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

[OIchi]

who is playing on default client? isnt everyone on the "specialized client" now? lol the good clients aint private anymore that excuse doesnt rly exist

if you really get months into this game without figuring out its a pvp game or to get a proper client then you really dont deserve any sympathy

again, why cant you just say "yes I know this is a pvp game but I wish it wasnt, I just want to play pve" without all this extra copium bs, I would have no arguments with that opinion.

You dont need to attach all the dumb usual excuses about siege is impossible to defend, pvp is impossible to get into, everyone has 3k stats, bots, clients, zergs, blablabla its boring. The reality is if u had any interest in pvp at all youd learn pvp has a very low skill ceiling and there arent really any tryhard groups playing and nobody has any hidden advantage over u

True, no one is playing on vanilla, but not every custom client is viable in PvP, I'm not saying it's hard to get one mostly on par with the private ones at this point, but it is extra step you need to do.
Choosing a client with more QoL instead of PvP functions is not something to be shamed for.

No one said siege is impossible to defend, but is definitively not trivial either.
Stat gap is there you want to believe or not, it's obviously not impossible to catch up, but depending on how much you play it might not be easy either.
PvP in haven is poorly designed and unfun for most, so if you had any interest you'd most likely lose it as soon as you engage in it.
You call it copium while all of the points you mentioned are valid, although not nearly as impactful as some try to make them to be, they stack up.

[MightySheep]

True, no one is playing on vanilla, but not every custom client is viable in PvP, I'm not saying it's hard to get one mostly on par with the private ones at this point, but it is extra step you need to do.
Choosing a client with more QoL instead of PvP functions is not something to be shamed for.

No one said siege is impossible to defend, but is definitively not trivial either.
Stat gap is there you want to believe or not, it's obviously not impossible to catch up, but depending on how much you play it might not be easy either.
PvP in haven is poorly designed and unfun for most, so if you had any interest you'd most likely lose it as soon as you engage in it.
You call it copium while all of the points you mentioned are valid, although not nearly as impactful as some try to make them to be, they stack up.

I dont really know what is this dilemna between qol and pvp in clients, I just play public hurricane client Im not aware of anything its lacking. If you can press a button to drink and press a button to aggro nearest thats kinda all u need as far as pvp functions go, Im guessing most cleints have that by now. Clients is 1 of the dumbest talking points in pvp discussions at this point

As for stats- I havent played for about 5 months yet I still wouldnt feel worried about trying to fight anyone. If someone outstats me too hard ill run away since this game makes running away incredibly easy, so no stats arent a big issue and most people are probably way lower than everyone thinks. The equalizing effect means you can get by on minimal effort and not suffer too much.

You have to remember All these stupid talking points is how 90% of players thinks. So any new player willing to actually try to pvp is already going to shit on the other 90% by default because they take their hand off their keyboard and go "its simply pointless, his character is botted, he has a better client than me" etc.

I respect the opinion of wishing it was a pve game. Im just bored of all the fake news nonsense that inevitably goes along with these threads. The reality is if people put as much effort into learning pvp as they do whining about it on forum, they would never have any issues.

[deMangler]

...
The thing that would stop most of the sieges right now is to make it not worth it for the attacker. (I'm talking time-wise not about items, you most likely don't have anything valuable to attacker anyways.)
...

Not to take your point out of context, but it reminds me to mention that, as a hermit there is never any material point in people attacking my small homesteads, also it is never really worth it for the challenge either. I am just not going to be able to defend it solo against a group. And that's ok. It does mean that whenever I am attacked I know it is just for the fun of it, or the grief of it but that is still fun for someone. There is not a viable game mechanic to change that, nor would it be desirable in any case. Trying to balance a game so that the biggest most determined group did not have a massive advantage over small setups would be.... obliquely motivated...
The question is should the balanced be more like
Group_power = Determination+skill+numbers or Group_power = Determination*skill*numbers, or Group_power = (Determination^skill)*numbers or... something. That is I suppose something that is being discovered every time a balance tweak or mechanic change happens. Really difficult to know in advance of a game or world tweak because another variable is how are people going to be inclined to implement the mechanics, in terms of gameplay style.
Anyway. I am definitely over thinking this. Good thread though. Not often I get involved.

[magnet]

Trust me guys, siege defense is incredibly easy if you know what youre doing.

Also, I'm an authority on this topic so I don't need to really explain how that works.

Actually, I could explain it, but I'm not going to unless Jorbtar try to fix siege.

Every hermit should be able to see what Snail is doing here.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Trust me guys, siege defense is incredibly easy if you know what youre doing.

Also, I'm an authority on this topic so I don't need to really explain how that works.

Actually, I could explain it, but I'm not going to unless Jorbtar try to fix siege.

Every hermit should be able to see what Snail is doing here.

Yep.

[OIchi]

...
The thing that would stop most of the sieges right now is to make it not worth it for the attacker. (I'm talking time-wise not about items, you most likely don't have anything valuable to attacker anyways.)
...

Not to take your point out of context, but it reminds me to mention that, as a hermit there is never any material point in people attacking my small homesteads, also it is never really worth it for the challenge either. I am just not going to be able to defend it solo against a group. And that's ok. It does mean that whenever I am attacked I know it is just for the fun of it, or the grief of it but that is still fun for someone. There is not a viable game mechanic to change that, nor would it be desirable in any case. Trying to balance a game so that the biggest most determined group did not have a massive advantage over small setups would be.... obliquely motivated...
The question is should the balanced be more like
Group_power = Determination+skill+numbers or Group_power = Determination*skill*numbers, or Group_power = (Determination^skill)*numbers or... something. That is I suppose something that is being discovered every time a balance tweak or mechanic change happens. Really difficult to know in advance of a game or world tweak because another variable is how are people going to be inclined to implement the mechanics, in terms of gameplay style.
Anyway. I am definitely over thinking this. Good thread though. Not often I get involved.

Here's the thing, Siege in this game is not very fun. Unless you seriously offended someone, determination is almost zero since as you mentioned there is no material value in the first place.
Attackers usually just place a machine and hope for free pickings. Build few towers, a catapult and make an attempt to destroy the engines with an alt, probe at different times. There is great chance they'll give up on the first sight of resistance. If they don't worst case ask for help in discord.
Number one reason for successful sieges is that defenders did absolutely nothing.

[MightySheep]

Trust me guys, siege defense is incredibly easy if you know what youre doing.

Also, I'm an authority on this topic so I don't need to really explain how that works.

Actually, I could explain it, but I'm not going to unless Jorbtar try to fix siege.

Every hermit should be able to see what Snail is doing here.

dont you just walk up and hit the ram? am I missing something or why are ppl acting like its rocket science im confused

I did a few sieges this world and all I did was dress up an alt and go to sleep and then catapult the walls the next day, then they removed catapulting walls this world so siege is effectively dead as far as Im concerned

if you guys think ppl are camping for 24h ur delusional lol especially since that update, now defender can just build archery tower and it becomes some whole ordeal with catapults its just a pain in the ass, who would do that for hermits?

[magnet]

in my experience, they have people in different time zones that take shifts watching the rams and generally patrolling your pali

[deMangler]

Here's the thing, Siege in this game is not very fun. Unless you seriously offended someone, determination is almost zero since as you mentioned there is no material value in the first place.
Attackers usually just place a machine and hope for free pickings. Build few towers, a catapult and make an attempt to destroy the engines with an alt, probe at different times. There is great chance they'll give up on the first sight of resistance. If they don't worst case ask for help in discord.
Number one reason for successful sieges is that defenders did absolutely nothing.

That exposes one thing that never seems to work in MMO's. Wars/seiges are either 1) organised, or are the result of some pre-existing politics or forum meta, or 2) An organised attack of some kind out of the blue with no context (my experience here is mostly from 20 years of EvE) .
In the former case the determination comes from an established clan loyalty either to defend or support the attack. In the latter case the aggro is usually (not always) regarded as griefing, even if it is formally legit.
I wish HandH could nail emergent or ad hoc raiding/seiging in a way that was fun for everyone - and a lot of that is down to the mechanics, but for conflict to be fun, for a lot of people it seems, there needs to be a narrative to fit it into, that appeals with tropes like loyalty, justice, etc. As a hermit I can just make one up myself if I feel I need to. With groups it is pretty easy for the "it's just griefers" narrative to rise to the surface and then it stops being in-game fun.
HandH is never going to provide a narrative, I hope, so therefore a big part of enjoying war/seige is always going to come down to the participants simply deciding that that is how the world works and enjoying it, which does not preclude, of course, out-of-game debating how the mechanics could make it even more fun.
This is all obvious, but particularly pertinent to HandH because thankfully, it is totally up to the players to create context and motivation. This is pertinent because if as I seem to have gathered from reading here (I don't have the experience to know for myself) seige is so weighted as to render any attack powerless without a technical mistake on the part of the defender, and vice versa, then determination does seem to be the deciding issue, and this being the case, player developed narrative seems to be important also.
I have wandered into up-my-arse philosophy here, not sure why. Possibly I am more bored than usual waiting for my hides to tan....,

[Havenasket]

@Sheep @Snail

I appreciate your engagement, but your arguments are built on several common logical fallacies:

Argument from Authority & Anecdotal Fallacy:
You constantly present personal experiences as universal truths without evidence, which can’t be verified by others.

Straw Man & False Dilemma:
You repeatedly reduce criticism of PvP mechanics to simplistic extremes (“you just want PvE,” “git gud”) rather than addressing the real arguments about accessibility and fairness.

Ad Hominem & Gatekeeping:
Personal attacks and dismissing entire groups of players (“undeserving sympathy,” “hermit defeatism”) is neither productive nor logical. It only discourages genuine discussion about improving the game.

Ignoring Context & Circular Reasoning:
You dismiss the context of average players (limited time, no PvP experience, no specialized clients) and rely on circular logic: “it’s a PvP game so PvP must be hard,” without allowing any room for reasonable improvement.

The core point remains unanswered: the current siege system doesn’t work for the majority of the playerbase—casual, average players—not because they refuse to “try,” but because it requires an unrealistic level of commitment, resources, and knowledge.

Your arguments might work within a small elite PvP group, but they fail completely when applied to the broader audience necessary to sustain a healthy MMO population. That's why these issues deserve serious consideration beyond the usual “git gud” rhetoric.