A little feedback on the Experimental - Rust

[U][B]Procedural Map Generation[/B][/U] The new landscapes are beautiful at times (forest, lakes), but way too big. I could walk for minutes and see only solitude at certain spawns. I hope maps get more compact and filled. [U][B]Performance[/B][/U] Considering that even with the improvements the game does not visually compare to a Frostbite or Cryengine game, the performance is quite horrendous, I did not read it out, but probably had around 60-90 fps at best... I get more than that on a mid-maxed Battlefield 4. I hope they can improve on this. Yes, I know, its basically Alpha all over again. [U][B] Idea[/B][/U]: Random one-time lootable Stashes / dead bodies (hidden in bushes i.e.?) more frequently spread throughout this big desert that the game currently is. They would contain items anywhere from medkits, water bottles, pistols and small ammo stacks, tools etc. The difference to current ones, they would be 1. one time, 2. kinda camoflagued. imagine all the small rocks in the desert, but one rock is not actually rock but a backpack halfway covered in sand. paying attention pays off. [B][U]Suggestion[/U][/B]: scale down the overall map size. Increase maximum draw range, improve texture Lods etc for better performance, more hills, rocks and general objects to make the map not look empty. thats all I wanted to say, thx for reading.

i feel it would be cool to have stuff like, buried suitcases and barrel drums hidden through the map that would randomly re spawn (like stones and woodpiles) but these relics of the past would hold stuff like cloth, ammo, and pre apocalypse stuff (idk if they have scrapped that story line...) i do like the suggestions though

Had to comment as well MAP: I think the map is a good size, too small and the biomes would not merge as well as they do. there might be transport of some sort (this would make the map more manageable to traverse) but i would be happy walking. I think the old map was a good size if it was all utilized, not just the 20% that was used. If the map got much smaller it may as well be battlefield or cod, no room to farm just constant PVP Just like all the other shoot-em ups. Performance/ideas: I don't know if you check Trello, they are creating different LOD's for different draw distances, I think these will be implemented once the new player rig and skin is added. (i would imagine) There is a lot of stuff like large rocks and other world objects too be added and they are talking of buildings and roads so the map should fill up nicely But random burial grounds and dead bodies strewn around the map is a good idea. i like your loot ideas

If anything Id rather have the game looking worse than with terrible stutter even without massive player buildings. Map size could be a bit bigger than current Rust utilizes, but not much. as for your approach to the game, "constant pvp" or competetition is what makes the game interesting, if there is no danger, then there is less tension. The way I see it minecraft migth be better suited for you, this game is SURVIVAL with sandbox.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;45250855]If anything Id rather have the game looking worse than with terrible stutter even without massive player buildings. Map size could be a bit bigger than current Rust utilizes, but not much. as for your approach to the game, "constant pvp" or competetition is what makes the game interesting, if there is no danger, then there is less tension. The way I see it minecraft migth be better suited for you, this game is SURVIVAL with sandbox.[/QUOTE] Survival does not mean shooting people, it often meals avoiding conflict so you don't, well, die.

Why would you be complaining about getting 60-90 FPS? 60 is essentially the most you will ever need (that goes for every modern game), with 70-80 being the number you would want to aim for to help catch pockets of server-side lag.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;45250855]If anything Id rather have the game looking worse than with terrible stutter even without massive player buildings. Map size could be a bit bigger than current Rust utilizes, but not much. as for your approach to the game, "constant pvp" or competetition is what makes the game interesting, if there is no danger, then there is less tension. The way I see it minecraft migth be better suited for you, this game is SURVIVAL with sandbox.[/QUOTE] By your own argument I don't think this game is for you. The devs want farming, fishing and other activity's to do with survival, not a war simulator , for this with a server cap of 500 you need space, I think if you are after a purely PvP game. Stick with cod or battlefield. I want something different from all those shoot em ups. The extensive map and how they populate it will be one of the key features of this game.

The 500 server cap is probably just an experimental thing for convenience as well as to put a lot of stress on their netcode for testing purposes.

[QUOTE]By your own argument I don't think this game is for you. The devs want farming, fishing and other activity's to do with survival, not a war simulator , for this with a server cap of 500 you need space, I think if you are after a purely PvP game. Stick with cod or battlefield.[/QUOTE] Obviously it would be a whole different story with 500 people, but read what Oxameter said. 50-100 is more realistic. And I actually dont want "constant pvp", screw that, but I dotn want to get to the "endgame" technology without problems. I like having to fear that if I enter this radiation town, someone else might be lurking around with the same goals as me, leading to conflict. I dont want everything in the game to be easily available. You know? I want to do "minecraft things" but I dont want "diamonds", assault rifle blueprints or metal house blueprints to be easily available either.

I think everything you're doing is great IMO. The game looks and runs a lot better. I only hope the gunplay stays good, and like counterstrike, how it is now. Other then that, the only major thing I would hope is fixed, is the random render lag that buildings give players. Causing a "pause".

if they do incorporate building & road (as on one of the DEVs trello cards) this will create that PVP area and people will travel to it, no matter how big the map. look at the old map huge but only 20% was used, so size does not matter for pvp, but for the survival side size is needed, traveling the desert should be challenging running out of water etc.. not a 2 minute stroll to the next biome. but i agree the end game needs to be something you have to work for.

actually if i imagine the current map with some building complexes added, some more secrets/stashes to look out for and improved stability, it is an almost Stalker-esque feeling :P could be great. even with a big map. am probably gonna play on official server this time, hacker/glitcher or not.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;45251706]Why would you be complaining about getting 60-90 FPS? 60 is essentially the most you will ever need (that goes for every modern game), with 70-80 being the number you would want to aim for to help catch pockets of server-side lag.[/QUOTE] Normally yes, Unless you are trying to use Vsync at 100hz/120hz and Lightboost and to eliminate motion blur.

[QUOTE=Tastyslug;45255544]Normally yes, Unless you are trying to use Vsync at 100hz/120hz and Lightboost and to eliminate motion blur.[/QUOTE] I'm going to be [I]that guy[/I] who comes along and says; That's unnecessary and has a single inkling of perceived difference from the standards. Not that there's any good reason to go into the debate about who can perceive what on what framerates and refreshrates and timeframe variances and all of that stupid shit that people argue about, but that there is no reason for a developer to cater to something that is arguably imperceivable. Having a solid 60fps is a perfectly fine benchmark, enthusiasts are called enthusiasts for a reason, they're expected to get enthusiastic about their pursuits of miniscule gains with their multi thousand dollar rigs. Considering I run Rust nearly flawlessly on my sub200$ gpu, I think enthusiasts are probably going to be just fine making 120fps possible. The rest of us are expected to accept what is a perceivably acceptable framerate.

[QUOTE=Tastyslug;45255544]Normally yes, Unless you are trying to use Vsync at 100hz/120hz and Lightboost and to eliminate motion blur.[/QUOTE] 1. Why would you be using VSync on Rust, especially on the experimental branch, when the game has clearly not been optimized yet for standard gaming rigs? 2. Aiming for more than 70 FPS is essentially the equivalent of plugging your lamp into multiple sockets and expecting better tangible performance. If you are at 60 FPS and still getting motion blur, then you or the game are somehow creating that problem through indirect means. 3. Just as digital optics cannot perceive film, it is nearly imperceivable for us to tell the difference between 60 FPS, and 120 FPS.

oh look, a smartass. if you have a 120hz monitor you can clearly tell the difference simply by turning around medium speed. this does not factor in the numerous engines that show a significant difference in the way things workout with varying framerates/frametimes, including networking, mouse input, movement, stuttering, sounds, you name it. there is a LOT of numbers often directly corelated to framerate. so dont give us the old-as-time lecture about what the human eye can percieve and what not because that is just half of the story. oh and @tastyslug vsync is not needed at all and i would never recommend it unless you are on singleplayer as it adds significant inputlag. you can limit the framerate in rust to 120 no problemerino.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;45257486]oh look, a smartass. if you have a 120hz monitor you can clearly tell the difference simply by turning around medium speed. this does not factor in the numerous engines that show a significant difference in the way things workout with varying framerates/frametimes, including networking, mouse input, movement, stuttering, sounds, you name it. there is a LOT of numbers often directly corelated to framerate. so dont give us the old-as-time lecture about what the human eye can percieve and what not because that is just half of the story. oh and @tastyslug vsync is not needed at all and i would never recommend it unless you are on singleplayer as it adds significant inputlag. you can limit the framerate in rust to 120 no problemerino.[/QUOTE] Oh, look: another fallacious user that resorts to ad hominem in his arguments.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;45257611]Oh, look: another fallacious user that resorts to ad hominem in his arguments.[/QUOTE] Oh, look. Someone who thinks they know everything. There is a lot of good info here on what I am talking about. [url]http://www.blurbusters.com/[/url] [QUOTE=jayfkay;45257486] oh and @tastyslug vsync is not needed at all and i would never recommend it unless you are on singleplayer as it adds significant inputlag. you can limit the framerate in rust to 120 no problemerino.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I never used Vsync in rust since I wasn't able to achieve constant 100+ FPS. I'll have to look in to that input lag for other games though.

[QUOTE=Tastyslug;45258159]Oh, look. Someone who thinks they know everything. There is a lot of good info here on what I am talking about. [url]http://www.blurbusters.com/[/url] Yeah, I never used Vsync in rust since I wasn't able to achieve constant 100+ FPS. I'll have to look in to that input lag for other games though.[/QUOTE] Tastyslug... if I was speaking to you, I would have quoted you instead of jayfkay. Please check yourself before writing something. It only takes a few seconds, I assure you.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;45257611]Oh, look: another fallacious user that resorts to ad hominem in his arguments.[/QUOTE] how am I using ad hominem? and those are no fucking arguments, those are FACTS. go spend some time reading yourself into source engine and its countless variations and quake engine and its countless variations (actually they are kinda tied together). this has literally nothing to do with you or ad hominem, just because I started my post by saying you are a smartass. But continue to be dumb on facepunch forums, I am just gonna ignore you from now on... and sievers thanks for your dumb rating, you cannot argue against anything I have said in that post tho, nor can you contribute anything to discussion. so kind of a self reflective move from u there. @tasty imo it is quite easily percievable on any game and not adviced for multiplayer where it hinders your reaction and accuracy.

good old debate.. always the same.. you must understand that having more than 60fps on 60hz monitor have same visual experience.. same is more than 120 fps on 120 hz monitor.. however, visual experience is not only thing which is important, in fact is less important.. more important is information which game is and can provide in that 1 second.. if you play some driving simulator which have complex physics and ffb then you want as many fps you can get, thus providing much smoother, more detailed and more precise information on your wheel.. if you play some fps, but with low tickrate (bf) which have maximum of 30 changes in 1 second than more fps doesn't mean shit.. if you however play cs which have servers on some 120 herz then you in fact have use of more than 60 fps even if you have 60hz monitor.. so in games which doesn't have real need of more than 60fps, capping fps on 60 is just fine, you will have smooth experience like the guy who plays with 200 fps on 60hz monitor.. difference is between 60 and 120 hz monitors ofc.. in games like rust, dayz, more than 60 fps doesn't mean shit..

[QUOTE=jayfkay;45249304] [U][B]Performance[/B][/U] Considering that even with the improvements the game does not visually compare to a Frostbite or Cryengine game, the performance is quite horrendous, I did not read it out, but probably had around 60-90 fps at best... [/QUOTE] Oh no, 60-90 fps? That's horrible! How ever could you play Rust? It would be so laggy that you couldn't even shoot right! But seriously I hope you are making a joke because 60 fps in any game is a blessing to me. I play rust at about 10 fps and I can still snipe people from 100 meters out without missing. I agree that Rust seems to be underperforming, but at the moment it's a pre-alpha so you have to deal with it.

man i understand your sarcasm, but one of the main reasons why they went and start from scratch with new engine is performance.. and that must be one of the biggest focus for them, as well for us for testing.. ofc, now is too early to tell, nothing is done yet, nothing is optimized, but we all need to pay attention when performance is in question.. old rust was more than often unplayable, on medium servers, on large ones only sadists were playing.. and if now performance is bad, while world is empty than that doesn't sound very optimistic..

Just want to point out Petur is working on min. 7 types of forests + there will be caves, so I don't think you have to worry about deserted maps.

I'm behind on the updates, maybe someone can answer a few questions offhand: Can the server owner change the size of the procedurally generated map upon restart, thus catering to different communities or play-styles, or reacting to changes in their playerbase size? That would alleviate any issues with "map too large". Has there been any mention of separating resources into logical sources, instead of sprinkled over open fields like gift baskets? Ore veins in the mountains, rock outcroppings for stone, perhaps a little sulfur from each of the other two with some salt domes here and there... wood from fallen trees, which spawn anywhere that trees appear, more frequently in forests. It would make resource management and control more important.

No mention has been made of any configuration options for terrain generation so far.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;45256367]it is nearly imperceivable for us to tell the difference between 60 FPS, and 120 FPS.[/QUOTE] I know thats the theory, but I feel like I can detect up to about 100fps pretty well. There is a kind of fluidity to the movement. A smoothness that is hard to describe but you know it when you see it. A little googling will tell you that some highly trained people such as fighter pilots can detect a lot higher.

Suggestion: More AI, more buildable structures, thick walls, roads, rudamentary vehicles mechanics (i.e. Garry's mod like). Tree forts?

[QUOTE=tornainbow;45278572]I know thats the theory, but I feel like I can detect up to about 100fps pretty well. There is a kind of fluidity to the movement. A smoothness that is hard to describe but you know it when you see it. A little googling will tell you that some highly trained people such as fighter pilots can detect a lot higher.[/QUOTE] At this stage in development, expecting performance to be optimized to the point of delivering a satisfying experience to people with fighter pilot vision is actually asking for too much. Premature optimization is the root cause of all suffering in this world. The code base in experimental is four and a half months old, for the most part. I expect Rust at full quality and high frame rates to be possible, but it's too early and there are more important things for the devs to focus on. Namely, the rest of the game.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;45278963]At this stage in development, expecting performance to be optimized to the point of delivering a satisfying experience to people with fighter pilot vision is actually asking for too much.[/QUOTE] Oh, absolutely. We are in agreement. I was just commenting on the statement about what can be detected. 60 is obviously a good minimum, but I will get any game up to 100 if I can. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;45278963]Premature optimization is the root cause of all suffering in this world. The code base in experimental is four and a half months old, for the most part.[/QUOTE] More total agreement. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;45278963]I expect Rust at full quality and high frame rates to be possible, but it's too early and there are more important things for the devs to focus on. Namely, the rest of the game.[/QUOTE] Yep. The performance challenge is likely going to be less about the graphics engine displaying the world and more about the quantity of user created elements in that world, the loading of those elements, and the fact that users are not considering engine performance when they place them... as opposed to a fixed, designed world can be tweaked for performance. At a guess, the rebuild is going to be initially focusing more on things like security (anti-hacking) which is a lot of stuff that requires the opposite of the most efficient way. That is, things like having to calculate stuff on the server and transmit instead of doing the the client. The kind of thing it is easier to build in right from the start. Sadly, whatever optimisation can be done, performance in a lot of areas nowadays in competitive games is compromised by the need to stop the hackers. Those jerks.