Stand Alone Server

[Aceb]

1. Stand alone version with current player base would bring less money to jorbtar
2. Don't compare to Stardew Valley, it's most retarded way. SV is so succesful, because for long time, there wasn't a decent game that would make it up for legacy that Harvest Moon series has built around it. On top of that, You might find similar stuff but it's completely different thing.
3. You will be always behind with your friends unless there's a lot of You that You can basically start a faction yourself. You don't have to bot. Without botting, my village could stand up in game of rising Q carrots, unless bad RNG started to happen. Then, later quality of clay hindered further our process. Botting helps a lot but it doesn't make You guaranteed first.
4. Standalone version would rip apart small, stable player base.
5. Gameplay would be way different knowing that world is yours for taking and only animals can hinder your process. (without bigger and stronger adventures, only underground would be a "somewhat" problem

[jock2]

1. Stand alone version with current player base would bring less money to jorbtar
2. Don't compare to Stardew Valley, it's most retarded way. SV is so succesful, because for long time, there wasn't a decent game that would make it up for legacy that Harvest Moon series has built around it. On top of that, You might find similar stuff but it's completely different thing.
3. You will be always behind with your friends unless there's a lot of You that You can basically start a faction yourself. You don't have to bot. Without botting, my village could stand up in game of rising Q carrots, unless bad RNG started to happen. Then, later quality of clay hindered further our process. Botting helps a lot but it doesn't make You guaranteed first.
4. Standalone version would rip apart small, stable player base.
5. Gameplay would be way different knowing that world is yours for taking and only animals can hinder your process. (without bigger and stronger adventures, only underground would be a "somewhat" problem

covered 1,2 in my last post.

3 botting is 100% efficiency all the time, no person can have that same track record so it does guarantee you'll be first or in the same tier as other botters.

4. It would expand the community beyond 1 server. People who want no pvp, or don't play "MMO's". Private builders and casual gamers all to name a few.

5. New Endgame content for PVE would be required and is needed anyway. Something stronger than a troll.

[Aceb]

1. Stand alone version with current player base would bring less money to jorbtar
2. Don't compare to Stardew Valley, it's most retarded way. SV is so succesful, because for long time, there wasn't a decent game that would make it up for legacy that Harvest Moon series has built around it. On top of that, You might find similar stuff but it's completely different thing.
3. You will be always behind with your friends unless there's a lot of You that You can basically start a faction yourself. You don't have to bot. Without botting, my village could stand up in game of rising Q carrots, unless bad RNG started to happen. Then, later quality of clay hindered further our process. Botting helps a lot but it doesn't make You guaranteed first.
4. Standalone version would rip apart small, stable player base.
5. Gameplay would be way different knowing that world is yours for taking and only animals can hinder your process. (without bigger and stronger adventures, only underground would be a "somewhat" problem

covered 1,2 in my last post.

3 botting is 100% efficiency all the time, no person can have that same track record so it does guarantee you'll be first or in the same tier as other botters.

4. It would expand the community beyond 1 server. People who want no pvp, or don't play "MMO's". Private builders and casual gamers all to name a few.

5. New Endgame content for PVE would be required and is needed anyway. Something stronger than a troll.

Even if I accept your statement to my "1", You haven't covered "2" anywhere nearby. You still compare a game, that people were carving for, to a game, which is some time on and has stable but not so large player base. It's not the same type of game and not the same target.

3. Sure botting is 100% efficiency, but I remember even people in previous worlds fighting over Q rised by hand and by bot. Also as I said:

Without botting, my village could stand up in game of rising Q carrots, unless bad RNG started to happen. Then, later quality of clay hindered further our process. Botting helps a lot but it doesn't make You guaranteed first.

Botting won't get You that close as You still have to find good nodes, have a knowledge and a plan. So gtfo with You bullshit of 100% bot = win.

4. Yeah. If You use stardew valley, then I will I dunno, use dark souls. It splitted it's player base across entire series. If I imagine each standalone version having some paramets changed (or possibility to do so) to them and stuff, people would seek the "best" one.

5. So yeah, adding content just to have standanalone version having stuff that MMO one don't have?

[jock]

I covered 2 with a few simple questions.

Please elaborate on the many differences beyond pvp that HH has over SV or HM.

Mining?
Farming?
Fishing?
Building?
Skilling?

It has hunting, exploration. it's similar to way more depths. HH is better in every aspect, hence the fact it would trump the market.
HS/SV has some garbage NPC stuff.

3. is an irrelevant argument anyway, botting isn't playing video games. Bots are made to be improved and are little effort but fine, lets say your right.
How much effort is required to do that v running a small script?
How nice is it to log in to find half the village is just botting, login into tasks?
What about people who don't want to have to compete with bots?

4. dark souls? Nothing of it's aspects are like this game can you elaborate why this game came into the picture?
it's an entirely different game type, in a very different market with hugely different mechanics.
IF however, you mean it became a very successful franchise by not limiting itself to one game i agree.

5. New Content that the actual game needs anyway and that could be added to the MMO version?
Same code, same animals and same content.
Very little would actually be needing done to allow this to happen.

[DDDsDD999]

This thread again.

[jock]

This thread again.

So there is a market if it's regularly brought up?

[MagicManICT]

I'm sure this has been mention before but I really think this is both the best business model and potentially the best outcome for gaming.

Instead of spending your time typing up this post, you should have spent it digging through the history of the forum and reading the dev responses to previous requests. The answer is a resounding "No," because it takes time and interest to develop, the former not available because there is none of the latter.

We have also explicitly put this in the sticky post "10 ideas you should stop posting new threads about." It's just not going to happen. Don't ask