Why did you quit haven in w11? [Strawpoll]

[Archiplex]

I have always been curious to see what would happen if the dev's split the server to 1 pvp, 1 non-pvp, and see which would A: have a larger starting population, and B: maintain a larger population over a 4 month period.

The answer to that is fairly obvious. The problem is that the devs know non-pvp servers are not something they want to make: Loftar made a post about this a while ago, but PVP is essential as without it, much greater forms of griefing are possible. What do you do when someone settles nearby you and begins using up resources? What do you do when someone claims the land all around you and boxes you in with a palisade? What do you do when someone moves in next to you and rushes a village claim immediately and prevents you from making your own? etc etc.

Manual interference and moderation is something they don't want to do, and while a non-pvp server would be larger initially and maintain a larger population, that also doesn't mean it's good. It's also, I suspect, not something they want to make at all.

[Granger]

I have always been curious to see what would happen if the dev's split the server to 1 pvp, 1 non-pvp, and see which would A: have a larger starting population, and B: maintain a larger population over a 4 month period.

The answer to that is fairly obvious.

It isn't.

And BTW, that offer is still on the table. I would really like to see what would happen without free alts and an IMHO punishment for defeat in battle that works reasonably with long term character development. I predict that we would see way more new faces in combat, simple because fumbling won't any longer be the end for non-faction players. IMHO the problem isn't PvP, but that the consequences that are currently attached are not palatable for the average player.

[The_Lich_King]

I would really like to see what would happen without free alts

I would love to see this too, actually i think it would make the game so much more enjoyable, people whom are blacksmiths would have to look for sewers to make their stuff or try to be an all around character, which would actually give hermits a purpose. Trade would be through the roof cause someone whom specializes in one thing would desperately need the other and villages would form around the idea of trying to fill all the character niches and would need independant people to do so. It would change the whole dynamic of the game for the better. The Problem? it's physically impossible and can never be obtained. If you limit it to one character per account, people will make dozens of accounts. If you limit accounts to one per email, then people will make multiple emails. there is no method we can possibly employ to limit alting. If we insentivize making one char, by giving buffs to people whom only have one, then people will make one per account and the above issue enters into effect. If you debuff the stats of food and curios you make by the amount that you make per day (such that it would be beneficial to only make the amount you need for one char) then people will have multiple curio making alts so that they can bypass this buff.

There is no way to stop alting. but i do agree that a world without alting is something i would desperately love and i wish Jorbtar would actually try to implement the offer you suggested at least a little just to see how the world would turn out.

[dageir]

If we had to play 30 dollars to establish any account, this would slash alting by a lot. I would be willing to play that to minimize alt problems.

[ErdTod]

If we had to play 30 dollars to establish any account, this would slash alting by a lot. I would be willing to play that to minimize alt problems.

Pay to play was with what HnH2 started. And it didn't do good. Free to play games tend to have better monetization through cosmetics and convenience bonuses - this is the reason why AAA-game producers add such content (i.e. lootboxes) to their games that you have to buy to play.

Also, I'd love to take part in Grangers project.

[dageir]

It would almost solve the alt problem.

[ErdTod]

Probably it will, but also it would make the game loose most of it's Ukrainian and Russian players, which seem to be quite a part of it. 30$ here and in Russia is quite a lot, though not in capitals...

[Granger]

If we had to play 30 dollars to establish any account, this would slash alting by a lot. I would be willing to play that to minimize alt problems.

Pay to play was with what HnH2 started. And it didn't do good.

Depends on perspective. The shitstorm that happened was basically created by a mob of dickheads that felt entitled to play the game for free forever.

Free to play games tend to have better monetization through cosmetics and convenience bonuses - this is the reason why AAA-game producers add such content (i.e. lootboxes) to their games that you have to buy to play.

I still think that having a price of admission would make Haven a better game, simply by limiting the ability to brute-force the game through alts.

There have been plenty of fruitless arguments about this and there will be even more, simply from us lacking the needed data to settle them. That's why I would like to do the A/B test of having two parallel worlds (that differs only on very few mechanics: monetarization, death penalty, preferably also an upper limit on character progression) so there's the baseline of the other (free) server to compare the effects from the altered rules against. As we deal with an online game that has recurring costs (server, maintenance, new content) having a monthly fee is the only way to go, 'pay once' won't work.

Also, I'd love to take part in Grangers project.

Well, then we're already two so the pay2play world would at least be multiplayer online... now we just need to work on the 'massive' part.

And on convincing the devs to do that experiment, which will IMHO be the hardest part as I see quite some reluctance from them to do it - for reasons unknown, as IMHO it makes no sense at all to not take the opportunity of doing a basically free (as me as a 3rd party is willing to pay the hosting costs) A/B test that has a fair chance of yielding data that's likely essential in making the game more prosperous.

[The_Lich_King]

What if it were just the 10$ fee people pay to be verified. It would still cut down on alting, because that 10$ is alot to pay for an an alt, but that's also not unreasonable and the vast majority of us payed 10$ for verified anyways (people whom are already verified wouldn't have to pay again.)

10$ for every account and 1 character per account does seem like it may at least sorta solve the alot problem (there would be those whom would shell out infinite cash for alts) and i would love to see what trade in this world would look like since anyone speicializing would need to trade with everyone else. Also it would FINALLY, make all around building viable.

[Granger]

As we deal with an online game that has recurring costs (server, maintenance, new content) having a monthly fee is the only way to go, 'pay once' won't work.