Why we don´t need Haven

[Kaemik]

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.

This is completely wrong. I never made this argument. I argued that enjoy Halo more than Call of Duty and Counterstrike because I prefer games with a longer time to kill. In no other way have I ever related Halo to MO nor even talked about camping a gun spawn. Ever. Because I didn't. My strength in that game was that I knew every weapon in and out and so could use each gun in its appropriate context to make it shine, even on some weapons that were traditionally considered weak. That made camping gun spawns completely unnecessary for me.

The primary game I have experience in that I relate to MO1 is Darkfall because Darkfall is an exceptionally comparable title. I also see some but lesser value in a score of other MMO and small server Open World PvP titles such as EVE, Crowfall, ArcheAge etc.

 

[KermyWormy]

TL : DR - What that paper said is that for complex games (Like Mortal Online 2) playtime can be increased by up to 29% by a good tutorial, but that when you're talking simple games (flappy bird) that's not true.

Based on the fact this kind of shit is literally what I spent the last few years earning a degree in, I'd say those kind of numbers suggest a tutorial is very worth pursuing. Playtime is a rather significant factor for game with a subscription revenue model. The potential to increase their revenue by nearly a third (granted that is the most optimistic projections but you could fall well short of them and still see a significant increase in profit) absolutely merit investment in a decent tutorial.

Would better data back up that conclusion more? Sure. And if SV wants to bring me on as a consultant I'll gladly dig deeper and find more studies or even conduct some within the given budget restraints then apply that data to their specific numbers to make some financial projections. Obviously if studying the need for a tutorial ends up costing more than the tutorial would have, then it would have been better to use secondary research. As I have provided. Using sources that seem extremely credible from an academic perspective. But for the purposes of a forum debate with someone who I'm fairly sure is neither educated on nor in the professional field of business consulting, the sources I provided are pretty damn good.

Again. As I said, I don't feel the need to defend that tutorials are useful anymore based on the study I provided unless contradictory studies can be provided. You've challenged my study on unsound grounds, and I have given a defense of it based on a simple interpretation that just follows the proper format of abstracts where your conclusion must be built upon your findings. I don't feel the need to debate the validity of this study with you anymore unless someone who can demonstrate they understand and can properly interpret an abstract/academic writing cares to carry on with this debate.

A couple things:

1) You're citing a paper or some study that in your words concluded playtime "can be" increased by up to 29% by a "good tutorial". Wow that's groundbreaking news! Did you also know that brain surgery would require or be benefitted by more of an explanation than a game of rock, paper, scissors? How about you actually use that noggin you've supposedly spent so much time developing and use it to actually think critically. Which leads me to my next point...

2) No one cares about your degree. Except you of course, the bank who you pay your student loans payments to, or your parents who are staring at the balance of their savings account wondering if spending all that money on your education actually taught you anything useful at all.

3) You're not as smart as you think you are, and SV has already made plenty of bad decisions over the years that they don't need to add hiring you as a consultant to that list.

stay in your lane bro

 

[Kaemik]

Pretending that paper isn't exceptionally relevant in saying tutorials have a great amount of value to complex games only proves you are a dumbass. Enough said.

 

[Rudakov]

Looks like fight is about to start

 

[Kaemik]

Nah. I'm not going to waste further time debating him unless he can bring a point worth addressing to the table. I spent like two pages of text explaining the relevance of that study. If it flew over anyone's head they are a lost cause.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

Thinking on this more im wondering;

Fast forward a year or 2 after release, how will we determine if Haven was a net positive or negative? What will the determining factor(s) be?

It will be retrospective analysis confirming initial bias, as always. The question is how much damage will it do relative to some supposed good. Depends on what good means to you. Seb seems to think player retention matters more than the core design of the game, I disagree. Obviously. Retaining players that don't like the core design of the game, what harm could it do? Might as well just have Kitten'd as the tutorial.

The best possible positive outcome is that it is deleted. Full stop. No tutorial, no yellow flag, no hand holding. Just a solid intuitive UI and initial experience with working mechanics and wysiwyg. Trust players, and gtfo of our way. Many other games demonstrate this.

With regard to slaughter, the problem is, and always has been the guard mechanics and flagging system. The game should allow player guilds to naturally benefit from large numbers, training, and retaining newbs. Fighting to defend or attack new players was a large and great part of MO's history. It pitted guilds against each other in a natural and unforced way. KotO excelled at this in a particular era, regularly attracted, trained, and deployed large numbers of new players. I won't speak for them, but it was common to see many guilds pursue this strategy. Many guilds in most towns had some form of ARPK militia. Ultimately, they fought PK players and guilds, and also the unintuitive flagging system that often kept them from unleashing their full potential with little benefit. PK guilds simply made blue characters and recieved all the benefits of the flag system, and the benefits of slaughter, the mechanics rewarded chaos and newb murder, that's what we got. Anyone that pursued ARPK activity can speak to this. The game worked against protecting newbs, now were in this shit show with carebear island where all the rules have disappeared. I guess that's one, very lazy way, to resolve an incentive and rule conflict, eliminate them all.

To mitigate this damage, they must acknowledge it. Then address it with the in game reputation system that rewards or at least doesn't punish, the protection of new players in a town. That would require the flagging/reputation system and guards to not interfere with player justice, to allow defenders to not be chased out of town by their own guards. This is why I suggested no default guards. Give players more control, incentivize growth, it will resolve itself.

We'll see what happens with the rep system. So far, it's about killing NPC guards in some far away land. Guards already chase out players for defending a city. It's brain dead. If they can't figure this out, Haven is just a dodge.

The only other positive I can imagine, would be an experience and community that made it nearly unthinkable to remain on Haven. That 100% of the players leave the Island as quickly as possible and say, "thank the gods that is over, I never want to play a fucking pve carebear zombie game again. I'm so glad MO2 exists and I am now free to pursue the true full-loot open world pvp sandbox game that I paid money for. I now understand what I've been missing in shitty themepark mmos that hold my hand, tell me who my enemies are, and what my purpose is. Please take my subscription fee and a large donation." Perhaps the last part of the tutorial is an area where all players can murder them while they can't fight back until they leave Haven. Kick the little shit bird out of the nest.

I'm sure you have your own metrics.

A final note:
Let's face some facts. The programming, the QA, years long learning curves for balancing TC and Mounted, past corruption, data breaches, killed MO. Not the ruleset. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and manipulative. Explain why you can't deliver the vision with the game engine, with the bad code, with the server limitations, then do the best you can. Learn. Don't corrupt the vision, blame pvp, blame players, blame a changing market, because you can't deliver.

The core design is not the problem, has never been the problem, and despite what many seem to suggest here, the trend in gaming is clearly to go more hardcore. There are many more hardcore mmos today than when MO launched. Some even admit to being inspired by MO. If MO2 recieves 1% of their numbers it would overwhelm the servers. The demographic is there. Even WoW is experimenting with hardcore servers. Fucking WoW will be as hardcore as MO. I wish MO2 was inspired by MO1 instead of running from it.

I have said all I want to say on the topic. and have enjoyed reading some of the responses. I am appreciative of the experience in MO1, sincerely hoping Henrik saves his new creation from a milquetoast mundane hell.

 

[Teknique]

This is completely wrong. I never made this argument. I argued that enjoy Halo more than Call of Duty and Counterstrike because I prefer games with a longer time to kill. In no other way have I ever related Halo to MO nor even talked about camping a gun spawn. Ever. Because I didn't. My strength in that game was that I knew every weapon in and out and so could use each gun in its appropriate context to make it shine, even on some weapons that were traditionally considered weak. That made camping gun spawns completely unnecessary for me.

The primary game I have experience in that I relate to MO1 is Darkfall because Darkfall is an exceptionally comparable title. I also see some but lesser value in a score of other MMO and small server Open World PvP titles such as EVE, Crowfall, ArcheAge etc.

Right, and apologies if I appear disrespectful, but.

The positions that you take, Foot should be weak, pets should be low twitch skill (they already are), TTK should be high, figure 8 whatever that is sucks, etc. Coupled with how frequently and fervently you share them seems suspicious.

Why?

Because these people hardly exist within the MO community. They can be named on basically one hand, Rhodri, Tengu, more if I start naming unnamed forum trolls, but thats it.

How is it that you can have a vision that aligns so perfectly with the MO troll community? Something doesn't add up.

 

[Kaemik]

First off, If you don't think half the MO1 vet melee elitist crowd are trolls, you and I have very different definitions of what is and is not a troll.

I get rude with people who I perceive as being rude to myself or others. I don't claim to be nice or humble but I do try to remain civil until the person I'm arguing with demonstrates they cannot do the same, and I spend a great deal of time explaining my thought process in how I come to the conclusions I do. You can decide for yourself if I am a troll or not, but I assure you that is my intent.

Second off. I am not anti-melee. I believe in giving polearms the ability to counter mounts. I made a thread suggesting that some spells should be castable while wielding a shield and frequently talk about how tank roles need to be given abilities that make them viable in PvP. I've supported some of HYMs ideas about making certain melee weapons stronger. I'm even for giving glass cannon melees quick TTK as they want if it opens them up to being countered by archers. Melee is great, as one of many equally viable roles.

What I am against is an attitude that melee is the most valuable role, that 50-70% foot fighters should be considered good meta for every force, and melee should be able to be its own counter without sacrificing something to do so. I don't think melee is inherently more valuable than any other role and that twitch skill should be considered superior to tactical skill. This is personal preference. You have a right to disagree. Just not to claim that those disagreements come from a position of objectivity.

 

[Kaemik]

Ill sum it up simply. If primarily foot forces with good composition don't win against even numbers of mounted forces in a head to head fight due to their lack of mobility making them stronger in such fights. I think balance will be off.

If well lead cavalry forces are not considered the uncontested masters of the open field due to their ability to not take unfavorable engagements and press favorable ones as well as being useful for supporting foot forces in pulling off certain maneuvers, I think balance will be off.

If there are not many viable force compositions that include 50%+ of non-pure FF roles like hybrids, archer primaries, mages and tamer/dominators, I think balance will be off.

If melee is so weak that running more than 30% non-hybrid foot fighters is considered a weak composition for all force types, I think balance will be off.

These are the kind of things I mean when I say tactics should trump twitch. Twitch heavy roles need to be an important part of every well-rounded force. But so should tactics heavy roles. Tactics heavy roles shouldn't be relegated to a position of weaker auxiliary you only play because you don't have the reflexes for good swordplay. They should be considered equally important roles used in their proper context. And that is the root of my problem with MO1 vet melee elitists. They seem to want other roles to be considered less than theirs. However things were done in MO1, that does not sound fun or a good route for MO2 to go.

I enjoy playing hitscan / minion master roles a lot more than I enjoy playing the parry / counter game and I see no issue with that. I also can enjoy a good melee role where wild slashing is a viable tactic and wouldn't mind seeing certain builds given this role if they aren't made inherently more powerful than the more skillfull parry roles. In-fact, I think that's the only viable way to implement non-charge-based mounted melees which I would LOVE to see in-game. But I want people who are good at parry/counter to have ways to leverage those strengths to help their team.

But we're getting VERY off topic here so perhaps we should take this to another thread should we wish to continue this discussion.

 

[Teknique]

Tactics heavy roles shouldn't be relegated to a position of weaker auxiliary you only play because you don't have the reflexes for good swordplay.

But we're getting VERY off topic here so perhaps we should take this to another thread should we wish to continue this discussion.

Agreed we should take it to another thread.

To address this quickly. There is no such thing as a good player with bad reflexes. Many bad players relegate THEMSELVES to these roles because they are MUCH STRONGER than foot.

If you simply are a weaker auxiliary by virtue of your game sense, twitch skill etc, you will always be one. Unless the class effectively one shots people and then people will actually be happy.

In fact we had mounteds 3 shotting oghmium armor with sledgehammers and the noob community was outraged when it got nerfed. With the usual pvpers get everything, poleswords so strong, everyone plays veelas etc.

I guess i'm simply saying your position doesn't exist. Someone like me will either just play those same classes or if there's some semblance of balance you'll get stickied and die anyways.

a higher twitch player will just be better at one shotting.

Edit: a player who doesn’t react fast enough to his teammates distress, react fast enough to run away, know how to position their character etc. Cannot be tactically good. There is no distinction between tactical play and twitch play. You do not go into any of these games and play simply by reducing your reaction time, you will need good comms, engage with teammates, good utility usage and reaction speed only as a function of accuracy or crosshair placement.

 

[Eldrath]

Since you moved your discussion to another thread I would ask you to delete your posts that are off-topic.

 

[Vagrant]

thought i'd throw one in to get back on topic,

firstly I have no pvp interest, but my 'peaceful playstyle' doesn't 'require' peace, it's just how I choose to play my character, and it is all the more challenging in an open world threating death at any moment, I don't care for PVE without risk of being PK fodder, it just gets boring fast.
The sooner any safe Haven is over with, the sooner a player gets challenged to interact and get involved in the environment more fully.

Having said that, I feel the need for 'instruction' speaks of other issues.

The best possible positive outcome is that it is deleted. Full stop. No tutorial, no yellow flag, no hand holding. Just a solid intuitive UI and initial experience with working mechanics and wysiwyg. Trust players, and gtfo of our way. Many other games demonstrate this.

yes, this seems to be what Henrik's original game vision essence speaks of,
So it seems to me that the concept of Haven tells us that there is a greater need to focus on making gameplay as intuitive and consistent as possible.

@Eldrath's original post suggests that if a consistent and intuitive enough game environment were to be achieved then Haven is redundant by default.

Henrik's MO core design concept really is such a great vision in imitating familiarity in physicality, it reflects what feels natural to do, so this core design vision demands that being Intuitive is absolutely key, therefore consistency is just as key.;
the immersive first person only, learning skills by 'doing' actions, no levelling, reputation, social interactions, community economy and team play, losing everything, risk & reward, etc. etc., all based on familiar physical concepts in reality, yes yes YES i know #magictho - it's still 'familiar' concepts even if fantasy, we are all 'familiar' with the concept and how it might work.

When first playing MO I was absolutely addicted to the idea of learning and discovering through action,
run and you learn sprinting, jump down a hill and you learn landing, jump in ( shallow ) water and learn swimming, then other skills appear at certain stages, just awesome, this is super intuitive design and about as true sand-box as it gets.

But then inconsistencies appear, not all water is water, it's mysterious and shit, so apparently it's ok that sometimes you can just walk through under screaming rapids without even moving and you can breathe like a mermaid and other times you'll drown in 2ft of water.
this is NOT consistent and breaks the familiarity that drives the amazing initial intuitive experience,
yet there was the 'Horse pissing' animation.. hmmm ok, well hopefully I wont drown in that anyway.
it seems like no big deal, you work it out, it ends up like domestic blindness and we soon forget, it's just one example.
(EDIT - maybe this is due to a limitation of UE4 ? I'd be interested to know, this is just an example I remember vividly from first days in game )


If Haven has to happen, then I really hope it isn't as a content band-aid to cover the shortfall in the potential of a consistent and intuitive core product,
to focus on the pros and cons of Haven itself is essentially reductionist and avoids the bigger picture of improving the intuitive sand-box experience.

If the new standing and one character system isn't to be trusted and we need a 'Haven' and in depth tutorials in what should be a super intuitive, yet 'complex back-end' game, then it suggests improvement is needed somewhere.

I would hope the basic game mechanics can be successful enough that this becomes community/player content rather than requiring the equivalent of a mini nanny-state giving a false sense of security.

TLDR;
more consistent and intuitive = more player retention
more consistent and intuitive = less haven/tutorial needed

 

[Blood Thorn]

When players say that those who choose to live in Haven will constantly press for more and more things to do in a safe environment, you are absolutely correct. They will continue to push for the development path that supports their chosen style of play. In the exact same way that some PvPers in forum posts have pushed for the removal of guards and walls around settlements, because those mechanics impact their preferred style of play. It's human nature, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The only way to successfully deal with these contrary play styles is to identify what the core game concepts are, and to then stay true to the vision. Where you have gaps (such as the new player experience), then plug those gaps without compromising the vision. MO2's core concept is:

A True Open World Experience - THE MOST HARDCORE MMORPG

Which, everyone knows. Just like almost everyone accepts that there is a gap around the new player experience, and that gap matters. Not to everyone, but it does matter. The new player experience should:

1) Teach the basics survival skills of the game
2) Attempt to introduce them to game possibilities that exist in MO
3) Tease that there is even more being left unsaid so that players can enjoy the thrill of discovery
4) Teach them that the actual game world is not safe (example - let a Risar roam the area to kill players and destroy their stuff)
5) Total time in the tutorial area shouldn't ever take more than a couple of hours
6) Players should not be able to interfere with other players, though a nice warning about behavior that would flag you as criminal would be nice
7) They should not be able to take anything with them when they leave the tutorial area
8) When they leave the tutorial area they are taken to someplace that is somewhat safer, but limited (perhaps, deep inside Tindrem?)

None of the above takes away from players in the actual game world, except to those who like to prey on newbies in tutorial areas, and there will be plenty of opportunities to prey on them once they enter the actual game world. New players actually have a chance to meet other new players in the same area and enjoy a shared experience. They have a chance to survive their first few hours in the game (until they meet experienced RPKs outside of town), and guilds have a place they can go recruit, and defend those new players (unless they choose to rob them blind once they are out of town).

 

[Teknique]

@Eldrath @Godkin Veratas Do you think that the lvl 1-3 zones in Albion were a net positive or negative to the game pop.

I'm sure its much better to have that then ganking in lvl 1 zones.

Removing haven doesn't seem like a good idea, but it really is on SV to make it not broken..

 

[P42ALPHA]

I remember these same arguments 10+years ago. And StarVault listened to the wrong player group, evident in the state of MO1 shortly after launch.

Starter zones are great for new players to meet other new players. I can remember in MO1 just rerolling for the fun of running into new players and playing with players that were not turbo pvp ultra turds yet.

Having no starter zone, like when MO1 launched created a spread out and frustrated new user experience, and I know of many players I met then just left.

Most of us understand the "Hardcore pvper" has a hard time enjoying there play time when there is not a steady stream of new players to bang on the head over and over, aka risk free ganking. But I hope this time around, in MO2 the "Hardcore" is ignored and there is a enjoyable game for more then a hand full of players.

 

[Teknique]

I remember these same arguments 10+years ago. And StarVault listened to the wrong player group, evident in the state of MO1 shortly after launch.

Starter zones are great for new players to meet other new players. I can remember in MO1 just rerolling for the fun of running into new players and playing with players that were not turbo pvp ultra turds yet.

Having no starter zone, like when MO1 launched created a spread out and frustrated new user experience, and I know of many players I met then just left.

Most of us understand the "Hardcore pvper" has a hard time enjoying there play time when there is not a steady stream of new players to bang on the head over and over, aka risk free ganking. But I hope this time around, in MO2 the "Hardcore" is ignored and there is a enjoyable game for more then a hand full of players.

To be honest I think most pvper's don't enjoy easy prey and support a tutorial zone. The ones that do I support the quotation mark around pvpers.

some people have concerns about how good the starter zone is, thats about it.

 

[Kaemik]

To be honest I think most pvper's don't enjoy easy prey and support a tutorial zone. The ones that do I support the quotation mark around pvpers.

some people have concerns about how good the starter zone is, thats about it.

I don't think most PvPers do either but I think the types of "PvPers" that do are well represented in this thread based on some consistent themes I see in their posts.

 

[Vagrant]

this is not a safe zone vs open issue,
or a pve vs pvp issue, partisan representation doesn't change the fact that those can all happen with a consistent and intuitive product.
this is about marketing a more consistent and intuitive product to a player base so they enjoy, understand and retain.

 

[Teknique]

I don't think most PvPers do either but I think the types of "PvPers" that do are well represented in this thread based on some consistent themes I see in their posts.

To clarify, if you don't support a tutorial safe zone that doesn't necessarily make you a dumpster, but if you can only kill noobs then I have no respect for you.

 

[Kaemik]

Nah. I'm not referring to you or even HYM. I'll put it this way. Some of the people posing as hardcore PvPers in this thread I've been told are notably worse at melee than I am by people who've fought us both. And that's really saying something because I'm a complete scrub. I practice combat like once a week and spend the rest of the time crafting due to the lack of... every role I find somewhat interesting.

When players I know are that bad are lobbying to have newb protections removed, I'm extremely suspicious of what they intend to do. Especially when those same players seem to get very upset when anyone uses the word griefer.