Unofficial Thievery Poll

[Midas]

You can logically expect players to be upset when their stuff is stolen. I like the idea of a thief system however i wouldn't employ it until we have a massive amount of players or else it will end poorly , meaning i dont think we can cope with a 2% drop in player retention even just due to the pure griefing that will happen... lets be honest... the griefing will happen.

 

[Xunila]

You can logically expect players to be upset when their stuff is stolen. I like the idea of a thief system however i wouldn't employ it until we have a massive amount of players or else it will end poorly , meaning i dont think we can cope with a 2% drop in player retention even just due to the pure griefing that will happen... lets be honest... the griefing will happen.

And the victims will be the new players. Veterans know about thieves and how to avoid thievery e.g. by throwing everything into bags.

 

[Amadman]

I expect people to be upset by most things that set them back in the game or even life.

It is all part of the experience.


If we are being honest, griefing will happen with or without thieving.

In the end it is the players able to grow and get past such things that will make the game stronger.

 

[fartbox]

I expect people to be upset by most things that set them back in the game or even life.

It is all part of the experience.


If we are being honest, griefing will happen with or without thieving.

In the end it is the players able to grow and get past such things that will make the game stronger.

Who's upset? I'm just telling you that thievery won't save the game and it's in a state of "needing saving". It's precipitously close to a negative feedback loop considering it relies on players for content. Once the player count in these games gets low enough it spirals out of control until 0. It struggles to have even 1000 online during most hours of most days currently.

So we should be focusing all of our attention on raising the player count. There are several things that would raise the player count; Overhauling the combat into a more traditional MMO meta, adding engaging content that caters to solo players, changing the resurrection meta and accessibility of content away from player built structures.

Thievery is not one of those things that will significantly increase the player count. It's solo friendly but it's not a competitive avenue and players log into PVP games to feel competitive which they will not be able to do through thievery. It's a gimmick, a side affair. It will not alleviate the concerns of most players trying the game and finding they cannot be competitive in it and therefore logging out and then into a different game where they can be competitive.

 

[ElPerro]

Who's upset? I'm just telling you that thievery won't save the game and it's in a state of "needing saving". It's precipitously close to a negative feedback loop considering it relies on players for content. Once the player count in these games gets low enough it spirals out of control until 0. It struggles to have even 1000 online during most hours of most days currently.

So we should be focusing all of our attention on raising the player count. There are several things that would raise the player count; Overhauling the combat into a more traditional MMO meta, adding engaging content that caters to solo players, changing the resurrection meta and accessibility of content away from player built structures.

Thievery is not one of those things that will significantly increase the player count. It's solo friendly but it's not a competitive avenue and players log into PVP games to feel competitive which they will not be able to do through thievery. It's a gimmick, a side affair. It will not alleviate the concerns of most players trying the game and finding they cannot be competitive in it and therefore logging out and then into a different game where they can be competitive.

The combat is now fine with the added blink, the defensive meta is dead. Changing a FPS slasher combat into a "more traditional MMO meta" will just end up with a mess nobody likes.

 

[Amadman]

Who's upset?

Sorry, I should have quoted them. But I was referring to the players mentioned in the post by Midas above.

I was not trying to insinuate that you or anyone else in this thread is upset.

 

[fartbox]

The combat is now fine with the added blink, the defensive meta is dead. Changing a FPS slasher combat into a "more traditional MMO meta" will just end up with a mess nobody likes.

It's great that 1v1s can be ended in under 10 minutes now but 1v1s in the real game outside of pre-agreed duels is extremely rare. The blink charge actually hurts solo players. Unironically the lack of solo competitive content was one of the three major factors I listed as holding the game back.

In other games with other metas you are given tools to either pick your fight or win your fight despite what number of opponents you may come up against. In Mortal there is no way to pick your fight and there is no way to win your fight as a solo player in *most* situations.

Lets use EVE for example: You are given two opportunities to pick your fight before engaging; Local chat, Dscan You are also given a plethora of other options that allow you to disengage or pick your fight; MJD, Cloaks, MWD, nullification. In EVE the PVP is almost consensual, despite it not feeling that way. Zergs or "Blobs" do happen but almost always the people getting blobbed do know what they are getting into before hand.

Lets talk about Albion: In Albion you have invisibility and mount mechanics to allow you to have some control over the fights you take open world. However most solo players stick to areas of the map that have group size restrictions like Mists, hellgates or corrupted dungeons. The mists is overwhelmingly the most populated area of the game.

In OSRS you have multiple ways to pick your fight. Everything from teleportation to freeze logging. As well as half of the wilderness is dedicated to 1v1's only. These areas of the map are significantly more populated then the multi areas, In fact the single area wilderness is among the most population dense areas of the game outside of the grand exchange on every single server. I logged in yesterday just to gather some data on this. There are more players per SQ/KM in the wilderness(singles) then there are in any other region outside of the greater GE region.


The metrics speak for themselves. The numbers do not lie friends. You can say "Well get a group" but you have been saying that for a decade now? Time and time again you are reminded that new players don't just get a group, they instead play a different game. One of Mortals competitors in most cases, where they can be competitive without a group.

My goal is to raise the population in MO2. Some of the mechanics I recommend I may not even personally like, but again the population is a greater concern then your or my subjective experience because in a game where players are the content, if there are no players then there is no content and we are inching dangerously close to "no players".

 

[ElPerro]

It's great that 1v1s can be ended in under 10 minutes now but 1v1s in the real game outside of pre-agreed duels is extremely rare. The blink charge actually hurts solo players. Unironically the lack of solo competitive content was one of the three major factors I listed as holding the game back.

In other games with other metas you are given tools to either pick your fight or win your fight despite what number of opponents you may come up against. In Mortal there is no way to pick your fight and there is no way to win your fight as a solo player in *most* situations.

Lets use EVE for example: You are given two opportunities to pick your fight before engaging; Local chat, Dscan You are also given a plethora of other options that allow you to disengage or pick your fight; MJD, Cloaks, MWD, nullification. In EVE the PVP is almost consensual, despite it not feeling that way. Zergs or "Blobs" do happen but almost always the people getting blobbed do know what they are getting into before hand.

Lets talk about Albion: In Albion you have invisibility and mount mechanics to allow you to have some control over the fights you take open world. However most solo players stick to areas of the map that have group size restrictions like Mists, hellgates or corrupted dungeons. The mists is overwhelmingly the most populated area of the game.

In OSRS you have multiple ways to pick your fight. Everything from teleportation to freeze logging. As well as half of the wilderness is dedicated to 1v1's only. These areas of the map are significantly more populated then the multi areas, In fact the single area wilderness is among the most population dense areas of the game outside of the grand exchange on every single server. I logged in yesterday just to gather some data on this. There are more players per SQ/KM in the wilderness(singles) then there are in any other region outside of the greater GE region.


The metrics speak for themselves. The numbers do not lie friends. You can say "Well get a group" but you have been saying that for a decade now? Time and time again you are reminded that new players don't just get a group, they instead play a different game. One of Mortals competitors in most cases, where they can be competitive without a group.

My goal is to raise the population in MO2. Some of the mechanics I recommend I may not even personally like, but again the population is a greater concern then your or my subjective experience because in a game where players are the content, if there are no players then there is no content and we are inching dangerously close to "no players".

How is the blink charge hurting solo players?

Playing solo is viable if your a veela and stick to dungeons like sewers that mounteds cant enter. As long as there arent any fast pets you can probably run away from most groups by popping your clades and survive. But making the game consensual pvp doesnt guarantee success, or New World would be a huge hit. Mortal should stick to what makes it unique, because it really cant compete in other fields otherwise.

Why does the game still retains a small but loyal fanbase with clunky ping normalized combat, the worse pve in the whole industry, bugs everywhere and being a RMT/cheating paradise? Because theres no other hardcore sandbox open world game like it. Not albion, osrs or eve are like it, making it a clone of these games will just kill its competitive edge.

Not sure why you are so obsessed with population, dont tell me you yoloed into SV stocks. Theres lots of games with populations that I wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole, if tomorrow MO2 could have 100k players but had to turn into a full blown themepark vs having 1-2 years left with this population and then dying like Gloria Victis I'll choose the latter always.

 

[fartbox]

How is the blink charge hurting solo players?

Playing solo is viable if your a veela and stick to dungeons like sewers that mounteds cant enter. As long as there arent any fast pets you can probably run away from most groups by popping your clades and survive. But making the game consensual pvp doesnt guarantee success, or New World would be a huge hit. Mortal should stick to what makes it unique, because it really cant compete in other fields otherwise.

Why does the game still retains a small but loyal fanbase with clunky ping normalized combat, the worse pve in the whole industry, bugs everywhere and being a RMT/cheating paradise? Because theres no other hardcore sandbox open world game like it. Not albion, osrs or eve are like it, making it a clone of these games will just kill its competitive edge.

Not sure why you are so obsessed with population, dont tell me you yoloed into SV stocks. Theres lots of games with populations that I wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole, if tomorrow MO2 could have 100k players but had to turn into a full blown themepark vs having 1-2 years left with this population and then dying like Gloria Victis I'll choose the latter always.

That's fine I respect your opinion and Henrik will take into consideration who he should appeal to. To the players who are happy if the game dies, or limps along with a low population or more players that want to see it thrive and live on.

So far it has been the former but I do see change. Just not the right changes. Blink charge was them trying. They desperately need someone to talk them through these changes before they are made. It just seems they don't have someone on their team with a true appreciation for MMO combat metas. Blink charge for example will ultimately negatively impact the game and lead to more players leaving the game then it adds.

Every change I lobby for would increase the population as it is my primary objective when approaching change. An example of a good change they made was NPC guards around NPC areas. The traffic of those roads and population of those areas has increased since those changes. However there should be no guards (no guild guards) outside of NPC settlement areas and the ability to generate wealth in NPC areas should be limited.

I never said turn Mortal into consensual PVP. I only highlighted that EVE is nearly consensual with Local chat, despite what the players feel there. Only inexperienced players get into fights they don't want to get into. I merely asked for more tools so that a solo player can deal with or disengage large groups. Of which there are currently none. Your veela argument is null because most groups also have veelas. Being a veela isn't a hard disengage like many other MMO mechanics that exist.


I'm concerned about the population because the game feels dead outside of starter cities and dungeons. It's a massive world that deserves to be filled with players. Mortal is the most modern full MMO and I love all full-loot MMO's. I want Mortal to be successful and I want Mortal to be here a decade from now. I don't want to genre to suffer more then it already as. Full loot MMO's can work, but there is a formula, a method to the madness or they will fail. Henrik needs a better understanding of that method, and that's what i'm trying to do.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

That's fine I respect your opinion and Henrik will take into consideration who he should appeal to. To the players who are happy if the game dies, or limps along with a low population or more players that want to see it thrive and live on.

So far it has been the former but I do see change. Just not the right changes. Blink charge was them trying. They desperately need someone to talk them through these changes before they are made. It just seems they don't have someone on their team with a true appreciation for MMO combat metas. Blink charge for example will ultimately negatively impact the game and lead to more players leaving the game then it adds.

Every change I lobby for would increase the population as it is my primary objective when approaching change. An example of a good change they made was NPC guards around NPC areas. The traffic of those roads and population of those areas has increased since those changes. However there should be no guards (no guild guards) outside of NPC settlement areas and the ability to generate wealth in NPC areas should be limited.

I never said turn Mortal into consensual PVP. I only highlighted that EVE is nearly consensual with Local chat, despite what the players feel there. Only inexperienced players get into fights they don't want to get into. I merely asked for more tools so that a solo player can deal with or disengage large groups. Of which there are currently none. Your veela argument is null because most groups also have veelas. Being a veela isn't a hard disengage like many other MMO mechanics that exist.


I'm concerned about the population because the game feels dead outside of starter cities and dungeons. It's a massive world that deserves to be filled with players. Mortal is the most modern full MMO and I love all full-loot MMO's. I want Mortal to be successful and I want Mortal to be here a decade from now. I don't want to genre to suffer more then it already as. Full loot MMO's can work, but there is a formula, a method to the madness or they will fail. Henrik needs a better understanding of that method, and that's what i'm trying to do.

EVE is actually the most non-consensual hardcore PvP game, in some ways even more than MO2.

One PKer with 7+ accounts running all at once on the same computer can gank a cruiser or maybe even a battlecruiser in high-sec space. Local chat is merely an early warning system that someone with their train of alts have switched on their criminal permissions next to their name. You wouldn't even see it coming until they're a few seconds away from you, and by then you'd be webbed, warp-scrambled and your +2 warp core stabilizer won't save you.

The devs allow scams to run rampant in Jita, and give players all the tools they could ever want to do it with impunity. Yet the game has 32,000 concurrent players.

I very much doubt thievery is as scary or damaging to the population as some people make it out to be.

 

[fartbox]

EVE is actually the most non-consensual hardcore PvP game, in some ways even more than MO2.

One PKer with 7+ accounts running all at once on the same computer can gank a cruiser or maybe even a battlecruiser in high-sec space. Local chat is merely an early warning system that someone with their train of alts have switched on their criminal permissions next to their name. You wouldn't even see it coming until they're a few seconds away from you, and by then you'd be webbed, warp-scrambled and your +2 warp core stabilizer won't save you.

The devs allow scams to run rampant in Jita, and give players all the tools they could ever want to do it with impunity. Yet the game has 32,000 concurrent players.

I very much doubt thievery is as scary or damaging to the population as some people make it out to be.

I played EVE for 12 years. I was in Pandemic Legion. I reached every milestone the game had to offer including super capital ships. The game was at a consensual level for most players(not all players). With rare exception to wormhole conflicts. This is my objective analysis after 12 years. Novice players who didn't utilize the tools the game provided properly did fall victim occasionally but they learn quick and in the end they start utilizing those tools.

Mortal doesn't provide any tools with which players can utilize in the first place. It's not a failure to utilize the tools, it's a lack of tools.

 

[CherryKush]

Novice players who didn't utilize the tools the game provided properly did fall victim occasionally but they learn quick and in the end they start utilizing those tools.

Players in MO1 learned quick as well and started putting their valuables in a bag with heavy water so they could not be stolen, those who were lazy and did not use their "tools" were the ones who seemed to cry the loudest.

 

[fartbox]

Players in MO1 learned quick as well and started putting their valuables in a bag with heavy water so they could not be stolen, those who were lazy and did not use their "tools" were the ones who seemed to cry the loudest.

I never said thieving doesn't have a place in the game. I think its a decent system, not great but decent. I believe it will provide a decent end game loop for a small section of the population but we should be focusing our efforts on systems that hit larger demographics right now. Patches don't come cheap in MO2, its a lengthy process. I can't see thieving as a priority right now given that it will appeal to maybe 50-100 people that are already playing the game tops.

The people already playing the game should not be our concern right now. There isn't enough of them. Mortal needs to seek a bigger audience.

 

[Doom and Gloom]

Players in MO1 learned quick as well and started putting their valuables in a bag with heavy water so they could not be stolen, those who were lazy and did not use their "tools" were the ones who seemed to cry the loudest.

I wonder if those things were designed by Henrik even that time, I kinda doubt it. It is more like something gets added and then the players figure out how to circumvent it somehow, while the devs have no idea about those circumvents in many cases beforehand. There is a lack of design understanding in general in so many mechanics.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

I never said thieving doesn't have a place in the game. I think its a decent system, not great but decent. I believe it will provide a decent end game loop for a small section of the population but we should be focusing our efforts on systems that hit larger demographics right now. Patches don't come cheap in MO2, its a lengthy process. I can't see thieving as a priority right now given that it will appeal to maybe 50-100 people that are already playing the game tops.

The people already playing the game should not be our concern right now. There isn't enough of them. Mortal needs to seek a bigger audience.

Again, it goes back to the error that UO made by trying to appeal to a broader (not target) audience in the misguided belief that it will bring in a large, sustainable, long-term population. It did not. It actually ended up losing both crowds.

We the community have been waiting for thievery for the better part of two years. It is an integral part of the game's bread and butter in much the same way as full PvP and full looting are. As @CherryKush pointed out, thievery was locked behind the paid account in MO1 because SV knew it was in demand and people wanted the skill line. Henrik has dangled thievery in front of us like a carrot on a stick for a long time, just like he did with ships and wagons. He knows that there's a huge demand for it.

The game won't die just because thievery gets prioritised. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of the people coming in to this game didn't come for the PvP and full looting per se. But they came anyway and were fully prepared to live with it because it added to the game's appeal. I'm sure the same can be said about thievery. Newcomers may not request for thievery, but that doesn't mean they won't enjoy the overall dynamics and emergent gameplay that thievery will bring. Also, thievery wasn't just for thieves as many players can probably attest. It had a myriad of uses in a sandbox game.

The poll showed a 63% that wanted thievery from rather strongly to very strongly. The community rightly called out the new roadmap as being not according to their wishes. Adding more fluff that we already have plenty of isn't going to bring in more people in my opinion.

I also don't believe that SV takes a long time to implement a feature. I was playing since early alpha and was impressed with how rapidly the game took shape over the span of 2-3 years leading to launch.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

I played EVE for 12 years. I was in Pandemic Legion. I reached every milestone the game had to offer including super capital ships. The game was at a consensual level for most players(not all players). With rare exception to wormhole conflicts. This is my objective analysis after 12 years. Novice players who didn't utilize the tools the game provided properly did fall victim occasionally but they learn quick and in the end they start utilizing those tools.

Mortal doesn't provide any tools with which players can utilize in the first place. It's not a failure to utilize the tools, it's a lack of tools.

In what way is EVE a mostly consensual PvP game? I get it that in a station you can't be attacked, but the moment you undock you are free game for any player that wants to lock on and fire away.

 

[CherryKush]

The people already playing the game should not be our concern right now. There isn't enough of them. Mortal needs to seek a bigger audience.

A bigger audience you say? Perhaps people like me??? I haven't really played MO2 in over a year, I gave up waiting for the primary action skills that would allow me to play my desired Thief/Rogue/Lockpicking class. You can keep saying Thievery will only bring in 50-100 more people all you want but you just making those numbers up.

I believe Thievery will bring many more people than that and I'll tell you why. When MO2 first launched and twitch was full of people that had never heard of MO1 they were always excited when I talked about what could be done with the Thievery skills and these newcomers would ask tons of follow up questions about it. You could tell they were genuinely excited for those kinds of mechanics. "OMG no way!" "that's sooo AWESOME" ect. ect. were always the norm when people first heard about MO1's thievery.

But as the months started to pass by and there seemed to be no hope for those skills getting patched into the game that excitement and enthusiasm waned and went away. Yes MO1 didn't have a large population but Twitch also was not as popular as it is now either. I believe once Thievery and its other related skills (assassin/lockpicking/ect...) are put into the game and people start to see this gameplay on twitch we are going to to get a TON of people who enjoy playing this class buying subbing into the game.

Some people don't want to play a Mage, or a Foot Fighter, or an Archer. They want to play a Thief/Rogue/Assassin because that's their class they enjoy to play. It's really that simple, and as of right now those of us that do, can't . So no I don't see re-working classes and combat styles that are already in the game as a priority. I see getting the class that's not even in the game yet as the priority so we can finally log in and play.

 

[fartbox]

In what way is EVE a mostly consensual PvP game? I get it that in a station you can't be attacked, but the moment you undock you are free game for any player that wants to lock on and fire away.

Oh thats an easy one. You can visit every single solar system in the game in nearly complete safety. You can fly around in a nullified cloaked cruiser. You can cyno field directly onto a station, you can insta warp undock from the station, you can build any number of ships with inertia stabs and low res that can warp before any ship has time to lock it.

There are so many tools to navigate the universe in safety. As far as farming, even in the most dangerous lawless areas, you can find a system where you are alone, farm, and if someone comes into local you can cloak or dock.

Example: Doing a 10/10 plex, someone comes into local, you warp to a safe spot and cloak.
Comparable in Mortal to doing a dungeon: There is no escape, you fight and you either win or you die.

Its really hard to lose in a ship in EVE if you truly do not want to. I'm not saying that kind of safety is something I want for Mortal. But there are no tools, none with which players can disengage or "pick their fights", that kind of gameplay encourages zerging. Watch any stream the word comes up so often, its one of the most used terms in the game, clearly its a problem even for the people who enjoy the game and are already in guilds, now imagine how the largest demographic; solo casual players feel about it.


The big three: OSRS, Albion and EVE all share something in common. They have a plethora of options available for disengagement as well as many options for group size restricted content.

Mortal lacks this, and it's a problem. Usually in games where these aspects are lacking they have very low TTK; Mortal has a high TTK, compounding the issue further. However I could design a meta that punishes zerging, using only abilities. I only need 3 abilities to do it as well. Without incorporating group size restrictions, instancing or any type of invisibility/cloak mechanics.

 

[Emdash]

That was my argument. Thievery only appeals to vets. This game cannot survive on its current population of vets. Even if every single person playing right now was a veteran and loving thieving and 100% would sub for it, it's not enough IMO. The game needs to convince people who aren't vets to play. Because the global population of players who agree that the game is good enough to play is not large enough to cater to them.

The flaw in your argument is it is short sighted as well as it makes an assumption.

First off, why did people become MO1 vets? It's not rose colored to say more was going on in the game. People might be running more parcels now. New parcels, new destinations! But it's not as active, or it wasn't when I came back for a sec.

The vets already quit. Thievery appeals to vets because they were able to get people in close proximity at one point, so people could interact. Sure, a lot of people wanted to grief, but a lot of people wanted to stop them, too. It was a dynamic that drove the game, even beyond politics. ARPK / RPK was the ultimate war of MO and people would often make guys like Aralis write long posts explaining why they aren't really ARPK (even tho they present themselves as such.) Same with Koto, Kuth would come in and say he's not, but he still falls on that side. He postures as if he is. And that's not trying to stir shit with Kuth, forget it was even said. It's just the prove a point that there was an everlasting force driving the game, and they took that away with various things. Thievery is one of those things.

You can't say all new players would dislike thievery. You never played MO1! Did you? I forgot... haha, but I'm pretty sure you didn't.

Anyway, the vets are not a part of the global pop that thinks the game is good, nor will they be, nor is anything but drastic change going to MAYBE convince some of them / new players to actually come back. However, there are people who are thieves who would come back and sub for it. There is a big unknown on the other side, to say that they can make the game desirable for anyone to want to play is a stretch at this point. Some people would play for thievery, for awhile at least.

If people are going to quit because of thievery, that's even worse than quitting because of siege and goes to show that driving off 'the vets' was actually the wrong move, again. There is no way to fix the combat that people will want. I dunno what people are on, but they don't seem to think like me. I know some of them do, but those people are increasingly less visible here.

Where as putting in thievery, as it was, is not that hard at all, and it would add way more content than just about anything else. Would it save the game, no, but it would at least make a portion of the population feel like they weren't lied to. It might also make people realize that having constant conflict and having to pay attention at all times is one of the reasons people played MO1, and that even in this 'weak era' of entitlement for gamers, it would still be more successful operating that way.

Once again, the faulty premise that drove MO to become xtra carebear, IMO, was that steam release killed MO1. Steam release basically showed what happens when you thoroughly offend your player base and don't have contingency plans. Steam release --> fail ---> Haven. If you think of that progression, you realize how SV does things. The whole idea of CAN'T FAIL IF U CAN'T DO IT neutered the game.

But I agree combat is trash. I agree with a lot of your finer points on combat, but I think you are dreaming if you think that combat is going to be good faster than they could put in thievery.

 

[fartbox]

The flaw in your argument is it is short sighted as well as it makes an assumption.

First off, why did people become MO1 vets? It's not rose colored to say more was going on in the game. People might be running more parcels now. New parcels, new destinations! But it's not as active, or it wasn't when I came back for a sec.

The vets already quit. Thievery appeals to vets because they were able to get people in close proximity at one point, so people could interact. Sure, a lot of people wanted to grief, but a lot of people wanted to stop them, too. It was a dynamic that drove the game, even beyond politics. ARPK / RPK was the ultimate war of MO and people would often make guys like Aralis write long posts explaining why they aren't really ARPK (even tho they present themselves as such.) Same with Koto, Kuth would come in and say he's not, but he still falls on that side. He postures as if he is. And that's not trying to stir shit with Kuth, forget it was even said. It's just the prove a point that there was an everlasting force driving the game, and they took that away with various things. Thievery is one of those things.

You can't say all new players would dislike thievery. You never played MO1! Did you? I forgot... haha, but I'm pretty sure you didn't.

Anyway, the vets are not a part of the global pop that thinks the game is good, nor will they be, nor is anything but drastic change going to MAYBE convince some of them / new players to actually come back. However, there are people who are thieves who would come back and sub for it. There is a big unknown on the other side, to say that they can make the game desirable for anyone to want to play is a stretch at this point. Some people would play for thievery, for awhile at least.

If people are going to quit because of thievery, that's even worse than quitting because of siege and goes to show that driving off 'the vets' was actually the wrong move, again. There is no way to fix the combat that people will want. I dunno what people are on, but they don't seem to think like me. I know some of them do, but those people are increasingly less visible here.

Where as putting in thievery, as it was, is not that hard at all, and it would add way more content than just about anything else. Would it save the game, no, but it would at least make a portion of the population feel like they weren't lied to. It might also make people realize that having constant conflict and having to pay attention at all times is one of the reasons people played MO1, and that even in this 'weak era' of entitlement for gamers, it would still be more successful operating that way.

Once again, the faulty premise that drove MO to become xtra carebear, IMO, was that steam release killed MO1. Steam release basically showed what happens when you thoroughly offend your player base and don't have contingency plans. Steam release --> fail ---> Haven. If you think of that progression, you realize how SV does things. The whole idea of CAN'T FAIL IF U CAN'T DO IT neutered the game.

But I agree combat is trash. I agree with a lot of your finer points on combat, but I think you are dreaming if you think that combat is going to be good faster than they could put in thievery.

I've said like 4 different times throughout this thread that I think thievery has a place in MO2 just not right now, its a low yield high demand project that can be saved for a later time when the core of the game is fixed. The core of the game is combat and conflict, which is the number one complaint for most players who quit in under 24 hours. The combat is unappealing to the majority of survival/MMO players which is our target demographic.

The conflict is heavily focused on numbers with few disadvantages to "bringing more guys", it is not a competitive conflict, there's nothing competitive about getting steamrolled by 3-10x your numbers. People leave games they feel they can't be competitive in.

We can accomplish giving solo players and small groups more value and making the combat more appealing for more people in one patch, a high value that will yield more results then thievery.

I will be vindicated when they add thievery and the population doesn't move in any meaningful way.