If you start giving people the option to go 3rd person the option to use terrain to hide, set up ambushes and sneak up on people doesn't work.

Not only that but the current combat system wouldn't work at all with 3rd person so attacking, armour, crafting are just a few of the things that would have to get overhauled.

Originally posted by Fariic

Originally posted by Nihilist

I am a little aprehensive about the lack of a map.

 

It may be cool to actually get lost in an mmo, but when guilds / groups are trying to coordinate things it seems like it would be more of an annoyance. As far as I am concerned, if you are going to give people coordinates, then you might as well give them an arrow to indicate where they are.

 

Annoying people for the sake of 'realism' in a game seems pretty foolish in my mind. If it isn't fun then why bother.

 

There are maps!

How about one of the guys in the guild become a chartographer (spelling?), and then make maps for everyone?

What Mats was saying is that the game doesn't PROVIDE the map for you.
You have to make them, using in game skills and exploration.

Yes but keep in mind the map sold or made for you may not be accurate and it does not show your position. 

Originally posted by voyagervsbor

If you start giving people the option to go 3rd person the option to use terrain to hide, set up ambushes and sneak up on people doesn't work.

Not only that but the current combat system wouldn't work at all with 3rd person so attacking, armour, crafting are just a few of the things that would have to get overhauled.

It is ignorant to think that 1st person view will make a difference and here is why.  Do you know the games AC and DAoC?   Do you know that there is no way to track the movement of other players beyond your characters vision yet people made add-ons(hacks) that allow you to track the movement of other players via packet sniffing proggies that allowed for marking other players on your mini-map.    

Do you honestly think that this will not hapnen in MO?   I for one do not believe it in a heart beat and think this kind of hack will be used rampanty in a game like this - making the ideal of 1st person view to be a tactical issue non-relavent..

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by voyagervsbor

If you start giving people the option to go 3rd person the option to use terrain to hide, set up ambushes and sneak up on people doesn't work.

Not only that but the current combat system wouldn't work at all with 3rd person so attacking, armour, crafting are just a few of the things that would have to get overhauled.

 

It is ignorant to think that 1st person view will make a difference and here is why.  Do you know the games AC and DAoC?   Do you know that there is no way to track the movement of other players beyond your characters vision yet people made add-ons(hacks) that allow you to track the movement of other players via packet sniffing proggies that allowed for marking other players on your mini-map.    

Do you honestly think that this will not hapnen in MO?   I for one do not believe it in a heart beat and think this kind of hack will be used rampanty in a game like this - making the ideal of 1st person view to be a tactical issue non-relavent..

Hrmmm... designing a game around potential hacks seems a little extreme.  I agree with there being only 1st person view.  It does add an element of surprise and stealth becomes a player based skill.  Throw in a little luck and you can be pretty sneaky.  In theory anyway.

---

Originally posted by Emrin

---

Originally posted by Nizur

 

Where in the interview was this game pitched as "hardcore"? Or is that how you perceived the interview?
I'm not understanding the vitriol from people that this game isn't even aimed at. Mats clearly stated that the game will appeal to a niche group of players. You don't like something about the game. OK. The game isn't for you then. Move on. Nothing is accomplished by getting your panties in a wad over it. I take that back. The only thing that is accomplished is you vented your nerd rage.
 

---

They've said they are making a niche title without many of the conveniences that most MMO players take for granted these days (map, global trade and communication etc) and with a twitch based combat system. I'd say that qualifies the game as hardcore.

 

So that's how you perceived the interview. It fits your definition of hardcore. He never pitched it that way though. I don't see it as hardcore, just "old school". Hardly any MMO (or game for that matter) is hardcore, imo. I've been looking for a game like this for a while. DF isn't it, and UO is showing its age. MO and Earthrise show promise.

I'm not sure if your second paragraph was aimed at me, but there's no vitriol or nerd rage here. This is a discussion forum and people are going to post their opinions, both positive and negative.

My second paragraph wasn't aimed at you, but at all the haters. There's a difference between posting your opinion and spouting shit like {mod edit} and others. There's also a difference between people stating their opinion, and people who claim a game sucks and will fail because it doesn't fit into their playstyle. Then calling people who support or like the game fanbois. So stupid. Especially when the game developer has clearly stated the game will appeal to a smaller audience.

---

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

---

Originally posted by Nizur  Drivel and attack instead of talking about the article.

---

---

---

I have a number of games under my belt, thanks. Also, that comment was unrelated. I posted my opinion of game design, its called criticism. Look it up. No where did I tell them what they needed to do defacto, end of story.

---

It doesn't matter how many games you have under your belt, you're not a game developer. You're a forum user and game player like most of us here who has a strong opinion about how a game should work (fit in with your idea of how a game should work). You spout said opinion like it's the gospel and that the REAL developer doesn't know what they're doing. That's laughable, yet you seem to take it very seriously.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by veritas_X

I think the point is that the type of people likely to be annoyed by attempts at realism aren't the intended audience.  He's pretty clear about that in the interview.

Why is guild/group coordination more important than the immersiveness of a solo explorer or a couple of hunters out there trying to make a living off of pelts?  There are plenty of other games out there that don't give a shit about immersiveness, let us have this one.

 

Sure. The question is how big an audience is left. Most people play games to GET AWAY from the real world. I am quite sure i don't want a repeat in my games.

Unless your real world includes magic spells and hacking people apart with sharp weapons, I'm pretty sure MO isn't going to resemble your day to day life.

I get it though, short attention span, lack of imagination, like the majority of mmo players nowadays.

And that's ok, there are games enough for everyone.  This one happens to be for people that want a world first and a game second.

Originally posted by Nizur

So that's how you perceived the interview. It fits your definition of hardcore. He never pitched it that way though. I don't see it as hardcore, just "old school". Hardly any MMO (or game for that matter) is hardcore, imo. I've been looking for a game like this for a while. DF isn't it, and UO is showing its age. MO and Earthrise show promise.

I disagree that it wasn't pitched as hardcore, but as it's hardly a matter of objective fact there's not much point arguing about it. I agree that it is certainly "old school" though, and many of the concepts go much further back than UO all the way to text MUDs. My main concern for the game is that while many of the concepts sound appealing to certain gamers, there is not going to be a broad enough appeal to sustain the game in the long term.

I expect that MO will go one of two ways some time after release; either it will fold, or the gameplay will be diluted (made less hardcore or less challenging, whatever you want to call it) in order to attract a broader cross section of players. As I said in an earlier post, if you have a game system that relies too heavily on player skill it becomes very hard for the majority of players to compete. The FFA PvP and full loot isn't so much of a problem as the combat system. Shadowbane for example was successful because the combat system was accessible enough that even if you sucked you could still mash buttons on called targets and feel like you were having an impact. In a true skill based system the majority of players will get owned by the minority, again and again and levelling up or getting better gear isn't going to help them.

On a related note I think it's quite telling that the guys behind Sparkplay Media who ran successful hardcore/old school sandbox games with complex skill based PvP, politics, crafting etc. decided to do a Furry cartoon MMO instead of something they were more familiar with.

Originally posted by veritas_X

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by veritas_X

I think the point is that the type of people likely to be annoyed by attempts at realism aren't the intended audience.  He's pretty clear about that in the interview.

Why is guild/group coordination more important than the immersiveness of a solo explorer or a couple of hunters out there trying to make a living off of pelts?  There are plenty of other games out there that don't give a shit about immersiveness, let us have this one.

 

Sure. The question is how big an audience is left. Most people play games to GET AWAY from the real world. I am quite sure i don't want a repeat in my games.

 

Unless your real world includes magic spells and hacking people apart with sharp weapons, I'm pretty sure MO isn't going to resemble your day to day life.

I get it though, short attention span, lack of imagination, like the majority of mmo players nowadays.

And that's ok, there are games enough for everyone.  This one happens to be for people that want a world first and a game second.

 

iv been playin mmos for a number of years know tho i dont consider myself that knowledge (am only 16 )

i still think that most people these days wanted to held by the hand and told to do things

and i dont see why thats apealing at all and if it wasnt for the fact that matt himslef says that this game is not for everyone,

beacause its different and only a select few will like this game. I personally dont see what the problem with

the devs, they seem honest unlike darkfall( i dont hate it just felt hurt when they lied to me about everything they had to offer)

and really if you look at the forums of mortla online, you will realise that the devs actually listen to what they comunity wants.

unlike most them-park mmos, where the comunity screams for something and the devs just ignore it,

This generation off mmorpg players seem to have no sense of direction, i mean why do you need a map on the top

right corner all the time, it makes the game less realistic and boring, i want go exploring maybe get lost, if i cant read the map my fault. I i dont hate anygame i mean yeah i get annoyed by liers and companys who make fake promesis to me.

Darkfall didnt bothered me a lot since it promised so much( maybe am just a sucker ey) to the point were i belived them,

i mean its not like i expected everything at the bigining but the constant gankfest just put off new players, i relaise that the new patches have made it better. (so DF fans calm down)

Hopeing starvault has what it takes

---

Originally posted by Emrin

---

Originally posted by Nizur
So that's how you perceived the interview. It fits your definition of hardcore. He never pitched it that way though. I don't see it as hardcore, just "old school". Hardly any MMO (or game for that matter) is hardcore, imo. I've been looking for a game like this for a while. DF isn't it, and UO is showing its age. MO and Earthrise show promise.

---

 
I disagree that it wasn't pitched as hardcore, but as it's hardly a matter of objective fact there's not much point arguing about it. I agree that it is certainly "old school" though, and many of the concepts go much further back than UO all the way to text MUDs. My main concern for the game is that while many of the concepts sound appealing to certain gamers, there is not going to be a broad enough appeal to sustain the game in the long term.

---

You might be right about it being too limited in its scope, but that remains to be seen. I would hope that SV is smart enough to make adjustments as needed to the game in order to keep it bankable. The MMO crowd is pretty unforgiving if a game has a crappy launch though. AoC and VG are great examples.

---

Originally posted by Emrin
I expect that MO will go one of two ways some time after release; either it will fold, or the gameplay will be diluted (made less hardcore or less challenging, whatever you want to call it) in order to attract a broader cross section of players. As I said in an earlier post, if you have a game system that relies too heavily on player skill it becomes very hard for the majority of players to compete. The FFA PvP and full loot isn't so much of a problem as the combat system. Shadowbane for example was successful because the combat system was accessible enough that even if you sucked you could still mash buttons on called targets and feel like you were having an impact. In a true skill based system the majority of players will get owned by the minority, again and again and levelling up or getting better gear isn't going to help them.
On a related note I think it's quite telling that the guys behind Sparkplay Media who ran successful hardcore/old school sandbox games with complex skill based PvP, politics, crafting etc. decided to do a Furry cartoon MMO instead of something they were more familiar with.

---

The combat system might be a problem, but I'm excited about it because it's different from your usual MMO these days. I may end up hating it, but I won't know for sure until I get to try it out. It may be that the technology isn't there yet to make this kind of 1st person combat system truly enjoyable for a lot of people. It could be completely unintuitive using a mouse to block and attack specific areas. I don't know, but I'm eager to find out.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by tomaswilen

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

---

It's very easy to see that many of the systems in modern MMO's are there to actually take away from the amount of player skill and player-to-player (PtP) interaction needed, whether it is minimaps, auto-maps, levels, quests, auto-loot, auto-loot-distribution, auction-houses, global chat etc. It makes them fun and gives them a flow, but it also makes them casual as anyone can play without much thought (and that's also where the big money is). Now obviously we want Mortal Online to be fun to play and successful, but we're not ready to make compromises on our design principles: Player Skill, Player Interaction and PvP, Immersion and Believability. Therefore a lot of the features one would expect to see in a modern MMO are different, or we have simply removed them.

---

 

This is full of fail.

 

Care to elaborate on why, or just trolling?

 

Different for the sake of different. And because most of those systems are in place to help with the real fact you a person looking at a computer screen and not a real person in a world with all your senses at your disposal. Topped off with the fact that anonymity + internet + avatar = assholes.

Navigation of the interface should never be part of your game challenge equation, content is the real gauge, not GUI or lack of. a good GUI is seamless and second nature to the user and mostly goes unnoticed.

They have essentially ignored the fun (and all innovations to that end), and imbued the game with some notion that reality and realistic is fun. Its not, because you are not really there. Its just leads to frustration and grieving.

Game play/fun > Reality. There is simply no way to get around your playing a computer game, and the real limitations it imposes.

The entire premise that those systems were developed for casuals is false. They were developed and added for everyone. The wording also sounds like they have a disdain for casual players, ignoring the vast majority in this way is not good design, it adhering to a forum warriors misplaced credo and is missing the point of any level of competency in game design. AKA, this is an armchair developer speaking, not someone in a place of professional knowledge that is looking at the title as a product and making a game that people will enjoy.

You know where to put your troll comment.

 

 

 

Owned....  It's sad that Mrbloodworth had to explain this to you.
 

Originally posted by aleos

"No. Mortal Online is a niche game and we don't see ourselves as competitors to the big names out there. To be big you have to have mass-appeal, and to have that you will have to cater to casual players, in turn meaning lowering the difficulty of everything from combat, PvP and crafting, and introduce a whole dimension of solo-play features such as quests and story progression, not to mention easy-to-understand concepts like levels and classes. And that's the opposite of our game."

Best paragraph ever.

It sure was a damn fine paragraph.

Hi al mortal online is very good game but i sell my box for pay eve online

Originally posted by Nizur

 

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

---

Originally posted by Nizur  Drivel and attack instead of talking about the article.

---

---

---

I have a number of games under my belt, thanks. Also, that comment was unrelated. I posted my opinion of game design, its called criticism. Look it up. No where did I tell them what they needed to do defacto, end of story.

---

 

It doesn't matter how many games you have under your belt, you're not a game developer. You're a forum user and game player like most of us here who has a strong opinion about how a game should work (fit in with your idea of how a game should work). You spout said opinion like it's the gospel and that the REAL developer doesn't know what they're doing. That's laughable, yet you seem to take it very seriously.

Actually, I am. One would have gotten that with my wording. It is also, irrelevant to the topic or my original point, ill leave the reader to form who has the better logic here ,Most of your post is simply semantics and more personal attacking on your end. One would think, becouse everything went right over your head. Its OK to lash out sometimes I suppose.

ADD version: I found his comments and method of describing the game to be ostracizing and condemning to anyone reading it. This tactic has never worked, and only servers to get forum users frothing about the promised land. It never makes for a good game, it simply makes for a horrible player base that will soon realize they are not as hardcore as they thought they were.

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

---

Originally posted by Nizur

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

---

Originally posted by Nizur Drivel and attack instead of talking about the article.

---

---

---

I have a number of games under my belt, thanks. Also, that comment was unrelated. I posted my opinion of game design, its called criticism. Look it up. No where did I tell them what they needed to do defacto, end of story.

---

It doesn't matter how many games you have under your belt, you're not a game developer. You're a forum user and game player like most of us here who has a strong opinion about how a game should work (fit in with your idea of how a game should work). You spout said opinion like it's the gospel and that the REAL developer doesn't know what they're doing. That's laughable, yet you seem to take it very seriously.

---

Actually, I am. One would have gotten that with my wording. It is also, irrelevant to the topic or my original point, ill leave the reader to form who has the better logic here ,Most of your post is simply semantics and more personal attacking on your end. One would think, becouse everything went right over your head. Its OK to lash out sometimes I suppose.
ADD version: I found his comments and method of describing the game to be ostracizing and condemning to anyone reading it. This tactic has never worked, and only servers to get forum users frothing about the promised land. It never makes for a good game, it simply makes for a horrible player base that will soon realize they are not as hardcore as they thought they were.

---

Nothing you said went over my head. The laughable part is you take it so seriously, yet it is just another forum user/game player's opinion in a sea of opinions, no matter how important or logical you think it is. You can use as many or as few words as you want. It's still just another opinion that carries no more weight or is no more "right" than any other's.

What I'm driving at is that your bitterness, arrogance and condescension towards the developer and "hardcore" players in general is tiresome and frankly pointless. The only thing it accomplishes is making you look pompous. You have tons of games to choose from that don't cater to the "hardcore". This is one of the very few that has specifically stated it is. You got your panties in a wad because you perceived this interview as "condemning" and "ostracizing". You're more than welcome to post that opinion, but don't be condescending about it.

Also, you keep mentioning that my posts are just personal attacks. Many of your posts in this thread have been or have included attacks/insults on others here or the developer:

"AKA, this is an armchair developer speaking, not someone in a place of professional knowledge that is looking at the title as a product and making a game that people will enjoy." - stating the developer is ignorant

"The rest of your post is part assumptions to my meaning, and lack of comprehension." - insinuating the forum user is dumb

"Say it again, at some point, you will believe it if you say it enough." - stating that the forum user's opinion is not true

"Your just as bad with the assumptions and lack of comprehension as the other guy." - again, stating the forum user is dumb

"I'm sure it will get the people who think they are hardcore frothing however. Right up to the point they find out they are really not really "hardcore"." - showing clear disdain and disrespect for players you deem "hardcore"

"Or, you could read what I type, and not insert your own assumptions, then attack me on the basis of those assumptions."; "But you knew this." - once again, insinuating the other forum user is dumb

"No real developer would say such things, they may think it, but they will do the best they can not to say it in public. Its amateur at best, and borne of forums." - once again, attacking the developer... as a forum user

"its called criticism. Look it up." - insinuating the forum user is dumb

"One would have gotten that with my wording." - insinuating the forum user is dumb

"One would think, becouse everything went right over your head. Its OK to lash out sometimes I suppose." - insinuating the forum user is dumb; showing clear superiority complex

That's just in this thread! To write other responses off as "drivel" or simply attacks makes you look like a gigantic hypocrite.

Originally posted by Halpot

Originally posted by Vagelisp

The boxed version costs 68.69 EUR. Can anyone in Beta confirm that these features are in game and that the game will be released this winter?
 

 

Please don't ask others to break the NDA.

Please next time ask serious questions when you review an mmo developer who has not even proved that his product meets the requirements to be hosted here.  (In fact you had to change the rules in order to host Mortal Online in mmorpg.com.)

Since these people ask for a full price in order to allow us to play a game in Beta stage you should take some time to research and help us decide if this is a hoax or something that is worhty of investing our money.

Of course Journalism is much harder than advertising a product and unfortunately you prefer to create news from promising features than using facts.

Originally posted by Vagelisp

Originally posted by Halpot

Originally posted by Vagelisp

The boxed version costs 68.69 EUR. Can anyone in Beta confirm that these features are in game and that the game will be released this winter?
 

 

Please don't ask others to break the NDA.

Please next time ask serious questions when you review an mmo developer who has not even proved that his product meets the requirements to be hosted here.  (In fact you had to change the rules in order to host Mortal Online in mmorpg.com.)

 

Since these people ask for a full price in order to allow us to play a game in Beta stage you should take some time to research and help us decide if this is a hoax or something that is worhty of investing our money.

 

Of course Journalism is much harder than advertising a product and unfortunately you prefer to create news from promising features than using facts.

 

 

First point I will make is that you are wrong about this site changing its rules to get a MO forum up and running. If you had been around and paying attention to this game in the months running up to it being featured here, you will know that they did not change the rules. In fact, it caused a lot of upset discourses in those months as a result of it taking so long to be listed.

Secondly, yes- they are asking folks to pay to beta test their game. At least they are honest in saying that, instead of "launching" and have people beta test, as seems to be a recent trend. Which would you rather have?

Lastly, while sometimes the questions from journalists on this site (and many others) may leave a lot to be desired, do remember the sheer VOLUME of games they cover. Trying to ask every question that every reader wants answered, will lead to extremely long interviews. The developers, the writers, and mostly the readers simply don't have that kind of time. If your questions weren't answered in THIS interview, check other websites to see if perhaps THEY asked it. If not, there are always the official forums.

Anyone know what the death penalty is? Any consequenses at all for your actions, either by player or design? In df due to no consequenses, it will always end up with 2 massive guilds/alliances. Not sure why they just didnt start with 2 factions. How will this game differ?

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

Anyone know what the death penalty is? Any consequenses at all for your actions, either by player or design? In df due to no consequenses, it will always end up with 2 massive guilds/alliances. Not sure why they just didnt start with 2 factions. How will this game differ?

Death penalty means all your stuff gets taken away, the game is FFA PvP game meaning you get killed, everything on you can be looted.  Player actions will be the consequence for your own actions, such as guilds with the purpose of bounty-hunting criminals to take their money and loot, which would be completely legal.

Plus, the mechanics of the game punish a criminal with a slight stat loss once you are dead.  The game also makes criminals red, and they are unable to talk to merchants.  In cities, if a player actually calls the guards, then the guards will attack the red.  Unless the guards see the player.

They didn't want to deadlock players into a situation, and they want them to actually change/interact with the environment, hence no factions.  Massive guilds can fall apart and crumble but a game-made faction cannot.  There will be more than two guilds and alliances anyway because there are also criminal guilds, non-criminal guilds that duke it out all the time.

In the game you will eventually be able to take over territory once the game is actually released, but the reason they didn't include at release was because they don't want the game to be only a massive gankfest, they want it to be like Ultima Online.  They also don't have enough money to include sieging, which was a feature they weren't going to include at release anyway.  They did confirm that if the game is out long enough that they would have that feature in-game.

Think of the game like EVE-Online but with RPG styled characters.

---

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

Anyone know what the death penalty is? Any consequenses at all for your actions, either by player or design? In df due to no consequenses, it will always end up with 2 massive guilds/alliances. Not sure why they just didnt start with 2 factions. How will this game differ?

---

---

They also don't have enough money to include sieging

---

It's not a matter of money it's a matter of time, if they want to release the game one day they have to define priorities, also features like sieging can be added later, when the core features are rock solid. For instance i think in darkfall sieging is fine, but the combat, the crafting and the skill system are half-assed and require much work to be interesting but it's more complicated to change the core feature like combat and skills so i don't expect them to change radically in the coming months.

In MO if the combat, skills and crafting is nicely done (in addition to the other features planned for launch), then the game will be enjoyable even though sieging is not in, and they will be able to add the sieging after launch in an upgrade