One sided discussions are not conducive to progress.

Thoughts on the further development of Haven & Hearth? Feel free to opine!

Re: One sided discussions are not conducive to progress.

Postby jorb » Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:54 pm

I didn't lock or sticky the post. I believe it was stickied because it was often referenced and because it stood, and perhaps still stands, as an adequate exposition of our thinking in principle on the matter. I didn't intend it as holy writ.

Regnurr wrote:"What if a player blocks you?" Well, you make the other player capable of walking through them. Don't like the specifics? Make them only walk through them after repeated clicks and a given amount of time, or a toggle. It's approachable with many angles, this is a peaceful option and a quality of life change, of course it might lead to other unforeseen consequences, like PvP stacking, but that doesn't mean they can't be worked on.


Idk, my dude, but that line of thinking seems to trend toward having effectively separate playing experiences for all players, with no necessary and inescapable points of interaction. Perhaps that would make for a better game, but it is not the game we set out to build.
"The psychological trials of dwellers in the last times will be equal to the physical trials of the martyrs. In order to face these trials we must be living in a different world."

-- Hieromonk Seraphim Rose
User avatar
jorb
 
Posts: 18263
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:07 am
Location: Here, there and everywhere.

Re: One sided discussions are not conducive to progress.

Postby BoxingRock » Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:05 pm

jorb wrote:I didn't lock or sticky the post. I believe it was stickied because it was often referenced and because it stood, and perhaps still stands, as an adequate exposition of our thinking in principle on the matter. I didn't intend it as holy writ.

Regnurr wrote:"What if a player blocks you?" Well, you make the other player capable of walking through them. Don't like the specifics? Make them only walk through them after repeated clicks and a given amount of time, or a toggle. It's approachable with many angles, this is a peaceful option and a quality of life change, of course it might lead to other unforeseen consequences, like PvP stacking, but that doesn't mean they can't be worked on.


Idk, my dude, but that line of thinking seems to trend toward having effectively separate playing experiences for all players, with no necessary and inescapable points of interaction. Perhaps that would make for a better game, but it is not the game we set out to build.


I don't think anybody would believe you if you told them that today's haven is shaping up to be the game you set out to build.
"Not to say that we're in any way perfect, but for the most part, what you call "lack of communication" is simply reflective of how we develop." - loftar
User avatar
BoxingRock
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: One sided discussions are not conducive to progress.

Postby Regnurr » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:34 pm

jorb wrote:I didn't lock or sticky the post. I believe it was stickied because it was often referenced and because it stood, and perhaps still stands, as an adequate exposition of our thinking in principle on the matter. I didn't intend it as holy writ.

Regnurr wrote:"What if a player blocks you?" Well, you make the other player capable of walking through them. Don't like the specifics? Make them only walk through them after repeated clicks and a given amount of time, or a toggle. It's approachable with many angles, this is a peaceful option and a quality of life change, of course it might lead to other unforeseen consequences, like PvP stacking, but that doesn't mean they can't be worked on.


Idk, my dude, but that line of thinking seems to trend toward having effectively separate playing experiences for all players, with no necessary and inescapable points of interaction. Perhaps that would make for a better game, but it is not the game we set out to build.


It's a cost benefit analysis of that situation. In some ways, no necessary interaction with people in a global, general sense would be a different game. But in some instances, it's necessary for the sake of making the game playable at all. For example this is already in the game to some extent, but with time gating so it's more of a soft restraint.

Claims are a good example, and palisades. They in effect render most grief impossible without a much more severe time investment than making a new character and stealing by default. A claim isn't much, sure, but 20k LP isn't nothing when that means a day of actually playing versus the typical troll wanting the instant gratification of getting their grief on right now. So that claim system is already preventing players from intersecting in some aspects.

Palisades are just the upgraded iteration of that idea, you can get past them, but realistically most people just won't. And all palisades do is serve to create an area where player intersection simply becomes impossible. It's already part of the game.

You can see the same issue arising in thingwall design too. Instead of making it possible for player intersection to occur on such a vital resource that bottlenecks players into interacting with it, you removed the option of that bodyblock occurring at a fundamental level by just not allowing it to be walled in. (Not the literal bodyblock, the simile of it using a wall or fence, it'd be interesting to know what the literal bodyblock entailed though).

So, with this.

jorb wrote:Idk, my dude, but that line of thinking seems to trend toward having effectively separate playing experiences for all players, with no necessary and inescapable points of interaction.


If I had said the same to you about your solutions to the thingwalls being walled in, would you have assumed that this was a demonstration of a slippery slope fallacy?
Regnurr
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: One sided discussions are not conducive to progress.

Postby dafels » Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:30 pm

If anything, the Devs need to embrace PVP. Make the walking Gods vulnerable to the average hearthling, right now they are just invincible and don't risk with absolutely anything while engaging in combat with the average hearthling because they know that they don't risk with anything. The casual needs a way to hit back. Then you might see less bullshit in the hearthlands and more justice. Most of the features that make pvp consequences softer to the casual, tends to actually tip the balance in favor of the invincible and they benefit way more.
dafels
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Previous

Return to Critique & Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests