Walls Are Not The Enemy

[grendel]

I don't know how far back you are speaking of, but in my experience walls had nothing to do with why "traffic" died out. The reality is that Mortal is a game of politics and phases, and the changes of the times affect "traffic" far more than any other factors. If you want to talk about this subject, then you can't ignore the existence of giant "super guilds" and alliances as being an even greater reason than walls for the slow death of the game.

You can try to act like walls are at fault all you want, but when one guild is so large that there is little to no competition it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to play the game. The end of Mortal in the last few years is the story of how every remaining guild in the game banded together in an attempt to defeat one single guild and failed. Then that one guild held such an uncontested monopoly that it fell apart into two sides and basically warred itself, and then that's the end of the game essentially.

Why ignore everything else just to pretend like walls are the issue? There is far more at work in Mortal than walls which cause problems, for example how do you truly defeat a guild? Even when you blow up their House or Keep they never lose their Prominence from their guild stone which means they can simply pull the money out of their guild stone before they get blown up and build again like nothing ever happened. No one is kicked from the stone, the guild is not disbanded, so for a large guild they don't even have any inconvenience beyond rebuilding another keep. They don't have to farm more prominence, or re-invite all the members of their guild, it's far too easy to start over.

It is true that the MO1 decline had many factors beside the freeplaceable walls, I doubt anyone claim that it was the only issue. What I call the beginning of the end is when freplaceable walls were added, not later when the superalliance was fighting RPK!.

 

[amazingazda]

It is true that the MO1 decline had many factors beside the freeplaceable walls, I doubt anyone claim that it was the only issue. What I call the beginning of the end is when freplaceable walls were added, not later when the superalliance was fighting RPK!.

I believe a lot of the problem is that it's easy to associate something as a cause when you see it, when there is not any proof that what you are seeing is actually causing the problem. For example, you see a dead game and there are walls everywhere.. so naturally it's easy to combine A and B and say "the walls are the reason the game is dead", when you do not know whether or not there is actually anyone playing behind those walls to begin with, and even if there were, that simply having more players would cause the game to feel not dead. In a more scientific term, you would say that correlation does not imply causation. The two things may appear related but there is no definitive proof that they are.

This is exactly why I am so adamant to defend the walls being in the game, because in MO1 there were never many players to begin with and there are an extreme amount of variables which determine periods in which the game feels alive and the game feels dead. For example, when you look at Steam Charts the game averaged around 200 players, and sure you can indeed make an argument that there could have been more players than that (since the game had it's own independent client), but even in the case where that's true the world size of MO1 is massive and there's a good chance you will never see most of those players unless you frequently travel across the entire world because even 300 players is basically nothing.

As such, that's also why I felt a bit skeptical when they said they were making MO2 even bigger. The bigger the map is, the less likely you are to see other players, the more dead the game feels (even if the game is actually not dead). That is actually the complaint players have right? Game is dead, they cannot fight anybody.. BUT! It's the walls fault, it can't possibly be anything else! That is how the players of this game react. The reality is, MO1 was dead for many other reasons and over the course of my 3-4 years playing I have yet to find that walls are the true cause of the problem (and I've always enjoyed having some form of protection against bloodthirsty players).

Look at videos such as this for example:

This is a true impression of what the majority of people in the world think about Mortal Online. It's not a good impression. If you look at everything this guy talks about, he doesn't ever say anything about walls. He's not the only one, when Asmongold tried out MO2 for the first time, he also had many of the same complaints and then some.

And to put things more bluntly, Mortal Online feels dead not because of walls, but because the game is, and has always, been dead. Walls are just one blip on the radar amidst a million problems with the game, from the political drama and turmoil, bugs, lack of safety for players, players not able to understand the game, and more. If players want the game to not "feel" dead, then first the game has to actually not be dead. A higher population means there will be more player activity, and more player activity means you will be much more likely to have interaction with other players.

That's the reality of Mortal Online. Don't tunnel on one single aspect of the game (walls). Personally I do think the walls in MO1 are very unbalanced, however I would never go as far to say they are the reason the game was dead. Mortal online was always dead, far before walls existed and all of the players ignore the huge elephant in the room for some reason to hate on walls.

 

[Teknique]

I believe a lot of the problem is that it's easy to associate something as a cause when you see it, when there is not any proof that what you are seeing is actually causing the problem. For example, you see a dead game and there are walls everywhere.. so naturally it's easy to combine A and B and say "the walls are the reason the game is dead", when you do not know whether or not there is actually anyone playing behind those walls to begin with, and even if there were, that simply having more players would cause the game to feel not dead. In a more scientific term, you would say that correlation does not imply causation. The two things may appear related but there is no definitive proof that they are.

This is exactly why I am so adamant to defend the walls being in the game, because in MO1 there were never many players to begin with and there are an extreme amount of variables which determine periods in which the game feels alive and the game feels dead. For example, when you look at Steam Charts the game averaged around 200 players, and sure you can indeed make an argument that there could have been more players than that (since the game had it's own independent client), but even in the case where that's true the world size of MO1 is massive and there's a good chance you will never see most of those players unless you frequently travel across the entire world because even 300 players is basically nothing.

As such, that's also why I felt a bit skeptical when they said they were making MO2 even bigger. The bigger the map is, the less likely you are to see other players, the more dead the game feels (even if the game is actually not dead). That is actually the complaint players have right? Game is dead, they cannot fight anybody.. BUT! It's the walls fault, it can't possibly be anything else! That is how the players of this game react. The reality is, MO1 was dead for many other reasons and over the course of my 3-4 years playing I have yet to find that walls are the true cause of the problem (and I've always enjoyed having some form of protection against bloodthirsty players).

Look at videos such as this for example:

This is a true impression of what the majority of people in the world think about Mortal Online. It's not a good impression. If you look at everything this guy talks about, he doesn't ever say anything about walls. He's not the only one, when Asmongold tried out MO2 for the first time, he also had many of the same complaints and then some.

And to put things more bluntly, Mortal Online feels dead not because of walls, but because the game is, and has always, been dead. Walls are just one blip on the radar amidst a million problems with the game, from the political drama and turmoil, bugs, lack of safety for players, players not able to understand the game, and more. If players want the game to not "feel" dead, then first the game has to actually not be dead. A higher population means there will be more player activity, and more player activity means you will be much more likely to have interaction with other players.

That's the reality of Mortal Online. Don't tunnel on one single aspect of the game (walls). Personally I do think the walls in MO1 are very unbalanced, however I would never go as far to say they are the reason the game was dead. Mortal online was always dead, far before walls existed and all of the players ignore the huge elephant in the room for some reason to hate on walls.

I think you're splitting hairs at this point, you've conceded that the walls in mo 1 were designed terribly.

You're suggesting that some semi permeable wall would be ok, maybe, probably not, lets move on. You can't be suggesting walls that are only destructible and by-passable via siege because that would be MO 1 design and you've already stated that is terrible.

At this point you're basically arguing nothing, the terribly designed walls were a detriment to the game and everyone who played that is worth their salt agrees on that.

Additionally Josh Strife Hayes is a bias moron who made a career out of bashing hardcore MMO's. Listening to someone who profits off of sensationalizing and bashing hardcore mmo's is folly.

For every Hardcore MMO he mentions there is a softcore MMO that died as well, infact the hardcore MMO's seemingly have greater longevity. Other than SWTOR and WoW i'm not aware of any softcore mmo's that were successful and both those games had huge IP fanbases to back them up.

 

[amazingazda]

I've never seen an argument won so decisively and convincingly bravo ahhahaa i'm crying.

I think you're splitting hairs at this point, you've conceded that the walls in mo 1 were designed terribly.

You're suggesting that some semi permeable wall would be ok, maybe, probably not, lets move on. You can't be suggesting walls that are only destructible and by-passable via siege because that would be MO 1 design and you've already stated that is terrible.

At this point you're basically arguing nothing, the terribly designed walls were a detriment to the game and everyone who played that is worth their salt agrees on that.

Additionally Josh Strife Hayes is a bias moron who made a career out of bashing hardcore MMO's. Listening to someone who profits off of sensationalizing and bashing hardcore mmo's is folly.

For every Hardcore MMO he mentions there is a softcore MMO that died as well, infact the hardcore MMO's seemingly have greater longevity. Other than SWTOR and WoW i'm not aware of any softcore mmo's that were successful and both those games had huge IP fanbases to back them up.

Balanced poorly =/= should be removed from the game.

Walls have a place in the game, they're meant to protect players in an area where they want to be. Not every person wants to be constantly fighting other people all the time, and walls help remedy that. If you make it to where walls cannot be free placed then walls have no purpose outside of castle sieges, and the game is not even a sandbox game at that point if they resort to that so they might as well remove the claim of "sandbox" from their description.

Also, I've been explaining the same thing the entire time, so I don't know why you would state that I'm arguing nothing. I give proper explanations here and reasons for things, only to be met with insults from others who have no counter argument besides "you're stupid" or "you're not worth your salt". How about you prove to me that walls are responsible for the game being dead? Everyone here swears up and down that it's the introduction of walls that killed the game, but not a single person here has any evidence or proof of that notion. Why is that I can explain to everyone here many reasons why walls are not the cause, but none here can provide a single well thought out analysis of the opposite?

You can call me names and make fun of me all you want, but names do not provide evidence.

 

[Hooves]

Imagine writing this many words to defend a trash feature.

Plenty of counterarguments have been provided in your own thread. Stop playing the "you guys have only insulted me!" victim card & pretending that people haven't provided specific examples.

• Walls cause town pop to decline
• Walls prevent emergent gameplay
• All houses should not be fortresses
• Free-placement walls block off content
• Make the world less beautiful
• Griefable for new players (priest walling)
• Making them easy to destroy (your suggestion) solves nothing (also does not prevent new player griefing - not like newbs will have nice sledgehammers)
• Free-place walls cause AI pathing issues

Pathetic.

 

[Najwalaylah]

Imagine you log out, and the next day all your walls are gone because some naked people with animal materials bashed them for the lolz of it.
What's the reason to build them at all?

In that case, there is none.
And without walls, your house is what's gone the next day.
Maybe housing & TC are bad ideas that won't work.

 

[Najwalaylah]

you would say that correlation does not imply causation

No; I would say that correlation does not necessitate causation. There is a difference.

 

[Amadman]

In that case, there is none.
And without walls, your house is what's gone the next day.
Maybe housing & TC are bad ideas that won't work.

View attachment 1947

I believe what they are going for is a more secure house that is harder to destroy.

In the housing stream, Henrik mentioned that they want houses to be hard/expensive to destroy. I believe the thought is that people will be less willing to put effort/money in destroying a home without reasons. Not that it won't still happen. But if the costs in time and effort is great enough then it would limit at least some of the meaningless destruction.

On top of this he also mentioned some house storage that will be secure like a town bank. This comes from the idea that some players where reluctant to use house storage because it did not have the safety of town banks.

Even though I am not sure I agree with the secure items idea in a loot based game, it will make it less rewarding to destroy a house.

 

[a.out]

This is a true impression of what the majority of people in the world think about Mortal Online.

So what? Who cares! MO clearly does not want to impress the "majority of people" and that's exactly why it's still going despite all its flaws.

 

[Najwalaylah]

it will make it less rewarding to destroy a house.

More expensive destruction/slower destruction still has rewards the destroyer may enjoy. It's unsure, and a good question, how slow and expensive destruction would have to be in order to make it less likely to happen.

What I remember from MO1 conversations in recent years about "Okay, why don't you just take down that wall / plaisade / (other structure) what you don't like?" is the answer that it would be 'hard', expensive in time and materials, and (at the same time) the opponent would just rebuild it with ease. It's not clear to me how, (as)

Henrik mentioned... they want houses to be hard/expensive to destroy.

would change that.

Anything like creation or destruction that can be accomplished in the hours of a day that players spend asleep and in activities other than gaming (work, school, the things they can't postpone or get out of) will still happen easily enough, right?

I want to hear an argument for how this housing / structure system will work this time that doesn't seem based on mere wishful thinking. Everyone wishes it would work. That isn't enough.

 

[grendel]

I want to hear an argument for how this housing / structure system will work this time that doesn't seem based on mere wishful thinking. Everyone wishes it would work. That isn't enough.

The only true safe place to store anything will be NPC town banks. Player housing will never be completely safe. edit: imo

 

[Amadman]

More expensive destruction/slower destruction still has rewards the destroyer may enjoy. It's unsure, and a good question, how slow and expensive destruction would have to be in order to make it less likely to happen.

What I remember from MO1 conversations in recent years about "Okay, why don't you just take down that wall / plaisade / (other structure) what you don't like?" is the answer that it would be 'hard', expensive in time and materials, and (at the same time) the opponent would just rebuild it with ease. It's not clear to me how, (as)
would change that.

Anything like creation or destruction that can be accomplished in the hours of a day that players spend asleep and in activities other than gaming (work, school, the things they can't postpone or get out of) will still happen easily enough, right?

I want to hear an argument for how this housing / structure system will work this time that doesn't seem based on mere wishful thinking. Everyone wishes it would work. That isn't enough.

View attachment 1950

Effort required and possible rewards received would often be key factors in decisions to destroy a house. Sure there will still be houses destroyed for reasons other than these two things. But changes to these two things would almost definitely effect how often houses are destroyed over all.

What I remember from MO1 conversations in recent years about "Okay, why don't you just take down that wall / plaisade / (other structure) what you don't like?" is the answer that it would be 'hard', expensive in time and materials, and (at the same time) the opponent would just rebuild it with ease. It's not clear to me how, (as)

They are using exactly that principle in an attempt to make houses less likely to be targets of random destruction.


Regardless of what they do though, there really is no guarantee that any of it will work this time either.

In the end I am just happy to see they are acknowledging it as a failure and that they are trying to learn and continue forward.

Forward towards success or further failures is yet to be seen. But as of now I am still along for the ride.