PvE Server

finegamingconnoisseur

Well-known member
May 29, 2020
1,171
1,555
113
www.youtube.com
The game was designed by and for those who wanted the full pvp full looting experience, and nothing less. Judging by its runaway success at launch it shows there is a massive market for games like MO2 as advertised. It did not need to change its vision to achieve that.

To suggest that it needs to bend its vision to cater for those who are not its target audience in order to be profitable, is to commit financial suicide. Legends of Aria is the most recent example of that, as exemplified by its extremely ill-advised 180 degree shift to go pve ruleset.

Screenshot_20220306-032055_Chrome.jpg
 

ArcaneConsular

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2021
873
536
93
The game was designed by and for those who wanted the full pvp full looting experience, and nothing less. Judging by its runaway success at launch it shows there is a massive market for games like MO2 as advertised. It did not need to change its vision to achieve that.

To suggest that it needs to bend its vision to cater for those who are not its target audience in order to be profitable, is to commit financial suicide. Legends of Aria is the most recent example of that, as exemplified by its extremely ill-advised 180 degree shift to go pve ruleset.

View attachment 3755

I played legends of aria at launch and the reason the game died was because it sucked not because they changed their ruleset or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skabsticles

ThirdeyePULSE

Member
Feb 12, 2022
44
26
18
The game was designed by and for those who wanted the full pvp full looting experience, and nothing less. Judging by its runaway success at launch it shows there is a massive market for games like MO2 as advertised. It did not need to change its vision to achieve that.

To suggest that it needs to bend its vision to cater for those who are not its target audience in order to be profitable, is to commit financial suicide. Legends of Aria is the most recent example of that, as exemplified by its extremely ill-advised 180 degree shift to go pve ruleset.

View attachment 3755
You mention 100k copies bought. but what is the concurrent playerbase? something under 8k right? and 8k was the threshold Henrik said just for the servers to stay up and break even.

The original title of this entire post is based on whether there should be PVE servers. There should not. That is not what this game is. What i find more concerning is how will this game remain profitable enough for its longevity. As it is, if subs were added tomorrow which is needed for game to survive, you'd lose 60% of your playerbase.

From what I understand, this game is the same game as MO1 with minor tweaks and improvements, as well as better graphics. MO1 failed as a game. Its ending population was around what, 300?

Based on that, I think fundamentally there needs to be some kind of change to encourage your less hardcore full loot pvp type to play this game. This game has a fantastic crafting system. People would pay and play this game just for that, even if they are never interested in PVPing. That is good for the health of the game. That's why I personally believe the systems that Albion Online has as well as EVE would be best for the health of the game. Why do i think that?

As it is, this is a niche genre. It will never be as big as a regular MMORPG. However, even by full loot pvp mmo standards, the population of this game is very small. I love this game and thats a concerning fact. But why is that?

If you look at games like Albion Online, it has created a space for crafters and gatherers not interested in PVP to learn their craft and have a place in the game. Its the system wherein resources are spread amongst a risk seperation. The low tier zones are no pvp with lowest resources. The mid tier zones are rep loss for pvp. The high tier zones are zero rep loss but best resources. Even the non pvper has to go to the high risk zones to get the best resources. It is a draw for them to go there because that is highest profit.

Ive known people in Albion that never played PVP a day in their life but played for years.
Ive known people that played for years and eventually loved it and pvped every day hence.

I dont think MO2 gives that ability to most players. The entire world is dangerous as long as you leave a city. The two main games of this genre that are successful support that framework of playing. By estimates on MMO population trackers, albion has 100k+ players a day. Eve idk.

The facts are this. MO1 failed. It was not profitable. Servers could not stay going. MO2 sold 100k copies sure. But we are down to less than 8k players a day. That is a bad sign. MO1 and MO2 are fundamentally the same game. What makes you think, based on the current population, that this game isn't already heading down the same path?

Albion Online, so i've been told, went through the same pattern of growth. They were a FFA pvp like MO2 currently is. Population went down to almost zero until they instituted the current system Albion functions by.

I don't understand why MO2 core community is so against a system that clearly works and is profitable, allowing that game to survive. Obviously Albion also has a card up its sleeve in that its also phone compatible, making it easier for people to play the game worldwide and has made it much more profitable, to the point that a company bought it out for many millions.


The backbone of every full loot pvp mmo is the pve community because they are the greater playerbase and they support the economy by creating items. Unfortunately, as far as i can tell in the current implementation of MO2, the entire playerbase are considered wolves and the sheep don't exist. We dont want the sheep to be pushed out and go extinct. Otherwise the fun ends.

I also believe that type of system would eliminate the need for balancing the current rep loss system around murders. Zergs could be fought in FFA zones the highest risk zones without any risk of not being able to enter towns.

I'm 100% of the belief that the game needs to bend its vision to a system that already works in full loot pvp mmo's that are successful. A genre mind you, which is already niche and small compared to the population of other types and genres of games. Its probable that the hardcore pvp mmo people are already playing games like that, which are successful. This is a very small niche of the population willing to play these types of games. If they are diehard fans of this genre, then they've already discovered and navigated to the few games that exist in this genre.

For a game like this to succeed, you need to steal the playerbase from those games which are already successful. I believe this game has the ability to steal that playerbase but not as it is in it's current state. Will that happen? Probably not. Henrik seems the idealistic type. He will make the game he wants come hell or high water. We will probably play mo2 until it dies and MO3 is released. Himself or his family will pay the price of a game that isn't profitable and doesn't have a high enough playerbase to support it. Idealism is good and all until it meets its arch nemesis; realism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tloluvin and Myta

Joe McFly

Active member
Jan 26, 2022
155
37
28
You mention 100k copies bought. but what is the concurrent playerbase? something under 8k right? and 8k was the threshold Henrik said just for the servers to stay up and break even.

The original title of this entire post is based on whether there should be PVE servers. There should not. That is not what this game is. What i find more concerning is how will this game remain profitable enough for its longevity. As it is, if subs were added tomorrow which is needed for game to survive, you'd lose 60% of your playerbase.

From what I understand, this game is the same game as MO1 with minor tweaks and improvements, as well as better graphics. MO1 failed as a game. Its ending population was around what, 300?

Based on that, I think fundamentally there needs to be some kind of change to encourage your less hardcore full loot pvp type to play this game. This game has a fantastic crafting system. People would pay and play this game just for that, even if they are never interested in PVPing. That is good for the health of the game. That's why I personally believe the systems that Albion Online has as well as EVE would be best for the health of the game. Why do i think that?

As it is, this is a niche genre. It will never be as big as a regular MMORPG. However, even by full loot pvp mmo standards, the population of this game is very small. I love this game and thats a concerning fact. But why is that?

If you look at games like Albion Online, it has created a space for crafters and gatherers not interested in PVP to learn their craft and have a place in the game. Its the system wherein resources are spread amongst a risk seperation. The low tier zones are no pvp with lowest resources. The mid tier zones are rep loss for pvp. The high tier zones are zero rep loss but best resources. Even the non pvper has to go to the high risk zones to get the best resources. It is a draw for them to go there because that is highest profit.

Ive known people in Albion that never played PVP a day in their life but played for years.
Ive known people that played for years and eventually loved it and pvped every day hence.

I dont think MO2 gives that ability to most players. The entire world is dangerous as long as you leave a city. The two main games of this genre that are successful support that framework of playing. By estimates on MMO population trackers, albion has 100k+ players a day. Eve idk.

The facts are this. MO1 failed. It was not profitable. Servers could not stay going. MO2 sold 100k copies sure. But we are down to less than 8k players a day. That is a bad sign. MO1 and MO2 are fundamentally the same game. What makes you think, based on the current population, that this game isn't already heading down the same path?

Albion Online, so i've been told, went through the same pattern of growth. They were a FFA pvp like MO2 currently is. Population went down to almost zero until they instituted the current system Albion functions by.

I don't understand why MO2 core community is so against a system that clearly works and is profitable, allowing that game to survive. Obviously Albion also has a card up its sleeve in that its also phone compatible, making it easier for people to play the game worldwide and has made it much more profitable, to the point that a company bought it out for many millions.


The backbone of every full loot pvp mmo is the pve community because they are the greater playerbase and they support the economy by creating items. Unfortunately, as far as i can tell in the current implementation of MO2, the entire playerbase are considered wolves and the sheep don't exist. We dont want the sheep to be pushed out and go extinct. Otherwise the fun ends.

I also believe that type of system would eliminate the need for balancing the current rep loss system around murders. Zergs could be fought in FFA zones the highest risk zones without any risk of not being able to enter towns.

I'm 100% of the belief that the game needs to bend its vision to a system that already works in full loot pvp mmo's that are successful. A genre mind you, which is already niche and small compared to the population of other types and genres of games. Its probable that the hardcore pvp mmo people are already playing games like that, which are successful. This is a very small niche of the population willing to play these types of games. If they are diehard fans of this genre, then they've already discovered and navigated to the few games that exist in this genre.

For a game like this to succeed, you need to steal the playerbase from those games which are already successful. I believe this game has the ability to steal that playerbase but not as it is in it's current state. Will that happen? Probably not. Henrik seems the idealistic type. He will make the game he wants come hell or high water. We will probably play mo2 until it dies and MO3 is released. Himself or his family will pay the price of a game that isn't profitable and doesn't have a high enough playerbase to support it. Idealism is good and all until it meets its arch nemesis; realism.
Very interesting. Let's keep watching...maybe eventually...pve or with more safe zones. We will see...
 

Khulan

Member
Feb 26, 2022
60
54
18
I think that the gatekeeping that I'm seeing from some players regarding Mortal's design philosophy in regards to game mechanics is staggeringly foolish.

You can make the game safer for carebears or smaller groups or even solo players without making things 'less hardcore'. UO did it with the recall spells. EvE did it with warp core stabilizers. These things don't make the game worse; all they do is open doors for players who aren't in the dominant position, which in a competitive game is very, very important.

I think that the mechanics of Mortal should probably evolve to appeal to the widest possible swath of people without abandoning its core ideals. The people claiming doing so will kill or ruin the game are usually leaning on 'no true Scotsman' or 'slippery slope' fallacies, which might seem reasonable at first, but upon dissection fall apart very quickly.

Then again, ignorance shouts loud. There's likely a reason these people are players and not developers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mateyz and Tloluvin

CrgHck

Active member
Jan 27, 2022
201
103
43
Stockholm
These things don't make the game worse
Yes they do.

There's likely a reason these people are players and not developers.
100% correct but that also make me very certain about what I like about games, SV is free to go any route they choose.
lots of suggestions I've seen on these forums would not keep my sub, hopefully I think SV vision does not align with those.

also they don't read the forums ;D
 
  • Like
Reactions: C3ncio

finegamingconnoisseur

Well-known member
May 29, 2020
1,171
1,555
113
www.youtube.com
I played legends of aria at launch and the reason the game died was because it sucked not because they changed their ruleset or whatever.
Yes, because they destroyed the very thing that got all the UO vets interested and backed the game in the first place.

Without the hardcore pvp, the game couldn't compete with the slew of other games out there that did pve and pretty much everything else better.

As Morrolan said in his video, the people who originally backed the game's creation were "bait and switched" at the last minute.
 

finegamingconnoisseur

Well-known member
May 29, 2020
1,171
1,555
113
www.youtube.com
You mention 100k copies bought. but what is the concurrent playerbase? something under 8k right? and 8k was the threshold Henrik said just for the servers to stay up and break even.

The original title of this entire post is based on whether there should be PVE servers. There should not. That is not what this game is. What i find more concerning is how will this game remain profitable enough for its longevity. As it is, if subs were added tomorrow which is needed for game to survive, you'd lose 60% of your playerbase.

From what I understand, this game is the same game as MO1 with minor tweaks and improvements, as well as better graphics. MO1 failed as a game. Its ending population was around what, 300?

Based on that, I think fundamentally there needs to be some kind of change to encourage your less hardcore full loot pvp type to play this game. This game has a fantastic crafting system. People would pay and play this game just for that, even if they are never interested in PVPing. That is good for the health of the game. That's why I personally believe the systems that Albion Online has as well as EVE would be best for the health of the game. Why do i think that?

As it is, this is a niche genre. It will never be as big as a regular MMORPG. However, even by full loot pvp mmo standards, the population of this game is very small. I love this game and thats a concerning fact. But why is that?

If you look at games like Albion Online, it has created a space for crafters and gatherers not interested in PVP to learn their craft and have a place in the game. Its the system wherein resources are spread amongst a risk seperation. The low tier zones are no pvp with lowest resources. The mid tier zones are rep loss for pvp. The high tier zones are zero rep loss but best resources. Even the non pvper has to go to the high risk zones to get the best resources. It is a draw for them to go there because that is highest profit.

Ive known people in Albion that never played PVP a day in their life but played for years.
Ive known people that played for years and eventually loved it and pvped every day hence.

I dont think MO2 gives that ability to most players. The entire world is dangerous as long as you leave a city. The two main games of this genre that are successful support that framework of playing. By estimates on MMO population trackers, albion has 100k+ players a day. Eve idk.

The facts are this. MO1 failed. It was not profitable. Servers could not stay going. MO2 sold 100k copies sure. But we are down to less than 8k players a day. That is a bad sign. MO1 and MO2 are fundamentally the same game. What makes you think, based on the current population, that this game isn't already heading down the same path?

Albion Online, so i've been told, went through the same pattern of growth. They were a FFA pvp like MO2 currently is. Population went down to almost zero until they instituted the current system Albion functions by.

I don't understand why MO2 core community is so against a system that clearly works and is profitable, allowing that game to survive. Obviously Albion also has a card up its sleeve in that its also phone compatible, making it easier for people to play the game worldwide and has made it much more profitable, to the point that a company bought it out for many millions.


The backbone of every full loot pvp mmo is the pve community because they are the greater playerbase and they support the economy by creating items. Unfortunately, as far as i can tell in the current implementation of MO2, the entire playerbase are considered wolves and the sheep don't exist. We dont want the sheep to be pushed out and go extinct. Otherwise the fun ends.

I also believe that type of system would eliminate the need for balancing the current rep loss system around murders. Zergs could be fought in FFA zones the highest risk zones without any risk of not being able to enter towns.

I'm 100% of the belief that the game needs to bend its vision to a system that already works in full loot pvp mmo's that are successful. A genre mind you, which is already niche and small compared to the population of other types and genres of games. Its probable that the hardcore pvp mmo people are already playing games like that, which are successful. This is a very small niche of the population willing to play these types of games. If they are diehard fans of this genre, then they've already discovered and navigated to the few games that exist in this genre.

For a game like this to succeed, you need to steal the playerbase from those games which are already successful. I believe this game has the ability to steal that playerbase but not as it is in it's current state. Will that happen? Probably not. Henrik seems the idealistic type. He will make the game he wants come hell or high water. We will probably play mo2 until it dies and MO3 is released. Himself or his family will pay the price of a game that isn't profitable and doesn't have a high enough playerbase to support it. Idealism is good and all until it meets its arch nemesis; realism.
The thing with games like EVE Online was that it didn't bend its vision and still managed to keep its population in the 25-30k range.

It simply improved its existing systems and added new ones that stayed in line with its non-consensual pvp ruleset. They added safety switches that only prevented the player using it from accidentally opening fire on innocent targets, but it didn't prevent others from taking aggressive actions against them.

It improved the new player tutorial numerous times over its very long 19 years in existence. They added new player assistance groups and community-driven initiatives to teach and make them feel at home.

As far as the pvp goes, it is about as hardcore as MO2 except when your ship is docked in station. In fact, if you are docked in the Jita Trade Hub, the public announcement system inside the station even warns pilots to turn on shield and armour hardeners before undocking.

MO2 just needs to do what EVE has done to take the guesswork out of learning how to properly play the game, and half the battle to retain its existing players and entice new ones into the fold has been won. The other half will be to improve its existing systems and add new quality of life ones without touching the hardcore pvp ruleset.

Long-term success can be achieved by MO2 by sticking to its vision. Seeing that the game is a little over a month old since its release, I'd say it just needs time and many patches to fix bugs and improve balance.

As well, a healthy and regular dose of new pve content and features that follow its hardcore pvp ruleset (and not the other way around) will not only sustain it in the long term, but other games will take notice and attempt to emulate its success.

That is the winning strategy.
 
Last edited:

ArcaneConsular

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2021
873
536
93
Yes, because they destroyed the very thing that got all the UO vets interested and backed the game in the first place.

Without the hardcore pvp, the game couldn't compete with the slew of other games out there that did pve and pretty much everything else better.

As Morrolan said in his video, the people who originally backed the game's creation were "bait and switched" at the last minute.

The game was just bad in general. A worse version of Albion online basically
 

ThirdeyePULSE

Member
Feb 12, 2022
44
26
18
The thing with games like EVE Online was that it didn't bend its vision and still managed to keep its population in the 25-30k range.

It simply improved its existing systems and added new ones that stayed in line with its non-consensual pvp ruleset. They added safety switches that only prevented the player using it from accidentally opening fire on innocent targets, but it didn't prevent others from taking aggressive actions against them.

It improved the new player tutorial numerous times over its very long 19 years in existence. They added new player assistance groups and community-driven initiatives to teach and make them feel at home.

As far as the pvp goes, it is about as hardcore as MO2 except when your ship is docked in station. In fact, if you are docked in the Jita Trade Hub, the public announcement system inside the station even warns pilots to turn on shield and armour hardeners before undocking.

MO2 just needs to do what EVE has done to take the guesswork out of learning how to properly play the game, and half the battle to retain its existing players and entice new ones into the fold has been won. The other half will be to improve its existing systems and add new quality of life ones without touching the hardcore pvp ruleset.

Long-term success can be achieved by MO2 by sticking to its vision. Seeing that the game is a little over a month old since its release, I'd say it just needs time and many patches to fix bugs and improve balance.

As well, a healthy and regular dose of new pve content and features that follow its hardcore pvp ruleset (and not the other way around) will not only sustain it in the long term, but other games will take notice and attempt to emulate its success.

That is the winning strategy.

Sure. My experience is solely with Albion Online which has a bigger playerbase than EVE. Probably because of the Mobile aspect but it also gives people time to get comfortable without having to PVP, but inevitably you have to go to PVP areas if you want to eventually get the best resources, best xp and enjoy the entire game rather than carebear areas.

I'm not against PVP by any means. I'm definitely against PVE servers. Honestly, I'm okay with whatever works. If MO2 can turn around its total daily players and actually keep its servers running then i'm all for the current vision. However, if it becomes clear the game will not be able to continue without changes, then I'm all for changes.

We all know this isn't the full game yet. A lot of features are missing. There are a lot of bugs. The game is hard to learn for new people unless you watch hours and hours of guides like I did. There should be a warning for character creation that the choices you make will impact the future of your entire gameplay. Things like that.

I guess we need to wait and see where the playerbase will be at once the full game is fully implemented. If playerbase goes up, great. Then the vision is working. I'm concerned that the vision is so integral to the hardcore base of game and the developers that even if the playerbase goes down too 300 a day, the vision will not be altered to bring in more people.

Again, i'm not here to play a PVE game. I don't want that and I don't think the majority of the players would want that. I am of the strong opinion however, that for a healthy full loot pvp game there needs to be a space for PVE and PVP players to coexist so that there is always people to gank, economy stays healthy, ect.

So yeah, i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you or the vision per se. Just concerned about daily player count.
 

Khulan

Member
Feb 26, 2022
60
54
18
To be fair, there are 'PvE' places. Graveyards and bandits near towns, bandits and animals in the nearby fields and along the roads between towns. There is plenty of PvE in the game.

People who farm these areas don't make very much gold, and don't obtain very valuable resources. On top of that, people who farm these areas are very obvious and easy to find. The harassment that graveyard farmers get is sort of the price they pay for choosing to be the lowest common denominator.

It's not difficult to set off into the wilderness with vendor gear and find a nice secluded spot where you can farm in relative peace. It's easy to be unseen if you go on foot.

The one thing that the game needs in my opinion is the ability for solo/small groups to escape zerging. My current fantasy is both that the sound of horse hooves are heard from farther away the more horses that are in a particular area and that player alchemists are able to craft some kind of invisibility potion (or else a hiding skill gets added).
 

ElPerro

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2020
698
788
93
I agree to a point. No pve server i agree with. But if you love the game only way to keep game alive is for the company to make a profit. If you love the game, you better hope it's profitable otherwise bye bye game.
You think MO1 was profitable? LOL

Henrik doesnt care about profits, if he did he would have opened regional servers and let us remove shadows so more ppl can play. But this is a hobby project for him, and he can keep it running as long as he wants with his inheritance money.
 

Joe McFly

Active member
Jan 26, 2022
155
37
28
even if I am now met with hatred. I hope that the player numbers decrease and then the PvE server comes.:p:p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cyrax