MO2 flagging and rep system take the fun out of MO

[PuckInmortali]

What interests me is free flowing playing interaction that creates interesting and unique situations. The current flagging system is more or less a straight copy from the original, which was flawed and hindered player interaction more often that not. SV tries to create a coded morale framework that holds up when confronted with real humans. It does not work and is comical when known scumbacks are classified as a "innocent" whenever they re-roll or just had the computer online long enough. Or when someone actually working with a code of conduct gets branded a murderer because one of his heals hit the wrong target. Yet still Henrik persists in talking about this as if these terms have any real meaning.

The reputation system could be excellent since it´s bones seem well thought out. (different clade having different Min/max, interaction between players and NPCs mattering etc.) Which is not surprising since this part was designed by an actual game designer. But when we look at how guards actually behave and how it interacts is quickly become obvious that it being missused as an "anti-griefing" mechanic. Which brings us back to SV trying to push some kind of morals into their code, which simply does not work and certainly does not make an interesting sandbox game.

Lastly here is the quote that led me to sit back and reduce my input on the development process:
View attachment 2775

Now take what I said above and translate this statement. Consequences that will make you not want to play the game. For murdering "innocents", which is a mostly meaningless term since Sebs broken ass code will not be able to determine someones conduct correctly.

It is shifting the game further away from a sandbox experience to a semi free gathering simulator with empire warfare from first person. Which is actually very close to what MO1 became in the end and what put it down.

I realize that my argumentation is fairly broad but I´m not invested enought to go through all the changes, comments and deliver a more detailed critique. It would be too much work with very little benefit.

No, that's a fine answer. So, what I gather you are saying is that the protections put into place to reduce griefing may lead to a manipulation of that system by griefers for their benefit. That seems like something that people, especially those who think along those lines, would do.

However, I would disagree about SV pushing of "morals into the their code." The decision seems entirely practical. From a design standpoint, restricting griefing makes sense--the only people who like it are griefers, and those people don't really help a game grow or add to the entertainment value for anyone else. From an in game fantasy perspective, it also makes sense--their behavior certainly doesn't promote immersion.

In old UO, it was very simple, if you attacked someone in a city, you died. I can appreciate SV trying to put a little player choice/freedom back into the mix, and also trying to do so more realistically/organically. But, if the system is exploited to benefit abusive idiots, then it may have very little value. Instant death via teleporting guard is very artificial and heavy handed, but it is clear, and can't easily be exploited. While I would not advocate for teleporting, insta death guards, perhaps a more straightforward solution is warranted here?

 

[Backyard Employee]

I agree that the system is dumb right now (sprinkling cities with danger zones seems like a good correction), but lol at the veteran players threatening to quit. You guys have nowhere to go. Even with the weird flagging, no mmo has pvp nearly as open as MO2.

No where to go? Where are we right now then? I haven't been on MO and still have been enjoying my gaming experience.

You make it seem like people refuse to do anything else but play MO / MO2 for the sake of it potentially 'changing' or because nothing else is out there. A lot of us just play another genre of game. I'm in agreement with @Eldrath here.

 

[Backyard Employee]

No, that's a fine answer. So, what I gather you are saying is that the protections put into place to reduce griefing may lead to a manipulation of that system by griefers for their benefit. That seems like something that people, especially those who think along those lines, would do.

However, I would disagree about SV pushing of "morals into the their code." The decision seems entirely practical. From a design standpoint, restricting griefing makes sense--the only people who like it are griefers, and those people don't really help a game grow or add to the entertainment value for anyone else. From an in game fantasy perspective, it also makes sense--their behavior certainly doesn't promote immersion.

In old UO, it was very simple, if you attacked someone in a city, you died. I can appreciate SV trying to put a little player choice/freedom back into the mix, and also trying to do so more realistically/organically. But, if the system is exploited to benefit abusive idiots, then it may have very little value. Instant death via teleporting guard is very artificial and heavy handed, but it is clear, and can't easily be exploited. While I would not advocate for teleporting, insta death guards, perhaps a more straightforward solution is warranted here?

In MO1, the game had a higher population when there was less safety. MO1 progressed into being a wall-yourself-and-everything-off simulator, and when that happened the game straight up tanked in population and never ever recovered.

The MC (murder count) system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a video game. Because it's true, defend yourself or kill actual 'bad people' in the game and you're rewarded with the games system treating YOU as the criminal and or murderer. But then vice versa people who play as the bad guys in the game use this system to their advantage to continue their streaks of griefing and harassment (which is fine in this case in my opinion) but the system doesn't hold them accountable.

This rep system seemed like a good fix on paper but the more I'm seeing about it, seems like it's just even worse.

But hey guys the game releases in January! Finally the 100 people who want the game to come out unfinished will get what they want.

 

[Highlander]

I was sincerely hoping for another year of beta, too many bugs too many insecurities.

 

[MolagAmur]

Its a hard thing to balance. MO1 there was zero reason to not murder everything you came across. MO2 seems like annoying penalties for doing that. They just have to find the happy medium.

We want there to be plenty of sheep AND wolves. There needs to be incentives for both playstyles. Just keep giving feedback and hope it can be changed to be good. Just try not to be super biased, think about the health of the game and not just how you personally want to play.

 

[PuckInmortali]

In MO1, the game had a higher population when there was less safety. MO1 progressed into being a wall-yourself-and-everything-off simulator, and when that happened the game straight up tanked in population and never ever recovered.

The MC (murder count) system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a video game. Because it's true, defend yourself or kill actual 'bad people' in the game and you're rewarded with the games system treating YOU as the criminal and or murderer. But then vice versa people who play as the bad guys in the game use this system to their advantage to continue their streaks of griefing and harassment (which is fine in this case in my opinion) but the system doesn't hold them accountable.

This rep system seemed like a good fix on paper but the more I'm seeing about it, seems like it's just even worse.

But hey guys the game releases in January! Finally the 100 people who want the game to come out unfinished will get what they want.

What if there were no game enforced PvP restrictions/repercussions anywhere in the world except for in guarded cities? What I mean is that there is no flagging, murder count, reputation, etc. anywhere you go, but that changes within 100 meters of city. Once you enter there, you can still attack someone, but that is where the game controlled consequences start.

As far as the officials in the city are concerned, it is not so much about justice, but order. They don't care who wronged you, they care that they maintain a peaceful environment for citizens and commerce. If you attack another player in that zone, you will trigger a criminal flag (you don't flag up, you are flagged by the system). Characters, who are flagged as criminals, will be attacked by the guards if they go into their agro radius, as well as can be killed by any other players within the city without game controlled repercussions (no flag for the avenging player(s)). Criminal status will last a certain amount of time, let's say 1 hour. After that time, the offending player loses their criminal status. However, criminal status would increase in length of time for repeat offenders.

So, let's say Sally kills Bob in Tindrem. Sally is now flagged and will be attacked by the guards if she enters into their agro radios, and she can be attacked by any player. Sally knows this, so she carefully and rapidly flees the city to try to hide to wait out her timer. She successfully does so, and returns to Tindrem. There, she sees Bob again (Sally really hates Bob) so she attacks and kills him again. However, this time her timer has extended to 2 hours. Every time this happens, add another 60 minutes to the timer. So, for example, if Sally attacked 5 people in Tindrem, she would have a criminal timer of 6 hours upon her 6th attempted kill. Timers do not expire upon death (to prevent an obvious exploit).

This would, necessarily, make repeated killing in cities more difficult, but not impossible. It would promote sneaky, assassination play and builds, and restrict impulsive griefing for the "luls." It is also simple, direct, easy to understand, and fits within the idea of city-states maintaining order. It makes sense to me, anyway.

EDIT: I would just add that I don't know what the criminal system in MO2 is currently like, and what I have suggested may be very similar to it. If that is the case, though, then perhaps it is more reasonable than some people make it sound.

 

[Rorry]

Strong guards in town, no flagging or crime outside town would suit me fine. I think there would be fewer people so called "griefing" in town because it would be easy to fight outside of town. Just make it to where if you hit someone (attacking or defending) within the last minute you will be attacked by guards when you go into town.

 

[ArcaneConsular]

In MO1, the game had a higher population when there was less safety. MO1 progressed into being a wall-yourself-and-everything-off simulator, and when that happened the game straight up tanked in population and never ever recovered.

The MC (murder count) system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a video game. Because it's true, defend yourself or kill actual 'bad people' in the game and you're rewarded with the games system treating YOU as the criminal and or murderer. But then vice versa people who play as the bad guys in the game use this system to their advantage to continue their streaks of griefing and harassment (which is fine in this case in my opinion) but the system doesn't hold them accountable.

This rep system seemed like a good fix on paper but the more I'm seeing about it, seems like it's just even worse.

But hey guys the game releases in January! Finally the 100 people who want the game to come out unfinished will get what they want.

Just because you think it's fun to kill noobs in towns doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's fun. You can lie to yourself as much as you want but you know getting killed in town isn't actually fun. MO1 failed so repeating the same mistakes makes no sense. If you want to play a battle royale just play Fortnite. Or if you want to kill anyone you want live in a lawless town. But you don't want to live in a lawless town because you're a hypocrite and like the protection of towns, and don't like getting spawn killed over and over. Even though it's supposed to be fun

 

[Jatix]

Well if it drives away the core players they would've left for some other reason anyways by your logic right? No point trying to appease the small number of players that only play to kill noobs in towns to luls

No because the core players are harder to make leave. Vs the random nubs, if they don't quit when their mount dies, they will quit when the die to 5 mounted at the GY. The core players leave when you take what they enjoyed out of the game.

And my point isn't so people can just kill nubs in town. Even in mo1 you couldn't just rampage and kill nubs in tind, you would go red. I'd actually say MO1 system was more punishing, and worked better. Because once you got MC if you wanted to be blue you had to afk them down. MO2 you can just waste a ton of time farming stuff to have high favor, then you can kill all the nubs and mounts you want.

What I want is a system so that town conflict can still exist. Which isn't primarily to kill nubs, but some will obviously die in the process.

but lol at the veteran players threatening to quit. You guys have nowhere to go. Even with the weird flagging, no mmo has pvp nearly as open as MO2.

The part your missing, is that if every open pvp game is garbage, I can just og play a not open pvp mmo game instead. If MO isnt fun for me because they took the fun out, I'm just going to paly a different genre of game. MO doesnt need competition. If it isnt more fun than other games for the time it takes, theres no reason to play it. And currently, the game direction is to take as much timr as possible, for a chance to maybe have some fun. At that point, I'm just going to not play.

So what is it, specifically, that interests you that SV has removed through the flagging and rep system? I am genuinely curious.

My entire main thread post. town life is boredom sim, which means you have to roam to get pvp, which is also boredom simulator. All the quicker ways to get action, aka town life, are gone.

This rep system seemed like a good fix on paper but the more I'm seeing about it, seems like it's just even worse.

When they first released this rep system I was hype, because it was more dynamic than just red/blue. Reds could live in a town like a blue and attack other towns. But they killed it when they removed all other criminal playstyles that aren't attack a town 2 hours away.

What if there were no game enforced PvP restrictions/repercussions anywhere in the world except for in guarded cities? What I mean is that there is no flagging, murder count, reputation, etc. anywhere you go, but that changes within 100 meters of city. Once you enter there, you can still attack someone, but that is where the game controlled consequences start.

Strong guards in town, no flagging or crime outside town would suit me fine. I think there would be fewer people so called "griefing" in town because it would be easy to fight outside of town. Just make it to where if you hit someone (attacking or defending) within the last minute you will be attacked by guards when you go into town.

I would be happy with this. Conflict could happen right outside town amongst people who live there. And people can roam to it. Much better than what we have currently, which is roam 2 hours or log out.

 

[Backyard Employee]

Just because you think it's fun to kill noobs in towns doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's fun. You can lie to yourself as much as you want but you know getting killed in town isn't actually fun. MO1 failed so repeating the same mistakes makes no sense. If you want to play a battle royale just play Fortnite. Or if you want to kill anyone you want live in a lawless town. But you don't want to live in a lawless town because you're a hypocrite and like the protection of towns, and don't like getting spawn killed over and over. Even though it's supposed to be fun

What?

Where did I say it's fun to kill noobs. You said that, not me.

Lie to myself about what? Getting killed in a town isn't fun? You don't even know who I am, or what I do in-game if anything. But I can tell you though, to correct you, that I've played plenty in towns and outside of towns. Dying is apart of the time, to say it isn't fun would to deny the entirety of the game as death is apart of it just as much as killing someone.

MO1 failed because of balance, territory control, bugs, and server stability. That is the big four in my eyes. Not sure what you mean. What mistakes? You never really outlined which mistakes not to repeat.

Huh? Who said I wanted to play a BR game. Again, you're saying this not me. If anything I can probably guarantee I've played more of MO1 and MO2 then you, and you'd probably have a better time fitting into a BR title then I would.

I do. I kill people wherever I want, that's the whole point. When I was playing MO2 actively I lived in GK, so.. no. Wrong again. I was actually vulnerable to other players with no protection. I've been spawn camped before, both in MO1 and MO2; I honestly think people who spend their time doing it are wasting more time then those getting camped.. But let me let you in on two little tips for future reference since you seem to misunderstand the idea of priest camping.

1.) No one is keeping you there. Don't want to get priest camped? Go somewhere else.. or, better yet.. log off! You literally aren't being forced to remain there.

2.) Keep respawning and taunting & wasting the enemies time to distract them from another point of interest. Done it plenty of times to get my group fully ressed & geared whilst I spawn in dying over and over.

But yeah, it is fun. Maybe stop jumping to these weird outlandish conclusions.

 

[PuckInmortali]

My entire main thread post. town life is boredom sim, which means you have to roam to get pvp, which is also boredom simulator. All the quicker ways to get action, aka town life, are gone.

This I can't really agree with. Sure, I think there should be a way to kill someone in and around town, and I tried to make that a part of my suggestion. However, the way I sort of off the cuff designed it, it would be more like an assassination (hit hard in one big burst, get away fast, things like that) than just a convenient brawling arena to sate boredom.

I've mentioned artificiality in the way some games handle their restrictions, but turning a city into a spawning node for PvP amusement is pretty artificial and pretty immersion breaking. Also, from what I've heard Henrik talk about, it doesn't seem that fits into the type of game he wants to make, i.e., MO2 isn't supposed to be just an arena.

PvP, for the sake of PvP, can be handled in a guild or group of likeminded players that just want to fight. If you want to fight people who don't necessarily want to fight you, fine--become a bandit/outlaw/assassin, which is totally legitimate in this type of game. However, to argue that you just want to conveniently kill other players, well, that sounds a lot like griefing.

 

[Tzone]

Strong guards in town, no flagging or crime outside town would suit me fine. I think there would be fewer people so called "griefing" in town because it would be easy to fight outside of town. Just make it to where if you hit someone (attacking or defending) within the last minute you will be attacked by guards when you go into town.

This is pretty interesting idea and will stop GZ hugging in alot of cases. Just make sure blocking doesnt turn you grey.

 

[Tzone]

PvP, for the sake of PvP, can be handled in a guild or group of likeminded players that just want to fight. If you want to fight people who don't necessarily want to fight you, fine--become a bandit/outlaw/assassin, which is totally legitimate in this type of game. However, to argue that you just want to conveniently kill other players, well, that sounds a lot like griefing.

When you play CoD, BF, Teken, Streetfight, or and other multiplayer game that have PvP do you call it griefing you are killed by the enemy team?

PvP is PvP. All PvP is legitimate. TKing in other games I would call like the only case of greifing but in mortal I would consider TKing just PvP.

 

[Tzone]

What?

Where did I say it's fun to kill noobs. You said that, not me.

They are here to discredit not discuss.

 

[Jatix]

I've mentioned artificiality in the way some games handle their restrictions, but turning a city into a spawning node for PvP amusement is pretty artificial and pretty immersion breaking. Also, from what I've heard Henrik talk about, it doesn't seem that fits into the type of game he wants to make, i.e., MO2 isn't supposed to be just an arena.

PvP, for the sake of PvP, can be handled in a guild or group of likeminded players that just want to fight. If you want to fight people who don't necessarily want to fight you, fine--become a bandit/outlaw/assassin, which is totally legitimate in this type of game. However, to argue that you just want to conveniently kill other players, well, that sounds a lot like griefing.

MO1 wasnt an Arena. If you tried kill everyone you saw in tind, you'd go red waaay faster than you can go blue again. But unlike MO2, you could still find and create fights, without getting MC usually. MO2, your losing standing pretty much no matter what if you try to get any action at town. And thats not going down on its own, you now have to waste time going out of your way to get your standing back so you can play the game again. Which isnt worth doing, so town conflict is dead.

The entire point in hardcore open pvp games, is to not have consensual pvp. Which mind blowingly, doesnt mean farming nubs. But it means a lot more than dueling your guild or asking another guild to fight.

The game Henrik seems to want is a giant walking simulator with a lot of mechanics that mean nothing because a games number 1 goal should be to be fun. And most mechanics in MO2 dont add any fun, and just take time. It doesnt matter how cool or immersive the game feels, when theres nothing fun to do because the only way to get a fight was to hope a mounted zerg kills you after roaming for an hour to the next town that was too far away. Which wouldnt have been needed if inner town conflict was still viable.

 

[PuckInmortali]

When you play CoD, BF, Teken, Streetfight, or and other multiplayer game that have PvP do you call it griefing you are killed by the enemy team?

PvP is PvP. All PvP is legitimate. TKing in other games I would call like the only case of greifing but in mortal I would consider TKing just PvP.

No, you are comparing apples to oranges. But, you do help to prove a point, which is that I think some may have the genres crossed. This is a sandbox MMORPG, not an arena shooter or fighting game. In a game such as MO2, it is logical that cities would create and maintain order. It is illogical that they would be an arena for rampant PvP.

 

[PuckInmortali]

MO1 wasnt an Arena. If you tried kill everyone you saw in tind, you'd go red waaay faster than you can go blue again. But unlike MO2, you could still find and create fights, without getting MC usually. MO2, your losing standing pretty much no matter what if you try to get any action at town. And thats not going down on its own, you now have to waste time going out of your way to get your standing back so you can play the game again. Which isnt worth doing, so town conflict is dead.

The entire point in hardcore open pvp games, is to not have consensual pvp. Which mind blowingly, doesnt mean farming nubs. But it means a lot more than dueling your guild or asking another guild to fight.

The game Henrik seems to want is a giant walking simulator with a lot of mechanics that mean nothing because a games number 1 goal should be to be fun. And most mechanics in MO2 dont add any fun, and just take time. It doesnt matter how cool or immersive the game feels, when theres nothing fun to do because the only way to get a fight was to hope a mounted zerg kills you after roaming for an hour to the next town that was too far away. Which wouldnt have been needed if inner town conflict was still viable.

I am not arguing for the current system. I completely understand that people may be frustrated with it for all the reasons you mentioned. However, what I can't agree with is this idea that without city based pvp, the game is just boring. I also don't think that constant, easy access PvP is everyone's idea of fun, though you and others may really like that. In addition, just because you don't want to farm newbs, doesn't mean that it won't happen. Personally, I would predict a lot of that happening, if guarded towns weren't, you know, actually guarded.

 

[Anabolic Man]

As much as I enjoy the safety of towns and crafting within them I do have to agree. I'd like to have spots within cities that are more unsafe and where the dodgy hoodlums can choose to live. This would also incetivise guilds that claim the city to have their own patrols around town as well. Maybe make extracting safe and crafting locations less safe in one city and the reverse in another for example. Lictors are too much in general in my opinion. Teleporting guards just don't make sense. I hope they get removed when the criminal system gets some more love.

I mean, if someone kills me or steals from me and manges to fight off or evade 10 guards to get away then hell man they deserve the loot. That's impressive. I'd like for people to be able to become the known criminal in the city. It's the spice this game advertises itself with.

I think we need areas that are very well guarded and areas that are less guarded.

I think somone with high reputation should get access to areas where low reputation players can´t enter.
For excample the tindrem Castle or the House of the Mayor or the town or so.

There should eb 2 banks. One for high reputation players and one for low reputation Players.

Dont forget we will get bounty hunting. The bounty board will show you red players that are in the town and reward you for hunting them.

 

[ArcaneConsular]

What?

Where did I say it's fun to kill noobs. You said that, not me.

Lie to myself about what? Getting killed in a town isn't fun? You don't even know who I am, or what I do in-game if anything. But I can tell you though, to correct you, that I've played plenty in towns and outside of towns. Dying is apart of the time, to say it isn't fun would to deny the entirety of the game as death is apart of it just as much as killing someone.

MO1 failed because of balance, territory control, bugs, and server stability. That is the big four in my eyes. Not sure what you mean. What mistakes? You never really outlined which mistakes not to repeat.

Huh? Who said I wanted to play a BR game. Again, you're saying this not me. If anything I can probably guarantee I've played more of MO1 and MO2 then you, and you'd probably have a better time fitting into a BR title then I would.

I do. I kill people wherever I want, that's the whole point. When I was playing MO2 actively I lived in GK, so.. no. Wrong again. I was actually vulnerable to other players with no protection. I've been spawn camped before, both in MO1 and MO2; I honestly think people who spend their time doing it are wasting more time then those getting camped.. But let me let you in on two little tips for future reference since you seem to misunderstand the idea of priest camping.

1.) No one is keeping you there. Don't want to get priest camped? Go somewhere else.. or, better yet.. log off! You literally aren't being forced to remain there.

2.) Keep respawning and taunting & wasting the enemies time to distract them from another point of interest. Done it plenty of times to get my group fully ressed & geared whilst I spawn in dying over and over.

But yeah, it is fun. Maybe stop jumping to these weird outlandish conclusions.

it's the logical conclusion. If you're pro no consequences intown killing either A you like killing players in town or B like getting killed in town. I took the more logical choice

 

[ArcaneConsular]

No because the core players are harder to make leave. Vs the random nubs, if they don't quit when their mount dies, they will quit when the die to 5 mounted at the GY. The core players leave when you take what they enjoyed out of the game.

And my point isn't so people can just kill nubs in town. Even in mo1 you couldn't just rampage and kill nubs in tind, you would go red. I'd actually say MO1 system was more punishing, and worked better. Because once you got MC if you wanted to be blue you had to afk them down. MO2 you can just waste a ton of time farming stuff to have high favor, then you can kill all the nubs and mounts you want.

What I want is a system so that town conflict can still exist. Which isn't primarily to kill nubs, but some will obviously die in the process.


The part your missing, is that if every open pvp game is garbage, I can just og play a not open pvp mmo game instead. If MO isnt fun for me because they took the fun out, I'm just going to paly a different genre of game. MO doesnt need competition. If it isnt more fun than other games for the time it takes, theres no reason to play it. And currently, the game direction is to take as much timr as possible, for a chance to maybe have some fun. At that point, I'm just going to not play.



My entire main thread post. town life is boredom sim, which means you have to roam to get pvp, which is also boredom simulator. All the quicker ways to get action, aka town life, are gone.


When they first released this rep system I was hype, because it was more dynamic than just red/blue. Reds could live in a town like a blue and attack other towns. But they killed it when they removed all other criminal playstyles that aren't attack a town 2 hours away.



I would be happy with this. Conflict could happen right outside town amongst people who live there. And people can roam to it. Much better than what we have currently, which is roam 2 hours or log out.

Going from 'if you don't like it play new world' to ' I'm playing new world instead'. Ironic really, or taking their own advice I suppose