World 6

Announcements about major changes in Haven & Hearth.

Re: World 6

Postby ewlol » Wed May 01, 2013 11:57 am

Sarge wrote:
ewlol wrote:
Sarge wrote:The bigger world sucked ass for many reasons. One of the main reasons, at least as far as I am concerned, is that faction conflict (politics) and trade are two of the core ideals/goals (not sure what word to use here) of the game. The less higher level resource nodes are available and the closer people are in vacinity of each other, the more trade is stimulated and the more conflict is generated. Do a search on topics around regionality as example, that goes a long way to underline the base requirement for this.

By making the world bigger, all you are doing is making more resource nodes available and diluting both trade and conflict.

What I personally would support is a model/mechanic that makes personal claims destroyable/expirable (is that even a word ?) or whatever, so that someone who's claimed a node does not have 'control' over that node even though they haven't been online for months. This can be as simple as copying the village claim upkeep model directly to personal claims and that the character who owns that claim is the only one who can maintain through upkeep (inheritence still applicable).


Except that people who own the resources dont trade them and the nodes end up getting monopolized by one or two factions. If you want to stimulate more trade, its better to have little villages all over the world doing it rather than one. I think now would be a good time to expand the world, just 1 supergrid in every cardinal direction. I don't think you can look at World 3 and make the conclusion that larger worlds are bad. Haven and Hearth W6 is a whole different ballgame than W3. Back then, characters were a lot more precious than they are now; people avoided conflict. Now, characters are so much more recyclable and conflict has prospered because of it. Moreover, combat and the tactics behind it has changed immensely.

Your opening argument is a contradiction and ends with 'reducing demand will improve trade'... sorry Sioux, but I can't agree with you here mate. The fact that one or two factions monopolize high q key resources is exactly what creates the scenraio that 1) If you want some you will need to trade for it or 2) Club together and fight them for it. I'm not saying the game currently caters to enable these means (because it clearly doesn't), but that has always (afaik) been the intention of it.

Maybe a distinction should be made between how it ideally should be and how it can currently work with all the broken mechanics.


If you think large numbers of people are going to get together to take on a faction like AD you are nuts. HNH today is just tiny skirmishes scattered from tracking/chasing. There is a reason it never happened on W3 and it wont happen now: it it just too logistically difficult, nearly impossible, and if executed so many will die.

History just shows that if resource nodes are spread among several factions, your desired "fighting and trading" will begin. Remember when in W3 the world expanded and a little japanese faction found a gold mine? Remember when the Goons had q86 clay? Remember in W4 all of the competition over the Korean's q109 clay? The list goes on an on.

In W3, Sodom owned 2 q100+ soil spots (and more q80+ nodes), HQ clay, q76 fishing, and many others. God knows what AD and others had. We weren't selling that shit and people didn't ask, neither were people attacking us much over it. If you shut up and do microtrading with trusted people with your resources, MORE trading ends up happening.
User avatar
ewlol
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:40 pm

Re: World 6

Postby Sarge » Wed May 01, 2013 12:08 pm

ewlol wrote:If you think large numbers of people are going to get together to take on a faction like AD you are nuts. HNH today is just tiny skirmishes scattered from tracking/chasing. There is a reason it never happened on W3 and it wont happen now: it it just too logistically difficult, nearly impossible, and if executed so many will die.

History just shows that if resource nodes are spread among several factions, your desired "fighting and trading" will begin. Remember when in W3 the world expanded and a little japanese faction found a gold mine? Remember when the Goons had q86 clay? Remember in W4 all of the competition over the Korean's q109 clay? The list goes on an on.

In W3, Sodom owned 2 q100+ soil spots (and more q80+ nodes), HQ clay, q76 fishing, and many others. God knows what AD and others had. We weren't selling that shit and people didn't ask, neither were people attacking us much over it. If you shut up and do microtrading with trusted people with your resources, MORE trading ends up happening.

Yup, it's as I said, there is a distinction between what the game is seeking to achieve in this respect (in my experience) and what it currently can. The risks, overwhelming logistical challenge etc is as a result of the current state of the game, not its ideal.

So I say again, there is a distinction between the desired goal and the current possibilities.
factnfiction101 wrote:^I agree with this guy.
User avatar
Sarge
 
Posts: 2029
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:41 am

Re: World 6

Postby TeckXKnight » Wed May 01, 2013 2:23 pm

Sarge wrote:Yup, it's as I said, there is a distinction between what the game is seeking to achieve in this respect (in my experience) and what it currently can. The risks, overwhelming logistical challenge etc is as a result of the current state of the game, not its ideal.

So I say again, there is a distinction between the desired goal and the current possibilities.

I think we will hit a provincial mindset if we tried to weigh in on what the game should be doing and what it is currently doing. Not as an insult to anyone but our views are without a doubt egocentric and our experiences are often exiguous.

For example, I believe that the game is meant to be fatal early, often, and throughout. It is a flaw in design that we are able to escape animals, peers, starvation, and other harassment so easily. Death is a core concept of this game and its sting should be felt intermittently.

Whether the game actually was meant to be played and felt like this I'll never know. Perhaps to many players it already is like this but my luck has allowed me to escape the harrows Haven has to offer.

A safer train of thought would be to compare what we have versus our ideals, then find a means to achieve these ideals without hindering the game.
User avatar
TeckXKnight
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:31 am
Location: How Do I?

Re: World 6

Postby retrox » Thu May 02, 2013 5:46 pm

Sarge wrote: ...

What I personally would support is a model/mechanic that makes personal claims destroyable/expirable (is that even a word ?) or whatever, so that someone who's claimed a node does not have 'control' over that node even though they haven't been online for months. This can be as simple as copying the village claim upkeep model directly to personal claims and that the character who owns that claim is the only one who can maintain through upkeep (inheritence still applicable).


That's something i approve. The main problem we have atm with a 1,5 year old world is, in fact, that there are many claimed areas from inactive players. We need either a decay or at least a upkeep for claims, as Sarge suggested. Enlarging the map will be contraproductive, 'cause our few players will be distributed over a bigger area, as some other people already said. Thats why Sarges idea is the best one, in my point of view.
retrox
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: World 6

Postby Nummy » Fri May 03, 2013 7:56 am

retrox wrote:
Sarge wrote: ...

What I personally would support is a model/mechanic that makes personal claims destroyable/expirable (is that even a word ?) or whatever, so that someone who's claimed a node does not have 'control' over that node even though they haven't been online for months. This can be as simple as copying the village claim upkeep model directly to personal claims and that the character who owns that claim is the only one who can maintain through upkeep (inheritence still applicable).


That's something i approve. The main problem we have atm with a 1,5 year old world is, in fact, that there are many claimed areas from inactive players. We need either a decay or at least a upkeep for claims, as Sarge suggested. Enlarging the map will be contraproductive, 'cause our few players will be distributed over a bigger area, as some other people already said. Thats why Sarges idea is the best one, in my point of view.

Maybe we could do both? Decay on claims and bigger map...
Bigger map also means more chances for good nodes and more metal and everything. Also I would love to not have any neighbour in vicinity.
User avatar
Nummy
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:01 am

Re: World 6

Postby Slaya15 » Fri May 03, 2013 10:46 am

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26361&p=330544#p330544

My last topic about pclaim upkeeps which got mixed reviews. I think think there should be a 1-2 month no log in declaim feature. Unless you PM a mod or the devs themselves about military deployment or have been injured in some way that you can still send a PM but not play game, after 1-2 months of not logging in, it's safe to assume your items are forfeit and your claim is for naught.
Every battle fought has been decided before the first blow ever landed.
User avatar
Slaya15
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:51 pm
Location: USA. Arkansas.

Re: World 6

Postby retrox » Fri May 03, 2013 4:34 pm

Slaya15 wrote:http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26361&p=330544#p330544

My last topic about pclaim upkeeps which got mixed reviews. I think think there should be a 1-2 month no log in declaim feature. Unless you PM a mod or the devs themselves about military deployment or have been injured in some way that you can still send a PM but not play game, after 1-2 months of not logging in, it's safe to assume your items are forfeit and your claim is for naught.


Of course, this is also a viable solution. But it is inevitable that we get some kind of nerf for the player-claims. As they are now, they prohibit a "normal" kind of playing. so: jorb & loftar need to spend a little bit of time on this game to fix this problem.
retrox
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: World 6

Postby theo1170 » Fri May 03, 2013 6:18 pm

If the claim owners are inactive for say, 2 weeks, the claim should start to close in on it self by one tile per day until it either automatically declaims or just remains at a claim of 5x5, it'd be quite easy for someone to plop down a village idol and revoke the claim.

I also think the world should be expanded by 2 or 3 SGs on all sides, it'd allow newer players to experience a whole new side of the game, it being exploration into the unknown.
ign - Mairo II
theo1170
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:59 pm

Re: World 6

Postby borka » Sat May 04, 2013 6:40 am

The pclaim automatic declaim feature won't prolly come in this world - it's been mentioned over and over so my guess is - next world new feature ...

As i'm not aware how much time Loftar and Jorb need (take) to dev new features and next world we should just use what we have - it was large enough before there was that lag gap in player base and in my opinion it still is ...
Avatar by SacreDoom
Java 8 - manually downloads - good to check for actual versions url here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=40331
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head Feed your head
User avatar
borka
 
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:47 pm
Location: World of Sprucecap

Re: World 6

Postby BlueKGB » Sat May 04, 2013 1:46 pm

The code for pclaim should not be that hard. Salem uses one, just use the same code, change the code for silver to lp for upkeep. Deffently would not be used ni this world.
BlueKGB
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests