Get rid of Visitor Debuff

[Granger]

The other gates should be treated as fire exits. If they're not being opened regularly, as they shouldn't be then there's minimal risk of server crashes causing any issues.

Who has keys for them then?
We're back at prison or insecure (spy letting others in).

[VDZ]

Would have the downside of hermits having to build a village when wanting to have that feature.

Eh, any sufficiently advanced hermit wants a vclaim anyways if for no other reason than charter stone travel, and vclaims are super cheap nowadays. (In the past it also gave you a free teleportation point so you could place your HF elsewhere, but that was nerfed )

Not so much forget about it but more so let's try to work around it. If we took the same approach to this as we do with botting then there will be just as much progress on this issue as with botting, aka non what so ever.

This is simply not true. Tons of things have been implemented to make botting less efficient, most notably the curio system which successfully prevented easily botting character progression. There will always be botting, but implementations and fixes have and will continue to make that not too problematic.

Bit of an extreme comparison tbh but if you think about it the reality is the only places that should remain locked for people you don't trust are the other entrances into the village. Nowhere in the village itself needs to be locked off theoretically. If your villagers need to enter or exit, they can do so through the permanently left open Visitor Gate, no? You see what I'm getting at? The minor inconvenience of not having access to the gates that would pose a serious security threat to the village is a small price to pay in my honest opinion.
When you think about this all logically, it becomes apparent that the ONLY gates that are a security threat are the outer gates, right?
The non Visitor outer gates should be emergency gates of sorts that only few people get access to because realistically they shouldn't be getting opened much and I don't think it's a big deal restricting less trust worthy people to using the main gate.
I'm just not seeing the issue here, I don't see any villages getting burned to the ground unless they make serious security errors and if they do then that's on them honestly.

And what if an insider spy builds a minehole in the village so enemies can enter it from below? There's no real way to prevent that other than denying vandalism permissions to most villagers. (With Visitor this can be easily prevented by having a secured minehole in the village allowing you to easily secure the area under the village; without you would need to specifically tunnel to the area under your village to secure it and prevent this.)

>opening up noobs to just getting rolled.
Best way to learn is through experience. No good game that has ever existed has been built around catering to new players who do not understand the mechanics of said game fully yet.

I don't know about any other game that would completely destroy weeks or months of progress to teach new players to be careful of certain threats they weren't yet aware of. Also, your statement is completely false; there are tons of games that take a lot of effort to teach new players how to play, ranging from the forced boring tutorial at the start of many games to Super Mario Bros. designing its entire first level to naturally teach newbies how to play. Any commercial games will try to cater to newbies (sometimes, too often really, even at the expense of dedicated players) because your game can't be commercially successful if newbies are unable to get into your game.

but why not just up the limit of how many gates you can have then to 2 / 3 then?

Because then you'd have the same problem as you have now, with 'Visitor fortresses' being trivial to deploy?

Simply don't open your non Visitor Gates except for emergency situations (as in the enemy has successfully sieged you and now you just want to attempt to GTFO of there).

This still screws over newbies unless Visitor Gates are (nearly) as cheap to make as regular gates.

>more door types "basic door with out buff" do not fix any problems and just open us to old problems.
Such as? The problems it would fix are numerous but what are these problems it would bring?

Numerous? Even this far into the thread the only problem I've heard about is gates being abused to apply Visitor Debuff in combat. What other problems are there that any of the suggestions in this thread would solve?

[Nek]

The other gates should be treated as fire exits. If they're not being opened regularly, as they shouldn't be then there's minimal risk of server crashes causing any issues.

Who has keys for them then?
We're back at prison or insecure (spy letting others in).

Village leader I imagine and they themselves should have the courtesy of not putting everybody else in danger by using those gates either. Everybody, including the guy(s) who has access to those other gates should just leave them alone and use the appropriate gates.
I see where you're coming from though, if the people who did have access to those gates were putting everybody else in danger by using those gates due to their own laziness and lack of care I'd be pretty pissed off.
It's definitely not a prison though, there's free access in and out of the place, just at the proper places to avoid security breaches

[Nek]

And what if an insider spy builds a minehole in the village so enemies can enter it from below? There's no real way to prevent that other than denying vandalism permissions to most villagers. (With Visitor this can be easily prevented by having a secured minehole in the village allowing you to easily secure the area under the village; without you would need to specifically tunnel to the area under your village to secure it and prevent this.)

I don't see an issue with denying vandalism permission to select people. Permissions were put in the game specifically to help police problems like this and stop them from happening.
You could also just take steps to ensure that this simply can't happen by securing the same area underground properly. That way it's not even possible for that to work regardless of what the insider saboteur does.

I don't know about any other game that would completely destroy weeks or months of progress to teach new players to be careful of certain threats they weren't yet aware of. Also, your statement is completely false; there are tons of games that take a lot of effort to teach new players how to play, ranging from the forced boring tutorial at the start of many games to Super Mario Bros. designing its entire first level to naturally teach newbies how to play. Any commercial games will try to cater to newbies (sometimes, too often really, even at the expense of dedicated players) because your game can't be commercially successful if newbies are unable to get into your game.

Any other permadeath multiplayer game. Non are quite as time consuming as H&H I'll agree but that's part of what makes this game unique. Anyway let's be honest, new players aren't going to last weeks or months if they have serious security threats.
Also if tutorials are the answer then that's not any argument against fixing the visitor debuff issue. Make tutorials explaining this sort of stuff and highlighting the effects of what can happen if you don't take security seriously.

Because then you'd have the same problem as you have now, with 'Visitor fortresses' being trivial to deploy?

Nah they could easily slap on other effects such as longer drying times and they already need a village claim to be active which is already a big boon in the favor of this stopping those.

This still screws over newbies unless Visitor Gates are (nearly) as cheap to make as regular gates.

As long as there's a hard limit on how many can be created then the cost for making them can be kept low. In fact this benefits new players since the big villagers will have no benefit from just being bigger. They'll have the exact same number limit on how many of these they can place on their village as some village full of new players who has no idea what they're doing.
As you said in your previous post, making stuff more expensive (resource wise) never solves anything, this would be a solution that would.

Numerous? Even this far into the thread the only problem I've heard about is gates being abused to apply Visitor Debuff in combat. What other problems are there that any of the suggestions in this thread would solve?

You've not been reading the thread then, I've laid out tons of things visitor debuff has got in the way of despite not being designed to counter, but I'll quickly go over some of them again.

>Visitor debuff has provided easy outs for people getting chased, the moment they run through their magical gate the chase ends.
>If you knock people out while they're sitting behind a gate (via archery or nidbanes or whatever) you can't risk going in to finish them off nor can you loot them or grab their corpse assuming they're dead
>Bases across the world are just mindlessly able to leave all of their gates open without things being able to be stolen - You should be punished for having shit security and gates being left open (Exception here would be the new visitor gates) should not be repercussion free
>Visitor debuff trap setups being used with garden fence gates being placed everywhere can have good characters killed instantly
>Safe outposts have an added layer of safety that they shouldn't have thanks to visitor debuff

The debuff wasn't designed to combat any of these. It's added too much hand holding and dumbing down of the game for the sake of trade hubs and allowing actual visitors and traders into your base without them being able to cause any shit, and now there's an alternative which keeps those things but gets rid of the negatives mentioned above.

[VDZ]

Numerous? Even this far into the thread the only problem I've heard about is gates being abused to apply Visitor Debuff in combat. What other problems are there that any of the suggestions in this thread would solve?

You've not been reading the thread then, I've laid out tons of things visitor debuff has got in the way of despite not being designed to counter, but I'll quickly go over some of them again.

>Visitor debuff has provided easy outs for people getting chased, the moment they run through their magical gate the chase ends.
>If you knock people out while they're sitting behind a gate (via archery or nidbanes or whatever) you can't risk going in to finish them off nor can you loot them or grab their corpse assuming they're dead
[...]
>Visitor debuff trap setups being used with garden fence gates being placed everywhere can have good characters killed instantly
>Safe outposts have an added layer of safety that they shouldn't have thanks to visitor debuff

That's what I said. Gates are getting abused to apply Visitor debuff in combat.

>Bases across the world are just mindlessly able to leave all of their gates open without things being able to be stolen - You should be punished for having shit security and gates being left open (Exception here would be the new visitor gates) should not be repercussion free

So you think the game would be more fun if people lost weeks or months of progress for the single mistake of accidentally leaving their gates open - or worse, as earlier suggested, for having their gates left open e.g. due to a server crash (or hell, just locally losing your internet connection/having a power outage)? Because I'm pretty sure most would disagree.

It's added too much hand holding and dumbing down of the game

Those are just buzzwords for 'something changed and I don't like it'. Apart from combat abuse (which was unintended and should indeed be looked at) the Visitor debuff did not take anything of value away from the game. If no longer being easily able to lose everything you've worked for possibly due to no fault of your own is 'dumbing down the game' or 'handholding', then I'm entirely in favor of the game getting 'dumbed down'.

[Nek]

That's what I said. Gates are getting abused to apply Visitor debuff in combat.

Even outside of combat it's an issue as some of those things I mentioned point out.

So you think the game would be more fun if people lost weeks or months of progress for the single mistake of accidentally leaving their gates open - or worse, as earlier suggested, for having their gates left open e.g. due to a server crash (or hell, just locally losing your internet connection/having a power outage)? Because I'm pretty sure most would disagree.

>accidently leaving their gates open
Yes.
>having their gates left open e.g. due to a server crash
Server crashes these days are rare enough for this to more than likely never be a serious issue. If it was how it was in legacy days were the server would be constantly crashing and having the potential to be down for half a day at a time I might agree.
Either way though, I've literally gave answers as to why both of these things shouldn't be an issue with Visitor Gates. Leave the Visitor Gates open, use those instead. If you want to use non Visitor Gates that allow access to your base then you do so at your own risk. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Those are just buzzwords for 'something changed and I don't like it'. Apart from combat abuse (which was unintended and should indeed be looked at) the Visitor debuff did not take anything of value away from the game. If no longer being easily able to lose everything you've worked for possibly due to no fault of your own is 'dumbing down the game' or 'handholding', then I'm entirely in favor of the game getting 'dumbed down'.

Those aren't buzzwords at all lmao, they perfectly describe what visitor debuff has done to the game. If I want to rob some braindead retard for forgetting to shut his gate then I should be able to. Again, visitor debuff wasn't intended to stop that sort of thing. Feel free to ask the guy who put it into the game. That was just one of the plethora of negative side effects that the debuff has brought about which is why work arounds are being looked into.
You can still have a gate open at literally all points with this new Visitor Gate system, so unless you're putting yourself at risk by opening other gates which give direct access to your base without providing the same protection as Visitor Gates then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Keep the other gates shut if it worries you that much, it's that simple.

[vatas]

Potentially stupid idea: give Market Places slash Trade Centers their own sort of claim that gives visitor. Although I prefer the current system where single person who has been granted a slave key can't open the gates for raiders to kill everyone.

[Aceb]

Potentially stupid idea: give Market Places slash Trade Centers their own sort of claim that gives visitor. Although I prefer the current system where single person who has been granted a slave key can't open the gates for raiders to kill everyone.

And this will be used as cheap siege camp claim too.

I can already imagine stuff happening like passing Visitor gate, logging out, losing visitor and going rampage and stuff. Old bad legacy memories.

[Granger]

What is the goal here?

Getting rid of visitor so raiding villages gets easier:
The downsides to markets and inconveniences to members of legit villages dosn't warrant to remove Visitor, getting into a village by force is what Siege is for. According to the devs world 11 will have changes to that mechanic, thus this discussion can be put on ice till we know how it will work next world.

Stopping characters from playing whack-a-mole (as the mole) in combat by repeatedly retreating through their visitor gates:
The whole time we're looking at this from only one side: characters exploiting visitor to protect themselves being a problem => nerf Visitor.

The basic idea behind a siege palisade is that the attackers can flee inside and the besieged that would follow would be marked visitor, resulting in them being unable to initate combat on additional characters inside that box and being under the thread of being evicted by the claim owner - thus they don't follow. Same goes the other way around with the gates of the besieged village.

So let's turn that around and, instead of removing the Visitor feature from the game, add to it:
Let the gates apply a nice debuff on anyone traversing them while in a combat relation, regardless if that character would get visitor or not.
Maybe something like:

Fallen from grace
You fled from combat like the coward you are,
the gods in Valhalla peer down upon you in disgust.
Your are deeply ashamed to have failed you gods and kin,
this distracts you from combat, your abilities are reduced.

And certainly that debuff would be stacking, it'll get worse each time a character runs for shelter, let's say a 20% (?) debuff to all combat related calculations (so a total effect in combat of 80%, 64%, 51%, 40%, 32%, ...), lasting for 24 RL hours.

Should nicely discourage PvP experts from repeatedly exploiting visitor gates, no?

[MagicManICT]

If anything has dumbed down Haven, it's the severe nerfing of permadeath. Tools that improve social relations between players are a good thing, I think. Should you have to lock your doors at night because of the risk of a home break in? No, probably not, but we do because there's a definite risk. The risks of letting strangers into your base are much, much higher than the risk of a home break in. The history of the forums are proof of that.

The community, overall has been better since its addition. maybe it's because the worst trolls have moved on to different games, maybe it's because people can be a bit more trusting.

edit: and granger makes a good point. Once the castle gates were closed behind the defenders, they either won the field or died on it (or taken captive if not dying... sometimes). Gates didn't reopen to let a few wounded soldiers in, be it in body or morale. Which adds the idea, "if a claim is under siege, visitor gets disabled."