Sarducca will not save the game.

[fartbox]

Hello it's me again. You might remember me from my previous threads; the most recent of which predicted that relics would have no meaningful impact on long term population trends and that the game will be at its lowest concurrent population 6months post relic.

It looks as if im on track to be correct (again). I want to make it clear that i'm not dooming to say "i told you so", i'm doing it because I love Mortal 2, arguably more then Henrik because I would be willing to do what's necessary to ensure its survival when it appears he is not willing.

This brings me to my next topic: Sarducca and its inability to influence population long-term in a meaningful way. I expect sarducca to produce a population boom bigger then relics but smaller then mastery update, this boom will be temporary just like the updates previous to it.

But why? Because Sarducca doesn't address the single biggest issue Mortal is facing right now which is lack of meaningful competitive solo gameplay loops. quite simply put Mortal cannot possibly grow long term until this issue is rectified. Solo gameplay is the water to online games, it is the building block of life to which all other life in online games derive from. All online multiplayer games must abide by solo looping the foundation or the game eventually dies, matchmaking solves this issue in team oriented games but MMOs do not have matchmaking, or if they do it's "soft matchmaking" like factions.

So what should Mortals dev team be focusing on right now if they want to grow the game? Creating a ecosystem in which a single player with 2 hours of gameplay a day can get in, compete, make meaningful progression and contest objectives relevant to their progression. While keeping in mind the core tenant of any game (not just online); Games are built on winners and losers, the trick is to keep the losers winning just enough to keep them in the game. This is something i'm confident I could do if given creative authority over Mortal 2.

 

[Teknique]

So what should Mortals dev team be focusing on right now if they want to grow the game? Creating a ecosystem in which a single player with 2 hours of gameplay a day can get in, compete, make meaningful progression and contest objectives relevant to their progression. While keeping in mind the core tenant of any game (not just online); Games are built on winners and losers, the trick is to keep the losers winning just enough to keep them in the game. This is something i'm confident I could do if given creative authority over Mortal 2.

Like what

 

[fartbox]

Like what

Would be looking to other games for inspirations but mostly it would come down to what the devs at SV think they can do efficiently and quickly; because time is an issue, on the current trajectory there will come a day when Mortals population becomes so low that it won't be possible to reinvigorate it.

There are two paths to go down or its possible to take a mixed approach, which is what OSRS has done.

Path1: Extremely short TTK. Think Rust TTK or even less. Very short TTKs benefit solo players because many times when they die to a group of players they will inflict losses before they die. This goes back to the mantra we must follow; "Keep the losers winning just enough to stay in the game."

Cons: Devalues gear, devalues defensive bonus's/spells, completely changes the game.

Path 2: Hard caped game areas. These areas prevent grouping, they are often instanced, though in games like OSRS they are not instanced and instead the game is coded to allow only two players to hit eachother and the code does not allow other players to interfere (though they can watch and tag in, if the players stop combat for long enough).

Cons: Instancing. Though it is possible to code this open world and OSRS is an example of 1v1 open world code.

Also worth mentioning the "utility approach": Stealth mechanics, intel mechanics, disengage mechanics. This is something EVE has leaned on heavily. But you can see examples of it in Albion and OSRS as well. Albion has a plethora of "force pushes" which can be used either defensively (disengage) or offensively (pushing enemy groups into hostile NPC/AI) as well as plenty of stealth mechanics for disengage. OSRS has teleportation and quick-logout(with combat timer) to disengage from unfavorable fights.

I've never seen a game just incorporate utility though. It's always in tandem with other measures to ensure solo players are bolstered in the game.


Mortal is currently not incorporating anything on this list. The time to start taking an active stance on saving this game was yesterday, but the second best time will be today. I have identified for you why the game is suffering to attract and retain players. The changes necessary will require compromise from both Henrik and the Veteran community but the prognosis is grim if they are not made. 2025 may be the last year Mortal exists in any relevancy, if the average concurrent drops below 500 it will be nearly impossible to ever have a flourishing MMO regardless of any changes you may make.

 

[Emdash]

Would be looking to other games for inspirations but mostly it would come down to what the devs at SV think they can do efficiently and quickly; because time is an issue, on the current trajectory there will come a day when Mortals population becomes so low that it won't be possible to reinvigorate it.

There are two paths to go down or its possible to take a mixed approach, which is what OSRS has done.

Path1: Extremely short TTK. Think Rust TTK or even less. Very short TTKs benefit solo players because many times when they die to a group of players they will inflict losses before they die. This goes back to the mantra we must follow; "Keep the losers winning just enough to stay in the game."

Cons: Devalues gear, devalues defensive bonus's/spells, completely changes the game.

Path 2: Hard caped game areas. These areas prevent grouping, they are often instanced, though in games like OSRS they are not instanced and instead the game is coded to allow only two players to hit eachother and the code does not allow other players to interfere (though they can watch and tag in, if the players stop combat for long enough).

Cons: Instancing. Though it is possible to code this open world and OSRS is an example of 1v1 open world code.

Mortal Reform in Honor of Possible NA Server:

I have an idea. I'm sorry people don't like my ideas, but if you aren't going to consider it or if you find yourself angry halfway through, please leave this thread haha. OK, first off, we know that I want to remove Haven. I have heard the argument that Haven will never go because they put too...

mortalonline2.com

 

[MolagAmur]

A wipe would. Change my mind...

 

[fartbox]

A wipe would. Change my mind...

Would do nothing to change the retention/adoption rate. Would only apply to previously invested players and all population gained from doing so would be temporary. We would find ourselves in a 600 average concurrent environment within 1 year if the only change made was a wipe.

Think about the games Mortal is competing with, think about what they have to offer vs what mortal does. You have to remember that video games are products and they are competing against eachother for the same pool of players. New players don't just magically appear, they come from other games.

 

[fartbox]

Fast travel for blues needs to happen and it needs to happen yesterday. Im pretty sure this change would bring in more new players then any other single update including a wipe and the population would be more keen on long term adoption. Making fast travel for blues in tandem with solo orientated mechanic changes would see mortals population get to 2.5k concurrent in short order. Though going above that with a single server would likely be improbable due to server limitations and limited map resources. But lets focus on filling one server up as our a tentative first objective.



Even Jonah Veil would come back if they added fast travel. Alot of prominent communities have written this game off until Henrik is willing to make compromises on his "vision".

 

[Xunila]

The discussion about wipe doesn't help. We had the same requests over an over again in MO1. First, StarVault will never wipe. Next wipe would be MO3. And second, even more important, a few month after a wipe we get the same situation again. Nothing would change.

 

[Emdash]

Would do nothing to change the retention/adoption rate. Would only apply to previously invested players and all population gained from doing so would be temporary. We would find ourselves in a 600 average concurrent environment within 1 year if the only change made was a wipe.

Think about the games Mortal is competing with, think about what they have to offer vs what mortal does. You have to remember that video games are products and they are competing against eachother for the same pool of players. New players don't just magically appear, they come from other games.

It would help if they got rid of the stuff that was ruining the game. The gameplay is bad in some ways, but I assume they are working on that. However, the fact that people can get boosted in mastery, RMT trinks, no one can be sieged, and magics are on lock down is just bad game management.

They need to fix that stuff and then the a wipe might make sense, but once it got evened out, people would get 'wiped' in their own way haha.

 

[ElPerro]

Would be looking to other games for inspirations but mostly it would come down to what the devs at SV think they can do efficiently and quickly; because time is an issue, on the current trajectory there will come a day when Mortals population becomes so low that it won't be possible to reinvigorate it.

There are two paths to go down or its possible to take a mixed approach, which is what OSRS has done.

Path1: Extremely short TTK. Think Rust TTK or even less. Very short TTKs benefit solo players because many times when they die to a group of players they will inflict losses before they die. This goes back to the mantra we must follow; "Keep the losers winning just enough to stay in the game."

Cons: Devalues gear, devalues defensive bonus's/spells, completely changes the game.

I agree TTK is pretty bad in this game, especially mages now with the tower shields.

Path 2: Hard caped game areas. These areas prevent grouping, they are often instanced, though in games like OSRS they are not instanced and instead the game is coded to allow only two players to hit eachother and the code does not allow other players to interfere (though they can watch and tag in, if the players stop combat for long enough).

Cons: Instancing. Though it is possible to code this open world and OSRS is an example of 1v1 open world code.

Lost me here, the whole point of a sandbox mmorpg is to avoid these type of arranged fights. Might as well stay in town dueling then.

Also worth mentioning the "utility approach": Stealth mechanics, intel mechanics, disengage mechanics. This is something EVE has leaned on heavily. But you can see examples of it in Albion and OSRS as well. Albion has a plethora of "force pushes" which can be used either defensively (disengage) or offensively (pushing enemy groups into hostile NPC/AI) as well as plenty of stealth mechanics for disengage. OSRS has teleportation and quick-logout(with combat timer) to disengage from unfavorable fights.

I've never seen a game just incorporate utility though. It's always in tandem with other measures to ensure solo players are bolstered in the game.


Mortal is currently not incorporating anything on this list. The time to start taking an active stance on saving this game was yesterday, but the second best time will be today. I have identified for you why the game is suffering to attract and retain players. The changes necessary will require compromise from both Henrik and the Veteran community but the prognosis is grim if they are not made. 2025 may be the last year Mortal exists in any relevancy, if the average concurrent drops below 500 it will be nearly impossible to ever have a flourishing MMO regardless of any changes you may make.

We had disengage mechanics in MO1 like kite sprinting but zerg players in the test team convinced Henrik that there was "too much running" and they removed it. Ideally any disengage mechanic shouldnt be an automatic get out of jail card without counters, but something that requires skill with a slight edge to the one disengaging. One of the few games that managed to do this succesfully was Darkfall 1 with bunny hopping, but again the braindead developers removed it on the 2nd game and it became a zerg fest.

 

[Mad Jugger]

Nothing will save this game It is doing exactly what MO1 did. Sustain itself with little or no players. For most of MO1s life it had under 500 players. We are almost there boys!

 

[fartbox]

I agree TTK is pretty bad in this game, especially mages now with the tower shields.


Lost me here, the whole point of a sandbox mmorpg is to avoid these type of arranged fights. Might as well stay in town dueling then.

We had disengage mechanics in MO1 like kite sprinting but zerg players in the test team convinced Henrik that there was "too much running" and they removed it. Ideally any disengage mechanic shouldnt be an automatic get out of jail card without counters, but something that requires skill with a slight edge to the one disengaging. One of the few games that managed to do this succesfully was Darkfall 1 with bunny hopping, but again the braindead developers removed it on the 2nd game and it became a zerg fest.

Strong agree, DFO bunnyhopping was an example of an excellent disengage mechanics. Arguably the best ever incorporated into a MMO. EVE online also has one I adore. the Micro jump drive. It punishes attackers too cowardly to get into scramble range, allowing you to reposition 100km away after a short spool-up period.

Albion force pushes, and temporary counterable invisibility is another great example of good disengage.

An example of bad disengage is OSRS; Teleportation. There is no counterplay to it under 30 wild. It has been co-opted by bots to teleport away with inhuman reaction times. The logout timer cannot be used while in combat with PVE so it is not a concern but the teleportation has become something that is heavily utilized by bots.

However even a bad disengage is still better then no disengage because an environment with no disengage is only appealing to zergs. currently no one in mortal has access to any disengages except elves.


Also in regards to instancing and hard caped 1v1/2v2/3v3 areas and ETC; It is not in my opinion that they are immersive or inherently good. They are neutral in my mind. They are employed by devs because they are low hanging fruit. Easy to code, easy balancing, and effective at their duty(preventing zerging or disparity fights). IF the devs at starvault are up to the task of balancing proper mechanics to punish zerging or disparity in other ways then I am ok with that. But in the absence of that we need SOMETHING and we need it quickly or the game will simply die out to its competitors in the market.

If instanced content is the only way to quickly save the solo game loop because the devs do not have enough resources to do it another way then i'm ok with it.

We must find a way to keep gamers with no social network and 2-3 hours a day to spare in this game and we need to do it immediately. The community must demand change now from Henrik, this is our last opportunity to do so. The average concurrent is already dangerously low.

 

[Jackdstripper]

Strong agree, DFO bunnyhopping was an example of an excellent disengage mechanics. Arguably the best ever incorporated into a MMO. EVE online also has one I adore. the Micro jump drive. It punishes attackers too cowardly to get into scramble range, allowing you to reposition 100km away after a short spool-up period.

Albion force pushes, and temporary counterable invisibility is another great example of good disengage.

An example of bad disengage is OSRS; Teleportation. There is no counterplay to it under 30 wild. It has been co-opted by bots to teleport away with inhuman reaction times. The logout timer cannot be used while in combat with PVE so it is not a concern but the teleportation has become something that is heavily utilized by bots.

However even a bad disengage is still better then no disengage because an environment with no disengage is only appealing to zergs. currently no one in mortal has access to any disengages except elves.


Also in regards to instancing and hard caped 1v1/2v2/3v3 areas and ETC; It is not in my opinion that they are immersive or inherently good. They are neutral in my mind. They are employed by devs because they are low hanging fruit. Easy to code, easy balancing, and effective at their duty(preventing zerging or disparity fights). IF the devs at starvault are up to the task of balancing proper mechanics to punish zerging or disparity in other ways then I am ok with that. But in the absence of that we need SOMETHING and we need it quickly or the game will simply die out to its competitors in the market.

If instanced content is the only way to quickly save the solo game loop because the devs do not have enough resources to do it another way then i'm ok with it.

We must find a way to keep gamers with no social network and 2-3 hours a day to spare in this game and we need to do it immediately. The community must demand change now from Henrik, this is our last opportunity to do so. The average concurrent is already dangerously low.

View attachment 6677

This is one of the biggest turn offs for the single player experince to be honest. The fact that every time you get ganked, whether you see it coming or not, there is almost no chance of getting away. You are forced to fight, because every mechanic is slanted in favour of the person initiating the fight. Even the simple fact that you cant see tags until its too late to run, shows that the devs dont want people having a chance to run away. And this is why the only people that remain playing this game are the ones that love to gank. They know that all the mechanics are in their favour like in no other game. This is by design. This is how SV wants it.

Im not saying that once you are engaged in the fight you should be able to just run away, but if you see it coming you should be able to avoid it if you are prepared. Ganking should not be as easy as it is.

Sarducca will bring back a decent amount of players that just want to explore the new continent, but after a month or two they will all leave. Nothing is fundamentally changed for the better.

 

[MolagAmur]

Hard agree on the lack of disengage mechanics.

 

[fartbox]

This is one of the biggest turn offs for the single player experince to be honest. The fact that every time you get ganked, whether you see it coming or not, there is almost no chance of getting away. You are forced to fight, because every mechanic is slanted in favour of the person initiating the fight. Even the simple fact that you cant see tags until its too late to run, shows that the devs dont want people having a chance to run away. And this is why the only people that remain playing this game are the ones that love to gank. They know that all the mechanics are in their favour like in no other game. This is by design. This is how SV wants it.

Im not saying that once you are engaged in the fight you should be able to just run away, but if you see it coming you should be able to avoid it if you are prepared. Ganking should not be as easy as it is.

Sarducca will bring back a decent amount of players that just want to explore the new continent, but after a month or two they will all leave. Nothing is fundamentally changed for the better.

You are not alone. In games like Rust, having no disengage is not such an issue. Because the TTK is naturally low enough that one person can inflict losses on a group, therefore a large group must be cautious about attacking even a single person. In games like Mortal, there is no downside for a large group to attack a single person, it is impossible for them to inflict losses.

In games like Mortal having no disengage becomes a liability to the games survival. In a game like mortal when one person is attacked by a group often times the situation will present with 1. Impossible to inflict losses on attackers 2.impossible to escape. Though it is possible to win 1vx situations against inexperienced players or players with bad group compositions it becomes impossible against prepared players, namely because of magic and healing.

When a player is presented with the impossibility of inflicting losses on attackers and the impossibility of escape it breeds resentment, but not towards the attackers, towards the game itself. Most players will not voluntarily pay money to be put in this situation. They will instead play a different game where they have more agency over their fate.


If the devs at Starvault can get rid of those "impossibility contingencies" then nothing is stopping Mortal from dominating the MMO sandbox subgenre, if not the entire MMO genre itself.

I have reason to believe Henrik is standing in their way though; If I was in Henriks position, the game would already have multiple servers and 10k concurrent minimum around the clock.

 

[Emdash]

You are not alone. In games like Rust, having no disengage is not such an issue. Because the TTK is naturally low enough that one person can inflict losses on a group, therefore a large group must be cautious about attacking even a single person. In games like Mortal, there is no downside for a large group to attack a single person, it is impossible for them to inflict losses.

In games like Mortal having no disengage becomes a liability to the games survival. In a game like mortal when one person is attacked by a group often times the situation will present with 1. Impossible to inflict losses on attackers 2.impossible to escape. Though it is possible to win 1vx situations against inexperienced players or players with bad group compositions it becomes impossible against prepared players, namely because of magic and healing.

When a player is presented with the impossibility of inflicting losses on attackers and the impossibility of escape it breeds resentment, but not towards the attackers, towards the game itself. Most players will not voluntarily pay money to be put in this situation. They will instead play a different game where they have more agency over their fate.


If the devs at Starvault can get rid of those "impossibility contingencies" then nothing is stopping Mortal from dominating the MMO sandbox subgenre, if not the entire MMO genre itself.

I have reason to believe Henrik is standing in their way though; If I was in Henriks position, the game would already have multiple servers and 10k concurrent minimum around the clock.

yea man me2, and I'd do it for free. I told Henrik. I'll sign a paper waving my rights to make money, if that's a worry. @Herius

I don't think it'd necessarily be 10k concurrent on multiple servers, but I could turn this shit around in one month. I could fucking piss off 75% of the population and fill it up with vets and new players.

Really, the corruption is what is killing the game. They don't even pretend it's not happening anymore. That has to go first. That + all of the entrenched corrupt people. I disagree with many of your ideas when you put them in practice, but you're not wrong about problems.

IF the world had more routes to get away, you could do it. Climbing and such would be much cooler as a disengage. Then you could have the zerg fests on flat land, just like mounteds would own flat land in MO1 but in places like GK, not so much. That's the idea, have different things that do well in different areas.

It's funny because they neutered their game and they got a more toxic playerbase that is harder to please.

 

[Sabella]

You are not alone. In games like Rust, having no disengage is not such an issue.

I have a hard time following the argument when the build-up time or the time "to snowball", is such a huge difference between the games compared.
In Rust you build a house in 30 minutes from your hidden stash next to one of your spawn/sleeping bags. In MO2 you get back to where you just died in 30 minutes, if you are lucky. And i think therefore dying in Rust is nothing compared to dying in MO2 and therefore having no disengage is not such an issue.
The survival part is missing completely. You have no notable freezing, hunger, radiation or other environmental damage to fear in MO2. Maybe also a reason for the much shorter time to build up in Rust.

Apart from sieges, don't expect a low TTK in MO2. Why you do you both expect a low TTK? Please explain.

 

[Jackdstripper]

I also dont like comparing MO to Rust. Rust feels like a survival arena. Everything is 10 times faster and easier. Dying means nothing. Dont like the people? Change server. Rulesets are just so different, its a complete different feel.

I would compare Rust to Dayz, but Mortal has a totally different feel and pace. Dying in Mortal can set you back hours of gameplay and depending on what you had equipped it could cost you days of farming.

 

[DarkWizz]

How to attract solo players

To a greater extent, I like to play MMO solo, no matter how strange it may sound. I mean, a game without a guild, but with the simple ability to team up with other players at any moment when you want to solve any task in the game. There is no such simple feature in Mortal online 2. I emphasize...

www.mortalonline2.com

 

[Emdash]

I have a hard time following the argument when the build-up time or the time "to snowball", is such a huge difference between the games compared.
In Rust you build a house in 30 minutes from your hidden stash next to one of your spawn/sleeping bags. In MO2 you get back to where you just died in 30 minutes, if you are lucky. And i think therefore dying in Rust is nothing compared to dying in MO2 and therefore having no disengage is not such an issue.
The survival part is missing completely. You have no notable freezing, hunger, radiation or other environmental damage to fear in MO2. Maybe also a reason for the much shorter time to build up in Rust.

Apart from sieges, don't expect a low TTK in MO2. Why you do you both expect a low TTK? Please explain.

Because, the longer the TTK the more inevitably every engagement becomes a zerg fight. People should be hard to kill if they are decked out in high tier metal armor with pots and stuff. But a duel shouldn't take 5-10 minutes between two good players. If this were MO1, people would just come up on top of you both and kill you while you were having some long ass duel.

What is the advantage of making it harder to kill people?