The Great Northern War

deathshroud

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/65681-conclusion-great-northern-war.html

 

the story of the first great war in MO, which was faught out between the majority of the guilds in Mortal online.

Rohn

I'm not a big political guy, but I do love reading that kind of stuff, especially since I got to experience some of it firsthand.

Nicely done by Archivist, looking forward to the other stuff he's also working on about the Crusade.

deathshroud

yea he is doing a fine job, also paratus recently said that with the new flash system for books the archivist will be able to simply write them ingame into a book and mass produce them, meaning stories like tihs will be readable ingame and he siad that the new book system was closer than we think. but ont only the archivist but all palyers will be able to do this writing their own stories and drawing their own pictures and maps

Z3R01

MO has enough players to actually have a war?

thought the pop was at sub 2k numbers? 

deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

keitholi

A war? With all of like, 12 people subscribed, wouldnt that be more like a skirmish or something? MO is a joke.

Z3R01

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

well that's nice. i was told MO was virtually dead.

I guess if people in Ryzom can get OP battles together people in MO could do the same.

Both games have similar population.

deathshroud

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHKM5Lvyx0 well theres a few more than 10 people playing evident by this video but this wasnt even one of the larger battles.

 

Moreplex

The fights in MO remind me of Dark Fall.  No one logs in until there is a fight.

 

But what bothers me about calling it a war in MO is there is no working territory control.  There is no defeat in a war.  You can not take anything over for rare resource control or control over a region you basically do it for epeening. 

Rohn

Just the opposite - there are fights because there are people logged in.

I know a few people have put in a lot of work reciting the same lines over and over for the community to see - the "There ARE no players, There are NO players, There are no PLAYERS" line of persuasion has been consistent, repetitious, and predictable.

There have been wars going on since launch, both small and large.  There's a war currently going on that has been keeping a lot of people entertained.  That's a part of the game.  One will also find slaggy's still smacking rocks and working grinders, and crafters plying their trades in towns.  The game does not have an enormous population, but it certainly does have enough to play with and make the game fun.

Moreplex

Originally posted by Rohn

Just the opposite - there are fights because there are people logged in.

I know a few people have put in a lot of work reciting the same lines over and over for the community to see - the "There ARE no players, There are NO players, There are no PLAYERS" line of persuasion has been consistent, repetitious, and predictable.

There have been wars going on since launch, both small and large.  There's a war currently going on that has been keeping a lot of people entertained.  That's a part of the game.  One will also find slaggy's still smacking rocks and working grinders, and crafters plying their trades in towns.  The game does not have an enormous population, but it certainly does have enough to play with and make the game fun.

Well I just walked to Meduli from fab I saw 3 people on the way.  What there are a lot of is houses TOO many infact.   Lots of houses little people and no PVE on the way. 

 

Like I said tho it really is not a war when there is no territory control or a reason to really fight instead of epeening.   I am a little east of meduli right now.  I may go to vadda I am getting pickables.  If you want to come along.

Rawiz

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

Pretty sure it was well established in that topic, that TRANSACTION NUMBERS don't mean the same as subscriptions.

If your so called "workings" are based on some other thread or piece of evidence, please present them.

Moreplex

Originally posted by Rawiz

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

Pretty sure it was well established in that topic, that TRANSACTION NUMBERS don't mean the same as subscriptions.

If your so called "workings" are based on some other thread or piece of evidence, please present them.

You are correct.

osmunda

Originally posted by Rawiz

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

Pretty sure it was well established in that topic, that TRANSACTION NUMBERS don't mean the same as subscriptions.

If your so called "workings" are based on some other thread or piece of evidence, please present them.

If, by "pretty well established" you mean it was suggested as a possibility by some people posting in the thread, then yes it is  "pretty well established".

The number of transactions per month did not increase when they started offering free trials. This suggests that while it may be "pretty well established" that free trials were included in the transaction number, it probably wasn't true.

Moreplex

Originally posted by osmunda

Originally posted by Rawiz

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

Pretty sure it was well established in that topic, that TRANSACTION NUMBERS don't mean the same as subscriptions.

If your so called "workings" are based on some other thread or piece of evidence, please present them.

If, by "pretty well established" you mean it was suggested as a possibility by some people posting in the thread, then yes it is  "pretty well established".

The number of transactions per month did not increase when they started offering free trials. This suggests that while it may be "pretty well established" that free trials were included in the transaction number, it probably wasn't true.

How do you know they didn't??  Do you have a side by side counter per free trial and paid accounts??  Do you know how many free trials signed up since free trials were offered?  And in the same time know how many people signed up to pay??  Unless you have all that information then you can not say that they have 5k subs "for sure".

 

Frankly unless you work for the SV acounting department you can not say they have 500 subs or 50k subs.  Lets just go by the fine print in the quarterlys...

Slapshot1188

Are we really arguing over whether or not an MMORPG has 5k subs?  5k?  This is like those arguments about whether the peak population is 300 or 500.   It's so ridiculously low it doesn't matter if they had 5000 subs or 2000.  They need to add an extra zero and start talking about 50,000 subs.  THAT is an MMO.  I mean... Henrik was bragging a year ago that the server was upgraded to handle 27,000 simultaneous players.... and we are arguing over 2000 to 5000 SUBS?

 

 

Umm... OK... whatever.

Toferio

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

"last time", even the OP who started that thread admitted that he was probably wrong and god knows (and henrik, obviously) what those nubmers really represent. Maybe accounts created in total, maybe it's hashed, etc.

Do you really think that Henrik, who is doing everything he can to avoid mentioning the actual number of active players (such as giving number of forum users instead, lol!) would let such an obvious way to see it be?

ShortyBible

Originally posted by Rohn

Just the opposite - there are fights because there are people logged in.

I know a few people have put in a lot of work reciting the same lines over and over for the community to see - the "There ARE no players, There are NO players, There are no PLAYERS" line of persuasion has been consistent, repetitious, and predictable.

There have been wars going on since launch, both small and large.  There's a war currently going on that has been keeping a lot of people entertained.  That's a part of the game.  One will also find slaggy's still smacking rocks and working grinders, and crafters plying their trades in towns.  The game does not have an enormous population, but it certainly does have enough to play with and make the game fun.

So what are they fighting for? What did the winners of "The Great Northern War"  accomplish?

Thanks.

deathshroud

cant really speak for the first war, but the current war, my guild as in aq want to rid the northern lands of other guilds, we want to destroy their assets and clense the north with siege weapons so that we can rightfully claim it as ours. The enemies of aq banded a huge force together in an attempt to stop us from doing so, they beleive that we will not stop that we are the enemy and that we will continue to tear down player buildings all across the map.

the war will likely end when the north is cleansed by aq, or when the other armies can destory our assets in our homeland and box us in until we run out of funds and catapults. Once severe strain is put upon a guilds finances and palyers its often the case that they eventually break and disband or pull out of the war in the hopes of becoming neutral.

osmunda

@moreplex and slapshot: responded in the original thread on that topic

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4383573#4383573

ShortyBible

Originally posted by deathshroud

 

the war will likely end when the north is cleansed by aq, or when the other armies can destory our assets in our homeland and box us in until we run out of funds and catapults. Once severe strain is put upon a guilds finances and palyers its often the case that they eventually break and disband or pull out of the war in the hopes of becoming neutral.

Or the other players quit the game ?

Makes a lot of sense to me. Good luck in "The Great Northern War" I hope you win.

Catchmeifu

Originally posted by Rawiz

Originally posted by deathshroud

last time it was worked out at around 5k subs, not including trial accounts but certainly has enoguh for a war since im in one right now.

Pretty sure it was well established in that topic, that TRANSACTION NUMBERS don't mean the same as subscriptions.

If your so called "workings" are based on some other thread or piece of evidence, please present them.

Yes it could be more than the transactions because people can pay in 3 months and 6 months and to the other crowd saying that it counts trials there just guessing. It would be a better assumption that it does not count trials because the people that process the transations are a third party site that does not engage until you pay for the account.

Moreplex

Originally posted by deathshroud

cant really speak for the first war, but the current war, my guild as in aq want to rid the northern lands of other guilds, we want to destroy their assets and clense the north with siege weapons so that we can rightfully claim it as ours. The enemies of aq banded a huge force together in an attempt to stop us from doing so, they beleive that we will not stop that we are the enemy and that we will continue to tear down player buildings all across the map.

the war will likely end when the north is cleansed by aq, or when the other armies can destory our assets in our homeland and box us in until we run out of funds and catapults. Once severe strain is put upon a guilds finances and palyers its often the case that they eventually break and disband or pull out of the war in the hopes of becoming neutral.

The first war ended when most of the people involved quit the game.  Prophecy quit, most of 13 quit along with the Oasis alliance, most of CIR quit, most of Myrm quit, Alot of TOP quit. 

Maybe this war will end the same way. 

Torgrim

Originally posted by Moreplex

But what bothers me about calling it a war in MO is there is no working territory control.  There is no defeat in a war.  You can not take anything over for rare resource control or control over a region you basically do it for epeening. 

 

EVEs Great Northern War back in 05, involved thousands of players, alliances fought one another all this was before CCP patch in system sovereignty which means there were no territory control as a game mecanic.

So by your logic all thouse thousands of players didnt fight a war?

Moreplex

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Moreplex

But what bothers me about calling it a war in MO is there is no working territory control.  There is no defeat in a war.  You can not take anything over for rare resource control or control over a region you basically do it for epeening. 

 

EVEs Great Northern War back in 05, involved thousands of players, alliances fought one another all this was before CCP patch in system sovereignty which means there were no territory control as a game mecanic.

So by your logic all thouse thousands of players didnt fight a war?

First this is 2011. 

Second MO says it has a territory control system.  Which is actually a place holder.

Third as one other poster has said with the low pop that MO has it is imposssible to have that kind of Role Playing War. 

Fourth that's right you said thousands of players fought in the war so yes you can actually roleplay people guarding thier piece of the pie. 

 

And in EVE even before sov. came in there was still systems.  I was easy to blockade jump points 24/7 with the healty population.

Rohn

After some final edits, they've posted the final version of the conclusion of the Great Northern War to the Mortal Chronicles:

http://www.mortalonline.com/content/the-great-northern-war-part-2-conclusion-the-great-northern-war