have fun in a game fun>realism/effectivness.

All the games sports, social structutes run in smaller groups or very often solo.

Theres no games or sports with 30v30 god forbid 100v100

because you are an irrelevant ant in that format and people regardless of what you think dont wanna be irrelevant ants if they are paying for experience. It unbalanced, unfair and boring.

It works in some games up to 30v30 BECAUSE OF INSTANT RESPAWN MECHANIC but even those are way less popular than their smaller scale counterparts (think Chiv 2 vs For Honor)

Again those are super rare idk why I even mentioned it.

Anyway in short. Zerging doesnt need to be catered to at all, people who like actual zerging rather than absurd unfariness and benefits it brings to the table are close to 0% its just that this game caters to zerging so much you might see a bit higher than that until they fix it.

Forced PvP Mmorpgs need antizerg mechanics and instances or they dont work. They just dont if every fight you get yourself into is unfair the game stops being fun quickly. Man every other game I played has more antizerg THAN THE MOST UNFAIR GAME NUMBERS WISE check this out

1. For Honor is a 4v4 8v8 game so no unfair numbers, and it has revenge system and you automatically parry people you arent focused on if you parry their general direction, 2 huge antizergs. Revenge system possibly the strongest antizerg I will list is in a game thats 4v4 8v8 LOL.

Revenge system in short gives you massive bonus damage, full health shield that later turns to health when revenge burns out people fall from your strikes and you have max poise meaning you cant fall.

Requirement? You get hit/parry in a 1vx a few times

HAS NO COOLDOWN!

2. Chivlary 2 is a 32v32/20v20 game

EVERY SINGLE ATTACK IS A CLEAVE AND TTK IS 2 HITS AND IF YOU RIPOSTE 1 GUY EVERYONE ELSE HITTING YOU IS BLOCKED WHILE YOU HIT

Do I need say more? Theres no magic archery is much weaker than in mo2 and much lower % playrate so counter reduce they have works in 90% of the cases versus mortals 30% on a good day.

3. League of legends is a 5v5 fair game with fair numbers has tons of AOE tons of stuff that scales off killing people like deaths dance takedown Darius ult you do more damage the lower you get tons of toplaners have clear 1vx mechanics, theres flash theres burst theres dashes TTK extremely low.

a mid game Renekton is almost guaranteed to be able to 1v2 at least 2 of the enemy team players if he plays well and if it happens.


Now lets look at a game similar to MO2, and what an unfair game does to prevent zergs from killing their game.


4. Albion is the closest comparison to MO2, yes closer than Chiv2, Chiv is nothing like MO2 excluding meele combat. It has clear for zerg and not for zerg places so the amount of 1vxing or outnumbered fighting youll have to do is much lower than in MO2

However

If 1vx/outnumbered fight was to happen

You have

1. dissaray which straight up nerfs zergs in the open world depending on the number of player

2. Focus fire, based on how many players hit you, you take less damage

3. Massive amounts of AOEs and clear 1vx class mechanics

4. Lower 1v1 ttk than mo2 (lower ttk=higher variety outcome coz anything can happen)

5. Higher xv1 ttk due to focus fire and dissaray and the fact that mortal is balanced around just fighting 1 person it seems (purify, healing, parrying all are 10x better in a 1v1 than 1vx)

6. BLUE AND YELLOW AREAS literal paradise for noobs they can farm there and only go to pvp/higher risk spots when they want to

7. Tons of solo small scale content bosses you can solo and get good stuff from, places 10 people cant even enter etc.

8. 5v5 1v1 area mode where you can just bang fair numbers.




So like Albion is more fair to solo small scale players infinitely more than mo2 which has nothing except counter reduce.

5. Every shooter ever

TTK is absurdly low = 1vx is much more possible.

So we can see that even games that are fair in numbers bring more antizerg 1vx mechanics to their gameplay than mo2 in which every single fight is unfair.

There, to me, is a clear few reasons as to why this game is flopping so hard, and it has nothing to fo with TC, content, or anything like that.


Its 1. Absurdly low level of balance 2. Zergs. (hate the game not the player I dont blame anyone playing, its on SV for not adding any antizerg)

In my opinion, one of the best games in terms of large‑scale group content is Foxhole. Right now, the game is going through a very rough patch due to a poorly received content update, but the developers spent the whole summer trying to fix the problem, and now they’ve taken extra time into September. (I’m saying this so that if someone hasn’t played it, they shouldn’t go there now and risk ruining their first impression.)

For several years, I played as part of a large group of 40–50 people and took part in absolutely incredible in‑game operations against big, well‑coordinated groups—I’ve never seen anything like it in other games. It has features similar to MO2: friendly fire (you can’t build a real combat culture without it), full loot drop, and you can even steal enemy equipment.

The phrase “you are an irrelevant ant in that format” works 100 % there—you literally need at least one other person to get anything done.
Want to fire a field gun? You need someone to help push it.
Want to operate artillery? You have to find a loader, a gunner, and, most importantly, a spotter with the right skills.
Want to drive a tank? You’ll need 1 to 5 players and you have to coordinate with them: one person looks around, another controls movement, a third fires, a fourth reloads (if it’s a super‑heavy tank), and a fifth monitors the surroundings and coordinates actions.
Want to crew a ship? You’ll need 15–20 people.

This level of organization and coordination is incredibly challenging—and the gameplay itself is just so infectious. And there are people who, instead of fighting, play “factory” and “courier” roles to keep the fun going. The experience of playing solo versus in a large team is like night and day.

There are also games like Arma 3, where people play in big groups of up to 50 players. Yes, it lacks the arcade feel of Battlefield or similar titles, but its tactical and team aspects are really strong.

Examples like Chivalry 2 and For Honor show exactly why solo play doesn’t really work in MO2: it will never be able to deliver the same kind of experience those games offer to solo players. These aren’t open‑world games—they’re team‑based battles, and it would be surprising if their core gameplay were worse than in other titles. MO2 needs to account for the fact that players have different pings. In For Honor, for example, you simply wouldn’t be allowed into a match if your ping was too high. When I played For Honor, it had “anti‑class” mechanics, which I think is silly for a dueling game.

Albion and League of Legends are excellent competitive games, but they don’t have friendly fire, and the cost of mistakes and personal responsibility is much lower. They’re more arcade‑style entertainment—something that isn’t, and won’t ever be, part of MO2. They belong to a different genre.

MO2 issues related to the text:

• MO2 has a TTK (time to kill) that’s too fast, especially given how much time it takes to travel. I’d say it feels like a “Korean‑style” TTK. It needs to be slowed down by at least five times. What’s the point of playing a game where you spend an hour gathering resources for gear, another hour travelling to the location, and then die in less than a minute?
• The game has no factions—and that’s a problem because it removes collective accountability. Instead of a system that punishes player killing, the character’s (or, better yet, the account’s) rating in that region should drop. The game has many regions, and if a player is such a troublemaker that they’ve alienated everyone in every region, they deserve to live in the woods in their own little shack. The game allows players to kill anyone around them, but it offers no rewards for helping others or no motivation not to kill. A faction system would always bring two random people together to stand against two other random players.
• There’s no meaningful delay or cost between blocks and parries, which allows players to deflect anywhere from one to five attacks simultaneously. This has always struck me as odd. I understand that this mechanic can benefit larger teams, but the combat system is still something that can and should be calibrated. When a player can deflect 90 out of 100 attacks without losing any resources, balancing the game around that becomes impossible.
• The combat resource management is too weak, and this directly feeds into the “super‑highlander” problem with absurdly strong parrying. The main stamina drain is tied to running, which encourages a “hit, kill, and run away” playstyle. Combine that with overpowered parrying, and you get countless videos showing veteran players humiliating newbie teams in dungeons with a single Alvarin build. Every sword position during an attack and every held block should consume stamina to maintain. Players need to be forced to use these mechanics wisely. Parrying shouldn’t be a free way to neutralize damage—it should be a trade: losing stamina in exchange for not losing health. If players had to pay an appropriate stamina cost for each parry, it would be acceptable to allow 2–3 simultaneous parries. A block should be a 50 / 50 trade‑off.
• The same logic applies to archers: they should be forced to play around positioning. If using a longbow feels costly, a light bow currently plays like you’re running around with an Uzi—too effortless and overpowered.

 

[Iloros]

In my opinion, one of the best games in terms of large‑scale group content is Foxhole. Right now, the game is going through a very rough patch due to a poorly received content update, but the developers spent the whole summer trying to fix the problem, and now they’ve taken extra time into September. (I’m saying this so that if someone hasn’t played it, they shouldn’t go there now and risk ruining their first impression.)

For several years, I played as part of a large group of 40–50 people and took part in absolutely incredible in‑game operations against big, well‑coordinated groups—I’ve never seen anything like it in other games. It has features similar to MO2: friendly fire (you can’t build a real combat culture without it), full loot drop, and you can even steal enemy equipment.

The phrase “you are an irrelevant ant in that format” works 100 % there—you literally need at least one other person to get anything done.
Want to fire a field gun? You need someone to help push it.
Want to operate artillery? You have to find a loader, a gunner, and, most importantly, a spotter with the right skills.
Want to drive a tank? You’ll need 1 to 5 players and you have to coordinate with them: one person looks around, another controls movement, a third fires, a fourth reloads (if it’s a super‑heavy tank), and a fifth monitors the surroundings and coordinates actions.
Want to crew a ship? You’ll need 15–20 people.

This level of organization and coordination is incredibly challenging—and the gameplay itself is just so infectious. And there are people who, instead of fighting, play “factory” and “courier” roles to keep the fun going. The experience of playing solo versus in a large team is like night and day.

There are also games like Arma 3, where people play in big groups of up to 50 players. Yes, it lacks the arcade feel of Battlefield or similar titles, but its tactical and team aspects are really strong.

Examples like Chivalry 2 and For Honor show exactly why solo play doesn’t really work in MO2: it will never be able to deliver the same kind of experience those games offer to solo players. These aren’t open‑world games—they’re team‑based battles, and it would be surprising if their core gameplay were worse than in other titles. MO2 needs to account for the fact that players have different pings. In For Honor, for example, you simply wouldn’t be allowed into a match if your ping was too high. When I played For Honor, it had “anti‑class” mechanics, which I think is silly for a dueling game.

Albion and League of Legends are excellent competitive games, but they don’t have friendly fire, and the cost of mistakes and personal responsibility is much lower. They’re more arcade‑style entertainment—something that isn’t, and won’t ever be, part of MO2. They belong to a different genre.

MO2 issues related to the text:

• MO2 has a TTK (time to kill) that’s too fast, especially given how much time it takes to travel. I’d say it feels like a “Korean‑style” TTK. It needs to be slowed down by at least five times. What’s the point of playing a game where you spend an hour gathering resources for gear, another hour travelling to the location, and then die in less than a minute?
• The game has no factions—and that’s a problem because it removes collective accountability. Instead of a system that punishes player killing, the character’s (or, better yet, the account’s) rating in that region should drop. The game has many regions, and if a player is such a troublemaker that they’ve alienated everyone in every region, they deserve to live in the woods in their own little shack. The game allows players to kill anyone around them, but it offers no rewards for helping others or no motivation not to kill. A faction system would always bring two random people together to stand against two other random players.
• There’s no meaningful delay or cost between blocks and parries, which allows players to deflect anywhere from one to five attacks simultaneously. This has always struck me as odd. I understand that this mechanic can benefit larger teams, but the combat system is still something that can and should be calibrated. When a player can deflect 90 out of 100 attacks without losing any resources, balancing the game around that becomes impossible.
• The combat resource management is too weak, and this directly feeds into the “super‑highlander” problem with absurdly strong parrying. The main stamina drain is tied to running, which encourages a “hit, kill, and run away” playstyle. Combine that with overpowered parrying, and you get countless videos showing veteran players humiliating newbie teams in dungeons with a single Alvarin build. Every sword position during an attack and every held block should consume stamina to maintain. Players need to be forced to use these mechanics wisely. Parrying shouldn’t be a free way to neutralize damage—it should be a trade: losing stamina in exchange for not losing health. If players had to pay an appropriate stamina cost for each parry, it would be acceptable to allow 2–3 simultaneous parries. A block should be a 50 / 50 trade‑off.
• The same logic applies to archers: they should be forced to play around positioning. If using a longbow feels costly, a light bow currently plays like you’re running around with an Uzi—too effortless and overpowered.

Examples you gave do not overcome the rule. Arma is again an instant respawn game and so is foxhole.

for honor and chivlary do not offer solo gameplay at all they just have antizerg i pointed that out to show even fair team games need it to not feel miserable let alone a game with constant unfair battles.

MO2 can EASILY be a great solo small scale game with little amount of work the same way Albion genuinely is.

I, no offense hear np arguments, just your preference, which is fine, I understand there are people who love larger scale but you are a minority, and another thing

You would enjoy small scale WAY MORE than I would enjoy large scale so that plays a part.

You naming differences between the examples I gave that in context mean nothing like saying Albion does not have friendly fire therefore antizerg bad in mo2??? Does not follow at all for me.

Them being fair matchmade 5v5s or 30v30s and still having antizerg goes in my favor, because games like that accounted for how unfair to just let people 4v1 you with no antizerg and then you say that should not be there in MO2 which is constantly unfair numbers wise? I don't hear you at all.

Parrying drains stam and drains stam to hold btw, and thode vids of Alvarins 1v5ing (I didnt see a 1v10 yet tbh) are an ALVARIN ISSUE not parryinh issue


Yes parrying should and should be nerfed but that should also come with buff to antizerg because parry being this ocerpowered is one of the only reasons a solo vet player exists, though way less npw as everyones on archers and mages or at leaat enough people tp guarantee non Alvarins cant possibly gap close and win a 1vx consistently.

I mean theres many issues but if we are gonna focus on the biggest gameplay ones I think general combat balance and zerging being zoo strong far outweighs anything else. Gave other games as examples and explained the theory behind why we need those changes.


What I would personally want for starters is

1. Alvarin nerf 2.5% speed 30 stam armpr pierce AND alvarin sight all removed

2. MA nerf make MA have less DPS npt just with abilities but period same way MM has dps reduction

3. MC buff make MC able to wield all weapons footies can and give them a charge that boosts their speed as ability.

Then eventually buff all the weak weapon heads masteries clade gifts spells etc. just regular balance man


For the antizerg:

Add focus fire from Albion (dmg reduction based on constant attackers taht deal constant damage/give constant close to full charge parries)

Add instanced dungeons and pois and many mpre soloable dungeond in general

Add anto archery and magery counter reduce like mechanic, or perhaps even make current CR work at lower effectivness vs archery and magic

No joke NERF CORRUPT OR make purify an adren ability, corrupt had ruined MANY 1vx attempts its bonkers when you are getting focused coz the whole balance shtick with corrupt is that you can purify it and it does nothing but you cant cast in a 1vx lmao ....


And then we can see where the whole thing lands and go from there.