Game Development: This Little Light O' Mine

[smileyguy4you]

one side wants to be able to constantly raid with no concern for others playstyle

one side wants to be totally safe and has no concern for others playstyle

I would like a game with more politics, growth of real trading and cities with hubs and roads and alliances connected with trade routes etc where war/sieging is a last resort to remove problems from the territory or battle over resources or land, not what it becomes now almost every world which is a king of the hill.

Some of that comes with longer worlds, im sure thats part of it, but also a better balance between the two systems that allows for the growth of those political systems and large projects to be completed im not sure how to do that, but in my mind thats much more enjoyable and much more rich player created content than build a village, get max stats and qualities and then raid each other till one is triumphant, in my mind that means more time on a larger map to allow for the content to be built by the players, but a large portion of people dont seem to want that or have the patience for that, so maybe thats just my 2cents

[smileyguy4you]

I know, they're asking for razing other people's places to be profitable, which IMO is a ridiculous motion.

Idk. I'm a bit torn.

• On the one hand I appreciate that you can evacuate a city under siege to some extent. You can vault some materials and shit to get you started again, and you can spite the attacker somewhat by denying him resources, which probably feels like at least a partial victory in the context of you losing your base.
• For that same reason I am not entirely opposed to scorched earth tactics being a thing. You do still have to go through the motions of actually scorching the earth, and deciding when to commit to that course of action is at least potentially an interesting decision. Scorched earth is obviously a thing in real life.
• At the same time it kind of also sucks if scorched earth is always the guaranteed outcome. Even if sieges aren't profitable as such, I think getting away with some amount of booty from a raid would be fun and reasonable.

Some people have suggested various form of hoard mechanics -- villagers stash random nonsense to get some defensive buff or something, and those stashes can then somehow be emptied when the village shield, say, has been down for X amount of time -- and I'm not entirely opposed to that line of thinking. Formalizing the "ante" of the siege could be a better approach than trying to come up with roundabout intrusions to normal logout behavior and item handling in vain attempts to prevent self-destruction.

why not implement an alliance claim that joins villages somehow it ads benefits like 0 travel weariness when traveling to allied charter stones (just an idea) and also add a new mechanic to the game that is formalized like declaring war, keep adjusting sieging to balance it however it is going now and so on, but with the "declaring war" mechanic, implement what some have suggested here, the war in question locks everything in the capitol village (where the alliance idol is built) any hf's on it can not be moved, any players on the capitol village cannot log out, the alliance idol takes "patronage" from all villages under its rule, if successfully destroyed, said destroyers get "X" which scales with size and time an alliance has been in power. Hell want it to be a legit battle require each village that pledges to an alliance offer x combatants that will be summoned to the capitol village when war is declared...again just ideas...*shrug*

[APXEOLOG]

I would like a game with more politics, growth of real trading and cities with hubs and roads and alliances connected with trade routes etc where war/sieging is a last resort to remove problems from the territory or battle over resources or land, not what it becomes now almost every world which is a king of the hill

Q-Spots got nerfed, so politics needed only for defense. Everyone has access to the ~same Q materials, so there is nothing to trade between factions. Things that can be produced by noobs are useless because good player can produce them 20x faster. So currently we have mostly RMT market via subtokens trading.
All you want are good ideas and i want them too, but they requires game design plan, not just "throw random fix into the game and take the feedback" strategy.

[dragonfire]

1. One faction successfuly raided another faction.
2. Attackers killed everyone and grab ALL their loot.
3. Defenders quit the game till next world reset (or ever).
Why? Cause they lost everything they have and should litteraly start from the very beginning as hermits. And they can easily be raided again by attackers before achieving even last development state (which was not enough, cause they lost).
4. Attackers switches to another faction. Raid them.
5. Another faction quits the game.
6. Attackers raid all other factions, villages, hermits.
7. All quits.
8. Attackers left alone in the world. They win. They quit.
9. Empty world reset.
Starting again, with hope that atleast all those, who have left the game, will come over again.

And Im sure those who cryin "I want all the loot of raided faction!!!" will quit the game as soon, as all of their own loot will be lost by raid.

LMFTFY

1. One faction takes a try to raid another faction.
2. Attackers collect a lot of resourses, camp siege machines for hours, wait a lot of timers to do actual damage.
3. Defenders sit behind their walls, see that attackers are stronger, vault all valuables on n00b-chars, destroy the rest, log-off.
4. Attackers say "F@*# dat shit!" and never siege anyone anymore.
...
9. Empty world reset.

The deffenders would still be playing, and if the raiding faction quits the game even less people would get raided in the foture and so the population will be more stable

[Enjoyment]

one side wants to be able to constantly raid with no concern for others playstyle

one side wants to be totally safe and has no concern for others playstyle

I would like a game with more politics, growth of real trading and cities with hubs and roads and alliances connected with trade routes etc where war/sieging is a last resort to remove problems from the territory or battle over resources or land, not what it becomes now almost every world which is a king of the hill.

Some of that comes with longer worlds, im sure thats part of it, but also a better balance between the two systems that allows for the growth of those political systems and large projects to be completed im not sure how to do that, but in my mind thats much more enjoyable and much more rich player created content than build a village, get max stats and qualities and then raid each other till one is triumphant, in my mind that means more time on a larger map to allow for the content to be built by the players, but a large portion of people dont seem to want that or have the patience for that, so maybe thats just my 2cents

Give players a CHOISE how to play - make something for BSFs to make war with other BSFs. But this must be something hermits could be aware of. Just create the world with more cool resources in center and all will be happy - Big factions would have their wars in the middle and hermits could live they lives on the edges. When you decide you strong enough and bored a little - you just move little closer to the center - and here's next tier of your community life.

Maybe it could be some MOB-City in the center, some Dark Evil Faction, who can send raid parties to closest villages (with hi-q loot if raid was successfuly defended), and have their own hi-q loot spots near their Capital, which can be raided.

[pheonix]

Is it too much to ask for a siege to be more like a lotr siege? like for example:
give us rampart walls with huge soaks
Allow us to shoot from walls using arrows/arrows on fire/ballasti/hot oil
allow us to shoot from towers
remove shields
Make rams and catapults only build able on your own village claim and you have to transport them
make it so when a faction wants to siege, it truly is a siege, where if they bring a shit ton of rams and catapults they can break in pretty quick. If someone wants to bring say 20 catapults or more to speed up the attack and invest that much resources they deserve a chance to get more loot.

This is just my idea because atm it seems that if the enemy shows up you cant shoot them reliably and have to run out and fight a gank or alt vault and prepare for scorched earth. Also for combat pipeline i know you like your card system, but please look at something else even the old hnh system seams better then this tbh though i prefer twitch based fighting like diablo etc

[thesourceofsadness]

So any changes may cause only 2 results: coming of new players, or loss of current ones.

There are different types of players.

It's easy to make Haven to be a farmville - and a lot of casual players will come to grow their crops, to play with pets, to fight fearsome boars and to make new friends in that nice and shiny world.

But Haven was made for players with balls (sorry, gals), who enjoy fighting, surviving and bringing pain in dangerous world.

And so there is a choice to make: to babysit a huge population of casuals or to make a world for small bunch of hardcore bastards. And there's no way to get both goals at once.

[Sollar]

How about you add a TEMPLE building. There is only one allowed per village, and it's indestructible and provide safe sanctuary for everyone who stays inside during a siege. You cannot build cupboards or any storing item in the sanctuary, but it is provided with a shrine with a limited inventory size.

The mechanics beind the temple being so:

- Once the siege is set, no on-line player at the time from the defending part can log out. They can though enter their temple any time for safe shelter.
- Every player and items inisde the temple are safe for stealing/looting.
- In order to avoid alt-spamming into the shelter there will be some minimum requirements for entering the temple (let's say 40 in at least 3 non combat stats, so that pure fighting alts whose sole purpose is to fight will be left outside to fight to their glorious death) - this minimum requirement are largy debatable
- All the characters that enter the temple during a siege are getting a "coward" debuff, completly removing the criminal acts skills - rage/tress/theft/vandal (and have to be re-learned if they survive the siege). The debuff should also lower their fighting skills to 10% for the duration of 3days. I'm thinking this to give an incentive to real fighters to stand up and fight, shelter should be mainly used for the crafters (woman, children and the elders).
- if the attacker party breaches in, they can freely enter the defenders temple, but with a visitor debuff. This way the parties can meet-up on safe ground to negociate their peace/lifting the siege. Negociations can be conducted so that tribute can be paid by the defending party for lifting the siege.

- Once the parties come to an agreement, they can both press a LIFT SIEGE button so that the attacking party gets auto-hearth home, while the defending party can freely leave the temple/logoff/hearthfire teleport (maybe with a little immunity buff in order to avoid the attacking party camping around and killing the debuffed characters). If the parties don't come to an agreement in 24h from the moment the shield is down, I would consider it pointless to continue, so the sheltered characters are free to logoff/hearthfire teleport, etc.

I have some more purposes for the temple, regarding religion and stuff but i'll post those in C&I to avoid TL;DR.

[Enjoyment]

So any changes may cause only 2 results: coming of new players, or loss of current ones.

There are different types of players.

It's easy to make Haven to be a farmville - and a lot of casual players will come to grow their crops, to play with pets, to fight fearsome boars and to make new friends in that nice and shiny world.

But Haven was made for players with balls (sorry, gals), who enjoy fighting, surviving and bringing pain in dangerous world.

And so there is a choice to make: to babysit a huge population of casuals or to make a world for small bunch of hardcore bastards. And there's no way to get both goals at once.

current siege system, working this way since w9, and Game still holds a pretty stable (and high) amount of active players in this world. And noone have gone till now. So any changes may cause only 2 results: coming of new players, or loss of current ones.

No need to quote my conclusion without its basis. I was talked about current player database. it is high and stable.

[Potjeh]

I know, they're asking for razing other people's places to be profitable, which IMO is a ridiculous motion.

Idk. I'm a bit torn.

• On the one hand I appreciate that you can evacuate a city under siege to some extent. You can vault some materials and shit to get you started again, and you can spite the attacker somewhat by denying him resources, which probably feels like at least a partial victory in the context of you losing your base.
• For that same reason I am not entirely opposed to scorched earth tactics being a thing. You do still have to go through the motions of actually scorching the earth, and deciding when to commit to that course of action is at least potentially an interesting decision. Scorched earth is obviously a thing in real life.
• At the same time it kind of also sucks if scorched earth is always the guaranteed outcome. Even if sieges aren't profitable as such, I think getting away with some amount of booty from a raid would be fun and reasonable.

Some people have suggested various form of hoard mechanics -- villagers stash random nonsense to get some defensive buff or something, and those stashes can then somehow be emptied when the village shield, say, has been down for X amount of time -- and I'm not entirely opposed to that line of thinking. Formalizing the "ante" of the siege could be a better approach than trying to come up with roundabout intrusions to normal logout behavior and item handling in vain attempts to prevent self-destruction.

Like I said, for siege to be profitable wrecking a place must be orders of magnitude cheaper than building it. There's just no theoretical model under which this would lead to sustainable PvP.