Pre-Announcement: Siege Changes

[jorb]

I'm perhaps not entirely adverse to that line of thinking, Enjoyment, but let's also not forget that BSFs have very strong incentives to attack people far weaker than themselves. Full spectrum dominance ensures victory. Attacking other BSFs can cause real problems, which humans tend to shy away from.

[Astarisk]

Which, I believe, is also what we have seen in previous worlds, isn't it? The lack of action and drama makes the world go stale.

Sure, losing your base to a raid sucks, but doesn't grinding away for weeks, to then run out of things to do, also suck?

Sure but in the current state the action and drama belong to a select few groups only, the rest are just fodder for the fire. Hermits have no reason (or ability, really) to get involved with any such politics unless they are the victim.

I said it once before but there aren't any "good" raiders left out there, all we have now are the people looking to raid for loot rather than justice and I don't think that's a good place to be in.

Hey now, We wizards generally don't have a problem trying to help out people being raided or killed, the problem generally is timing. Most of the time whenever we would want to help someone, by the time we get there the place has already been ransacked and packed up, with all the loot either bashed or moved away already. On the other end of the spectrum a murder happens within moments, so it's generally not feasible to run out and save a guy unless they happen to be in voice comms with us, and are able to run away for more than a few moments.

Other than that, what we are left with is just scent tracking, and hoping that pays off. But that can only be done after the damage has been done.

I'm looking forward to new siege changes, we need to experiment to find a good balance, and if we want a good system, hermits will have to suffer. There is no reason they should be able to hold off a real faction.

[Kaios]

But I'm just not sure I can do much about some people playing the game very competitively, if that is your complaint. The environment is not such that a small group of friends playing casually on Sundays can somehow engage meaningfully in PvP with top factions, and I'm not sure the rules could even be bent in that kind of a direction even if I wanted to, as a lot of the competitiveness comes from fundamental things. You can join the game freely, spend as much time in it as you like, create as many characters as you like, &c. There are very few limits to how much will and energy you can direct at the game if you want to, and attempting to introduce such limits is far from trivial, and quickly becomes draconian.

PvP is another area entirely, social events can mean a lot of things from visiting your friend to trading with neighbours or traveling to the trade center or even foraging can be considered a somewhat social aspect of this game because people need to leave their walls to do it.

Just because no-one posts about it, doesn't mean it's not happening.

I have no doubt that it happens but certainly not often and you can't really call yourself an advocate for justice if you raid or kill helpless newbie one day but help some others on another. Of course I don't know what activities you're up to this world but my point is that consistency matters (or at least it should) and most of the time criminals tend to go unpunished.

[Enjoyment]

I'm perhaps not entirely adverse to that line of thinking, Enjoyment, but let's also not forget that BSFs have very strong incentives to attack people far weaker than themselves. Full spectrum dominance ensures victory. Attacking other BSFs can cause real problems, which humans tend to shy away from.

So I should join BSF or be destroyed by them. That's the choice you have for me? Is that the way u see the future of Haven? Cause, I assume it leads us to a world with one V(ery)BSF destroying any others... Cause the game couldn't be so balanced to support multiple BSFs equal at power (not of your fault, but of players differences). And what can be done to entertain this VBSF,when they destroy anything they can? World reset and once again - who became VBSF sooner?

[Zeler]

I'm perhaps not entirely adverse to that line of thinking, Enjoyment, but let's also not forget that BSFs have very strong incentives to attack people far weaker than themselves. Full spectrum dominance ensures victory. Attacking other BSFs can cause real problems, which humans tend to shy away from.

So I should join BSF or be destroyed by them. That's the choice you have for me? Is that the way u see the future of Haven? Cause, I assume it leads us to a world with one V(ery)BSF destroying any others... Cause the game couldn't be so balanced to support multiple BSFs equal at power (not of your fault, but of players differences). And what can be done to entertain this VBSF,when they destroy anything they can? World reset and once again - who became VBSF sooner?

Why would hermits even be able to oppose major factions?

[Kaios]

Why would hermits even be able to oppose major factions?

It isn't about opposing so much as figuring out a way to give more incentive towards not murdering that random guy boating by

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

I think it is less if an issue with opposing them and more of the issue that factions would flatten them by just looking at them, essentially leaving the fate of hermits by the randomness if if they are seen or not and what will said faction do to them.

That said, there is nothing along the line that hermits cannot befriend said factions which greatly increase their survivability.

Although, a portion of the player-base have some condescending attitude towards hermits lately.

[Avu]

I also think that there is some argument to be made that an environment where sieges are actually possible may cause the population to coalesce into factions and groupings that are actually viable in that kind of a climate. I imagine that some level of adaptation to a more aggressive ruleset is both possible and reasonable.

If a big scary faction cannot through any amount of effort remove hermitages, then there is no siege warfare to speak of in the game. If we give up on the ambition that there should be siege warfare in the game, then we have taken the game down a path which I suspect will lead to what we have seen in the past, i.e. stale farmville worlds with no political dynamism to speak of. I am sure that game can have its merits -- Farmville is fun -- but it isn't the game I have dreamed of building.

Fundamentally: I want war and armies to be features of the game.

There aren't enough fucking people to coalesce into anything. And unless mechanics support bigger groups the larger the group the more inefficiency you get to the point that adding new people will hurt more than help. Compound that with the power a traitor has to fuck over an entire city, the fact that obscurity is the strongest defense and the fact that hell will freeze over before you implement actual management tools and incentives for larger groups and you will never achieve big efficient groups. Most players way of adapting to the aggressive ruleset of haven is quiting. It's a fucking game. I don't need to fight the same fucking NPC russians for 6 worlds in a row no thanks. Repeating the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of madness.

Before you concern yourself with big scary factions being impotent against hermits which they fucking aren't but let's assume why aren't you concerned with the fact that there are no big scary factions that will choose to defend those hermits (does not include russians defending other russians npcs don't count). And stale farmville worlds with no politial dinamism? Who the fuck do you want to provide the dinamism? The russians won the game several worlds ago. They were winning even after their town got nuked. There is no competition when there is no chance to win. There are no new players to spice shit up. I'm sorry if I can't get as mad and involved to try and stop the same people again and again and again when it's fucking pointless in the first place they're not going anywhere. And the other raider factions? Oditown and Ainran? They're basically scrubs that go in for lots of words big drama the ocasional bug raid but they don't stand a chance against the russians even if they don't want to admit it.

And is the game you dreamed of building a mix of russians and canadians pissing in other peoples porridge and nobody new joining? If it is congrats.

I read in a further post there is no change of kingdoms happening. Well good luck with that. When lady goo and jordan coles are the only people left (even autism has it's limits) I'm sure you can pat yourself on the back for your great vision.

[Enjoyment]

Why would hermits even be able to oppose major factions?

Who's saying that? Hermits definately shouldn't be able to oppose even a Small factions. But they should be able to AVOID them. Or there will be no hermits in this game after few weeks of fresh world start. Some of them will join factions, and some just leave the game. Cause loosing is fun™ only when it is the consequences of your actions, not when it is a part of game rules...
If joining the faction will become only way to play Haven, than it should be stated as Faction-Based MMORPG. And that is the type of games, that some of the Haven's players doesn't like and won't play. There is no drama in that, but devs should be honest in this moment.

[jorb]

hell will freeze over before you implement actual management tools and incentives for larger groups

Give me a wish list. That would help.

Also, what is the end result of your defeatism? Pack it up, stop trying, never implement siege, and go do something else in life?