Please run the worlds 6 months apart

[Kinglazy]

I might have missed an update detailing the planned schedules for world resets but it seems to me the majority of the players (me included) prefare the early to mid game of a world. It's the most exciting, action packed, socially active period. Most people stop playing 2-3 months in to the world life for whatever reason.

Players who want the one year experience can remain and enjoy see numbers go up. Players that enjoy starting fresh in an abandoned world and loot decaying bases can do so twice a year. Players that want the new world experience don't need to wait 9 months to do it. New players are more likely to join a fresh world where everyone is "on equal footing", let's just hope they don't learn about bots. Speaking of which, botters can bot twice as much, one for their old number grinder, and one for their new noob stomping grounds.

This is an arrangement that every one benefits from (specially the devs as players are more likely to double their yearly spending on the game)

If the devs so choose, please also make a third world for wild experimentation (like having time move twice as fast) that resets independently at devs discretion

[Frogg]

As a MMO player I’ve got Fresh Start Server fatigue.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

As a MMO player I’ve got Fresh Start Server fatigue.

Haven's genesis in 2008-2009 predated the modern survival genre, so we've always called it an MMO, and I think that's pretty clearly what Jorb and Loftar set out to make.
Ironically, they ended up with something far more similar to the survival genre, accidentally - Or I guess more properly through convergent evolution.

It wasn't until 2012-2013 with the advent of Rust and DayZ, and the plethora of games that followed (Ark, Conan Exiles, Etc), that the multiplayer survival genre really got fleshed out.
Let me ask you something - Does Haven have more in common with Rust/Ark/Conan or Albion/Eve Online?

To have an "eternal" world, you probably need to build it from the ground up to have a specific endgame market loop that goes to infinity, alongside substantial horizontal character progression that would take years to complete - Like Albion or EvE, where there are commodity markets that are stable despite player advancement, inflation is strongly controlled by "central bank" pressures which are simulated by the developers, item faucets are roughly scaled to item sinks, and accumulation of infinite wealth and horizontal character progression while interacting with the sandbox is basically the goal. Every time people get close to hitting completion of the horizontal character progression, the devs need to step in to add more content or another layer to progression, to keep things in balance. The markets also need to be delicately handled to stop run-away inflation (or botted deflation, which is why both EvE and Albion have task forces to combat botting AND RMT.)

Haven is SO MUCH more similar to Rust and other entries in the multiplayer survival genre. You gather resources in the world that aren't being bottlenecked at the faucet, bring them back to your base where you accumulate wealth quickly, and go through tiers of advancement. Once you hit the endgame, the game narrows considerably, just like it does in other survival games. The fact that there is incrementally infinite quality and character progression in Haven is nice, but not an adequate alternative to the core progression in the game. Haven differs from most survival games because of 1) its scale - it is absolutely larger in both size and concurrent player potential than most MMO shards; 2) the depth of its systems.

If you've ever hit the endgame in Haven, you'll know that item inflation is so stark that items which may have been worth a shit ton in the early game are so worthless you'd be unable to sell them in the endgame. That even applies to food and curios, which theoretically you'll always need. Back in W15 late game, people were attempting to sell entire cheese trays for a single coin - of lowest denomination coins we printed. They were not moving in the market, and kept in stock - Which was indicative that their actual value on the market was less than the smallest coin we circulated.

Even if we theoretically revamped or overhauled all of Haven's systems to better fit an eternal realm like EvE or Albion - What's going to happen to the market? Bots, once set up, are extremely good at producing insane amounts of items that regular play can't replicate. If a botter makes all the cheese, it makes your own market contribution worth the same amounts as the bots. Which is to say, almost nothing, because they can always undercut you - IF people even care enough to buy whatever it is you're producing.

On the other hand, with a reset system, botters need to justify setting up their entire bot operations again and again. The shorter the world, the less payoff they get for this, and the less power imbalance/unfairness is created. The Laissez-Faire system that Jorb and Loftar prefers, and the systems already in the game, are just better suited for the seasonal survival model than they are the eternal MMO server model.

[magnet]

interesting read

NOW RESET THE WORLD FORB AND LOBART

[Frogg]

As a MMO player I’ve got Fresh Start Server fatigue.

words.

Haven is like Wurm Online, the antisocial sandbox MMO. You play by yourself with some friends or alts in some distant corner of the map and hope nobody bothers you.
There's not enough PvP action to compare it to Rust-likes or Albion/Eve. The average HnH player does not participate in PvP and often plays the entire wipe without meaningful player interactions of any kind.
This adds nothing to the discussion. Just some thoughts.

[serVar161]

I don't think there will be three servers, and I certainly don't think it's worth doubling the speed of the world.

With a 40% speedup, the life of an average citizen often feels like Groundhog Day – by the time you finish your daily chores, you have to start over.
Also, dividing the online game into three servers and having a small online player base on each isn't a good idea.
Furthermore, separating players by preferred playstyle makes each server less diverse, which ultimately impacts the number of players online.

[serVar161]

Here are some points that, in my opinion, would have a positive impact on online play:

1) One server, four-month world duration. Two to three months is too little, five to six is ​​too much.

2) Tight controls over game clients and bots. Bots and some client features negatively impact the game.

3) Addition of in-game social interaction tools.

4) Changes and additions to mechanics that encourage people to interact with each other and team up.

5) Shifting and increasing content toward survival and combat – not peaceful coexistence.

6) The abolition of "social inequality" in the form of wealth transfer from the old world to the new one, with a different method of rewarding support or active play.

7) Rewards for top players in various areas of the game at the end of the world. Tables of these top players.

[Kinglazy]

I don't think there will be three servers, and I certainly don't think it's worth doubling the speed of the world.

With a 40% speedup, the life of an average citizen often feels like Groundhog Day – by the time you finish your daily chores, you have to start over.
Also, dividing the online game into three servers and having a small online player base on each isn't a good idea.
Furthermore, separating players by preferred playstyle makes each server less diverse, which ultimately impacts the number of players online.

The speedy world comment was a jab at W16.1 and how it had experimentaly sped all wait times in the game. Either forcing players to keep playing the old W16 or bite the bullet and join in to learn a new timings and meta if they want a fresh world. Which might explain why W16.1 had the least turn up and retention of any world in years.

A third world is meant to be dedicated to experimental ideas and could be played by interested experienced players for a few insensitives from the devs. Like hats after achieving a given goal. It isn't meant for the majority of the players.

2 worlds is ideal but the idea that they reset together at December each year is asinine. It would just split the player base up and have non of the positives I listed. Of course this is just an assumption we have to make based on the games history but for all we know, the devs will start W17 next month. If only they would actually communicate more transparently.

[Halbertz]

Didn't bother to read all of this. Worlds resets are tied to the amount of gold sub money. We have no way to measure JnL's procrastination, so that's not relevant. So, you can spin the wheel every month, and if you have both 0 gold subscribers and low cortisol levels, the reset is imminent. That's it. Trying to figure anything else out is a waste of time.

[Frogg]

Worlds resets are tied to the amount of gold sub money.

[citation needed]