From Killers to Kittens: The Henrik Nystrom Saga

[WeAreAllMortal]

Once upon a time in the chaotic lands of Mortal Online, where the wolves reigned supreme and the sheep were mercilessly devoured, there stood a man, Henrik Nystrom, wielding the scepter of Star Vault Studios. A man who, in the grand tradition of sandbox MMOs, gave us the purest distillation of human nature in Mortal Online 1: a brutal, dog-eat-dog world where the strong preyed on the weak, and justice was a concept for another realm.

But alas, history has a way of surprising us, doesn’t it? For after MO1, Henrik and Star Vault pivoted—nay, pirouetted—into creating a kitten simulator. Yes, you heard that correctly. The same studio that presided over grief-fueled chaos and unleashed the lawless hordes upon Mortal Online decided the next logical step was…Kitten’d.

A heartwarming VR game where you—wait for it—nurture and care for kittens. A world devoid of ganking, griefing, and the endless cries of “Git gud!” Instead, you’re feeding your furry friends, cleaning up after them, and ensuring their happiness. Imagine a Mortal Online griefer trapped in this fluffy utopia, trying to figure out how to spawn camp a bowl of kibble. The existential crisis would be monumental!

Now, one can only speculate on what led to this 180-degree turn. Perhaps Henrik saw too many noobs butchered in the sewers of Fabernum and thought, “What if I could just… cuddle them instead?” Or maybe the griefers of MO1 scarred even him, and Kitten’d was the therapy we all didn’t know we needed. Whatever the case, it’s a tale of contrasts so stark it deserves a place in gaming history.

And yet here we are, in Mortal Online 2, a game that still clings to its identity as the lawless wild west of MMOs, even as its developers show an apparent reluctance to implement a functioning justice system. Could it be that Henrik still dreams of kittens, reluctant to take the leash off the guard dogs of Fabernum?

So, what say you, dear forum-goers? Is the dream of Kitten’d the secret blueprint for the justice system we desperately need in MO2? Or should we resign ourselves to this sandbox’s brutal chaos and keep dreaming of a world where players can thrive without being force-fed the mantra of “git gud or get gone”?

Either way, you can’t deny the journey from killers to kittens is one for the ages.

 

[Awamory]

MO1 was an interesting and captivating world with unique mechanics and limitations, but without a functioning justice system, it led to toxic players taking over the game, and eventually, its online population plummeted to nearly zero.

Repeating the same in MO2, just with new decorations, would be a mistake. We would end up with another dead game. Games should not be created for players who enjoy humiliating or even virtually killing others with impunity. Game mechanics should be in place to punish these players harshly and for a long time, or make their actions impossible, as they break the gameplay for other players. If you need more violence in your life, join the army in real life and go to a conflict zone on this planet. For many, games are a way to switch gears and escape the problems, violence, daily worries, and routine of the real world. Therefore, there is no need to make a game more violent than the world around us.

Learning to play, yes. But not learning dishonesty and backstabbing, rather learning the game mechanics. But how can a beginner learn that if any attempt to kill even the simplest mob results in them being killed right away, like in MO1? In MO1, a player had two choices. First, quit playing. Second, become a jerk in the game just to LEARN the mechanics later. Ultimately, the game’s population dwindled to almost zero because the "wolves," as you mentioned, or more accurately, the jackals, banded together, first eliminating normal players and then devouring each other.

I wouldn’t want to see this happen in MO2. And apparently, the developers don’t want that either. Yes, danger should be present everywhere in the game, but there should also be a justice system working against ganking, embedded in the GAME MECHANICS. And there should be NO forced PvP, at least in the majority of the zones, because it is rude and inconsiderate.

Imagine a childhood situation. Children are playing in a sandbox with toys, building sandcastles, laying roads, etc., spending hours on it. Then, ONE bully comes along and starts pushing the kids away from their buildings, then destroying their roads. He waits for a fight. If the kids ignore him, he pushes further, starts destroying their homes because he needs a reason to be "offended" and then start a fight. The more they ignore him, the more he destroys everything around him because he lacks the brains and patience to create something of his own.

No, he's not a wolf, not a lion. He’s a jackal. I’ve always hated such people in real life and won’t tolerate them in the virtual world. There should be a game mechanic to restrain and punish such people. They should not be given complete freedom of action, as it was in MO1. And the developers are slowly, but surely, moving in this direction. This is encouraging. It will allow the game to survive and perhaps, over time, as these restraining mechanics are introduced, even grow in its online population.

 

[Teknique]

MO1 was an interesting and captivating world with unique mechanics and limitations, but without a functioning justice system, it led to toxic players taking over the game, and eventually, its online population plummeted to nearly zero.

Repeating the same in MO2, just with new decorations, would be a mistake. We would end up with another dead game. Games should not be created for players who enjoy humiliating or even virtually killing others with impunity. Game mechanics should be in place to punish these players harshly and for a long time, or make their actions impossible, as they break the gameplay for other players. If you need more violence in your life, join the army in real life and go to a conflict zone on this planet. For many, games are a way to switch gears and escape the problems, violence, daily worries, and routine of the real world. Therefore, there is no need to make a game more violent than the world around us.

Learning to play, yes. But not learning dishonesty and backstabbing, rather learning the game mechanics. But how can a beginner learn that if any attempt to kill even the simplest mob results in them being killed right away, like in MO1? In MO1, a player had two choices. First, quit playing. Second, become a jerk in the game just to LEARN the mechanics later. Ultimately, the game’s population dwindled to almost zero because the "wolves," as you mentioned, or more accurately, the jackals, banded together, first eliminating normal players and then devouring each other.

I wouldn’t want to see this happen in MO2. And apparently, the developers don’t want that either. Yes, danger should be present everywhere in the game, but there should also be a justice system working against ganking, embedded in the GAME MECHANICS. And there should be NO forced PvP, at least in the majority of the zones, because it is rude and inconsiderate.

Imagine a childhood situation. Children are playing in a sandbox with toys, building sandcastles, laying roads, etc., spending hours on it. Then, ONE bully comes along and starts pushing the kids away from their buildings, then destroying their roads. He waits for a fight. If the kids ignore him, he pushes further, starts destroying their homes because he needs a reason to be "offended" and then start a fight. The more they ignore him, the more he destroys everything around him because he lacks the brains and patience to create something of his own.

No, he's not a wolf, not a lion. He’s a jackal. I’ve always hated such people in real life and won’t tolerate them in the virtual world. There should be a game mechanic to restrain and punish such people. They should not be given complete freedom of action, as it was in MO1. And the developers are slowly, but surely, moving in this direction. This is encouraging. It will allow the game to survive and perhaps, over time, as these restraining mechanics are introduced, even grow in its online population.

What would life mean without death?

would you appreciate the sunlight without the darkness?

Safety is only appreciated in this game because of unsafety. Be careful what you wish for.

I am conflicted, guards everywhere, no forced wardecs, siege windows, gear>skill. Other than random pk in the wilderness what even exists? No one can really come after you in mo2 like they could in the first game.

Yet, forget the steam charts, the game has players everywhere you go, but is it life or undeath?

We are only 1 or 2 steps from removing pvp in its entirety. For me that process has already occurred. It’s a pve game to me. Tc wars, meta builds, ego, dunking people out of the game I don’t care about any of that anymore.

 

[Teknique]

Once upon a time in the chaotic lands of Mortal Online, where the wolves reigned supreme and the sheep were mercilessly devoured, there stood a man, Henrik Nystrom, wielding the scepter of Star Vault Studios. A man who, in the grand tradition of sandbox MMOs, gave us the purest distillation of human nature in Mortal Online 1: a brutal, dog-eat-dog world where the strong preyed on the weak, and justice was a concept for another realm.

But alas, history has a way of surprising us, doesn’t it? For after MO1, Henrik and Star Vault pivoted—nay, pirouetted—into creating a kitten simulator. Yes, you heard that correctly. The same studio that presided over grief-fueled chaos and unleashed the lawless hordes upon Mortal Online decided the next logical step was…Kitten’d.

A heartwarming VR game where you—wait for it—nurture and care for kittens. A world devoid of ganking, griefing, and the endless cries of “Git gud!” Instead, you’re feeding your furry friends, cleaning up after them, and ensuring their happiness. Imagine a Mortal Online griefer trapped in this fluffy utopia, trying to figure out how to spawn camp a bowl of kibble. The existential crisis would be monumental!

Now, one can only speculate on what led to this 180-degree turn. Perhaps Henrik saw too many noobs butchered in the sewers of Fabernum and thought, “What if I could just… cuddle them instead?” Or maybe the griefers of MO1 scarred even him, and Kitten’d was the therapy we all didn’t know we needed. Whatever the case, it’s a tale of contrasts so stark it deserves a place in gaming history.

And yet here we are, in Mortal Online 2, a game that still clings to its identity as the lawless wild west of MMOs, even as its developers show an apparent reluctance to implement a functioning justice system. Could it be that Henrik still dreams of kittens, reluctant to take the leash off the guard dogs of Fabernum?

So, what say you, dear forum-goers? Is the dream of Kitten’d the secret blueprint for the justice system we desperately need in MO2? Or should we resign ourselves to this sandbox’s brutal chaos and keep dreaming of a world where players can thrive without being force-fed the mantra of “git gud or get gone”?

Either way, you can’t deny the journey from killers to kittens is one for the ages.

Have tou ever considered that maybe you are Karnak? You’ve feasted on the siege mechanics, you’ve feasted on wardecs, you’ve feasted on stickybacking and raw skill, and as you’re about to sink your fangs into world pvp , the last remnant of danger in the world, that you are blissfully unaware of the famine you are about to create for yourself and the world?

 

[CherryKush]

Games should not be created for players who enjoy humiliating or even virtually killing others with impunity. If you need more violence in your life, join the army in real life and go to a conflict zone on this planet. For many, games are a way to switch gears and escape the problems, violence, daily worries, and routine of the real world. Therefore, there is no need to make a game more violent than the world around us.

Ok deep breaths, deep breaths and repeat after me. "It's only a video game. It's only a video game" "Actual people are not dying" "physical violence is not possible here..."

Perhaps playing something like Mario Cart is more to your speed and tolerance but I must warn you, there are some mean spin out crashes in that game so be ready for that... They can be brutal...

 

[WeAreAllMortal]

Have tou ever considered that maybe you are Karnak? You’ve feasted on the siege mechanics, you’ve feasted on wardecs, you’ve feasted on stickybacking and raw skill, and as you’re about to sink your fangs into world pvp , the last remnant of danger in the world, that you are blissfully unaware of the famine you are about to create for yourself and the world?

Teknique, your musings bring to my mind also the Elder from The Last Feast of the Vampire Lords. Unlike Karnak, the Elder wasn’t an outsider trying to impose sterile order upon chaos. He was a predator through and through, as steeped in the hunger for the hunt as any of his kin. Yet he alone foresaw the cost of unchecked indulgence, the folly of devouring without restraint. His strength wasn’t in controlling others—it was in recognizing what his kin refused to see: that the feast would end, not by some external force, but by their own reckless appetites.

The Elder wasn’t calling for an end to the hunt. He knew that predators must hunt, that danger and challenge define their existence. But he understood the need for balance—for tempering the thrill of the chase with the wisdom to ensure the prey would endure. His warnings fell on deaf ears, and his strength wasn’t enough to save the others. Yet, when the ashes cooled, he alone remained. Or so the tale goes.

The allegory here is clear: the Elder represents the last player, the survivor of the chaos. His fate raises a question for Mortal Online 2: What is this "other world" that the Elder will inevitably seek?

Is it another Mortal Online—a rebirth of the same world, but doomed to repeat the cycle? New spires, new shadows, but the same frenzy, the same eventual desolation as the hunting grounds are laid bare once more. Or is this "other world" the next great PvP sandbox, glittering with promise, luring nomadic predators to new prey? If so, the Elder’s story repeats yet again: a few glorious years of danger and excitement, followed by inevitable collapse as the herds vanish and the predators are left to devour one another.

This isn’t just speculation—it’s the pattern we’ve seen with nearly every free-for-all MMO. Ultima Online’s early days were a chaotic playground until griefing drove players away, forcing the creation of Trammel, which splintered the player base. Shadowbane, built on territorial conquest, crumbled under its own design, its ecosystem unable to sustain itself. Darkfall Online promised the ultimate PvP experience, only to fall victim to the same cycle: an early boom, followed by prey leaving, leaving an empty wilderness for predators to wander. Even Mortal Online 1 met this fate, and Mortal Online 2 risks following suit unless something changes.

But what lies ahead? Will Star Vault dare to break the cycle by creating a world where danger and balance coexist? A world where players of all types can thrive? Or will the Elder—and those like him—continue their eternal migration, seeking greener pastures in new games that are destined to fall just like the last?

There’s a third possibility: the Elder’s "other world" could be Mortal Online 2 itself, reborn—not in form, but in spirit. A world shaped by the lessons of its past. A world where danger and challenge remain, but where the ecosystem is preserved. A world where prey are not mere cattle, but an integral part of the hunt, sustaining the predators who thrive off them. But for this to happen, the predators, or at least the game mechanics, must also sustain the prey!

For this rebirth to occur, Star Vault must rise as the architects of a sustainable world. They must temper the primal instincts of their design with balance and foresight. They must create systems that keep the hunt alive while ensuring that the herds—the prey, and even the hunters themselves—can flourish.

This brings us back to the prey. The question isn’t merely about predators—it’s about how we keep the prey engaged and, more importantly, how we make being preyed upon enjoyable, or at least worthwhile, in its own right. In the history of free-for-all PvP games, the focus has almost exclusively been on the thrill of predation, with scant consideration given to the experience of those on the receiving end. The conversation always circles back to “how do we curb the predators?” But what if the question was instead, “how do we reward the prey so they enjoy the role—or at least don’t mind it as much?” What if we could make it fun not only to hunt, but also to be hunted?

If the prey were given meaningful ways to find enjoyment, agency, or purpose in their role, then perhaps everyone could thrive within the ecosystem—albeit in very different ways. And isn’t that the very essence of Mortal Online 2? A world where disparate playstyles and their interplay create a dynamic, living experience. To achieve that balance, we must think beyond merely containing the predators. We must build a world where both hunter and hunted have something to gain, ensuring that the thrill of danger and the satisfaction of survival coexist in harmony.

Predators can only thrive when the ecosystem is rich enough to sustain them, and prey are an indispensable part of that balance. In our original justice reform proposal, we touched on a restitution system as one part of a broader solution. While it wasn’t explored in great detail at the time, it remains a key piece of the vision for creating this balance—a way to ensure that every role in the game, from the hunter to the hunted, has its place and its purpose.

To make this more tangible, I’ll be fleshing out the restitution idea in a dedicated thread shortly. Keep an eye out—your insights would be invaluable!

Because, as the Elder knew all too well, the greatest danger isn’t in the hunt—it’s in forgetting that, without a herd to chase, even the mightiest predator will starve.

 

[WeAreAllMortal]

Ok deep breaths, deep breaths and repeat after me. "It's only a video game. It's only a video game" "Actual people are not dying" "physical violence is not possible here..."

Perhaps playing something like Mario Cart is more to your speed and tolerance but I must warn you, there are some mean spin out crashes in that game so be ready for that... They can be brutal...

You speak of taking deep breaths, CherryKush, yet from one of those breaths to the next, you swing from celebrating in-game cruelty to admonishing Awamory for even acknowledging that same cruelty—dismissing his concerns with a casual “it’s just a game, bro!” Yet, in another reply to one of my posts, you explicitly cited cruelty as a feature you enjoy about MO2. So, which is it? Is the game “cruel,” as you proudly claimed, or is it “just a game” devoid of consequence? You can’t have it both ways.

I don’t always bother feeding trolls—because let’s face it, you are just trolling—but when I do, I like to serve something everyone can digest, not just empty troll fodder. So, let’s dig deeper into the matter.

This “cruelty” you so revel in exists solely within the roleplay layer of the game—the fictional world where the strong prey on the weak, where every encounter feels like a harrowing chapter in a dark saga. It’s the layer we’re all here for: the immersive, make-believe world of Mortal Online 2. The appeal is clear—who wouldn’t enjoy being the villain of their own twisted tale, or the underdog fighting to survive against the odds?

But here’s the truth: that cruelty evaporates the moment we shift to the meta layer—the real-world experience of players. What’s left isn’t some grand, soul-crushing narrative; it’s a mundane inconvenience. Getting ganked isn’t a thrilling tale of survival; it’s “Ugh, now I have to run back, re-gear, and try again.” It’s no more exciting than spilling your coffee and heading back to refill your cup—annoying, sure, but no big deal. Yet, no one’s paying a subscription fee to endure that endlessly.

And then there’s the systems layer—where we analyze the game’s design itself. From this perspective, the “cruelty” of Mortal Online 2 is neither immersive nor meaningful—it’s unsustainable. Without balance, the prey leave, the predators lose their purpose, and the game collapses into an echo chamber of frustrated die-hards, unwilling to admit that the feast has ended.

Cherry, your approach conflates these layers whenever it suits you. One moment, you revel in the roleplay layer’s cruelty; the next, you dismiss it with “it’s just a game” when confronted with its consequences. Worse, your behavior here mirrors the griefing you champion in-game. On the forums, you don’t engage in meaningful discussion or constructive critique; you just snipe from the sidelines with mockery and snark. It’s the forum equivalent of ganking new players outside Fabernum—not for the challenge, but simply because you can. And just like in-game griefing, it drives away not only prey but also meaningful dialogue.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about erasing danger or cruelty. It’s about giving those elements purpose. In its current state, the “cruelty” you enjoy is hollow. It’s not some grand narrative of survival; it’s petty bullying in the meta layer, devoid of narrative weight or meaningful consequence. That’s why the prey leave—not because they’re weak or “can’t handle the heat,” but because the challenge isn’t worth their time. The danger isn’t compelling, and there are no rewards for enduring it.

What MO2 needs isn’t less cruelty—it needs more meaningful cruelty. A system where every act of violence carries weight, where actions have real consequences for both predator and prey. A world where prey aren’t just victims, but participants in a dynamic ecosystem that keeps the hunt alive and exhilarating.

You can dismiss these concerns as “just a game” all you like, but we both know that’s a lazy deflection. If MO2 doesn’t evolve—if its ecosystem isn’t nurtured—the “cruelty” you enjoy will vanish along with the prey. And, like so many sandbox MMOs before it, Mortal Online 2 will become an empty shell—a stage with no actors.

If that’s the world you want, carry on. But if you’d prefer a game where danger feels real and consequence matters—where the cruelty is impactful, not petty—then it’s time to think beyond shallow breaths and actually contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But honestly, Cherry, I won’t hold my “breath” waiting for that.

 

[Emdash]

you guys are nuts haha. It's not that people are triggered by the act of violence in the game. They are triggered by losing and having their shit taken from them. It's a hardcore, or was supposed to be, game. If someone had severe PTSD and they saw blood on the screen and started to freak out, I would be empathetic, but people want more social order and a higher level of gameplay. We all do, but you can't force it.

It's not something they have been able to successfully address. They literally made HAVEN which is an instanced tutorial, so that their players would not have to experience the actual game because they couldn't find a way to keep them from getting griefed. That is an admission of failure.

If you want to zerg up and fight 80 player battles, then MO is for you, beyond that, I dunno what it has to offer.

MO has come so far from being super super griefy to being relatively tame. People still complain the same amount! I agree that it wouldn't hurt them to be like 'pets are immune in town.' lol. Stuff like that makes sense to me. But beyond that? I dunno what you want. The game just needs to be better. There need to be more places for people to do stuff. There needs to be a society, etc, and it's just not gonna be that the way it's set up.

Again @Henrik I will help you for 5000 dollars or a few lifetime subs. But you have to listen. Beyond that, this is just talking into the void, enjoy.

 

[CherryKush]

You speak of taking deep breaths, CherryKush, yet from one of those breaths to the next, you swing from celebrating in-game cruelty to admonishing Awamory for even acknowledging that same cruelty—dismissing his concerns with a casual “it’s just a game, bro!” Yet, in another reply to one of my posts, you explicitly cited cruelty as a feature you enjoy about MO2. So, which is it? Is the game “cruel,” as you proudly claimed, or is it “just a game” devoid of consequence? You can’t have it both ways.

WTF are you talking about??? Can't have it both ways what?!?!? It is just a game, and yes it is cruel (hardcore) there are no 2 ways about that... End of the day though its a game. Where Awamory was actually calling for the real life person to go to an actual war.... If you don't get the stark difference between "this is a game" and a "real war", I can't help you.

As for the rest of your AI generated garbage, I'll pass....

 

[Teknique]

Teknique, your musings bring to my mind also the Elder from The Last Feast of the Vampire Lords. Unlike Karnak, the Elder wasn’t an outsider trying to impose sterile order upon chaos. He was a predator through and through, as steeped in the hunger for the hunt as any of his kin. Yet he alone foresaw the cost of unchecked indulgence, the folly of devouring without restraint. His strength wasn’t in controlling others—it was in recognizing what his kin refused to see: that the feast would end, not by some external force, but by their own reckless appetites.

The Elder wasn’t calling for an end to the hunt. He knew that predators must hunt, that danger and challenge define their existence. But he understood the need for balance—for tempering the thrill of the chase with the wisdom to ensure the prey would endure. His warnings fell on deaf ears, and his strength wasn’t enough to save the others. Yet, when the ashes cooled, he alone remained. Or so the tale goes.

The allegory here is clear: the Elder represents the last player, the survivor of the chaos. His fate raises a question for Mortal Online 2: What is this "other world" that the Elder will inevitably seek?

Is it another Mortal Online—a rebirth of the same world, but doomed to repeat the cycle? New spires, new shadows, but the same frenzy, the same eventual desolation as the hunting grounds are laid bare once more. Or is this "other world" the next great PvP sandbox, glittering with promise, luring nomadic predators to new prey? If so, the Elder’s story repeats yet again: a few glorious years of danger and excitement, followed by inevitable collapse as the herds vanish and the predators are left to devour one another.

This isn’t just speculation—it’s the pattern we’ve seen with nearly every free-for-all MMO. Ultima Online’s early days were a chaotic playground until griefing drove players away, forcing the creation of Trammel, which splintered the player base. Shadowbane, built on territorial conquest, crumbled under its own design, its ecosystem unable to sustain itself. Darkfall Online promised the ultimate PvP experience, only to fall victim to the same cycle: an early boom, followed by prey leaving, leaving an empty wilderness for predators to wander. Even Mortal Online 1 met this fate, and Mortal Online 2 risks following suit unless something changes.

But what lies ahead? Will Star Vault dare to break the cycle by creating a world where danger and balance coexist? A world where players of all types can thrive? Or will the Elder—and those like him—continue their eternal migration, seeking greener pastures in new games that are destined to fall just like the last?

There’s a third possibility: the Elder’s "other world" could be Mortal Online 2 itself, reborn—not in form, but in spirit. A world shaped by the lessons of its past. A world where danger and challenge remain, but where the ecosystem is preserved. A world where prey are not mere cattle, but an integral part of the hunt, sustaining the predators who thrive off them. But for this to happen, the predators, or at least the game mechanics, must also sustain the prey!

For this rebirth to occur, Star Vault must rise as the architects of a sustainable world. They must temper the primal instincts of their design with balance and foresight. They must create systems that keep the hunt alive while ensuring that the herds—the prey, and even the hunters themselves—can flourish.

This brings us back to the prey. The question isn’t merely about predators—it’s about how we keep the prey engaged and, more importantly, how we make being preyed upon enjoyable, or at least worthwhile, in its own right. In the history of free-for-all PvP games, the focus has almost exclusively been on the thrill of predation, with scant consideration given to the experience of those on the receiving end. The conversation always circles back to “how do we curb the predators?” But what if the question was instead, “how do we reward the prey so they enjoy the role—or at least don’t mind it as much?” What if we could make it fun not only to hunt, but also to be hunted?

If the prey were given meaningful ways to find enjoyment, agency, or purpose in their role, then perhaps everyone could thrive within the ecosystem—albeit in very different ways. And isn’t that the very essence of Mortal Online 2? A world where disparate playstyles and their interplay create a dynamic, living experience. To achieve that balance, we must think beyond merely containing the predators. We must build a world where both hunter and hunted have something to gain, ensuring that the thrill of danger and the satisfaction of survival coexist in harmony.

Predators can only thrive when the ecosystem is rich enough to sustain them, and prey are an indispensable part of that balance. In our original justice reform proposal, we touched on a restitution system as one part of a broader solution. While it wasn’t explored in great detail at the time, it remains a key piece of the vision for creating this balance—a way to ensure that every role in the game, from the hunter to the hunted, has its place and its purpose.

To make this more tangible, I’ll be fleshing out the restitution idea in a dedicated thread shortly. Keep an eye out—your insights would be invaluable!

Because, as the Elder knew all too well, the greatest danger isn’t in the hunt—it’s in forgetting that, without a herd to chase, even the mightiest predator will starve.

I think you didn’t address my larger point. I acknowledge that you or the elder weren’t calling for the end of pvp, but something different. And I admit the flagging is broken. However in the same thread awamory said all PvP should be consensual. Assume for a moment you are defending his position. Just like a bovine is a predator of grass, he is a predator of the hardcore systems in the game. Him and his kin have preyed upon wardecs, sieging, the skill gear gap and as they’re about to descend upon the last hardcore system and tear it apart, they doom the entire world.

 

[WeAreAllMortal]

I think you didn’t address my larger point. I acknowledge that you or the elder weren’t calling for the end of pvp, but something different. And I admit the flagging is broken. However in the same thread awamory said all PvP should be consensual. Assume for a moment you are defending his position. Just like a bovine is a predator of grass, he is a predator of the hardcore systems in the game. Him and his kin have preyed upon wardecs, sieging, the skill gear gap and as they’re about to descend upon the last hardcore system and tear it apart, they doom the entire world.

Teknique, you raise a compelling point, and I absolutely agree with your larger argument about preserving the hardcore essence of MO2. To borrow from the analogy in the story, the predators (in this case, the hardcore players) must maintain the balance if the ecosystem is to survive. However, when we consider the idea of voluntary PvP flagging or similar—suggested in passing by Awamory as a potential solution—it’s crucial to reflect on the history of similar changes in other games.

Take Ultima Online as the quintessential example. The introduction of Trammel, a PvP-free zone, was meant to placate players frustrated with constant danger. While it succeeded in providing safety, it split the game’s population and gutted the tension that made UO unique. The hardcore players retreated to Felucca, which quickly became a ghost town. Trammel might have saved UO in the short term, but it fundamentally changed the game into something far removed from its original vision.

We saw similar outcomes in Darkfall Online and even EVE Online, which has high-sec zones where PvP is nearly non-existent. The result is a fragmented playerbase, with hardcore PvPers feeling marginalized while more casual players eventually grow bored of the diminished stakes. Even Albion Online introduced PvP-free zones, which diluted the thrill of its open-world experience.

Awamory’s position is understandable—he wants the game to grow and appeal to a broader audience. And that’s noble; after all, every ecosystem needs to please it's PvE'ers as much as the PvP'ers. But as history has shown, voluntary PvP flagging or dividing the world into “safe” and “dangerous” zones often leads to unintended consequences. The risk-reward balance, which is the lifeblood of games like MO2, is irreparably damaged when safety becomes an immutable choice that anyone can opt into or out of at will.

The irony is that these well-intentioned solutions often pave the road to decline—a road paved, as they say, with good intentions. A world without danger becomes a world without excitement, and soon, even the very players these changes were meant to protect drift away in search of greener pastures, because without the thrill of danger, any sandbox PvP MMO just turns into ESO without quests, storyline, or voice acting.

So yes, I completely agree that preserving MO2’s hardcore systems is vital. But instead of removing the danger that defines the game—especially the danger from other players—we need solutions that work with it. The restitution system we’ve proposed achieves this by addressing Awamory’s concerns about fairness while keeping the suspense, tension, and danger intact—the very elements that make MO2 unique.

What’s more, this system would be groundbreaking in the MMO space. No other game has offered such a balanced approach—where prey are meaningfully compensated without neutering the thrill of danger for them, nor the thrill of the hunt for the predators. Implementing this would make MO2 a true pioneer in sandbox PvP design, offering players an experience they won’t find anywhere else. Frankly, SV would be crazy to pass up such a chance to redefine the genre.

 

[Sally]

The solution to the "griefer" problem is obvious.

Instead of having PVE stop the "griefing", give a real incentive for players to deal with criminal behavior.

The main issue with "ganking" in this game, is that there is no reason for another player to really go out and stop criminals OUTSIDE of it impacting themselves.

So what is the fix?

Make it beneficial for players to hunt criminal and bandit style players. This, in turn, solves the problem of "griefing" without babying the game.

NOT the bounty system.. That thing just does not work well at all. We need a system that allows a GROUP of blues to gather together and actively hunt criminals; and to be rewarded for doing so. A reward that is WORTH hunting criminals.

One of the biggest reasons the bounty hunting system is a failure (and there are many reasons), is because you have two people max per contract. This is out of touch with the way MO2 operates.

This is a fact : people are more likely to engage in criminal behavior (in real life) if they know they can get away with it. What does that mean? It means, if we translate it to MO2, people are more likely to be criminal if they're in large groups, because they know they can get away with killing people with the support of a group.

Criminals are almost always in a group. You're sending bounty hunters out to deal with a zerg as two people.. It doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Unlike a bounty system, there should be more general system. Killing a criminal or maybe a red name should add a point to their contract, or something to that effect. Maybe some way to get a group of people together also. I'm not here to flesh out the entire system, just to explain that the solution is to give incentive for GROUPS of non-criminals to go out and hunt criminals.

Why do the police seek out criminal behavior and stop it? They're paid to do so. They benefit from it personally.

All i know is, the reason "griefing" is overwhelming, is because there is no selfish reason to deal with it by those who are not directly impacted. That is why we have law enforcement that functions well in real life, and essentially none in MO2.

 

[Awamory]

Ok deep breaths, deep breaths and repeat after me. "It's only a video game. It's only a video game" "Actual people are not dying" "physical violence is not possible here..."

I find it dull to debate the notion of "it's just a game." Games that involve player interaction are far more than just games. You aren't interacting with a character; you're engaging with a real person sitting behind the monitor. For example, by endlessly ganking someone, you're potentially ruining their gameplay, preventing them from enjoying the game they paid for. You discourage them from continuing to pay for it. You're causing them negative emotions, which in real life could even lead to health issues (if it surprises you, this game is played not only by teenagers but also by people aged 40–50+). You're shamelessly consuming another player's time, especially if they only have 1–2–3 hours a day to play. For instance, they may spend that time mining ore, cutting wood, or traveling across the map, only for you to, "for the fun of it" (your fun, not theirs), reduce their entire gaming session to nothing in a matter of seconds. All because you want a world of lawlessness and permissiveness. And I’m 100% sure you wouldn’t like it if every single time you logged into the game, someone killed you and robbed you of everything simply because they felt like it. You would quit the game, try to join the same group of griefers, or create one of your own. Or maybe you'd start thinking about implementing penalties and punishments for such behavior through game mechanics.

Interaction on the internet is not "just a game." It is simply another way of communication and spending time with others. And it should remain respectful—even in hardcore games. Your freedom in games should end where the freedom of other players begins. There should be no absolute permissiveness, especially through game mechanics. One group of players should not gain fun at the expense of ruining the gaming experience of others. This applies to all games. A player should have the choice to focus on peaceful activities like crafting, farming mobs, or gearing up and heading into PvP. And if they do choose PvP by entering a designated area, that’s their conscious decision, fully understanding the associated risks.

A person who acts maliciously in a game, hiding behind the excuse of "it's just a game," is, in reality, a malicious individual. They're also a coward, causing harm from the shadows in real life, afraid to reveal their true nature because they fear inevitable punishment in real life. Virtual worlds should also have systems of inevitable punishments for such players, embedded directly in the game mechanics. Otherwise, such games/worlds will die, as we witnessed in MO1.

 

[Teknique]

I find it dull to debate the notion of "it's just a game." Games that involve player interaction are far more than just games. You aren't interacting with a character; you're engaging with a real person sitting behind the monitor. For example, by endlessly ganking someone, you're potentially ruining their gameplay, preventing them from enjoying the game they paid for. You discourage them from continuing to pay for it. You're causing them negative emotions, which in real life could even lead to health issues (if it surprises you, this game is played not only by teenagers but also by people aged 40–50+). You're shamelessly consuming another player's time, especially if they only have 1–2–3 hours a day to play. For instance, they may spend that time mining ore, cutting wood, or traveling across the map, only for you to, "for the fun of it" (your fun, not theirs), reduce their entire gaming session to nothing in a matter of seconds. All because you want a world of lawlessness and permissiveness. And I’m 100% sure you wouldn’t like it if every single time you logged into the game, someone killed you and robbed you of everything simply because they felt like it. You would quit the game, try to join the same group of griefers, or create one of your own. Or maybe you'd start thinking about implementing penalties and punishments for such behavior through game mechanics.

Interaction on the internet is not "just a game." It is simply another way of communication and spending time with others. And it should remain respectful—even in hardcore games. Your freedom in games should end where the freedom of other players begins. There should be no absolute permissiveness, especially through game mechanics. One group of players should not gain fun at the expense of ruining the gaming experience of others. This applies to all games. A player should have the choice to focus on peaceful activities like crafting, farming mobs, or gearing up and heading into PvP. And if they do choose PvP by entering a designated area, that’s their conscious decision, fully understanding the associated risks.

A person who acts maliciously in a game, hiding behind the excuse of "it's just a game," is, in reality, a malicious individual. They're also a coward, causing harm from the shadows in real life, afraid to reveal their true nature because they fear inevitable punishment in real life. Virtual worlds should also have systems of inevitable punishments for such players, embedded directly in the game mechanics. Otherwise, such games/worlds will die, as we witnessed in MO1.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying and consider it valid, but you are oversimplifying and I’ll explain how.

I recently introduced a rl friend to this game and he is the farthest thing from a malicious individual. He’s very interested in the player killing aspect of the game. What specifically that you are oversimplifying is that he is operating within what he believes are the rules and norms of the game. He hasn’t even considered the possibility of this hurting someone else because it’s no different than beating someone at nba2k. He doesn’t play games much and has never experienced a hardcore mmo as a concept.

You do not play a shooter and feel bad for the people that you kill even though losing is stressful and does have real world consequences on their health, it causes them to derank, debate their self worth and even quit all together, I’ve been there in shooters.

It is simply allowed by the rules of the game and therefore not malicious.

Now one can evolve like I have not to engage in these behaviors but it’s silly going to a game that says you can kill whoever you want and then be mad at people for doing it.

 

[CherryKush]

I find it dull to debate the notion of "it's just a game." Games that involve player interaction are far more than just games. You aren't interacting with a character; you're engaging with a real person sitting behind the monitor. For example, by endlessly ganking someone, you're potentially ruining their gameplay, preventing them from enjoying the game they paid for. You discourage them from continuing to pay for it. You're causing them negative emotions, which in real life could even lead to health issues (if it surprises you, this game is played not only by teenagers but also by people aged 40–50+). You're shamelessly consuming another player's time, especially if they only have 1–2–3 hours a day to play. For instance, they may spend that time mining ore, cutting wood, or traveling across the map, only for you to, "for the fun of it" (your fun, not theirs), reduce their entire gaming session to nothing in a matter of seconds. All because you want a world of lawlessness and permissiveness. And I’m 100% sure you wouldn’t like it if every single time you logged into the game, someone killed you and robbed you of everything simply because they felt like it. You would quit the game, try to join the same group of griefers, or create one of your own. Or maybe you'd start thinking about implementing penalties and punishments for such behavior through game mechanics.

Interaction on the internet is not "just a game." It is simply another way of communication and spending time with others. And it should remain respectful—even in hardcore games. Your freedom in games should end where the freedom of other players begins. There should be no absolute permissiveness, especially through game mechanics. One group of players should not gain fun at the expense of ruining the gaming experience of others. This applies to all games. A player should have the choice to focus on peaceful activities like crafting, farming mobs, or gearing up and heading into PvP. And if they do choose PvP by entering a designated area, that’s their conscious decision, fully understanding the associated risks.

A person who acts maliciously in a game, hiding behind the excuse of "it's just a game," is, in reality, a malicious individual. They're also a coward, causing harm from the shadows in real life, afraid to reveal their true nature because they fear inevitable punishment in real life. Virtual worlds should also have systems of inevitable punishments for such players, embedded directly in the game mechanics. Otherwise, such games/worlds will die, as we witnessed in MO1.

My apologies, I see, you must be new to video games... See when you jump into a game that prides itself on "full loot PVP" this is what is to be expected, this is what you are signing up for. Every person in the world is considered a "loot piñata" and will be attacked by most to see what they are holding. Yes even if you are naked! As this is a tactic used by some to move large amounts of gold or other valuable items hoping that by appearing naked or noobish that they are an unworthy target and will be left alone.

What you are describing that you want is a safe gathering simulator. Mortal Online is not that game. And you are right I would not be happy if every time I logged in I was killed immediately but I also learn from my mistakes. Like, don't travel on main roads, swim there if possible, take your time and hide in bushes. I am mostly a solo player and I have learned how to survive in this world by not rushing things. I actually enjoy being the mouse in this game and when I do get caught I don't cry about it, it is what it is. A full loot PVP game and I am nothing more than loot piñata to everyone. I accept that.

But really I don't think this game is for you. All that touchy feely stuff you want in a game just isn't going to happen in Mortal. You have 1000's of other games that would be more to your liking instead of trying to change the 1 game we have that caters to this type of ruthless hardcore playstyle, that we love.

So good luck finding a guild that can cater to your emotional feels if you decide to stay, and remember, its just a game...

 

[MortalEnjoyer42069]

TLDR

 

[WeAreAllMortal]

The solution to the "griefer" problem is obvious.

Instead of having PVE stop the "griefing", give a real incentive for players to deal with criminal behavior.

The main issue with "ganking" in this game, is that there is no reason for another player to really go out and stop criminals OUTSIDE of it impacting themselves.

So what is the fix?

Make it beneficial for players to hunt criminal and bandit style players. This, in turn, solves the problem of "griefing" without babying the game.

NOT the bounty system.. That thing just does not work well at all. We need a system that allows a GROUP of blues to gather together and actively hunt criminals; and to be rewarded for doing so. A reward that is WORTH hunting criminals.

One of the biggest reasons the bounty hunting system is a failure (and there are many reasons), is because you have two people max per contract. This is out of touch with the way MO2 operates.

This is a fact : people are more likely to engage in criminal behavior (in real life) if they know they can get away with it. What does that mean? It means, if we translate it to MO2, people are more likely to be criminal if they're in large groups, because they know they can get away with killing people with the support of a group.

Criminals are almost always in a group. You're sending bounty hunters out to deal with a zerg as two people.. It doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Unlike a bounty system, there should be more general system. Killing a criminal or maybe a red name should add a point to their contract, or something to that effect. Maybe some way to get a group of people together also. I'm not here to flesh out the entire system, just to explain that the solution is to give incentive for GROUPS of non-criminals to go out and hunt criminals.

Why do the police seek out criminal behavior and stop it? They're paid to do so. They benefit from it personally.

All i know is, the reason "griefing" is overwhelming, is because there is no selfish reason to deal with it by those who are not directly impacted. That is why we have law enforcement that functions well in real life, and essentially none in MO2.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sally! I completely agree with your reasoning about giving groups of non-criminals a selfish incentive to hunt down reds. Your point about griefing persisting because there’s no personal reason for others to stop it is spot on—and dovetails perfectly with the core issues we’ve identified.

What we’re both circling here is the same foundational problem: a lack of real consequences for reds and real motivations for their prey and potential bounty hunters to engage with the system. Currently, griefing isn’t just easy; it’s actively incentivized. Reds face minimal risk, can easily clear their status, and have every reason to act preemptively in PvP. After all, when they know others will likely target them anyway (thanks to the vicious cycle of red behavior), why wouldn’t they strike first, especially when they can rely on surprise or catch players at their weakest?

On the flip side, there’s no real reward for bounty hunters right now—no tools to catch their targets before the system effectively absolves them of their crimes. Even if there were solid financial incentives, it would still be like paying a police force handsomely but requiring them to drop every case if the perp disappears for a few hours or calls it a night. That’s not justice—that’s theater.

Meanwhile, victims are left entirely in the cold, which is perhaps the most damaging piece of the puzzle. Without meaningful restitution, they have no incentive to stay in the game. Why endure repeated harassment when the system offers nothing in return for their trouble? As you so aptly pointed out, there’s no selfish reason for them to stick it out—and that’s why we see the attrition of prey players, which further exacerbates the imbalance.

To summarize:

1. Reds need real disincentives: Consequences that actually sting, like longer criminal durations and punishments proportional to their actions.
2. Bounty hunters need real tools and rewards: Financial incentives, persistence in bounties that don’t evaporate overnight, and fixes to prevent griefers from gaming the system.
3. Victims need real compensation: Meaningful restitution that not only softens the blow but actively encourages them to stay engaged.

The beauty of your bounty hunting proposal is that it aligns perfectly with these principles. While your system and the justice reform proposal could function independently, they both depend on addressing the glaring flaws in the current system. Once SV fix the foundation, both approaches could thrive, and MO2 would be all the richer for it.

 

[Sally]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sally! I completely agree with your reasoning about giving groups of non-criminals a selfish incentive to hunt down reds. Your point about griefing persisting because there’s no personal reason for others to stop it is spot on—and dovetails perfectly with the core issues we’ve identified.

What we’re both circling here is the same foundational problem: a lack of real consequences for reds and real motivations for their prey and potential bounty hunters to engage with the system. Currently, griefing isn’t just easy; it’s actively incentivized. Reds face minimal risk, can easily clear their status, and have every reason to act preemptively in PvP. After all, when they know others will likely target them anyway (thanks to the vicious cycle of red behavior), why wouldn’t they strike first, especially when they can rely on surprise or catch players at their weakest?

On the flip side, there’s no real reward for bounty hunters right now—no tools to catch their targets before the system effectively absolves them of their crimes. Even if there were solid financial incentives, it would still be like paying a police force handsomely but requiring them to drop every case if the perp disappears for a few hours or calls it a night. That’s not justice—that’s theater.

Meanwhile, victims are left entirely in the cold, which is perhaps the most damaging piece of the puzzle. Without meaningful restitution, they have no incentive to stay in the game. Why endure repeated harassment when the system offers nothing in return for their trouble? As you so aptly pointed out, there’s no selfish reason for them to stick it out—and that’s why we see the attrition of prey players, which further exacerbates the imbalance.

To summarize:

1. Reds need real disincentives: Consequences that actually sting, like longer criminal durations and punishments proportional to their actions.
2. Bounty hunters need real tools and rewards: Financial incentives, persistence in bounties that don’t evaporate overnight, and fixes to prevent griefers from gaming the system.
3. Victims need real compensation: Meaningful restitution that not only softens the blow but actively encourages them to stay engaged.

The beauty of your bounty hunting proposal is that it aligns perfectly with these principles. While your system and the justice reform proposal could function independently, they both depend on addressing the glaring flaws in the current system. Once SV fix the foundation, both approaches could thrive, and MO2 would be all the richer for it.

See, although i want more reasons for people to fight criminals, i disagree with punishing them more than they already are via the actual systems in the game.

The game needs red players, as this is a player event driven game; the PVE is just a way to make those events occur between players (who'd have thought picking cabbages would be so dangerous).

A solo red is a brutal playstyle as it is now. I don't think people realize just how difficult it is unless they've played like that before. Like, there are no markets in criminal towns, as in, nobody sells anything on them.

This means going to a blue town, where It is extremely risky taking things out of the bank, and using the trade broker. You basically can't use markets anymore, essentially.

OR, you have to be self sufficient and get the resources yourself, which is MASSIVELY time consuming.

That is a HUGE downside.

In turn, they usually either have to resort to swapping characters, or getting someone else to help them, which is very inconvenient for a multitude of reasons.

This is different if they're in a guild, however; as they can likely have everything handed to them. Honestly, if you were to make anything a downside for reds, in terms of a system, it should be for those in guilds. Someone mentioned that there should be "red" guilds.. Essentially where the guild has a collective murder count that runs down even slower than an individual murder count. Anyone in the guild is turned red in relation to the collective guild murder count. It needs to go down very slowly, and be independent of housing a red player, as then they could just kick them out of the guild and go blue again. It should work like a slower version of a player murder count.

But yes... If you punish reds now, you make solo red, which is already extremely difficult, even more impossible, which isn't really fair. I don't expect people to understand how difficult it is unless they've actually played that way, with no help.

 

[CherryKush]

TLDR

Its AI generated garbage anyways...

 

[Teknique]

Its AI generated garbage anyways...

Definitely AI yeah