Add Assign friends to toolbox and re-add demolish feature

[Greyfoxzb]

I think the assign a friend feature is one of the best features Garry has put into rust, and this system is simple and easy to use and it can be used on a-lot of different systems.

One system that it should definitely be used on is the toolbox, the self authorizing is just plain retarded.

You need to make it so the creator of the toolbox has to authorize his friends who need access, but raiders should not be able to self authorize but they can of course break the toolbox down.

This way we can have the demolish feature in the game without mods and it will work perfectly.

The game has been so much more enjoyable since the toolbox has been added keep it up Rust Team!

[Insub]

No Demolish! But it would be pretty cool to be able to add the people like sleeping bag. I would still want to de-authorize the box in case someone in your crew goes rogue though.

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=Insub;47243397]No Demolish! But it would be pretty cool to be able to add the people like sleeping bag. I would still want to de-authorize the box in case someone in your crew goes rogue though.[/QUOTE]

The sleeping bag assignment is a one time transfer of ownership. Adding code locks is more analogous, treating it lock your locked doors.

[almosttactful]

You guys are missing the point for removing demolish...

As long as demolish is on a tool cupboard, someone can find yours...demo it...place their own, and wipe your base.

No amount of code locks or adding friends will fix this, they'll just remove your box and build their own.

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=almosttactful;47244487]You guys are missing the point for removing demolish...

As long as demolish is on a tool cupboard, someone can find yours...demo it...place their own, and wipe your base.

No amount of code locks or adding friends will fix this, they'll just remove your box and build their own.[/QUOTE]

If they remove all your cupboards in your base, why shouldn't they be able to place their own and then demolish as needed? With the lock, they have to remove ALL cupboards in proximity, not just find and authorize on the first one you placed.

[utilitron]

But isn't placing a bunch of cupboards kind of exploiting the system?

[mrknifey]

the thing is it is "acceptable" exploitation of a game mechanic. :suicide:

just remove the thing; destroy is unrealistic, and the forcefield is directly responsible for the raid dive boards.

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=utilitron;47244979]But isn't placing a bunch of cupboards kind of exploiting the system?[/QUOTE]

No? It'd been easy enough to only allow one in a given range, but that isn't how they work. They have taken the place of satellite foundations with pillars as how to prevent people from building next to your base.

[editline]3rd March 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47247154]the thing is it is "acceptable" exploitation of a game mechanic. :suicide:

just remove the thing; destroy is unrealistic, and the forcefield is directly responsible for the raid dive boards.[/QUOTE]

As if the raiding diving boards are inherently a bad thing? Towering was a thing in legacy as well. For me, cupboards are a trade-off provided to help protect a base since there is no restriction on foundation proximity, which is a contrivance as well. I much prefer allowing foundations to be closer as it allows for more creative building, but to allow that, you need something to prevent building right on your base. Until they come up with something less contrived, cupboards is what we have.

[mrknifey]

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47249334]As if the raiding diving boards are inherently a bad thing? Towering was a thing in legacy as well. For me, cupboards are a trade-off provided to help protect a base since there is no restriction on foundation proximity, which is a contrivance as well. I much prefer allowing foundations to be closer as it allows for more creative building, but to allow that, you need something to prevent building right on your base. Until they come up with something less contrived, cupboards is what we have.[/QUOTE]

my point is more so that the community will find glitchy workarounds to things that stop them building/raiding in a certain way, in this case, the very cheap and ugly workaround that is a stack of blocks with a ramp coming off it, dropping onto the victim and either having enough health, or abusing the sleeping glitch.

i personally would see us able to build right onto each others buildings. the way you stop others building on your house is you kill them. if you cannot hold onto your house, people will take it/build on it/raze it with explosives. as long as everything is balanced, everything should be viable. i would hate to see rust become a game of multiple choice rather than a sandbox, and to me the cupboard is pointlessly limiting. it swapped one form of griefing for another worse one in destroy.

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47249484]i personally would see us able to build right onto each others buildings. the way you stop others building on your house is you kill them.[/QUOTE]

That is all well and good if you happen to be on 24-7 to stop them, but who can do that? Stopping people while you are online, and stopping people while you are offline are two different things.

Bear traps are useful while you are online, but once you are offline, it only stops the first person to hit it. Other forms of 'traps' will be the same way, even if they auto-reset because once the surprise is over, the raider can avoid it.

Maybe when we get electricity and auto turrets we an talk about protecting your base by killing people, but it is such a rare thing these days for people to even raid while folks are online. It's the 'overnight' raiders who you have to worry about the most.

"as long as everything is balanced"

Yeah, and we aren't even remotely close to that point. Removing cupboards would shift the balance dramatically back to raiders and especially offline raiding.

"it swapped one form of griefing for another worse one in destroy"

Well, except they got rid of the removal tool, so destroying isn't a grief option anymore. I think that was an over reaction because removal is such an important tool for creative design and house upgrading, especially early on when you can't afford to leave a ceiling open for 'potential future expansion'. God forbid a raider also be allowed to just twig-block up the side of my house at that point.

Code lock on cupboards would allow for removal while mitigating a lot of the destroy griefing.

[mrknifey]

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47249812]That is all well and good if you happen to be on 24-7 to stop them, but who can do that? Stopping people while you are online, and stopping people while you are offline are two different things.

Bear traps are useful while you are online, but once you are offline, it only stops the first person to hit it. Other forms of 'traps' will be the same way, even if they auto-reset because once the surprise is over, the raider can avoid it.

Maybe when we get electricity and auto turrets we an talk about protecting your base by killing people, but it is such a rare thing these days for people to even raid while folks are online. It's the 'overnight' raiders who you have to worry about the most.

"as long as everything is balanced"

Yeah, and we aren't even remotely close to that point. Removing cupboards would shift the balance dramatically back to raiders and especially offline raiding.

"it swapped one form of griefing for another worse one in destroy"

Well, except they got rid of the removal tool, so destroying isn't a grief option anymore. I think that was an over reaction because removal is such an important tool for creative design and house upgrading, especially early on when you can't afford to leave a ceiling open for 'potential future expansion'. God forbid a raider also be allowed to just twig-block up the side of my house at that point.

Code lock on cupboards would allow for removal while mitigating a lot of the destroy griefing.[/QUOTE]

but why should your things be safe with no-one/nothing there to protect them? sure, if you have a tiny hidden box in the middle of a multilayer metal box hidden in the mountains, it might still be there when you come back the next day. but a normal base should always be at risk when empty, and protected by the walls, locks, defenses and design. in civilized society, my house can get robbed when i'm at work; why should it be any different in this game?

yeah we are far from balanced, but we will never get there if we keep a crutch like the forcefield in place and balance around it.

codelocks might be a valid workaround, but as long as the raider can just break it and place their own, keeping any kind of "destroy" ability will make it possible to raze a base with no effort and make bases even more prone. you don't have to be offline for a few hours while someone smashes in your doors; you just have to walk out to get resources long enough for them to knock off your cupboard, place their own and destroy all the foundations silently. (and i know it's removed, i'm justifying their decision:) )

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47253663]my house can get robbed when i'm at work; why should it be any different in this game?[/QUOTE]

This is a straw man, as I never said you shouldn't be able to raid someone who is away. What I said was that your argument of not needing a balancing mechanism because you should protect your house by killing them didn't account for the other 90% of the time when you aren't online. I didn't suggest the house should be impervious during that time, but there need to be other mechanisms that balance the raiders ability to get in without an active deterrent like someone shooting at him.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47253663]yeah we are far from balanced, but we will never get there if we keep a crutch like the forcefield in place and balance around it.[/QUOTE]

It's a necessary crutch until mechanics are added that make it irrelevant. As fluid as game mechanics are right now, the idea that we are going to get stuck in a rut because of 'balancing around' the cupboard seems overly pessimistic. Even adding the code lock to it wouldn't prevent Garry from adding a new mechanism the next week that makes the cupboard completely redundant. They have luckily returned to the philosophy of trying to keep the game playable despite it being alpha, so they'd be hard pressed get rid of something that would greatly upset the balance until they have something that replaces it.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47253663]codelocks might be a valid workaround, but as long as the raider can just break it and place their own, keeping any kind of "destroy" ability will make it possible to raze a base with no effort and make bases even more prone. you don't have to be offline for a few hours while someone smashes in your doors; you just have to walk out to get resources long enough for them to knock off your cupboard, place their own and destroy all the foundations silently. (and i know it's removed, i'm justifying their decision:) )[/QUOTE]

If you are leaving your cupboard so unprotected that it can be reached that quickly and easily, you are doing it wrong. In that scenario, without the code lock, they could spent much less than 1000 wood to semi-permanently screw up your base anyway. With the code lock, they'd have to destroy it and then place their own, at a cost of 1000 wood, to dismantle it. If they do that, it's because they want the location anyway, and you likely wouldn't be getting your house back even if there was no demolish. Most of the time though, I don't see a raider spending 1000 wood and 2 minutes to add their own. People demolished houses before because it was easy once they got to your primary cupboard.

[mrknifey]

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256115]This is a straw man, as I never said you shouldn't be able to raid someone who is away. What I said was that your argument of not needing a balancing mechanism because you should protect your house by killing them didn't account for the other 90% of the time when you aren't online. I didn't suggest the house should be impervious during that time, but there need to be other mechanisms that balance the raiders ability to get in without an active deterrent like someone shooting at him.[/QUOTE]

oh god i hate arguments about debating models... out of respect for you, i'll still address it, but can we steer clear of statements like "that is a fallacy" or "that is a strawman argument" and just stick to our opinions?

i'm not addressing this other 90% when you are offline because i feel when we are offline your/my base is fair game. if you are not there to defend it (either because you have a life, or aren't that interested) than you should expect to suffer for your lack of investment. your existence on the server doesn't get frozen when you go offline. your body can be found. your house can be raided. be on, or deal with not being there to defend your belongings. they are only yours because you can keep them. traps and the likes have their limits in real life too.

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256115]It's a necessary crutch until mechanics are added that make it irrelevant. As fluid as game mechanics are right now, the idea that we are going to get stuck in a rut because of 'balancing around' the cupboard seems overly pessimistic. Even adding the code lock to it wouldn't prevent Garry from adding a new mechanism the next week that makes the cupboard completely redundant. They have luckily returned to the philosophy of trying to keep the game playable despite it being alpha, so they'd be hard pressed get rid of something that would greatly upset the balance until they have something that replaces it.[/QUOTE]

i am highly pessimistic about the cupboard. i was concerned at the time that the community would get reliant on the "protection" it offered and forget how legacy was. now people don't bother building their bases in nooks where nothing more can fit in because they have a cupboard provide a magical forcefield that stops them from building x meters away. (which btw doesnt prevent players walling you in. they just have to do it further from your cupboard). they no longer have to think about careful placement of building pieces, because they *could* just use the magical hammer to fix it all. to me the game was better without it. removing it entirely will allow us all to move on, and them to fix the issues it was created to address.

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256115]If you are leaving your cupboard so unprotected that it can be reached that quickly and easily, you are doing it wrong. In that scenario, without the code lock, they could spent much less than 1000 wood to semi-permanently screw up your base anyway. With the code lock, they'd have to destroy it and then place their own, at a cost of 1000 wood, to dismantle it. If they do that, it's because they want the location anyway, and you likely wouldn't be getting your house back even if there was no demolish. Most of the time though, I don't see a raider spending 1000 wood and 2 minutes to add their own. People demolished houses before because it was easy once they got to your primary cupboard.[/QUOTE]

i do agree with you. the cupboard can be protected with enough effort, preventing a raider from accessing it. but the very fact that such efforts need to be made to hide the demolish function speaks volumes about the threat it actually imposes on a players base. if it came to a decision between 1k wood for a cupboard, and a few c4 though, which would you choose to use so you can demolish a house?

[StryfeKhaos]

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47256500]oh god i hate arguments about debating models... out of respect for you, i'll still address it, but can we steer clear of statements like "that is a fallacy" or "that is a strawman argument" and just stick to our opinions?[/QUOTE]

I jump around on different forums, and on some you are beat up if you don't call out the fallacy that was made. Strawman is pretty ubiquitously used to quickly say 'you set up an argument and argued against something that I was not arguing.' I can say that, but, despite all other evidence to the contrary, I do like to be brief. :)

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47256500]i'm not addressing this other 90% when you are offline because i feel when we are offline your/my base is fair game.[/QUOTE]

Again, I am not saying it isn't fair game. I am saying you have to have mechanisms that balance the game for both situations - for when you are trying to protect your base when you are online AND offline. You can't ignore the offline situation while at the same time having a mechanism like sleepers. It forces you to consider the offline situation as a distint scenario that you must provide mechanisms to balance what the base builder can do versus what the raider can do. A base can't just automatically be much easier to raid because the player isn't online to defend with force. You can't just rely on mechanisms that slow someone down (bear traps, spiked walls, etc.) as 'good enough'.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47256500]i am highly pessimistic about the cupboard. i was concerned at the time that the community would get reliant on the "protection" it offered and forget how legacy was. now people don't bother building their bases in nooks where nothing more can fit in because they have a cupboard provide a magical forcefield that stops them from building x meters away. (which btw doesnt prevent players walling you in. they just have to do it further from your cupboard). they no longer have to think about careful placement of building pieces, because they *could* just use the magical hammer to fix it all. to me the game was better without it. removing it entirely will allow us all to move on, and them to fix the issues it was created to address.[/QUOTE]

Foundations in legacy were magic forcefields that stopped raiders from building x meters away. Ceilings were magic forcefields that stopped raiders from breaking in from the top of your base. Both of these are no longer an option, which is a good thing in my opinion in terms of allowing for more creative builds, but it seems to be there needs to be something to maintain the balance.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;47256500]i do agree with you. the cupboard can be protected with enough effort, preventing a raider from accessing it. but the very fact that such efforts need to be made to hide the demolish function speaks volumes about the threat it actually imposes on a players base. if it came to a decision between 1k wood for a cupboard, and a few c4 though, which would you choose to use so you can demolish a house?[/QUOTE]

I am suggesting there is a more likely 3rd option, which is, they won't use either and will just move on. It won't be worth it.

[mrknifey]

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256824]I jump around on different forums, and on some you are beat up if you don't call out the fallacy that was made. Strawman is pretty ubiquitously used to quickly say 'you set up an argument and argued against something that I was not arguing.' I can say that, but, despite all other evidence to the contrary, I do like to be brief. :)[/QUOTE]

i appreciate the sentiment, and respect that you know what a strawman is. i just don't want this to derail into dictionary definitions and debate methodology:)

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256824]Again, I am not saying it isn't fair game. I am saying you have to have mechanisms that balance the game for both situations - for when you are trying to protect your base when you are online AND offline. You can't ignore the offline situation while at the same time having a mechanism like sleepers. It forces you to consider the offline situation as a distint scenario that you must provide mechanisms to balance what the base builder can do versus what the raider can do. A base can't just automatically be much easier to raid because the player isn't online to defend with force. You can't just rely on mechanisms that slow someone down (bear traps, spiked walls, etc.) as 'good enough'. [/QUOTE]

i do recognize that. i simply disagree that you need to make provisions to specifically protect players who can't/don't put in the time to defend their base. i am one of them; i play maybe a few hours a day if that, and don't expect my build to be untouched unless i have made an effort hiding it. the longer i am away, the less likely it will still be there. that to me is part of the game. it somewhat references a player sleeping through the day; they will not have the same advantages as a player who is active for "days", and really shouldn't. i agree that more residual traps and protection could be implemented, but don't feel they are necessary. they would simply give players more tactical options than "hide" or "make massive base of metal".

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256824]Foundations in legacy were magic forcefields that stopped raiders from building x meters away. Ceilings were magic forcefields that stopped raiders from breaking in from the top of your base. Both of these are no longer an option, which is a good thing in my opinion in terms of allowing for more creative builds, but it seems to be there needs to be something to maintain the balance. [/QUOTE]

yes and no. foundations could not be built [B]near[/B], but could be built [B]on[/B] provided there was room for another foundation. this meant most players would either build in little nooks between rocks, or fill the space with spiked barricades to prevent placement by raiders. but you could build onto another players building. ceilings were a joke, and honestly got abused to grief stairwells far too often. i'm glad that all panels can be broken without the need for c4 now, it's not only more realistic, but more balanced.

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;47256824]I am suggesting there is a more likely 3rd option, which is, they won't use either and will just move on. It won't be worth it.[/QUOTE]

to be fair, if you piss off a player enough, they will come with all the c4 they have and raze your building to the ground, regardless of size or cost. but if it is made harder to level a build, either by removal or protection for the cupboard, it may level out. you and i agree it is imbalanced at the moment;)

[y0himba]

While I agree that assign friends to a cupboard and/or a code lock on the cupboard would be convenient, you would also need to make the cupboard indestructible until it hits the ground.

Also, I will be so glad when the day arrives that it is necessary to raid to survive. It really is tiring hearing raid raid raid. PVP PVP PVP. I guess we already have zombies in game, the run around with vacant looks moaning "raaaaaiiiiddddd raaaaiiiiddddd", or 'reeeeekt reeeeekkkktttt".

What people seem to forget is that PVP and raiding are a secondary element added to survive. Right now, folks raid because it is too easy to survive the environment, they raid out of boredom since it is too easy to get set up.

I wish raiders and action dependent players would be happy for a bit so Facepunch can work on what they (Facepunch) want. I am hoping for the day when the environment is more dangerous than the raid/pvp zombies, and it becomes dangerous and necessary to raid or cannibalize.