As a non pvper, I think more pvp is what the game needs

[Kinglazy]

To clarify, what the game needs is busier worlds and more social interaction (including pvp). It needs NEW PLAYERS. More precisily the ability to retain new players.
I am giving my critique as someone who loves the game. And as someone on a rotating door with new players, watching them come and go never to return.

I think pvp is dumb. I wouldn't engage with it even if the combat was good in the game. I don't pick the mean choice with NPCs let alone stand to ruin days of effort of actual people. But I can't deny PVP and raiding is crucial to the game experience, to PVEers even if they deny it. Raider dread should stay, even encouraged. But in-game social interaction can't all be negative. We are 16 worlds in now, I think we can conclude that we can't depend on the players alone to make the positive interactions.

IMO 2 things must happen:
A) Better tutorials
B) PVP incentives


A-1) An always-on PVP game shouldn't demand external research for PVP elements

External research games are games that teach bare minimum basic functions (if any at all) and then leaves "exploring" the mechanics and content to the player. Games like minecraft and Elden ring share that aspect with haven and that's fine, I like researching and those who don't, like to stumble around in to their own pace. It's not ok when you don't explain a mechanic that is demanded to progress or punish the player for unexplained community "common knowledge". You are demanding too much from new players because you need to master way more than combat to pvp. You need absolute knowledge of every aspect of pve just to know where and how to get equipment and moves. Mandatory botting to keep up with cheaters stats. Understanding of the game culture and politics just to avoid any pvp at all. I personally think think combat should be re-hauled so even new players can meaningfully retaliate from the get go but I know that's too much to ask.

However the minimum you could do is have info boxes explaining your divergent game culture to the mainstream audience, at least until they are behind a "complete" palisade. Not asking for hand holding but maybe an aggressive pointer. Fill it with all the "play smart" tips the grief defenders smugly regurgitate when anyone criticizes their precious exclusive club system. Such as: Don't build near raider highways (water), rush palisades, set up study tables, set claim..etc. Coat them with in-game larp language. Yes there are quests to help players understand the game mechanically, but not culturally. Players don't leave for dying, they know they signed for a perma-death game. What player loathe is being blindsided by murder hobos and having nothing they could do about it.

Choices should be my undoing, not knowledge gaps.

Also ban bots. I am bewildered how this is still a thing.

A-2) In-game in-depth combat and stats tutorial

I get it, make a deck of cards, set up colored defenses, attack weaknesses. Sounds easy and it is. But it's so poorly explained that it terrifies noobs from trying because they can only experiment with the fear of losing all their progress hanging over their head. Don't demand players learn basic game mechanics from trial and error from a game that has "perma-death" slapped on every thing that promotes it. Also, please explain stats and how they integrate with the food and leveling up system. It's so unique, unintuitive and integral to the game.


B-1) Give PVP a point besides stealing and community (forced) drama

I am no coder, I can't imagine what goes in to things like this and on this scale. So this is where I will be speaking out of my ass a little and spit balling.

The game already have kings, factions and realms. So how about an endorsement system? PVPers can keep doing what they are doing but also could present villages (or hermits) they meet with an in-game contract for support instead of just raiding them. Like a credo, the PVEs will be presented with constant quests that on completion would reward the PVPs with bonuses that helps them claim the realms vs other PVPs. Sort of like a tax. How they communicate and settle things are up to the 2 parties. The PVPs can offer protection from other PVPs and griefers with a teleport feature (allowing pvpers to actually engage each other on common bases). PVP factions war with each other to conquer while having an incentive to be nice to other players, they could always just ransack them if it's a preferable option.

[magnet]

PUT BOTS IN VALHALLA THAT ACT LIKE REAL PLAYERS AND CHASE YOU AND YOU CAN FIGHT THEM WITH NO RISK

[Frogg]

The real “new player filter” is the devs’ stance on botting, cheating, and custom clients. You can’t make HnH more attractive to new players until there are clear rules and a moderation team to enforce them.

b-but they can’t do that. Every game has bots, hurr durr.

They haven’t even tried yet.

[serVar161]

I generally agree.

On the one hand, it's about exploring the game independently. On the other, players who have played 10+ worlds have already formed groups, developed leveling and combat tactics, and use bots, etc.

Initial quests and quests for learning abilities help you get a feel for the game, but they lack truly important quests like claiming a claim, building a palisade, or collecting cards. Quests that focus on learning defense and combat are essential. Therefore, in-game quests that allow you to learn the game and progress would be useful. So that people learn the game within the game, not through wikis and guides.

Bots are evil. As are some client functions. I think controlling these aspects would be helpful and would make the game more interesting. For example, banning and combating bots. Instead of using bots, villages could seek out newcomers to perform the tasks currently performed by bots and train them. This would be more interesting for veterans, and newcomers would be safer and have better conditions for survival and learning the game.

[serVar161]

PUT BOTS IN VALHALLA THAT ACT LIKE REAL PLAYERS AND CHASE YOU AND YOU CAN FIGHT THEM WITH NO RISK

Remind me what I need to do to get to Valhalla?
Stand in the starting location for a minute until a rainbow appears?
How does a new player know about this and even about Valhalla's existence?

[serVar161]

The real “new player filter” is the devs’ stance on botting, cheating, and custom clients. You can’t make HnH more attractive to new players until there are clear rules and a moderation team to enforce them.

b-but they can’t do that. Every game has bots, hurr durr.

They haven’t even tried yet.

First, we need a clear stance on bots. And then, based on that, control over third-party clients. Only trusted clients that don't have bot functionality are allowed.
Bots will still be in the game, but significantly less so. And if we add penalties for using bots, they'll be even less so.
But for this to happen, there needs to be rules somewhere in the game that clearly state, "No bugs, bots, or cheats allowed. Ugh! Not allowed!"

[vatas]

You could argue that Blizzard makes a bad example because they've just decided "who cares, bots pay for subscription" but billion-dollar companies struggle to weed out bots. What are you expecting two Swedish guys to do?

[serVar161]

You could argue that Blizzard makes a bad example because they've just decided "who cares, bots pay for subscription" but billion-dollar companies struggle to weed out bots. What are you expecting two Swedish guys to do?

First, the rules: can or can't you use bots?

Some games prohibit the use of bots or scripts. People still use them, but when they're not prohibited, everyone uses them.

If they're banned, many will stop using bots. "Law-abiding" players, people who enjoy the game and the developers' work, will stop using them out of respect; bots will be removed from popular clients. They'll still use bots, but much less.

If you add bans for using bots, the same as for exploiting bugs—punishing the entire village that uses them—the number will decrease even more.

[serVar161]

The post I wanted to reply to has disappeared.

I don't use bots, so I don't know how much they affect the game. Obviously, they make it a lot easier. The main reason I'm against bots is that people are supposed to play the game, and instead of creating large villages, finding companions, finding the right craftsmen, recruiting newcomers, and training them, they just use bots. That's bad.

Regarding PvP and newcomer engagement, I have a couple of ideas for engaging players in PvP and increasing interest—I'll write about them a bit later. From what I've already suggested, one could use the"Robbery takes time"concept. The idea is to prevent players from looting everything from a defeated or killed enemy with a single button press or within two seconds. Removing an item takes time (either a constant value or increasing with each item). Then, during combat, you'll have to decide whether to remove equipment or fight. You could use newcomers as "squires"—so they can collect equipment while the "warriors" fight. Ultimately, newcomers will see how battles unfold, they will be taught the basics of defense, movement during combat (if they don't want to get killed), and thus get involved in PvP.

[Frogg]

You could argue that Blizzard makes a bad example because they've just decided "who cares, bots pay for subscription" but billion-dollar companies struggle to weed out bots. What are you expecting two Swedish guys to do?

Anti cheat system like a normal online game would be a good start.