A Socio-Psychological Analysis of Player Dynamics in Mortal Online 2 and Similar Sandbox Games

[WeAreAllMortal]

The Two Primary Demographic Archetypes​

1. The Problem Solvers (Constructive Players)
   • Motivated by building, exploration, economic gameplay, and collaborative challenges.
   • Aim to solve problems, create functioning communities, and enjoy fair competition.
   • Typically have higher levels of emotional maturity and real-world success; often older or retired individuals with sufficient real-world success and ample leisure time.
2. The Miscreants (Destructive Players)
   • Driven by a desire to dominate, harass, and disrupt.
   • Aim to exploit, dominate, and cause grief or chaos—non-consensual PvP is their primary source of enjoyment.
   • Often have lower emotional maturity, poor impulse control, manipulative behavior, and enjoy demonstrating power over others without genuine challenge.
   • Frequently have more available time due to lack of real-world responsibilities or neglect thereof.

Why Sandbox PvP Games Attract Sociopathic Traits​

• Sandbox PvP as the ultimate "might-makes-right" environment.
• Lack of structured consequences attracts people predisposed to exploit freedom irresponsibly.
• Key traits attracted:
  • Aggression without accountability.
  • Manipulation (exploiting others' trust, baiting traps, etc.).
  • Narcissistic validation from dominance over weaker or unwilling opponents.

The Dynamics of Problem Solvers vs. Miscreants​

• Initial game release attracts both demographics in large numbers.
• Problem solvers build, craft, and explore.
• Miscreants identify these players as easy prey and begin preying upon them.
• Rapid attrition occurs as problem solvers leave, causing systemic collapse.

The Socio-Psychological Impact of Persistent Non-Consensual PvP​

• Problem solvers who initially join the game in good faith:
  • Either adapt and develop defensive strategies (limited in effectiveness),
  • Withdraw into safe zones, or
  • Quit entirely.
• Miscreants, seeing declining targets, intensify their activities, causing further attrition.
• The cycle intensifies as constructive players vanish, leaving increasingly aggressive players dominating the environment.

Cult-Like Mentality Among the Remnants​

• Players who remain develop a rationalization framework:
  • View the attrition not as a loss but as a test of strength.
  • Develop a distorted sense of pride in "surviving" this brutal environment.
• The game culture becomes insular, self-congratulatory, and hostile to critique or reform, embodying the "Lord of the Flies" scenario discussed earlier.

The Historical Shift in Player Mentality (UO to Today)​

• Contrast early UO days:
  • Non-consensual PvP (RPK) was generally despised by most players.
  • RPK (Random Player Killing) was socially discouraged and ostracized.
• Today:
  • RPK/griefing not only tolerated but often celebrated by vocal minorities.
  • Social media and streamer culture reinforce aggressive, anti-social playstyles as entertaining or even admirable.
  • Developers misinterpret this vocal minority as representative, reinforcing a negative feedback loop.

Why Developers Repeatedly Miss This​

• Developers may be trapped by outdated ideologies or nostalgia (e.g., Henrik’s fixation on early UO).
• Developers mistake vocal players as representative of overall community preference.
• Player forums amplify negativity bias—constructive players often quietly leave, while toxic players remain vocal and visible.
• Lack of sociological/psychological awareness among developers prevents anticipation of emergent toxic dynamics.

Solutions & Recommendations​

• Clearly separated and robust justice mechanics to contain sociopathic playstyles.
• Recognition that an unregulated sandbox inevitably favors predatory playstyles.
• Encouraging genuine emergent community governance through robust tools—not relying solely on players' moral goodwill (which often doesn’t exist).

Conclusion: How Sandbox MMOs Could Actually Thrive​

• Sandbox MMOs must consciously manage their socio-psychological dynamics.
• Real-world social dynamics (justice, punishment, restitution, and incentives for cooperative play) are crucial.
• Games that ignore these fundamentals spiral inevitably into toxic wastelands.

Ultimately, MO2’s strength will not be measured by the hardcore few who remain, but by the healthy community that could grow if meaningful reforms are embraced.

 

[Gnidex]

All the ideas and changes ate predicated on the fact SV servers can support more than 2k cpncurrent players. In fact, they do not.

What reinvigoration are you talking about when the game is a glorified private server if you compare online counts to any actual mmo...

 

[fartbox]

All the ideas and changes ate predicated on the fact SV servers can support more than 2k cpncurrent players. In fact, they do not.

What reinvigoration are you talking about when the game is a glorified private server if you compare online counts to any actual mmo...

Starvault could launch multiple servers if the game had enough interest. It would be trivial as long as the money was there to support it. Players = money.

They could also approach it either by having all the servers shared banking/shared housing (like OSRS) Or they could have standalone servers that do not interact with eachother at all. We saw them display they have the ability to join servers before, at launch.

 

[Emdash]

Post an actual solution not:

Solutions & Recommendations​

• Clearly separated and robust justice mechanics to contain sociopathic playstyles.
• Recognition that an unregulated sandbox inevitably favors predatory playstyles.
• Encouraging genuine emergent community governance through robust tools—not relying solely on players' moral goodwill (which often doesn’t exist).

 

[Emdash]

All the ideas and changes ate predicated on the fact SV servers can support more than 2k cpncurrent players. In fact, they do not.

What reinvigoration are you talking about when the game is a glorified private server if you compare online counts to any actual mmo...

they need a glorified second server. We can call it MALTIERULES server

But really, put them side by side and watch what happens and which one is cleaner. I'll put my imagination of the system vs other people's. You can't have thoughts on a game that are rooted in "I need justice cuz people killed me." Of course, you are supposed to feel that way, but the people killing you are playing a different game. There need to be levels.

Should be like TC / Sweat content that defines a lot of the game.

Grief / smallscale content that influences the game within that.

And builder / merchant etc... content that works within those parameters.

It's so important to note that I was not a pvper haha. I thought PKing was vile in MO1. I knew plenty of other people who would never PK someone without a reason. There are a decent amount of people like that. It's not hard to play MO and just kill the people who violate you haha. Still, all the people I talked to DID NOT GET GRIEFED OUT OF THE GAME. The people who got griefed out of the game were people who basically never talked to anyone. The people who were far enough along in the game to be someone you'd say hi to, beyond the graveyard, were there until they got bored.

So, the obvious thing would be to make the early game better. I don't think it's wrong to ban or warn people for excessive harassing of nubs. Or dedicate villains as the only people who can harass certain nub areas. There is such a profound lack of imagination.

But I still think the trink/mastery/rmt thing is the biggest issue.

 

[Gnidex]

Starvault could launch multiple servers if the game had enough interest. It would be trivial as long as the money was there to support it. Players = money.

They could also approach it either by having all the servers shared banking/shared housing (like OSRS) Or they could have standalone servers that do not interact with eachother at all. We saw them display they have the ability to join servers before, at launch.

The game is great in theory...in practice it's shit.

They could do a number of things to fix and save it, but they did not.

 

[Jackdstripper]

• Contrast early UO days:
  • Non-consensual PvP (RPK) was generally despised by most players.
  • RPK (Random Player Killing) was socially discouraged and ostracized.
• Today:
  • RPK/griefing not only tolerated but often celebrated by vocal minorities.
  • Social media and streamer culture reinforce aggressive, anti-social playstyles as entertaining or even admirable.
  • Developers misinterpret this vocal minority as representative, reinforcing a negative feedback loop.

This pretty much this.

Gamers used to be mostly nice, easy going, nerdy people. Just happy to have a world of fantasy to play in. Thats no longer the case. Now days a large percentage of gamers (and especially gamers that play “no rules” pvp games) look for places where they can play out their narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies to the fullest of their extent. Any and all behaviour is acceptable with the excuse that its “just a game”. It is just a game, but the people in it are real, and purposely inflicting pain on people, even if just emotional or psychological, its a sociopathic tendency.

Gaming is no longer a hobby, its a fix. For too many people its now a place where to unload all your frustration and unhappiness in life, while remaining largely anonymous and free of real world repercussions.

Mortal needs to stop catering to these types of gamers. Sadly i dont think Henrik wants to.

 

[Emdash]

• It is just a game, but the people in it are real, and purposely inflicting pain on people, even if just emotional or psychological, its a sociopathic tendency.

Wouldn't you rather have a game with those people instead of mobs, those to overcome, etc? It all evens out, it's just poor balancing. I mean, what about bandits or risars, what do you think they enjoy doing?

I know people always come in with the 'don't compare reality to games,' and probably don't compare bots to people, but there does need to be some adjustment to the amount of damage people can do naked. I would really like to see pet bombing end. It'd be cool if there were fewer guards in town, but there were completely safe places like THE BANK and THE BROKER. Like if you think of meduli, make it safe from the vendors / down ramp bank to the ramp up to the stables. If you go down on the docks, you are not safe anymore.

Banning people who are just completely no content shitters and making 'safe areas' are the actual answers to these problems, but they are cardinal sandbox sins. I don't think it's wrong, though. Again, Let's do Bakti. From the bank to the grocer/broker is safe. They could make it so people's pets disappeared while in town yet still could be loaded with stuff and then you could leave with them. There are many pretty simple options to get rid of grief that offers no advantage, but big bro and his clan that like to 'own the graveyard' are content. There just needs to be something in it for the players. Again, that can be fixed. It's not as hard as they are making it. They would rather stack lictors than just make it so you can't blow up pets at the bank.

There is still plenty of time to blow up someone's pet if you want to, in other places.

 

[fartbox]

• Contrast early UO days:
  • Non-consensual PvP (RPK) was generally despised by most players.
  • RPK (Random Player Killing) was socially discouraged and ostracized.
• Today:
  • RPK/griefing not only tolerated but often celebrated by vocal minorities.
  • Social media and streamer culture reinforce aggressive, anti-social playstyles as entertaining or even admirable.
  • Developers misinterpret this vocal minority as representative, reinforcing a negative feedback loop.

This pretty much this.

Gamers used to be mostly nice, easy going, nerdy people. Just happy to have a world of fantasy to play in. Thats no longer the case. Now days a large percentage of gamers (and especially gamers that play “no rules” pvp games) look for places where they can play out their narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies to the fullest of their extent. Any and all behaviour is acceptable with the excuse that its “just a game”. It is just a game, but the people in it are real, and purposely inflicting pain on people, even if just emotional or psychological, its a sociopathic tendency.

Gaming is no longer a hobby, its a fix. For too many people its now a place where to unload all your frustration and unhappiness in life, while remaining largely anonymous and free of real world repercussions.

Mortal needs to stop catering to these types of gamers. Sadly i dont think Henrik wants to.

None of this matters if both sides of the coin are equalized. For the same reasons home invasions are uncommon in America(That reason is colt and Winchester). Currently there is no danger in attacking Inexperienced players or players without groups.

If we make everyone in the game dangerous and we give players the the tools to inflict damage no matter what situations they are faced with we will find a solution that is closer to reality. Mortal right now is an example of disparity. Disparity is why in real life nuclear states can invade non-nuclear states but not the other way around. Disparity is why in Mortal a group of 5 can kill 1 without ever worrying about taking any losses.

Make players dangerous, even when they aren't supported by guilds and alliances. The system works in Rust, the system works in America and that system will work in Mortal too.

The only other solution is instanced content or rule-set zones. Which is a good approach. But when I play Mortal I feel im closer to Rust then I am to Albion so taking Mortal down the path of instancing will undermine its original concept (open world). The only way open world with no ruleset works is to make everyone dangerous.

Choose one, choose both, but choosing none is not an option if the game is to survive.

 

[Sabella]

@WeAreAllMortal
It's a great system you've got. You can just go there and not look at any information you don't like. It is about the player Psy. thank you for this!
"The player is toxic, you have to understand - nothing that comes from there is of any use or even true!"
We know that song already - do you want to sing that song with us a lil bit? Okay.

Facts or not. Part of this list just puts players in drawers. And you can turn the focus to something else. That is the purpose it serves atm..
Because there are only so many topics the public focus can hold. When the focus should be: Why are new mechanics like relics introduced and old broken mechanics being neglected and ignored? Why 1 year to repair TC? Why is dazzle a forum mechanic, instead of a game mechanic? ...

Why Developers Repeatedly Miss This

• Developers may be trapped by outdated ideologies or nostalgia (e.g., Henrik’s fixation on early UO).

I would like to ask you: are you speaking on behalf of Star Vault?

• Lack of sociological/psychological awareness among developers prevents anticipation of emergent toxic dynamics.

How can valid criticism and arguments be received as toxic? And if so, that's toxic and shows the lack of education on the developers' side.
How can i say that? Well, you learn that from your Mama. To talk and pause to listen. My personal analysis. I agree on: remove arguments that are not valid. But THAT is not the right way ... and I have a 180-degree counter theory to offer to your as I think, shady analysis.

You talk about:
"Narcissistic validation from dominance over weaker or unwilling opponents" and "embodying the 'Lord of the Flies' scenario" and
"mechanics to contain sociopathic". Let me just ask you this: do you think the moments of "negative behavior/broken conditions" you described,
are permanent personal perks of the players? You can hardly judge a personality just by its dark moments. The players are angry and there is a good chance not working mechanics is the true reason why they are so out of touch in those moments.

@fartbox ".. give players the the tools to inflict damage no matter what situations they are faced with .." This! ... and the tools to protect them.
Why are the "opponents weaker or unwilling"? Could it be they do not have the tools? Absolutely.

@fartbox is on the spot: "None of this matters." Yes, I just think for different reasons. The players do not produce and design this game.
All kinds of players are welcome to play. Even those thinking they can have lots of kills in a short time, all the time. Why?
Because in the end, no matter what mindset they bring with them, it's about the game's mechanics to handle this bloodlust.
Some people want Rust? OK! Give us a crossbow with proper range, reload time and dmg. It should be in the game anyway.
No problem with that. In fact, I would welcome it - open up this game.

I also do not think Star Vault will reevaluate their target group of customers after over a decade. But maybe I am wrong with this one.
The guessing game is so exciting!

Now, to my counter theory/analysis: it's about Star Vault being in a state of mistrust, fear, hunger and in need of sleep.
They call it: "The weight of this community and its impact on development" or "The developers need to get shielded from the toxic community."

The weight of this community and its impact on development

So, rather than THIS here, what we need is Rocky Kanaka from "sitting with dogs" to talk to Star Vault and tell them "Yes Guild Tabard is good, your a good boy!" So we can build up trust again and feed the belly full of lil info-treats so Star Vault will end the toxic melee dominance over other playstyles and do some useful tricks again.

Toxic, is to expect us to happy RP the potential of the game and not the game for 3 years. If we can not do that we have "No fantasy".
Instead, I read here "Oh, let's go try to have a look inside YOUR heads." Yk what is on my mind? Here you go:
The community is fed up of the shit steering. SV delivers broken mechanics and refuses to acknowledge, refuses to repair and communicate.
From bag-bug-no-compensation-shrug to no-public-cheater-shame-list: the damage disht out upon the community is off scale.
So "We need a compensation system" would be a good topic instead.

Please, look at this post from a player just recently, another first hand report example for how MO2 is.
https://mortalonline2.com/forums/threads/here-is-some-feedback.14468/

MO2 is producing bad experiences for it's players. How dare you rather talk about the players Psy. instead! F* that, respectfully!

 

[Emdash]

They didn't want to make players dangerous due to 'terrorism,' to use your real world example. I think it all evens out, though. Or would. Siege windows set by the defender are really tough. People could knock down your house or something if they were pissed off at you. That's really the only way larger groups can be damaged. Also if you allow them to get involved in siege war, they aren't as worried about griefing nubs.