World resets are healthy for the game

[ErdTod]

any activity I do in game will have the (why bother, it will be destroyed in x months) feeling. But when resets are unplanned, I can effectively pretend it's going to last forever.

I agree, I had that feeling when I was starting to play on Popham years ago in Salem, however, if the world lasts longer that your plan to play the game (usually you die earlier than a year after the start) - then that might not be a problem.

That said, I died months and months ago and I'm not coming back until there's a reset.

Same for me and some of my friends. I hope for some bitter Jorbtar mistake that'll lead to a fresh world, so I can play one of my favorite games again

[Cajoes]

People don't stop playing because of a lack of resources, there's enough ore on the map to sustain everyone for several years of intensive mining if neccessary.

Most stop playing for the simple reason that we're tired. - Maintaining a farmstead, especially with many animals, is exhausting over time, with daily check-ins to harvest feed crops, sort the animals for quality, and cull the surplus. Day after day, which is why many just quit, leaving ruins filled with starvation damaged carcasses.

Once you've gotten a palisade, steel, silk, pepper, alcoboozes, medications, livestock and crops, you're pretty much done with the game if you're not into the pvp aspects. Which admittedly, a lot of us are not. In my case because I don't like killing people I have not met yet.

Just thought I'd chime in with my own reasoning for why people stop playing, despite the abundance of unclaimed territory and ores. As for "being unable to compete with established players with stats in the thousands." I have a easier time there. Since I *don't* compete with them. And just play the game at my own pace.

All a 'reset' does is wipe the slate clean and tear down everyones virtual sandcastle, making you start over, with fresh ideas and experience from your last hearthing. - I am not sure this is a healthy approach in the long run for a game that ultimately aims to be persistant as it gives players the wrong mindset (IE: Won't play until tharr is a reset). We're not a minecraft server.

[dageir]

If they want a permanent world, they need far more content. They are working on this though.

[jorb]

I agree that world resets are healthy for the game, otherwise I wouldn't do them.

In the grand scheme of things I suspect we have only scratched the surface of the things we could be doing with the map generator, and while that is the case there will always be an argument for a reset. That being said, the more content we add in, and the more time and effort can be invested in the game, the more seriously we also need to be about doing thorough and well considered resets.

[ErdTod]

Once you've gotten a palisade, steel, silk, pepper, alcoboozes, medications, livestock and crops, you're pretty much done with the game if you're not into the pvp aspects.

Yes, wider variety of end-game content would prolong the time a player stays in the game, but when we are talking of a permanent world, do we mean that the player will also play endlessly? Obviously, no. It is simply impossible to develop enough content for an endless gameplay for a game like HnH. You eventually run out of things to do. And that's OK for some extent: developing more content is what devs chose to be the their mean of life and fun. Enjoying this content is what we as playerbase chose to do with our free time.

But if we need a world reset to start enjoying it again, as well as experiencing the newly added content - why shouldn't we? I might be wrong, but it seems that there are more than a bit of players who think the same.

This game is "eternal alpha". There will never be enough content for endless gameplay. It will be more and more interesting as time goes and devs bring in more and more content.
But possibility of a mass-fresh start will always be healthy IMO.

P.S. and new start may not mean the end of the previous world.

[jorb]

There are players who begin crying for a new world one month into one, however. We have to strike a reasonable balance. If we reset the world every month then no one will bother investing in them.

[ErdTod]

There are players who begin crying for a new world one month into one, however. We have to strike a reasonable balance. If we reset the world every month then no one will bother investing in them.

That's why the suggestion is to have a new server (not necessarily a reset) every year - I would think that that is enough time for all the quitting player to die out in the old world and enough time for a reasonable amount of new content to be developed and thus to be attractive for discovery in the new world.

That still might hurt the old world, as some of the players may decide to move to the new one, leaving less people for those who choose to stay in the older world. But maybe that is something to experimented with.

[RedSkies]

There are players who begin crying for a new world one month into one, however. We have to strike a reasonable balance. If we reset the world every month then no one will bother investing in them.

That's why the suggestion is to have a new server (not necessarily a reset) every year - I would think that that is enough time for all the quitting player to die out in the old world and enough time for a reasonable amount of new content to be developed and thus to be attractive for discovery in the new world.

That still might hurt the old world, as some of the players may decide to move to the new one, leaving less people for those who choose to stay in the older world. But maybe that is something to experimented with.

I do have to wonder if thats viable though, given the current player base. I think you would have the majority of players on the new world and only a tiny fraction on the old ones. Would it really be scalable long term for Jorbtar to maintain a bunch of ongoing servers, increasing each year, with next to zero player base for anything but the current world?

[LadyGoo]

There are players who begin crying for a new world one month into one, however. We have to strike a reasonable balance. If we reset the world every month then no one will bother investing in them.

IMHO, the non-reset (or almost no reset) point should be when the game would be released on Steam. Probably, the greatest share of the problems related to the end-game would be resolved with the arrival of the bigger number of new players.

[Granger]

The problems related to the end-game should be resolved before the arrival of bigger numbers of new players.

Fixed that for you.