Why did the game go into early access today on Steam?

[PoisonArrows]

@PoisonArrows , nah but literally (another meme, inside meme) listen to what I'm saying. What you're saying is not the same as what I am saying.

You take say... 30 people from the MO community, movers and shakers, suggestors w/e... and they STOP SUGGESTING IN PUBLIC. This would also be good if they were donators as well, and they prol are!

You take people from every walk of MO, like a representative government, you discuss IN PRIVATE (no Henrik or Henrik spies) balance, you lay out many things, compromise, ... then you present it as a 'bill', the final balance changes you've decided to Henrik. If you assholes can't work together that much then you deserve a bad game.

This is what people do when they want change, they assemble. To assemble, you must compromise. You must put your playstyle out of your mind SOMEWHAT (but you obviously have to bring your wants to the table, that's how everyone gets something.) First couple should be pretty cut n dry, I would say, there are things that probably everyone agrees on.

THEN instead of having this giant wall of shite and whining to comb thru, he has a clear cut representation of what the community wants, and even if he doesn't take it all, he will take some, trust. Then keep doing that. That's the idea of forums, of discord, but when people are saying shit like delete mounted or you nub or w/e, it doesn't work. Pick your representatives and they can talk to the people who play like them, around them, and then come together... this is life-level problem solving. It's not advanced. It's also bound to work (assuming things can be brought together) because it's much harder to ignore that way.

You wanna play a sandbox game, use sandbox mechanics to get things done. And yea, as more people come to the game, more people will come to the table, but you have to assemble... it's more money lost if people don't listen, you know? It's also getting rid of the conflicting suggestions before they happen. I've said this before, I think, not just in this thread, haha, but I really believe it.

I would help, sure. But you don't need me. Like I said, people can do this in college classes, there's no reason why you guys can't. Shit, even like HS student council level.

Edit: I dunno if this post is gonna last long, screenshot it!!

Interesting Concept, that's more or less the reason my Podcast have been private. I am trying to figure out what the community will agree on and then try to assemble some episodes for the order of things that we should actually have open discussions about. For now I am sold on a few things people hate Fat Mages and Pets, and everyone wants more monsters and items and for the game to be optimized. So I have discussed Pet Killing Weapons, and more Tools to dismount Fat Mages as well as Specializations so that not everyone is a Fat Mage hitting for 82 and running away being unkillable.

 

[Jatix]

It wouldn't ever happen.

I'll tell you why in a very short sentence.

People enjoy their playstyles too much to give up any parts of it, even if detrimental to the game as a whole.

And this is a big part of why MO1 died. SV always would say they cant nerf things theres too many people who think its balanced. But I've never seen an actual intelligent arguement on why mounted and pets arent op. Its just all people who want it to stay op who play it so they try to fidn reasons to say its balanced.

All SV would need to do is play the game. One solo foot roam getting completely slammed by a mounted that they had no chance of beating (that if they were winning could just ride off for free with 0 chance of death) and it would get nerfed next patch. Same with pets and every other assorted broken thing. You dont need to fight many white bears to realize "wow, this isnt fun at all".

 

[ArcaneConsular]

And this is a big part of why MO1 died. SV always would say they cant nerf things theres too many people who think its balanced. But I've never seen an actual intelligent arguement on why mounted and pets arent op. Its just all people who want it to stay op who play it so they try to fidn reasons to say its balanced.

All SV would need to do is play the game. One solo foot roam getting completely slammed by a mounted that they had no chance of beating (that if they were winning could just ride off for free with 0 chance of death) and it would get nerfed next patch. Same with pets and every other assorted broken thing. You dont need to fight many white bears to realize "wow, this isnt fun at all".

Honestly I don't know how anyone plays this game without a mount though. Like you seriously need a mount to do anything besides farm zombies and maybe bandits

 

[ArcaneConsular]

Interesting Concept, that's more or less the reason my Podcast have been private. I am trying to figure out what the community will agree on and then try to assemble some episodes for the order of things that we should actually have open discussions about. For now I am sold on a few things people hate Fat Mages and Pets, and everyone wants more monsters and items and for the game to be optimized. So I have discussed Pet Killing Weapons, and more Tools to dismount Fat Mages as well as Specializations so that not everyone is a Fat Mage hitting for 82 and running away being unkillable.

Basically people hate it when the risk reward balance is way off. None likes pvp games where the defend risks way more than the aggressor. And personally I think the aggressor should be risking more since they get to choose who and when they attack whereas the defend doesn't

 

[Darthus]

View attachment 2839

It is not mixed anymore and the reason it was mixed, if you go trough the trouble of reading them is

1. people that bought the game trough the MO website don't count (they are part of the 173, not of the 45)
2. people can't read and are doing negative reviews because of subscription model instead of cash shops

This is really useful info, but again why it's very dangerous to release the game in EA right now (unless the reviews reset at release), but actually pretty impressive that it's mostly positive despite the reviews about people finding out it's a sub after the fact etc, with no housing in.

Also, man, I wasn't expecting so many people to come out in this thread to just crap on the game and hope it dies. Why are you still here?

 

[PoisonArrows]

View attachment 2839

It is not mixed anymore and the reason it was mixed, if you go trough the trouble of reading them is

1. people that bought the game trough the MO website don't count (they are part of the 173, not of the 45)
2. people can't read and are doing negative reviews because of subscription model instead of cash shops

WTF you mean this game is actually going to succeed? I'm actually Happy about that. I still hope SV Listens to the Community though!

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

So far, I think the Steam reviews reflect what this game really is deep down: It's a very different kind of game that goes against the grain of everything there is on the market at the moment, and possibly in the history of video games altogether. It's not for everyone, and that's okay.

However...

I have a feeling that no matter what SV adds to the game to make it shine, MO2 is destined to have mixed reviews, and mostly positive to very positive at best, for the reason I stated at the beginning.

On the same token, I will also point out that Steam reviews are simply what the user decides to type into the box at the time, regardless of whether it is true or not, or even if it makes any sense.

I've read quite a few of these Steam reviews from different games, and I'm sure you have too if you've spent any length of time observing the kind of things people write in their reviews.

It's essentially an open forum for users to make random jokes, one-liners, and whatever else they may want to say about the game. The thumbs up/down button is open to astro-turfing and has no way to tell if the person is actually reviewing it seriously and objectively.

I'm pleased to see that so far, a seeming majority of users have put in time and effort to write sincere reviews (both positive and negative), and having played the game extensively myself I can tell if what someone is saying is on the ball or not.

 

[Backyard Employee]

Honestly I don't know how anyone plays this game without a mount though. Like you seriously need a mount to do anything besides farm zombies and maybe bandits

He said MO1.

MO1 actually had a proper map size and not this oversized empty wasteland we have now. But at least it looks good in the trailer, right??

 

[Backyard Employee]

This is really useful info, but again why it's very dangerous to release the game in EA right now (unless the reviews reset at release), but actually pretty impressive that it's mostly positive despite the reviews about people finding out it's a sub after the fact etc, with no housing in.

Also, man, I wasn't expecting so many people to come out in this thread to just crap on the game and hope it dies. Why are you still here?

Please, stop with this way of thinking.

I can't stand when people use this argument of "well if you hate it so much then don't play". That's how you legit get people to quit and never come back. MO doesn't need that in general. Because when the over inflated hype dies, its those people who actually stay.

What you read is people who very much WANT the game to succeed but are frustrated with ass backward design choices. I love the idea of MO, and I want it to succeed. But that doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to the many problems it suffers from. Sorry? I'm just not willing to lie through my teeth and say that the game is great when it really isn't all that.

It could be much better, and it should be much better. They've had a decades worth of experience (A quote Henrik likes to use quite often) working with MO1 and it seems a lot of that has been lost on them as they're pruning things out that made the game what it was to appeal to some broader market.

 

[Jatix]

Honestly I don't know how anyone plays this game without a mount though. Like you seriously need a mount to do anything besides farm zombies and maybe bandits

Which is just another bonus problem with MO2. Its mounted or go home. In a game that the combat alpha was all about foot, and foot combat is what more people enjoy. I've never gone outside town and seen mounted having a fun duel.

 

[Tzone]

He's listening to someone. Too many strange changes like "buffed lance damage." (lol will forever be a meme to me)

The chance of that being random is v low. We all knew the game was gonna get slayed and like I said in the thread they deleted where someone was saying Tzone posted a bad review... it's really stupid to go in w/ vets and 'pump reviews'; it's obvious and a bad look. Everyone who wrote a long, thoughtful review tho, of course... but it's not gonna help anyone to have 30 positive reviews of people who already have the game. Should let mostly new guys review it. Speaking of a 'learning from last time' thing.

That's just my 2c as a skeptic. But the thing is... I do think my mindset and skepticism of gaming (esp mmo) in general led me to MO. I remember asking a friend like man I want a game like this and like this... and he was like oh I know this game. I think they were trying to troll me, but I stuck. Stuck like MO style. No GM in SIGHT... ahhh. But believe in the game. Obviously, that people are buying it without knowing it's sub, and the fact that sub is somehow sooo foreign to people... that may be a problem. Still, even with all the BS, it's still the kinda game that can pull some people.

I've already posted what I feel is 'holding the game back.' As have most of us, unfort, a lot of us don't agree. It would be nice to have a private discussion (altho I wouldn't be invited - cries -) and actually hash some things out THEN come to Henrik with them. Alas... I dunno if we forumers have it in us.

COMPROMISE is also good. Everyone wants to make the game 100% better, but if we all agreed on ways to make it 50% better over and over... might work out?

My negative review as a steam key review has little effect on the rating just like all the other vets who have steam keys. The mixed is coming from the people who just bought the game and then leaving not recommended review because they found out it was a sub + b2p model game after buying.

A lot of those positive reviews are people just trying to pump up the score so more people get in. I see several people who said they would quit after the first month due to balance problem, leaving positive reviews so the game is more populated.

Im looking at the long term and giving feedback that will make the game better instead of engineering fake hype which will not make the game better. Its tough love and Im not going to lie so I cant in good conscience give a positive review when the direction of the gamedesign has been getting worse each patch. Just doesnt deserve a positive review.

 

[Darthus]

Please, stop with this way of thinking.

I can't stand when people use this argument of "well if you hate it so much then don't play". That's how you legit get people to quit and never come back. MO doesn't need that in general. Because when the over inflated hype dies, its those people who actually stay.

I'm specifically referring to comments like this: "They would have a easier shot at marketing this game as the story before Mo1... But wait we don't have a story... And Devs ruined Task/Quest already.. Seems like Steam bad reviews is the Final Nail in this coffin. "

I began this thread because I said them doing early access was a mistake, so I'm not over here saying they can do no wrong. There is a difference between offering feedback (both positive and negative) in the hopes that a game you enjoy succeeds and just decrying a game's death and shouting from the mountains that nobody should play it because it's a pile of crap and "I TOLD YOU SO." The former is toward the game succeeding, the latter is just self-serving to make yourself feel right by hating on something.

So yes, if your attitude is that the game is DOA and if only they'd have followed your advice, I'd prefer you left. We're all pulling on a rope trying to pull a boulder across the finish line, if you're sitting on the sidelines screaming at everyone that they picked the wrong rope and we'll never be able to do it you're not helping and in fact are just making it more likely it won't be a success.

I personally also hate if someone offers any feedback people say "Get good" or "Go play WoW", but that's not what I'm saying. Offering constructive feedback = good. Shitting on a game and trying to convince others not to play and claiming it's already ruined or DOA = not good.

 

[Piet]

"The Game Has Mixed Reviews, Despite the Vets trying to Hold the shitter game together with Glue" Sums up Mortal Online2 and the relationship between the Vets begging the Devs to fix things and the Devs not listening perfectly.

Check again. Mostly positive. Even when you made this post it was more positive then negative it's just none of the people who had it before this counted towards the reviews.

 

[Kameyo]

I love reading the negative reviews of people who sunk days even weeks into the game. What other game has that.

 

[Tzone]

I love reading the negative reviews of people who sunk days even weeks into the game. What other game has that.

Hey game changes over time, progressively gets worse. Started out solid then they fun gets choked out over time with changes. If they had good changes they would have recommended. Even if the game is not bad enough to quit yet people are struggling not quit and the game will only get worst over time.

 

[ArcaneConsular]

I love reading the negative reviews of people who sunk days even weeks into the game. What other game has that.

Every game does. Games change over time

 

[Darthus]

Every game does. Games change over time

Yeah especially this one, and I do wonder how much of that is what is making MO1 players and early MO2 players angry. The game in earlier beta was basically a pretty PvP battleground. The devs after the first couple of stress test pivoted almost fully to fleshing out the PvE and considering the PvP mostly done. I think this really frustrates PvP focused players (which most of MO1 long haul folks were), but I hear again and again from people considering the game "I LOVE the concept for this game, I just hope there's something to do other than PvP and it's not just a gankfest". The shift in focus to PvE content, while leaving the PvP balance mostly enough as it right now, adding of guards etc to cities, I could see people feeling like, "This isn't the game I want anymore."

But I've seen Henrik get in heated arguments with people on his Thursday streams who want to make it easier to kill in cities for example, staunchly defending "If we do that, everyone will leave, you will have nobody to kill." As far as devs go I'm not sure I've met one as committed to his vision as Henrik, but he's been open since the start that the main learnings coming out of MO1 was they neglected PvE and other playstyles, they need to orient people to the game better, and people need some areas where they can reliably be relatively safe.

All of these might feel like lame changes to people and rightfully have them upset, but I think to most objective outside parties who'd be open to considering this type of game, be seen as wildly positive changes.

 

[PuckInmortali]

But I've seen Henrik get in heated arguments with people on his Thursday streams who want to make it easier to kill in cities for example, staunchly defending "If we do that, everyone will leave, you will have nobody to kill." As far as devs go I'm not sure I've met one as committed to his vision as Henrik, but he's been open since the start that the main learnings coming out of MO1 was they neglected PvE and other playstyles, they need to orient people to the game better, and people need some areas where they can reliably be relatively safe.

Yes, to SV's credit, I do think they are trying to make a sandbox MMORPG, not just an open world PvP game. In my opinion, this is a very good thing, and objectively speaking, it will appeal to more people. I admire their commitment to this, as I too have watched Henrick defend it several times versus players who don't seem to understand why a varied, immersive world is better than a game that is, essentially, a fulltime PvP arena.

 

[ArcaneConsular]

Yeah especially this one, and I do wonder how much of that is what is making MO1 players and early MO2 players angry. The game in earlier beta was basically a pretty PvP battleground. The devs after the first couple of stress test pivoted almost fully to fleshing out the PvE and considering the PvP mostly done. I think this really frustrates PvP focused players (which most of MO1 long haul folks were), but I hear again and again from people considering the game "I LOVE the concept for this game, I just hope there's something to do other than PvP and it's not just a gankfest". The shift in focus to PvE content, while leaving the PvP balance mostly enough as it right now, adding of guards etc to cities, I could see people feeling like, "This isn't the game I want anymore."

But I've seen Henrik get in heated arguments with people on his Thursday streams who want to make it easier to kill in cities for example, staunchly defending "If we do that, everyone will leave, you will have nobody to kill." As far as devs go I'm not sure I've met one as committed to his vision as Henrik, but he's been open since the start that the main learnings coming out of MO1 was they neglected PvE and other playstyles, they need to orient people to the game better, and people need some areas where they can reliably be relatively safe.

All of these might feel like lame changes to people and rightfully have them upset, but I think to most objective outside parties who'd be open to considering this type of game, be seen as wildly positive changes.

I actually agree with Henrik on that. Why cater the game to a small portion of toxic players who just want to grief? They're not going to stick with the game like they say. They'll get their laughs making players quit out of anger, and then when everyone leaves they'll move onto the next pvp game they can play and repeat the same process

 

[Jatix]

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. The game on this path could do much better.

But another option to consider. Is that the current path MO2 is on, loses its PVP players, and the non PVP players that MO is trying to get more of still go play any other game. Theres no shortage of not pvp mmo's, and survival games. If lowering the hardcore so that players cant get griefed might make them stay, they could still go play something thats even less hardcore. If getting griefed in town is unacceptable to them and needed to get removed, they still have a high chance of quitting when they go out to farm and get zerged.

And for the people who can handle dying and just want a big world to run around in. This competes with survival games. Which are doing incredibly well, and theres many options. and these dont suffer from the 1 server issue that plagues MO. Because while I hate multi server survival games, they have a big benefit. MO2 made the world too big so it can hold a larger player base. but if it has a small player base its way too big and dead. More servers solves this. Ark or Conan can have any amount of player, and play as intended.

People keep saying the gaming world has been dying for a game like MO2. But thats not really true. MO2 takes several things about other genres people may want. but it also mixes them in a way that people may just go play those other games.