Why not have natural character death from old age?

[Granger]

Killing characters through age, use or whatever would just be yet another band-aid strapped onto the game in an attempt to address the problems caused by endless growing numbers. It'll fail, as all the ones who came before did and as all that'll be coming afterwards will... simply because it's only trying to treat the metastases, instead of doing the smart thing which would be to remove the cancerous core that is spawning them.

[Actuarius]

Killing characters through age, use or whatever would just be yet another band-aid strapped onto the game in an attempt to address the problems caused by endless growing numbers. It'll fail, as all the ones who came before did and as all that'll be coming afterwards will... simply because it's only trying to treat the metastases, instead of doing the smart thing which would be to remove the cancerous core that is spawning them.

When you mention cancerous core, what are you referring to specifically? The need for a world reset?

[Granger]

Killing characters through age, use or whatever would just be yet another band-aid strapped onto the game in an attempt to address the problems caused by endless growing numbers. It'll fail, as all the ones who came before did and as all that'll be coming afterwards will... simply because it's only trying to treat the metastases, instead of doing the smart thing which would be to remove the cancerous core that is spawning them.

When you mention cancerous core, what are you referring to specifically?

Humans have a word for endless growth of things: Cancer. Statistic likely outcome is the death of the infested host, after a prolonged period of suffering. IMHO every H&H world so far (that didn't succumb to an accident) is a textbook example for this and basically all of the big problems of the game are stemming from it.

The need for a world reset?

World reset has two factors, the numbers having grown through the clouds toward the stars (making it pointless for everyone sane to join) and exhaustion of the worlds natural resources. The latter could be redeemed by adding currently missing mechanics to restore player caused changes to all levels (especially the underground)... but the former will kill each and every world until the devs decide to no longer repeat what obviously isn't working and go with an approach that dosen't doom the world through the math used for character and world development.

From another topic that is dealing with a different metastasis:

There are some protective features like pavement decay and slow cave decay to help the world reset naturally over time, but there are no solid mechanics in place to deal with things like infinite stat and quality growth over time.

[ricky]

I reckon a system of mechanics to shorten lifespans ('unhealthy' actions) and a system of mechanics to lengthen lifespans ('healthy' actions) would be interesting, opposed to straight useage/time limits. it would make sense that your first character - the berry picking mongrel - should have a much shorter lifespan than say your fifth character - the fat, happy farmer -

Having death as a straight decay feature though seems too punishing without any benefits to accompany it. perhaps every time you die your stat cap increases in some fashion, giving you some benefit to come from death. just as an example, perhaps every character retains 65% of his stats and all their skills (passed on from your forefathers), while the remaining 35% becomes an addition to your stat cap.

[pppp]

Killing characters through age, use or whatever would just be yet another band-aid strapped onto the game in an attempt to address the problems caused by endless growing numbers. It'll fail, as all the ones who came before did and as all that'll be coming afterwards will... simply because it's only trying to treat the metastases, instead of doing the smart thing which would be to remove the cancerous core that is spawning them.

The problem is there is no cost attached to using high q items. There is flat, one time cost of purchase (or make). If one had to consider gains vs costs per each use the behavior could be different. Consider system (e.g.EVE) where using better gear gives few percent more efficiency and puts several times more wealth at risk, which effectively lowers expected value of economic result, possibly below zero. (ugh, opportunity costs and such, gaining less than max possible per hour is already a loss).

Not sure, and not intending to make it look as ad personam, but do you guys know and and try to apply closed loop control concept (also)?

Translating that into game world, where physics and wear mean nothing, things can be kept in check by two ways: either by making it impossible to cross the limits (aka hard cap on the number) or by applying a stimulus to push it back into limits. Majority of proposals goes the first way and that includes diminishing return functions. IMHO the second option gives a nicer feel as it basically says, "you can cross the line but you will feel uncomfortable with that". That's what all kinds of cost functions do, they apply a stimulus to stay within the limits.
Then there is a choice of what should be input and output of the cost function (e.g. cost of using hammer (wear, materials, damage to using char) vs cost of making hammer (again: wear of tools, materials, damage to the smith character) )

Quite OT but I think making hammers (and anvils) decay or lose q at each use would suffice to keep metal q in check (depending on how much damage per use, preferably % rather than fixed amount). If crop q is also capped by soil q (multiplied by fertilizer tier) together with hammer decay it would keep all q in check. Make each soil type (biome) require different fertilizer and place it at the other side of the world. Plowed tiles must remember last biome type.

Note 1: in this proposal if hammer wear rate depends on hammer q it will be closed loop control and if wear rate is fixed it will be open loop control (mostly, feedback is on uses, but not on q itself, feedback is too weak) and crop q is controlled in open loop. For closed loop, the higher q plants should take more fertilizer. (remember old Salem hay economy ?)
Note 2: There is no time-dependent decay in this example, taking a break does not affect anything (except for actions of other players).
Note 3: HQ water currently works the way I am proposing for fertilizers. One has to keep importing HQ water for his industry.

[pppp]

There are also psychological evils here. Tryharders will try harder.
Hitting a cap makes people stop grinding and potentially quit on "I achieved everything" basis. If there is no cap or the cap is elastic then tryharders will push it up to the limits of their spare time. Not being able to compete with tryharders makes people quit on "I never achieve top / I cannot compete" basis. The width of "elasticity zone" affects difference between nolifers and casuals and allows to balance between the two extremes.

[Granger]

There are also psychological evils here. Tryharders will try harder.
Hitting a cap makes people stop grinding and potentially quit on "I achieved everything" basis. If there is no cap or the cap is elastic then tryharders will push it up to the limits of their spare time. Not being able to compete with tryharders makes people quit on "I never achieve top / I cannot compete" basis. The width of "elasticity zone" affects difference between nolifers and casuals and allows to balance between the two extremes.

You are right with that, kind of.

Problem is that the competition are tryharders that are doing exactly that since the beginning of the world and as characters under the current system are the sum of all their actions the moment you don't play optimally once (or not at all, as you have a life or have stated late) is the moment competition is over for you - simply as competition can only happen in case you can surpass the other, which under the current system you can't anymore (unless they, in total since the beginning of the world, played less/worse than you). That's a scenario completely incompatible with a long-running MMO, as that requires new players to enter to replace the ones that left for whatever reasons, which dosn't happen with the current system as people look at the mechanics, see the numbers and don't.

And that's why I argued repeatedly that characters (and their effects on the world) should be limited to their actions over the last some few weeks (like 2-3 months, basically the time the game seems to be fun for most before it turns into infini-grind) so even one starting today could, within 2-3 months, dominate someone who started at the beginning of the world. Not only would character death no longer be the end but even base death could be recovered from - meaning we, among others, could get a siege system that gives even a slight chance of success to the attacker (even with the defender defending).

So we all would have a game that is more fun, both for the ones that are beginning late (or so far are sucking at the game) as these could have some fucking hope to conquer the hill some point in the future by getting better and for the ones that are at the top as they would have an endless influx of new targets to fight.

[Rexz]

There are also psychological evils here. Tryharders will try harder.
Hitting a cap makes people stop grinding and potentially quit on "I achieved everything" basis. If there is no cap or the cap is elastic then tryharders will push it up to the limits of their spare time. Not being able to compete with tryharders makes people quit on "I never achieve top / I cannot compete" basis. The width of "elasticity zone" affects difference between nolifers and casuals and allows to balance between the two extremes.

You are right with that, kind of.

Problem is that the competition are tryharders that are doing exactly that since the beginning of the world and as characters under the current system are the sum of all their actions the moment you don't play optimally once (or not at all, as you have a life or have stated late) is the moment competition is over for you - simply as competition can only happen in case you can surpass the other, which under the current system you can't anymore (unless they, in total since the beginning of the world, played less/worse than you). That's a scenario completely incompatible with a long-running MMO, as that requires new players to enter to replace the ones that left for whatever reasons, which dosn't happen with the current system as people look at the mechanics, see the numbers and don't.

And that's why I argued repeatedly that characters (and their effects on the world) should be limited to their actions over the last some few weeks (like 2-3 months, basically the time the game seems to be fun for most before it turns into infini-grind) so even one starting today could, within 2-3 months, dominate someone who started at the beginning of the world. Not only would character death no longer be the end but even base death could be recovered from - meaning we, among others, could get a siege system that gives even a slight chance of success to the attacker (even with the defender defending).

So we all would have a game that is more fun, both for the ones that are beginning late (or so far are sucking at the game) as these could have some fucking hope to conquer the hill some point in the future by getting better and for the ones that are at the top as they would have an endless influx of new targets to fight.

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to hedge that a MAJORITY of casual players are ok with small, but significant gap, between them and people who have more time to play than they do. What they are probably not ok with is absurd gap from 1:1 effective powercreep from world start that is difficult for casual/late players to even attain the mid-point between fresh sprucecap stat, and the growing meta/cap point (that we have right now).

And btw, I am familiar with faster world wipes in games, I played Rust for over 2 years where there are wipes either every week or every month depending on server. The game progression has to be much quicker for early wipe to make sense, but because of the nature of Haven and course where the developer is taking it, 2-3 month is far too fast to where they would have to change game mechanics drastically for it to make sense and still be fun for most players. And btw, this does not change the "meta" for late or casual players, they still get plowed from dominant clans with people that actively and competitively play the game, and most people that can't play for more than 5 hours a day quit until the next wipe if they get raided and have to start over. The draw in Haven for me is that the game world is VAST and allow for more exploration of PVE and playermade locations, that to achieve something take perservence and patience, and that diplomacy is a great draw and a more realistic portrayal between human interaction and civilization building.

Where haven has flawed, as majority of us can agree on, is that there is a lack of curve to cap out the effectiveness of absurd quality and stat accumulation. Where we disagree, is what method to curve out the powercreep caused by active players.

• Natural death and inheretence is one way suggested so far, like for this thread (with a potential power progression based on the prestige system so to speak, similarly to roguelike games). This is actually similar to one of the first mechanics I encountered in an MMORPG, MU online, where you keep some traits and stat of of your previous character after reaching the max level and starting over from level 1. The problem in Haven's mechanic as it currently stand, is that this may have several loopholes to play around it, where alts or micromanagement of your "characters" can become the "meta" way to play the game. The pro is that power gained is still incremental, albiet very slow, and starting over can be a shitty feeling where it feels like going through a game wipe but within a present game world. This would only work most effectively, IMO, if Haven accepts the role of botting and automation, and the developers just basically turn this game into an RTS villagers/city/empire building game. But even in its most effective stage of implementation, most MMORTS suffers from major abuse of botting and bot farmer accounts. (this is just one hypothetical example, btw, I understand there are other paths this can take, but feel free to extrapolate on your idea relating to this topic if you feel that it relevant and can be implemented effectively)
  
  
• Progressive decay, which, imo is too lame and can be source of major frustration for "quality/stat racers" and power players, while being perhaps still annoying for casual players and the rest of the playerbase. This also provide a new source of major challenge for the game developers to redesign their game around, because it can potentially kill trades and other presently active mechanics. To me, similarly to the option above, feel somewhat of a wipe, but instead of a wipe, you have regression which is, imo, unfun compare to progression, even if it's affecting everyone equally and not just you. However, it can affect you differently depending on if you're a hermit or playing cooperatively with other players, which again, can still potentially provide too significant of an uneven playing field unless the curve bends so much at the top that there's effectively a hardcap.
  
  
• Effective power curve, which is more similar to decay as a point of curving power accummulation and/or effectiveness, is something we're already kind of experiencing in Haven, with the introduction of hunger and food satiation as a way to lag stat accumulation (with curving applied to increasing consumption of food). The developers have also adjusted the curve with the revamping of satiation, meaningw it's likely we will see similar balance changes like this in the foreseeable future. This is IMO, by far the best way to balance the game, except that it has not been applied to other game mechanics yet. Effective power curving is one of the most common way game developers balance their game, not saying that common = good, but it's the most sensible and most straightforward without severely cripple gameplay and create a frustrating environment for the players. With increasing accumulation of a number, it's effectiveness gained is less and less, and you can adjust this curve to keep most newbies, latecomers, and power players happy. The challenge in this is that it may require many itterations of balancing to achieve a sweet spot, and yet there will be people who may still not be satisfied, as always.

I'd be more than interested to see what other people come up with, still. Haven is a pretty deep game to where more things can be potentially viable than not, the only real limitation is feasibility in term of development difficulty and time for the developers. If we want this game to thrive and continue to progress in development, however, we need to keep in mind the extremity of our suggestions.

[pppp]

characters under the current system are the sum of all their actions

Effective power curve

It is not a problem that a char is a sum of all past actions. The problem is that this sum is allowed to grow infinitely. There are many ways to prevent it, one of these is hardcap, another is decay, diminishing returns curves are yet another and I believe in telling players it is not wise to be too big so they can limit themselves while leaving space for a fuckup.
There is no cost or penalty for infinitely stuffing a char. Food quantity is not a problem and time gate come with opportunity cost which penalizes NOT pushing stats. If at some point the player would start to lose advantage (no, I do not mean being blind to bum burns), players would stop at certain level of stats. An example would be "Fat Ass" permanent wound giving <x>% reduction to movement speed as a result of consuming <y> FEPS total. Too fat titan char would be likely too slow to compete in pvp. But he could act as a turret .
In a similar way getting too much LP may come with "Brain cancer" permawound that removes percentage of attributes.
In both cases the penalty must come with some randomness, within certain limits, (e.g. 100% guaranteed per each 1000 FEPs but guaranteed to not happen before reaching 800 FEPs, in a way similar to how per*exp works in foraging)

[MrPunchers]

If stat decay was a thing, I would kill my toon to keep his stats preserved in a grave and then when I wanted to grind a stat up I would inherit him up to my 85% max or whatever and then grind those stats up again, I mean obv it depends on how fast they decay n shit but yeah u get da point.