Haven 2.0: "Hafen"

[Danno]

@Danno
Sounds like you just described DOTA. You could always install it and play that instead.

A large part of the problem is that a lot of the people here will tell you to play a different game if you have anything bad to say about the existing quality system and existing formulas. Did you ever think there might be a problem with this game, not a problem with the thousands of people that have played and quit? Don't get me wrong, this game is incredible, but its potential is being wasted right now.

I'm not saying you should create a character, send it out to fight, respawn, and repeat the process. We just need something a little less hardcore than investing months into your character's stats and only participating in PvP when there's virtually no risk of dying (e.g. afk players, offline criminals, attacking weaker players).

a) Players need to stop focusing so much on grinding and spend more time playing - shaping the world around them and conquering adversities.

We need more adversities to conquer.

The adversities will always be conquered no matter what, just like the players have defeated the trolls that lurk deep in the underworld. Jorb and Loftar will never be able to create an enemy that remains challenging and satisfying to face infinitely. I'm sure they'll want to add new content as the years go by, but we can't expect them to release tougher monsters and new items every month to keep us busy. Even if they do, it'll only be a matter of time before the players conquer it and need something else to do.

Our fellow players have the potential to become the ultimate adversity. We just need a system that prevents older players from becoming untouchable, e.g. someone who's only been playing for a few months will never stand a chance against an elite village with triple brickwalls and gear/items/stats over 500 unless they have a group of like, 20 or so people who are all online at the same time. Most newb villages only get around 3-10 people tops. The newb villages need to be allowed to participate in PvP and stand a chance (no, not with 4 newbs spamming Opportunity Knocks on 1 experienced player). The adversities need to be self-sufficient so that we can still have fun even if they don't make any updates for a few months.


There should be more creating and destroying involved in gameplay. This is the best part of H&H and it's what makes it so fun for the first few weeks of playing. There should be an option to set a village on fire if you defeat them in a war, turning the entire village to a charred land, which would revert to its natural state after a week or two. Of course, building would also have to be a bit less tedious for this to be fun.

[RubyRed]

Time and some things with character development is fine... i would love to see it slowed really though, same gain means less. Like a modfier that is used based off score (like in D&D 3rd its 10 base as it is here, +1 per two points above that for a bonus (making to get anything stupid strong harder to get, it even goes into the negativesd below ten).

[Potjeh]

A previously suggested solution that I like is capping the combat weight delta. That way there's still a point in pushing stats to infinity, but a 4 month character can still have a shot at beating a 2 years one, and we can have animals that are still dangerous no matter how high you push your stats.

[loftar]

When it comes to the argument about player skill vs. character skill in combat, I like to think of the handicap system in Smash Bros as a good balance between the two. Even at 9-1 in handicap, the player at 9 can never relax against a more skillful player, and it still feels kinda fair to have been beaten by one with a higher handicap.

[RubyRed]

Ya yhat is true, slower growth or not... skill should play a good roll. But making a system simple enough to use, yet complex enough yopu can keep adding to it (plus states up to infinity). Is a hard balance. But if done right, it is going to be golden.

[Oddity]

a) Players need to stop focusing so much on grinding and spend more time playing - shaping the world around them and conquering adversities.

We need more adversities to conquer.

The adversities will always be conquered no matter what, just like the players have defeated the trolls that lurk deep in the underworld. Jorb and Loftar will never be able to create an enemy that remains challenging and satisfying to face infinitely. I'm sure they'll want to add new content as the years go by, but we can't expect them to release tougher monsters and new items every month to keep us busy. Even if they do, it'll only be a matter of time before the players conquer it and need something else to do.

I'm not talking about MOAR HITPOINTS. Just make it so Survival is a continual challenge, rather than something to do until you have your palisade up on day 2 or 3. The game needs more interesting and challenging game mechanics, not to become a typical theme-park content treadmill.

And yeah, that other thing you said:

We just need a system that prevents older players from becoming untouchable

[Oddity]

When it comes to the argument about player skill vs. character skill in combat, I like to think of the handicap system in Smash Bros as a good balance between the two. Even at 9-1 in handicap, the player at 9 can never relax against a more skillful player, and it still feels kinda fair to have been beaten by one with a higher handicap.

I can't imagine what it's like because I haven't played one of those games in like 12 years.

[Denkar]

I think the current system of infinite improvement with diminishing returns is a fantastic system and I hope you do not change it. Maybe make them more (or less) diminishing, but please, do not add caps. Adding a soft cap to stats I think would be a great idea, for example, allowing stats to be increased both with LP and some kind of rare food, but making it so after reaching certain point they can only be increased with the food. This would allow players to quickly (relatively) reach a certain point where they can compete, if they are skilled enough, with veteran players, and still allows these veteran players to improve over time, even if much slower.

Regarding PvE vs PvP, I think that introducing some kind of system where the animals/monsters can grow stronger over time, for example by allowing them to "level up" if they manage to kill a player character (or even other animals perhaps) would be a great way of keeping PvE exciting over time. Even more, if you made it so they could only move within a certain radius of their point of origin, then we could have certain spots in the map that players fear due to a strong animal residing there. And then groups of players could organize expeditions to try and slay that monster.

Now that I think about it, I really like the whole "animals get stronger over time" concept. I don't know if you guys ever considered it before, but if you have and ended up dismissing it I would be really interested in hearing why you dismissed it.

[Danno]

I think the addition and loss of supergrids as worlds gain and lose active players would be the best solution, even if it meant that giant earthquakes could come and consume everything you've built when your supergrid was about to be swallowed.

Emotionally it's wrenching on players when you lose everything you were invested in, home and character,

I didn't see this post before, but I agree the world should probably only be as big as it needs to be. I'm sure we all enjoy finding a place in the world to call our own - a safe place we can call "home" - but the isolation is killing the multiplayer aspect, which would be the most fun part of this game if half of us weren't busy being hermits. Natural disasters would be a cool feature (or excuse for shrinking the world) as long as building is less tedious.

I'm not talking about MOAR HITPOINTS. Just make it so Survival is a continual challenge, rather than something to do until you have your palisade up on day 2 or 3. The game needs more interesting and challenging game mechanics, not to become a typical theme-park content treadmill.

Right now, it stops being a challenge after you become established and self-sufficient. If PvP was more viable for newbs and if there was some incentive, you'd probably be fighting for survival a lot more, as well as potentially having to move or rebuild your home every now and then, which would let you re-experience the threat of nature. All in all, I think it would be more exciting and challenging.

When it comes to the argument about player skill vs. character skill in combat, I like to think of the handicap system in Smash Bros as a good balance between the two. Even at 9-1 in handicap, the player at 9 can never relax against a more skillful player, and it still feels kinda fair to have been beaten by one with a higher handicap.

My friends and I do enjoy the game's combat system, and skill does play a pretty good role in it. However, if two players are about even in skill, the one with higher stats will pretty much win by default. Stats can also allow you to undisputably win without trying, such as killing ants with one punch and no strategy (or killing newbs in one punch).
Anyway, I think the stats and equipment influence the battle too much. They should to an extent, but not to the extent that months of time investment should pay off in giving you a clear edge. The only people who benefit from the edge of excessive grinding are the ones who don't need an edge in the first place. Besides that, the top villages all have similarly high quality stuff, anyway. To them, it's standard and the battles against their foes stay the same - they never really gain an edge, they just maintain their arms race. The only difference is that it makes it impossible for newbs to catch up or be able to compete.

I would say don't even give them the option to grind their stats up like that; it doesn't do any good for anyone, it's just a meaningless chore that gives the illusion of infinite gameplay. I know there are a lot of people who like that you can always work towards building yourself up in this game, but there's just no meaning to it being like this. It'd be a lot better if you directed their energy to more interactive and fun activities, namely ones that encourage player interaction. If players could be up to competing standards within 2 or 3 weeks of playing, we'd see a lot more action and a lot more politics involved with alliances since there'd be far more immediate threats.
Instead of spending the year building up your stat from root 25 to root 26, you could spend the year conquering the supergrid, creating a capital city with your allied villages as a symbol of triumph and unification, eventually expanding your borders into enemy territory. Meanwhile, the enemies could be launching attacks on your remote allied villages, leaving the places in ruins by the time reinforcements could arrive. Remote villages could lose their faith in the capital city and be persuaded into joining the enemy; the enemy could tear apart the allied villages one village at a time and eventually aim to destroy that symbol of the local alliance. No matter the outcome, villages would eventually branch off from alliances so that they could live by their own rules, expand their own land, and protect their own interests better. There could be special building options for a city that contains, say, 5 allied villages. Perhaps even more options with, say, 10 allied villages. The infinite improvement could come from real accomplishments and be something you can proudly show off to the world.
If world peace is attained and the game becomes boring, all we need is a little incentive to be at each other's throats again. The players are your puppets and you can make us dance. Even just adding a few unique cosmetic items would probably be enough grounds to start a new war.

You must also consider that in Smash Bros., you don't have to ram through triple brickwalls while the people inside slaughter you with 300 marksmanship and q1000 ranged weapons. When it comes to ranged combat, stats are literally the only thing that matters, and nobody's going to leave the safety of their walls to fight you when they can simply pick you off from a distance.

[Tonkyhonk]

Natural disasters would be a cool feature (or excuse for shrinking the world) as long as building is less tedious.

it sounds only cool only when it happens to someone else. lots of my friends and acquaintances have quit after disasters (crash/HD failure nukes and such) in the past. i dont think its about building being tedious, and you may understand it when it happens to you.

as for combat, it doesnt sound right to me, but hell, what do i know about it?! so ill just shut up regarding that part.