Crime & Punishment: Holmgang

[Kaios]

then fast travel became x10 harder

I do miss having an option like sublime portico.

[SnuggleSnail]

When fast travel was nerfed into the ground W11 resulting in no global market and severely reduced PVP for the next few years specifically you were one of the people who vehemently defended it because AD was bullying you and you wanted it to be harder for them to get to you :stare1:

[Kaios]

I don't think so, I thought I argued in favour of stuff like that when in comes to trade because I agree in situations like having a lack of access to a charter stone does indeed impact one's ability to trade. Could be wrong though maybe I did say something like that too, I do believe the crossroads system and ease of access to cross-continent travel wasn't ideal especially because of how it allowed for creating vaults only accessible by means of teleportation.

It's an issue with many factors to consider.

[yuuya331]

Lately, I feel like players are overly protected.
Back when I used to play, getting KO’d often meant being killed outright.
But coming back after a while, now in its 3D version, I’m surprised to see that getting killed by other players doesn’t happen anymore.

Here’s a suggestion: the system is already complex enough, so please don’t add any more unnecessary features.
It’s impossible to distinguish between aggression and peace, so I find it ridiculous that there are penalties for attacking someone like Sprucecap (who could very well be an annoying bot or an alt account).

[Sephiron]

[...]

I feel a lot of the compromises like this one, while silly for other reasons, would not make the people disinterested in PVP happy.

Before you died every time you got KO,
then you rarely died when you got KOed,
then fast travel became x10 harder,
then raiding was removed,
then you only died when you got KOed if you fucked up badly (and still only rarely in that case),
then there was a funny reverted bit where you couldn't even loot people you KOed,
then siege was removed,
and now the hermits are asking for just one more thing again.

No matter how many of these inches are given the LARPers who still can't run in a straight line after 10 years are still going to get fucked and be asking for another inch. If some guy who quit because I murdered him could've shoved his key up his ass, or knew my stats were a bit lower would it really have changed anything on an emotional level for him? Get real.

Listen, I agree with you. I don't have any issue with PVP or people who participate (I haven't been killed by another player since W7). But if someone asked me "What would it take for you to get into PVP?", that's what I would tell them. It's a whole fuckload of work just to get at your level and frankly I don't have that kind of time. But If I could realistically be able to participate in PVP with only 100 STR I would

[Archiplex]

[...]

I feel a lot of the compromises like this one, while silly for other reasons, would not make the people disinterested in PVP happy.

Before you died every time you got KO,
then you rarely died when you got KOed,
then fast travel became x10 harder,
then raiding was removed,
then you only died when you got KOed if you fucked up badly (and still only rarely in that case),
then there was a funny reverted bit where you couldn't even loot people you KOed,
then siege was removed,
and now the hermits are asking for just one more thing again.

No matter how many of these inches are given the LARPers who still can't run in a straight line after 10 years are still going to get fucked and be asking for another inch. If some guy who quit because I murdered him could've shoved his key up his ass, or knew my stats were a bit lower would it really have changed anything on an emotional level for him? Get real.

i think i used to support making it 'miserable' for pvpers, but in reality i think that was just my distaste for the floor level of how good factions were compared to the average person. i have never really cared about what solo sprucie hermits want in terms of pvp, but rather smaller/less competitive groups like what i normally run each world

nowadays i'd prefer equalizing by making it easier for weaker people to have a chance to fight back, rather than making crime more punishing

the stat equalization is one of my favorite things that happened, but there's still a bit of difference to make up - i dont think any newbie should be able to easily fight back, but at least make it so there's always a chance even with a gear difference to fight back against someone enough they may not just take every fight they see- that was the main motivator for my outlaw suggestion tbh, it's a lot less desireable to enter a 1v3 if that 3 can actually attack back

that said, the combat system itself is what i feel is the biggest divider in pvp for smaller/weaker groups - the needless complexity, trap options and the need to grind in combat just to even have the moves to fight back with

[Zampfeo]

On a more serious note, I don't think punishing PVPers would change the spruce cap experience. Making it more difficult to be killed vs KO'd was a good change. Making it not worth it to siege a hermit was a good change (albeit this has probably gone too far). So, if a spruce can't die and a spruce can't be sieged, the only real pain point that remains is the risk of losing their equipment. For a hermit that plays less than 10 hours a week, losing their equipment can mean days of lost time. Making it easier to get revenge on a PVPer or punishing them isn't going to make Haven a better game.

Maybe there could be a pacifist credo that makes your KO'd body unlootable, but your block weight against players is significantly reduced.

Or a gilding that makes looting an item give a wound, but provides negative combat stats.

Or a hearth magic that makes items teleport to your hearth fire when you're KO'd.

Or a combat maneuver that makes you instantly teleport to your hearth fire when you're KO'd, but reduces your agility and strength by 100%.

[Sephiron]

On a more serious note, I don't think punishing PVPers would change the spruce cap experience. Making it more difficult to be killed vs KO'd was a good change. Making it not worth it to siege a hermit was a good change (albeit this has probably gone too far). So, if a spruce can't die and a spruce can't be sieged, the only real pain point that remains is the risk of losing their equipment. For a hermit that plays less than 10 hours a week, losing their equipment can mean days of lost time. Making it easier to get revenge on a PVPer or punishing them isn't going to make Haven a better game.

Maybe there could be a pacifist credo that makes your KO'd body unlootable, but your block weight against players is significantly reduced.

Or a gilding that makes looting an item give a wound, but provides negative combat stats.

Or a hearth magic that makes items teleport to your hearth fire when you're KO'd.

Or a combat maneuver that makes you instantly teleport to your hearth fire when you're KO'd, but reduces your agility and strength by 100%.

No, hell no, killing people for fun isn't the only incentive to PVP.

[jock]

The game needs a morality system, one that reward chasing down sents and not creating them. That rewards defending your realm, village but does not reward murdering people for the lols of it.

Right now there is literally zero reason for a pvper to not murder a hermit if they feel like it, the same people then complain the game doesn't grow. Morality should start at 100% and be the amount you get when you inherit, this should only go down when you commit crimes more so for serious crimes and recover when you knock/kill an immoral outlaw(with some recover of 1% per moon phase).

You should not make scents attacking an outlaw or a village that has someone with scents above tresspassing. This should also introduce a war system for realms to declare another realm an enemy and enable them to attack each other on sight with zero sents.

Oathed people into a realm can attack none oathed people in realm space as they own the land, move or swear or find a realm to fight and support.

[Sevenless]

The game needs a morality system, one that reward chasing down sents and not creating them. That rewards defending your realm, village but does not reward murdering people for the lols of it.

Right now there is literally zero reason for a pvper to not murder a hermit if they feel like it, the same people then complain the game doesn't grow. Morality should start at 100% and be the amount you get when you inherit, this should only go down when you commit crimes more so for serious crimes and recover when you knock/kill an immoral outlaw(with some recover of 1% per moon phase).

You should not make scents attacking an outlaw or a village that has someone with scents above tresspassing. This should also introduce a war system for realms to declare another realm an enemy and enable them to attack each other on sight with zero sents.

Oathed people into a realm can attack none oathed people in realm space as they own the land, move or swear or find a realm to fight and support.

Technically speaking the point of realm authority is to give a reason to keep hermits alive. It didn't work.

But making a more detailed realm war system... it doesn't change nabs being attacked. It just means who attacks you differs, since the pvpers just change where they hunt.