One thing that is annoying whenever this topic is being discussed, is people having dogmatic beliefs of how the ideal MPVO "should" be. Its annoying because MPVO is a broad term and there are different use cases for scopes in this category. These different use cases dictate different balances of features, which are sometimes mutually exclusive.
For me, I like MPVOs because I am running an offset dot, and find a 1x scope to be redundant. Id rather take the $ and engineering needed to make a good 1x and put that towards a better high end. I leave the scope on its lowest setting which enables me switch between 1x and 2.5x in a fraction of a second, enabling precision in scenarios where you would have only a 1x if using an LPVO, without taking my hands off the gun to adjust anything. This also gives a great setup for passive aiming.
For that use case I need a bold center reticle to quickly engage targets at the low end as close as possible. I don't want to have to rely on scope illumination with its short battery life, so the reticle itself being bold is essential.
On the high end I want markedly better performance than I could get from an LPVO. A mil-tree is pretty much a necessity. I feel adjustable parallax helps to a great deal here. Its not so much about removing parallax error as it is about focusing on the target, such as to resolve a camouflaged target from the background.
I like this setup so much that LPVOs no longer interest me. if I want to save weight/bulk, I would rather go all the way down to an RDS and QD magnifier.