Murderers Should Get Permadeath

[Kaquenqos]

RPK in general is not really the problem with MO2.

The terrible mechanics that govern it are a problem.

Crim Debuff= Lasts like a couple minutes. Your killer can probably get to the bank, in town, faster than you can, so forget about retribution.

Rep=run a PvE delivery.

MC=just wait out a short timer nbd.

Blue flag= The pvp flag that lets you get the first hit & grief other players by having a bunch of your blue flag goons follow you.

Grey flag= "oh we want the game to be realistic so you can't tell who is the criminal hehe so we put a grey flag and allowed blue flag to be PK flag urrrrhhh uhhhh..."...

*yawn*

That's the worst PK system I've ever seen in an MMO, and I'm not afraid to say it frequently and with confidence.

Even just lessening the actual gameplay consequences of being a criminal & fixing the lawful side of things so that the blue-flag is meaningful (ie. you can't just go on blue murder frenzies with your blue friends like it's all good in the hood) would be a huge improvement.

I honestly did not expect a system this bad when I bought the game, & I'm sure I'm not alone here because this is a novel system. Nobody has tried a system this bad yet. I expected something more similar to UO or MO1, for example.

On one hand, I applaud SV for at least trying something new, but it never should have been left in this state. PK mechanics like this are going to be a constant obstacle for retaining player populations, and SV is right to listen to feedback that the PvP feels bad (which, between RPKers complaining about tedium & new players saying the PKing feels unfair/arbitrary, is constant)... But the result should not be the current system, seemingly designed to turn off people that want to be full time RPKs and people that want to be lawful/ARPKs alike.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

"You have a very narrow and superfluous perspective of the narrative the game offers, its not that pvp'rs "makes the game terrible or barely playable at beast to any other playstyle", thats just not true."

Matter of fact it is true. I play this game regularly, and trying to PVE can be LITERALLY unplayable because of mindless neanderthals running around with swords. You have a very narrow view of the game if combat is your only option and you can't deal witheven the IDEA that other playstyles MIGHT be valid and valued.

"Why would you punish people for playing the game, don't be stupid please."

PVE players are playing the game and getting punished just for existing by being targetted by murderhobos. Why punish them for playing an open world game?

"Sometimes i think a better tutorial should be ment for teaching carebear noobs about social behavior"

LMFAO, Look at you talking about SOCIAL behaviour? So randomly killing people just for being IN a game is a SOCIAL behaviour to you now? I think I understand you now. SOCIAL means to play WITH people, not kill them, sweet summer child.

"Wilderness conflict and the lack of safety makes players excersize awareness and deal with the unforgiving nature of the world, so the gameplay circles around assuming the idea someone will definitely try to kill you for your shit, and thats not bad, thats the law of the world. So anyone may or may not try to gank you, its up to you if you are a naive cunt."

Wilderness conflict can be avoided. Being ganked while you are simply collecting materials or travelling - while avoiding those wilderness hotspots mind you - is NOT a wiilderness encounter, it's an encounter with a rude cunt. That's the law of the world to me.

"PVP is what makes the game flow, allways did. I think it is you the neandertal" here trying to push for something thats not for the game. Fuck your medieval behavioral hardbrakes and anti-pvp mechanics, go play candy crush if you can't deal with it."

The description of the game begs to differ, as the more important parts of a game tend to be listed first in Western culture (From the Steam description on the store page):

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?

Since PVP is about the 5 or 6 (7 or 8 depending on how you number your list), I would argue that the PVP only players are not playing the game the way it's being designed. Go fuck your own tiny self if your only thought is KILL in a game where KILL is not the only option. Fuck your cromagnon behavioural attitude, go play PUBG if you can't deal with cooperation.

"I get away from unintended conflict most of the times, unless im not paying attention or semi afk why would it be so hard for you?"

I get away from conflict most of the time too, doesn't mean I like letting you get away with being an ass. Why is it so hard for you to think that any playstyle that's not PVP is valid and rewarding play?

If you don't wanna get killed then don't get caught or don't play, as a player you have to understand how the world operates and expect to encounter death by hand of other players since its an essential part of the game, from the material consumption to player interaction and social behavior.

Now you are true, pve'rs and crafters are not really "valued" by the game design, but its not because of the "lack" of punitive timesink systems like your kind likes to so lightly push for.
Those gamestyles ain't valued because theres no proper dungeons, no proper design of the fauna and flora, piling up of incomplete and placeholder systems, pve and crafting are a joke, lack of real tutorials, etc.

You don't seem to understand the free will or human factor in the game, people can opt for killing someone as you can opt as a victim to try and escape or just stand there to die and report" expecting that report is going to avenge your murder and loss which will not.

If you get murdered regularly by naked sword-fighters then it looks like you need to re-evaluate your strategy, or just come to the forums and cry very loud how you want these players to endure gamebreaking timesink punitive systems.

But "some players" rather not re-evaluate their own strategy/gamestyle and expect the game to change to a lesser form of a game and apply behavioral hardbrakes for pvp. This whole idea of "good sportsmanship vs bad dishonest pvp" some people wield like they holding the ultimate truth when in fact is one step closer to thinking the game rules in the same terms WOW does.

PVE players need to learn how to play the game instead of crying for getting ganked, and thats a learning curve problematic not a punishment problematic.

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?

Since PVP is about the 5 or 6 (7 or 8 depending on how you number your list), I would argue that the PVP only players are not playing the game the way it's being designed. Go fuck your own tiny self if your only thought is KILL in a game where KILL is not the only option. Fuck your cromagnon behavioural attitude, go play PUBG if you can't deal with cooperation.

I wouldn't base my entire game experience on the brief description of the game, i mean they say "full loot" but people are farming and selling bound items, go figure.

People can opt for killing other players or not, as you can opt to try and escape or stablish any sort of communication with the chance you won't be heard. I miself sometimes consider not killing certain people that speaks to me in a particular way, i have certain friends guilded and guildless that i do not kill and thats my personal morality" code, something people seem really hard to come by and understand.

Cooperation is something thats possible, planned and achieved in mortal. This is not teso where you queue for a dungeon and cooperate" to cleaning an instanced shitty dungeon. This is where cooperation is optional and not only that, a "cooperation" in bad terms could lead to traps, deceive, scams and more and thats just the nature of player interaction, nothing you can frame or would want to circunscript under the world's law. But those kind of things play a role in the player-social configuration of the game. Be infamous and be treated like that.

As one of my characters is a known unforgiving shitter in meduli people remember that nickname since closed beta. Or my main thats known by certain batki citizens or the type of activities i do around town.


Some players" get confused here, and expect the laws of the civilized world we live under extrapolate artificially into mortal's universe to ensure theres a "moral system" with behavioral hardbrakes for players not to be "criminals".
Criminal enterprises have allways existed in mortal and removing them or crippling them more would not only cripple player interaction at a fundamental level (as it already did with redpriests changes, parcels and other shitty changes) it would also cripple economy and the nature of the world itself.
I do not deny there has" to be certain tools for players to progress but not under any circunstance by making criminals playstyles dogshit.

I will never understand how certain players push for mortal to become a piece of trash mainstream shitty game, its really mind blowing :S

 

[Jasa]

No, Murderers should not experience Perma death. The game already has a long time limit, doing this would make it so entire guilds disappear. (Some of which I want to be gone from the game) Creating a Perma death system in MO2 should never even be considered.

They however should have a longer murder count timer of say 4-8hrs of ingame time and have to move out of cities, we already have villages/towns made by players with most things needed. Though let them know cities will be off limits a few months in advance so they can get their crap out of towns and go live in the fringes.

The tame approach would be to add some patrolling guards to the roads moving between cities, so you always have a 'potentially' safe spot to run back to.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

RPK in general is not really the problem with MO2.

The terrible mechanics that govern it are a problem.

Crim Debuff= Lasts like a couple minutes. Your killer can probably get to the bank, in town, faster than you can, so forget about retribution.

Rep=run a PvE delivery.

MC=just wait out a short timer nbd.

Blue flag= The pvp flag that lets you get the first hit & grief other players by having a bunch of your blue flag goons follow you.

Grey flag= "oh we want the game to be realistic so you can't tell who is the criminal hehe so we put a grey flag and allowed blue flag to be PK flag urrrrhhh uhhhh..."...

*yawn*

That's the worst PK system I've ever seen in an MMO, and I'm not afraid to say it frequently and with confidence.

Even just lessening the actual gameplay consequences of being a criminal & fixing the lawful side of things so that the blue-flag is meaningful (ie. you can't just go on blue murder frenzies with your blue friends like it's all good in the hood) would be a huge improvement.

I honestly did not expect a system this bad when I bought the game, & I'm sure I'm not alone here because this is a novel system. Nobody has tried a system this bad yet. I expected something more similar to UO or MO1, for example.

On one hand, I applaud SV for at least trying something new, but it never should have been left in this state. PK mechanics like this are going to be a constant obstacle for retaining player populations, and SV is right to listen to feedback that the PvP feels bad (which, between RPKers complaining about tedium & new players saying the PKing feels unfair/arbitrary, is constant)... But the result should not be the current system, seemingly designed to turn off people that want to be full time RPKs and people that want to be lawful/ARPKs alike.

How could you lessen the punishment for murderers lol, after all this is a "permadeath to murderers" thread roflmao.

Never thought i'd see you say that, not long ago you were a strong punishment for criminal actions believer.

Problem is SV falsely advocates for a report system thats retarded and punish criminal playstyle for the wrong reasons and in the wrong terms. So noobs expect that when reporting a murderer will make something terrible for the crims instead they see them in town not long after.

This happens because SV wants to promise this illusion of punishment so carebears can live thinking they did some harm aswell when in fact death should mean death. No death to report and if any justice, it should be in hand of live players. And thats why i vouch for a simple whitness system, you want to encourage people to live and progress and not just die to report.

And the actual punishments shouldn't be that severe, thought in other terms instead of simpleton murdercounts and standing :S

 

[PugeHenis]

TS GITGUD

 

[Kaquenqos]

How could you lessen the punishment for murderers lol, after all this is a "permadeath to murderers" thread roflmao.

Never thought i'd see you say that, not long ago you were a strong punishment for criminal actions believer.

Problem is SV falsely advocates for a report system thats retarded and punish criminal playstyle for the wrong reasons and in the wrong terms. So noobs expect that when reporting a murderer will make something terrible for the crims instead they see them in town not long after.

This happens because SV wants to promise this illusion of punishment so carebears can live thinking they did some harm aswell when in fact death should mean death. No death to report and if any justice, it should be in hand of live players. And thats why i vouch for a simple whitness system, you want to encourage people to live and progress and not just die to report.

And the actual punishments shouldn't be that severe, thought in other terms instead of simpleton murdercounts and standing :S

I was never really pro strong punishments for criminal actions. The only punishment for criminal actions should be that you are a criminal, and not allowed safe-areas any longer. There should be no extraordinary loss of game-mechanics to make the experience worse for RPKers. All it ought to be is, like in most MMOs with RPK, the player decides: do I want safe areas but not be able to RPK, or do I want to RPK and have no safe areas. Most MMOs have no problem making this distinction.

I was always pro delineation of playstyles, and still am.

In most MMOs with PKing, if you RPK lawful flagged people, you lose your own lawful flag for a long time. If you keep doing so, you lose your lawful flag permanently. Your punishment is that now you don't get to take advantage of safe areas, because you are now a criminal. There should be no other punishment than this... MO2 even fails to deliver such a basic obvious system as this, currently.

Why this is good? It allows people to decide if they want to be criminals or not, rather than lets every single player be a criminal. If you run into blues in most areas, you know they probably won't kill you. They still can if they wanted, but they have willfully remained lawful/blue until this point, and are you really going to be worth taking a MC for them? Probably not.

Then you add wilderness areas where there is no reporting, and optional PvP factions as well as working TC/wardecs to creates legal PKing between opposing members, and you at least have some framework for PvP in the game that isn't just 24/7 RPK ganking.

The reason people leave due to the PK mechanics is that the only venue for PvP is RPK ganking. It excludes a ton of players from even getting to participate. Never have I played an MMO with PvP that makes PvP as inaccessible to the player as MO2 has.

 

[Tzone]

I was never really pro strong punishments for criminal actions. The only punishment for criminal actions should be that you are a criminal, and not allowed safe-areas any longer. There should be no extraordinary loss of game-mechanics to make the experience worse for RPKers. All it ought to be is, like in most MMOs with RPK, the player decides: do I want safe areas but not be able to RPK, or do I want to RPK and have no safe areas. Most MMOs have no problem making this distinction.

I was always pro delineation of playstyles, and still am.

In most MMOs with PKing, if you RPK lawful flagged people, you lose your own lawful flag for a long time. If you keep doing so, you lose your lawful flag permanently. Your punishment is that now you don't get to take advantage of safe areas, because you are now a criminal. There should be no other punishment than this... MO2 even fails to deliver such a basic obvious system as this, currently.

Why this is good? It allows people to decide if they want to be criminals or not, rather than lets every single player be a criminal. If you run into blues in most areas, you know they probably won't kill you. They still can if they wanted, but they have willfully remained lawful/blue until this point, and are you really going to be worth taking a MC for them? Probably not.

Then you add wilderness areas where there is no reporting, and optional PvP factions as well as working TC/wardecs to creates legal PKing between opposing members, and you at least have some framework for PvP in the game that isn't just 24/7 RPK ganking.

The reason people leave due to the PK mechanics is that the only venue for PvP is RPK ganking. It excludes a ton of players from even getting to participate. Never have I played an MMO with PvP that makes PvP as inaccessible to the player as MO2 has.

Some other games usually have alternative gameplay for criminals. Like you are not able to hang out with the bandits in the bandit camps or able to do things with the criminal guilds. Standard RPG stuff.

This type of criminal alt content would add a lot to the game and you could use this to reign in the criminal players or control their actions a bit. Like criminal only task that say go rob or kill players in this area away from town. Thus moving the criminals away from town making leaving town a less hostile experience.

 

[Odsbodikins]

There are no PvE players. If you want to be a PvE player, there are other games for that. The game shouldn't be changed to accomodate people who can't read a description on steam page.

Yeah, wrong. Here's the game description again:

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?

And that, in a list, is the following:

Sandbox (PVE/Building)
Trade, economy (PVE)
Housing (PVE/Building)
Millions of crafting options (PVE/Crafting)
Immersive Combat (PVE/PVP/UI)
Exploration (PVE)
Bosses (PVE)
Full loot (PVE/PVP)
Full PVP (Oh Ehm Geeeee PVP!)

Actual PVP is the last thing mentioned, and out of 9 items only 2 are specifically PVP, so I would say this game is highly geared to PVE and the PVP players are just being assholes because they think they are smart, but are really unimaginative.

Why are we still having these conversations?

Because you didn't read the game description that heavily puts PVE ahead of PVP in the description? See above.

Some players" get confused here, and expect the laws of the civilized world we live under extrapolate artificially into mortal's universe to ensure theres a "moral system" with behavioral hardbrakes for players not to be "criminals".

Criminal enterprises have allways existed in mortal and removing them or crippling them more would not only cripple player interaction at a fundamental level (as it already did with redpriests changes, parcels and other shitty changes) it would also cripple economy and the nature of the world itself.

No one has been advocating for removal, just for more realistic consequences for players going after others for no more than killing them. After all, a game such as MO is designed to be reflective of our world in some ways. The game IS PVP for a reason, if it weren't it wouldn't be as open sandbox and free as it is, which would lessen the game in itself, and no one is decrying that. There is place for PVP, just as there's place for Territory Control. We just want to see some sort of equivalent consequence to the hit taken by a player whose primary goal isn't killing everything in sight.

There's plenty of consequence to playing a PVE game where PVP is openly available, and I'm willing to accept a certain amount of danger for the sake of the game. But - particularly with the admission that a permanent bridge bandit player deletes materials and faces no real conseequences for their actions - PVP focused players have acquired a bit of a superiority complex. They beat the PVE players, ergo they feel they are better, but the truth is, the less PVE players you have, the more you will have to spend on PVE yourself, you're just damned lucky you have the luxury to play PVP focused and you should probably appreciate the PVE a little bit more.

 

[Tashka]

Sandbox (PVE/Building)
Trade, economy (PVE)
Housing (PVE/Building)
Millions of crafting options (PVE/Crafting)
Immersive Combat (PVE/PVP/UI)
Exploration (PVE)
Bosses (PVE)
Full loot (PVE/PVP)
Full PVP (Oh Ehm Geeeee PVP!)

Everything here serves the only purpose of fueling PvP. You trade to PvP. You place houses near contested areas. "Millions" of crafting options are there to fuel PvP. Immersive combat is here for PvP. Bosses drop loot that you use for PvP. You argument is invalid.

Because you didn't read the game description that heavily puts PVE ahead of PVP in the description? See above.

It doesn't. PvE is obviously an afterthought in this game, necro dungeon was the first piece content that actually made PvE interesting... for like one week, after which people go there mostly for pvp. Or to get ritualism for those sweet sweet tupilacs that they'll use to kill noobs and PvErs at GY.

 

[Najwalaylah]

Everything here serves the only purpose of fueling PvP. You trade to PvP. You place houses near contested areas. "Millions" of crafting options are there to fuel PvP. Immersive combat is here for PvP. Bosses drop loot that you use for PvP. You argument is invalid.

Everything runs on PvE. Without Trade, no sustainable PvP. You want to contest an area? Huge world; better place a house. No crafting? No PvP, sooner or later. Bosses won't drop without crafted goods. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

Yeah, wrong. Here's the game description again:

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?

And that, in a list, is the following:

Sandbox (PVE/Building)
Trade, economy (PVE)
Housing (PVE/Building)
Millions of crafting options (PVE/Crafting)
Immersive Combat (PVE/PVP/UI)
Exploration (PVE)
Bosses (PVE)
Full loot (PVE/PVP)
Full PVP (Oh Ehm Geeeee PVP!)

Actual PVP is the last thing mentioned, and out of 9 items only 2 are specifically PVP, so I would say this game is highly geared to PVE and the PVP players are just being assholes because they think they are smart, but are really unimaginative.



Because you didn't read the game description that heavily puts PVE ahead of PVP in the description? See above.


No one has been advocating for removal, just for more realistic consequences for players going after others for no more than killing them. After all, a game such as MO is designed to be reflective of our world in some ways. The game IS PVP for a reason, if it weren't it wouldn't be as open sandbox and free as it is, which would lessen the game in itself, and no one is decrying that. There is place for PVP, just as there's place for Territory Control. We just want to see some sort of equivalent consequence to the hit taken by a player whose primary goal isn't killing everything in sight.

There's plenty of consequence to playing a PVE game where PVP is openly available, and I'm willing to accept a certain amount of danger for the sake of the game. But - particularly with the admission that a permanent bridge bandit player deletes materials and faces no real conseequences for their actions - PVP focused players have acquired a bit of a superiority complex. They beat the PVE players, ergo they feel they are better, but the truth is, the less PVE players you have, the more you will have to spend on PVE yourself, you're just damned lucky you have the luxury to play PVP focused and you should probably appreciate the PVE a little bit more.

What is realism, if we going for realism then what better than diegetic law. In reality criminal actions have to be investigated and judged by the pertinent parties. Mortal is a medieval" alike and fantasy MMORPG, if you feel like vouching for realism then theres no victimizer if nobody has whitnessed or investigated a crime.

I think the law of the world should be dictated by live players and not encourage death to report idiotic mechanics. I don't disagree there has to be some" punishments, just not the same idiotic timesink dumbass mechanics to force people not to play because they did something "morally questionable" for people that can't abstract this universe is fictional.

This distinction between PVErs and PVPrs doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yeah theres for sure people that rather not pve and only pvp as theres only PVErs that don't pvp like at all. But theres no line, no instanced zones, no need to compartmentalize behavior in such manner, the reality is way more complex and organic.

The idea to frame behavior for players to choose in a themeparkish world alike is by far the worst solution" to a problem which is not of that kind.

The reality is pve and PVP co-exist and everything should be thought and ment to lubricate the friction that happens in between. And by lubricate i mean to encourage player interaction in all sorts of forms, not just what's morally good or bad. That distinction should be player made and shouldn't be contemplated in low tier quality behavioral hardbrakes so the kid that wants to afk chop wood can do it in peace.

Thats one of the best things of mortal, that if players wanna be good or douchebags is completly in their reach and they don't have to do tediouss or timesink activities for playing the game. That is why this idea of behavioral punishment is a concept from another era, and other types of games.

Now i agree noobs need better learning curve to understand the nature of the world and the inhabitants, solo, small and mid sized groups need more tools to thrive and actually encourage a wider spectrum of groups instead of polarizing the game in zergs.

Wanna make the game better, then ask for better PVE systems, no more placeholder content and anti-zergling mechanics.

But no, people want mortal to be another shitty themepark and everyone feels like it's so cool to be part of the zerg. When in fact is just shitty design.

 

[Emdash]

I think the true answer to why full loot pvp sandboxes fail is that 75% of the player base doesn't see the whole picture. They don't understand the world is shaped by action. Nothing is shaped by your filling your bank.

 

[Kaquenqos]

What is realism, if we going for realism then what better than diegetic law. In reality criminal actions have to be investigated and judged by the pertinent parties. Mortal is a medieval" alike and fantasy MMORPG, if you feel like vouching for realism then theres no victimizer if nobody has whitnessed or investigated a crime.

I think the law of the world should be dictated by live players and not encourage death to report idiotic mechanics. I don't disagree there has to be some" punishments, just not the same idiotic timesink dumbass mechanics to force people not to play because they did something "morally questionable" for people that can't abstract this universe is fictional.

The thing is, the real world has 24/7 inhabitants born into their status with real stakes in government. An MMO does not have that, so you need to simulate it if you want realism. Even the Medieval or ancient world has ad hoc local, and sometimes de facto law-based central government. Even hunter gatherer societies have ad hoc government with tribal rules that set taboos and rights. In the real world, you are born into rights. Imagine yourself, for example, you were probably born in some country and inherited rights as a citizen of that country. The ancient world was exactly the same. Not everyone gets the same rights, but if we are trying to make a game that is accessible to everyone and will encourage people to play it, then they kind of have to. Who is going to want to play as a slave or serf? Let these be NPCs if you want to simulate the lower echelons of ancient stratified society. People are only going to want to play if they are all a part of the ruling warrior caste, because otherwise why the hell would you want to play a game in which you are prey to people who have every advantage over you? That's called an inaccessible game and people will simply choose not to play.

And that's the problem that relying only on guilds as far as social mechanics creates. IRL, you can't just murder people of the same status as you for no reason with no consequences anywhere**. Some of the very first laws are settling such disputes between citizens; killings, bodily harm, etc. That's realism. If you are out raiding somewhere, sure, you can kill people, because you are not a part of that place's government and will be challenged in combat by that region's own ruling class/government if they are able to do so. Not at all like MO2 where you just go outside the place that you inhabit and kill someone of equal status and walk back into town like nothing happened. Not at all like MO2, where literally everyone is potentially a criminal that will murder their neighbor and there is nothing stopping them.

If we are going to use the realism argument, the real world, even in ancient times, did not function like MO2. In the real world, there has been no period where someone is born with absolutely no rights or membership in any kind of tribal institution that constitutes an ad hoc government. In MO2 there is only guilds. If you are a member of a big guild, you have better rights & protection than others implicitly because there are no other social mechanics. Cities are just hubs for guilds. The open space is just real-estate for guilds.

So, if we're talking realism, there needs to be more social mechanics to actually constitute realism. Flesh out citizen mechanics, town mechanics, etc. so that reputation actually makes sense. What do we have right now? Guilds & a broken RPK system. As far as accessibility goes, you spawn into the game with no guild to begin with. So, you are essentially spawning into the game with lesser rights than anyone else, then you wonder why people don't want to play the game.

The game is not going to be popular if it depends only on guilds & an arbitrary RPK ruleset. You need more mechanics to simulate what actual realistic tribal law is like. I've said it before, but SV should try to poach some devs from Paradox Interactive because they are the true kings of simulating social mechanics/governments/rights/law etc.*** They could really make a game like MO2 shine. "No mechanics players decide" MO2 is always going to have a very limited appeal, because it's not realistic it's just anarchy since players don't have real tribal ties, do not have real things at stake, do not inhabit the game world 24/7, and can simply choose to just stop playing the game at any moment. All of these things mean that, unlike the real world, realistic tribal law will not develop organically from anarchy and that anarchy will always favor grief & push away the much larger echelon of people who are not interested in griefing.

**(There are instances of trial by combat, but that is still law & instituted and governed over; even that could be a fun mechanic if you dev it right-- you challenge someone to a legal duel by using some influence resource, on a timer to prevent abuse-- for x amount resource with a cap to how much you can ask for. If they decline they lose a small fraction of it, if they win you pay them double etc. That's the kind of mechanical sandbox 'law' that could make a game like MO2 great.)

***(Stellaris & CKII & III have amazing law/government simulation mechanics, and they are VERY MUCH sandbox games-- fewer mechanics do not make a game more sandbox or content more emergent-- the best, most critically-acclaimed sandbox games are filled to the brim with mechanics...)

 

[Kaquenqos]

I think the true answer to why full loot pvp sandboxes fail is that 75% of the player base doesn't see the whole picture. They don't understand the world is shaped by action. Nothing is shaped by your filling your bank.

Albion Online is still running strong.
UO is still running and ran strong in its day.

Seems to me like if you put sensible PvP mechanics the game can work. If you implement terrible PvP mechanics, they will always fail.

It makes sense to me. Players will only suffer so much abuse from arbitrary mechanics before they decide to do something else with their time.

The problem isn't that 75% of the potential playerbase don't 'see the bigger picture', it's that the bigger picture they end up seeing is, "This game functions at your expense and does nothing to create equity. If you don't want to focus on RPKing, don't play"... So they don't.

The playerbase is largely drawn to MO2 for the 'realism' factor... They want to play a game that creates a persistent, realistic fantasy world. Henrik himself was inspired to create the game from playing early MMOs, & UO in particular, which had a similar goal. The singular reason people start playing the game is not to RP being a serial-killer. Some people want to be landlords, some want to be brewers, some want to be knights, mercenaries, bankers, merchants, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You should be able to be a serial-killer, but it should not be the leading and most mechanically encouraged profession of the land. It should not be a feature that is so encouraged that the freedom of the serial-killer takes precedence mechanically over every other playstyle. Most people don't want that game.

 

[Odsbodikins]

I think the true answer to why full loot pvp sandboxes fail is that 75% of the player base doesn't see the whole picture. They don't understand the world is shaped by action. Nothing is shaped by your filling your bank.

The supplies for my alchemy are important. I fill my bank so I have the needed materials to make potions with. Without PVE you end up with shitty pots, or none, in a game where brilliant ones give a distinct advantage. Go ahead, be PVP without PVE to make your potions. Your game will continue to be lacklustre because you chose to remove the people that would have made it easier for you to do heavier dungeons AND last in PVP.

Aside: Gathering is an action, ot we wouldn't have to chop wood or stone or pick flowers. Just because murderhobos think it's a boring action doesn't invalidate it as a necesary part of the game.

 

[Emdash]

Albion Online is still running strong.
UO is still running and ran strong in its day.

Seems to me like if you put sensible PvP mechanics the game can work. If you implement terrible PvP mechanics, they will always fail.

It makes sense to me. Players will only suffer so much abuse from arbitrary mechanics before they decide to do something else with their time.

The problem isn't that 75% of the potential playerbase don't 'see the bigger picture', it's that the bigger picture they end up seeing is, "This game functions at your expense and does nothing to create equity. If you don't want to focus on RPKing, don't play"... So they don't.

The playerbase is largely drawn to MO2 for the 'realism' factor... They want to play a game that creates a persistent, realistic fantasy world. Henrik himself was inspired to create the game from playing early MMOs, & UO in particular, which had a similar goal. The singular reason people start playing the game is not to RP being a serial-killer. Some people want to be landlords, some want to be brewers, some want to be knights, mercenaries, bankers, merchants, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You should be able to be a serial-killer, but it should not be the leading and most mechanically encouraged profession of the land. It should not be a feature that is so encouraged that the freedom of the serial-killer takes precedence mechanically over every other playstyle. Most people don't want that game.

Yea we all want the game to be more real so we can have more real fights. We also want the pvp to not be dogshit. The pvp is general combat theory. Thing of how bad PvE is, with even the engine they have now and swings etc they could make it way more interesting.

The bigger picture is that there needs to be an outside stressor in order to optimally have the center working. I'd argue MO is way too imbalanced toward PvP and restrictions are largely meaningless. People have this fantasy that you can have a pve balanced sandbox and forget that the people who are the best at pvp are harvesting the best mats uncontested by anyone but maybe other pvpers who think they can take it. So everything they do makes what you do a joke because you will never contest that spot. That's bad design. That's the way it be tho. At the very least, they should have put the spot in the center of the map. It's an essential flaw, tho. Not too tied into the debate of PvE/PvP but a lot of it comes down to not wanting people to invade your fantasy, well it happens. You can make a new fantasy. You should go adventure with yaboy. Just go hard. haha. If you get killed o well. What's the difference?

People still make rules. There are skilled people who don't play just to take people's shit. BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

 

[Reimar]

Always someone to post one of these. No to perma-death, would kill population so quick. Sure if game had 10s of thousands of players in one space with perma-death maybe, but just for murderers? Even that is distasteful. If perma death for murderers, perma death for all. The game simply isnt designed for that sort of change, and even if it was who would wanna reskill to pvp, or craft? Not I certainly

 

[Kaquenqos]

Yea we all want the game to be more real so we can have more real fights. We also want the pvp to not be dogshit. The pvp is general combat theory. Thing of how bad PvE is, with even the engine they have now and swings etc they could make it way more interesting.

The bigger picture is that there needs to be an outside stressor in order to optimally have the center working. I'd argue MO is way too imbalanced toward PvP and restrictions are largely meaningless. People have this fantasy that you can have a pve balanced sandbox and forget that the people who are the best at pvp are harvesting the best mats uncontested by anyone but maybe other pvpers who think they can take it. So everything they do makes what you do a joke because you will never contest that spot. That's bad design. That's the way it be tho. At the very least, they should have put the spot in the center of the map. It's an essential flaw, tho. Not too tied into the debate of PvE/PvP but a lot of it comes down to not wanting people to invade your fantasy, well it happens. You can make a new fantasy. You should go adventure with yaboy. Just go hard. haha. If you get killed o well. What's the difference?

People still make rules. There are skilled people who don't play just to take people's shit. BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

Man, I know that. I think MO2's community overall is not even that bad. You definitely do see a bit more 'redpill' meathead types than your average MMO, but the majority of people are pretty chill and helpful. As for RPKers, most of them are decent people too, they just want to take advantage of an MMO that lets them RPK.

I seriously think the game would be in a better state if they got rid of blue flag serial-RPK nonsense. It feels bad, it looks bad, it leaves tons of room for exploiting the flag system, and it doesn't exist anywhere else for a reason. Pump up the debuff length, make MCs last longer, then throw in some spots where nobody can report anything; dungeons, lawless towns, pockets far away from towns, the jungle, sausage lake etc etc. Put in a little notification so players know: 'you are now entering the wilderness...' or 'you are venturing beyond civilization... No one can hear your butthole scream!' or some shit, you know.

I would love to see more sandbox society emulation style mechanics, but I think even just those changes would make the game way less frustrating and more accessible to new players. If they did this, and actually put a meaning to PvP, so there is actually a PvP game to be had, I bet people would have a lot of fun with the game. As it is now everybody is listless. The only fun you can have in PvP 90% of the time is by jumping someone, or dueling.

 

[Emdash]

Man, I know that. I think MO2's community overall is not even that bad. You definitely do see a bit more 'redpill' meathead types than your average MMO, but the majority of people are pretty chill and helpful. As for RPKers, most of them are decent people too, they just want to take advantage of an MMO that lets them RPK.

I seriously think the game would be in a better state if they got rid of blue flag serial-RPK nonsense. It feels bad, it looks bad, it leaves tons of room for exploiting the flag system, and it doesn't exist anywhere else for a reason. Pump up the debuff length, make MCs last longer, then throw in some spots where nobody can report anything; dungeons, lawless towns, pockets far away from towns, the jungle, sausage lake etc etc. Put in a little notification so players know: 'you are now entering the wilderness...' or 'you are venturing beyond civilization... No one can hear your butthole scream!' or some shit, you know.

I would love to see more sandbox society emulation style mechanics, but I think even just those changes would make the game way less frustrating and more accessible to new players. If they did this, and actually put a meaning to PvP, so there is actually a PvP game to be had, I bet people would have a lot of fun with the game. As it is now everybody is listless. The only fun you can have in PvP 90% of the time is by jumping someone, or dueling.

Me too, haha. As for the community, jury is out. There are a lot of cool people, more cool people you don't even know would be cool. The thing is... like I was playing MO and such back-when. I think I have been respectful of all of the vets in game or on forum, if I recognized them. I feel (and this is coming from someone w/ o VOIP enabled) it's mostly working and there is already a lot of friendly interaction in the wild, with me at least.

To me pvp is always meaningful and I def don't live off people. If I'm gonna fight someone, there is a small chance I'd just be like... fight em! But usually, it's because of an action. I road by Battle Bros or someone's keep and they were all out practicing and they followed me. I can see that as an in game event. I wish they would have sent ONE guy and not two buut...

There are a lot of snakes in MO, tho... the PvE part you are not thinking of is Charisma. That is the most RP/PvE aspect of MO and it's a big one in a sandbox. That's why I think looser pvp restrictions are GOOD. Cuz like I said the red towns are all stacked and ready for pvp so those dudes eat, but we 'mid tier,' or 'low tier,' who just wanna hold our sator camp (ahem!) are kind of punished because we do PvP where as Northies w/ buddies have to work hard to continually defend, but they, at least in MO theory, can just live up there and profit. And when they leave, they can kill whoever they want. No rule set is going to change that.

The flag system is exploitable, but it doesn't seem like it's going to change. I just try to do what I feel (ask grendel loool,) but yea, MO community is OK, but there are def many people who are hiding their true nature. Well, maybe we all are in a way, but hiding raw 'bad' nature. Like it's a lil more serious for them than it is for everyone else, but yea I think most of the people who are playing are just like LOL Mo when they get zerged or w/e.

OPEN PvP, that is pvp everywhere, is good. I think like for instance Hyl should have more minable gran in town, and wayyyy fewer guards. If there is one spot, people will just gather there, you have to be able to get in on someone unawares for those who rob, and you need to be able to take action whenever. I once supported lawless zones, but I do not anymore. Unless the lawless zone = the world outside of a small area around town, but even that is exploitable lol.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

The thing is, the real world has 24/7 inhabitants born into their status with real stakes in government. An MMO does not have that, so you need to simulate it if you want realism. Even the Medieval or ancient world has ad hoc local, and sometimes de facto law-based central government. Even hunter gatherer societies have ad hoc government with tribal rules that set taboos and rights. In the real world, you are born into rights. Imagine yourself, for example, you were probably born in some country and inherited rights as a citizen of that country. The ancient world was exactly the same. Not everyone gets the same rights, but if we are trying to make a game that is accessible to everyone and will encourage people to play it, then they kind of have to. Who is going to want to play as a slave or serf? Let these be NPCs if you want to simulate the lower echelons of ancient stratified society. People are only going to want to play if they are all a part of the ruling warrior caste, because otherwise why the hell would you want to play a game in which you are prey to people who have every advantage over you? That's called an inaccessible game and people will simply choose not to play.

....

Exacly, i rather see the simulation of a law system thats more than just "punish behavior", rather see a wider spectrum of player driven events instead of automated justice features to create some sort of illusion of fairness by generating in this case time loss to the victimizer".

Of course it would be silly to speak of mortal's law in terms of reality" exclusively this is why i choose not to compare the game to reality most of the time, compare it to punitive systems in different historic moments and on a diversity of cultural realities can be done to certain extent and we could" think of a number of possible adaptations from those social configurations depending on the desired outcome.

I completly agree mortal lacks certain degree of development to lubricate social interaction and to give it meaning. People say sieging will give meaning to the world, but it would only give "a little more" meaning, its a little naive to think that particular piece of content will make the game suddently good when it won't specially considering how it will be made but thats another story.

Theres a problem with the gaming industry when many games instead of simulating an environment for organic meaningfull interaction so it "feels alive" they rather simulate something that looks alive when its actually the opposite.
Why does that happen?
Basically because behavioral conditioning, its naive to pretend theres no behavioral conditioning or there shouldn't be" any, because its not possible. But the real element is how to condition behavior in which terms and under what structures.

And thats where mortal fails when it comes to placeholder content. Because they chose not to reinforce the strong aspects of the game to make it more "mainstream" or steam friendly, to dumb it down for getting to a wider public. But the balance is off, for diversifying the amount and quality" of players you want to include in your world" end up making shitty content that does not respond to what makes mortal in the first place.

Arbitrary pk ruleset is fantastic, let players organize themselves and give them tools to do so. Do not apply behavioral hardbrakes to limit the overall game experience so a few rotten apples can afk gather right next to town, thats just poor design.

While i agree guilds shouldn't be the only possible social configuration of the game and the design should encourage diversity over polarized groups i also think guilds are an important part of the game. Its just theres no reasons for solo to play solo or small-mid sized groups to compete when the game is clearly directed to zerg-gameplay.

I completly agree theres a massive need of social configuration tools, so theres a wider and more meaningfull degree of player interaction thats not only guild gameplay. But for that to actually work it would require PVE to be good for a change, crafting classes to actually be something thats not complete placeholder poop.

Theres no meaning in the game because the game has so little content you can exhaust in a month, and thats the reason under-developed survival games do periodic or seasonal wipes. Because resets work, to a certain extent for that kind of games.

I've played almost if not all paradox titles and yeah they are great games, devs know what they do and they make incredibly excellent systems and i've even played stellaris when it was a completly different game and it has actually changed a lot during the years of development.

But paradox makes other types of games, what they do really great is the game experience, you navigate these universes built under a tight ruleset that contemplates player "choise" to a certain extent. But everything is framed and nothing goes oustide that system, idk if you understand what i mean.

Now, one of the most interesting assets mortal ever had was the ability to give players this "feel" they can do what they want, the eternal promise of a sandbox, where you can't really do "what you want" but at least theres no idiotic npcs giving 2 liner repetitive quests or theres no true safezones or not that terrible behavioral hardbrakes.
Thats the essence of mortal, that you are not "forced" to be a good person if you don't wanna endure the penalties for being a criminal. That being good or bad develops (and should) in the collective imaginary plane of social structures and interaction. That someone can chose to be good or bad without the game limiting your gameplay in a static unrealistic" themepark tourist ride.

The caos component in mortal has to be preserved and encouraged and with love made better, so theres a lot more caos. Obviously having in consideration how this caos affects the gameplay of a diversity of players. Im not saying the world should exist for criminals, im saying if theres any law it should be in form of something that players can control, exercize and not exploit, that requires actual gameplay to achieve something instead of die to report retarded mechanics.

Im tired of watching people in these forums say dubass shit like "criminals have it easy, they need more penalties" dude, so called "vets" were saying this type of garbage not long ago. Thats the quality of the debate on these forums, they ask for arenas to take the "bad" pvp off the streets. So they can duel spin in town till they quit in a week because the game is GARBAGE.

The game right now is just a promise of something good, i see no long-term solution unless they remake a lot of features, changing the law only won't do much unless its thought, ment and accompanied by a number of meaningfull changes that support the main concepts of the game.