Codemanny wrote:Having hard-scheduled world resets would trivialize any efforts beyond the absolute minimum to achieve goals in this game
Codemanny wrote: It's just pointless to press hard when you know a reset is on the horizon
Codemanny wrote: Haven shines its brightest when the community goes that extra mile to build awesome monuments, form and enforce governments or kingdoms (realms but not just for the buffs I guess), and strives for more than just the q# next to their crop or something.
Codemanny wrote:Players will be less willing to forge strong relationships with others
Kamekono wrote:Codemanny wrote:Having hard-scheduled world resets would trivialize any efforts beyond the absolute minimum to achieve goals in this game
To me it would be an incentive to work hard. Why play at all if your objective is just to achieve minimum goals?Codemanny wrote: It's just pointless to press hard when you know a reset is on the horizon
It would allow players to try new things. Many don't try risky stuff, especially PvP, because of their fear of losing progress. If you knew progress will be lost in a few weeks, it would push you to try.Codemanny wrote: Haven shines its brightest when the community goes that extra mile to build awesome monuments, form and enforce governments or kingdoms (realms but not just for the buffs I guess), and strives for more than just the q# next to their crop or something.
That already never happens.
Design being linked to materials used means most people can't afford to pick design for anything where quality matters.
Realm management has nothing to do with creating a community. Kings don't give a shit about who lives in their realm, and "citizens" only care about bonuses, if they care at all. It has been ages since I've seen a realm actually caring about someone that wasn't already in their inner circle.
Making the world longer won't help with that, is just makes it even more empty and completely trashed with ruins (scavenged 10 times over).
The things you're talking about are a "nice extra" if they happen, but can't be forced or managed, so you can't count on that to make the game interesting.Codemanny wrote:Players will be less willing to forge strong relationships with others
6 months is plenty of time. It takes a few weeks to create a strong bond, and people would be more willing to take in a stranger since it wouldn't be that dangerous. Worst case scenario they fuck everything up and you lose something that would be gone in a couple of months anyway. Now you risk losing stuff that you could have built on for a year or more.
This game has a good player base for the first 3 months of each world. After 6 months the player base is so small that you can play 24/7 and never meet another soul.
Face it, most people enjoy early world and fast progression, very few enjoy grinding quality to infinity. Most late-game players are those that keep things interesting with PvP, or large market owners, which are a very small % of the overall player population, and would probably increase in numbers if people had an incentive to learn pvp.
Kamekono wrote:Given how the game works right now, I think worlds should last 6 months each. We've been at it for almost 4 months now, and the majority of people have stopped playing. The area I lived in had a large community, over 150 people, out of which less than 10 are still playing. It's now a wasteland of abandoned villages.
Same goes for other areas I used to visit for trade and such. In another couple of months even less people will be playing, and anyone who knows what they're doing (not even talking about big villages and pros that get everything done in a matter of days) will have achieved any objective they might have had, leaving quality increase for the sake of it being the only thing left to do.
Until the game gets some late game content updates, or slows down progression, there's really no reason to go past the 6 month marker.
I think by September - October the world should reset.
I also believe that knowing reset dates in advance would greatly benefit the game. Returning players could mark their calendars to be online on day 1st, and people would experiment more in the last few weeks knowing they are gonna lose their character anyway in a short while.
TerraSleet wrote:http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=57497&start=1020#p868466
shubla is a prophet?
Sephiron wrote:BUT, I've been playing since world 4 and I have never seen it dip below 100 players online at a time. Even then, that's usually when we get a wipe.
Sephiron wrote: lol wtf do you mean? as of writing this there are 380 people playing right now. How many birchbark baskets and useless personal claims need to litter every square foot of the world before you're happy with the size of the playerbase?
Haven and hearth is good simply for that fact- the playerbase is low. The game isn't advertised for a good reason. Personally, I don't want there to be so many players online that the only meta the game has to offer is "Join a community of 150+ players just to keep your shit safe". And on the topic of players online decreasing over time... It always does. BUT, I've been playing since world 4 and I have never seen it dip below 100 players online at a time. Even then, that's usually when we get a wipe.
Kamekono wrote:the game has some serious issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests