Game Development: Haven & Hearth on Steam

[jorb]

Personally, I think a steam audience would be much more interested in a longer term world.

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

[DonVelD]

that sounds more interesting, personally

[pawnchito]

With short seasonal worlds you won't need to worry too much about developing an infinite grind endgame.
Steam server will be the new main server and old Haven will be the dead server.
This change feels like when legacy ended. The end of an era.
...

the players i know wont do much beyond a few tests on steam but a big selling point is that it is a permanent (in spirit) server. It will be interesting for sure to see how the pop settles. hopefully it goes well.

it wasnt clear the intent was to continue w15 development etc... that calms many nerves.

[Dawidio123]

And then let ppl on steam know that if they want shorter worlds there actually are, but you can't actually play them on steam, you have to go on this website, download an unchecked custom client not from workshop and then you have to make a new account that you have to verify.
Ngl, another issue that can come up from separating the ecosystems and yet 0 advantages to be seen.

[Ozzy126]

Steam won't stop multiboxing, it will just be more difficult to setup. Multiboxing is always going to be a thing and so, the steam release should support it easily as well.
Multiboxing is only a thing because the game is designed to incentivize it with actions taking forever such as mining, paving, terraforming, etc...
You should be able to open Haven's Steam version and choose to login with how many different characters you want at the same time.
Multiboxing is just human botting.

Also people are underestimating burnout. If you release a new world ever 3-4 months, the starting period will be repeated a lot more times which will leave players to hate the early wipe as well.
More than 3-4 months is needed between wipes because it will just accumulate burnout throughout wipes and will not let any future wipe have any sort of HYPE into it. This results in fracturing the playerbase further as some people will just skip a wipe here and there.
Besides that, such short wipes ends up killing any point of playing for anyone that is looking for any sort of permanence of their actions in the world.

In short, wipes are fondly looked upon because they are rare. If you increase their frequency, the hype between wipes dies as well.
Look into other mmorpgs or extraction games for their wipe frequency.

"Unfortunately, due to spam-bots, we have had to restrict new users from posting links.
If you feel that posting a link is necessary, for example, to help debug a problem, consider posting the link in obfuscated form (eg. www dot havenandhearth dot com), which would not be useful to the spambots. Also keep in mind that posting images (using the [img] BBCode) is allowed, so long as the image is not also a link."

....

I *think* that still works. It's sort of a PITA but I am pretty sure it would work with a game as simple as H&H

[heros101]

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

Personally I think that would be the way to go

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Personally, I think a steam audience would be much more interested in a longer term world.

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

I admit we don't have data on this, but there are many other overwhelmingly successful games on steam with shorter season wipes in the 3-4 month range, like Path of Exile, and even shorter in the survival genre, like Rust.

On the other hand, there are two successful MMOs on steam that originally self published and then used F2P steam launches to get large influx of players (Albion and Eve Online), but both are nearly carbon copies of each other in their ingame economy, both heavily manually police botting, and Haven's economy and server lifespan resembles the former examples and has very little in common with the latter.

[DonVelD]

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

Personally I think that would be the way to go

keep in mind that separating Haven into two versions is still very bad though

[DDDsDD999]

Personally, I think a steam audience would be much more interested in a longer term world.

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

I think that would be highly preferential. The short-term worlds seem much more suited to veterans with burned-out neuro-receptors that already speed-run every world anyway.

[heros101]

I mean... it's not like you couldn't have a point here. Maybe steam should be long-term stable instead, and we should run quick and fast worlds here?

Personally I think that would be the way to go

keep in mind that separating Haven into two versions is still very bad though

Yeah agreed, but if we do not have options that way would be betetr i think?