SnuggleSnail wrote:The siege of Aurora was the /entire/ reason I started playing. Even when I was a helpless hermit just hearing about people getting FUCKED made the world feel alive/interesting/motivated me to keep playing.
The reality of conflict/human nature is that when things aren't going somebody's way they will look for excuses to cope.
[...] but It's just human nature. You see this exact same shit every world from 50%+ of fighters who play the game exclusively to fight. You cannot trust people's emotional reaction to losing.
A majority of the people who complain about haven being too brutal only ever made their account because they liked the idea of haven being brutal. It's the one draw the game has that sets it apart from the 1,000 other sandbox farming games, and I guarantee you those same people complaining things are too brutal will leave for another game if it stops being brutal.
This is probably the best response I have seen in a while, and it highlights one of the biggest difficulties in being a developer for a game like this. People often express their valid feelings in wrong and counterproductive ways. They want more good feeling, and less bad ones, without understanding that the contrast is necessary.
I have never played another game in my life that could get the blood pumping like this one. The adrenalin is unbelievable sometimes. Seeing that somebody forgot to close their gate then strait-up murdering them for it is the kind of savage hostility that made me fall in love with this game.
I am sorry random dude, I know what I did was wrongI am a random nobody, and I still have experienced plenty of excitement that is simply missing from other games.
strpk0 wrote:I'll say that identity is the biggest issue here. [...] Just pick a direction and stick with it. If you want PvPers to piss off [...] then make it a point to highlight that that is the direction the game is taking. If you want people to toughen up and participate in the politics/pvp/dicking around then make it a point to reinforce that they need to get good at these things, and stop introducing these "compromises" that only manage to piss everyone off equally.
You can't please all types of players, trying to do so just results in annoying everyone. New players because again, they are getting baited into thinking this game isn't what it is, and older/pvp centric players because you keep taking toys away from them.
Thinking about Haven as a PvP or PvE game is fundamentally limiting. PvP necessitate the 'gamification' of conflict, because that
IS the game. This leads to conflict becoming the default. PvE has similar obvious flaws. Haven is a game where you can choose. That's what makes it special. I honestly believe that when the siege system is set up correctly, it will feel good to everyone.
This of course excludes noobs who get their teeth kicked in for making some arcane faux pas. It will always feel bad for them, and I don't a solution to that is possible.
I do agree that there need to be more to prevent from bad messaging and new players ignoring basic safety, but that is a better topic for a different thread.
Robben_DuMarsch wrote:Albion's siege is the greatest!
Players defeat the province's protection node, then they destroy the outposts that control the localized recourses.
Players can't do meaningful damage to factions because the base with important stuff in it is protected by Magic McGuffins, but if you slap their peepee enough, they might get sad and quit
Sieges happen constantly because they delightfully fun interactions. Sieges are supposed to be fun! <3 <3 <3
I am glad you wrote something about Albion, I think these things are important to bring up. I don't this is a good fit for Haven though.
- It makes fighting require, and being a hermit impossible.
- This system is totally contrary to Haven's image as a game. Its a cozy farming sim, where all your neighbours might be are plotting to kill you
- It wouldn't solve the problem at hand, because Sieging would still be impossible. Just collect the Magic McGuffins
Luno wrote: Also i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that this game had stat caps in the past(except it was not specific for pvp).
You are correct. The cap was 200. The fallout was bad. People need to just trust us when we say its a bad idea. I once thought it was a good idea, but I have come to realize that I only thought that because I coveted their dedication and ability. People like SnuggleSnail are simply better than us, and probably have huge dongs
Luno wrote:Fairer fights, perhaps?
"Fair fights" don't exist. This is just a linguistic trick that weak people use to justify being weak. I get the feeling that people complaining about combat stat caps don't even understand the mathematics behind combat. I apologize if I am mistaken.
Two groups of equal skill fight. Everything not mentioned is the same. Who wins?
Group A - 1 person with 2000 Unarmed 2000 Melee
Group B - 2 people each with 1 Unarmed 1 Melee