World Re-sets in other MMO

[Moisture]

A. Fear of too many reset driving player from game.
B. What of casual player who still plays game?
I am thinking you hear this argument before, though. You do not find them compelling or do not care?

We're in world 9 now and the numbers have only ever gone up with each reset. The only time that hasn't been the case is when world 8 first started because it was a new thing and as such had an absurdly large amount of players.
We're sitting at around 230 at most times, with it dropping to 120 at certain others. That's still better than world 6 and 7.
Until I see some evidence that resets are losing players, I see no reason why I should believe it.

As for the casuals that play the game, they can play in the next world, like quite literally everybody else. I don't see the issue. Not everybody is going to want to restart, but the same can be said for every previous world too. There's always a few that would prefer to stay. There's more of a chance of them restarting and being fine with it than otherwise though. Even if they don't continue playing, that's a sacrifice that happens with every world reset. We get more players anyway.

This looks just as removing stat cap. Point of stat cap is for there to be cap of progression. This is circumventing this point.

I don't think it's the same thing, and I don't see how it would diminish the point of the stat cap. Stat cap is in place to stop newer/less experienced players from feeling that they will never catch up to somebody who has played longer, or is just outright more knowledgeable on the game than them. As such, the stat cap still serves its purpose for the most part. Players will still be similar in strength after a certain point as far as stats are concerned. Obviously the perk you get for going the sacrifice route would have to be quite good because the downsides are quite severe.
Don't forget though, the guy who is sacrificing his character is not doing so cost free. He's giving up a lot of progress for it. Only issue is I cannot think of what those perks you would get for going through with this would be.

What will be point of killing creature? Player is ''already'' challenging for fighting (issues of combat system aside, player is smartest/most adaptable enemy than any AI creature) and people do not do this PvP. There must be carrot at end of stick.

If we're going to have some boss-like creatures in the game, then they should drop a component used to make a unique and highly sought after high end item. For example, let's pretend we did have a Kraken in the game. We could have it so that when it dies, you can butcher it for its Beak (amongst other things of course), which could then be crafted into an amulet or something. Dragon could give scales used to make a new, high as fuck end leather-like armor set. But here's the thing though, and this is extremely important. These creatures need to be really rare. Like ridiculously so. Reason for this is the items you can harvest from them should be reserved only for a factions warlords/leaders. I wouldn't want just another set that everybody runs around in like we currently have right now.
I mean if that's not enough of a reward, I don't know what is to be honest, because the issue with this game is, eventually, everybody has everything. We need some items that are stupid rare that people will want to trade for them. Something that will never lose its value, like the sub token currently is.
This idea would only be a failure if everybody was walking around in this gear within 3 months. I cannot overstate the importance of making these creatures rare. Perhaps give them a world spawn rate of once a month.

[Moisture]

Oh and one last thing since it seems you may be confusing what the point of these creatures is.
They're not a replacement to the monsters we have. They're not supposed to be, say, the next mammoth type monster added. They have multiple purposes. First and foremost, the most simple reason is it gives people something to do end game other than just straight up grind quality. Second, it can be a true point of contestion, which IMO the current world resources (salt, brimstone, roots etc) have failed to do.
Hear me out for a minute. What if when these creatures spawned, there was some global message such as "The smell of sulfur lingers in the air" for the dragon for example. Then, devise a way to give off the general direction/location of the creature.
Try to tell me that this wouldn't cause some heated encounters. There's 0 chance that it wouldn't. Everybody would want a slice of what these creatures would give, and as such we would get people fighting over it, which is what was supposed to happen with salt pools etc.

Obviously I've just thought this thing up fairly recently, so it could do with some refinement but for the most part, I don't see how this wouldn't help keep the game exciting. Once people have their bases up they barely have a reason to go out of them. THIS will give them that reason.

[APXEOLOG]

Do you have any examples?

As I've understood it, Wurm doesn't have resets ever. Whether Wurm is a good game can be debated, I'm sure, but it seems to have more players than Haven, at least.

I didn't play Wurm tbh, cannot say much on that. But AFAIK they often adds new "islands" (characters can travel between this new lands and their own world without restrictions) and there is quality cap (100 is max). Also i'm not sure if they have PvP/PvE conent there.

[Ysh]

A. Fear of too many reset driving player from game.
B. What of casual player who still plays game?
I am thinking you hear this argument before, though. You do not find them compelling or do not care?

We're in world 9 now and the numbers have only ever gone up with each reset. The only time that hasn't been the case is when world 8 first started because it was a new thing and as such had an absurdly large amount of players.
We're sitting at around 230 at most times, with it dropping to 120 at certain others. That's still better than world 6 and 7.
Until I see some evidence that resets are losing players, I see no reason why I should believe it.

As for the casuals that play the game, they can play in the next world, like quite literally everybody else. I don't see the issue. Not everybody is going to want to restart, but the same can be said for every previous world too. There's always a few that would prefer to stay. There's more of a chance of them restarting and being fine with it than otherwise though. Even if they don't continue playing, that's a sacrifice that happens with every world reset. We get more players anyway.

Pretty much all I can say here is ''fair enough.'' I am personally indifferent to new world. Thanks for clarifying position.

This looks just as removing stat cap. Point of stat cap is for there to be cap of progression. This is circumventing this point.

I don't think it's the same thing, and I don't see how it would diminish the point of the stat cap. Stat cap is in place to stop newer/less experienced players from feeling that they will never catch up to somebody who has played longer, or is just outright more knowledgeable on the game than them. As such, the stat cap still serves its purpose for the most part. Players will still be similar in strength after a certain point as far as stats are concerned. Obviously the perk you get for going the sacrifice route would have to be quite good because the downsides are quite severe.
Don't forget though, the guy who is sacrificing his character is not doing so cost free. He's giving up a lot of progress for it. Only issue is I cannot think of what those perks you would get for going through with this would be.

So I think my problem is like this. First, I assume you agree that it is issue for player power to have unbounded growth (as in legacy) for a variety of reason (e.g. new player can not catch). So then we have game with some limits to the power of player. If this sacrifice can only be done finite number of time, then player will only want to compete if they are at maximum. I think it is natural for player to do this because player wants to compete against player with similar or less might than them. A player will not willingly fight some other who he knows is stronger. All this is serving to do is make it much, much slower to hit this end game. Meaning player is less expendable, less player will make it at all. I do not think this is facilitating conflict. People will try to play defensively in this case because player has much to lose.

And of course if sacrifice is infinite time for infinite gain, then this is just the same as no cap. Just with more hoops to be jumping through to get to higher levels (and all of the same issues).

I guess maybe this is not necessary true depending on how perks are functioning. But if they affect stats/item quality (i.e. combat power) then this will be outcome I think.

What will be point of killing creature? Player is ''already'' challenging for fighting (issues of combat system aside, player is smartest/most adaptable enemy than any AI creature) and people do not do this PvP. There must be carrot at end of stick.

I mean if that's not enough of a reward, I don't know what is to be honest, because the issue with this game is, eventually, everybody has everything.

It is sounding like this is maybe the real issue here. Maybe we can try to solve this one by decouple goal of game with having all item? This is what I mean. Fundamentally, there must be something else in the game that players want to get that is not high quality items (because these have limit to progression and every one has access to it). And this thing that they get must be in finite quantity (so that for one player gain, another player must lose). Adding a sort of ''unique item'' from huge boss monster is maybe step in right direction. Possible issue:
A. Item must be rare to server function. You suggesting 1 months spawn, what players will do for rest of month?
B. Limited number of item = limited number of people can have item. If only mechanic for late game can be held by small percentage of playerbase, what does rest of players do? I think saying ''git gud'' is probably not good enough strategy for medium tier intermediate player to stay interest.
C. What will the item actually do? I think it is probable bad if item does making owner characters stronger in combat, since then group who has item has advantage for getting next item, and next item, and so on.

In general, I think this other thing player will try to get should not be tied to ability to get this item (directly). Using EVE Online as examples again, player tries to control land to getting more money. Having lots of money is good because if you die, you can replace the ship and equippings on it quickly. Having more money gives you more options too in terms of being able to change equipment quickly (having access to many resource simultaneously) and for being able for using attrition tactics on enemy. But still, it is not player with more money = winning player because there is limit on how much you can be spending on any individual ship and player only can use single ship in combat.

[loftar]

AFAIK they often adds new "islands"

I'm not really familiar enough with Wurm to say it with certainty, but I'm fairly sure they only add entirely new servers every now and then (far from often, though), where each server effectively is an island. I think all of Wurm's maps are big islands in the middle of an ocean, and that travel is possible between servers to some extent.

[Clemence]

Eve works cause there isnt perma death, you got an insurance, all you lose is money.
The best model for permadeath game is a fast game, you make your toon in less than a week, go fight and loose it to capture something that have more value than your toon.
In Eve you can also "alt vault", your stuff is in stations, so what must have value is your gear (/ship).
The patch you put in your cloth is a good idear, they may be craft with blubells and troll skuls.

[The_Common_Cold]

I think Ysh has the right idea here. Raising quality of items and the stats of your character can't be the main purpose of the game. It makes the game stale and boring, and no new player is going to catch up with the established players regardless of statcap. This drives players both new and old away from the game. So the game needs to refocus on some other feature that won't become old and boring. There's a couple ideas that come to mind that could help improve gameplay, world longevity, and player interest:

1. Add boss creatures. This has been mentioned several times, and I think Moisture put it best: These creatures should be things that take a group to take down and provide unique items (or at least unique materials; i.e. dragon scales could be an item that could be used as both a gilding and as a necessary material for a set of dragon armor) with unique advantages.

2. Expand the village system to include some sort of faction/kingdom mechanic whereby multiple villages can have their own lawspeakers yet be bound to a "king" of sorts who rules from a village designated as the capital of that faction. This could make sieging more interesting as it could be made so that enemy villages can capitulate and be sworn into that faction. They then for instance wouldn't be able to break their bonds with the capital unless they obtain more authority than the capital village.

3. Localize resources. This one may be a bit unpopular, but I think it would provide interesting, dynamic gameplay. I think most people who played in world 3 can agree that it was their favorite world. There was conflict, drama, and plenty of trade as well. Resources like metal (and towards the end, even trees and clay to a certain extent) were far more rare, prompting people to go to war over their mineholes and causing people to need to trade to get things they couldn't find on their own or take from other people. Now even the most casual hermits have their own mines and metal. This should change, there's nothing worth trading or fighting over, removing a fun, valuable part of the game experience.
The current localized resources are a good start, but it shouldn't end there. I'm not just saying metal veins should be more rare, I'm saying that high quality clay and water nodes should be as well. Not only that, but you shouldn't be able to farm on all soil. There should be a feature where only soil of say q25 or higher should be able to be farmed. This would make all resources more scarce, vastly increasing the amount of trade, conflict, and politics currently in the game. No longer would a single person be able to do everything, they would have to find a way to provide for what they need, be that war or trade. Some might say "but this will drive away all the hermits from the game!" I actually don't think this is true. In fact I think this will make hermits thrive in a different way entirely. If a hermit can establish a hold on a niche product, say a nice piece of farmland, then he has something to trade with other people who don't have access to farmland, but might for instance have access to metal which the hermit needs for tools and a better plow. However, I think this idea will still cause an uptick of players looking for a village or faction, as not everyone will be able to do everything or find the right resources to flourish. This idea nurtures interactions of all kinds, and supports the idea of villages coming together as factions as stated in #2. A world where everyone has everything is bound to become stale and boring.

I think that these three ideas and a larger world would add enough to the game to keep it interesting through the endgame where the world would be reset after 6 months to a year.

tl;dr

1. Add boss creatures
2. Add some sort of faction system
3. Localize resources and make them rarer
4. A larger map would help too

[Granger]

In eve it's also hard to destroy a very small ship (Newbie) with a very big one (Über), IIRC, since the small one can outmanouver the big one and if needed flee from the fight since it is faster to align to warp.

So a kind of mechanic like I suggested a while back, which some seem to hate since it would make it harder for steel dhelmers to kill sprucecaps. But for a world to function we need some way to let maxed characters coexist with sprucecaps, and that in a way that the latter are not some other kind of MOB to slaughter...

[Grog]

In eve it's also hard to destroy a very small ship (Newbie) with a very big one (Über), IIRC, since the small one can outmanouver the big one and if needed flee from the fight since it is faster to align to warp.

So a kind of mechanic like I suggested a while back, which some seem to hate since it would make it harder for steel dhelmers to kill sprucecaps. But for a world to function we need some way to let maxed characters coexist with sprucecaps, and that in a way that the latter are not some other kind of MOB to slaughter...

This would also open more possibilities for alt-exploits, wouldn't it?

[Ysh]

In eve it's also hard to destroy a very small ship (Newbie) with a very big one (Über), IIRC, since the small one can outmanouver the big one and if needed flee from the fight since it is faster to align to warp.

I do not think ship size and player experience correlate very well for this. I am also not sure if big bad player killing nab is really as big deal as you seem to make it, either.

Also I will like to say that I only bring up EVE because it is only other sandbox MMO I am (slightly) familiar with, not because it is particular similar to Haven or because I think Haven will be like it.