Game Development: Prelude

[Granger]

I think the stat caps could work. Just slowly raise them as world progresses. That way he stats will gradually go up but you can't rush titans.

I think as long as you can raise stats to infinity in a world, it will be doomed.

[Setting]

This is the best subscription system....please take on count:

0-80 100% growth rate for all.
80-150 70% growth rate for free, 100% for verified and subs
150-FOREVERRRR 30% growth rate for free accounts, 60% for verified and 100% for subs.

Or something like this...take the study ratio for the payments...not skillcap please

[Granger]

In case there are differences in progression depending on subscription (or not) the system will fail because it is unfair.
Then it would be better to do away with the free account completely and only have a trial account with a limited timespan (which is limited in a way that you can't use it for alting, so it only works for new players to test the game).

[lachlaan]

In case there are differences in progression depending on subscription (or not) the system will fail because it is unfair.
Then it would be better to do away with the free account completely and only have a trial account with a limited timespan (which is limited in a way that you can't use it for alting, so it only works for new players to test the game).

At least it's better than caps that even revert you back to crap stats for not continuing to pay. That one sounds more like extortion, this one just means you still want to play (for free or validated) but don't care so much about rushing to best stats on server. It is self-declared not hardcoreness. Either way I'm sick of all the limited feedback that just goes "no that would be horrible you suck i hate you" and then don't elaborate on a better system. If you wouldn't buy the subscription at all, then what difference would it be to you that you're progressing slower than subscribers? The alternative you're suggesting would just have you not playing at all, so all in all a free player would have it a lot fairer with slowed progression. As for it being unfair, the old system was exactly the same. You can't possibly progress as fast as the major players with just the 7-14 hours a week, and most people complained about the limited time , and only rarely about being unable to catch up to the hardcores.

[dvsmasta]

I see a lot of whining about infinite progression. But I feel like that really doesn't contribute much to the game besides creating the NECESSITY of a world reset. If you show up a month or two late, you really can't catch up. You die three months in? That's three months of grinding gone. Sevenless explained it very well in his post:

Is the game even permanent death, though?

Ok, lemme rephrase. I forgot about the burial update.

Infinite progression and uncapped loss. You always lose 40% of what you have in best case scenarios. If you survive a year, you lose 4.8 months of progress. If you survive two years, you lose 9.6 months. For this type of math, the % modifier doesn't necessarily matter. If you get killed you lose that. This creates a very annoying system where you need to keep up with the joneses or get your ass handed to you in combat. But the longer the world progresses, the more a single death costs you.

I feel this is the critical issue behind why combat is so rare in haven (noob hunting is a different system, doesn't have the same risks attached). When I went to play darkfall after a bout of haven, I was getting into 15-20 fights a day and it made me realize the issues with the haven system. The game incentivizes you heavily to avoid confrontations without 199% assured kill power.

I've never found a solution that didn't radically alter the progression system.

And at this point in the world, the only people left are the titans who have grinded the entire duration of the world and the people who are hopelessly behind.

Still a vote for removing "permadeath" all together and adopting a system where you only loose your study inventory/equip and inventories where you dont loose stats. Would welcome a whole new variety of PVP combat and you PVP lovers would probably have alot more fun, and us simmers wouldnt feel like quitting when we get killed.

[bolognaman]

In terms of capping qualities, I think it would be interesting to explore the possibility of somehow capping the overall average quality. This would incentivize trade in that it would allow villages to specialize in a certain quality, or mix of qualities, that they could then use to trade with other villages that have different specializations. In addition, this would tie in well with the current tri-quality mechanics, where the individual qualities on a tool/weapon affect specific attributes. I believe this was the original intention of having a tri-quality system, but largely failed because factions could just raise each quality endlessly.

For instance: assume an average quality cap of 100.
Village A produces goods that are 100/100/100, average of 100
Village B produces goods that are 200/50/50, average of 100
Village C produces goods that are 50/125/125, average of 100

I have no idea how an implementation like this would be coded, or how it would work when one is currently at the capped average and wishes to further change the distribution of quality values. I would, however, prefer having flexible caps like this over any currently proposed system for quality/skill caps.

[banok]

Well not that my opinion matters since I quit ages ago, and probably wont grind a high character ever again anyway.

But I think the cap system sounds like it *might* be pretty good. I like the idea that the super serial groups have to pay, its just: will they? or will they just end up quitting instead since they cannot get 500 stats. Personally once I got to 150 I got bored of grinding, so works pretty fine for me.

World reset does seem a little too soon, I always enjoy them, but maybe should have done the whole siege /empire stuff first.

[naosnule]

@Loftar: since you are introducing level caps, could you make it so that you have to pay for every character to reach the max cap? Or would that be too much pay to win? I do understand that by level caps being account-bound rather than character-bound, it would be pay-to-participate rather than pay-to-win. On the other hand, putting a fee on raising cap of extra characters would decrease alt-usage.

[Kimparo]

I'm not sold on this new payment system. Only because I've played a few MMO's that have done things like "Here's a quest to buy something from our cash shop! Did you do it? Here's a LOT of exp early on so you don't have to grind hard core in 16 more levels when the story quests stop leveling you regularly!~" I DO like the idea of a stat cap though, more so on combat stats than crafting stats. Maybe 200 for combat and 250-300 for crafting?

The hard thing with making a payment system for a game like this is, it's extremely hard to do it without it looking pay2win in any way. Typical subscriptions that give you small buffs don't really fit Haven. Something like gaining a very small amount more from your food is actually much more major in this game. Getting slightly more LP is also more major than just getting exp. BUT with a level cap, not so much. (Well yes and no...) You reach your cap slightly faster than the rest, but your not playing some normal MMO where everyone is going to get there and can't dick over someone else who started out the same time as you with as much play time as you. But with the death system you guys implemented that might work out.

Ask the community if a small subscription buff would be alright with them? Something like... $5-$10 for 5% more LP gain from curiosities? Along with other very small things. Like maybe access to some early tests for the game and a 30 day limited hat every month.

I'm trying hard to think but I honestly never got around to playing new Haven since I got my new comp. College shit and all that, ya know?

[dageir]

Wait! My pumpkins have not ripened yet!
New payment and capping scheme looks good. Makes it a bit easier on us casuals.