Time to protect offline players - Rust

One of the strengths of Rust is the exhilarating online battles both solo and clan. Its time to start to protect the offline player goodies from the late night grief thief. Raiding should be primarily as a result of a victorious battle. Its better gameplay for everyone. - A player can sleep on ONE storage box within their Authorized building zone thus protecting its contents. Sleeping over top of multiple storage boxes adds risk as to which single box is being protected. - destroying a tool cupboard does not remove this protection until a player logs back in - A player cannot sleep protect a storage box while a foreign player is within their building zone - Only one protected storage box per floor can be sleep protected, so for groups, all authorized group players would protect on separate floors - destroying floors/ceilings with sleepers and protected storage boxes, kill the player and spew the content as per usual - sleep protecting a storage box on a foundation within cupboard zone makes the storage box and player impervious to destruction. Only one foundation protection per building zone.

Other than that rule, codelocks on boxes already cover all that. And no, just no. Its already an event to profit from a raid right now, dont make the little good loot that is out there impossible to get.

The best part of the game is waking up and rushing to your pc to see if you survived the night. It's what keeps you gripped. Sorry I like it as it is.

how about you just make it so it takes 12+ c4 to get to your sleeper room with your 1 box in that square via building a strong base?

[QUOTE=Greyfoxzb;47839442]how about you just make it so it takes 12+ c4 to get to your sleeper room with your 1 box in that square via building a strong base?[/QUOTE] How about we discuss ways to increase the fun of raiding huh? Waiting until the server dies to raid the neighbor is lame as fuck.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47839527]How about we discuss ways to increase the fun of raiding huh? Waiting until the server dies to raid the neighbor is lame as fuck.[/QUOTE] yes it does but thats what most people do because its easy as fuck, there needs to be a way to encourage people to raid while the home owner is online

I think once they get generators, alarm systems base defence systems in you will see more people raiding when the owners are online. I would think that the defended would need to be shut down while owners are entering and leaving so I can see groups waiting for the right moment to attack. That's when the game will get really interesting

Personally, I would leave Rust if I found my hand being held so aggressively. I enjoy Rust for being a brutal game. Take away that sheer brutality, and I might as well and play something else.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;47840034]Personally, I would leave Rust if I found my hand being held so aggressively. I enjoy Rust for being a brutal game. Take away that sheer brutality, and I might as well and play something else.[/QUOTE] There nothing "brutal" about attacking an empty building. Its stupid as fuck. Base defenses are a joke because there are NEVER ANY DEFENDERS TO MAKE USE OF THEM.

Terrible idea. If I raid your base and find you sleeping on a box I will shot you in the head. Just put a code lock on your box and secure it in walls or hide it in some other way.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47842581]There nothing "brutal" about attacking an empty building. Its stupid as fuck. Base defenses are a joke because there are NEVER ANY DEFENDERS TO MAKE USE OF THEM.[/QUOTE] Please do not take my words out of context. When I say brutal, I am referring to the fact that the game does not cater to any individual player. If you step out for even a second, shit could easily go down, and you are forced to start all over again. For raiders, sure, an empty house/shack is about the most pathetic case of self-congratulatory bullshit that they can celebrate over after destroying it. But that is life - there are assholes, and we have to learn to either live with them, forcefully remove them, or roll over and die. Honestly, I would have it no other way. What I do not like, is when the developers decide that we are too weak-skinned to deal with adversity on our own. I cannot stand censorship. I cannot stand political correctness. And I would not be able to stand having some sort of fail-safe in place, where I am irrationally immune to the consequences of either my actions, or my lack of actions.

The fact that you can be looted or killed while logged off is one of the top selling points when encouraging friends to purchase the game.

i think we need to steer clear of anything that makes us "safe". the whole point of rust is that no-one is, i'd hate to see something that makes it safe when we "sleep".

I'm currently working on an Oxide Plugin that will provide Offline Protection for a small area. It will work on a timer to prevent people from logging out while being raided. Not finished just yet but if people would like to hear about it or have input please don't hesitate to PM me.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;47843526]Please do not take my words out of context. When I say brutal, I am referring to the fact that the game does not cater to any individual player. If you step out for even a second, shit could easily go down, and you are forced to start all over again. For raiders, sure, an empty house/shack is about the most pathetic case of self-congratulatory bullshit that they can celebrate over after destroying it. But that is life - there are assholes, and we have to learn to either live with them, forcefully remove them, or roll over and die. Honestly, I would have it no other way. What I do not like, is when the developers decide that we are too weak-skinned to deal with adversity on our own. I cannot stand censorship. I cannot stand political correctness. And I would not be able to stand having some sort of fail-safe in place, where I am irrationally immune to the consequences of either my actions, or my lack of actions.[/QUOTE] While I disagree with the OP's suggestion specifically, surely there's a way to reward the players who are willing to attack a base while the occupant is online.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47846108]While I disagree with the OP's suggestion specifically, surely there's a way to reward the players who are willing to attack a base while the occupant is online.[/QUOTE] Bingo. That's the intention. Consider the suggestion like a pause button for your progress.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47846108]While I disagree with the OP's suggestion specifically, surely there's a way to reward the players who are willing to attack a base while the occupant is online.[/QUOTE] That goes counter to everything Garry has stated in his vision for Rust, where he does not, in any capacity, want to force players/reward players/punish players, in order to get everyone to play a very specific way. I know this quote floats around a lot, but I believe that is the case, because it so clearly outlines the freedom that Garry wants: "There shouldn't be a system hanging around forcing people to be good. It removes a lot of gameplay fun." In this case, you are wanting to force raiders to play a very specific way. The other way, you consider "Bad," - something that Garry fully understands and supports. My opinion is around the same. I appreciate freedom, to the extent that freedom can be given to us. Playing favouritism, is not something that I like. This is a world of grey - not black and white. That is something that people are just going to have to get used to for now.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;47846377]That goes counter to everything Garry has stated in his vision for Rust, where he does not, in any capacity, want to force players/reward players/punish players, in order to get everyone to play a very specific way. I know this quote floats around a lot, but I believe that is the case, because it so clearly outlines the freedom that Garry wants: "There shouldn't be a system hanging around forcing people to be good. It removes a lot of gameplay fun." In this case, you are wanting to force raiders to play a very specific way. The other way, you consider "Bad," - something that Garry fully understands and supports. My opinion is around the same. I appreciate freedom, to the extent that freedom can be given to us. Playing favouritism, is not something that I like. This is a world of grey - not black and white. That is something that people are just going to have to get used to for now.[/QUOTE] I'm considering the fact that FP is adding stuff like incendiary rockets and smoke rockets etc. The fact that they're adding area denial clearly indicates they intend for people to get in large scale gun fights where that stuff can actually be useful. I just don't see this happening if everybody is waiting until the server empties for the night before going out with 150 C4 and clearing the biome.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47846495]I'm considering the fact that FP is adding stuff like incendiary rockets and smoke rockets etc. The fact that they're adding area denial clearly indicates they intend for people to get in large scale gun fights where that stuff can actually be useful. I just don't see this happening if everybody is waiting until the server empties for the night before going out with 150 C4 and clearing the biome.[/QUOTE] A little from column A, a little from column B. Now, I s'pose if you are playing on a low population server, there might actually be an issue with people only raiding while others are offline. I am not going to tell you how to play, but my personal suggestion would be to move on from these servers if you do not like that sort of game-play. For active servers, and even many low-pops, everyone plays how they want. That means there are clans, nudes running around crazy in the woods, forcing you to always be on your guard, lone wolf KoS'ers, and, yes; those that wait for people to go offline before starting their raids. The rockets will be useful. In all of their forms. Maybe just not for everyone, is all.

Rust is a sandbox game. The suggestions in the OP basically remove a huge part of the sandbox. If that were to happen, Rust would become boring as hell for everyone except builders that don't raid. If you want to build and keep yourself safe, join a PvE server or just host your own private server.

[QUOTE=Leon Garoux;47846377]That goes counter to everything Garry has stated in his vision for Rust, where he does not, in any capacity, want to force players/reward players/punish players, in order to get everyone to play a very specific way. I know this quote floats around a lot, but I believe that is the case, because it so clearly outlines the freedom that Garry wants: "There shouldn't be a system hanging around forcing people to be good. It removes a lot of gameplay fun." In this case, you are wanting to force raiders to play a very specific way. The other way, you consider "Bad," - something that Garry fully understands and supports. My opinion is around the same. I appreciate freedom, to the extent that freedom can be given to us. Playing favouritism, is not something that I like. This is a world of grey - not black and white. That is something that people are just going to have to get used to for now.[/QUOTE] Then why restrict grievers'... Why restrict game exploits giving freedom of advantage... Why attempt to block gamma adjustments.... Etc Rules and some structure can be good for gameplay if it makes sense or assists balance. IMO, as the Survival MMPOG genre continues to explode, now is not the time to advertise Rust as a hard core niche game.

We should remove sleepers so you can't be killed when offline. Then maybe we can make building pieces understand ownership, so they remember who placed them like in legacy. And then when you log out your house can vanish and anyone who tries to build in the same space gets blocked and if they persist in trying to build on top of your offline house space they get banned. This is how we can protect players so they're safe. Take that, Minecraft. But for real, the game isn't balanced and the elements that would balance it aren't finished. There are better ways of dealing with offline raiding than making buildings magically raidproof because you had to go jerk off and go to bed. Especially when you consider that the tool cupboard is intended to block griefing and building exploits, not add a permanent ownership convention into the game meta.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47847278]We should remove sleepers so you can't be killed when offline. Then maybe we can make building pieces understand ownership, so they remember who placed them like in legacy. And then when you log out your house can vanish and anyone who tries to build in the same space gets blocked and if they persist in trying to build on top of your offline house space they get banned. This is how we can protect players so they're safe. Take that, Minecraft. But for real, the game isn't balanced and the elements that would balance it aren't finished. There are better ways of dealing with offline raiding than making buildings magically raidproof because you had to go jerk off and go to bed. Especially when you consider that the tool cupboard is intended to block griefing and building exploits, not add a permanent ownership convention into the game meta.[/QUOTE] Stay on topic. It's not about base protection, but about methods to encourage online interaction as the only or primary gameplay. Lets face it, protecting one box is not everything you own, only the KEY items. If someone wants my key items they have to battle me for them. Put a sign on the door like festival outhouses telling raiders if I am online :)

Is this some kind of dumb and disagreed ideas guiness record? Why it have to cling around while agreed ideas are lost in the second page. My 7x agreed thread disappeared by the next day... What about 10x disagrees, and these are deleted?

[QUOTE=halfhand2012;47839974]I think once they get generators, alarm systems base defence systems in you will see more people raiding when the owners are online. I would think that the defended would need to be shut down while owners are entering and leaving so I can see groups waiting for the right moment to attack. That's when the game will get really interesting[/QUOTE] I agree, also I would like to see a notification system added for example maybe on your tablet or a txt to your mobile saying "under attack". As I like the way I'm always thinking is my base safe, as I did all last night only to wake up to my base obviously destroyed as I woke up on the beach.

I think we should just have a system where we can rig a cache of C4 to explode whenever activated by raider(s), destroying everything like some scene out of 'Under the Dome' by Stephen King. Obligatory note that I am not being serious, for those without a sense of humour.

As a solo player,there is a way to not loose all of your loot. Before going offline,take all your most important loot and put it in your inventory,make sure you have at least 100 wood and 600 stone on you and then go outside. Find a spot and make a foundation,upgrade it to stone and then stand on it.Next while standing on it,make a block and also upgrade it to stone.You are now inside the stone block.When you log off,you will be sleeping inside the stone block.Do note that you will be ejected from the stone block upon waking up. You can also hide loot in a chest under the floor,also if you place 2 furnaces next to each other so there isn't a gap between them half a level higher then access level,you can hide a lantern behind them to hide a full stack of something. Solo players have to play smart to survive.

[QUOTE=chaddymanz;47849617]I agree, also I would like to see a notification system added for example maybe on your tablet or a txt to your mobile saying "under attack". As I like the way I'm always thinking is my base safe, as I did all last night only to wake up to my base obviously destroyed as I woke up on the beach.[/QUOTE] There's an Oxide mod for that ;)

[QUOTE=spiritchill;47847359]Stay on topic. It's not about base protection[/quote] [quote=THE SUBJECT LINE]Time to protect offline players[/quote] Bases are a key component of asset protection. Evasion is another. Want to stay safe? Use common sense. These rules-heavy suggestions are amusing to read, but usually just indicate a lack of skill on the part of the player.