The Self-Sabotaging Feedback Loop: How Mortal Online 2 Breeds Its Own Decline

Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
Mortal Online 2, at its core, is a brutal sandbox where non-consensual PvP reigns supreme. While this appeals to a niche audience, the unchecked feedback loop it creates is self-sabotaging—an insular, inbred society where negative traits are reinforced, and positive ones are systematically bred out.

Griefing, enabled by a broken and toothless justice system, doesn’t just happen—it thrives. The system doesn’t merely fail to deter griefing; it actively facilitates it. This drives off new players—those who could contribute to a more diverse and vibrant community—and instead cultivates an environment that rewards predatory and toxic behavior.

The normal player—the one who values fairness, community, and progression—leaves. What remains are three groups:
  1. The Strongest and Most Ruthless:
    Players who can outsmart or overpower griefers. They are few, elite, and thrive on the game’s chaotic lawlessness.
  2. The Converts:
    Those who initially resisted the chaos but eventually succumbed to it, adopting the “when in Myrland, do as the Myrlanders do” mentality. These players abandon any semblance of civil behavior, embracing the game’s dog-eat-dog ethos. This group often absorbs members of the first category.
  3. The Bullies by Nature:
    Perhaps the most troubling group. These are the players who were drawn to Mortal Online 2 specifically because of its broken justice system. They revel in the freedom to harass, exploit, and dominate others without meaningful consequences. For them, the game is the perfect outlet for virtual bullying, and any attempt at reform would threaten their playground of unchecked power.
As the first group dwindles, the second and third swell, and the culture of griefing becomes dominant. This breeds an insular, inbred society that mirrors a mafia-controlled fiefdom. Survival of the strongest becomes the sole value, with any semblance of civility reduced to a superficial façade—akin to hanging a "Serve and Protect" sign on a mafia den.

The result? A community that not only alienates newcomers but actively perpetuates its own toxicity. And the justice system, or what little exists of it, only accelerates this cycle. When griefers can kill in plain sight, return moments later as blues, and exploit mechanics meant to preserve balance, the message to new players is clear: This game isn’t for you.

This isn’t an argument to abolish the brutal nature of Mortal Online 2. Non-consensual PvP is its lifeblood. But the unchecked feedback loop that feeds on itself is not sustainable. Without intervention—without meaningful justice reform—the game will remain a playground for griefers and a temporary graveyard for everyone else. The latter will hang around just long enough to be fodder for the griefers’ desires and impulses before leaving.

In fact, one has to wonder if Star Vault solicits new players solely for this purpose—new blood, rotated in as necessary to satiate its current subscriber base.

If this resonates, or you’ve seen the effects firsthand, share your perspective. Together, we can shed light on the problem and push for a future where the strong still survive—but within a balanced, thriving ecosystem.
 

Teknique

Well-known member
Jun 15, 2020
1,845
1,394
113
I would have agreed with you many months ago, but sv did the correct thing and allowed players to attack reds in town.

Thats not an endorsement of sv or the decisions they’ve made but we need to call a spade a spade. They gave the players the ability to band together and in this sandbox game enforce the rules. What do we see in practice? Complete complictness. Reds are generally left unmolested in towns. If you can’t even organize and TRY to execute a 10v1 then I suppose the community gets exactly what it deserves.

That said I have a lot of issues with the balancing and don’t agree with the current state of pretty much anything in the game.
 
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
"Your argument conflates justice with 'might makes right,' but the two concepts couldn’t be further apart. What you’re describing—a mob of players descending on a red in town—isn’t justice; it’s a brute-force power struggle. If the mob wins, then they’re 'right.' If the red survives and kills half of them, then by your logic, the red is 'right' because they were stronger. That’s not justice—it’s chaos with a veneer of structure.

The entire point of justice is to ensure that even if the weak cannot overpower the strong, the strong are still held accountable. Justice means that a single, armed murderer can’t continue their rampage just because they’re skilled enough to take on 10 uncoordinated players. It’s a system designed to create fairness and accountability, precisely because real life—and games like MO2—don’t naturally operate on fairness.

Imagine this in a real-world context: a murderer terrorizes a village, and the villagers are told, 'Well, you can band together and try to stop them, but if you can’t, then that’s because you're weak and therefore deserve what you get!' No functioning society operates on those principles, because that’s not justice—it’s lawlessness.

And let’s not forget the inherent subjectivity of player-driven justice. In a world where justice is determined by mobs or guild dominance, what happens to the smaller guilds, solo players, or those simply trying to enjoy the game without being embroiled in politics? They get crushed under the boot of 'might makes right.' The biggest guild—or the most organized mob—dictates who lives and who dies, who’s guilty and who’s innocent. That’s not a justice system; it’s tyranny with a prettier name.

Justice isn’t about power; it’s about fairness, balance, and accountability. And until Mortal Online 2’s systems reflect those principles, what you’re describing isn’t justice—it’s the law of the jungle, with a bare and rather poor veneer of order."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek

Emdash

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2021
3,109
990
113
We have seen, I think, proof that the softer a game becomes the more griefy it becomes. PK isn't the only way to grief. It is arguably the most fair, though.

Killing people's mounts in town with longbows or mage bombs, while I have done it and enjoyed it, and have known since MO1 how to avoid it ever happening to me with a high level of success (I do like the term... strongest and most ruthless mahaha,) that is truly a mechanic that helps no one. It's not like thievery that someone gains from it. Full loot facilitates content. I believe that. I played MO1, and I have played a lot of games since.

I also saw what happened to MO2 and at the end of MO1. I can only say that I believe the fewer bullies there are, the more they spend time raping and pillaging opposed to fighting each other. The idea is to have the bullies fight each other and then content trickles down from there. Getting PK'd should be something that happens sometimes. PKing nubs cuz you have all the jacked gear and don't care anymore is not a good look.

A justice system could be implemented, but first they have to balance it. There is also no flag system that seems to benefit someone for striking back. Like if someone PKs me and I catch them slipping, I get the same punishment as they do. It's flawed, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeAreAllMortal

CherryKush

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2022
262
320
63
They get crushed under the boot of 'might makes right.' The biggest guild—or the most organized mob—dictates who lives and who dies, who’s guilty and who’s innocent. That’s not a justice system; it’s tyranny with a prettier name.

Justice isn’t about power; it’s about fairness, balance, and accountability. And until Mortal Online 2’s systems reflect those principles, what you’re describing isn’t justice—it’s the law of the jungle, with a bare and rather poor veneer of order."
You must be new here... Welcome to Mortal 👋

If you can't take the heat you should check one of the 1000's of other games that exist where you are perfectly safe and everything is fair. We on the other hand enjoy the cruel nature of this "tyrannical" Mortal world. 😁
 

Teknique

Well-known member
Jun 15, 2020
1,845
1,394
113
"Your argument conflates justice with 'might makes right,' but the two concepts couldn’t be further apart. What you’re describing—a mob of players descending on a red in town—isn’t justice; it’s a brute-force power struggle. If the mob wins, then they’re 'right.' If the red survives and kills half of them, then by your logic, the red is 'right' because they were stronger. That’s not justice—it’s chaos with a veneer of structure.

The entire point of justice is to ensure that even if the weak cannot overpower the strong, the strong are still held accountable. Justice means that a single, armed murderer can’t continue their rampage just because they’re skilled enough to take on 10 uncoordinated players. It’s a system designed to create fairness and accountability, precisely because real life—and games like MO2—don’t naturally operate on fairness.

Imagine this in a real-world context: a murderer terrorizes a village, and the villagers are told, 'Well, you can band together and try to stop them, but if you can’t, then that’s because you're weak and therefore deserve what you get!' No functioning society operates on those principles, because that’s not justice—it’s lawlessness.

And let’s not forget the inherent subjectivity of player-driven justice. In a world where justice is determined by mobs or guild dominance, what happens to the smaller guilds, solo players, or those simply trying to enjoy the game without being embroiled in politics? They get crushed under the boot of 'might makes right.' The biggest guild—or the most organized mob—dictates who lives and who dies, who’s guilty and who’s innocent. That’s not a justice system; it’s tyranny with a prettier name.

Justice isn’t about power; it’s about fairness, balance, and accountability. And until Mortal Online 2’s systems reflect those principles, what you’re describing isn’t justice—it’s the law of the jungle, with a bare and rather poor veneer of order."
Your village example is actually exactly how it works in real life. The difference is that the state is incredibly strong. Unless there is someone strong enough to enforce the law then it doesn't get enforced, facts not my opinion.

Now it is my opinion that yes they deserve it because they will not lift a finger to protect anybody else.

As for more directly what you're saying, unless you're saying that npcs should enforce the law, which I don't really agree with, then i'm not sure what we're debating.

Relating it your other thread, all you seemingly really wanted was necro and aoe spells not to be illegal, so i'm not even sure what suggestions you're making.
 

Emdash

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2021
3,109
990
113
I truly believe if they could change the game it would end up a lot better. I think I know what would happen, but beyond that, I don't think minor stuff is going to matter.

The problem, again, with laws is that... well let's go into a hardcore metaphor. There is a system of laws in America, and it's close to as fair as you can get it. However, there is corruption at every level, and it is still much easier to break the law when you have a large system supporting you.

So, in MO, that's like if you have a huge guild with massive resources, you can do whatever you want to regardless of the laws. The laws oppress the smaller groups. It tends to 'work' because the larger groups hate being griefed by small groups.

However, I still think that grief and subterfuge should be something that small groups do and that the larger groups should have to enforce the law somehow. It has never worked before, but one of the reasons is because the game sends people out to do stuff like grind dungeons or whatever or they don't get any gain. If you could get gain for protecting a city, some people would do it. The game is in an infantile state, and it could be super deep with few adjustments... instead they gave garby content.

The issue is that they really do need to clear the slate of all of these stupid bonuses and get the game back to its roots and THEN focus on stuff like making the task system less gamey, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeAreAllMortal
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
We have seen, I think, proof that the softer a game becomes the more griefy it becomes. PK isn't the only way to grief. It is arguably the most fair, though.

Killing people's mounts in town with longbows or mage bombs, while I have done it and enjoyed it, and have known since MO1 how to avoid it ever happening to me with a high level of success (I do like the term... strongest and most ruthless mahaha,) that is truly a mechanic that helps no one. It's not like thievery that someone gains from it. Full loot facilitates content. I believe that. I played MO1, and I have played a lot of games since.

I also saw what happened to MO2 and at the end of MO1. I can only say that I believe the fewer bullies there are, the more they spend time raping and pillaging opposed to fighting each other. The idea is to have the bullies fight each other and then content trickles down from there. Getting PK'd should be something that happens sometimes. PKing nubs cuz you have all the jacked gear and don't care anymore is not a good look.

A justice system could be implemented, but first they have to balance it. There is also no flag system that seems to benefit someone for striking back. Like if someone PKs me and I catch them slipping, I get the same punishment as they do. It's flawed, too.

Ok, there are a few points here to address.

Firstly, about the 'fun' of griefing:
If I understand your first point, it’s essentially: "This is fun for me, and I’m skilled enough to avoid it when others try it, so others just need to git gud." Fair enough, but killing mounts in town with longbows or mage bombs—sure, it’s amusing the first few times (who doesn’t enjoy causing a bit of chaos?). But as you rightly point out, that sort of behavior isn't sustainable as a core mechanic. It’s the gaming equivalent of tipping over a vending machine because you’re bored—fun for you, miserable for everyone else, and utterly counterproductive to the health of the game.

Secondly, your 'More Griefers = Better Content' claim:
This argument doesn’t hold water. A system that relies on more griefers to generate content is inherently unstable. It encourages toxicity, drives away potential new players, and ultimately creates a feedback loop of diminishing returns, which is exactly what we're witnessing in MO2.

Now, I understand the argument that more griefers might mean more fights, but in practice, this just creates a toxic environment where being the biggest jerk is rewarded. Griefing other griefers is still griefing, even if one can argue they deserve each other. A genuinely robust game system wouldn’t need to rely on such a shaky foundation. Instead, it would foster gameplay that’s enjoyable for everyone—whether you’re a hardened PvP veteran or a fresh-faced newbie.

Finally, regarding the justice system’s flaws:
I completely agree that the system is broken. The lack of meaningful incentives for striking back (beyond the fleeting satisfaction of "teaching that griefer a lesson"), combined with the fact that you’ll likely just get griefed again instead of avenged anyway, underscores the problem. Add in the complete lack of meaningful consequences for griefers and the system’s poorly designed justice mechanics, and it’s clear why this remains a pain point.

I’ve outlined some possible solutions in a detailed post a bit further down (about 12 posts at this moment). It directly addresses these issues with practical, and imo very fun, suggestions—worth a look if you’re interested.

The goal isn’t to make the game 'softer.' No one’s asking for a carebear world where PvE players can toggle PvP off and safely chop wood in the middle of a full-scale guild battle. That said, a properly implemented justice system could allow for blue players to remain uninvolved during such battles—provided they don’t exploit their neutrality to interfere with gameplay. Safeguards would need to be in place to prevent blues from intentionally blocking paths, colluding with guilds, or otherwise manipulating collision mechanics to gain an unfair advantage.

At its core, the justice system should incentivize fair play and discourage exploits, ensuring battles are determined by skill, strategy, and coordination—not by who can abuse the mechanics most effectively.

At the risk of repeating myself, it’s not about coddling new players or removing PvP. It’s about creating a sustainable ecosystem where players of all levels can engage in meaningful gameplay—and where justice isn’t just a poorly coded afterthought, abandoned in its current lamentable state.

While we're on the subject of obnoxious blues exploiting a functioning justice system (because the law of unintended consequences will assert itself, as it always does):

To address the potential for blue collision exploits—such as blocking players in guild battles or PvE encounters—the best solution is human oversight. Game mechanics can only go so far in curbing such abuses, and this is where GMs come into play. Importantly, this kind of abuse lends itself perfectly to GM intervention—contrary to the current arbitrary free-for-all mess where anything goes.

Right now, lawful players are forced to enable illegal acts just to use basic gameplay mechanics, and griefers exploit every loophole, leaving GMs with no meaningful framework to enforce justice. It’s chaos by design, and no GM, no matter how diligent, could reasonably be expected to arbitrate effectively under such conditions.

However, with a functioning justice system, this becomes a piece of cake! Intentional blue collision abuse—blocking escape routes during PvE encounters or obstructing guild movements in battles—can be easily identified and documented through screenshots or video. It’s a black-and-white case of griefing and not something that requires endless debate or nuanced judgment.

By setting clear rules and penalties, GMs could step in decisively

A Suggested Approach:
  • Make intentional blue collision abuse a bannable offense, enforceable after a set number of warnings (e.g., three strikes).
  • These actions are easily documented with screenshots or video and are immediately recognizable for what they are—whether it's blocking an opposing guild’s movements during a battle or trapping players in dangerous PvE encounters.
  • To deter bad actors effectively, penalties should escalate from temporary suspensions to full account bans for serial offenders.
This isn’t about micromanaging every interaction or “ratting out” players for petty grievances—it’s about creating an enforceable standard of fair play. When systems are clear, and abuses are obvious, GM intervention becomes efficient, effective, and essential to maintaining balance and integrity in the game.

The question isn’t whether GMs can fix everything—it’s whether the game’s framework gives them the tools to address glaring issues. Right now, it doesn’t. But if Star Vault implemented a coherent justice system, such interventions would stop feeling like an impossible task and start feeling like exactly what they’re supposed to be: part of the game’s commitment to fair and balanced gameplay.

To summarise:

At the end of the day, it’s not about coddling new players or removing PvP. It’s about creating a sustainable ecosystem where players of all levels can engage in meaningful gameplay—and where justice isn’t just a rather lazy afterthought, poorly coded and then abandoned in its current lamentable state.

Instead, danger from other players isn’t diminished but rather elevated—glorified through notoriety and infamy. With a properly functioning system, it finds its rightful place, creating a vibrant, immersive world of meaningful conflict. For the how and why of achieving this balance, see my long post below.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
Your village example is actually exactly how it works in real life. The difference is that the state is incredibly strong. Unless there is someone strong enough to enforce the law then it doesn't get enforced, facts not my opinion.

Now it is my opinion that yes they deserve it because they will not lift a finger to protect anybody else.

As for more directly what you're saying, unless you're saying that npcs should enforce the law, which I don't really agree with, then i'm not sure what we're debating.

Relating it your other thread, all you seemingly really wanted was necro and aoe spells not to be illegal, so i'm not even sure what suggestions you're making.
Teknique, it seems like there’s some confusion here, so let me clarify.

The entire premise of my argument is that justice—whether enforced by NPCs or facilitated by mechanics that empower players—is absent in MO2’s current system. I’m not saying the state (read: NPCs) should do everything, but I am saying that without some structure to ensure fairness and accountability, you end up with exactly what we have now: lawlessness dressed up as 'sandbox freedom.' That’s not justice; it’s chaos.

As for your point about ‘the village’—in the real world, laws and law enforcement exist to ensure that even the weak are protected. Yes, strength enforces the law at times, but the law itself isn’t based on might—it’s based on fairness. The state (or an impartial system) steps in precisely because relying solely on the strong to enforce ‘justice’ creates tyranny, not order.

And regarding my suggestions, they’ve been laid out clearly in my other post. To summarize: implement mechanics to make justice meaningful and fair for everyone. Fix broken systems like AOE attacks and necromancer abilities unfairly flagging players. Create a framework where lawful and unlawful gameplay both thrive, without turning the game into pure anarchy under a thin veneer of order.

If you think chaos is preferable to justice, fair enough—but let’s at least be clear about what that choice means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
You must be new here... Welcome to Mortal 👋

If you can't take the heat you should check one of the 1000's of other games that exist where you are perfectly safe and everything is fair. We on the other hand enjoy the cruel nature of this "tyrannical" Mortal world. 😁

Ah, the "if you can't take the heat" trope—it’s a staple of these discussions, albeit a very tiresome one. But let’s dig a little deeper into this idea of enjoying the “cruel nature” of Mortal. If we’re being honest, the “cruelty” of the game is only fun for those who are delivering it. Nobody logs in hoping to get ganked, griefed, or humiliated by a larger guild or stronger player.

And what is this "cruelty" exactly? Let’s be real: getting ganked in MO2 is rarely some epic tale of woe and loss—it’s more like, “Oh great, now I have to run back to the priest and restock my gear.” The experience is far more akin to forgetting your phone at home and having to double back than it is to a harrowing, soul-crushing encounter in a dangerous, immersive world.

The griefers, however, imagine themselves as grand and mighty villains, lurking in the shadows of a deadly, cutthroat realm. The truth? They’re more like a jolly nuisance—a buzzing mosquito that’s annoying for a moment, but ultimately forgettable. The "cruelty" they pride themselves on isn’t cruelty at all; it’s just an irritant, repeated so often it becomes a banal part of the game’s background noise. And this constant buzzing drives away anyone who might have otherwise enjoyed the game, leaving the griefers scratching their heads and accusing those players of being "soft."

The problem is that this delusional mindset thrives in a chaotic free-for-all where there’s no system in place to elevate the danger into something meaningful. Without proper structure or stakes, the “cruelty” is just petty bullying. It’s not the grand narrative of survival in a dangerous world; it’s kids at recess kicking over someone else’s sandcastle because they’re bored. And like those playground bullies, they can’t understand why fewer and fewer kids want to come out and play.

What MO2 needs isn’t the removal of danger or cruelty—it’s the elevation of it. With a functioning justice system, the dangers of the world become meaningful rather than mundane, and the actions of griefers take on real weight. The consequences for victims would go beyond "just another trip to the priest," and the acts of those who embrace the darker side of the game would be celebrated (or condemned) as significant rather than shrugged off as the routine antics of petty nuisances.

Ultimately, it’s not about being “soft” or “hard.” It’s about creating a game where cruelty is rare enough to be impactful, where every encounter has meaning, and where the world feels alive with danger and consequence—not just a sandbox for people who want to irritate others and call it content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
I truly believe if they could change the game it would end up a lot better. I think I know what would happen, but beyond that, I don't think minor stuff is going to matter.

The problem, again, with laws is that... well let's go into a hardcore metaphor. There is a system of laws in America, and it's close to as fair as you can get it. However, there is corruption at every level, and it is still much easier to break the law when you have a large system supporting you.

So, in MO, that's like if you have a huge guild with massive resources, you can do whatever you want to regardless of the laws. The laws oppress the smaller groups. It tends to 'work' because the larger groups hate being griefed by small groups.

However, I still think that grief and subterfuge should be something that small groups do and that the larger groups should have to enforce the law somehow. It has never worked before, but one of the reasons is because the game sends people out to do stuff like grind dungeons or whatever or they don't get any gain. If you could get gain for protecting a city, some people would do it. The game is in an infantile state, and it could be super deep with few adjustments... instead they gave garby content.

The issue is that they really do need to clear the slate of all of these stupid bonuses and get the game back to its roots and THEN focus on stuff like making the task system less gamey, etc.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Emdash. You’ve raised some interesting points, so let me try to unpack and address them.
  1. Laws and Larger Guilds:
    I agree that larger guilds inherently have more resources to navigate any system, but that’s exactly why a robust justice system is needed. Without it, smaller groups are left completely defenseless, caught between powerful guilds and individual griefers. A functioning justice system wouldn’t just serve large guilds—it would level the playing field by ensuring that everyone, regardless of size or resources, has recourse against exploitation. Otherwise, the game devolves into pure “might makes right,” which might be exciting for a while but ultimately alienates anyone not already at the top of the food chain.
  2. Grief and Subterfuge:
    I like the idea of small groups enforcing the law or even acting as bounty hunters—that sort of emergent gameplay adds a lot to a sandbox world. But for something like that to thrive, it needs to be supported by a proper justice system as its foundation. Right now, bounty systems and player-driven enforcement are more of an afterthought than a functional mechanic. Without a justice system that establishes clear rules and meaningful consequences, bounty hunting becomes little more than a side hobby for a few players rather than a viable playstyle. So while I agree that this could be part of the game’s identity, it’s premature to lean on those features until the basics are sorted.
  3. Game Design and “Infantile State”:
    I understand your frustration with the game’s current direction. However, I’d argue that fixing the justice system isn’t a “minor” issue. It’s foundational to the health of the game. Without it, everything else—whether it’s dungeon grinding, task systems, or bonuses—feels secondary because the core experience is constantly disrupted by unchecked griefing. That said, I’m curious: What “stupid bonuses” are you referring to? It sounds like you have specific gripes with the game’s mechanics beyond the justice system.
In short, a balanced justice system doesn’t have to stifle the sandbox nature of MO2. It’s about creating a framework where players of all sizes can thrive—not just the largest guilds or the most persistent griefers. And once that framework is in place, things like bounty hunting and law enforcement by smaller groups will have fertile ground to grow into something truly engaging and meaningful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek

Teknique

Well-known member
Jun 15, 2020
1,845
1,394
113
Teknique, it seems like there’s some confusion here, so let me clarify.

The entire premise of my argument is that justice—whether enforced by NPCs or facilitated by mechanics that empower players—is absent in MO2’s current system. I’m not saying the state (read: NPCs) should do everything, but I am saying that without some structure to ensure fairness and accountability, you end up with exactly what we have now: lawlessness dressed up as 'sandbox freedom.' That’s not justice; it’s chaos.

As for your point about ‘the village’—in the real world, laws and law enforcement exist to ensure that even the weak are protected. Yes, strength enforces the law at times, but the law itself isn’t based on might—it’s based on fairness. The state (or an impartial system) steps in precisely because relying solely on the strong to enforce ‘justice’ creates tyranny, not order.

And regarding my suggestions, they’ve been laid out clearly in my other post. To summarize: implement mechanics to make justice meaningful and fair for everyone. Fix broken systems like AOE attacks and necromancer abilities unfairly flagging players. Create a framework where lawful and unlawful gameplay both thrive, without turning the game into pure anarchy under a thin veneer of order.

If you think chaos is preferable to justice, fair enough—but let’s at least be clear about what that choice means.
Sure, we can wrap it up here but.

100% of the time without exception if there is no one strong enough to enforce the law then it is not enforced. Not “at times”. This is not arguable.

Democracy was fought for with blood not fairness. Had people waited for fairness to intervene as opposed to strength they would still be waiting.

You’re not making any specific points outside of aoe and necro. There should be “some changes” to make a “framework”. I probably overall agree, reputation for example is very easy to get, murdercounts are fairly easy to burn. But what specifically should change
 
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
Sure, we can wrap it up here but.

100% of the time without exception if there is no one strong enough to enforce the law then it is not enforced. Not “at times”. This is not arguable.

Democracy was fought for with blood not fairness. Had people waited for fairness to intervene as opposed to strength they would still be waiting.

You’re not making any specific points outside of aoe and necro. There should be “some changes” to make a “framework”. I probably overall agree, reputation for example is very easy to get, murdercounts are fairly easy to burn. But what specifically should change
Teknique, I appreciate the engagement, but I think we're going in circles here. The points you raise about strength being necessary to enforce laws are valid in the broadest sense, but they sidestep the practical issues at hand. The entire discussion has been about how to balance the game so that strength doesn’t solely define justice. In a well-designed system, both lawful and unlawful players have meaningful roles without descending into pure anarchy or turning into a carebear paradise.

As for specifics, I would point you again to the detailed post I’ve referenced multiple times. It outlines clear issues, such as the broken reputation system, the ease of burning murder counts, and the unjust mechanics around AOE and necromancy. These aren’t vague critiques—they are actionable areas for improvement. If you’ve already read it and still feel it's lacking, I’d genuinely welcome a critique of those points directly rather than a general dismissal.

Finally, while I respect your perspective, dismissing the entire discussion as 'not arguable' shuts down meaningful discourse. The game thrives on its hardcore nature, yes, but we can’t conflate chaos with depth or fairness with weakness. It’s entirely reasonable to propose changes that preserve the spirit of MO2 while addressing glaring issues that drive players away. I’d hope we can discuss those ideas on their merits rather than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek

Teknique

Well-known member
Jun 15, 2020
1,845
1,394
113
Teknique, I appreciate the engagement, but I think we're going in circles here. The points you raise about strength being necessary to enforce laws are valid in the broadest sense, but they sidestep the practical issues at hand. The entire discussion has been about how to balance the game so that strength doesn’t solely define justice. In a well-designed system, both lawful and unlawful players have meaningful roles without descending into pure anarchy or turning into a carebear paradise.

As for specifics, I would point you again to the detailed post I’ve referenced multiple times. It outlines clear issues, such as the broken reputation system, the ease of burning murder counts, and the unjust mechanics around AOE and necromancy. These aren’t vague critiques—they are actionable areas for improvement. If you’ve already read it and still feel it's lacking, I’d genuinely welcome a critique of those points directly rather than a general dismissal.

Finally, while I respect your perspective, dismissing the entire discussion as 'not arguable' shuts down meaningful discourse. The game thrives on its hardcore nature, yes, but we can’t conflate chaos with depth or fairness with weakness. It’s entirely reasonable to propose changes that preserve the spirit of MO2 while addressing glaring issues that drive players away. I’d hope we can discuss those ideas on their merits rather than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
Yeah no problem,

I think we can just leave it at. Yes, reputation is far too plentiful. For example there is a popular streamer who has perhaps 10000 murders of brand new players under their belt yet still has positive reputation.

Diagnosis: Henrik operates on fear. Red changes cause mass outrage from red players, who go to reddit, forums, discord, and complain very very loudly. I would point specifically to when red priest changes were made, nave almost had a biblical flooding event solely from tears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeAreAllMortal
Jan 5, 2025
64
14
8
Yeah no problem,

I think we can just leave it at. Yes, reputation is far too plentiful. For example there is a popular streamer who has perhaps 10000 murders of brand new players under their belt yet still has positive reputation.

Diagnosis: Henrik operates on fear. Red changes cause mass outrage from red players, who go to reddit, forums, discord, and complain very very loudly. I would point specifically to when red priest changes were made, nave almost had a biblical flooding event solely from tears.
Teknique, I truly appreciate your input here—your observations are spot on, and I think they cut right to the heart of some of MO2’s most pressing issues. You’ve highlighted two critical points that I absolutely agree with:
  1. The reputation system is far too lenient—a reality best exemplified by the absurd scenario you described of a streamer with 10,000 murders yet still managing to maintain positive rep. This is a fundamental flaw that undermines the entire justice system and needs urgent rebalancing.
  2. The outsized influence of the red player base—whether Henrik is driven by fear, skewed perceptions, or both, the result is the same: disproportionate concessions to a vocal minority at the expense of the broader player base. I couldn’t help but laugh (and nod in agreement) at your remark about Nave nearly flooding from the tears of red players. That’s beautifully said and sums up the issue perfectly. But perhaps that kind of biblical flooding is exactly what Nave needs—a cleansing torrent to wash away the sins of the fathers. And by "fathers," I mean the inbred griefer base and the Stockholm-syndromed majority who have resigned themselves to this status quo. In other words, red tears might just be the purifying waters this game is crying out for!
On this latter point, I’ve been reflecting on how this dynamic—the "loud minority, silent majority" problem—perpetuates many of MO2’s struggles. It’s a thorny issue that deserves its own focused discussion, so I’ll be posting a separate thread to delve into it more deeply. I think it’s crucial to explore how this imbalance skews perceptions, impacts development, and drives away the very players who could help the game thrive.

As for me, I’ve committed to the game for the next six months with a corresponding sub. I’m fully willing to invest that time, both in-game and here in the forums, to see if the game improves—and to do my part in nudging SV toward necessary changes. But for any real change to happen, the silent majority needs to become more vocal. They need to be ready to lap up those griefer tears, rather than throwing up their hands the moment the children throw a tantrum. Otherwise, Hendrik and his team will continue to labour under the illusion that "this is what the people want."

Thanks again for engaging in this discussion. Let’s keep pushing for solutions!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melhisedek