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

[Havenasket]

@Sheep @Snail
...snip...
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.

Butting in again with more opinium
A healthy MMO population isn't just about more is better. Attitude that is complementary to the game design is pretty important. Criticism within this context creates good debate and dialogue - even across disagreement.
An MMO overly populated with people who want it to be something else, usually something else that they previously experienced, enjoyed, and thus find difficult to avoid using as a basis of comparison, is not uncommon and a cause of... crap debates that devolve into accusations.
If I had a penguin for every, mostly steam, thread full of people who's main objective is to claim a game is dead, or just bad because there is less than x players and therefore needs to be redesigned according to whatever their view is, regardless of any consideration as to the intended experience of the game... then I would have lots of penguins and therefore I would be right about everything because more penguins is better.

Thank you for your input.
I agree that not every MMO needs to appeal to everyone, and debates about game direction are inevitable. But population trends and player retention aren’t just “opinions” — they are measurable, and they directly affect a game’s longevity, community, and even funding.

No one’s asking to remake Haven into something it’s not. The point is that even among people who enjoy its unique design, there is growing feedback that certain mechanics drive players away not because they dislike challenge, but because there are too few tools for regular players to engage, learn, or recover.
When veteran PvPers themselves admit that siege mostly “punches down on the uninformed”, that’s not about wanting a different game — it’s about highlighting where the design fails its own community.

Constructive criticism is not about demanding “more penguins”; it’s about asking how to keep a healthy population and vibrant world within the spirit of the original design.

[deMangler]

@Sheep @Snail
...snip...
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.

Butting in again with more opinium
A healthy MMO population isn't just about more is better. Attitude that is complementary to the game design is pretty important. Criticism within this context creates good debate and dialogue - even across disagreement.
An MMO overly populated with people who want it to be something else, usually something else that they previously experienced, enjoyed, and thus find difficult to avoid using as a basis of comparison, is not uncommon and a cause of... crap debates that devolve into accusations.
If I had a penguin for every, mostly steam, thread full of people who's main objective is to claim a game is dead, or just bad because there is less than x players and therefore needs to be redesigned according to whatever their view is, regardless of any consideration as to the intended experience of the game... then I would have lots of penguins and therefore I would be right about everything because more penguins is better.

Thank you for your input.
I agree that not every MMO needs to appeal to everyone, and debates about game direction are inevitable. But population trends and player retention aren’t just “opinions” — they are measurable, and they directly affect a game’s longevity, community, and even funding.

No one’s asking to remake Haven into something it’s not. The point is that even among people who enjoy its unique design, there is growing feedback that certain mechanics drive players away not because they dislike challenge, but because there are too few tools for regular players to engage, learn, or recover.
When veteran PvPers themselves admit that siege mostly “punches down on the uninformed”, that’s not about wanting a different game — it’s about highlighting where the design fails its own community.

Constructive criticism is not about demanding “more penguins”; it’s about asking how to keep a healthy population and vibrant world within the spirit of the original design.

Completely agree with some of this in general, and I also should communicate that my point is not directly intended to undermine even the points that you make that I might disagree with. My main point is that player numbers is not a very important criteria for the health and longevity of *this* game. And I stand by that as both a matter of opinion and as a matter of observation.
I mention that a lot of other threads about other games emphasise player numbers and even though I don't care about that, because I am a hermit, I can usually see how it is kind of important for these other games, especially the ones with player driven economies - think EvE or Prosperous Universe,which are good games. Another example would be Starbase - a game I love hermiting around in and I think really needs the player numbers to survive, but alas the relentless review bombing because of low numbers has probably killed the game.
But I digress. The main point hidden in all my verbiage is that lets be clear if a certain number of players are needed for a healthy MMO,and specifically Haven and Hearth, which is not a typical MMO, then lets discuss what those numbers are, and say why, otherwise it is just equivalent to dogma about penguins.
I think Jorbtars would rather design the game around the player numbers that exist than adjust (read - vandalise) the game just to get more players. Although I don't think that is necesarry as, for example, however big the map is those who want to congregate and form economies, conflicting clans etc will do so,and those that want to do something else will wander off and do that. Currently the maps are just about big enough for that. So people who want to seige will have to find their own reasons to do it. Game mechanics will never provide compelling reason to do so, and increasing population won't either.

[Havenasket]

Just to be clear:
We only started talking about numbers and population because a few top PvP players claimed “anyone can win fights with 50 stats” and there’s no real problem.

But this thread isn’t really about getting more players or chasing some big number.
It’s just honest feedback from me, my friends, and our village — the way PvP and comeback systems work right now is so frustrating and unfair that it makes people quit, or not even bother starting.

I’m not saying the game needs to be huge. I just want to point out why so many regular, active players end up leaving. That’s a problem with the game’s design, not just personal preference.

[Halbertz]

It's telling that the main response now is just to attack the format of my summary, not its content.
When people can’t counter the actual arguments, they start complaining about “AI” or “chatgpt” instead of addressing any real points.

That's on you mate. You are using chat bots to give final shape to your thoughts and expecting people taking you seriously? That's just bad manners, same if you post soyjaks or put ten wikipedia links in one post.

[deMangler]

Just to be clear:
We only started talking about numbers and population because a few top PvP players claimed “anyone can win fights with 50 stats” and there’s no real problem.

But this thread isn’t really about getting more players or chasing some big number.
It’s just honest feedback from me, my friends, and our village — the way PvP and comeback systems work right now is so frustrating and unfair that it makes people quit, or not even bother starting.

I’m not saying the game needs to be huge. I just want to point out why so many regular, active players end up leaving. That’s a problem with the game’s design, not just personal preference.

That is clear.
I only started talking about numbers because it seems always in these debates to be either a thoughtless dogmatic inclusion to the debate or a diversion from issues that seem to matter more. That is more a me thing though. Personal bugbear.

In this case though I do wonder if chasing perfect seige mechanics is not itself a diversion from a wider point about this games philosophy. Seige, (I will never spell that correctly except by accident), maybe general PvP gameplay is as you say experienced as unfair and frustrating. Not being a PvP'er primarily in this game means I am looking at it from a very technical perspective rather than experiential. From what I have read in these forums and studying the mechanics, it seems that given the game context the mechanics are pretty fair and balanced. Even the anecdotes examining real frustrations with the system do not to me seem to be exposing unbalance. So what is the root cause of the frustration for those frustrated, and why do those defending it seem to not find it frustrating?
Different experiential goals require different conditions, but those conditions are not all included in game mechanics, there are other important factors not least of which is considering this games lack of provided context or narrative. I perceive, correctly or not, that frustration born of another issue can be directed towards fixing the most obvious candidate for tweaking, in this case the game mechanics. Tweaking and debating game mechanics is what people like us do I imagine and it is never-ending fun, and I am not suggesting stopping, but is it ever going to solve this issue - is there ever going to be a PvP system in HandH that solves this frustration?
I assert not. I assert that there will always be a certain type of frustration unaddressed as long as there is not a wider contextual realisation that the players need to commit to enjoying whatever imperfect mechanics exist now. Because they are not going to be provided with any other reason to do so. No game has perfect PvP mechanics but they usually compensate by having strict rules, gated areas, moderation, narrative rails, etc, etc. HandH does not have these things so the inherent frustration of 'imperfect' mechanics becomes more obviously felt.
This whole debate is a consequence of what Jorb and Loftar are doing. Creating an environment where players can choose this, if they choose to do so because the nanny wheels are off. It isn't about gitting gud, it's about choosing to enjoy, and continue to enjoy while, yeah if you like, always debating ways to perfect the mechanics if that is your inclination, or working on your contentment if that is your inclination there is room for both.
Bottom line, players who cannot enjoy this will leave. And that is ok, because that is the game Jorbtar are making. It is as much a social experiment as anything else. And I think that is a major part of the experience. Who remains? Who continues to enjoy the safelty-wheels off sandbox?
This is not to say it is not fun to criticise and improve, just to say that the game design goal is not necessarily to provide safety from frustration as much as to provide players with an opportunity to find in themselves a way to enjoy what this game is. That is challenging in a whole different way, rare, maybe unique in game design.

*edit* to further clarify - it is not that I don't agree or appreciate the points made in the OP. I want the game to survive, and I don't want PvP to be frustrating for either the attacker or the defender. I am just adding what I perceive to be missing from the whole debate, and it seems to me to be the crux of the matter. Elephant in the room type thing.

Sigh, here I go again. Blah blah blah.

There is a reason I have been reading these forums for 15 years and have only 22 posts.

[Perunn]

If somebody makes absolutely no effort then they dont deserve sympathy when bad things happen to them.

I hope people like you stick to H&H and not do stuff irl. Good thing we have some kind of law and order irl

[Perunn]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Rule #1 to making a game attractive to more players:

Teach the players how to play. If they don't know how to play, they will quit. If they get frustrated, that's on you for not warning them. More specifically the basic PvP rules:

1. Tell them that they should not use the vanilla client - to be able to see through stuff, to aggro easily, etc.
2. Tell them that they need to use multiple accounts/bots to farm strategic resources, mine ore, etc.
3. Tell them how to counter all or at least most forms of grief.

Either that or fix those if they don't sound too good to be told publicly.

P.S.: If a griefer reads this and decides to reply, let me say this - I won't read their answer, so don't bother.

[magnet]

the carrot-planters (supported by artificial intelligence)

CYBER HERMITS RISE UP

[MightySheep]

I hope people like you stick to H&H and not do stuff irl. Good thing we have some kind of law and order irl

lol wtf u talking about its a game and a better analogy would be other games like imagine you just cba to engage or learn the basic mechanics in any other game. You go into boss fight in hardcore wow but too lazy to look up mechanics and lose ur character. In wurm you cba to learn how to put upkeep into your deed and you lose it. In Rust you too dumb or lazy to learn how to make an airlock and protect your tool cupboard so you get deeped and lose it. Are we supposed to feel bad for ppl who apparently have made no effort to help themselves? Whether you like it or not haven also fall in hardcore category. You cant just refuse to do the bare minimum effort then cry when something bad happens.

Speaking of which Id still love to hear the details about how Havenasket got raided. I dont believe there is anyone doing full on siege 24h camps at this point so all this talk about siege is just a joke coming from a guy whos probably just died to someone plopping a random ram.

[MightySheep]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Teach the players how to play.

normally itd be players who make guides