PvP, Player Attrition, and the Future of Haven & Hearth

[Havenasket]

I’ve been playing Haven & Hearth for over five years and have supported the project because I really enjoy its unique gameplay and the community around it. When I started, PvP felt fair—it was about protecting what your group had built, and sieges were long and had real stakes.

Now things feel very different. The way PvP works today lets a few very advanced groups—those with endless time, resources, and characters—destroy any settlement they want, even if it’s far away and not a threat. PvP is less about defense and more about griefing, wiping out villages and animals of people who just want to build and relax

This is a problem because losing everything with no way to fight back is just demoralizing. Watching your whole village get wiped out—when you never even bothered anyone—makes you wonder why you should keep playing. Every destroyed village is often one less active and paying player.

The worst part is that this cycle repeats: heavy griefing burns people out and pushes the world toward a wipe. Yes, wipes bring a short population boost, but numbers fall off just as fast.

For example, our small group—just five friends farming and raising sheeps far from everyone—was recently attacked. We had nothing attackers could want and no way to defend. It was over before it started.

I’m not saying PvP shouldn’t exist, but right now, it just drives away people who want to play and support the game. For most of us, it’s not about fighting — it’s about being able to build without being wiped out for no reason.

What could help?

- Private (whitelist) worlds with paid access, so groups can choose who joins.
- Rules or limits for raiding peaceful, low-value settlements.
- More tools for player self-moderation if official moderation isn’t possible.

Question for the devs:
Is it really better to let a few powerful players control the fate of everyone else? Or is it time to rethink PvP so Haven & Hearth can keep both challenge and community?

I want to keep supporting this game, but not if every world ends the same way. Thanks for reading.


TL;DR:
Current PvP lets a few top groups wipe out peaceful villages with no real way to defend, pushing more players to quit. This hurts the community and future of the game. Please consider adding private worlds, better protection for small groups, or more player moderation tools.

[Zachary09]

It honestly really depends. Matters of PvP protection largely stay around "timing" - in EVE Online, for example, subjects of terrain security have been resolved by allowing space owners to determine at what hours their selected pieces of space could be attacked and taken over. In Haven no such protection exists, which encourages attacks on groups which can barely defend themselves.

Now imagine you select an explicit window during which anyone can attack your "region of space" (ie. in this game, the Thingwall being challenged) - for example 2 hours in any given day during which anyone can challenge the thing peace. Or you could choose 12 hours in a saturday, for example, instead of the entire week.

I think there are rooms to expand and properly fix the siege system, but it is what it is right now. It's definitely not the best it has been, and there are many more iterations to be done to make it player-friendly.

[SnuggleSnail]

Not saying the perception that it's too hard, resulting in people often just giving up isn't an issue -- or that siege being so complicated nobody understands it until it's too late isn't an issue, but:

• The guy that sieged you probably would've fucked off for like 1-2 tokens/hats
• The opposing group would've likely jumped at the opportunity to fuck up the guy sieging you if you approached it in the right way
• Siege is setup rn so that you can defend without fighting, and while it's theoretically possible to get so overwhelmed by the attacker using an absurd amount of resources, I'm pretty sure a defender who doesn't make a mistake will never lose
• Half of the bases worth sieging take like a week+ of uninterrupted siege to actually crack open
• Considering the effort it takes I'm pretty sure your friends or w/e who got sieged were asking for it

[Havenasket]

Now imagine you select an explicit window during which anyone can attack your "region of space" (ie. in this game, the Thingwall being challenged) - for example 2 hours in any given day during which anyone can challenge the thing peace. Or you could choose 12 hours in a saturday, for example, instead of the entire week.

Ideas from Other Games: Siege Windows & Defense Options

Both Albion Online and V Rising offer mechanics to make PvP sieges more fair and manageable for smaller groups:

- Albion Online (Hideouts in Black Zones):
- Each region can be controlled by a group with a hideout.
- When attackers launch a siege, defenders have two options:

- Pay a ransom to cancel the attack (the amount is significant, e.g., ~50 million silver per region).
- Accept the battle, but the defenders choose the most convenient time for the fight within the next 24 hours, so they can organize their defense team.

This system gives defenders a realistic chance to prepare or negotiate, not just lose by default.

V Rising (PvP Siege Times):

- Each server has a fixed window when castles can be attacked (e.g., 8–10 pm).
- Server settings can make sieges possible only in evenings or only on weekends.

Many servers are regional, making it convenient for local players to defend together during active hours.

How This Could Help H&H:
Adding similar siege windows or "buy-out" mechanics would allow small villages to at least pick a time when they might be able to gather defenders or pay a fee to avoid a fight.
However, even with these protections, there is still a fundamental issue: when a small village with <100 stats faces an attacking group with >3000 stats, there is no real chance to win, no matter the time.

Conclusion:
Adjusting siege timing is a great "quality of life" improvement and would reduce some frustration, but it won't solve the core problem—stat and power disparity is so extreme that small or new groups can't realistically defend, regardless of timing or mechanics.

[Havenasket]

Not saying the perception that it's too hard, resulting in people often just giving up isn't an issue -- or that siege being so complicated nobody understands it until it's too late isn't an issue, but:

• The guy that sieged you probably would've fucked off for like 1-2 tokens/hats
• The opposing group would've likely jumped at the opportunity to fuck up the guy sieging you if you approached it in the right way
• Siege is setup rn so that you can defend without fighting, and while it's theoretically possible to get so overwhelmed by the attacker using an absurd amount of resources, I'm pretty sure a defender who doesn't make a mistake will never lose
• Half of the bases worth sieging take like a week+ of uninterrupted siege to actually crack open
• Considering the effort it takes I'm pretty sure your friends or w/e who got sieged were asking for it

Hello Snail! Long time no see. Thanks for your input.

A few points from the perspective of a small, low-activity village:

Negotiation, politics, and “paying off” attackers might work in theory, but for most small or casual groups, it’s just not realistic. Most new or low-quality villages have no way to gather 1–2 tokens or hats—these are real-money items, and our characters can’t even teleport to a market or craft anything of real value. Expecting players to pay real money to avoid being wiped isn’t sustainable, and recent updates (like the hat patch) show the devs don’t want RMT extortion to be a core mechanic.

As for reaching out to “third parties,” there really aren’t any strong alternative factions left. The server now has maybe 100 hearthlings online, and there’s a single dominant group that can outstat and outnumber anyone. There’s no “balance of power,” so the idea of outside intervention doesn’t work. With endless stat progression, whoever starts early and plays non-stop will always be far ahead—there are no comeback mechanics like in Ark or similar games, where even weaker groups can challenge the alpha.

In practice, small villages with little activity or connection are left with no realistic options: defending without fighting just means hoping not to be noticed, since even a single mistake (or just being targeted) means total loss. Most such groups aren’t “asking for it”—they settle far from others and just want to farm or craft in peace, but still get wiped. For them, constant politics and negotiation in Discord is not what makes the game fun or engaging.

[SnuggleSnail]

• From your description it wasn't us who sieged the place, so 1 msg in any public discord would've resulted in us ganking the guy if they were actually bigbois in 99% of cases (you are right in general about the balance of power between top groups affecting how hard others are bullied, tho)
• If you're so low tech 1-2 tokens is a big deal to you there's no fucking way people are camping a ram for 24h+ to fuck you up unless you REALLY pissed somebody off
• As mentioned above siege is effectively unwinnable as an attacker vs. a defender who doesn't fight if they play it right

Your criticism (and solutions - what you're suggesting would be a huge buff to siegers) are /objectively/ wrong here.

That said, I think your criticism can be valid in that it shows the common perception of ordinary people having no chance to defend. I'd say like 7/10 of the sieges I'm involved with the defender gives up and starts bashing their shit within the first hour or two. It doesn't matter if the systems are stacked in your favor (they are) if you've already resigned before it started, or the systems are so convoluted to regular people they can't really engage with it.

[Havenasket]

• From your description it wasn't us who sieged the place, so 1 msg in any public discord would've resulted in us ganking the guy if they were actually bigbois in 99% of cases (you are right in general about the balance of power between top groups affecting how hard others are bullied, tho)
• If you're so low tech 1-2 tokens is a big deal to you there's no fucking way people are camping a ram for 24h+ to fuck you up unless you REALLY pissed somebody off
• As mentioned above siege is effectively unwinnable as an attacker vs. a defender who doesn't fight if they play it right

Your criticism (and solutions - what you're suggesting would be a huge buff to siegers) are /objectively/ wrong here. That said, I think your criticism can be valid in that it shows a fairly normal perception of siege where people don't believe they have a chance and immediately give up. I'd say like 7/10 of the sieges I'm involved with the defender gives up and starts bashing their shit within the first hour or two. It doesn't matter if the systems are stacked in your favor (they are) if you've already resigned before it started, or the systems are so convoluted to regular people they can't really engage with it.

I’d like to clarify a couple of points:

Buff to siegers?
How would adding higher siege costs, ransom options with cooldowns, or letting defenders pick the attack time be a buff to attackers? All of these give defenders more control, not less. Same with private servers—they would let peaceful groups play on their own terms. These are defender-side improvements.

“Don’t give up / systems stacked for defenders”
In theory, maybe. But in practice, most sieges are fought with alts. My main has existed less than a week—I get one-shot. Last world, I defended WB with a Q300 full steel character and ~500 stats, and I lasted ~15 seconds against a real PvPer.
The gap is even wider because:

- Custom clients and PvP scripts are common.
- You need to build a 5x5 ability deck just to have baseline options for a fighter alt.
- Mechanical skill/experience matters even more than stats for new players.
- Death in H&H during a siege is permanent: you lose months of progress and all property. In other PvP games (Rust, Ark), death is a minor setback; here, it’s total loss.
- Even things like public Q100 wells can be destroyed, so losing means losing core infrastructure too.

Ultimately, when new or casual players can’t protect their claim, region, or even a basic village, it drives them out of the game—reducing both online numbers and, I think, financial support for the devs. No system “stacked for defenders” changes the outcome if you simply have no chance from the start.

Also, please clarify:

"siege is effectively unwinnable as an attacker vs. a defender who doesn't fight if they play it right"

As a 50 con / 90 agi / 90 str player with no sword moves, how can I "play it right" when my village is under siege? If you can't stand your ground in melee 1v1, you can't do anything in current H&H PvP. There are no real defender tools like:

-Traps
-Bunkers
-High ground
- Bonus attack range

It's not StarCraft where you can place a bunker and fire arrows over the wall or lay mines in advance. The higher-stats attacker just moves his catapults/rams, soaks tower damage, and once inside, you're cooked.

Once again, we are derailing here: there are carebears like me who just want to grow carrots and hunt bears. Even if you do not participate in any "malicious" activity, you are at the mercy of the "alpha."

[Girth]

highly developed siege gameplay:


haven is played by russians and americans. some pols and germans play too. so there is probably no good, "let's let raiding happen" time.
Jorb was right about people taking up space and precious air, when he wrote about it in 2015... and now we have massive continents and oceans that separate people. I have had maybe a handful of neighbors settle nearby, and all but 1 at a respectful distance. (and that hermit was filtered by the swimming boss. i found him floating in the lake a day later lmao)..
there's 150-200 people online, in a world that's 100,000km², and the air is still not free. i don't think it's a good thing to raze a village of players and evict them from the world when they are totally by themselves.

PVP is the lifeblood of any MMO, its participants are important to the longevity of an interactive world. there should be a legal outlet for this kind of activity. scentless combat zones, where existing in them is consent to bloodshed... in the living world. maybe a large mythical island of some kind of fanciful and dangerous nature included in the world generation, complete with exclusive beasts and other resources of interest. who knows? I'm spit-balling some alternatives.

[Havenasket]

highly developed siege gameplay:
I'm spit-balling some alternatives.

Like a crystal arena—PvP with proper rules, ladder, seasons, and rewards, as in Albion Online?
Right now, if H&H positions itself as a PvP game, it’s missing the basics: there’s no real PvP mode, no balance, no matchmaking, and the core PvP gameplay ends up repetitive and unfun.

If, instead, PvP is supposed to be a tool for social regulation or player-driven justice, it’s also not working—most people just quit when hit, rather than interacting or adapting.

So something has to change. For example, private servers—either fully PvP-enabled (but honestly, this won’t work without a major PvP overhaul because there simply won’t be enough players), or “soft” PvE servers with owner moderation.

[SnuggleSnail]

I don't rly want to get into the minutia and write an entire essay/siege guide just to prove a point that isn't important. I realize this is a very up my own ass thing to say, but I feel like I'm an authority on siege, and unless you're very experienced you can kindof just take my opinion at face value.

• I would consistently win siege defenses as the 50 con 90 agi whatever char against 3k stat chars. Siege chess is absurdly defender favored
• There's near feature parity between private and public clients right now? Not that it's relevant
• You retrain about 78-80% of your stats when you die? Not that it's relevant
• Specific times to fight over sieges would be the single biggest buff to siege there has ever been, as the primary defender advantage is that they can already choose when things happen???
• Material incentive to start sieges because of ransom would be a huge incentive to siege people where there's currently none???
• If all you want to do is farm carrots at the edge of the world in a hermitage your chance of getting sieged is practically 0 unless you have bad security flaws

Again, I think you being so discouraged or confused by mechanics that you don't even want to try to defend yourself is a valid criticism, especially when it's a bit of a general consensus. It doesn't matter that you're wrong, the effect is the same. Of course people who don't even try will lose.

I don't know how to make people confident enough to at least try, but I'm pretty sure step1 to solving all of siege's problems is to make it EXTREMELY simple.