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

[Backyard Employee]

Actually I'm going to make an argument that having a lower skill ceiling is ultimately worse for the game.

And I know people want to say Star Vault are simply focusing on PvE to shape it up better from that aspect but even still with all this supposed work into it, it's not really made any difference.

Players are going to initially enjoy the game if they understand the basic concept of it - but overtime I believe they will realize it's not all that it is meant to be.

Whether you wish to agree or not, and regardless of how Henrik tries to phrase it the game ultimately will revolve around PvP and politics. It is a sandbox game with full loot features which means players will have the ability to control and influence your gameplay unless you absolutely live somewhere devoid of anyone - but even then someone can stumble across you and force their playstyle on you i.e. player-killing.

With a low skill ceiling, even more-so shallow combat and weapon variety, clunky movement and slowed down swing speeds; and weapons outright unusable.. people will soon to realize they will be shoe horned to play a certain way to mitigate potential loss as otherwise they'll be killed more often then not.

I'm not calling this player out but if you go watch @finegamingconnoisseur in his videos you can tell very much so he is really one of these players who has found a happy medium of playing the way he wants, but also not being exactly 'viable' in combat. Which is fine.. but that is going to drive a LOT of people off I believe.

A higher skill ceiling means more depth in the combat, and better players across the board which encourages practicing and training. Right now in MO2 all you really need is group coordination to win a fight, you don't even necessarily need to be a 'good' player. Feels extremely lame, and any small scale situations are just grid locked parry / block matches with people widdling down each others HP (Which could be rectified with faster combat, weapon variety such as blunt weapons having way more 'punch through' through parries / blocks, and more diverse playstyles.)

I mean shit, they've basically killed of hybrids and a lot of newer people are saying it's a good change even though they stretched points and played extremely specialized builds. They already were gimped.

You can look at a lot of games with melee-slashing mechanics in them and notice their populations die when the game goes more mainstream and becomes easier. Mordhau, For Honor, Darkfall, even Mount & Blade.

I am ALL FOR PvE content, and PvE players having what they want; and it being enjoyable for everyone (and not just them). But if you SV spits on PvP players, and SV backs it up by leaving them behind; the game ultimately will lose purpose and you might as well just remove PvP altogether. Because what's the point if it isn't even enjoyable.

I remember players from MO1 even justified horrible balance and mechanics and I quote said something like "The game shouldn't be fun when it comes to PvP, sieging, and politics." It's just really baffling.

tl;dr

At the end of the day the game will ultimately revolve around PvP.

 

[finegamingconnoisseur]

I'm not calling this player out but if you go watch @finegamingconnoisseur in his videos you can tell very much so he is really one of these players who has found a happy medium of playing the way he wants, but also not being exactly 'viable' in combat. Which is fine.. but that is going to drive a LOT of people off I believe.

I wouldn't exactly agree that people are going to get turned off because I play the game my way while not being good at pvp. I think the opposite may be true.

I don't think that every player wants to pvp and make it their prime activity, and there are those who aren't good at pvp but still want to be able to enjoy what the game has to offer outside of pvp. We have some in this community who fit into this category.

I am of the opinion that those who want to pvp will like this game, and those who don't or aren't good at it will like it too. Because they can see that someone who isn't good at pvp has been playing it just fine and manages to enjoy it in his own way for the past 7 years in the first game, and now 2 years and counting in the second game.

The way I see it, there's something for everybody in this game. PVP may be a big part of the game, but it's clear that SV is making this game to be much more than that.

 

[Backyard Employee]

I wouldn't exactly agree that people are going to get turned off because I play the game my way while not being good at pvp. I think the opposite may be true.

I don't think that every player wants to pvp and make it their prime activity, and there are those who aren't good at pvp but still want to be able to enjoy what the game has to offer outside of pvp. We have some in this community who fit into this category.

I am of the opinion that those who want to pvp will like this game, and those who don't or aren't good at it will like it too. Because they can see that someone who isn't good at pvp has been playing it just fine and manages to enjoy it in his own way for the past 7 years in the first game, and now 2 years and counting in the second game.

The way I see it, there's something for everybody in this game. PVP may be a big part of the game, but it's clear that SV is making this game to be much more than that.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting my point. I'm not saying people are turned off by your content by how you play. I'm actually saying you're an outlier in the fact that the game has a steep learning curve, and you have to conform to certain standards to be viable in PvP otherwise you just get crushed. However it hasn't stopped you from playing how you want. Not a lot of people are like that, or able to do that.

I never said every player wants to make PvP their primary activity. However every player will be effected by it more so then what PvE content is available. Large guilds, politics, individual players, PvP & PK'ing are going to be some of the biggest influences on how someone can play depending on where they live in the game. Again, I'm saying there are people like you who don't mind this but they are very much outliers in my eyes.

From what I've seen thus far a lot of PvP oriented players, and I say this with the point of caring about its balance as well, don't really see eye-to-eye with SV. Some say its the players who cause this, some say its SV; I think it's both. SV doesn't listen to the long-time players who have played and dealt with the horrendous imbalance or low-browed implementations of certain things (or lack thereof, such as water combat for melee players), and SV refuses to address certain balance points because they think they've figured it out.

I also don't agree with someone who doesn't PvP, liking it. That.. really doesn't make sense. There are those who are bad at it who want to get better, but when they do they reach their skill ceiling much fasted because overall the skill ceiling is hilariously low. It doesn't help the server location further drives a divide in this.

Sure. The game tries to encompass a great many things. My point is solely this. Players will always be the second biggest influencer of what happens to you in-game outside of SV. I bet if you live in Meduli and try to be a griefing dickhead.. KoTo probably camps you, kills you, and prevents you from living there. That is one way PvP (player versus player, not necessarily the combat itself) influences how someone plays.

Where as if you go to Gaul'Kor or even Toxai. No one really holds anyone accountable, so the guilds in the region do as they like as well as the individuals.

Players will ALWAYS be in close contact with PvP and it's of my opinion that having it be a *GOOD* system from the combat itself to the actual mechanics of how things work between players involving politics, isn't bad.

 

[Gravballe]

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

yup, that was what happened in mo1 along with lacking crafting, economy and pve really made it hard to grow the game. It seems they want to do it properly this time, and i hope they stand their ground, and dont lissen to the 1337 pvpérs.. Dont get me wrong, im here to PVP, but people need to understand, there needs to be more sheep and wolves, if this is ever to work out. Other wise, i might aswell play Mordhauge or what ever..

i hope they this time focus more on getting pve content working, to support and build up the economy, along with crafting, and then focus on pvp content later.

But pvp is more than combat, and that means economy, crafting and politics should have systems that is well integrated into the game. And not forget combat, i still feel it needs more work. To offen its just run swing, run swing in circles...

 

[Backyard Employee]

yup, that was what happened in mo1 along with lacking crafting, economy and pve really made it hard to grow the game. It seems they want to do it properly this time, and i hope they stand their ground, and dont lissen to the 1337 pvpérs.. Dont get me wrong, im here to PVP, but people need to understand, there needs to be more sheep and wolves, if this is ever to work out. Other wise, i might aswell play Mordhauge or what ever..

i hope they this time focus more on getting pve content working, to support and build up the economy, along with crafting, and then focus on pvp content later.

The game had better crafting and actually more diversity in armors and weapons?

The game (at one point) did have a fairly well, functioning economy where prices shifted depending on who held power where. It was only until TC really got out of control that broke this system (and the game in general).

The game had poor PvE. Wont disagree with you there.. But it was doable, and it 'worked'. Like that of a 'work car'. It got you to and from work, but it was old, rickety, and somewhat unreliable in moments you needed it. It worked most of the time.

No one who is a PvP player is going to disagree with you about needing more sheep, but saying to ignore balance feedback is really ignorant. If the game had Mordhau combat this game would sell so fast it'd be funny.. But the best part is even Mordhau had combat problems, and their game is starting to tank hard due to them rail roading it into a more casual market and not listening to their high-end players.

PvP content is at the forefront of everything. If the PvP isn't fun or balanced, what's the point in doing anything in PvE? So you can play in a no-risk, empty world?

 

[Gravballe]

The game had better crafting and actually more diversity in armors and weapons?

The game (at one point) did have a fairly well, functioning economy where prices shifted depending on who held power where. It was only until TC really got out of control that broke this system (and the game in general).

The game had poor PvE. Wont disagree with you there.. But it was doable, and it 'worked'. Like that of a 'work car'. It got you to and from work, but it was old, rickety, and somewhat unreliable in moments you needed it. It worked most of the time.

No one who is a PvP player is going to disagree with you about needing more sheep, but saying to ignore balance feedback is really ignorant. If the game had Mordhau combat this game would sell so fast it'd be funny.. But the best part is even Mordhau had combat problems, and their game is starting to tank hard due to them rail roading it into a more casual market and not listening to their high-end players.

PvP content is at the forefront of everything. If the PvP isn't fun or balanced, what's the point in doing anything in PvE? So you can play in a no-risk, empty world?

Sorry read my edit, i agree more or less with youre points my problem with playing mo1 from launch and 2-3 years, was it was clear they sv lissened to much to a small group of griefers and "pvp" players, and there for using to much of their focus on that part for to long. That made everyone else move on. I like the risk pvp gives, it just need balance, and also the combat needs to be better.

 

[Backyard Employee]

Sorry read my edit, i agree more or less with youre points my problem with playing mo1 from launch and 2-3 years, was it was clear they sv lissened to much to a small group of griefers and "pvp" players, and there for using to much of their focus on that part for to long. That made everyone else move on. I like the risk pvp gives, it just need balance, and also the combat needs to be better.

I can tell you right now, SV did -not- listen to "pvp" players and griefers. The balance was always wildly off mark. I don't think anyone asked for mounted combats to hit for 80+ with giant weapons, wearing the best armor, with the best horse, with the best pots, etc. I don't think anyone asked for death knights as a pet the way they were designed. Glitching through static objects, shooting ranged attacks of upwards up to 70 damage, being unkillable unless focused down by 10+ people.. The tupilaks early on being crazily broken, the shades shooting ranged attacks of 90+ damage with ranged AoE attacks. Pets in general were just so completely busted. Then they nerfed pole swords to make even less weapons viable.

I could go on but I don't think we ever truly got listened to. SV just threw in what they thought was good and hid from the public a secret test team of players who warped the balance.

 

[Gravballe]

I can tell you right now, SV did -not- listen to "pvp" players and griefers. The balance was always wildly off mark. I don't think anyone asked for mounted combats to hit for 80+ with giant weapons, wearing the best armor, with the best horse, with the best pots, etc. I don't think anyone asked for death knights as a pet the way they were designed. Glitching through static objects, shooting ranged attacks of upwards up to 70 damage, being unkillable unless focused down by 10+ people.. The tupilaks early on being crazily broken, the shades shooting ranged attacks of 90+ damage with ranged AoE attacks. Pets in general were just so completely busted. Then they nerfed pole swords to make even less weapons viable.

I could go on but I don't think we ever truly got listened to. SV just threw in what they thought was good and hid from the public a secret test team of players who warped the balance.

good point i quited before all that happened though

 

[Darthus]

Maybe I'm misrepresenting my point. I'm not saying people are turned off by your content by how you play. I'm actually saying you're an outlier in the fact that the game has a steep learning curve, and you have to conform to certain standards to be viable in PvP otherwise you just get crushed. However it hasn't stopped you from playing how you want. Not a lot of people are like that, or able to do that.

Both you and Jatix are off base here. Myself and my 5 friends who all have played in the beta are similar FGC, not great at PVP but love every other part of the game. We don't want PPP to disappear from the game, but we also have no desire to be one of the best PvP gamers in the game. Just good enough to survive so we can enjoy the rest of it. This is exactly the type of player that needs to exist in the game for the population to remain healthy.

And these are the players that Henrik is trying to attract. You both believe they don't exist. He believes they exist in droves. My friends and I are examples of that. MO1 actively drove those players away and that is what is attempted to be corrected by this game. If you don't believe it's the case, then you are out of line with the vision for the game.

 

[PuckInmortali]

So, this is how I would explain this, and there is nothing new in what I will say and you've heard it before, but it goes like this:

Where do the wolves go?
They go where the sheep are.
Where do the sheep live?
They live where the grass is green and the water is clear and still.
Therefore, if you want to create a place for wolves to thrive, you must build an environment for sheep.

So, taken out of the realm of metaphor, if you want a healthy population, the game must set itself up as attractive to players who are not interested in PvP all the time. This requires things to do that do not expressly involve PvP, like dungeons and crafting, as well as certain protections to make those things accessible (though not free from the threat of PvP). Steps can be taken to insure this, like consequences for unprovoked PvP (especially griefing) and guards in towns.

Here is the problem with games like MO2, or any full loot PvP MMORPG--it attracts a**holes. What I mean is that though they created this potentially great, medieval fantasy inspired RPG game that looks to me as if the Hyborian Age met Middle Earth, people will treat it like their personal schoolyard for bullying. I am not suggesting that players need to run around and RP all the time or can't functionally play as bandits/thieves/etc., but for many it is simply about what they can get away with. For a subset of this group, it isn't just about what they can get away with, it's about trying to make others have a miserable time for their personal amusement. Examples? How about spawn camping, or killing someone's horse for the luls, or a naked gang attack in the middle of town for no apparent reason. I have seen examples of all of these in streams and videos created during this beta.

These actions will scare the sheep away, and go they will go away quickly. When they do, the wolves get hungry and leave as well. If SV wants their game to thrive, they have to support a variety of play types within the context of their world, and must address griefing (especially). It is one thing to be killed on the road whilst transporting goods, and quite another to be brained in town by a random naked guy named "C*mGod" (a name I actually saw in game yesterday) whilst browsing at a vendor. If you cannot see the difference, perhaps your playstyle is part of the problem.

 

[Backyard Employee]

Both you and Jatix are off base here. Myself and my 5 friends who all have played in the beta are similar FGC, not great at PVP but love every other part of the game. We don't want PPP to disappear from the game, but we also have no desire to be one of the best PvP gamers in the game. Just good enough to survive so we can enjoy the rest of it. This is exactly the type of player that needs to exist in the game for the population to remain healthy.

And these are the players that Henrik is trying to attract. You both believe they don't exist. He believes they exist in droves. My friends and I are examples of that. MO1 actively drove those players away and that is what is attempted to be corrected by this game. If you don't believe it's the case, then you are out of line with the vision for the game.

The difference is the game handicaps everyone so people feel more 'on par' and it shows how shallow the system actually is.

And I really can't take you serious when you say I'm out of line with the vision of the game.

What is the vision? I bet what ever you say would be radically different to what Henrik wants, and the fact that the first game had so many issues with it that are now being repeated also illustrates not much has changed other then the visuals with the dumbing down of things.

 

[Tzone]

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.

PvE is great, PvPers want PvE. RP is even great but they do things that are just bad for the game. Your best PvErs are also you top tier PvPers. Its not that PvP is not the focus anymore but they do changes that are just pure detriments to PvP or the game.

Keep improving and doing PvE just need to stop hurting PvP. Dumb stuff that just makes the game more tedious instead of more fun. People are fine with spinning more time but this is usually just uninteractive afk time.

 

[Jatix]

Both you and Jatix are off base here. Myself and my 5 friends who all have played in the beta are similar FGC, not great at PVP but love every other part of the game. We don't want PPP to disappear from the game, but we also have no desire to be one of the best PvP gamers in the game. Just good enough to survive so we can enjoy the rest of it. This is exactly the type of player that needs to exist in the game for the population to remain healthy.

And these are the players that Henrik is trying to attract. You both believe they don't exist. He believes they exist in droves. My friends and I are examples of that. MO1 actively drove those players away and that is what is attempted to be corrected by this game. If you don't believe it's the case, then you are out of line with the vision for the game.

You are probobly right. My question is what game did you guys play before MO2, and what makes MO2 superior to those?

And I really can't take you serious when you say I'm out of line with the vision of the game.

What is the vision? I bet what ever you say would be radically different to what Henrik wants, and the fact that the first game had so many issues with it that are now being repeated also illustrates not much has changed other then the visuals with the dumbing down of things.

I feel like technically, the vision of the game, is people like him and his friends. Just going around and enjoying the big world. One could make an argument that MO1 was never intended to be played the way it was. Griefing it up in tind and KOS'ing everyone on a red mounted and trading to your blue alt to sell their gear might not have been MO1's intended vision. But what bugs me is they never tried to change that. So by leaving it that way for so long, it makes it feel like thats what they wanted, and we were their core players. But thats not the case anymore. Sadly we are trying to play the wrong game.

 

[PuckInmortali]

Haha the wolves and sheep simile. Keep it 100. Keep it 1:1. Wolves, sheep, sheep dogs, fakn shepherds w/e... no, all are players trying to exist in this world. Then you will understand. It's all pvp. It's all world. Pve is Pvp, crafting is pvp.
...

All these attempts to remove things people dislike are crazy.
...

THESIS: MO1 WAS A BUGGY LAG FEST, that's why it 'failed' to appeal to masses, not hardcore-ness, not graphics. Now that they might have the tools to fix (and have fixed, omg stuck removal!) some of the problems, why are they trying to change what MO was?

Do you really think MO1 would have been popular if it wasn't a "buggy lag fest"? Really? Sure, that may have been part of the reason, but I'd wager that its design had something to do with it too. What I mean is that it was a niche game, like MO2 will be. However, while MO1 seems to have filled that niche for a few, MO2 has the opportunity to draw in new people, a lot of people, and not just the same old crowd. Although, this isn't likely to happen if there aren't some basic, common sense design features included that dissuade some of the worst elements found in PvP MMOs.

Therefore, designing the game with this in mind is smart. I like meaningful world PvP, and I like sandbox games. Therefore, MO2 looks like a game right up my ally. However, I hate griefing as well as design oversites that result in an abundance of ridiculous, immersion shattering player behavior. For the record, fights breaking out in the middle of town without guard intervention is an example of this type of nonsense. This type of stuff gives me pause when I consider playing MO2. While I may be in the minority of current MMORPG players in liking sandbox PvP, I am certainly not in the minority when it comes to hating griefing and other displays of a disruptive, pest-like behavior.

To conclude, removing things that some like, such as convenient town PvP often targeted at people who, for some strange reason (sarcasm) weren't really interested in fighting the naked "C*mgod" and his hammer, is actually very sane (not crazy at all). In doing so, MO2 may loose 50, or even 500 griefer types, but they will gain many times that in other players, both sandbox vets and new folks.

 

[Darthus]

What is the vision? I bet what ever you say would be radically different to what Henrik wants, and the fact that the first game had so many issues with it that are now being repeated also illustrates not much has changed other then the visuals with the dumbing down of things.

I am not positing anything for the vision aside from Henrik has openly said multiple times, which is that he wants to create the most immersive fantasy online RPG, and that he wants to ensure that people other than PvPers (RPers, PvE'ers, explorers, crafters/gatherers, the non-"hardcore" who need a tutorial) feel welcome and can enjoy the game. My specific statement was that if one does not agree that MO2 should be designed in a way that appeals to more than PvPers, that is out of step with Henrik's intended design.

You are probobly right. My question is what game did you guys play before MO2, and what makes MO2 superior to those?

I feel like technically, the vision of the game, is people like him and his friends. Just going around and enjoying the big world. One could make an argument that MO1 was never intended to be played the way it was. Griefing it up in tind and KOS'ing everyone on a red mounted and trading to your blue alt to sell their gear might not have been MO1's intended vision. But what bugs me is they never tried to change that. So by leaving it that way for so long, it makes it feel like thats what they wanted, and we were their core players. But thats not the case anymore. Sadly we are trying to play the wrong game.

I'm with you Jatix, I agree, Henrik wants to make the game he wants to play, which is one where he feels immersed, reputation matters, he feels like he's existing in a living breathing multiplayer fantasy world has natural systems of consequence, reward and player interaction.

I want that too. Ever since early MUDs I have been hoping someone would make a game that made me feel truly invested in an immersive player interaction driven fantasy world. UO was as close as MMOs ever got. I've played nearly every major MMO that's hit the market, and they all feel like they are serving an entirely different type of player. I don't think I'm alone, and I think there are plenty of people who even like more traditional MMOs and just have never even tasted what a game like UO and similar sandbox player driven games offer.

We are into the land of speculation, but I fully agree that MO1 turning into a hardcore empty PvPer gankfest was not what was intended.

It's one step further for you to say they "never tried to change that". Henrik has openly admitted multiple times that they were simply not experienced enough to create the world they wanted to create and the tech wasn't up to the vision (both their ability to create and the tech itself). He's openly stated that MO1 was a broken mess when they first launched, the entire server was crashing and it drove people away. I don't feel confident enough to say what they "should" have done when they're left with a game that was too ambitious for their own skillset with an active paying playerbase of what.... like maybe a few hundred or thousand people at most? To their credit they maintained that game for 10 years, never shut it down, but whether or not they even could fix the game to be more appealing to a broader audience after where it landed and their shoestring budget is an open question. Henrik has said they were long hard years, he had to sell his car to continue keeping the game open.

Now they've been given a second lease on life, fresh funding and a second chance to apply all the learnings they had in MO1 to creating a new version of the game that will hopefully be much closer to that vision. All we can do is do our best to help them see it through because, as KiraTV on Youtube says in this video:

For someone that wants the game Henrik (and I) are describing, they are our only chance. But they WILL do everything in their power to avoid the mistakes of MO1 from happening again if they're able, that I truly believe. Whether they can is another question.

 

[Backyard Employee]

But they're already doing repeats of MO1 that weren't good.

 

[Darthus]

The game is back at Mixed =( (68% positive):

Mortal Online 2 on Steam

A persistent sandbox world. No classes or levels. Train the skills you want for your own unique build. Player-driven trade, economy, and housing. Millions of crafting combinations. First-person immersive combat. Exploration. Bosses. Full loot, full PvP. The world of Nave is yours - who will you be?

store.steampowered.com

Which is weird to me because when I glance at the recent reviews, it's always like 9 positive and 1 negative. Negative reviews seem to focus on a few things:

1. Disliking the subscription (or originally not realizing it exists)
2. Feeling the game is rough/buggy, placeholder text, UI is not refined, combat is slow, empty, incomplete (mages not being viable).
3. Having a poor new player experience (getting killed repeatedly after leaving Haven etc).

1 is not really avoidable, just have to both be very clear everywhere that it requires a subscription and better justify the benefit to the players (no cash shop, no pay 2 win ever, player created items are always the best, devs are paid to make the game better rather than make cosmetics).

2 is huge and is probably what's driving the majority of the non-1 negative reviews. Hopefully this will improve as they near release, get in more and more PvE/Dungeons and address bugs, but imo this is where most of SV's time should be spent. MO1 was known as a broken, too hardcore/rpk, empty game. Each of those has to be proven wrong 150% in this game to disabuse people.

3 is also a big challenge and even with tutorials etc added I don't think has been fully addressed in terms of the new player experience. Right now it's like... learn some systems on Haven, spawn into a random city in Nave and.... what? Tasks is a good start, but until a player gets involved with other players, get some personal motivation to improve/grow in some area, and have at least one experience where they die, get back up and realize it's ok, they are at a very high risk of bouncing off the game.

 

[Kameyo]

Now that all the multiple account players have given their positive feed back we are starting to see negative reviews catching up. 79% positive and dropping.

 

[ArcaneConsular]

The game is back at Mixed =( (68% positive):

Mortal Online 2 on Steam

A persistent sandbox world. No classes or levels. Train the skills you want for your own unique build. Player-driven trade, economy, and housing. Millions of crafting combinations. First-person immersive combat. Exploration. Bosses. Full loot, full PvP. The world of Nave is yours - who will you be?

store.steampowered.com

Which is weird to me because when I glance at the recent reviews, it's always like 9 positive and 1 negative. Negative reviews seem to focus on a few things:

1. Disliking the subscription (or originally not realizing it exists)
2. Feeling the game is rough/buggy, placeholder text, UI is not refined, combat is slow, empty, incomplete (mages not being viable).
3. Having a poor new player experience (getting killed repeatedly after leaving Haven etc).

1 is not really avoidable, just have to both be very clear everywhere that it requires a subscription and better justify the benefit to the players (no cash shop, no pay 2 win ever, player created items are always the best, devs are paid to make the game better rather than make cosmetics).

2 is huge and is probably what's driving the majority of the non-1 negative reviews. Hopefully this will improve as they near release, get in more and more PvE/Dungeons and address bugs, but imo this is where most of SV's time should be spent. MO1 was known as a broken, too hardcore/rpk, empty game. Each of those has to be proven wrong 150% in this game to disabuse people.

3 is also a big challenge and even with tutorials etc added I don't think has been fully addressed in terms of the new player experience. Right now it's like... learn some systems on Haven, spawn into a random city in Nave and.... what? Tasks is a good start, but until a player gets involved with other players, get some personal motivation to improve/grow in some area, and have at least one experience where they die, get back up and realize it's ok, they are at a very high risk of bouncing off the game.

3 is a result of launching EA. They should have known that people who've been playing for a year with the best armor, connections and stats would gang up on new players for fun

 

[Bernfred]

the cringe daily Discord community which simps only on big mouth braindeads and insults everyone who wants to nerf their beta builds and A licking friends gives Henrik the illusion everything is right.


in fact every system is full of bugs (hf with the upcoming ones with even more item losses or new dupes) and has flaws all over the board for example:

murdercount and rep system, flagging system, broker system, UI saving and customization, everything connected with AI, taming, broken and limited melee- mage- and mounted PvP/PvE/features/balance and limited ping normalization, graphics downgrade to black and white with FoV 103, combat tutorials, world map full of glitches without footwalk- or content for beginners near blue towns, one time- 1 slot character creation per account, missing options like keybinds for attack directions or simple stuff like sprint toggle and graphic options like a fur and fauna slider or disabling emote and VOIP users, missing party- friend and alliance system, no head name saving- head bags and 1kg heads, no /duel option, no stables near dungeons, no breeding on EA... and so on and so forth