You killed this game yourselves, devs.

[jordancoles]

forced peace areas suck, player made ones are much more fun.

More fun sure, for the week that it actually functions.

What was so bad about Boston other than the free crafting areas and the afkers?
You say it was the worst, Potjeh, but why?
IMO the base defense and metal working/mining system was the worst thing about Slaem



Sure, people could memo you, but no one was forcing you to go there with a main

[Potjeh]

Boston was a terrible crutch that was oh so convenient for adding new content without fitting it into the real sandbox properly, so it was in effect a cancer that slowly turned the game into yet another themepark. IMO a line that must never be crossed is adding anything other than pure cosmetics (such as RoB or statues) that can't be created and destroyed by the players.

[jordancoles]

Boston was a terrible crutch that was oh so convenient for adding new content without fitting it into the real sandbox properly, so it was in effect a cancer that slowly turned the game into yet another themepark.

What new content was added to boston that didn't affect the rest of the game? Boston had a mail NPC, stalls and it was used for dev events/ live streams

Not much was added to boston other than items in the NPC shop as the game was developed

I don't want NPCs or trade stalls similar to Salem's in hafen

[jordancoles]

If it's a broader and longer lasting community we are after, then some form of security and social interaction is the way to go

Let people meet, and duel, and gamble, and show off their favourites dyed armor
I don't see a real harm in it if criminals can't use the area to hide

[Sevenless]

Personal opinion disclaimer:

If we want to have safe towns, the only way for players to organize them is some form of static active defense giving a lot more "admin" control over what the layman does.

These static defenses would have to be strong enough to completely deter attacks outside siege events. This is the only way sandbox shittery can be controlled sufficiently that most players would be willing to open up a city, as opposed to the odd diehard group like brodgar. But at the same time, this overpoweredness needs to go away somehow or sieges would be impossible.

Imo siege events should be more declared and formalized since that seems to work well in other sandboxes. To the point that the defender should get a say when the siege assaults happen (EVE uses this system to cover multiple timezone conflicts, the day of the siege is set by when the attacker starts but the time during that day is set by the defender).

Sieges would also completely disable those static defenses, or tools to do so would be required. The idea being that outside a siege the town is 99% safe from being fucked with (assuming the static defenses are built and maintained), but those defenses are not used as deterrents from sieging.

That's just the first requirement. We also need a lot more game mechanic formalized relationships in game. Stuff like being able to rent out a plot or barter stall in this city without needing to directly negotiate payment with the town owner.

[dageir]

I am not saying this is a solution for HnH, but if one used the EVE model of corporations, a formal declaration of war between factions might solve this problem. However we would perhaps have no NPC "corporations" in HnH, rendering hermits and noobs vulnerable.

[konecat]

Laughing at you newfags thinking they know what "legacy" H&H is. This Finland guy thinking curio system existed since forever, or that the current one somehow differs from the old one. Of course registred in 2013. He probably doesn't even know curiosity system used to not exist.

At least back then game made you do something and not log-in, log-out. You newfags are part to blame here. Jorb, I hope you along with loftar are happy with what you made with the game. Hopefully it dies quick enough. If you think legacy is done, why not release the source code by the way? No one will play it anyway, right? Everyone loves the new H&H. Sorry, I was just daydreaming.

Sometimes it baffles me why developers don't listen to their playerbase.

[Sevenless]

I am not saying this is a solution for HnH, but if one used the EVE model of corporations, a formal declaration of war between factions might solve this problem. However we would perhaps have no NPC "corporations" in HnH, rendering hermits and noobs vulnerable.

I was personally more thinking about those "siege claims" they had in salem. I'm not sure what was gleaned from that test, but EVE uses that model as well.

EVE has a lot of quirks/problems with it, it's by no means perfect. But they have handled factional territory warfare exceptionally well. If I had to "steal" any of their ideas for haven, it would be around this concept.

[barra]

At least back then game made you do something and not log-in, log-out.

Reading a book while your bot clear cut half a supegrid of forests to craft buckets/cups etc was anti-fun, and everyone who didn't bot LP or hunger was at a hopeless disadvantage. At least the curio system isn't as skewed.

[jordancoles]

I am not saying this is a solution for HnH, but if one used the EVE model of corporations, a formal declaration of war between factions might solve this problem. However we would perhaps have no NPC "corporations" in HnH, rendering hermits and noobs vulnerable.

I was personally more thinking about those "siege claims" they had in salem. I'm not sure what was gleaned from that test, but EVE uses that model as well.

EVE has a lot of quirks/problems with it, it's by no means perfect. But they have handled factional territory warfare exceptionally well. If I had to "steal" any of their ideas for haven, it would be around this concept.

Personally I hated waste claims far more than normal rams

Rams can be broken whenever, and someone who properly ramchecks can protect themselves just as well as a larger village can if they want to put in the effort
This means that if you want to play a farmer can, and if you want to fight, you go outside your walls to find one
Losing characters doesn't make people quit, losing bases does

Waste claims had a window of time for when they could be destroyed, which was relatively short and always meant a large group camping it. The claim itself had a lot of health so bashing it took time even with a fairly decent character and it was basically never broken anyways because of the opposing group outnumbering the defenders

If a waste claim was dropped on a low-manned group then that group was basically forced out of the game the second it went live
Salem was a game that made you feel like you were never safe no matter what you did, which then gave you a feeling that there was no point to even play or build anything up because it didn't matter
I'd like to avoid people feeling the same way about this game because that meaningless feeling played a major role in ruining Salem for a lot of average players

Idk, I'm all for raiding, but like I said, most people recover from character deaths.
Frequently losing bases is what makes people quit for good