Why we don´t need Haven
- Thread starter Eldrath
- Start date
- Status
We simply won't be able to, because there was never a "no haven" group or control group.
You greatly overestimate your importance.
I'm glad your high school debate team taught you how to troll forums, but they never taught you that debating just for the sake of debating is pointless.
Wouldn't MO1 (pre-haven) fall into that? Its obviously not a 1:1 comparison but I probably closer than any other game would be.
It feels like a scenario where down the road either side can claim their respective "i told you so" moment regardless of a quantified impact.
I do agree though its probably not something we'll ever know for sure.
MO1 was broken beyond believe. If MO2 is the same state (You can´t do this now.) we could compare it.
There are a few scenarios. But with if Haven gets implemented like in MO1 it will muddy down the design in the long run and the game will die. Mortal has some unique features going for it and compromising those will eventually kill it.
Thats kinda what I'm saying here, how do we know how much Haven would be to blame vs other decisions down the road?
MO1 is absolutely different but is there another game that MO2 can compare to that will be closer than MO1?
I'm not trying to be argumentative on this, simply curious how we'd narrow down which issues stemmed from Haven in particular?
Sure, SV might make other terrible decisions. Haven in it´s current form is undermining the risk vs. reward system and will be platform for those players that don´t like full loot or open PvP.
But no, ultimately no one would be able to pin point exactly what killed Mortal Online 2. Just as people are still arguing over what killed Mortal Online 1.
If we're talking more narrowly, not just "what killed MO"
What negatives do you expect to see in-game as a result of Haven?
Lower population? Higher population but carebear mechanics make their way into myrland? (Referenced in your op but is the concern altered flagging systems, safer towns, etc?)
My concern with Haven is that it plays like a separate server/game.
my sense is that haven replaced myrland in MO 1, and clearly that isn't ideal.
Fair, thats a valid concern considering its supposed to be one big interconnected game world.
To your second point, I'd say I agree with your earlier observation about MO1 not being comparable in many ways. Haven was released 9 years into MO life, just a couple months before MO2 announcement.
At that point it was essentially an expansion for the vets who made up 99.9% of the playerbase.
I dont see it playing out the same way for MO2 with Haven being in at the start, especially for noobs who have never explored Myrland. I'd imagine they'll be excited to move on to new sights.
If Haven gets implemented like it is in MO1 (which seems to be the way SV is planning according to Sebs most recent comments on Discord) I would predict that some players will stay there and play it as the "real" game(just as that was happening in MO1). Obviously they will run out of things to do, so they will ask for more things to do. Eventually they will catch SV in a desperate state (in between big patches) and they will do so. Slowly building a server in parallel to the rest of the game. There won´t be one big make or break thread on it either. Why should Haven NOT have sea dew after all? Why should Haven NOT have a bear cave?
Some of the ideas of Haven will also be used as an argument to persuade the devs into implementing the same kind of systems in the main game. If it works for the population in Haven, why shouldn´t it work for Myrland?
A PvP toggle is an obvious one. More bound items. More viable farming inside the guardzone. So basically eroding the risk vs. reward system that makes Mortal work.
Additionally we might see a lot of more gold farmers since Haven will provide them will a zone to use bots in. Depends on how much profit you could make that way.
Last but not least veterans will abuse the system, putting further strain on the economy and making never ending server wars more likely. Which after increasing the population for a short time kill it off in the long run.
If SV moves with this and wastes more time on "carebear" (by which I don´t mean PvE content, but mechanics that compromise open PvP and full loot) things it will eventually lead to those that came for the niche game quitting. I highly doubt that there is a consumer group interested in the hybrid that MO1 has become in the end. The population over the last few years speaks for itself.
So in short MO2 will either become another trammel or die the same slow death as MO1 did by compromising core designs. Mortal Trammel might or might not be successful, but looking at their competition I doubt they can cut it.
There you go. Full to the brim of speculation and assumptions. When MO2 becomes the game it is supposed to be (@ThaBadMan could post "the vision" again) despite Haven feel free to quote this post and laugh at me.
We'd probably disagree on the likelihood of some of those scenarios and agree on others (Haven players running out of things to do is a good point i hadn't considered) but overall most of the concerns are reasonable.
I'm probably more optimistic the "vision" wont be compromised to a great degree but thats also putting a lot of faith in SV having learned from MO1.
Update the FAQ to be more honest please.
Mortal Online 2 is a believable open world first person sandbox mmorpg, with pvp and full loot zones, in a fantasy setting.
Mortal Online 2 is a believable open world first person sandbox mmorpg, with pvp and full loot zones, in a fantasy setting.
It was a mostly sarcastic statement. Essentially what I'm saying is I found studies that I would have had zero issues in using to support the conclusion I made on a paper in college to hand into a professor for an easy A. They're more than sufficient for a forum debate or any setting that I'm not literally getting paid for the quality of research. I'm not actually expecting SV hires consultants off their forum.
I'm not debating for the sake of debating. I'm debating to see a game I care about do better. People talk about wanting to see thousands of players in this game. Enough to make the game feel alive even if the servers get split. To see that happen some changes will need to be made. What kind of changes? Well, there is sufficient data to suggest that a quality tutorial would be worth pursuing.
The slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy for a reason. And that's precisely what you're making here. "If we grant them this they will just keep asking for more". EVEN IF Haven is implemented as it was in MO1, your doomsday scenario won't come to fruition. SV has a better understanding of what their target market wants than that. And if they don't, then expect changes like that to be even more likely if people don't have a safe place they can hide.
The reason that you see games backing off hardcore PvP features over the years is rather simple. The majority of the market doesn't like them and so making a PVE server or whatever seems like a great way to broaden their playerbase to many developers.
Thankfully for you, Mortal Online has a reputation, and the number of players coming here asking for carebear features is negligible. And I think that's something SV understands.
So given that, rather than attempting to frighten children with prophecies of the end of all things, or debating for things like Haven needs to be removed entirely, you might be better off supporting a position that has enough support to have a chance of getting somewhere. Like that Haven should be a small tutorial only continent.
There's a reason I said that
and i'll share it with you.
It is because you in 1 breath say that you didn't have much experience in mo 1, and in the other respond to nearly every single post about balance.
Debating ad nauseum but also from a place of ignorance. Which is why I say debating for the sake of debating.
Ultimately when challenged you'll always need to concede with "well I didn't play the game much". If that's the case why are you so ardently defending a position?
I get that tutorials are little different than the usual post here, but you get my point.
There is one place I argue from a place of knowledge. Of the hundreds of hours I put into the alpha the majority of it has been used building spreadsheets on crafting and other measurable subjects. I'd say this puts me in a position of more knowledge on that subject than veterans who played MO1 but never underwent such rigor. And in a position of considerable more authority when discussing the differences vs. someone who has not not undergone such rigor specifically in MO2. Crafting is also the one area coming over from MO1 that has not really changed that much. So the one area that isn't changed, I'm actually in a position of some knowledge to speak on.
Haven, I've played through in the last month. And during that playthrough / previous playthroughs I've learned enough about MO1 to know the combat in MO1 and MO2 are very different. Melee is very different, archery is very different. Enough difference that saying "This is how MO1 was, and so this is how MO2 is going to be" is a completely fallacious argument on everything concerning combat.
My 10+ years of experience/thousands of hours in full loot open-world games does give me a position of some authority on how to speak about balancing such games. Sorry, I only put dozens to low hundreds of hours into this particular title but the previous iteration wasn't very good to be frank. Were we discussing a game where all the mechanics were cut and pastes from the first title as the crafting system is, MO1 experience might actually give you a leg up over my experience in a manner similar to how you pretend it does. But it is not, and so it does not.
Your "I'm an an MO1 vet so shut up" argument is based upon fallacies. So I will not shut up. You really don't have much if any more authority to stand on than I do. And some of the points being made here don't take much more than common sense to dispute. The primary debate being played out over and over is more speed is better and more skilled. I have enough knowledge of games that were indeed faster to say "That's not really true, you're just using experience to disguise your personal preferences as objective fact."
The same is true of this particular topic. Believe me. This is far from the first time I've ever heard Trammel used to frighten people that carebears are coming to ruin a PvP game.
Haven, I've played through in the last month. And during that playthrough / previous playthroughs I've learned enough about MO1 to know the combat in MO1 and MO2 are very different. Melee is very different, archery is very different. Enough difference that saying "This is how MO1 was, and so this is how MO2 is going to be" is a completely fallacious argument on everything concerning combat.
My 10+ years of experience/thousands of hours in full loot open-world games does give me a position of some authority on how to speak about balancing such games. Sorry, I only put dozens to low hundreds of hours into this particular title but the previous iteration wasn't very good to be frank. Were we discussing a game where all the mechanics were cut and pastes from the first title as the crafting system is, MO1 experience might actually give you a leg up over my experience in a manner similar to how you pretend it does. But it is not, and so it does not.
Your "I'm an an MO1 vet so shut up" argument is based upon fallacies. So I will not shut up. You really don't have much if any more authority to stand on than I do. And some of the points being made here don't take much more than common sense to dispute. The primary debate being played out over and over is more speed is better and more skilled. I have enough knowledge of games that were indeed faster to say "That's not really true, you're just using experience to disguise your personal preferences as objective fact."
The same is true of this particular topic. Believe me. This is far from the first time I've ever heard Trammel used to frighten people that carebears are coming to ruin a PvP game.
Last edited:
Nonsense, you have near 0 experience with magic, mounteds, pet classes and how they relate to each other. Yet are in a position to talk about them endlessly and then feign innocence. As soon as those are out i'm sure you'll claim expertise on them though.
Your hours in other games are of value, but not to the extent that you can take a counter position on nearly every single post.
At least not without appearing disingenuous
talking about how camping a gun spawn in halo in a non-competitive mode is more skill based because TACTICS. Then this somehow relates to MO having less twitch skill being better.
You are openly anti foot, pro mounted, pro pet class, and you haven't played them. I don't know you, so I obviously got this information from your own mouth. To reiterate according to you, you have little MO experience, are anti foot fighter and like to see them nerfed, and are pro pet classes, all without playing them. I enjoy those classes too and I enjoy competitive gameplay (not camping spawn with a deployed machine gun or a corner with a rocket launcher or something).
All of this for those with eyes to see is an obvious deception with an agenda. Unless you're going to dreamhack a balanced game means you're probably losing.
- Status