Make Neckbeards Q.Q (Improve the Games Progression Scheme)

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I like aspects of what your trying to achieve. . . . . I think there could be other ways to achieve the ends you seek.

Then make the counter proposal of the alternative means.
I don't doubt there are other ways, hypothetically.

I just know we have yet to see them implemented, and I haven't heard them.
If you can outline a superior system, I would support it. Until then, I don't think its ideal to sit here petrified and not propose what I think is both a valid and near-optimal solution to the issue. I strongly believe that most of the protest here is due to the non sequitur that death must equate to "the end" of your gameplay experience.

@Avu
Alts in the past would live forever, could be shielded permanently from any risk of dieing, and allowed a player to bypass the grind associated with character generalization as opposed to specialization with little cost (and in fact additional benefits.)
Alts in the proposed system would require exponential more effort to maintain, and would not be permanent solutions to production of specialized goods.

I think its manifestly obvious that death by old-age would drastically increase the upkeep cost of alts, and not in a way that could be easily botted, as you insist. (If it were really easy to bot an army of alts, then why not run the same scripts on your main character? All forms of character progression could be easily botted, reflecting a larger flaw in the system.)

Therfore your argument is that by making alts exceedingly more time intensive to manage, less desireable, less efficacious, and requiring them to be replaced... this will help large villages that abused Haven's previous more abusable alt system even more?
And that casuals hermits will be unable to kill a deer in less than two months of play, and are therefore unfairly prejudiced by this change in status quo?

Villages = Will be able to abuse alts less.
Casuals and Hermits that can't kill a deer without two months of solid play aren't competitive in any form, and shouldn't be considered for the purposes of balance.
Moreover, Casuals and Hermits would get better and learn to streamline their play when they realize time efficiency demands being somewhat productive when they do play, and will learn through trial and error how to progress farther, more quickly because of an old age system.

@Overtyped
Thank you for helping me bump my terrible thread.

[mvgulik]

Al long as there are no entangled time frames, anyone has to be both for and against the idea at the same time.
(Well ... If Quantum-bits can do it, why can't you. )

Extreme example 1: A dead by old age time span of 1 day(RT). Would of could make everyone, including the OP, abandon the game in a hurry.

Extreme example 2: A dead by old age time span of 15 years(RT). Would of could make no significant difference to the game what so ever.

[borka]

My bet goes to make it less needed to create Alts ...

If we look at the reason for Alts (without looking into "Alt Armies") there are different why you are "forced" to work with Alts

Industry / Nature (prolly the main reason)
Keys
Claims (Not as LP Banks but for security)
Transporting
Stuff Vaulting

Age progression won't make a difference - you'd still need Alts if there isn't rudimentary change in some things - but age progression prolly
would hinder those playstyles that aren't into the PVP / competition part much more than those that are IMHO.

Not to forget those that play a competive game are always those that are the ones that bother to find workarounds and exploits and they'll always find them...
they'll find a way to even use age - progression to their advantage ...

Casuals and Hermits that can't kill a deer without two months of solid play aren't competitive in any form, and shouldn't be considered for the purposes of balance.
Moreover, Casuals and Hermits would get better and learn to streamline their play when they realize time efficiency demands being somewhat productive when they do play, and will learn through trial and error how to progress farther, more quickly because of an old age system.

Dear Dictator - this a GAME - not RL - you should have fun with it, it should be recreational and not something the Human Resource and Business Administration ppl should rule like they do with everyones RL already ... every player needs to be considered ...

[VelocityRaptor]

Why should my pace of playing an open-world survival game be predefined? I thought the appeal of open-world games was that you could play them at your own pace.

[epicless]

... every player needs to be considered ...

Truth. Ideally, new and old players can both find something enjoyable in the game.

[overtyped]

Why should my pace of playing an open-world survival game be predefined? I thought the appeal of open-world games was that you could play them at your own pace.

He's got you there Robin DuNecro.
You can't seem to wrap your mind around how terrible your idea is though. Even if every person on the planet told you it sucked *which they would* you would still think it's a great idea. We can be grateful that you aren't the developer of haven.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Why should my pace of playing an open-world survival game be predefined? I thought the appeal of open-world games was that you could play them at your own pace.

Your play is defined by other gameplay features in largely the same way.

You aren't forced to play optimally, such as by claiming your land.
But if you don't claim your land, someone is going to come steal your rabbit furs.

It is true that right now you can set up a claim, brickwall, then progress through Havens content at a glacial pace in relative security without any sort of risk other than another player dropping a ram.

This would no longer be a viable option, but the way the game is set up now you lose even more:
Your character is obsolete. You can't interact meaningfully with other players if your skills are so low everything you produce is of nil value.

In contrast, in a death by old age world you can produce items that retain value even if you rarely play. Therefore other players can obtain value by interacting with you.

In the death by old age world, you can't lock yourself in a tomb and play forever.
---------
You can play a productive and meaningful part in cities and villages, even if you play sparingly. Truly, this must strike more to the heart of an MMO .

Tl;dr
Yes, you lose certain gameplay styles as viable choices.
You unlock others of a higher eschelon of gameplay.

[LadyV]

@Robben

If you introduce life and death as a real element you then have to introduce meaning to that life. ie. offspring That is a road i really dont think belongs in Haven with the nature of some players. Haven may be a survival game but it does have a touch of the heroic and in that even in a hearthlings life they can achieve the unlimited. They rise up to become a force in the world. This is not a casual simulation like the Sims.


Alts will always be here. Even if the Dev's put caps people can you proxy to go around. I will agree factory made alts for warriors has diminished death in combat. And thus mad a rise in senseless raids and combat. I do believe specialization, balance of armor and weapons, and more than one way to win are better suited to controlling this however.

Joining late int eh world should have no bearing on competition or learning. People who put the time in and get here sooner should be better and more advanced. That is a not a bad thing, just a right of play.

As for high quality items being rare I think we are better approached by making skills unique. ie. if you choose htis path one part of the skill tree close and another opens. This way you may be able to make certain weapons but not all. You have specialized. Masters take time to make and then they only become masters by focusing their skills on certain aspects. If you can not make a thing that mean you have to find someone who can... and that is the value and rarity we need more of.

Introduction of aging and death will not increase trade. It will hinder it. Crafter's will die and some unspecified time. That means shops may close. People will have to keep more backups till they can create a new crafter. It also means a higher war threat. If one group or faction is now the only one making high quality items it forces war and raids to obtain such things. In other words you have hurt trade.

I don't care for a game system online that gives you progressing stats as you grow up then takes them away as you get older. It may simulate real life but Im here to play a game there has to be a balance. And taking into account my offline time is even more unfair. Some people only have a certain amount of play time. You should not be punished for that. There is enough set back in development for those who cant spend more time. That is already balanced.

Uniqueness, specialization, balance of items and a focus on development are much more suited to achieve value and balance to the game. Its a game, between animals and other players we have enough death.

[VelocityRaptor]

Stuff

The tl;dr label in your post is a poor summary. Here's what you're really saying. "Haven is a quality game". This point seems to come up a lot in your starting post and in your response to me. Personally, I think you're playing the game wrong if you think it's just a game of item quality. If you see this game as just another "grind" to get Q9001 goods... maybe you should go back to WoW.

And do you really think that the people that "lock themselves in a tomb and play forever" are really playing? Is it even a bad thing? It's the way they want to play, there's nothing wrong with that.

[epicless]

...you can't lock yourself in a tomb and play forever...

But this is exactly what botters and "successful" villages do in the current game. Implementing aging alone would only reward this behavior even more, since alts have a "shelf-life" and thus need to be manufactured efficiently. Also, this makes it impossible to track the scents of combat alts who have reached their expiry date. Raiders would theoretically raise combat alts until they are close to old age, then attack without much fear of retaliation.

I think time would be better spent making it significantly more rewarding to play actively vs. botting. Perhaps implement diminishing returns on repetitive tasks or make it extremely complex to automate.