Haven 2.0: "Hafen"

[Potjeh]

The big difference is that if there's a limit to raising the numbers then there's a limit on how much time it'll take to get back up on your feet after an extended hiatus. With ever-rising numbers, you'll simply never be able to rejoin endgame if you leave the game for a while. As for those restrictions, it's for keeping the population healthy. People leave all the time, for one reason or another, and if new people can't join the population will dwindle away over time, just like we've seen in pretty much every H&H world so far.

As for hermits being forced to join factions, that shouldn't be an issue if teleporting is removed, as it should be. Then they could simply settle out in the sticks, too far from factions for it to make sense to take over their land. But if you settle next to a city, though, and refuse to cooperate, you're kinda asking for it. And yes, settling out in the sticks by yourself would mean you'll be behind in q and all sorts of other things, but that wouldn't be an insurmountable disadvantage if the advantage granted by delta q/UA/whatever was capped, ie if one of them cityfolk came to rough you up you'd have a penalty but still be able to put up a fight and possibly win.

[Tonkyhonk]

As for hermits being forced to join factions, that shouldn't be an issue if teleporting is removed, as it should be.

how does removing teleportation solve the issue of forcing players to join a faction?!

[Potjeh]

Because you'd only be able to effectively project force relatively close to your centre of power.

[Tonkyhonk]

you saw it in salem. raiders can plan ahead and move together while the defenders cant.

[Potjeh]

Salem had teleportation galore.

[Tonkyhonk]

galore? wasnt it just home-boston? anyways, i believe my point still stands?

[McJager]

I'll agree with taking teleportation out, But in my experience games that don't have some form to speed up travel tend to wear on peoples patience, Haven being the exception due to it being a grind fest so I doubt most people will give two figs about having to walk everywhere, Although it would be interesting for some mode of transportation other than wagons or Boats. Not saying mounts and stuff but maybe making some alternative form of land travel.

[TeckXKnight]

I'll agree with taking teleportation out, But in my experience games that don't have some form to speed up travel tend to wear on peoples patience, Haven being the exception due to it being a grind fest so I doubt most people will give two figs about having to walk everywhere, Although it would be interesting for some mode of transportation other than wagons or Boats. Not saying mounts and stuff but maybe making some alternative form of land travel.

It depends. As long as you feel like your time is being productively spent then there's rarely an issue with travel. For example, going faster as a newbie hearthling is meaningless because you have no destination. Lots of games, especially mmos, have begun to add needlessly huge areas for the sake of empty space. The most egregious offender to date is the first release of the final fantasy 14 mmo. It took 2 hours real-time to cross town to go into the wilds and there was nothing to do along the way. When you subject people to needless space then you create the artificial need for faster transportation.

We do this in Haven too, of course. Designing fuckall huge cities feels like it detracts from the game more than adds to it because it turns every little action into a huge chore by adding extra time and movement requirements.This isn't necessarily the fault of the game though and is more poor city planning.

[McJager]

I'm just an unproductive walker, Usually end up doing pixel art and end up almost starved before I remember why I'm out in the woods wearing a monocle and carrying a barrel. But, I don't mean giving a fresh character the ability to traverse terrain quickly, Mainly an alternative to higher end teleportation that's more.. Balanced? Forgive me I'm rambling now. I think I just have a deep hatred for hearths and crossroads though.

[Amanda44]

The big difference is that if there's a limit to raising the numbers then there's a limit on how much time it'll take to get back up on your feet after an extended hiatus. With ever-rising numbers, you'll simply never be able to rejoin endgame if you leave the game for a while. As for those restrictions, it's for keeping the population healthy. People leave all the time, for one reason or another, and if new people can't join the population will dwindle away over time, just like we've seen in pretty much every H&H world so far.

And what happens when people reach the 'limits', be it in UA or in quality, or whatever limit you set? You don't think that would make the population dwindle?
Placing restrictions is akin to having completed the game, there is nothing left to aim for, no more goals to reach and no reason to return in the future.

The new players who won't play because others are further ahead will still have the same mind set regardless, other players will still always be ahead, knowing you will be able to catch up to them eventually doesn't change the interim period of still being easy pickings and not being able to defend themselves. It's a defeatist attitude and I can't see how knowing that some months in the future they may have survived long enough to reach the same limits is going to make that much of a difference to them.
Add to that the changing view of existing players, knowing that any new settlement will have the ability to catch up and become a real threat, will only further encourage the need to wipe new players out.

As for hermits, there are more hermits in the world than I think anyone realises, mainly because they tend not to use the forum and rarely interact except for trade purposes but this doesn't mean they are insignificant. Hermits tend to get to know their neighbours and encourage friendly relations with those around them in game, they foster in game local trading and have the ability to draw other smaller groups into like a village community without the need to form a huge faction and restrict their game play. Hermits are probably much closer to achieving a working community than a faction that just sets out to destroy every other faction.

All types of players should be encouraged in game to give it variety, stability and the excitement of danger, no-one should be forced to adopt any particular style of play as this only limits the player base.

Limitations of any kind are not productive imo.