Mortal Online: First Interview

Stradden

In his first ever interview with MMORPG.com, Mats Persson, the Creative Director and Game Designer of Star Vault's upcoming MMORPG Mortal Online answers some questions about the game and some of the more interesting design elements around them.

MMORPG.com:

For those who might not be familiar with the game, can you tell us a little bit about Mortal Online?

Mats Persson:

Mortal Online is a first-person sandbox MMO set in a believable fantasy environment. Although the game is not necessarily about PvP, its core is built around player skill and PvP as opposed to experience points, levels and a PvP-mode glued on top. Mortal Online revolves around player-to-player interaction more than solo-journeys and quests; it has full loot, sandbox crafting, housing and very seldom follows the streamlined design-rules and automated systems of modern cookie-cutter MMO's. In short, it's a niche skill-based fantasy game for a mature audience. The game is currently in Beta stage with nearly 10.000 accounts.

It's very difficult to describe Mortal Online in a few sentences as it is very different from most of the MMOG's out there. Now please understand I don't use that cliché for marketing purposes, it simply is a niche game that some will like because of its unique approach and some won't because it's too different from their style of play or what they are used to. The game does not necessarily build on or "learn" from the errors or the steps taken by big-name MMO's; it's designed from scratch simply because we want to evaluate each design-choice from the questions:

Read the first interview.

wese

Good interview, i wonder why there is no single word on Darkfall, just Eve as another Sandbox MMO.

Urme

 

---

Originally posted by MO
There will be a lot more to guilds, especially when it comes to building upgrades, keeps and fortresses, but I'm afraid it's too early to talk about as many of these mechanics and sieging most probably won't be in at launch.

---

I don't like that they will leave out sieging, keeps, fortresses etc for launch.. will probably not get involved in Mortal Online in the beginning, but maybe later..

Bluefix

Sounds good. It's particularly nice to see someone who actually seems to understand consequences of design decisions and how to counter the weaknesses (it's a reference to the lack of this insight with Darkfall). Time will tell if this translates to the released game.

Looked through the powerpoint briefly and certainly a lot of promising features. The only part I dislike is what is essentially a skill decay system. I would certainly prefer other ways to prevent people from actively using too many combat skills at the same time. But at least the system seems well thought out.

I'm also excited about first person view. DF has this to some degree and even then it's a huuuuuge boost to immersion.

Isane

Originally posted by wese


Good interview, i wonder why there is no single word on Darkfall, just Eve as another Sandbox MMO.

 

The reason the will steer away from mentioning Darkfall is obvious. The so called originality and differentiators MO provides don't exist especially when DFO came first.

Badem

Originally posted by Urme


 

 

Originally posted by MO

There will be a lot more to guilds, especially when it comes to building upgrades, keeps and fortresses, but I'm afraid it's too early to talk about as many of these mechanics and sieging most probably won't be in at launch.

 

I don't like that they will leave out sieging, keeps, fortresses etc for launch.. will probably not get involved in Mortal Online in the beginning, but maybe later..

 

I totally understand and agree with Mats that sieging etc does not need to be in the game at launch, why waste time getting this into the game for launch when its only going to be used by a small minority of players and probably not for a good while after launch.

From what I understand of the concept behind sieging is that you dont carry that massive Trebuchet to the castle and plonk it down, they want guilds to have to build them, defend them and transport them to the siege location, kind of like they really used to do in olden times.

Personally I am looking forward to what they plan for the guild tools, housing concepts etc

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.

TomTrixx

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?

Mardermann

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.

 

Full of fail for you is full of win for me....

 

I am game...

think I will pre-order now

Slineer

Originally posted by wese


Good interview, i wonder why there is no single word on Darkfall, just Eve as another Sandbox MMO.

 

The comparison to EVE was that it is a niche that started small and grew over time. At least the way I read it.  Putting Darkfall in there would say that they are going to lie to everyone for 2 yrs, release an unfinished grind based game with crap graphics, crap map, pre-built player cities/housing with no customization etc etc... the list goes on. Darkfall was a pathetic excuse for a game and at best a well thought out scam. I'm glad the only reason DF comes up with MO devs is for its failures as there is absolutely no positive to be learned from DF, only what not to do.

L1ghtsabeR

Originally posted by Isane

Originally posted by wese


Good interview, i wonder why there is no single word on Darkfall, just Eve as another Sandbox MMO.

 

The reason the will steer away from mentioning Darkfall is obvious. The so called originality and differentiators MO provides don't exist especially when DFO came first.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. First of all, both DF and MO are following the sandbox MMO model which was made popular by UO back in the day. If you compare the features of DF and MO, then it's quite clear that only the most basic elements are the same. Basic elements such as both games being sandboxes and having full loot FFA PvP. Both of those features are borrowed from UO. Pretty much everything else is quite a bit different between DF and MO.

 

Now, the reason why MO devs choose to constantly not mention DF is not because they are afraid of the competition, but instead because they don't wish to publicly badmouth other games and dev companies. Fact is that DF got many things wrong and if MO devs were to mention DF in their interviews they'd have to also mention those bad things. Can you really blame them for choosing not to bring up DF at all?

L1ghtsabeR

Originally posted by Obidom


I totally understand and agree with Mats that sieging etc does not need to be in the game at launch, why waste time getting this into the game for launch when its only going to be used by a small minority of players and probably not for a good while after launch.
From what I understand of the concept behind sieging is that you dont carry that massive Trebuchet to the castle and plonk it down, they want guilds to have to build them, defend them and transport them to the siege location, kind of like they really used to do in olden times.
Personally I am looking forward to what they plan for the guild tools, housing concepts etc

I don't agree with the first paragraph, but the second one is pretty much correct.

 

The main reason why they have at this stage decided to not try and get sieges ready for launch is simply because the way they wish to implement it is rather complex and it would take quite a bit of time to get it ready, time, which can better be used on other, so called core features of the game. They quite simply don't wish to implement a half-assed siege system, they want to do something more, something better, but this means they will have to spend more time on it.

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.

 

 

 

StrontyDog

You really need to wait and play Mortal Online at release before you say how much better it is than Darkfall. Right now all Mortal Online has is a list of planned features and the developers goal for what they want. It might all sound fantastic but it actually needs to be in the game and it needs to work properly before you can say how amazing any of it is.  The fact is that Darkfall will have gone through at least two expansions and numerous small patches by the time MO will release and MO cannot compete with how complete DF will be at that stage.

MO may release in Q4 this year as they advertise, but if that happens it will be solely for budget reasons. I do hope that SV manage to pull it out of the bag and deliver what they promise but I have my doubts.

Vulpeculae

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth


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.

 

That is so subjective. Yes, I play to have fun, but that's not all of it. Some of us also want to escape reality, try out other lives that would be "impossible" in reality. "What if I were a blacksmith, a farmer or a villain in the medieval".  I don't really see why minimaps, auto-maps, levels, quests, auto-loot, auto-loot-distribution, auction-houses, global chat are necessary, it just a reminder that you're playing a stupid computer game. Nor do I want to be a superhero or a demigod, just a citizen in a fantasy world, living a life would never have been able to in his "reality".

So to sum it up, I disagree with you.

 

Slineer

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.

 

 

 

 

The way I see it is a game with features I personally have been looking for and find fun. I'm part of a niche group of gamers that finds this type of gameplay fun and rewarding. Apparently you are not, and that is fine, however there are a million wow clones and f2p Asian grinders out there for you. For people like me there is EVE which is a spreadsheet in space, and DarkFail which is a scam at best made and run by a dishonest company.

  You say the developers dont have professional knowledge and are apparently doing something wrong for making a game you won't enjoy. The developers are gamers themselves, and are making a game they will enjoy as well as the rest of us that fall into this niche. I will take a gamer for a developer any day over the corporate CEO's with their fat paychecks and closed doors with no community interaction at all. You enjoy playing your games, done to death by people who have no passion for their work. Run by people who aren't even gamers and are just trying to make a living. 

 

L1ghtsabeR

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth
 
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.
It's not different for the sake of different, it's different because they believe they can in this way create a more challenging and rewarding gaming experience. Whether you agree with it or not is really a non-issue, since obviously not all gamers are looking for a challenge, but rather seek easy gratification and rewards.
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.
Where did you get the idea that the UI in MO would be a challenge to navigate? The fact that they have a UI that is providing the player with the essentials and not showering them with excessive features (radars, minimaps) does not make it harder to navigate, it's makes the UI more simplistic and easy.
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.
That's how you see it. For some people, namely the niche crowd that MO is catering for, the realism is a good thing, since it provides an immersing gaming experience. Instead of having a GPS system and world maps in a medieval setting, they provide us with means to create our own maps. Instead of having items magically teleporting from one side of the world to another (global auction houses), players will actually have to organize trading caravans and transport the items manually. I could go on.
My point is, as Mats said many times, their game will not appeal to the majority of gamers, but you need to understand that there are people who enjoy the features and style of gameplay they are promising.
Game play/fun > Reality. There is simply no way to get around your playing a computer game, and the real limitations it imposes.
Why can't gameplay and fun also try to be realistic, at least as realistic as possible? I agree, a game is supposed to be fun to play, but that does not mean realism has to be thrown out of the window. As I said before, many gamers enjoy realistic features and just because you don't see eye-to-eye with them, does not make them wrong.
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.
They don't have disdain for casual gamers, they are simply trying to make it clear that many of the features that their game will lack are considered to be essential for a game to be good by a certain group of gamers (namely, casual gamers). What they are saying is that they are catering for a different group of gamers, the ones who seek a challenge and wish to have a more realistic gaming experience, where player interaction is a requirement, where teamwork and planning are essential for success.
 
I think Mats made it pretty clear that their intention is not to make a mainstream game, but something more similar to EVE, a game which is also challenging and not for everyone, yet still has a very strong and growing following. 

 

Slineer

Originally posted by nin2010


You really need to wait and play Mortal Online at release before you say how much better it is than Darkfall. Right now all Mortal Online has is a list of planned features and the developers goal for what they want. It might all sound fantastic but it actually needs to be in the game and it needs to work properly before you can say how amazing any of it is.  The fact is that Darkfall will have gone through at least two expansions and numerous small patches by the time MO will release and MO cannot compete with how complete DF will be at that stage.
MO may release in Q4 this year as they advertise, but if that happens it will be solely for budget reasons. I do hope that SV manage to pull it out of the bag and deliver what they promise but I have my doubts.

 

I'll settle for fun game play. Also it will be nice if I don't get charged twice for the same game after promising I wouldn't be. In addition it would be awesome if I could play with my friends and not have them have their accounts banned for billing errors on the companies end. Finally, should all the above happen, I might even just settle for said company not accusing said friends account of hacking, 2 months after it was canceled and banned for billing issues on said companies side and refusing further appeal on the matter.

What you refer to as expansions are what the rest of us see as content promised at release, for 3 yrs, promised day 1 in game.  In addition, changes to what is most likely a spreadsheet on skill gain, making the game less off a grind, something that could have been done in beta. Aventurine is Darkfalls own worst enemy, I sense item shops in DF's future, direct cash deposits to Tasos' paypal account just like the NA launch.

Ruyn

The best things about this game (so far for me) are no maps (besides player made ones), no global chat and local banking.

Getting lost could be a real possibility.  Player interaction will be much deeper than other mmo's due to the alienating effect with not having a global chat channel.   Also, a lot of cool sandboxy elements arise with the introduction of local banking.  All good things imo.

Einstein-DF

I like how the MO fans come out in droves and start shittalking DF with darkfail and scams and all the other good stuff, when it's completely unrelated to the article.

 

Perhaps you guys should keep quiet and continue bug testing and supporting the game, which is what it needs considering MO's beta right now.

 

Just saying.

L1ghtsabeR

Originally posted by Einstein-DF


I like how the MO fans come out in droves and start shittalking DF with darkfail and scams and all the other good stuff, when it's completely unrelated to the article.
 
Perhaps you guys should keep quiet and continue bug testing and supporting the game, which is what it needs considering MO's beta right now.
 
Just saying.

Come out in droves? There was like one person in the whole thread who said something bad about DF and the first one to mention DF was a guy who tried to downplay MO by saying that it's just copying DF.

 

Stop trying to play the victim here. Just saying.

Realbigdeal

Its really good to see that soon, we will get 2 choice of game that are clone of UO with fpv gameplay. I play DF at the moment and i started when the grind had been reduced and pvp is fun now for even newbs and average players. We can now kill vets if we play better.

But when mortal online will release, thats where i will be because im a fan of oblivion and MO gameplay kind of follow it more.

Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by L1ghtsabeR



I think Mats made it pretty clear that their intention is not to make a mainstream game, but something more similar to EVE, a game which is also challenging and not for everyone, yet still has a very strong and growing following. 

 

Eve has every feature they dislike or will not be using, making my point. It is still a unique game, with common to the genre features while still having unique game play and a niche appeal. The rest of your post is part assumptions to my meaning, and lack of comprehension.

Those features, and being niche are not mutually exclusive.

I would also be careful in assuming that niche games are not for someone, you never know who your talking to.

 

Could it work out? Maybe. Will it? Signs point to no, as this is not the first game to even try.

 

Ozmodan

First off, first person view does not work in an MMO unless you offer it as an option.  The vast majority of players want to see what they are wearing.  I don't grasp how posters think they need first person view for immersion. 

Secondly this game is just not ready.  They really need at least another year, which of course won't happen so all the initial players will be essentially paying to beta test it.

It is a shame we are getting these half done or poorly done games in this niche, most of us are still waiting for a decent MMO to fill it.

TomTrixx

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.

...

You know where to put your troll comment.

 

 

Good and valid opinions, to which I agree to a certain extent. To the parts I don't agree, others have neatly summed the arguments previously in this thread, so I refrain from iterating them.

Didn't say you were a troll, it just came out that way when spurting out comments like that with no meat to back it up. Why didn't you just include your comments in your first post, if you didn't want to come off as a troll? (no need to answer that actually)

 

L1ghtsabeR

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth
 

Eve has every feature they dislike or will not be using, making my point. It is still a unique game, with common to the genre features while still having unique game play and a niche appeal. The rest of your post is part assumptions to my meaning, and lack of comprehension.
Those features, and being niche are not mutually exclusive.
I would also be careful in assuming that niche games are not for someone, you never know who your talking to.
 
Could it work out? Maybe. Will it? Signs point to no, as this is not the first game to even try.

EVE is a sci-fi game, they can justify having advanced positioning systems and displaying a great amount of data to the player. MO will take place in a medieval low fantasy world, where technology is not nearly as advanced, so it simply wouldn't make sense to implement them if one wishes to strive for realism, as MO developers clearly do.

If you feel the rest of my post had too many assumptions then you simply should have made your points in a more clear fashion, since I'm confident I have no problems with comprehending the English language.

 

And of course those features can be incorporated into a sandbox MMO, but the MO devs simply chose not to do so, since they feel their approach encourages more direct player to player interaction, which in my mind is what MMORPG's should be about.

 

Also, I did not assume a single thing about your playing preferences, I was speaking in general.