Why we don´t need Haven

[ElPerro]

I'm fine with Haven as long as theres only the lowest tier of mats to farm there and theres a time limit. It doesn't have to be rushed, give them a whole week for all I care. But they should NOT be able to just live there indefinetly. Next thing you know, they will be asking for a PVE server, or to let them toggle pvp off in Myrland too...

 

[Kaemik]

So the first part you quoted is basically where they were at for the study. "Little is known" about the subject of the paper. That's the problem. How are they going to solve it? They tell you in the next line. "Seeking to estimate this value, we..." *Description of research methods*

Little was known, hence they DID the study and obtained the results.

And again the line right before your second highlighted line basically explains it.

"Although tutorials increase play time by as much as 29% in the most complex games, they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games." That's their finding.

"Our results suggest that investment in tutorials may not be justified for games with mechanics that can be discovered through experimentation." That's their conclusion which is based on their finding.

If you've taken classes that require you to write abstracts to sum up your research (I have. Business Research Methods 1 and 2. They were part of my degree. Among numerous other classes that built upon those principles.) then this abstract isn't too difficult to break down. You are absolutely wildly misusing what they said here. In this context "Discovered through experimentation" in their conclusion needs to line up with their findings that state "they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games."

As I stated, if we assume they mean experimentation as in you can easily puzzle out the mechanics yourself by playing the game (slither.io, paper.io, flappy bird etc.) then their findings support their conclusion. If you wildly misuse the quotes and cherrypick the words you want to hear from this, to reach some crazy conclusion that Mortal doesn't need a tutorial because some of it's crafting involves experimentation... then nothing here makes sense. Like how does your conclusion even begin to make sense when you compare it to what they are saying?

This entire abstract is all over the place and makes no sense based on your interpretation. It wouldn't even be a proper abstract, just a rambling blob of disjointed thoughts. It flows perfectly and makes a great deal of sense while following the proper format of an abstract based on mine. If the findings of someone's abstract don't support the conclusion it's either a very bad paper or your interpretation is very wrong. I'm going to go with the latter here. Their abstract is fine if taken in proper context instead of twisting words to suit your own agendas.

Using studies to support the conclusions they were intended to make is not cherrypicking data. The selective hearing you seem to have when it comes to reading academic papers absolutely is cherrypicking.

 

[Kaemik]

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.

 

[Yeonan]

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?

 

[Teknique]

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?

We simply won't be able to, because there was never a "no haven" group or control group.

. And if SV wants to bring me on as a consultant

You greatly overestimate your importance.

I'm glad your high school debate team taught you how to troll forums, but they never taught you that debating just for the sake of debating is pointless.

 

[Yeonan]

We simply won't be able to, because there was never a "no haven" group or control group.

Wouldn't MO1 (pre-haven) fall into that? Its obviously not a 1:1 comparison but I probably closer than any other game would be.

It feels like a scenario where down the road either side can claim their respective "i told you so" moment regardless of a quantified impact.

I do agree though its probably not something we'll ever know for sure.

 

[Eldrath]

Wouldn't MO1 (pre-haven) fall into that? Its obviously not a 1:1 comparison but I probably closer than any other game would be.

It feels like a scenario where down the road either side can claim their respective "i told you so" moment regardless of a quantified impact.

I do agree though its probably not something we'll ever know for sure.

MO1 was broken beyond believe. If MO2 is the same state (You can´t do this now.) we could compare it.

There are a few scenarios. But with if Haven gets implemented like in MO1 it will muddy down the design in the long run and the game will die. Mortal has some unique features going for it and compromising those will eventually kill it.

 

[Yeonan]

MO1 was broken beyond believe. If MO2 is the same state (You can´t do this now.) we could compare it.

There are a few scenarios. But with if Haven gets implemented like in MO1 it will muddy down the design in the long run and the game will die. Mortal has some unique features going for it and compromising those will eventually kill it.

Thats kinda what I'm saying here, how do we know how much Haven would be to blame vs other decisions down the road?

MO1 is absolutely different but is there another game that MO2 can compare to that will be closer than MO1?

I'm not trying to be argumentative on this, simply curious how we'd narrow down which issues stemmed from Haven in particular?

 

[Teknique]

Wouldn't MO1 (pre-haven) fall into that? Its obviously not a 1:1 comparison but I probably closer than any other game would be.

It feels like a scenario where down the road either side can claim their respective "i told you so" moment regardless of a quantified impact.

I do agree though its probably not something we'll ever know for sure.

I wouldn't say so,

too many variables, graphics, era, game design,

 

[Eldrath]

Thats kinda what I'm saying here, how do we know how much Haven would be to blame vs other decisions down the road?

MO1 is absolutely different but is there another game that MO2 can compare to that will be closer than MO1?

I'm not trying to be argumentative on this, simply curious how we'd narrow down which issues stemmed from Haven in particular?

Sure, SV might make other terrible decisions. Haven in it´s current form is undermining the risk vs. reward system and will be platform for those players that don´t like full loot or open PvP.

But no, ultimately no one would be able to pin point exactly what killed Mortal Online 2. Just as people are still arguing over what killed Mortal Online 1.

 

[Yeonan]

Sure, SV might make other terrible decisions. Haven in it´s current form is undermining the risk vs. reward system and will be platform for those players that don´t like full loot or open PvP.

But no, ultimately no one would be able to pin point exactly what killed Mortal Online 2. Just as people are still arguing over what killed Mortal Online 1.

If we're talking more narrowly, not just "what killed MO"

What negatives do you expect to see in-game as a result of Haven?

Lower population? Higher population but carebear mechanics make their way into myrland? (Referenced in your op but is the concern altered flagging systems, safer towns, etc?)

 

[Teknique]

If we're talking more narrowly, not just "what killed MO"

What negatives do you expect to see in-game as a result of Haven?

Lower population? Higher population but carebear mechanics make their way into myrland? (Referenced in your op but is the concern altered flagging systems, safer towns, etc?)

My concern with Haven is that it plays like a separate server/game.

my sense is that haven replaced myrland in MO 1, and clearly that isn't ideal.

 

[Yeonan]

My concern with Haven is that it plays like a separate server/game.

my sense is that haven replaced myrland in MO 1, and clearly that isn't ideal.

Fair, thats a valid concern considering its supposed to be one big interconnected game world.

To your second point, I'd say I agree with your earlier observation about MO1 not being comparable in many ways. Haven was released 9 years into MO life, just a couple months before MO2 announcement.

At that point it was essentially an expansion for the vets who made up 99.9% of the playerbase.

I dont see it playing out the same way for MO2 with Haven being in at the start, especially for noobs who have never explored Myrland. I'd imagine they'll be excited to move on to new sights.

 

[Eldrath]

If we're talking more narrowly, not just "what killed MO"

What negatives do you expect to see in-game as a result of Haven?

Lower population? Higher population but carebear mechanics make their way into myrland? (Referenced in your op but is the concern altered flagging systems, safer towns, etc?)

If Haven gets implemented like it is in MO1 (which seems to be the way SV is planning according to Sebs most recent comments on Discord) I would predict that some players will stay there and play it as the "real" game(just as that was happening in MO1). Obviously they will run out of things to do, so they will ask for more things to do. Eventually they will catch SV in a desperate state (in between big patches) and they will do so. Slowly building a server in parallel to the rest of the game. There won´t be one big make or break thread on it either. Why should Haven NOT have sea dew after all? Why should Haven NOT have a bear cave?

Some of the ideas of Haven will also be used as an argument to persuade the devs into implementing the same kind of systems in the main game. If it works for the population in Haven, why shouldn´t it work for Myrland?

A PvP toggle is an obvious one. More bound items. More viable farming inside the guardzone. So basically eroding the risk vs. reward system that makes Mortal work.

Additionally we might see a lot of more gold farmers since Haven will provide them will a zone to use bots in. Depends on how much profit you could make that way.

Last but not least veterans will abuse the system, putting further strain on the economy and making never ending server wars more likely. Which after increasing the population for a short time kill it off in the long run.

If SV moves with this and wastes more time on "carebear" (by which I don´t mean PvE content, but mechanics that compromise open PvP and full loot) things it will eventually lead to those that came for the niche game quitting. I highly doubt that there is a consumer group interested in the hybrid that MO1 has become in the end. The population over the last few years speaks for itself.

So in short MO2 will either become another trammel or die the same slow death as MO1 did by compromising core designs. Mortal Trammel might or might not be successful, but looking at their competition I doubt they can cut it.

There you go. Full to the brim of speculation and assumptions. When MO2 becomes the game it is supposed to be (@ThaBadMan could post "the vision" again) despite Haven feel free to quote this post and laugh at me.

 

[Yeonan]

If Haven gets implemented like it is in MO1 (which seems to be the way SV is planning according to Sebs most recent comments on Discord) I would predict that some players will stay there and play it as the "real" game(just as that was happening in MO1). Obviously they will run out of things to do, so they will ask for more things to do. Eventually they will catch SV in a desperate state (in between big patches) and they will do so. Slowly building a server in parallel to the rest of the game. There won´t be one big make or break thread on it either. Why should Haven NOT have sea dew after all? Why should Haven NOT have a bear cave?

Some of the ideas of Haven will also be used as an argument to persuade the devs into implementing the same kind of systems in the main game. If it works for the population in Haven, why shouldn´t it work for Myrland?

A PvP toggle is an obvious one. More bound items. More viable farming inside the guardzone. So basically eroding the risk vs. reward system that makes Mortal work.

Additionally we might see a lot of more gold farmers since Haven will provide them will a zone to use bots in. Depends on how much profit you could make that way.

Last but not least veterans will abuse the system, putting further strain on the economy and making never ending server wars more likely. Which after increasing the population for a short time kill it off in the long run.

If SV moves with this and wastes more time on "carebear" (by which I don´t mean PvE content, but mechanics that compromise open PvP and full loot) things it will eventually lead to those that came for the niche game quitting. I highly doubt that there is a consumer group interested in the hybrid that MO1 has become in the end. The population over the last few years speaks for itself.

So in short MO2 will either become another trammel or die the same slow death as MO1 did by compromising core designs. Mortal Trammel might or might not be successful, but looking at their competition I doubt they can cut it.

There you go. Full to the brim of speculation and assumptions. When MO2 becomes the game it is supposed to be (@ThaBadMan could post "the vision" again) despite Haven feel free to quote this post and laugh at me.

We'd probably disagree on the likelihood of some of those scenarios and agree on others (Haven players running out of things to do is a good point i hadn't considered) but overall most of the concerns are reasonable.

I'm probably more optimistic the "vision" wont be compromised to a great degree but thats also putting a lot of faith in SV having learned from MO1.

 

[Godkin Veratas]

Update the FAQ to be more honest please.

Mortal Online 2 is a believable open world first person sandbox mmorpg, with pvp and full loot zones, in a fantasy setting.

 

[Rudakov]

If Haven gets implemented like it is in MO1 (which seems to be the way SV is planning according to Sebs most recent comments on Discord) I would predict that some players will stay there and play it as the "real" game(just as that was happening in MO1). Obviously they will run out of things to do, so they will ask for more things to do. Eventually they will catch SV in a desperate state (in between big patches) and they will do so. Slowly building a server in parallel to the rest of the game. There won´t be one big make or break thread on it either. Why should Haven NOT have sea dew after all? Why should Haven NOT have a bear cave?

Some of the ideas of Haven will also be used as an argument to persuade the devs into implementing the same kind of systems in the main game. If it works for the population in Haven, why shouldn´t it work for Myrland?

A PvP toggle is an obvious one. More bound items. More viable farming inside the guardzone. So basically eroding the risk vs. reward system that makes Mortal work.

Additionally we might see a lot of more gold farmers since Haven will provide them will a zone to use bots in. Depends on how much profit you could make that way.

Last but not least veterans will abuse the system, putting further strain on the economy and making never ending server wars more likely. Which after increasing the population for a short time kill it off in the long run.

If SV moves with this and wastes more time on "carebear" (by which I don´t mean PvE content, but mechanics that compromise open PvP and full loot) things it will eventually lead to those that came for the niche game quitting. I highly doubt that there is a consumer group interested in the hybrid that MO1 has become in the end. The population over the last few years speaks for itself.

So in short MO2 will either become another trammel or die the same slow death as MO1 did by compromising core designs. Mortal Trammel might or might not be successful, but looking at their competition I doubt they can cut it.

There you go. Full to the brim of speculation and assumptions. When MO2 becomes the game it is supposed to be (@ThaBadMan could post "the vision" again) despite Haven feel free to quote this post and laugh at me.

Disagree

 

[ElPerro]

Disagree

Very insightful

 

[Kaemik]

You greatly overestimate your importance.

I'm glad your high school debate team taught you how to troll forums, but they never taught you that debating just for the sake of debating is pointless.

It was a mostly sarcastic statement. Essentially what I'm saying is I found studies that I would have had zero issues in using to support the conclusion I made on a paper in college to hand into a professor for an easy A. They're more than sufficient for a forum debate or any setting that I'm not literally getting paid for the quality of research. I'm not actually expecting SV hires consultants off their forum.

I'm not debating for the sake of debating. I'm debating to see a game I care about do better. People talk about wanting to see thousands of players in this game. Enough to make the game feel alive even if the servers get split. To see that happen some changes will need to be made. What kind of changes? Well, there is sufficient data to suggest that a quality tutorial would be worth pursuing.

*Something about how implementing Haven will cause the end of the world*

The slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy for a reason. And that's precisely what you're making here. "If we grant them this they will just keep asking for more". EVEN IF Haven is implemented as it was in MO1, your doomsday scenario won't come to fruition. SV has a better understanding of what their target market wants than that. And if they don't, then expect changes like that to be even more likely if people don't have a safe place they can hide.

The reason that you see games backing off hardcore PvP features over the years is rather simple. The majority of the market doesn't like them and so making a PVE server or whatever seems like a great way to broaden their playerbase to many developers.

Thankfully for you, Mortal Online has a reputation, and the number of players coming here asking for carebear features is negligible. And I think that's something SV understands.

So given that, rather than attempting to frighten children with prophecies of the end of all things, or debating for things like Haven needs to be removed entirely, you might be better off supporting a position that has enough support to have a chance of getting somewhere. Like that Haven should be a small tutorial only continent.

 

[Rudakov]

It was a mostly sarcastic statement. Essentially what I'm saying is I found studies that I would have had zero issues in using to support the conclusion I made on a paper in college to hand into a professor for an easy A. They're more than sufficient for a forum debate or any setting that I'm not literally getting paid for the quality of research. I'm not actually expecting SV hires consultants off their forum.

I'm not debating for the sake of debating. I'm debating to see a game I care about do better. People talk about wanting to see thousands of players in this game. Enough to make the game feel alive even if the servers get split. To see that happen some changes will need to be made. What kind of changes? Well, there is sufficient data to suggest that a quality tutorial would be worth pursuing.



The slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy for a reason. And that's precisely what you're making here. "If we grant them this they will just keep asking for more". EVEN IF Haven is implemented as it was in MO1, your doomsday scenario won't come to fruition. SV has a better understanding of what their target market wants than that. And if they don't, then expect changes like that to be even more likely if people don't have a safe place they can hide.

The reason that you see games backing off hardcore PvP features over the years is rather simple. The majority of the market doesn't like them and so making a PVE server or whatever seems like a great way to broaden their playerbase to many developers.

Thankfully for you, Mortal Online has a reputation, and the number of players coming here asking for carebear features is negligible. And I think that's something SV understands.

So given that, rather than attempting to frighten children with prophecies of the end of all things, or debating for things like Haven needs to be removed entirely, you might be better off supporting a position that has enough support to have a chance of getting somewhere. Like that Haven should be a small tutorial only continent.

Smart guy , listen to him .