Poaching

[Dawidio123]

...

This is the 100th make crime cripple your character idea we've had (that's kind of a thing in salem and it's uhh, not great), just use murder alts, most of the spruce killers already do bcs they are too scared to use their 5k mains with murderous rage, or bait murder with an alt to attack without consequences.

[Halbertz]

Your first murder will permanently dock you 25 hp and 25 cons;

Why both hp and con? With 10 con you die instantly?

the only alternative would be to start a new character

Sounds fun! But what the difference with current system? You die, you start new character.

This will only apply to unprovoked attacks.

Define "unprovoked attacks". Will we have peer review of each case, so experts could state that one attack was provoked, but other not? Or you mean "unprovoked" = dealing damage first? If I call you brown in game chat and break your carrot stacks will it be enough to be "provoked" attack? Or you should just call the cops to not risk your 25hp?

Also game is free and you can make 99999 alts to grief stuff. Changes that make game more tediuos ALWAYS hurt casual players more.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

...

This is the 100th make crime cripple your character idea we've had (that's kind of a thing in salem and it's uhh, not great), just use murder alts, most of the spruce killers already do bcs they are too scared to use their 5k mains with murderous rage, or bait murder with an alt to attack without consequences.

I seem to recall Jorb having some idea about being able to force a fight with someone by challenging them, but he proposed a system that had serious flaws.
If we brainstormed this sufficiently, we *could* come up with a reasonably workable criminal system in Haven.

I can't imagine Jorb cares enough to actually do it properly, though. So, in the interim, there are two extremely low hanging fruit and non-controversial changes that have been previously proposed which haven't drawn significant protest from the major faction players:

1. A tutorial quest that only completes when your hearthfire is in an enclosed, fully dried, palisade only accessible through claimed visitor gates + no path to a cave or minehole that isn't secured by visitor gates.

2. A default toggle or surrender mechanic that reduces lethality for players.

Some people prefer active surrender, I'd prefer a passive option that lets people enter peaceful mode which simply makes them surrender on nominal damage for loot and initiates a teleport to HF + the ability to detonate hearthfire for a random thingwall respawn, with the advantage that it simply precludes overkill damage to HHP, thereby limiting total damage to 40%/60% + the concussion roll, meaning the total damage you could take from an enemy with murderous rage would be 60% + a 20% concussion roll, meaning as long as you had over 80% of HHP you were unable to be killed in one go while in peaceful mode... except by an animal or monster, I guess.

Either is preferable to the current system, unless and until we get a proper way for PvPers to start actually killing one another in reprisal.

[landreaum]

They should just make a blood thirsty debuff. The more you murder with or without murder active you collect points towards your character, and after a random numbers of murders (let's 3-7 murders) you lose all ko protection permanently.

[magnet]

you lose all ko protection permanently.

Thing is most of the guys abusing hermits aren't afraid of getting KO anyway, they all run around with Mrage on

[Neppy]

Get rid of permadeath. It would increase the playerbase tenfold overnight. Losing your character because someone felt like it isn't a good game mechanic.

[losexd]

Get rid of permadeath. It would increase the playerbase tenfold overnight. Losing your character because someone felt like it isn't a good game mechanic.

Git gud bruh.

[Neppy]

Get rid of permadeath. It would increase the playerbase tenfold overnight. Losing your character because someone felt like it isn't a good game mechanic.

Git gud bruh.

I don't mind it. It's just the cons outweigh the pros.

[Dawidio123]

I seem to recall Jorb having some idea about being able to force a fight with someone by challenging them, but he proposed a system that had serious flaws.

Check out salem's challenges, i think the duel ones got removed bcs of how dumb and exploity they were but that's where that idea originates from i think, basically if someone made a scent you could've made a challenge near his claim i think?, it's not great.

https://salemthegame.wiki/page/Trial_by_Combat - the combat one
https://salemthegame.wiki/page/Trial_by_Fire - the siege one

From exploits i recall hearing about ppl basically built their bases in the corner making the claims a lot cheaper (you pay in silver for claims in salem) and made them so big you couldn't challenge either the townbell or the homestead. Trapping/ganking ppl using the duels, abusing walls and claims around the challenges, etc.

As per usual too much work to implement a working system that doesn't require 20 bandaids. And I don't think you should be basically forced into a 1v1 (at best) because you misclicked on a claim xd

[Robben_DuMarsch]

And I don't think you should be basically forced into a 1v1 (at best) because you misclicked on a claim xd

I agree. If there were going to be 1v1 challenge/duels, it should probably be for murder only. There should also be a non-lethal toggle that stops you from causing someone's HHP from going below 1, and if this triggers, it just destroys their hearthfire instead and yeets them to a random spawn eligible thingwall. That should help people deal with alt spam trolling to bait murder scents.

That's an example of reasonable brain storming to fix the exploits. Pick another and we can fix it too.

I acknowledge this is academic though. I'm fully aware that Jorb would implement a system without adequately considering exploit cases, and then go on vacation for 6 months without applying fixes if the system was broken, which would be bad for everyone.