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

[Kaios]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Teach the players how to play.

normally itd be players who make guides

ya cuz the devs dont know how to play either lol

[SnuggleSnail]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Teach the players how to play.

IMO, this is an extremely valid criticism. Haven isn't a uniquely hard game, if anything it's extremely easy. I can't think of another MMO I've played that's easier to be proficient at PVP in. Maybe Runescape?

Haven is unique in how bad the average player is, though. When there's 1,000 people online just as the first steel is coming out, if you give me a decent char with a b12 I'm confident I could 1v800 the bottom 80% of the server and never even feel uncomfortable. Most PVPers could.

I'm pretty sure the reason it's that way is there's no "incidental" practice. It's not like leveling in WoW where even if you're not fighting players, you're learning what your abilities do and gaining muscle memory. In haven you will ONLY learn ANYTHING about PVP by actively choosing to go out of your way to learn it, step 1 of which is befriending an experienced PVPer, which is a huge ask for somebody just casually having fun.

I'm pretty sure the average user would get frustratingly good at escaping if Jorbtar added a rabbit dungeon that required you beat it in a track race at a time like 98% of the theoretical minimum, and rewarded something consistently useful. Maybe a clover that gives 200L of swill when you put it in a trough. I feel there's opportunities to teach people every aspect of the game in similar ways, but there is actually just nothing like that

[Nightdawg]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Teach the players how to play.

normally itd be players who make guides

ya cuz the devs dont know how to play either lol

and sadly, that's and understatement

[animary]

"It's not like leveling in ....."

Any other game, lol.

For example, chopping down trees should improve your strength and stamina. Spending time fishing should improve your fishing ability. Not in Haven. Want to be a better fisherman? Look at the spreadsheet to see what skills/abilities a fisherman needs, then look at what food you must eat for those skills. Not logical at all; the game is not about what you do but about what you eat. I've never become acclimated to that.

As for being a fighter, I only play about an hour a day, I'd rather spend that on things I enjoy rather than practicing that exceedingly non-intuitive combat system (obviously I'm not much of a hunter either, because it relies on that same weird system, lol). So much to do here, so little time.

[dafels]

Same shit, different day

[MightySheep]

Runescape pvp definitely isn't ez. Vrising pvp is ez.

[MaltGrain]

There's something really good about Hearth as it is - there's a reason we chose to play it, right, even as we read 'Open PVP' in the steam description? It'd be a terrible shame to lose that because a sandcastle was kicked down.

I honestly think that the security memes readily handed out on forums and wikis do a lot of damage to a players ability to mitigate risk and accept losses. It sets them up thinking "My stash is completely protected", so it hurts a hell of a lot more when it's suddenly discovered not to be.
Instead if players were lead to play with a base level of risk, for example by selective use of locks, walls and palisades, they'd be in a much greater mindset to deal with any issues that arrise. If a thing is constantly vulnerable to theft, it's often a relief when it finally disapears.

Caveat that I started mid/late world and haven't experienced the chaos of ✩New Server✩ yet.

[deMangler]

A humble proposal for the devs:

Teach the players how to play.

IMO, this is an extremely valid criticism. Haven isn't a uniquely hard game, if anything it's extremely easy. I can't think of another MMO I've played that's easier to be proficient at PVP in. Maybe Runescape?

Haven is unique in how bad the average player is, though. When there's 1,000 people online just as the first steel is coming out, if you give me a decent char with a b12 I'm confident I could 1v800 the bottom 80% of the server and never even feel uncomfortable. Most PVPers could.

I'm pretty sure the reason it's that way is there's no "incidental" practice. It's not like leveling in WoW where even if you're not fighting players, you're learning what your abilities do and gaining muscle memory. In haven you will ONLY learn ANYTHING about PVP by actively choosing to go out of your way to learn it, step 1 of which is befriending an experienced PVPer, which is a huge ask for somebody just casually having fun.

I'm pretty sure the average user would get frustratingly good at escaping if Jorbtar added a rabbit dungeon that required you beat it in a track race at a time like 98% of the theoretical minimum, and rewarded something consistently useful. Maybe a clover that gives 200L of swill when you put it in a trough. I feel there's opportunities to teach people every aspect of the game in similar ways, but there is actually just nothing like that

When I first read Perunn's statement, my initial reaction was - The day the devs teach players how to play is the day I stop playing.
However, giving new players more opportunity to learn how some game systems work, or connect up, would of course be a good thing. It just is so strewn with the danger of accidentally, or incidentally, normalising particular modes or styles of play. I know this happens anyway because wiki and forums and other meta, and that is good because it is player discovery and creativity driven, but when scripted or designed in tutorial like events are added to the game, if they do that I hope it does not poison the unique brilliance of the current hands-off approach. I don't like the idea of an introduced right, or best, way of doing things.
I remember the joy of literally having to learn everything in complete darkness, and that is creative. I can't ever have that again and I would be cautious, if I were the devs, of risking losing that for new players with a motivation of getting more of the kind of players who like that kind of handholding.
People can always go the wiki or forum, and these days most do. But I can say from experience that it is very possible to learn most of what is needed in game, because I have done it, because I wanted to and avoided what I consider spoilers on the forum and over-relying on the wiki, and it was huge fun.

Not saying it would be a bad thing, teaching the players how to play, just that it really really *could* be a bad thing.
Also as Maaltgrain says.

There's something really good about Hearth as it is - there's a reason we chose to play it, right, even as we read 'Open PVP' in the steam description? It'd be a terrible shame to lose that because a sandcastle was kicked down.

I honestly think that the security memes readily handed out on forums and wikis do a lot of damage to a players ability to mitigate risk and accept losses. It sets them up thinking "My stash is completely protected", so it hurts a hell of a lot more when it's suddenly discovered not to be.
Instead if players were lead to play with a base level of risk, for example by selective use of locks, walls and palisades, they'd be in a much greater mindset to deal with any issues that arrise. If a thing is constantly vulnerable to theft, it's often a relief when it finally disapears.

Caveat that I started mid/late world and haven't experienced the chaos of ✩New Server✩ yet.

There is something really good about this game as it is, and it is the result of a lot of very cautious choices. What is not implemented is at least as important as what is.
@Maaltgrain The chaos of a new server is itself a massive learning opportunity.
Also don't forget there is a lot of opportunity to build on failure and death in this game, much more now than when I started in 2010 with how inheritance and credos have been developed. There is already a huge incentive to learn through failure (learn through acting out of ignorance and thus discovering and then acting through *that* ignorance etc) and then to enjoy the hard won fruits of having done so. Currently the starting experience has a lot of unknown unknowns, that is fun. Known unknowns are at the end of the day pretty routine these days.
HandH still evokes that lost experience of not knowing, at all, what is making those noises beyond the firelight in the pitch dark of winter. Part of that is the ignorance of how the world works. As a species we have forgotten that. For me, this game evoked it, and still can sometimes. Careful of destroying that just to bring more players into an experience that has had it's unique magic blunted.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

There's something really good about Hearth as it is - there's a reason we chose to play it, right, even as we read 'Open PVP' in the steam description? It'd be a terrible shame to lose that because a sandcastle was kicked down.

I honestly think that the security memes readily handed out on forums and wikis do a lot of damage to a players ability to mitigate risk and accept losses. It sets them up thinking "My stash is completely protected", so it hurts a hell of a lot more when it's suddenly discovered not to be.
Instead if players were lead to play with a base level of risk, for example by selective use of locks, walls and palisades, they'd be in a much greater mindset to deal with any issues that arrise. If a thing is constantly vulnerable to theft, it's often a relief when it finally disapears.

Caveat that I started mid/late world and haven't experienced the chaos of ✩New Server✩ yet.

You know, I want to piggy-back on this because it touches an idea that is really valid and one worth considering.
In games where a base is constantly at risk being destroyed (think Rust), the grind is typically scaled to make those bases feel somewhat disposable and when you lose them it's not a big deal. You could very well conceivably have multiple bases in different spots with easy redundancy.

There was a time in W8 and W9 where Haven felt arguably similar, and I think there was an argument at that point that sieges should have been as available as they are now, or even easier (although Pali-bashing newbs was a big problem in W8 and before, I'm glad we fixed that.) But as the production chains and spiraling base development has gotten significantly more advanced, we've sort of lost that, but we are in a very similar circumstance for the effective viability of sieges, and now losing a base is very much a "game over" to most players.

Sieges probably need to be rebalanced in Haven - If bases can be made to be extremely cheap and losing a base represents a temporary setback with minimal grind to replace, then perhaps sieges can be made even easier than they are now.
However, if we keep the current system where losing a base is almost a "game over" unless you resettle with other players, perhaps sieges should be revisited again in a way that protects player's time. Do we really want to leave it so that if you don't log in during a 27-28 hour period, you're liable to have lost literally everything?

I'd frankly be in favor of changes that do the following:

1. Make bases cheaper, disposable, and more at risk.

OR

2. Give claims an additional toggle-on option that increases their upkeep in some way (weekly quests?) that if performed, give them additional protections to make them safer. If this option is NOT selected, make the claims easier to destroy, to allow troll/grief claims to be more easily dealt with.

[deMangler]

There's something really good about Hearth as it is - there's a reason we chose to play it, right, even as we read 'Open PVP' in the steam description? It'd be a terrible shame to lose that because a sandcastle was kicked down.

I honestly think that the security memes readily handed out on forums and wikis do a lot of damage to a players ability to mitigate risk and accept losses. It sets them up thinking "My stash is completely protected", so it hurts a hell of a lot more when it's suddenly discovered not to be.
Instead if players were lead to play with a base level of risk, for example by selective use of locks, walls and palisades, they'd be in a much greater mindset to deal with any issues that arrise. If a thing is constantly vulnerable to theft, it's often a relief when it finally disapears.

Caveat that I started mid/late world and haven't experienced the chaos of ✩New Server✩ yet.

You know, I want to piggy-back on this because it touches an idea that is really valid and one worth considering.
In games where a base is constantly at risk being destroyed (think Rust), the grind is typically scaled to make those bases feel somewhat disposable and when you lose them it's not a big deal. You could very well conceivably have multiple bases in different spots with easy redundancy.

There was a time in W8 and W9 where Haven felt arguably similar, and I think there was an argument at that point that sieges should have been as available as they are now, or even easier (although Pali-bashing newbs was a big problem in W8 and before, I'm glad we fixed that.) But as the production chains and spiraling base development has gotten significantly more advanced, we've sort of lost that, but we are in a very similar circumstance for the effective viability of sieges, and now losing a base is very much a "game over" to most players.

Sieges probably need to be rebalanced in Haven - If bases can be made to be extremely cheap and losing a base represents a temporary setback with minimal grind to replace, then perhaps sieges can be made even easier than they are now.
However, if we keep the current system where losing a base is almost a "game over" unless you resettle with other players, perhaps sieges should be revisited again in a way that protects player's time. Do we really want to leave it so that if you don't log in during a 27-28 hour period, you're liable to have lost literally everything?

I'd frankly be in favor of changes that do the following:

1. Make bases cheaper, disposable, and more at risk.

OR

2. Give claims an additional toggle-on option that increases their upkeep in some way (weekly quests?) that if performed, give them additional protections to make them safer. If this option is NOT selected, make the claims easier to destroy, to allow troll/grief claims to be more easily dealt with.

Seiges aren't the whole story when it comes to PvP and player attrition.
I see how making bases less umpleasant to lose might be a good rebalance, however, I have never had a homestead destroyed or seiged or anything, but I have been forced, or rather chosen to move on and start a base somewhere else because my base has been camped by stronger players. In HandH you can usually escape if you are prepared.
My point being seige is a big deal, but even if it is perfectly 'fixed' player attrition due to being outmatched or having your achievements ruined is always going to be a thing if this game sticks to it's principles. It is going to be whack-a-mole trying to fix that, the game is in a good place, much better than it has been.
*edit* btw I like your option 2. Maybe a way of implementing it could be as simple as choosing the material the pali is made of in a way that provides control over this effect. I always prefer in-world solutions,