why you are retarded (and bald)

[SnuggleSnail]

• you are retarded if you think the map should be the same size when you're splitting the playerbase. Everybody who didn't want to play singleplayer already complained it was too small before splitting the servers, even during covid while everybody was inside
• You have always failed rly bad at making set piece battle between factions. 0-2 meteor fights per world, and 0-3 realm fights is an above average # of fights from the "intended PVP activities". The only "good" and consistent form of PVP is from the first 2-3 weeks of the world when you can sail into people hunting bears, before bear meat becomes irrelevant. Making ir so everybody can just login the char that doesn't have rage to hunt bears with literally 0 risk destroys this B T W
• Why are you even talking about any of this convoluted shit, you didn't even remove safepalis yet you fucking retards
• Why are you talking about "wah wah protect the noobs actions should have consequences" when after like 5 years you still can't track people unless you make a titan big eye char specifically for it
• You have unironically made me racist towards sweden
• I will not elaborate

[sabinati]

hey man have you considered that they aren't making this game for you

[SnuggleSnail]

kinda hard to deny they seem to want to capture a demographic of people who like PVP but they're so bad at it I can see why it'd come into question

[vatas]

I'm pretty sure that when I suggested something similar to the concept now known as "Ragehide" I specifically stated there should be a debuff or a counter that once filled, will cause you to just become a free kill instead. Specifically to prevent "just immediately running back from your HF."

Since Charisma was also mentioned in the screenshots, it could scale from that, would it be a silly idea? Just a difference of 100 charisma on the Ragehide user and 10 on the target should instantly fill the bar (after the eviction) so a fresh alt would have one use before going on a cooldown for X amount of time. Although now we run into the fundamental issue of "because system can't separate genuine newb from a nuisance bot, there's probably going to be either a seal-clubbing tool to bully the former with, or an ineffective counter-measure against the latter."

[SnuggleSnail]

I don't think there's a realistic way to make it work without big unsolvable edgecases. Moreover, I don't think making it work would be "in the original spirit of the game", but the original spirit of the game has been dead for a long time anyway, I guess.

Maybe they should just accept that they never wanted to make a "HARDCORE PERMA DEATH EXTREME MURDER SIMULATOR" if the idea of people risking even the most minute chance of death is unacceptable. People dying in PVP games is good, actually

PVE servers when

[Fostik]

I think it's still to be decided how exactly evict will work, just being able to evict anyone without rage you're in combat with doesn't seem right for number of use-cases Snail provided.
On the other hand this seems like a proper mechanic, if implemented and gated properly. If there were some mechanism that differs offensive and defensive behavior in fight, and only for offensive it allows eviction for rage players, that would feel right.

[SnuggleSnail]

P.S: there is practically no meta reason to ever leave your base (non-PVP zone, siege is laughable) after you get crops. Pickling has overtaken every other food by orders of magnitude, and better food was always the only reason to do anything.

By week 2 or 3 the people who don't want to be involved with PVP can literally just opt out by not going outside. Even if they do go outside there's like a 1% chance of them running into somebody, and even if they do run into somebody 99% of the time KO protection will save them even if they wood league shitters.

The mental gymnastics you need to go through to pretend nabslaying is more of an issue than the game just being tedious and boring are INSANE tbh

[vatas]

The mental gymnastics you need to go through to pretend nabslaying is more of an issue than the game just being tedious and boring are INSANE tbh

>deliberately builds up a reputation as noob-slaughtering boogeyman
>"Why do people think nabslaying is an issue?!"
(inb4 "I was just pretending" - if that's the case, you have no case to complain that you're not being taken seriously.)

To be more serious/productive, there's a basically unsolvable conflict of interest between:
One side wants to have a satisfying PvP game - in the context of Haven, this implies being actually able to kill your opponent in a PvP fight.
Other side wants to not get permakilled just for having the audacity to go outside their walls - this implies not really being able to kill your opponent in a PvP fight.

Problem is that the system/ruleset used by the past handful of worlds has literally been "worst of the both worlds" as the first group figures out how to abuse/bypass all the protections, while the second group only has a vague idea of them (perhaps even completely oblivious.) I'm aware of at least one instance in w16.1 where someone could've just ran back to their base and basically not lose anything, but because it's simply not intuitive that an open gate lets you through (because you have no Rage) but is impassable forcefield to the guy chasing you (because he has Rage.) From the perspective of somebody who does know what should be done in that situation, the target just flails around like a baby seal. This makes it easy to say something like "git gud" or "skill issue" and ignore the more fundamental issues.

[SnuggleSnail]

To be more serious/productive, there's a basically unsolvable conflict of interest between:
One side wants to have a satisfying PvP game - in the context of Haven, this implies being actually able to kill your opponent in a PvP fight.
Other side wants to not get permakilled just for having the audacity to go outside their walls - this implies not really being able to kill your opponent in a PvP fight.

This is an enormous mischaracterization, IMO. Sure, some people are just facebook moms that got in because of false advertising, but EASILY >90% of the people who join the game that's advertised as "HARDCORE PERMA DEATH PVP RAPE AND PILLAGE YOUR NEIGHBOR SIMULATOR" actually do want to rape and murder their neighbor. It only becomes a problem for them once they realize sometimes they need to be the mouse instead of the cat.

Half of the games problems stem from jorbtar being retarded, but the other half stem from jorbtar not understanding that the majority of people want to kill their neighbor, but advocate for the boring alternative of nobody killing anybody because of their loss aversion bias. Or worse "I can kill my neighbor, but they can't kill me because I built safepalis everywhere, and didn't buy rage, and live in the corner of the world, and do all of my outside chores on an alt, and I think you should need 5,000 perception to be able to track me, and a myriad of other extremely tedious, unfun countermeasures that make the game boring but make me feel safer".

I'm sure you'd describe yourself as a peaceful carebear facebook mom, yet you're out here trying to siege hermits when it doesn't feel risky. The only difference between you and me is that I AM ABOUT THIS SHIT, and you are afraid. If the developers were good, they would FORCE you into situations where you will have fun in spite of your loss aversion bias, instead of slowly over years&years toddler proofing the entire experience.

lmao imagine what a pathetic failure rust would be if the developers reacted to every instance of somebody whining "these clans shouldn't be able to hurt us we're just harmless li'l guys :(((( disable raiding or at least convoluted, shit, and boring", and then stop imagining it because you can just login to haven and hearth

[vatas]

I'm sure you'd describe yourself as a peaceful carebear facebook mom, yet you're out here trying to siege hermits when it doesn't feel risky. The only difference between you and me is that I AM ABOUT THIS SHIT, and you are afraid. If the developers were good, they would FORCE you into situations where you will have fun in spite of your loss aversion bias, instead of slowly over years&years toddler proofing the entire experience.

The one time I seriously sieged someone, it was a genuine land dispute, basically the exact original design intention.

Meanwhile you've openly bragged about growing your pile of hermit skeletons just for the sake of "high score." I'm not going to claim there's anything to morally object - this is just a game and theoretically someone just trying to kill as many characters as would just make the in-game sociopolitical landscape more interesting. I just felt the need to counter your "me and vatas are the same, vatas is just worse at playing this game" -argument. (Decided to color-code the parts I disagree and no-contest specifically.)

This is an enormous mischaracterization, IMO. Sure, some people are just facebook moms that got in because of false advertising, but EASILY >90% of the people who join the game that's advertised as "HARDCORE PERMA DEATH PVP RAPE AND PILLAGE YOUR NEIGHBOR SIMULATOR" actually do want to rape and murder their neighbor. It only becomes a problem for them once they realize sometimes they need to be the mouse instead of the cat.

Thinking about that I have to agree to some kind of 10-10-80 rule on "pure PvP players" "peaceful players" and "something in between" with the last group generally able to seamlessly move between "I'm just an itty-bitty nawb, it would be unfair to bully me!" and "vae victis, someone weaker than me!"