World Decline: Thoughts and Suggestions On Meta

[sabinati]

during this meta 1v1 combat is impossible coles made a video about this and showed how stupid it is, the only way you can beat someone 1v1 is if they crash or if you have triple the agil they have.
iv tested this with my town members where i set a macro on my keyboard to spam shield up and parry and get to leave, when i come back they are still trying to break the defences and then group combat comes down to who has more people and whos horse gets tired or hurt first

i think the way we can fix the combat is bringing back the idea of defense and attack aswell as moment combat
as for horses? just like the polish guy said they took the combat that was shitty at the start and turned it into massive shit where if you are not on a horse and you get attacked you simply will die if they have more people
the issues with horses are the following
stam regen
one shot knocks rider off
can port with them
horses should be not a thing in combat maybe as when something goes into combat around a horse is gets scared and bucks the rider off becoming not tame and put back into the hearthlands

to put everything in one saying, combat needs to be redone with adding attack and defense and movement
and the horse idea i have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEUpNxJeols look how easily horses are scared

PERMABANNED

[CSPAN]

Well combat has its obvious flaws, the whole randomized deck and move discovery system is more of a pest than anything. Horse combat I think is relatively OKAY, but I think riding a horse should hinder your accuracy or something of the sort.

Im happy for the changes in death, or at least the direction its heading. Its not morale killing...unless you die to a player, then you can wish your body goodbye. I think the base amount you get back from inheriting should be about 50, body 10, and the skull 10 or 15. I'd love to try to stay in spirit of the game, but death is still a hell of a cut back, especially since getting your body back is at the mercy of someone who hates you enough to kill you.

[LadyGoo]

Well combat has its obvious flaws, the whole randomized deck and move discovery system is more of a pest than anything. Horse combat I think is relatively OKAY, but I think riding a horse should hinder your accuracy or something of the sort.

Im happy for the changes in death, or at least the direction its heading. Its not morale killing...unless you die to a player, then you can wish your body goodbye. I think the base amount you get back from inheriting should be about 50, body 10, and the skull 10 or 15. I'd love to try to stay in spirit of the game, but death is still a hell of a cut back, especially since getting your body back is at the mercy of someone who hates you enough to kill you.

I have posted a while ago, that the ancestral prayer should be brought back. In the old hafen, even if you would die, you would not feel that bad about it and had a hope to have a decent character even after the death. However, other players would be disadvantaged because you had the ancestor. In my point of view, the newly implemented prayer for strength should give the stats back capped at 330. Therefore, even if you have lost the body, you would still be able to utilize the same character over and over. And it was quite balanlced, since the grinding the numens was quite time-consuming and you would not always have them. So there is a reason to keep upgrading your character.

The idea of re-occurring events is nice. We simply need more points of local conflicts, so people would be able to seek pvp outside of 12-40 hours of sieging. When both parties know the time and able to gather up and think about tactics.
Some mega-mobs would also create some fun for the people who do not want to pvp that much for some reasons.

[AbsK]

I agree that timed resets are a bad idea, but what about player triggered ones? In this game, the trigger would have to change every reset, and the endgame scenario would have to be cataclysmic.

For example, in Dwarf Fortress, once you dig deep enough, you unleash the demons which live in hell. These promptly kill everyone and everything and you either have to restart somewhere else or send in a reclamation force.

In Haven, we would have the trigger unleash an army of demons. On the other side of the map, Angels would also spawn. The two would fight. If in the end, demons won, the next world would have larger, harder enemies, PvE would be harder but also yield more rewards. If the angels won, the next world would have more, higher quality resource nodes. Players would be able to influence which side won by fighting for that side: eg, Faction X wants Angels to win, so they hunt demons.

This system would generate conflict in itself, and more people would stay in the fight to the end because they'd want to influence the next world.

If this is not enough, next-world rewards could be given for every Angel/Demon killed by the player, (for the sake of argument let's say all rewards are tied to the first char made by the player's account in the newer world) for example: Player Y kills 10 Angels, earning ten points, which can be spent on just above starter-quality gear, or for 100 points, they can have a special storage box which stores one (non-liftable, and of limited size) item to the next world.

I wasn't around last world so i don't know how that ended.


So, to summarize:

1) Players can trigger the end of the world via any dev-selected means (eg; total trees cut = X, Max depth mined = Y, etc.)

2) In the endgame, players can influence the traits of the next world

3) If this is not enough, a next-world reward can be added, to be acquired by players participating in the endgame

[Hasta]

I agree that timed resets are a bad idea, but what about player triggered ones? In this game, the trigger would have to change every reset, and the endgame scenario would have to be cataclysmic.

For example, in Dwarf Fortress, once you dig deep enough, you unleash the demons which live in hell. These promptly kill everyone and everything and you either have to restart somewhere else or send in a reclamation force.

In Haven, we would have the trigger unleash an army of demons. On the other side of the map, Angels would also spawn. The two would fight. If in the end, demons won, the next world would have larger, harder enemies, PvE would be harder but also yield more rewards. If the angels won, the next world would have more, higher quality resource nodes. Players would be able to influence which side won by fighting for that side: eg, Faction X wants Angels to win, so they hunt demons.

This system would generate conflict in itself, and more people would stay in the fight to the end because they'd want to influence the next world.

If this is not enough, next-world rewards could be given for every Angel/Demon killed by the player, (for the sake of argument let's say all rewards are tied to the first char made by the player's account in the newer world) for example: Player Y kills 10 Angels, earning ten points, which can be spent on just above starter-quality gear, or for 100 points, they can have a special storage box which stores one (non-liftable, and of limited size) item to the next world.

I wasn't around last world so i don't know how that ended.


So, to summarize:

1) Players can trigger the end of the world via any dev-selected means (eg; total trees cut = X, Max depth mined = Y, etc.)

2) In the endgame, players can influence the traits of the next world

3) If this is not enough, a next-world reward can be added, to be acquired by players participating in the endgame

Angels.

Demons.

[Clemence]

Just want to reiterate that the first 2-3 months of this game is magic! Nothing like it, at least in my experience. I would love to see that feeling of uncertainty capitalized on. I think even though most players are striving for stability and safety, they have a yearning for chaos.

I agree. The world becomes boring precisely because there is nothing going on it. There is no stream of events for players to really take part in.

The classic solution in anyother game is a gradual and continus PVE challenge.

I post it there but dont saw many enthousiasm : http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=49113

Gradual pvp challenge from frog killable by fresh spawned noob to archidemontroll with 600 stats.
And you'd need a tool made of animal part to do anything else : cuting tool, farming tool, etc made with one animal part and softcaping quality.
You could hunt for animal parts or trade for it.

Hunting and trading lead to going outside and to more PvP life.

PS : instead of world resset, nod resset every 3 month would be interesting.

[Granger]

Being able to carry one item over to the next world would reduce the first months of the game to minutes.

[Enjoyment]

Being able to carry one item over to the next world would reduce the first months of the game to minutes.

It will always be 2 items IMO - metal shovel for 'farmers' and dhelm for 'warriors'? Or u think different?

[Granger]

Best quality saw, axe, pick, hammer, sword, cutting tool, bow, tree planters pot, armor, ...

Basically factions would carry over as much endgame quality gear as possible, early game would be nonexistent and as soon as rage is there it would be armed characters slaughtering everything moving because none of the normal guys could hit through the armor.

[Enjoyment]

Best quality saw, axe, pick, hammer, sword, cutting tool, bow, tree planters pot, armor, ...

Basically factions would carry over as much endgame quality gear as possible, early game would be nonexistent and as soon as rage is there it would be armed characters slaughtering everything moving because none of the normal guys could hit through the armor.

what a beautifyl world it will be. Everyone will kill everyone on sight 'cause maybe even nude guy have q180 metal axe from last world.