Haven Population / Uptime Tracker

[JohnBender]

So out of the past 4 worlds, world 14 manged to keep the most players logging in consistently. After the new world rush 14 consistently had double the minimum players and 100% more max players daily. The numbers were steady until the end and minimums stayed in the triple digits. Whatever changes were made and stayed last world moved the needle more than anything in the past 4 worlds at least.

There were a lot of new time gates to the early world to extend it. With as much content as Haven has, the time gating is fine.

That only explains the first few months. Even though the numbers were not huge, they were consistently double, until the end. World 15 regressed by half. Stats are stats, some just dont want to hear them.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

So out of the past 4 worlds, world 14 manged to keep the most players logging in consistently. After the new world rush 14 consistently had double the minimum players and 100% more max players daily. The numbers were steady until the end and minimums stayed in the triple digits. Whatever changes were made and stayed last world moved the needle more than anything in the past 4 worlds at least.

There were a lot of new time gates to the early world to extend it. With as much content as Haven has, the time gating is fine.

That only explains the first few months. Even though the numbers were not huge, they were consistently double, until the end. World 15 regressed by half. Stats are stats, some just dont want to hear them.

That's fair. We can make some guesses as to why W15 regressed, but it's very speculative.

You did seem to indicate you believed that W14 changes were good. I was agreeing, and pointing out the most notable changes.They weren't rolled back in W15, however, so to what do we attribute the change?

There are a few things about W15 that may have reduced player longevity:

1) There was less investment by big factions and some quit early (Polska/Norsca), and the remaining quit after they lost the WB siege, leaving the world to the victorious coalition to claim in it's entirety with no more conflict after mid-late December. There was also the water exploit shortly after.

2) Every single new player, and even most seasoned hermits, were stuck in a smaller spawn area and were ganked far more rapidly than they would have been if they were spread across the world like W14.

3) Patching and content roll-out was less aggressive.

I think these 3 factors are the primary ones to explain the difference between W14 and W15.

[DonVelD]

theres noone playing haven because everyone is hanging out here!!!!!!!!!
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
https://discord.gg/dKJ8GfE5F9

[dafels]

I don't think jorb/loftar cares about playercount

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I don't think jorb/loftar cares about playercount

viewtopic.php?p=891553#p891553

[tyrtix]

graphs shows how the number of players at start is consistent, as it is in the latter parts of the server life. This world was one of the shortest-lived ones: it went down to 300 players max in like 4 months like W14, but then continued to loose players and went under 200 after only another 3 months, while W14 stayed at 300 up to when players knew we got a new one. Basically this says that the long term players went away a lot faster faster.

The short fall of players at server start up to 4 months tells us that most "pvp" developes in there, making the loosers abandon the server up to when a new iteration starts: this means that the game part about pvp lasts a total of roughtly 4 months.

W15 saw a particular nasty combo of bad things for hermits or long term players, enough that a large part of them, roughtly half, left the game over a shorter time (including me): getting hard metal is now so annoying that non-factions drop the idea of getting it, barring a large part of the game, as hard metals became gated almost like cheese making.
Add to that, that the new fibers made so easy to make knarrs that in max 10 days before server starts, we had marauders roaming everywhere, and that getting into remote areas was incredibly hard, and that's it.

I keep saying that relying on just pvp players makes this game essentially reset servers every 4 months, and if that will be made, the game will effectively die in 1 year.

[JohnBender]

I think it was the siege protection. W14 is the the outlier, not just against w15, but the past, well all recent worlds. Consistently double the population until the end. That is a big deal.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I think it was the siege protection. W14 is the the outlier, not just against w15, but the past, well all recent worlds. Consistently double the population until the end. That is a big deal.

How many people lost a siege this world?
Two villages, right? Polska Crev took out the village Razzbane was living at, and Mole Market was bug raided using a Knarr/Catapult exploit by Snail (siege protection had no role in this.)

How many sprucecaps and intermediate small village players or hermit players were ganked at a higher rate than W14 because they were in a smaller spawn bound continent making it easier to find and kill them?

I think you should look to the single spawn continent as the culprit if you think the weak being preyed upon by the strong was the primary reason for pop drop. I think it was that + water exploit + two large factions quitting early + less patches.

[tyrtix]

I think you should look to the single spawn continent as the culprit if you think the weak being preyed upon by the strong was the primary reason for pop drop. I think it was that + water exploit + two large factions quitting early + less patches.

IIRC water exploit was found after the largest drop of population, but surely undermined the trust on the game players had, and this could even lead to a reduction of overall players in the future.
The fact is, that if you look at W13 you'll see the population now dropped under 150 in a few months, while then it never went under 200 if not at the end of the server, after almost two years instead of like 6 months. This means that something happened in those 6 months that made half the most committed players leave.

[Dawidio123]

I feel like people here are arguing against a wall. Hafen is simply not fun after 2 weeks - 3 months (depending on your playstyle) for 95% of the playerbase, literal chore simulator.
Did the unsuccessful siege had something to do with it? Not really, most people actually came back to the game for it, if it didn't happen they would've still quit or wouldn't even came back. I feel like it's the protagonist syndrome again on this one robben bro (Btw. norsca + polska was literally a part of "YOUR" coalition so idk why you saying they quit or smth). Every world the group that takes over the kingdoms in the end are the few that are willing to play hafen long-term (not many).
Water bug? Yeah ngl, that one stank but it got "fixed" so late into the world that it was more of a "oh okay good thing that i quit fuck this world" more so than "oh shit this is so bad, i'm quitting" type of thing.

What really sucks in hafen now is that long-term competitive play is based on questing for quality which you'd have to be seriously autistic to like and making a metric ton of cheese. Sidenote the mass pvp (ie. meteorites) got fucked by SoS meta (again robben, not your fault, snail+brits used it on the second meteorite and everyone agreed that it was kinda fucked at that point).
Like let's be honest you guys are trying to be like "WELL AKSHUALLY W14 had 50 more consistent players it must be due to changes in W15, NO ITS AKSHUALLY bcs we defended the siege" like nah, +-50 players is meaningless. Hafen long-term becomes a chore simulator and ain't nobody got time for that while there are so many other games to play. Make the game less filled with chores that you HAVE to do to keep up and maybe people will stay long-term and log in from time to time to fuck around. Just feeding and managing animals is like 1-2h a day without bots to do it for you. Well that's for the competitive playerbase, why do hermits quit? Ig there isn't as much depth as some people like to pretend, it's just chores.