Are devs happy/okay/satisfied with the player numbers?

[Agrik]

I am concerned that recurring resets is an addiction that we're feeding which prevents any longer term commitments to the game.

I'm sorry if it sounds blunt... what long term commitment can be in the game that rewards spent time with important numbers that can be grown endlessly?

IMO, games are supposed to save time by allowing to imitate something in a cheaper, quicker ("time is money") and less risky way than it would take in reality. Thus, if a project starts to reward spent time, it does the "game" thing wrong way.

All I can do is to ask to look (perhaps, look again) at the mechanic of the endlessly growing Qs and related things. This is a one-way road.

In a way, you're right that you're feeding the situation. IMO, the current playerbase reflects the fact that H&H lives on the resets. It is filtered by this fact. Basically, you have (and hear) disproportionally many players who are fine with this session-like gameplay because it suits their race-seeking worldview. But do you really want to build a sessional "racing" game for such a target audience?

while I can certainly speculate -- I don't know with any perfect certainty what the big problem(tm) is.

One of the big problems many devs run into is substituting "current playerbase" for the "target audience". Once it happens in the minds of people who steer the project, the project starts to stagnate and then goes downhill.

Please remember how you got this playerbase even though you had nobody at start. Use your developer's vision before listening to a feedback.

[shubla]

I like the tokens because it hopefully reduces the "black market" and real money transactions. I think the devs should get a bigger cut from that economy.

Who cares if it reduces black market by 50% or something if it also increases RMT by 100x making virtually all trade in the game only for tokens.
If no one plays the game because of tokens maybe devs don't even gain that much.

In my experience, some time after reset some people buy RMT items because they realize that they can get hq axes for example way easier with 15 dollars than with their own work. Then 2 weeks and they quit.
Because if their aim is to increase ql and be competetive by just buying hq items with real money what the heck is the point of playing the game at all?? I think it would be interesting to see player count and amount of sold tokens plotted to see how they relate. Devs have accidentally made their game extremely p2w with tokens, monthly micro transactions to buy better q stuff from nolifers/botters if you want to succeed.

[Kaios]

Right, it may be decreasing the amount of "black market" real money transactions but it is obviously not reducing the number of real money transactions overall, because of course trading in tokens is also RMT. In fact I think it's more likely that they increased the amount of RMT. Although, I'm certainly not convinced that any possible decrease in the amount of RMT occurring is actually significant, rather than simply a shift to selling the tokens themselves (which players are absolutely doing).

Injecting something with real world value in to a game that relies on a PLAYER-BUILT economy without any thought as to how it might impact the in-game economy itself in a negative way is not how good development is performed. Such additions require a certain level of foresight and consideration, which Subscription Tokens did not receive.

Haven & Hearth has a player-driven economy, but unlike World of Warcraft or Eve Online in which the currencies are already set and a base framework exists that defines the worth of tradeable items, no such framework exists in Haven & Hearth. Everything is controlled by the player, down to the very coin they choose to mint and what its perceived value may be. This is why it is bad when you suddenly create an item with a set real world value that can be purchased and traded to others in-game because you have now gone and created an artificial method by which the value of every other item that exists will be compared to the real world value of that new item. As a result, trading becomes worse for everyone because the perceived value of most items has now just gone up to a point where they may become unaffordable to the majority of players unless they use tokens to make the purchase. Or, the perceived value of certain items may have gone down making them less worthwhile to bother selling or being accepted as payment at all (blueberries for example, no one is buying them, no one is selling them).

[Procne]

Haven & Hearth has a player-driven economy, but unlike World of Warcraft or Eve Online in which the currencies are already set and a base framework exists that defines the worth of tradeable items, no such framework exists in Haven & Hearth.

What is the base framework that you mention? In both of those games the value of the currency, and the items is primarily set by the players based on supply / demand. The only difference between them and HnH, that I see, is that supply and demand are much lower in HnH due to lower playerbase, and that there is no centralised, universal market with safe and convenient method of goods exchange.

The question is - if tokens were removed would people still want to trade? Maybe there simply isn't anything else worth it to trade for? And is lack of trading necessarily a bad thing?

[Kaios]

What is the base framework that you mention? In both of those games the value of the currency, and the items is primarily set by the players based on supply / demand.

Yes that's true, but what I am referring to is the fact that both those games have official currencies, the value of which was determined at the time they were created. In World of Warcraft these are copper, silver, and gold coins. In Eve it is ISK (Interstellar Kredits). While you are correct that it is largely the players that determine the overall value that these currencies hold in relation to the items being purchased, these currencies still have base values and conversion rates that do not ever change.

The question is - if tokens were removed would people still want to trade? Maybe there simply isn't anything else worth it to trade for?

That isn't really a fair line of questioning from someone that has been around since 2010. If you played even a little during most of the worlds since that time you should know that before the introduction of tokens there was plenty of trading that took place. It's silly to even ask a question like that.

And is lack of trading necessarily a bad thing?

Yes? Why wouldn't it be? Less trading means less interaction with other players. Most of those interactions would likely be positive so that leaves players with less positive interactions and more negative interactions, but the fact that there is little possibility to take advantage of a trade opportunity or steal from a trade run/supply shipment in some way is probably just as inconvenient to those who would like to take part in that sort of thing as well. Whether the interactions are positive or negative, less opportunity for players to meet up with each other is at least from my perspective, a bad thing.

[shubla]

In both of those games the value of the currency, and the items is primarily set by the players based on supply / demand.

I'd not say that. In EVE for example, they have lots and lots of analytics which they use constantly to see money sinks/sources and regularly make changes in order to move the economy to the way that they want.
There are likely some parts in EVE that could be applied to HnH. But comparing hnh economy to eve is very far fetched. In EVE money comes e.g. by killing NPC ships, and is "removed" from economy by e.g. NPC fees when you sell things.
Lot of it is supply and demand based yes, but the supplies and demands are strongly steered by CCP.

[Audiosmurf]

tfw you will never EVER trade a large faction an unbutchered bear again

[Procne]

In both of those games the value of the currency, and the items is primarily set by the players based on supply / demand.

I'd not say that. In EVE for example, they have lots and lots of analytics which they use constantly to see money sinks/sources and regularly make changes in order to move the economy to the way that they want.
There are likely some parts in EVE that could be applied to HnH. But comparing hnh economy to eve is very far fetched. In EVE money comes e.g. by killing NPC ships, and is "removed" from economy by e.g. NPC fees when you sell things.
Lot of it is supply and demand based yes, but the supplies and demands are strongly steered by CCP.[/quote]
I still do not see much difference. HnH also has different ways of generating items / resources and many sinks for them. And devs also make changes to the game, that affect the economy, if it goes the "wrong way". They make some stuff require new materials, or less of them, or make some resources easier / harder to obtain.

I think the key issue here is that players don't see anything else worth taking the effort to trade. And if you remove tokens then trading as a whole will simply die down

[shubla]

I think the key issue here is that players don't see anything else worth taking the effort to trade. And if you remove tokens then trading as a whole will simply die down

Its not like tokens would have any absolute value in themselves, people have cupboards of them, more than they will ever use. Of course they persist through worlds which makes them abit special, but I'm not sure what would make them too much more "valuable" than just gold or pearls. If they were removed they'd probably be replaced by gold/pearls.

Pearls in legacy were great. They had some use (quite high LP/hr) but still hard to get even if you would bot them you would not easily get enough.

[wonder-ass]

tfw you will never EVER trade a large faction an unbutchered bear again

lol if base quality were to be added again and charters were reintroduced i would 100% buy animals early world bcs sausages gud.