Exact Reasons why MO Died and What Not to do Moving Forward

[Teknique]

Hey all, almost everybody here already knows these things, thankfully so do the devs now too seemingly, but I just wanted to recap exactly what I feel was the cause of the decline in MO.

This is one of the few times that I will please asks the vets of the community to like this thread to show support. I know we don’t often get a long but we’re not so different you and I.

I’m going to list thing in the order that they occurred not necessarily how severe their impact was

First

Walls:

Pure conflict killers, you would often run in to scenarios where you just had nothing to do because your opponent just ran in to a gate.

This would cause a scenario where there was little choice but to stand outside a gate until the enemy certainly had enough numbers to defeat you.

Having good game sense would you lead to the conclusion that “I should disengage from this gate before I die”. People called that cowardice I called that the only logical play. It’s like not retaking B 3v4 and keeping your two m4s and awp.

Now there were many in mo who said siege the wall. This was fun but think about that logically, create another character that builds siege weapons, then another character that refines materials and so on and so on that isn’t good flow of game play.

Reverse argument: you shouldn’t be able to just run a squad of all fighters and have that be the meta there should be some other balance to it but not the way it was done in MO.

Spiritism:
allowing ghosts to jump really high and then resurrect and then call their pet and then place buildings to prevent other people from resurrecting is bad. If you need to make a portal blocker to balance a mechanic than I would avoid that entirely. This was without a doubt the worst thing for the game by factors of perhaps 1000s. Nothing could have been worse.

Don’t go anywhere near spiritism in mo2 unless you’ve quarantined it like the virus that it is and really know what you’re doing.

The prominence retention and guard range increase patch:
Guards became extremely powerful after this. Since guards will be in mo2 and henrik has talked about it extensively please avoid endless prominence banks that persist through guild destruction and please avoid extremely powerful guards.

Death Knights:
I’m going to avoid talking about the pvp aspect of death knights and instead focus on the pve. Having pets that’s solo or two man dungeon content really killed the party vibe of running dungeon content. Adding a fear mechanic that then effects beast mastery pets was a bad play and did very little to mitigate the impact since people just used macros to counteract it anyway.

And last

Avoiding the real issue:
things like above adding the confuse to pets, adding hive mind to NPCs because synyster was getting too rich off lower demons, making battering rams open gates. Basically any bandaid you try to throw on instead of addressing the actual issue.

My biggest analogy on that for mo2 is ping disparity, adjusting time between blocks, block delay, swing speeds, etc etc it’s all just ping disparity that’s the issue and then we can figure out what is still a problem or not.


What I didn’t mention:

Mounteds and pets. These things were annoying in pvp but I can’t really say they killed the game in the sense that they made it unplayable like the things above. What I mean is the above mechanics actually rendered the game completely inoperable. If it weren’t for the things above pets and mounteds would have been able to be overcome. That isn’t to say that they were balanced.

Typed on my phone I’ll edit the typos tomorrow

 

[Rhias]

I don't think Spiritism or portal blocker where the issue. The main issue was how the TC Towers (the ones to increase keep range) worked.
They had really low life and therefore needed to be hidden in an "unreachable" spot. And Spiritism became the tool to archive it.
But to be honstes: I don't care if a Spiritism ressurects on some unreachable mountain, or on the roof of some building and hosts a party there.

 

[Jhackman]

I don't think Spiritism or portal blocker where the issue. The main issue was how the TC Towers (the ones to increase keep range) worked.
They had really low life and therefore needed to be hidden in an "unreachable" spot. And Spiritism became the tool to archive it.
But to be honstes: I don't care if a Spiritism ressurects on some unreachable mountain, or on the roof of some building and hosts a party there.

Im pretty sure even if they had 1000 times the hp they would of been in the same spots. But I really loved the feeling in mo where you could do almost anything you set your mind to and I hope mo2 doesnt lose that.

 

[Rhias]

Im pretty sure even if they had 1000 times the hp they would of been in the same spots. But I really loved the feeling in mo where you could do almost anything you set your mind to and I hope mo2 doesnt lose that.

Sure, but TC towers got to my knowledge softer area restrictions, than TC buildings got. If the TC tower would have been "bigger" (e.g. by adding paved space around of it) you could prevent placing the tower somewhere far up the mountain, and you would need instead a more flat area to place.
But of cause this would not be feasible if the towers got as low HP, as they did.

 

[Bernfred]

imo MO died because of: bad new player experience ( no quests after tutorial confused alot of newbies ), old engine, bugs and no advertisement. when you google for an MMO of any kind, chances you will find MO as an recommendation is super rare.
i have heared so many people complaining about the frustrating full loot pvp system because they expected something else.

for a long time it was a mysteriuos for the Planetside 2 devs why so many people try but dont stick with it even its an outstanding game.
they found out its the bad tutorial and frustrating new player experience. every game bleeds out when you dont have new players coming in.

 

[Eldrath]

I think you listed a few reasonable things although your analysis falls somewhat short.

TC:
The main reason for walls being bad was the wealth creation behind them. This in turn led to a passive playstyle that did not need the outside world except for the initial investment. This process was fast in the start because all big guilds had immense wealth to pour into TC without regard for reason. This is also why they defended it tooth and nails against anyone who wanted to change it. SV sadly went along with those carebears and PKs-turned-carebears and reacted way too little and way to late. The hole "hiding" behind a gate was only a small part of the problem IMO. Players who said you should siege should be banned from giving feedback.

Spiritism:
Haven´t played much during that era. But from your description it was the pet following system that broke this, not actual teleportation? Cause without the pets they could not have had the deed and the materials correct?

Which brings me to the last point, pets, AI, bandaids:
AI was the main problem in a lot of cases. SV should have never introduced the "advanced" systems that relied heavily on a working AI. MO1 never had a functional AI. Knowing this they should have gone at a slower pace and focused on player interaction rather than adding more broken features. The problem is that lots of the players from that dieing population told them it was fine, because they derived massive help from the broken system.

The bandaids came into place when SV finally realized that there was a massive problem, but could not put the work hours in to fix it properly. At the end of MO1 there were so many broken areas that the hole game felt uneven.

How to proceed:
DESIGN systems properly and don´t listen to the players. Feedback in alpha for the most part has been shit tier quality showing the same close mindedness as in MO1. MO2 needs a firm game designer at the head that can stick out tough decisions and listen to feedback without getting the urge to change core values of the game. SV should hire someone like that.

If MO2 is even remotely sucessful this problem will increase a hundred fold. Or as I said many times to my guildmates: If you made a poll on the forum if Mortal Online should be full loot it would come out 50/50.

Does that meant he devs should take out half the full loot?

 

[Handsome Young Man]

TC killed MO1.

Just plain and simple.

The new player experience was really terrible.

Bugs galore.

Exploits galore.

Content blocked & unable to be done because some massive guild who plays 24/7 would just re-build it if sieged when people were offline.

Severe imbalance where 'skill' was replaced by 'time investment' which is a shit formula.

AI was completely dumb or just incredibly buggy / annoying.

Two continents fractured PvE players from PvP players, leaving wolves to kill wolves.

Guild systems were weak, along with alliance / diplomacy.

 

[Pierre]

Hey all, almost everybody here already knows these things, thankfully so do the devs now too seemingly, but I just wanted to recap exactly what I feel was the cause of the decline in MO.

This is one of the few times that I will please asks the vets of the community to like this thread to show support. I know we don’t often get a long but we’re not so different you and I.

I’m going to list thing in the order that they occurred not necessarily how severe their impact was

First

Walls:

Pure conflict killers, you would often run in to scenarios where you just had nothing to do because your opponent just ran in to a gate.

This would cause a scenario where there was little choice but to stand outside a gate until the enemy certainly had enough numbers to defeat you.

Having good game sense would you lead to the conclusion that “I should disengage from this gate before I die”. People called that cowardice I called that the only logical play. It’s like not retaking B 3v4 and keeping your two m4s and awp.

Now there were many in mo who said siege the wall. This was fun but think about that logically, create another character that builds siege weapons, then another character that refines materials and so on and so on that isn’t good flow of game play.

Reverse argument: you shouldn’t be able to just run a squad of all fighters and have that be the meta there should be some other balance to it but not the way it was done in MO.

Spiritism:
allowing ghosts to jump really high and then resurrect and then call their pet and then I place buildings to prevent other people from resurrecting is bad. If you need to make a portal blocker to balance a mechanic than I would avoid that entirely. This was without a doubt the worst thing for the game by factors of perhaps 1000s. Nothing could have been worse.

Don’t go anywhere near spiritism in mo2 unless you’ve quarantined it like the virus that it is and really know what you’re doing.

The prominence retention and guard range increase patch:
Guards became extremely powerful after this. Since guards will be in mo2 and henrik has talked about it extensively please avoid endless prominence banks that persist through guild destruction and please avoid extremely powerful guards.

Death Knights:
I’m going to avoid talking about the pvp aspect of death knights and instead focus on the pve. Having pets that’s solo or two man dungeon content really killed the party vibe of running dungeon content. Adding a fear mechanic that then effects beast mastery pets was a bad play and did very little to mitigate the impact.

And last

Avoiding the real issue:
things like above adding the confuse to pets, adding hive mind to NPCs because synyster was getting too rich off lower demons, making battering rams open gates. Basically any bandaid you try to throw on instead of addressing the actual issue.

My biggest analogy on that for mo2 is ping disparity, adjusting time between blocks, block delay, swing speeds, etc etc it’s all just ping disparity that’s the issue and then we can figure out what is still a problem or not.


What I didn’t mention:

Mounteds and pets. These things were annoying in pvp but I can’t really say they killed the game in the sense that they made it unplayable like the things above. What I mean is the above mechanics actually rendered the game completely inoperable. If it weren’t for the things above pets and mounteds would have been able to be overcome. That isn’t to say that they were balanced.

Typed on my phone I’ll edit the typos tomorrow

Saying that some of this content made the game "unplayable" is an over exaggeration.

The purpose of walls was to create gated communities that served as safe spaces (or at least safer spaces) that many times than not functioned as towns. Without walls, a large portion of the city/empire building feature MO offers is removed and would cause a net negative impact to the game. You also express concerns in dealing with players behind walls via PvP in how either one is supposed to leave the area before more people log in, or to siege the walls. That is the whole point in walls. Walls are supposed to be intimidating; they allow a smaller garrison of players to hold out against a larger force. Only through meticulous planning and resource gathering should a group of players be able to overcome walls. Otherwise if walls were so easily surmountable, MO would quickly turn into a game such as Rust. Assets would be so easily sieged that it would not be worth building them in the first place given the amount of time and resources spent.

In response to your argument about guards, much like walls, the whole point of guards are to establish a safe zone for players that require meticulous planning and resource gathering to penetrate. Otherwise, if guards were weak there would be no point in hiring them, and would further depreciate the value of owning assets when they are so easily overtaken.

In response to your argument about death knights, the amount of time and effort spent in obtaining them should be (and were) justified by the utility and overall effectiveness of the death knight. Someone that was able to resurrect a fallen knight should be rewarded with the ability to clear out dungeons easier than having a full party.

 

[Teknique]

imo MO died because of: bad new player experience ( no quests after tutorial confused alot of newbies ), old engine, bugs and no advertisement. when you google for an MMO of any kind, chances you will find MO as an recommendation is super rare.
i have heared so many people complaining about the frustrating full loot pvp system because they expected something else.

for a long time it was a mysteriuos for the Planetside 2 devs why so many people try but dont stick with it even its an outstanding game.
they found out its the bad tutorial and frustrating new player experience. every game bleeds out when you dont have new players coming in.

The bad tutorials and new play experience contributed, but they didn't destroy the inherent structure of the game. Thats the key difference.

I think you listed a few reasonable things although your analysis falls somewhat short.

TC:
The main reason for walls being bad was the wealth creation behind them. This in turn led to a passive playstyle that did not need the outside world except for the initial investment. This process was fast in the start because all big guilds had immense wealth to pour into TC without regard for reason. This is also why they defended it tooth and nails against anyone who wanted to change it. SV sadly went along with those carebears and PKs-turned-carebears and reacted way too little and way to late. The hole "hiding" behind a gate was only a small part of the problem IMO. Players who said you should siege should be banned from giving feedback.

Spiritism:
Haven´t played much during that era. But from your description it was the pet following system that broke this, not actual teleportation? Cause without the pets they could not have had the deed and the materials correct?

Which brings me to the last point, pets, AI, bandaids:
AI was the main problem in a lot of cases. SV should have never introduced the "advanced" systems that relied heavily on a working AI. MO1 never had a functional AI. Knowing this they should have gone at a slower pace and focused on player interaction rather than adding more broken features. The problem is that lots of the players from that dieing population told them it was fine, because they derived massive help from the broken system.

The bandaids came into place when SV finally realized that there was a massive problem, but could not put the work hours in to fix it properly. At the end of MO1 there were so many broken areas that the hole game felt uneven.

How to proceed:
DESIGN systems properly and don´t listen to the players. Feedback in alpha for the most part has been shit tier quality showing the same close mindedness as in MO1. MO2 needs a firm game designer at the head that can stick out tough decisions and listen to feedback without getting the urge to change core values of the game. SV should hire someone like that.

If MO2 is even remotely sucessful this problem will increase a hundred fold. Or as I said many times to my guildmates: If you made a poll on the forum if Mortal Online should be full loot it would come out 50/50.

Does that meant he devs should take out half the full loot?

For TC I don't think wealth creation was really the problem at all. Evidence being that they removed the ability to vendor stuff behind walls and removed TC mines and those changes did nothing. I'm correct in the issue that the problem with TC was that walls completely killed the flow of the game leaving you no option but to retreat, logout and uninstall, or siege.

I'm glad you mentioned that spiritism logic, "the problem isn't spiritism its pets following you and returning to you". I don't actually believe that breaking a useful mechanic like pets returning to you for the sake of a useless mechanic (spiritism) is good. That's a not focusing on the root of the problem like I stated above. Rhias has a pretty good point that tc on top of mountains isn't necessarily too bad but tc towers are way too important to be allowed up there.
The logic you used is the exact reason that they reduced the damage on molva's and horses making mage PVE much harder. Fixing something that isn't broken to do mental gymnastics to save the mechanic that is broken. All because they wanted to change the follow speed of pets. Or how they made TC decay when not under radius instead of fixing towers on top of mountains. All these thing lead to unnecessary player frustration due to an unwillingness to fix the base mechanic

TC killed MO1.

Just plain and simple.

The new player experience was really terrible.

Bugs galore.

Exploits galore.

Content blocked & unable to be done because some massive guild who plays 24/7 would just re-build it if sieged when people were offline.

Severe imbalance where 'skill' was replaced by 'time investment' which is a shit formula.

AI was completely dumb or just incredibly buggy / annoying.

Two continents fractured PvE players from PvP players, leaving wolves to kill wolves.

Guild systems were weak, along with alliance / diplomacy.

Really just saying TC is too simplistic. Did butcher stations ruin mortal. was it mines, was it walls? I didn't play before TC so maybe THAT IS what you're saying. I really think it was walls specifically for the reason I stated above killing the flow of combat entirely.

 

[Teknique]

Saying that some of this content made the game "unplayable" is an over exaggeration.

The purpose of walls was to create gated communities that served as safe spaces (or at least safer spaces) that many times than not functioned as towns. Without walls, a large portion of the city/empire building feature MO offers is removed and would cause a net negative impact to the game. You also express concerns in dealing with players behind walls via PvP in how either one is supposed to leave the area before more people log in, or to siege the walls. That is the whole point in walls. Walls are supposed to be intimidating; they allow a smaller garrison of players to hold out against a larger force. Only through meticulous planning and resource gathering should a group of players be able to overcome walls. Otherwise if walls were so easily surmountable, MO would quickly turn into a game such as Rust. Assets would be so easily sieged that it would not be worth building them in the first place given the amount of time and resources spent.

In response to your argument about guards, much like walls, the whole point of guards are to establish a safe zone for players that require meticulous planning and resource gathering to penetrate. Otherwise, if guards were weak there would be no point in hiring them, and would further depreciate the value of owning assets when they are so easily overtaken.

In response to your argument about death knights, the amount of time and effort spent in obtaining them should be (and were) justified by the utility and overall effectiveness of the death knight. Someone that was able to resurrect a fallen knight should be rewarded with the ability to clear out dungeons easier than having a full party.

I agree to an extent that there should be safer locations otherwise whats the point of even having it. That doesn't mean that overdoing it in the opposite direction is somehow good, and the fact that you seem to think all of these mechanics were implemented correctly shows a demonstrable lack of understanding, similar to how eldrath stated above believing something like that pretty much disqualifies you from having an opinion that merits consideration.

I ask you seriously, in what way do you think a situation like this benefits the game, where unless me and my squad are actually willing to SUICIDE or siege a fight doesn't happen?

To summarize standing outside of a gate, with absolutely no prospect of victory until inevitably being zerged. Can you explain to me how that is any way beneficial to the game?

Death Knight pve made dungeon running unplayable because who tf would run a dungeon with you and split loot, when they can just run it 1-2 man and get so much more?

The guards were so comically broken in MO 1 post patch that you either didn't play in that era or are trolling because no one can seriously believe that they were fine. I in RPK personally sieged many keeps/pallisades with endless walls/guards it was a mechanic that BENEFITED me, that doesn't mean it benefited the game I think that's where a lot of the confusion arises. Someone thinks that if they benefit then a mechanic is good.

 

[Eldrath]

Walls basically created instances that you could only invade by sieging. You should make areas safe for you and your allies by actually CONTROLLING the land in person. I guess NPC guards are set because @Henrik Nyström is a big fan of those, so they will be able to help you out. You should not have sections of the game where PvP is optional until someone throws down a siege camp.

For TC I don't think wealth creation was really the problem at all. Evidence being that they removed the ability to vendor stuff behind walls and removed TC mines and those changes did nothing. I'm correct in the issue that the problem with TC was that walls completely killed the flow of the game leaving you no option but to retreat, logout and uninstall, or siege.

Well, I´m sure those changes did something but they did not change the basic dynamic of creating wealth. Currently an island in the jungle is walled off. Are you telling me that the players would not be able to create wealth by mining, extracting, refining, crafting etc.?

Removing vendors and mines from the equation did not change enough, because VALUE was still created in a completely safe bubble. It´s a perfect example of SV underestimating the problem and because of that coming up with a quick fix that fell short. Addionally many players were profiting from this system and did not want their cash cow removed. This time around I hope they will start out better.

Walls did change the flow of the game, just as roaming guards did back in day. They should give the defenders an advantage, not a safe space. They allow players to op out of the rules of the rest of the game.

Personally I think the value created in those zones is extremely important since it affects everything in the game. The moments of frustration when enemies escape only add to that.

Honestly to me it seems fairly obvious that for a game like Mortal Online 2 there should be no place you have to start a siege to get to. I don´t care if that is the area around a keep or a house. Add walls again, but gives lots of option to go over them. There should be no safe zones like in MO1. Guards are fine, but I draw the line at having to drop a manganon to kill bots.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Teknique]

Walls basically created instances that you could only invade by sieging. You should make areas safe for you and your allies by actually CONTROLLING the land in person. I guess NPC guards are set because @Henrik Nyström is a big fan of those, so they will be able to help you out. You should not have sections of the game where PvP is optional until someone throws down a siege camp.



Well, I´m sure those changes did something but they did not change the basic dynamic of creating wealth. Currently an island in the jungle is walled off. Are you telling me that the players would not be able to create wealth by mining, extracting, refining, crafting etc.?

Removing vendors and mines from the equation did not change enough, because VALUE was still created in a completely safe bubble. It´s a perfect example of SV underestimating the problem and because of that coming up with a quick fix that fell short. Addionally many players were profiting from this system and did not want their cash cow removed. This time around I hope they will start out better.

Walls did change the flow of the game, just as roaming guards did back in day. They should give the defenders an advantage, not a safe space. They allow players to op out of the rules of the rest of the game.

Personally I think the value created in those zones is extremely important since it affects everything in the game. The moments of frustration when enemies escape only add to that.

Honestly to me it seems fairly obvious that for a game like Mortal Online 2 there should be no place you have to start a siege to get to. I don´t care if that is the area around a keep or a house. Add walls again, but gives lots of option to go over them. There should be no safe zones like in MO1. Guards are fine, but I draw the line at having to drop a manganon to kill bots.

I think we're basically saying the same thing at this point, couldn't agree more, although most of us seem to be fine with walls around keeps to give them a clear advantage over a player house.

I focused on the combat, but its the same logic in that it kills the flow of exploration, wealth creation, and yes the combat and conflict over the wealth creation.

and we're also saying the same thing as Pierre, there should be some sort of asymmetry or defender advantage, that's why I actually kind of like the idea of guards to an extent as long as they're not so painfully broken like in MO 1.

There needs to be a guard cap as well.

 

[Pierre]

I agree to an extent that there should be safer locations otherwise whats the point of even having it. That doesn't mean that overdoing it in the opposite direction is somehow good, and the fact that you seem to think all of these mechanics were implemented correctly shows a demonstrable lack of understanding, similar to how eldrath stated above believing something like that pretty much disqualifies you from having an opinion that merits consideration.

I ask you seriously, in what way do you think a situation like this benefits the game, where unless me and my squad are actually willing to SUICIDE or siege a fight doesn't happen?

To summarize standing outside of a gate, with absolutely no prospect of victory until inevitably being zerged. Can you explain to me how that is any way beneficial to the game?

Death Knight pve made dungeon running unplayable because who tf would run a dungeon with you and split loot, when they can just run it 1-2 man and get so much more?

The guards were so comically broken in MO 1 post patch that you either didn't play in that era or are trolling because no one can seriously believe that they were fine. I in RPK personally sieged many keeps/pallisades with endless walls it was a mechanic that BENEFITED me, that doesn't mean it benefited the game I think that's where a lot of the confusion arises. Someone thinks that if they benefit then a mechanic is good.

The purpose of walls is not to enhance the group fight PvP experience. If you are out exploring and looking for a fight, and you engage an enemy group in the open that's fine. But, if you expect to take the same attitude and fight groups behind walls that is of course not going to happen. This would not be some 15 minute, one off PvP event that you would normally experience. This is an entirely different category of PvP that requires hours of preparing to properly siege. Otherwise, the option to walk away and find a more conventional target away from walls and assets is always available.

Your argument on death knights contradicts itself, yet you feel inclined telling me my opinion should be disqualified. If players can run dungeons with 1-2 people, how is that unplayable? Individuals capable of owning and using death knights should be rewarded with the ability to play more independently yet with similar effectiveness as full groups. Otherwise, what would be the point of death knights if they were less than capable of substituting a few player teammates? Also, it is not as if people who are unable to use deathknights can not find others in a similar situation and run the dungeons together. Death knights just offer wealthier, more powerful players an option of running dungeons at a reduced group size. Think of it akin to, for instance, running one dungeon with 6-7 players in low tier gear, running the same dungeon with 3-4 players in mid tier gear, or running the dungeon with 1-2 players in high tier gear or death knights.

 

[Teknique]

The purpose of walls is not to enhance the group fight PvP experience. If you are out exploring and looking for a fight, and you engage an enemy group in the open that's fine. But, if you expect to take the same attitude and fight groups behind walls that is of course not going to happen. This would not be some 15 minute, one off PvP event that you would normally experience. This is an entirely different category of PvP that requires hours of preparing to properly siege. Otherwise, the option to walk away and find a more conventional target away from walls and assets is always available.

Your argument on death knights contradicts itself, yet you feel inclined telling me my opinion should be disqualified. If players can run dungeons with 1-2 people, how is that unplayable? Individuals capable of owning and using death knights should be rewarded with the ability to play more independently yet with similar effectiveness as full groups. Otherwise, what would be the point of death knights if they were less than capable of substituting a few player teammates? Also, it is not as if people who are unable to use deathknights can not find others in a similar situation and run the dungeons together. Death knights just offer wealthier, more powerful players an option of running dungeons at a reduced group size. Think of it akin to, for instance, running one dungeon with 6-7 players in low tier gear, running the same dungeon with 3-4 players in mid tier gear, or running the dungeon with 1-2 players in high tier gear or death knights.

Ok so you didn't answer the question, how does it benefit the game to have an entirely safe zone unless sieged? I'm assuming you intentionally didn't answer it because you're trolling? You just stated the purpose of something is to not do something which hardly makes sense.

Follow up question do you believe that a defender's advantage and defender near invulnerability are the same thing? Because what we want is advantage not to be effectively impervious. Can you explain how being almost impervious behind walls is beneficial?

As for the Death Knights, you're right it didn't make the game entirely inoperable so it is slightly out of theme, just effectively inoperable similar to pets and mounted section that I stated.

 

[Eldrath]

and we're also saying the same thing as Pierre, there should be some sort of asymmetry or defender advantage, that's why I actually kind of like the idea of guards to an extent as long as they're not so painfully broken like in MO 1.

There needs to be a guard cap as well.

We are, I was merely building upon you original argument.

I don´t think I agree with @Pierre since he seems to be arguing for walls working in the exact way they did in MO1 - to create an instance that you are 100% safe in unless someone uses extraordinary measures like a siege.

I would be fine if walls provided a pretty massive advantage to defend against a group of players trying to go over them with ropes and ladders - even with the help of guards. Guards need to be governed by understandable and exploitable rules. Wasteful and stupid usage of guards should be massively punished. It should be major decision to even have them.

In general SV needs to put more responsibility into the hands of the players and stop listening to those that want to turn this into a mediocre empire building simulator with RTS features.

The problem is that the argument always goes: "But he paid xy for it, so it should be overpowered". To that I can only reply to look at Oghmium and cronite. That was GOOD FUCKING design. Extremely diminishing returns on investment for the top tier materials. People still did it. Even when everyone was running a scale set you would find Goldy taking out his cronite suit. There is a major difference between overpowered mechanics, advantages through farming and noob tubes and it would be nice if people learned to differenciate between those.

 

[ElPerro]

The purpose of walls is not to enhance the group fight PvP experience. If you are out exploring and looking for a fight, and you engage an enemy group in the open that's fine. But, if you expect to take the same attitude and fight groups behind walls that is of course not going to happen. This would not be some 15 minute, one off PvP event that you would normally experience. This is an entirely different category of PvP that requires hours of preparing to properly siege. Otherwise, the option to walk away and find a more conventional target away from walls and assets is always available.

This is false, just look at MO1. At some point, the only pvp you could get was via dropping a mang somewhere. That is not healthy for the game. We need a way to bypass walls like ladders for small time raids without the need to siege. That can stay hard and require planning but if its the only source of pvp the game dies, simple as that.

Your argument on death knights contradicts itself, yet you feel inclined telling me my opinion should be disqualified. If players can run dungeons with 1-2 people, how is that unplayable? Individuals capable of owning and using death knights should be rewarded with the ability to play more independently yet with similar effectiveness as full groups. Otherwise, what would be the point of death knights if they were less than capable of substituting a few player teammates? Also, it is not as if people who are unable to use deathknights can not find others in a similar situation and run the dungeons together. Death knights just offer wealthier, more powerful players an option of running dungeons at a reduced group size. Think of it akin to, for instance, running one dungeon with 6-7 players in low tier gear, running the same dungeon with 3-4 players in mid tier gear, or running the dungeon with 1-2 players in high tier gear or death knights.

The game is a Sandbox MMORPG, supposed to be about player interaction. Not just grind alot and substitute a whole group of players with NPCs. A high cost should never justify having completely unbalanced mechanics like Death Knights, or you might as well play a korean grinder if thats your thing.

 

[Teknique]

We are, I was merely building upon you original argument.

I don´t think I agree with @Pierre since he seems to be arguing for walls working in the exact way they did in MO1 - to create an instance that you are 100% safe in unless someone uses extraordinary measures like a siege.

I would be fine if walls provided a pretty massive advantage to defend against a group of players trying to go over them with ropes and ladders - even with the help of guards. Guards need to be governed by understandable and exploitable rules. Wasteful and stupid usage of guards should be massively punished. It should be major decision to even have them.

In general SV needs to put more responsibility into the hands of the players and stop listening to those that want to turn this into a mediocre empire building simulator with RTS features.

The problem is that the argument always goes: "But he paid xy for it, so it should be overpowered". To that I can only reply to look at Oghmium and cronite. That was GOOD FUCKING design. Extremely diminishing returns on investment for the top tier materials. People still did it. Even when everyone was running a scale set you would find Goldy taking out his cronite suit. There is a major difference between overpowered mechanics, advantages through farming and noob tubes and it would be nice if people learned to differenciate between those.

Yeah you can see above that Pierre is intentionally conflating a defender's advantage with 99% safe zones and calling those the same thing when they aren't, but what I did mean is that we all agree there should be some defender's advantage which is totally realistic.

 

[Eldrath]

Yeah you can see above that Pierre is intentionally conflating a defender's advantage with 99% safe zones and calling those the same thing when they aren't, but what I did mean is that we all agree there should be some defender's advantage which is totally realistic.

Honestly if it comes down to it just being able to determine the layout of your city, the usuage of terrain, having the banks there, being able to log in reinforcements, being able to use NPC guards, use stables to replenish pets are ALL big advantages to the defender. Without any walls in that equation.

There is a german saying: "Den Hals nicht voll kriegen." It means that regardless of what you stuff down someones throat they will never be satisfied. That is how carebears in this community always have been and it is also why one should never give in to their demands.

Gute Nacht.

 

[Kobalt]

I'd wager what really hurt the game and stunted it's potential growth was the over all performance both latency and game play in general. All those reasons you listed might of whittled away at the player base, but the choices the developers made in writing off NA cost the game any chance of actually increasing it's player base.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

The bad tutorials and new play experience contributed, but they didn't destroy the inherent structure of the game. Thats the key difference.


For TC I don't think wealth creation was really the problem at all. Evidence being that they removed the ability to vendor stuff behind walls and removed TC mines and those changes did nothing. I'm correct in the issue that the problem with TC was that walls completely killed the flow of the game leaving you no option but to retreat, logout and uninstall, or siege.

I'm glad you mentioned that spiritism logic, "the problem isn't spiritism its pets following you and returning to you". I don't actually believe that breaking a useful mechanic like pets returning to you for the sake of a useless mechanic (spiritism) is good. That's a not focusing on the root of the problem like I stated above. Rhias has a pretty good point that tc on top of mountains isn't necessarily too bad but tc towers are way too important to be allowed up there.
The logic you used is the exact reason that they reduced the damage on molva's and horses making mage PVE much harder. Fixing something that isn't broken to do mental gymnastics to save the mechanic that is broken. All because they wanted to change the follow speed of pets. Or how they made TC decay when not under radius instead of fixing towers on top of mountains. All these thing lead to unnecessary player frustration due to an unwillingness to fix the base mechanic



Really just saying TC is too simplistic. Did butcher stations ruin mortal. was it mines, was it walls? I didn't play before TC so maybe THAT IS what you're saying. I really think it was walls specifically for the reason I stated above killing the flow of combat entirely.

TC refers to territory control, the literal free placement of towers and allowing people to build absolutely anywhere.

Cool on paper, shit in execution.

Walls exacerbated the problem, then AI guards even more so. Only keeps should have walls, or give players the ability to get inside of assets BESIDES SIEGING.

If you build something, you should have to defend it. I dont think people need npc guards, or walls. Pay people or defend your assets yourself.

And I think that assets should have more HP, if walls weren't so prevalent.