Prelude: World 16.1

[Havenasket]

The ideal average player uses the vanilla client, plays a single character, doesn’t cheat, and spends maybe two hours a day in the game. (This was revealed to me in a dream.)

All game design decisions should cater to that playstyle.

Those players can’t coexist with some of the PvP psychopaths in an environment that allows botting and multiboxing alts.

This but unronically.
QoL + fairplay + removing grind + increasing retention = great game.

[Havenasket]

encourage people to leave the safety of their bases

I agree that we need to get people out from behind their palisades.

Why don't the big villages ever fight each other? They have no problem mopping up hermits around them who don't want to fight, but they never fight each other. Instead, they're all allied with each other. Curious!
Just look at the sorry state of The Moot this world. Nothing happened. All of the usual big villages are allied. You'd think if they wanted to fight, they'd fight each other instead of allying up which is pretty pitiful in all honesty seeing how the only reason to ally is to not fight anybody who knows how to fight or if there's another similarly sized alliance (there isn't).
We've had big Korean villages every world. How come I've never heard of a successful raid against them? Like ever. Why has there never been an attempt by the current alliance of basically every other PvP group which is vs fucking WB for some reason as if they've ever been a threat in the world stage (but apparently needed a complete worldwide alliance to take down which is secondhand embarrassment inducing tbqhwy) and ainran remnants and the Koreans.

Why you wishing death upon us?


Just because you don't see the action of villages fighting, or posts on the forums about it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. For example we had much action this world chasing and bullying the 'ad remnants'.



IMO the 'every other pvp group' coalition is against WB not because of a WB threat or power, but because of one person. Robben. Simply put, he's a dick and is nearly universally hated due to his mannerisms, rhetoric, and actions. His hubris lead to that coalition against WB and the ruination of all he's affiliated with since.

Robben was one of a few people defending WB. Everybody is after WB cause it was sprucecap village. Apes together = stronk. As you may know, core pvp activity in this game is related to killing the most newbs in the shortest amount of time, such a village should not exist according to them.

[Audiosmurf]

I like Robben but I think it's disingenuous to pretend he didn't fan the flames at all

[Dawidio123]

How are we back the full circle to discussing wb, truly one of the greatest cacophonies in the history of cacophonies.

[pagsiu]

How are we back the full circle to discussing wb, truly one of the greatest cacophonies in the history of cacophonies.

The cacophony haven't even started yet.

[Dawidio123]

How are we back the full circle to discussing wb, truly one of the greatest cacophonies in the history of cacophonies.

The cacophony haven't even started yet.

[TemuSoldier]

How are we back the full circle to discussing wb, truly one of the greatest cacophonies in the history of cacophonies.

The cacophony haven't even started yet.

Wtf is misa

Yall notice how this audio guys narrative keeps changing? First it’s “tried to dox” then it’s “you doxxed me” and then it’s “attempted to dox me” in literally every reply. Very common in liars. They can’t help themselves.

I've already specified what you did, you snagged an old and outdated copy of my resume, including my full name, old home address, old phone number, old email address, etc etc, and posted it here in an attempt to doxx me, you also saved and posted photos from my Facebook page at the same time. (Obviously, neither of which I had linked in my signature, just an absurd thing to say.) You really should never have been unbanned, but I'm sure you just got caught in one of the big sweeping "unban everyone" waves. This is the blatant lying / narrative manipulation thing that I wouldn't allow you to get away with, which is what prompted your outburst in the first place.

Just like you disproved all those sceen shots with your anecdotes and nonsensical remarks back then, huh?

You’re actually delusional. I genuinely thought you were pretending to be this way so I definitely was out of line in how I responded to you previously. You’re definitely some sort of sociopathetic persons and compulsive lying is your go to. lol

Never doxxed you. You had that information in your forum signature which you initially feigned knowledge of, but are suddenly so sure of now. Information you post publicly becomes publicly available.

How else would I have magically gotten it without knowing absolutely anything about you? I don’t even remember your name at this point, but your bussy hurt for a whole five years after we last spoke?

Do you still have this Publicly Available Information? For science’s sake? DM me if need be

[Audiosmurf]

I personally think he should post it here tbqvh

[TemuSoldier]

Unlike most cozy survival games, Haven and Hearth includes open PvP: any player can be attacked, robbed, and even permanently killed. This feature is often defended as the cornerstone of the game’s realism and tension. Yet, in practice, it drives away new players, fosters toxic power hierarchies, and undermines the game’s deeper creative potential. Disabling PvP—or at least radically reforming it—would make Haven and Hearth a healthier, more accessible, and more sustainable world.

The most immediate consequence of open PvP is its effect on player retention. In Haven and Hearth, death is permanent: a single ambush can erase hundreds of hours of progress. For a veteran who enjoys high-stakes competition, this might sound thrilling. But for the majority of new players, it’s catastrophic. Imagine spending weeks building a homestead, farming, and exploring, only to be cut down by an invisible stranger while harvesting clay. The emotional blow of such an experience is often enough to make players quit permanently.
This isn’t a hypothetical. The game’s population graphs, as documented on community forums and third-party trackers, consistently show sharp drops after every major PvP event or “raid season.” Clans that dominate the world often defend their power through terror and intimidation, creating a de facto caste system of raiders and victims. Many would-be players never even reach the game’s rich crafting systems because they’re killed before experiencing them. Disabling PvP would drastically improve retention, allowing Haven and Hearth to grow into a more inclusive and thriving community.

Unlike competitive MMOs or MOBAs, Haven and Hearth’s core mechanics revolve around crafting, exploration, and cooperation. The satisfaction of the game comes from building a self-sufficient village, breeding better animals, optimizing production chains, and shaping the land. The joy of planting flax, forging steel, or constructing a longhouse comes from time investment and creative expression—not from killing others.
PvP, by contrast, is a separate subsystem layered on top of this complex economy. It interrupts rather than complements the creative loop. Players often describe Haven and Hearth as a “beautiful farming simulator constantly ruined by murderers.” Disabling PvP would let the game’s unique charm shine. Players could focus on exploration, architecture, and trade without fearing that every encounter might erase their work. Instead of fearing strangers, they could collaborate with them, expanding trade networks, festivals, and shared settlements. In a world designed to simulate human civilization, cooperation—not slaughter—should be the pinnacle experience.

In theory, open PvP should create a dynamic political landscape, with wars, alliances, and emergent storytelling. In practice, it produces stagnation. The players who dominate combat—usually through superior knowledge, macros, and multiboxing—quickly consolidate power and eliminate competition. Within weeks of a new world launch, a handful of factions control all high-value territories, while solo players and small villages live in fear.
This imbalance discourages meaningful interaction. Diplomacy becomes irrelevant when one side can erase the other overnight. Trade is replaced by extortion, and exploration becomes suicidal without the backing of a large clan. The result is a world where only a minority actually participates in the so-called “emergent politics,” while everyone else hides behind walls or quits entirely. By disabling PvP, the developers could restore balance and allow every player—regardless of playstyle—to thrive. A world without murder would encourage genuine diplomacy, trade, and cultural development rather than a constant arms race.

One of the strongest arguments for PvP is that it creates tension and meaning: danger makes survival valuable. Yet there are many other ways to generate that tension without enabling griefing or permanent loss. Environmental hazards, dangerous wildlife, resource scarcity, and procedural events can provide all the challenge a survival game needs. Cooperative goals—such as defending against natural disasters, seasonal famines, or mythical creatures—could replace player-on-player violence as the source of risk and excitement.
In fact, many modern survival MMOs, such as Valheim or Eco, have proven that shared adversity is more sustainable than internal warfare. Players remember the time they built a community to overcome a flood or defeat a monster—not the time they were randomly ambushed by a stranger. By redirecting its difficulty toward environmental or cooperative systems, Haven and Hearth could preserve its sense of danger while removing the cruelty that drives players away.

At its heart, Haven and Hearth is about humanity’s relationship with nature and community. Its rustic aesthetic, permadeath mechanics, and slow-paced progression evoke a sense of fragility and connection to the world. Yet open PvP warps that vision into something nihilistic. Instead of celebrating human creativity and cooperation, the game often becomes a social experiment in domination and cruelty. Players become paranoid hermits rather than members of a living civilization.
Disabling PvP would realign the game with its intended emotional tone. It would transform Haven and Hearth from a digital wilderness of fear into a pastoral world of shared storytelling, craftsmanship, and community resilience. The developers have already shown that they can design deep and meaningful systems of labor, hunger, and inheritance. Why not let those systems flourish without being constantly undermined by senseless violence?

From a practical perspective, disabling PvP could dramatically expand the game’s audience. Many potential players admire Haven and Hearth’s aesthetic and crafting systems but avoid it because of its reputation for brutality. A PvE-only mode—or a permanent removal of PvP—would attract casual players, role-players, and builders. With a larger, more stable population, the game’s economy and trade systems would become richer and more dynamic.
Moreover, without PvP clans monopolizing resources, smaller settlements could specialize and interact more naturally. Players could focus on artistry, trade, and social organization instead of fortifications and vengeance. The community could shift from a culture of paranoia to one of collaboration—a transformation that would benefit both players and developers in the long run.

Disabling PvP doesn’t mean eliminating conflict entirely. It means reimagining conflict as something constructive rather than destructive. Rivalries could play out through economic competition, territorial expansion, or prestige systems rather than murder. Villages could compete to produce the best quality goods, discover rare resources, or complete communal projects. The developers could even introduce nonlethal dueling systems or ritualized competitions to preserve a sense of rivalry without loss.

Ultimately, Haven and Hearth is most compelling when it feels like a living, breathing world. A world that grows, remembers, and endures—not one that eats itself alive every few months. By disabling PvP, the developers could honor the game’s original vision: a digital hearth where creativity, survival, and community truly matter.

[_Scipio]

chatgpt spam

REPORTED ... oh