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.

 

[Dargelar]

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.

I can’t speak for Arma 3, but in Foxhole there’s no instant respawn. The mechanics work exactly the same as in MO2. After you die, you get about 10 seconds to think, and then everything depends on the balance of forces in the battle. Sometimes you have to wait 20 to 40 seconds. Respawning works similarly to MO2 — you have a home and regional spawn point. After respawning, you need to spend time equipping new gear, which also takes time. Although you can run out naked and equip yourself on the battlefield.
The proposed system in For Honor essentially punishes players for breaking the duel code rules and isn’t a proper zerg‑balance mechanic. Within the MO2 framework, it wouldn’t be any different from the Alvarin advantage. An anti‑zerg tool should be simple and easy to understand, not just strip players of damage and make the usual gameplay unplayable.

“You’re pointing out differences between the examples I gave, which, in context, mean nothing — it’s like saying Albion doesn’t have friendly fire, so the anti‑zerg mechanic is bad in MO2??? That doesn’t make sense to me at all.”
I’m sure that if you put Albion players, with their balanced abilities, into an MO2 environment (first‑person view), 80 % of them would “die like flies,” not understanding what’s going on. The first‑person view imposes serious limitations on a character’s actions, primarily on their awareness of the surroundings and information about potential threats. It’s not without reason that players try by any means to expand their visual range.
Friendly fire rules hit players’ psyche and control really hard — it’s a fairly difficult mode. Especially for Albion or LoL players; they aren’t prepared for it, despite their high skill level. Friendly fire is part of the anti‑zerg system.
When deciding which abilities to add to MO2, several rules should be taken into account:

• Abilities that affect more than 3 players (enemies!) at the same time already break the balance. They shouldn’t be instant or barely noticeable. On the contrary, such an ability should require some risk from the user and involve certain conditions to be met. It should be visible enough so that players operating with “tunnel vision” can react to it.
• For weapons, their fundamental capabilities under harsh conditions are critical: if you see a hammer, be ready for crowd control; if you see an axe, expect a flurry of attacks. Combining a large set of different abilities in one weapon is a big mistake. It’s better to simply allow players to use a wider variety of weapons.
• The spirit of MO2 is about confrontation based on simple attacks — that is, 70–80 % of the combat time should be spent using these basic attacks. Otherwise, the game will turn into something else, more arcade‑like.
• Numbers mean nothing — they don’t seriously address the problem. What matters are the properties they provide. If you’re only tweaking numbers, you’re essentially admitting that the chosen ability works correctly and just needs fine‑tuning.

There’s a partial misconception about the Alvarin imbalance issue: if you “close your eyes” and remove Alvarin from the game, balance won’t magically appear.

“1. Alvarin nerf: 2.5 % speed, 30 stam, armpr, pierce, AND Alvarin sight — all removed.”
Here, you’re not just weakening Alvarin — you’re basically beating him with sticks. In my opinion, the problem is that these bonuses are too significant and convenient. So, they just need to be adjusted.
For example: walking and running speed shouldn’t increase linearly but should jump at values that are multiples of 5 and 10, respectively. Reduce the overall speed gain after 100 agility by half. Excessive speed disrupts not only PvP balance but also PvE.
Characters with 80 and 84 agility walk at the same speed; those with 80 and 89 agility run at the same speed. The only difference is the amount of stamina.
Tie walking and running speed to height — taller characters have longer legs, so they’re faster; shorter ones are slower.
Alvarin’s sight is definitely overpowered — turn it into a hearing mechanic instead. Instead of showing precise character outlines that reveal their type and distance, display noise sources as circles radiating from the center. A large circle means the source is close; a small one means it’s far away. Who’s there? Go check — it might be an NPC.
As for “armor pierce,” I’d like it to work differently overall. Instead of a chance for enhanced damage, let it determine the ability to deal full damage with bows, daggers, and spears. This would make Alvarins not super‑archers and super‑spearmen but simply the best among archers and spearmen due to more frequent full‑attack triggers.

“2. MA nerf: make MA have less DPS, not just with abilities, but overall, the same way MM has a DPS reduction.” This class has too easy and predictable gameplay — it feels like they’re playing a different game. Reducing damage will only lead to higher arrow consumption.

“3. MC buff: make MC able to wield all weapons footmen can, and give them a charge that boosts their speed as an ability.”
Both of these classes need a complete overhaul of their game mechanics; I’d rather just disable them until they’re reworked. For MC, we need to create unique attack mechanics and combat behavior patterns. This requires better controls so that a rider can move not just forward and turn around but also strafe — “forward‑sideways” and “backward‑sideways” — and have their own form of “combat walking” with mobility comparable to foot soldiers, but with inertia elements.

 

[Dargelar]

“Then eventually buff all the weak weapon heads, masteries, clade gifts, spells, etc. — just regular balance, man.”
Yes, all the extra skills from clade gifts that give +30 stamina/health/mana, etc., should be removed and moved to the mastery tree. Keep only unique passive abilities, active abilities, and team shouts in clade gifts. The mastery tree should become the second stage of race customization and consist of 70 % race‑specific stats that are only available within that race’s customization — this is dozens of times easier to balance than a tree that’s 70 % accessible to everyone.
For PvE abilities, introduce separate points earned every few levels, with an independent branch for unlocking them. Allow players to gain additional PvE points through the mastery tree to unlock all PvE abilities. It’s silly to limit PvE capabilities in a PvP game — we just need to curb greed.

“Add focus fire from Albion (damage reduction based on constant attackers that deal steady damage / grant nearly full charge on parries)” — unfortunately, I’m against this; in the MO2 context, it’s overpowered.

“Add instanced dungeons, POIs, and many more soloable dungeons in general.” Instanced dungeons contradict the spirit of MO2. We need alternative options — I’m not sure what exactly. Perhaps a system of NPC camps inside such dungeons, where players don’t explore ruins but solve small problems that factions don’t want to handle with an army. We could also make things harder by disabling the criminal timer while inside the dungeon (you’d have to leave the dungeon to remove the effect). If a player logs out while in a dungeon for more than 5 minutes, they should be forcibly moved to the nearest camp.
I’m generally against the ability to log out in a dungeon and return to the exact same spot. In the MO2 context, I consider this an exploit. Entering a dungeon should be an independent session. It doesn’t matter if a player can safely carry out gathered resources — if they stood there for 2 minutes and no one killed them, they’ve earned it. That’s better than having an entire army appear where there was no one a minute ago, or farming a boss on a timer with a dedicated squad.

“Add anti‑archery and anti‑magic counter mechanics, or perhaps make the current CR less effective against archery and magic.”
This isn’t directly related to anti‑zerg, but you’re right — archery is too simple to warrant guaranteed damage, and magic clearly needs a damage cap due to how easy it is to use and the lack of protection against magic, especially for melee fighters. As an alternative, I’d suggest a passive magic‑reflection bonus (reducing damage by half) for each full point of adrenaline. So, if there are many mages in a fight, a warrior will have to rely more on basic attacks and racial abilities — or take the risk of getting hit hard by mages.
For some reason, the game doesn’t offer any serious magic resistance, even if you max out the “psyche” stat at 100. For a warrior, it doesn’t give you anything beyond a slightly reduced damage intake. The game needs dedicated anti‑mage units — characters who can just walk through areas where others would get torn apart by magic.

In sieges, magic is often abused in narrow chokepoints and passageways — it’s a huge problem when a few casters can lock down key routes and shut down entire pushes.

“NERF CORRUPT.” Technically, it’s accessible to human, but overall, yes, you’re right — it’s a design failure. The mechanics for removing crowd control effects should be the first thing developers consider when adjusting MMO balance.

 

[Iloros]

“Then eventually buff all the weak weapon heads, masteries, clade gifts, spells, etc. — just regular balance, man.”
Yes, all the extra skills from clade gifts that give +30 stamina/health/mana, etc., should be removed and moved to the mastery tree. Keep only unique passive abilities, active abilities, and team shouts in clade gifts. The mastery tree should become the second stage of race customization and consist of 70 % race‑specific stats that are only available within that race’s customization — this is dozens of times easier to balance than a tree that’s 70 % accessible to everyone.
For PvE abilities, introduce separate points earned every few levels, with an independent branch for unlocking them. Allow players to gain additional PvE points through the mastery tree to unlock all PvE abilities. It’s silly to limit PvE capabilities in a PvP game — we just need to curb greed.

“Add focus fire from Albion (damage reduction based on constant attackers that deal steady damage / grant nearly full charge on parries)” — unfortunately, I’m against this; in the MO2 context, it’s overpowered.

“Add instanced dungeons, POIs, and many more soloable dungeons in general.” Instanced dungeons contradict the spirit of MO2. We need alternative options — I’m not sure what exactly. Perhaps a system of NPC camps inside such dungeons, where players don’t explore ruins but solve small problems that factions don’t want to handle with an army. We could also make things harder by disabling the criminal timer while inside the dungeon (you’d have to leave the dungeon to remove the effect). If a player logs out while in a dungeon for more than 5 minutes, they should be forcibly moved to the nearest camp.
I’m generally against the ability to log out in a dungeon and return to the exact same spot. In the MO2 context, I consider this an exploit. Entering a dungeon should be an independent session. It doesn’t matter if a player can safely carry out gathered resources — if they stood there for 2 minutes and no one killed them, they’ve earned it. That’s better than having an entire army appear where there was no one a minute ago, or farming a boss on a timer with a dedicated squad.

“Add anti‑archery and anti‑magic counter mechanics, or perhaps make the current CR less effective against archery and magic.”
This isn’t directly related to anti‑zerg, but you’re right — archery is too simple to warrant guaranteed damage, and magic clearly needs a damage cap due to how easy it is to use and the lack of protection against magic, especially for melee fighters. As an alternative, I’d suggest a passive magic‑reflection bonus (reducing damage by half) for each full point of adrenaline. So, if there are many mages in a fight, a warrior will have to rely more on basic attacks and racial abilities — or take the risk of getting hit hard by mages.
For some reason, the game doesn’t offer any serious magic resistance, even if you max out the “psyche” stat at 100. For a warrior, it doesn’t give you anything beyond a slightly reduced damage intake. The game needs dedicated anti‑mage units — characters who can just walk through areas where others would get torn apart by magic.

In sieges, magic is often abused in narrow chokepoints and passageways — it’s a huge problem when a few casters can lock down key routes and shut down entire pushes.

“NERF CORRUPT.” Technically, it’s accessible to human, but overall, yes, you’re right — it’s a design failure. The mechanics for removing crowd control effects should be the first thing developers consider when adjusting MMO balance.

Your counterarguments dont follow, I believe you are honest and intelligent and dont want to turn this into any bad blood as I usually do over these topics, truly, but I dont see how any of these follow.


For your counterargument of me saying you just point out non relevant differences between games when I draw different parallels you pointed out another non relevant difference

I say antizerg would be nice, YOU LITERALLY SAY ALBION IS 3RD PERSON THEREFORE NO?

I see 0 counterarguments to antizerg and instances and I provided many cases for them.

Focus fire isnt too OP in mo2 hell its weaker than in Albion if e were to JUST add focus fire. And if its too strong reduce % defense modifier a little bit

Its 100% needed for both 1vx and outnumbered fights AND the predictable boring zvz playstyle of just focusing one guy till he dies making it very boring for that person and that goes for multiple people that get focused first. (Obviously the small scalr part is much more importsnt but still worth noting this helps everything)

For Honors revenge is absolutely busted yi just gave it as an example.

Mo2 with revenge > mo2 with no antizerg at all BUT there are better ways.

If you could explain WHY mo2 doesnt need antizerg but all the other games even with more fair genres implement some form of 1vx ability that gets more and more consistent as we approach this extremely u fair genre

Until we get to Albion which is the best game in the genre and also not coincidentally has like 5 massive antizerg mechanics.

Make a case, not "eh I disagree with antizerg and the game has difference Z and Y therefore cant be compared"

You are also massively underestimating Alvarins lol. Sheevras used to have 90 hp run naked and win all 1v1s except vs a Veela. They are now more played than all the other races combined and absolutely need to be gutted for the sake of the game.

 

[Emdash]

I like smallscale, but peep this.

First off, you sound like you wanna nerf effectively playing the game That's not gonna work. lol. Some of us enjoy playing different despite what it means, but you can't impose that on someone.

Secondly, 'fair pvp' has its problems as well. It breaks the structure of the game.

I assume you have played other team based pvp games, and I assume you have seen games where people purposefully make your team lose because they are feeling emotional. That doesn't happen in MO. Or, the chance of it happening is veeeery low. You might have someone raid your guild chest or rat you out, but having your team just feed themselves to enemies and sit at the priest while you guys lose, nah.

There are a lot of downsides to MO ruleset, but I think the rules they have imposed to try to soften said ruleset have not really helped with the downsides and have taken away from the good part.

The reasons factions make sense is that then everyone becomes part of a larger zerg, altho I prefer a 3rd chaos faction. You are not an ant, but you are someone who can go into a pvp situation that is happening and have a defined role. Yes, people will fight their own faction and try to grief their own faction, as would happen in anything where people 'team up.' I think it would be worth a try.

In MO, there was nothing stopping you from fighting people in almost any circumstance. That was good.

In MO, there are not teams. It's more like people are a % on your side and that dynamically changes. Because you cannot say which team someone is on, it becomes very hard to add in anti-zerg.

What I wanna see is the removal of shit like Alv sight and more terrain, escape routes. Climbing is kind of a thing in MO, but there aren't really areas where you have to do navigate hazardous terrain and can gain something by doing it, like fighting mobs on cliffs or something. Lack of imagination.

I would also like to see a part of the map that is valuable where mounts run like they do in dungeons. They have the ability to do that. Then people can have their foot paradise.

But anti zerg doesn't work because there are not teams. IF you add in teams, like factions, it would change everything. Maybe for the better, but it also allows for people to log into their grief alt and give the enemy anti zerg bonuses, yafeelme.

I do agree with making the game fun, tho. Add in more shit to do. I don't think it's happening. heh.