Why we don´t need Haven

[Kaemik]

Ideally, players shouldn't be on Haven too long and its intent is not to teach them the entire game. This shouldn't be done by any timer, but rather, a lack of things to do on Haven once you master basic mechanics. Going to Myrland for the first time is the next step of the new player experience. That is where they learn PvP, and loss, and griefing. A tutorial can't cover such things perfectly but it can do a bit of it.

I'd also look at EVE for inspiration on this one. First off, I think you actually get podded as a part of the tutorial these days just to teach players the death mechanic and the idea that ships can be lost. A mission that requires you to die and lose your stuff isn't a horrible idea for MO2 done properly. Second off, EVE kind of guides you toward post-tutorial starter missions to further your learning experience. If there are concepts you need to be on Myrland to learn, then have a few options for things to do once you leave Haven.

You don't need to experience PvP, loss, and griefing during the part of the game they are teaching you how to sprint and jump.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Ideally, players shouldn't be on Haven too long and its intent is not to teach them the entire game. This shouldn't be done by any timer, but rather, a lack of things to do on Haven once you master basic mechanics. Going to Myrland for the first time is the next step of the new player experience. That is where they learn PvP, and loss, and griefing. A tutorial can't cover such things perfectly but it can do a bit of it.

I'd also look at EVE for inspiration on this one. First off, I think you actually get podded as a part of the tutorial these days just to teach players the death mechanic and the idea that ships can be lost. A mission that requires you to die and lose your stuff isn't a horrible idea for MO2 done properly. Second off, EVE kind of guides you toward post-tutorial starter missions to further your learning experience. If there are concepts you need to be on Myrland to learn, then have a few options for things to do once you leave Haven.

You don't need to experience PvP, loss, and griefing during the part of the game they are teaching you how to sprint and jump.

I think there needs to be a timer. A dev was quoted saying at one point when Haven came out for MO1 that he didn't see a difference if players indefinitely stayed on Haven, and took no issue with it.

Could you imagine someone within a game company not caring if their game was explored and fully played and just remaining in the starting area? Its a slap in the face really - and that kind of thinking is honestly harmful to MO. Its the equivalent of two different servers but instead of it being EU vs NA it would be PvP vs PvE.

 

[Kaemik]

The need for a timer is always the symptom of a greater problem and I believe in attacking those problems head-on, instead of rushing new players through an experience that is 100% about them.

If the problem is people staying too long because there is too much content, remove content that isn't essential to the tutorial experience.
If the problem is griefers then pass out permanent account bans to people who go to Haven just to grief.

But every element of Haven should be designed to make it the best possible experience for a new player learning the basics before they set out and take on the rest of the game. "You got kicked from Haven because you took a dump / forgot your computer was on overnight" is going to diminish that experience. Players shouldn't feel like they are on a time crunch to complete the tutorial and any time limit will convey that because they aren't the ones who know how long Haven is going to take the average player. If you say "Seven days of online hours" they're going to think. "Shit, this tutorial could take up to seven days?!" "I wonder how much I need to hurry to get this done?!" You've just lost a few players by even communicating such a thing to them.

 

[Rhias]

People should want to travel to Myrland due to more possibilities, more to adventure, more content...
Why would anyone stay on Haven if Myrland is cooler?
If it's not cooler then the issue is not Haven but Myrland.

 

[Amelia]

I don't know If already written but don't forget that there are already a lot of MO1 guides that could help a MO2 player.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

The need for a timer is always the symptom of a greater problem and I believe in attacking those problems head-on, instead of rushing new players through an experience that is 100% about them.

If the problem is people staying too long because there is too much content, remove content that isn't essential to the tutorial experience.
If the problem is griefers then pass out permanent account bans to people who go to Haven just to grief.

But every element of Haven should be designed to make it the best possible experience for a new player learning the basics before they set out and take on the rest of the game. "You got kicked from Haven because you took a dump / forgot your computer was on overnight" is going to diminish that experience. Players shouldn't feel like they are on a time crunch to complete the tutorial and any time limit will convey that because they aren't the ones who know how long Haven is going to take the average player. If you say "Seven days of online hours" they're going to think. "Shit, this tutorial could take up to seven days?!" "I wonder how much I need to hurry to get this done?!" You've just lost a few players by even communicating such a thing to them.

Haven wasn't content heavy. It was safe. People couldn't get griefed if they didn't want to. This detracts from the purpose of the game. This is an objective fact because I played during the release of Haven, and while I agree with it's concept - the fact you could remain there indefinitely was not healthy - especially when a person from SV saw "no issue" in players staying there. It was as if ignore the rest of the game if you want, we don't care; we're benefitting from it - rather than incorporating that player into the community fully.

As many people have said, if players are allowed to permanently stay on Haven - it's going to turn into a mini-trammel.

Haven did a pretty good job of it in MO1, it was barebones but the concepts were there.

The time can be a massive amount of time. Just not permanently. Don't confuse a timer with "rushed experience." Help channel lasted for new players for like.. what..? 250+ hours of in-game time? That's literally 10 and a half days of in-game time played. Do I think it should be that extreme of a number? No, but the time limit doesn't need to feel as if it's looming upon new players.

A veteran could fully skill out a foot fighter in about 2 days, 1 day and a half if they straight no life it.

I'd say a decent amount of time is 2-3 in-game days played (48 hours - 72 hours). That is more then enough time to learn the basics and be on your way, and it also wont fall into this pit of "take a crap and get kicked". I know your example is illustrating players might misconstrue the time given as the amount that is 'needed', but if SV is smart they will put a disclaimer as soon as new players log-in for the first time to describe where they are, why they are there, and the decisions they make to stay and learn or to leave is all upon them.

Haven is a good idea.

Letting it be a refuge indefinitely is not. It goes against the games core.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

I don't know If already written but don't forget that there are already a lot of MO1 guides that could help a MO2 player.

Yes, but also a lot of them are gone because if you don't remember the old forums got hit with a nuke and a lot of data was lost from it.

 

[Kaemik]

Haven wasn't content heavy. It was safe. People couldn't get griefed if they didn't want to. This detracts from the purpose of the game. This is an objective fact because I played during the release of Haven, and while I agree with it's concept - the fact you could remain there indefinitely was not healthy - especially when a person from SV saw "no issue" in players staying there. It was as if ignore the rest of the game if you want, we don't care; we're benefitting from it - rather than incorporating that player into the community fully.

As many people have said, if players are allowed to permanently stay on Haven - it's going to turn into a mini-trammel.

Haven did a pretty good job of it in MO1, it was barebones but the concepts were there.

The time can be a massive amount of time. Just not permanently. Don't confuse a timer with "rushed experience." Help channel lasted for new players for like.. what..? 250+ hours of in-game time? That's literally 10 and a half days of in-game time played. Do I think it should be that extreme of a number? No, but the time limit doesn't need to feel as if it's looming upon new players.

A veteran could fully skill out a foot fighter in about 2 days, 1 day and a half if they straight no life it.

I'd say a decent amount of time is 2-3 in-game days played (48 hours - 72 hours). That is more then enough time to learn the basics and be on your way, and it also wont fall into this pit of "take a crap and get kicked". I know your example is illustrating players might misconstrue the time given as the amount that is 'needed', but if SV is smart they will put a disclaimer as soon as new players log-in for the first time to describe where they are, why they are there, and the decisions they make to stay and learn or to leave is all upon them.

Haven is a good idea.

Letting it be a refuge indefinitely is not. It goes against the games core.

I've been to Haven within the last month. I was hugely surprised by it's expansiveness and the number of mid level creatures I saw there. I know I saw razorbacks, I think even some wisents etc. And I didn't even explore the full island I was just there to get a donkey, get training down the path I wanted to take and get out.

A smaller island with less crap would have been helpful for me even so there wouldn't be so much area to search for the darn donkeys.

That's the problem. Haven as a mini-trammel is rooted in the idea of Haven with too much content. If this is 300 years later than MO1 as I've heard then make some disaster have sunk the majority of the island into the sea. You don't even need much outside the town and graveyard. Have some stations in town to learn melee, magic, taming, riding etc. The player does the content and that's all there is.

If someone wants to live on an island that content light as a mini-Trammel then I'm fine with that as well. Mostly because if you make it that content light we are talking 1/10k players. Very few people play a game to experience tutorial island and nothing else unless you give tutorial island too much content as they did in MO1.

 

[Zyconnic]

Haven was necessary in MO1 cus of the bad UI, the horrible design of starter zones (Tindrem and Morin Khur), the even worse flagging system and a crappy community.

If they fix that, then Haven will be obsolete.

 

[Amadman]

I think there needs to be a timer. A dev was quoted saying at one point when Haven came out for MO1 that he didn't see a difference if players indefinitely stayed on Haven, and took no issue with it.

Could you imagine someone within a game company not caring if their game was explored and fully played and just remaining in the starting area? Its a slap in the face really - and that kind of thinking is honestly harmful to MO. Its the equivalent of two different servers but instead of it being EU vs NA it would be PvP vs PvE.

I don't find the developer thinking this way as negative or insulting at all. Allowing as many different types of playstyles in the world is what will allow the game to have a larger player base. Forcing players to play a certain way is what will keep it small.

Of coarse they have to maintain the core of the game over all though.

It is similar to SV's stance on cities. Some players think SV should make it where players are forced out of the cites and into the wild. While SV feels it is fine to have players that want to live their whole life in a city.

I completely agree with their stance here as well. Since the cities are a place where one would expect much activity in a world.

Chasing the players out of the city to play in a way they do not choose to play is basically just forcing them out of the game.

Which really makes no sense when the game needs that type of player as well.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

I don't find the developer thinking this way as negative or insulting at all. Allowing as many different types of playstyles in the world is what will allow the game to have a larger player base. Forcing players to play a certain way is what will keep it small.

Of coarse they have to maintain the core of the game over all though.

It is similar to SV's stance on cities. Some players think SV should make it where players are forced out of the cites and into the wild. While SV feels it is fine to have players that want to live their whole life in a city.

I completely agree with their stance here as well. Since the cities are a place where one would expect much activity in a world.

Chasing the players out of the city to play in a way they do not choose to play is basically just forcing them out of the game.

Which really makes no sense when the game needs that type of player as well.

I can agree with the line of thinking that 'Sandbox is sandbox, you are free to do what you like.' But I feel being 'okay' with players staying on what is meant to be a tutorial island is not something to encourage or be okay with.

If I were a developer, and I knew some of the population was going to stay on the tutorial island either because it's more enjoyable or that there are mechanics in the game that they don't agree with past the island - then I would feel compelled to correct these problems. A lot of people saw Haven in MO1 as a potential to harken back to the 'old days' where people didn't have absolutely everything in their banks ready to go. But turns out, PvP wasn't even an option on Haven unless you went through efforts to grief.

I just.. don't agree with it. I don't find the logic in designing a game only to be okay with players staying at the start. It -does- detract from the hardcore aspect of the game 100%.

Cities are different. I'm okay with players indefinitely staying in cities... because the city is apart of the rest of the game world. Haven, is not. It's closed off, one way, and designed with a specific set of rules that are vastly different to how things work.

There is a difference in having reasons to leave the city, and the game forcing you from the city. MO1 lacked reasons to leave.. meaningful ones. Sure you could go farm, but a city like Tindrem for example was self-sustainable from the inside (While a bit shit, but totally possible.)

Living in cities and playing mostly out of cities is fine in this context, players living on Haven and not leaving and being able to stay indefinitely, in my eyes, is not.

 

[Kaemik]

If we actually were talking any significant population living in Haven as a safe area I'd prefer it be handled like high-security space in EVE. A much more secure area with lower value resources that you can travel back and forth from. I do have issues with cutting off certain parts of the game from others. Though I also am against splitting NA and EU into two servers so I'm pretty consistent on that stance.

I don't feel like even a high-security area fits inside the model and vision of this game but I do agree that not having something like that will absolutely limit the success potential of this title.

That's not even really what we're talking about here though. I just don't think it's appropriate to be introducing newbs to ganking and griefing before they are done learning the basics of how to play the game. Or that their experience should be tailored around the fear of vets that an hour or two of safety at the start is making the game "too carebear".

 

[Handsome Young Man]

If we actually were talking any significant population living in Haven as a safe area I'd prefer it be handled like high-security space in EVE. A much more secure area with lower value resources that you can travel back and forth from. I do have issues with cutting off certain parts of the game from others. Though I also am against splitting NA and EU into two servers so I'm pretty consistent on that stance.

I don't feel like even a high-security area fits inside the model and vision of this game but I do agree that not having something like that will absolutely limit the success potential of this title.

That's not even really what we're talking about here though. I just don't think it's appropriate to be introducing newbs to ganking and griefing before they are done learning the basics of how to play the game.

You probably will disagree. But players getting griefed, getting ganked, getting trolled.. That happened excessively in MO1. It's going to happen in MO2 - it already happens in MO2. Guilds probably got internal KoS lists for people messing with them so much.

Truth is though, players need to be griefed, ganked, and trolled. It gives them real expectations. Players who aren't introduced to it early - end up suffering later on, in my eyes at least.

What is a better situation?

A.) Get griefed / ganked / trolled early on, with minimal loss but gains in knowledge.

B.) Get griefed / ganked / trolled later on, with larger losses but gains in knowledge.

I've seen 'hardcore' players come into MO1, only to get absolutely dumpster butt fucked right out.. and it wasn't even hard for players to do it. Guess which section they fell under usually? It was B.

 

[Amadman]

I can agree with the line of thinking that 'Sandbox is sandbox, you are free to do what you like.' But I feel being 'okay' with players staying on what is meant to be a tutorial island is not something to encourage or be okay with.

If I were a developer, and I knew some of the population was going to stay on the tutorial island either because it's more enjoyable or that there are mechanics in the game that they don't agree with past the island - then I would feel compelled to correct these problems. A lot of people saw Haven in MO1 as a potential to harken back to the 'old days' where people didn't have absolutely everything in their banks ready to go. But turns out, PvP wasn't even an option on Haven unless you went through efforts to grief.

I just.. don't agree with it. I don't find the logic in designing a game only to be okay with players staying at the start. It -does- detract from the hardcore aspect of the game 100%.

Cities are different. I'm okay with players indefinitely staying in cities... because the city is apart of the rest of the game world. Haven, is not. It's closed off, one way, and designed with a specific set of rules that are vastly different to how things work.

There is a difference in having reasons to leave the city, and the game forcing you from the city. MO1 lacked reasons to leave.. meaningful ones. Sure you could go farm, but a city like Tindrem for example was self-sustainable from the inside (While a bit shit, but totally possible.)

Living in cities and playing mostly out of cities is fine in this context, players living on Haven and not leaving and being able to stay indefinitely, in my eyes, is not.

In all honestly I was not happy with Haven not actually being part of the 'one world'. And feel they could do better than they did in the first. But aside from that I see little difference in it from other cities.

It is limited in what you can do there so a player would have to move on to experience more of the game. If on the other hand a player can be satisfied with just playing within the limits there then I dont see the problem. Just like any other city, it would be good to have some activity there when a new player does come around.

 

[Kaemik]

Players should be leaving Haven with so many resources that it will matter greatly when they lose them. I don't think there is much benefit that comes from being griefed when you're at the "Press W to walk forward" phase of the game. I think a good tutorial that focuses on teaching players good fundamentals is a great thing for players to have behind them before they step into their first PvP scenario.

The fundamental principle behind Haven should be quickly and effectively teaching players with no knowledge the basics of the game in as engaging of a manner as possible. If you just want to learn movement and one combat style you should be in and out in under half an hour. If you want to stay and try every lesson it has to offer you should be out within 2-4 hours tops learning magic, archery, melee mounted combat, gathering, extraction, fishing etc. (No I'm not switching positions on the time limit, just giving an estimation of how long someone should be inside there)

Either way, the main thing a player should leave Haven with is knowledge of how to play the game.

They absolutely need to aggressively pursue making it the best new player experience possible and make zero compromises with veterans antsy they'll be in there too long and they won't get enough opportunities to stab them.

Haven is not about you. It's not about me. It's about making the best investment SV can make toward growing this game. Bringing new players in and giving them a great experience. And if they focus solely and entirely on that goal then the only end impact on veterans is going to be a lot more new players coming in and sticking with the game a bit... and a lot less people asking "How do I parry an attack?"

 

[Teknique]

Players should be leaving Haven with so many resources that it will matter greatly when they lose them. I don't think there is much benefit that comes from being griefed when you're at the "Press W to walk forward" phase of the game. I think a good tutorial that focuses on teaching players good fundamentals is a great thing for players to have behind them before they step into their first PvP scenario.

The fundamental principle behind Haven should be quickly and effectively teaching players with no knowledge the basics of the game in as engaging of a manner as possible. If you just want to learn movement and one combat style you should be in and out in under half an hour. If you want to stay and try every lesson it has to offer you should be out within 2-4 hours tops learning magic, archery, melee mounted combat, gathering, extraction, fishing etc. (No I'm not switching positions on the time limit, just giving an estimation of how long someone should be inside there)

Either way, the main thing a player should leave Haven with is knowledge of how to play the game.

They absolutely need to aggressively pursue making it the best new player experience possible and make zero compromises with veterans antsy they'll be in there too long and they won't get enough opportunities to stab them.

Haven is not about you. It's not about me. It's about making the best investment SV can make toward growing this game. Bringing new players in and giving them a great experience. And if they focus solely and entirely on that goal then the only end impact on veterans is going to be a lot more new players coming in and sticking with the game a bit... and a lot less people asking "How do I parry an attack?"

There’s simply no data to support that haven population supports myrland population.

The only thing I have to go off of is the appearance of haven replacing myrland entirely as the main game based on mo 1.

If you wanted to play the game with others right now you would do it on haven.

We all agree on the problem though so this is sort of pointless.

 

[Eldrath]

I feel like the current discussion is more around an area that is slightly more advanced than the tindrem gardens + graveyard with instancing but without access of veteran players.

I´ve arranged myself with that concept in Mo1, but I still think that there are other more efficient ways to introduce new players to a hardcore game.






Just a few current example of games that don´t rely on a tutorial, have open PvP and still manage to retain players. From my experience players from these kind of games are probably more likely to stick around, since they already have faced relentless violence and loss without giving up.

Making a good tutorial takes a lot of developer time. I doubt SV has the resources for it. Intuitive UI, a functioning game with adequate information (and some player guide on steam) will be cheaper and more efficient in the long run. Feel free to disagree with that, but keep the games above in mind.

---


So, is there actually anyone arguing for the implementation of Haven similar to how it exists in Mortal Online 1?

 

[Kaemik]

I think industry titans of the same genre like EVE which have very good tutorial systems are a better measure than games that clone 90% of the mechanics from eachother rendering tutorials redundant if you've played any of them, and which have well organized / extensive wikis to teach you about the more detailed aspects of the game.

Mortal has a lot of mechanics that are fairly unique to Mortal starting from the basics of how to use a sword or cast a spell. If playing Mortal felt like playing every other cut and paste survival title I might agree that so many players coming in already know the drill they can easily teach the few who don't. That is not the case here. At all. And you're not going to find have the organization when you go to learn things out of game that you will when you say, go to Ark's wiki. You have to do some serious digging to find the right guide for MO1 sometimes and there is no reason to believe that will be any better here.

Unless you all want me to start on a wiki? Because as I understand it the reason we don't have one is because it would destroy the element of discovery that makes MO's crafting system feel unique.

 

[Kaemik]

There’s simply no data to support that haven population supports myrland population.

Because the implementation of Haven in MO1 was terrible. And I don't just mean it enticed people to stay there. I mean it was a bad tutorial overall. Of course, there is no data to support it did anything. There would be no data to support people like donuts if we're testing that theory with one type of donut I choose to make out of dog shit.

Pretty sure I can find you plenty of studies that show a good tutorial increases player retention if you want to argue the point I'm actually making though.

 

[Eldrath]

I think industry titans of the same genre like EVE which have very good tutorial systems are a better measure than games that clone 90% of the mechanics from eachother rendering tutorials redundant if you've played any of them, and which have well organized / extensive wikis to teach you about the more detailed aspects of the game.

Mortal has a lot of mechanics that are fairly unique to Mortal starting from the basics of how to use a sword or cast a spell. If playing Mortal felt like playing every other cut and paste survival title I might agree that so many players coming in already know the drill they can easily teach the few who don't. That is not the case here. At all.

Nothing about EVE is intuitiv. That´s why they need an extensive tutorial. It´s the same as dwarf fortress. Which is actually in the top 10 of steams wishlist. Still without a tutorial.

I´ve played both extensively and can say with some confidence that they are not like Mortal. They are much worse to learn.

Rust and ARK might be similar, but the other two (and more games I could mention) have steep difference that you have to learn. People watch videos, read post, follow the in-game pop-ups and tooltips and figure it out. I really think you are overstating the complexity of Mortal Online.

Use a sword: Press X to go into combat mode (tons of games have that), click left mouse to swing, click right mouse to block (has been around since "die by the sword"). Directional combat is not that rare these days, but yeah it would need an explaination (like the video already made by the community) for someone who hasn´t played Bannerlord/Warband/PVK2 etc.

The same goes for magic or any mechanic really. It would probably help if they moved the action key from R to E since that is way more common.

Pretty sure I can find you plenty of studies that show a good tutorial increases player retention if you want to argue the point I'm actually making though.

Doubt it. The market of multiplayer open world PvP games is not that big to warrant actual studies.