The problem with Rust currently - problems Legacy didnt have to this extent - Rust

I noticed people are complaining about a stale lategame as well as a onesided early game. Having played the current patch for about one week I came to the following conclusion, based on observations made on a 50-100 player server and Rustopia. [B]*[/B] [B]biome balance way off[/B] with a heavy focus on the snow biome.. more c4 more guns and everything easy there. for cloth and wood quickly move to the wooden area and then go back. nothing from the desert area needed [B]at all[/B] [B]* [/B][B]way too many radtowns[/B].. as it is, the amount is more appropiate for double or triple the currently usual playerbase sizes. [B]*[/B] [B]raiding completely imbalanced still[/B] This point is most important to me... raiding was perfectly balanced in the old Rust with minor exceptions. There was some quirky glithc abuse like pillar barricading and suicide bases and what not, but the balance was quite good regardless, there was almost awlays some way to circumvent these "glitches" forcing players to be creative while making raiding still worthwhile. [B]*[/B] [B]quarries need to be removed[/B] alongside with pumpjacks until gameplay is much more refined and balanced I do think the game finally goes a decent direction after well over a year, but there still lots of stuff to do and these tweaks would help combat the currently prevalent boring roofcamp afk meta. Rust needs to be more about risks again. Thoughts?

[QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176]I noticed people are complaining about a stale lategame as well as a onesided early game. Having played the current patch for about one week I came to the following conclusion, based on observations made on a 50-100 player server and Rustopia.[/QUOTE] Comparing new rust to legacy... [QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176][B]*[/B] [B]biome balance way off[/B] with a heavy focus on the snow biome.. more c4 more guns and everything easy there. for cloth and wood quickly move to the wooden area and then go back. nothing from the desert area needed [B]at all[/B][/QUOTE] Being that maps are procedurally generated, some maps have smaller snow biomes, some bigger, some are somewhat near a desert, others are miles away. Making it so you'd have to travel to all 3 biomes to maintain a base could be a rather ridiculous task on some maps. Also, if you don't think of it as biomes and just as area of the map like legacy, there were areas in legacy where you never had to leave, you could wall off the map and stay there with all the resources needed. [QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176][B]* [/B][B]way too many radtowns[/B].. as it is, the amount is more appropiate for double or triple the currently usual playerbase sizes.[/QUOTE] Rad town quantities seem quite appropriate considering the size of the map, which are designed for a 100+ people, so when you get on servers with 50 or fewer the balances change. I've never hosted a server, but if someone was catering to a smaller group maybe there should be options to adjust map size and prefab building quantities. [QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176][B]*[/B] [B]raiding completely imbalanced still[/B] This point is most important to me... raiding was perfectly balanced in the old Rust with minor exceptions. There was some quirky glithc abuse like pillar barricading and suicide bases and what not, but the balance was quite good regardless, there was almost awlays some way to circumvent these "glitches" forcing players to be creative while making raiding still worthwhile.[/QUOTE] Not sure what side you're on, raiding being too easy or too difficult. That being said, the majority of places i've seen are easy to raid because the people building it were kind of stupid when they set it up. Always put rough side out, don't build near rocks people can climb on, never leave a window without bars, always check for dead spots in your tool cupboard net... 80% of the places I raid I can do with a rock. [QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176][B]*[/B] [B]quarries need to be removed[/B] alongside with pumpjacks until gameplay is much more refined and balanced[/QUOTE] .... yea quarries are kinda silly. AFK farming is always kinda stupid. [QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176]I do think the game finally goes a decent direction after well over a year, but there still lots of stuff to do and these tweaks would help combat the currently prevalent boring roofcamp afk meta. Rust needs to be more about risks again. Thoughts?[/QUOTE] Roofcamp AFK meta? you mean like people building towers over split rad? People building towers up in Next valley? This is a unique tactic to new rust?

Funny how you mention a lot of combat related things, when we're missing something as basic and a hunger and thirst system that you actually need to manage.

Oh, the game is already finished? Ofc not. Play legacy if you prefer it over recent branch.

[QUOTE=Atrum;49159263]Comparing new rust to legacy... Being that maps are procedurally generated, some maps have smaller snow biomes, some bigger, some are somewhat near a desert, others are miles away. Making it so you'd have to travel to all 3 biomes to maintain a base could be a rather ridiculous task on some maps. Also, if you don't think of it as biomes and just as area of the map like legacy, there were areas in legacy where you never had to leave, you could wall off the map and stay there with all the resources needed. Rad town quantities seem quite appropriate considering the size of the map, which are designed for a 100+ people Not sure what side you're on, raiding being too easy or too difficult. Roofcamp AFK meta? you mean like people building towers over split rad? People building towers up in Next valley? This is a unique tactic to new rust?[/QUOTE] You shouldnt have to travel all 3 biomes but also you shouldnt be forced to move to the snow biome if you were to keep up with the insane metal hqm sulfur production of snow biomes. Yes people did make towers in legacy at radtowns. The difference is a much higher general density of competition. Imagine trying to make a sniper tower at one of 3 contested radtowns or at one of 12. Which one is harder and which one is more likely to get heavily hindered during the making and what not? Map size is catered for a 100 people but even at a 100 people 12 radtowns are still too much. It needs to be slightly toned down, but the problem with taht would be that vast parts of the map would be simply empty. You would have to come up with an idea to counter that problem or deal wit hthe fact that most interaction willl be focussed around a smaller area. Or leave it as is where competition over valuable stuff is nothing compared to how it was. Raiding is easy I guess if you have the ressources available in a snow biome. If not - its barely worth the effort imo. I dont factor in people that are too stupid to build bruh. Its fairly easy to make a house that protects against 10+ c4 and 10 c4 is quite hard to aquire for 1-3 player groups. And no roofcamping is nothing new but I explained the difference compared to legacy above.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;49159176]I noticed people are complaining about a stale lategame as well as a onesided early game. Having played the current patch for about one week I came to the following conclusion, based on observations made on a 50-100 player server and Rustopia. [B]*[/B] [B]biome balance way off[/B] with a heavy focus on the snow biome.. more c4 more guns and everything easy there. for cloth and wood quickly move to the wooden area and then go back. nothing from the desert area needed [B]at all[/B] [B]* [/B][B]way too many radtowns[/B].. as it is, the amount is more appropiate for double or triple the currently usual playerbase sizes. [B]*[/B] [B]raiding completely imbalanced still[/B] This point is most important to me... raiding was perfectly balanced in the old Rust with minor exceptions. There was some quirky glithc abuse like pillar barricading and suicide bases and what not, but the balance was quite good regardless, there was almost awlays some way to circumvent these "glitches" forcing players to be creative while making raiding still worthwhile. [B]*[/B] [B]quarries need to be removed[/B] alongside with pumpjacks until gameplay is much more refined and balanced I do think the game finally goes a decent direction after well over a year, but there still lots of stuff to do and these tweaks would help combat the currently prevalent boring roofcamp afk meta. Rust needs to be more about risks again. Thoughts?[/QUOTE] Biome balance: If you've played a week on the current build, and the current build just went live a couple days ago, I'm guessing you were on some dev build servers. With this in mind, I had the concern that when they removed oil, they didn't increase the chances of HQM to get found in the desert and made it the least desirable place to build now. I'm hoping they address this in the near future. Radtowns: I don't know if server owners can set the amount of radtowns when they create the new map seed, but I do know that you can go to Playrust.io and lookup mapseeds with certain amounts of radtowns on them and that you can set the mapseed on your server. So there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "too many radtowns." What there is, is "as many radtowns as the server owner wants if they care about how many radtowns there are." Raiding: What balance was there? People made stilt houses and suicide bases so they couldn't get raided. Raiders picked on the new players to Rust that didn't know to build stilt houses to avoid getting raided. Even with the tool cupboard, raiding is far more interesting and dynamic in new rust. Quarries: What needs to be refined or balanced to justify removing quarries? Or how do quarries make an imbalance? Roofcamp Meta: As Atrum pointed out, this was just as bad in Legacy. I'd say even worse. The map never changed, so people were camping in the exact same spots from one wipe to the next. The entire map wasn't utilized, so people didn't have the freedom to find another spot if someone was camping in one area. There weren't nearly as many radtowns and monuments, so these got tower camped even faster.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;49162473]You shouldnt have to travel all 3 biomes but also you shouldnt be forced to move to the snow biome if you were to keep up with the insane metal hqm sulfur production of snow biomes. Yes people did make towers in legacy at radtowns. The difference is a much higher general density of competition. Imagine trying to make a sniper tower at one of 3 contested radtowns or at one of 12. Which one is harder and which one is more likely to get heavily hindered during the making and what not? Map size is catered for a 100 people but even at a 100 people 12 radtowns are still too much. It needs to be slightly toned down, but the problem with taht would be that vast parts of the map would be simply empty. You would have to come up with an idea to counter that problem or deal wit hthe fact that most interaction willl be focussed around a smaller area. Or leave it as is where competition over valuable stuff is nothing compared to how it was. Raiding is easy I guess if you have the ressources available in a snow biome. If not - its barely worth the effort imo. I dont factor in people that are too stupid to build bruh. Its fairly easy to make a house that protects against 10+ c4 and 10 c4 is quite hard to aquire for 1-3 player groups. And no roofcamping is nothing new but I explained the difference compared to legacy above.[/QUOTE] Well if excavators were not in the game, which I agree'd earlier they really shouldn't be at this point anyway, then the HQM gathering wouldn't be as big of a thing. Yea there are a lot of mining nodes up in the winter biome, but the trees are in small groups with some pretty good distance between them, so you're looking at running around a bunch to get the resources you need, just as you do in the other biomes. Personally, I never build in the arid biome, so I can't say for sure if it's much harder there, but I've never noticed a huge difference between forest and snow, so maybe you're saying the arid biome is under powered if that's the case. Sorry to say I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say with the whole towers and rad towns thing, but maybe you should be more clear about what you don't like about rad towns? Too many barrels/crates? Too many hot areas for pvp? Just saying you don't like the number of rad towns was a little too vague. Also, what map seed are you using with 12 rad towns? The most I've seen is 5 rad towns with like 2 or 3 warehouses, all of the prefabs (sphere, lighthouse, sat), and 1 airstrip, plus the caves i guess since they spawn loot too. Here's the reddit server map... [url]http://map.playrust.io/?Procedural%20Map_5000_8736254#Reddit.com%2Fr%2FPlayRust%20-%20US[/url] Are you counting more then rad towns as rad towns? The problem with raiding is generally due to the vast difference in player cooperation and intelligence. You have a bunch of small group or solo players with small bases, often built... well.. retardedly to be honest, no offense to anyone. Then you have larger or just more dedicated players who have vast amounts of walls and defenses to isolate themselves. Most of the things you do to make it easier to raid those hardcore bases is going to make the smaller ones even more useless. Honestly I see more success in the smaller groups then in legacy, because c4 is so much more precious an item now, but this translates to even more impenetrable forts for larger groups. As I said before, I don't know what you're trying to say about rooftop camping and rad towns, but imo, people do it because they can... I don't really know how you're going to encourage people not to do it... Most of the time they don't even bother coming out to loot your body in my experience, they just think it's fun. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kurogo;49162545]Quarries: What needs to be refined or balanced to justify removing quarries? Or how do quarries make an imbalance?[/QUOTE] I don't think it's imbalanced per say... I just think having the game play for you is silly. Sure you're just trading farming a bunch of minerals for farming a bunch of animals (at least now that the oil is gone) but setting it and then logging off for a couple hours and coming back to a bunch of resources is just silly. I wouldn't even call it cheap, I just think it's dumb, but that's only my opinion and I don't even really care enough to really push for it to be removed, after all they are usually really easy targets to raid.

I just want legacy to be the main priority again, I mean legacy was #1 for a reason. More people played it and enjoyed it, I mean why make something new and shit when you can fix whats good?

[QUOTE=CrackWhore;49175737]I just want legacy to be the main priority again, I mean legacy was #1 for a reason. More people played it and enjoyed it, I mean why make something new and shit when you can fix whats good?[/QUOTE] This whole argument that legacy was so much more popular is a really flawed argument to make, and one that keeps being made. Look at any game of similar genre, i'll pick 4 including rust... [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Pn11RNh.jpg?1[/IMG] [url]http://i.imgur.com/Pn11RNh.jpg?1[/url] They all start out popular because it's a new game and it's exciting, and they all die down. Rust's curve follows the same trend, and I seriously doubt it's due to legacy conversion. 7 Days seems to have a different graph, but if I remember right, the first release of 7 days was actually quite bare, so it had a late start in popularity till it actually had something more playable, but then after that, it follows the same trend.

[QUOTE=Atrum;49176028]This whole argument that legacy was so much more popular is a really flawed argument to make, and one that keeps being made. Look at any game of similar genre, i'll pick 4 including rust... [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Pn11RNh.jpg?1[/IMG] [url]http://i.imgur.com/Pn11RNh.jpg?1[/url] They all start out popular because it's a new game and it's exciting, and they all die down. Rust's curve follows the same trend, and I seriously doubt it's due to legacy conversion. 7 Days seems to have a different graph, but if I remember right, the first release of 7 days was actually quite bare, so it had a late start in popularity till it actually had something more playable, but then after that, it follows the same trend.[/QUOTE] I most certainly don't disagree with this. But im 100% certain that legacy was, always will be the superior rust. In the current state of this game, and in the future I cannot see it becoming better in its pvp and core gameplay.

[QUOTE=CrackWhore;49176636]I most certainly don't disagree with this. But im 100% certain that legacy was, always will be the superior rust. In the current state of this game, and in the future I cannot see it becoming better in its pvp and core gameplay.[/QUOTE] There was less to do, on an unchanging map that wasn't fully developed, with easy-mode combat mechanics. How was it better?

[QUOTE=jayfkay;49162473] Map size is catered for a 100 people but even at a 100 people 12 radtowns are still too much. It needs to be slightly toned down, but the problem with taht would be that vast parts of the map would be simply empty. You would have to come up with an idea to counter that problem or deal wit hthe fact that most interaction willl be focussed around a smaller area. Or leave it as is where competition over valuable stuff is nothing compared to how it was.[/QUOTE] Actually pal, I think you need interaction focused in a relatively small area (lets say 1/3 or 1/2 the area of a current standard map), increase the o/all map size and have large areas sparely populated. This would appease the PvP camp with all the action in the center and the PvE/builders (Me) with somewhere to hide - I like being on my own! The whole travel issue is countered with upcoming (hopefully) horses and vehicles

[QUOTE=Kurogo;49176828]There was less to do, on an unchanging map that wasn't fully developed, with easy-mode combat mechanics. How was it better?[/QUOTE] More complex or difficult doesent always mean better. Do you also think legacy with randomly generated maps wouldn't be added in if they didn't stop updating it?

[QUOTE=Kurogo;49176828]There was less to do, on an unchanging map that wasn't fully developed, with easy-mode combat mechanics. How was it better?[/QUOTE] Raiding meta was better imo, map size about right and more balanced (obviously). As for combat, if it was so easy then why was I absolutely destroying everyone? Hitscan doesnt automatically mean easy-mode. Guns had decent recoil which required good control to manage and you still had to outaim others. That said with the recently updated velocity buff the game is going the right direction again, I couldnt be arsed to touch the game for the biggest part of its remake when shooting guns felt like throwing snowballs at each other. Right now I feel some sort of stamina or movement speed system would greatly help the game, someone with lategame armor and AK in hand shouldnt be as fast as someone with cloth and a hatchet in hand. Yes, I would love to be able to mace someone in the face actually, but its literally impossible unless they are charging you :D

[QUOTE=CrackWhore;49177153]More complex or difficult doesent always mean better. Do you also think legacy with randomly generated maps wouldn't be added in if they didn't stop updating it?[/QUOTE] Well, considering that better is based on opinion, more complex or difficult [I]can[/I] mean better. It's all subjective. But what if it did have procgen? What if it did have bullet drop? What if, what if, what if. It was made with cobbled code that didn't make development any easier, which is exactly why it's called Legacy. The devs have moved on. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=jayfkay;49177266]Raiding meta was better imo, map size about right and more balanced (obviously). As for combat, if it was so easy then why was I absolutely destroying everyone? Hitscan doesnt automatically mean easy-mode. Guns had decent recoil which required good control to manage and you still had to outaim others. That said with the recently updated velocity buff the game is going the right direction again, I couldnt be arsed to touch the game for the biggest part of its remake when shooting guns felt like throwing snowballs at each other. Right now I feel some sort of stamina or movement speed system would greatly help the game, someone with lategame armor and AK in hand shouldnt be as fast as someone with cloth and a hatchet in hand. Yes, I would love to be able to mace someone in the face actually, but its literally impossible unless they are charging you :D[/QUOTE] Even raiding was simpler: peek through unavoidable gaps in the wall model, build tower. Repeat until you find the loot room and profit. It was rather boring in my opinion. Only 20% of the map was developed, it might have been more interesting if the rest had been populated. And if you were absolutely destroying everyone, perhaps that's a sign of how much easier hitscan was. They're actively adjusting recoil, so it's a bit absurd to compare the two now, as well as the severity of bullet drop. The fact that guns aren't lasers at all is an improvement. Something to consider about running, though, is that armor may slow a person down, but boots will definitely outrun bare feet on rugged terrain.

[QUOTE=Kurogo;49177308]Well, considering that better is based on opinion, more complex or difficult [I]can[/I] mean better. It's all subjective. But what if it did have procgen? What if it did have bullet drop? What if, what if, what if. It was made with cobbled code that didn't make development any easier, which is exactly why it's called Legacy. The devs have moved on. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] Even raiding was simpler: peek through unavoidable gaps in the wall model, build tower. Repeat until you find the loot room and profit. It was rather boring in my opinion. Only 20% of the map was developed, it might have been more interesting if the rest had been populated. And if you were absolutely destroying everyone, perhaps that's a sign of how much easier hitscan was. They're actively adjusting recoil, so it's a bit absurd to compare the two now, as well as the severity of bullet drop. The fact that guns aren't lasers at all is an improvement. Something to consider about running, though, is that armor may slow a person down, but boots will definitely outrun bare feet on rugged terrain.[/QUOTE] Hitscan is not easier tho. It is less random. You cant dodge bullets and thus the better aimer is likely to win a duel. Honestly I would take legacy pvp 1:1 any day even tho I likke the current PvP as it is. The only thing I would have changed is make pistol damage fall off greatly on distance. P250 sniping was stupid balance wise, but the CQB capabilities of the gun should stay. Thats what I miss to be honest, an useful pistol. The firerate cap is set too low for the semi auto imo.

[QUOTE=jayfkay;49177456]Hitscan is not easier tho. It is less random. You cant dodge bullets and thus the better aimer is likely to win a duel. Honestly I would take legacy pvp 1:1 any day even tho I likke the current PvP as it is. The only thing I would have changed is make pistol damage fall off greatly on distance. P250 sniping was stupid balance wise, but the CQB capabilities of the gun should stay. Thats what I miss to be honest, an useful pistol. The firerate cap is set too low for the semi auto imo.[/QUOTE] Hitscan also afforded too many snipers in Legacy. Anyone with a holosight could become an effective killer with little regard to distances. Diminishing damage would be an interesting mechanic to further promote closing the distance. With so many complaints about the uselessness of melee weapons though, bullet drop, at the least, is a start to encouraging this.

Legacy started to die off like that when they stopped making updates. Everyone was waiting for the promised update, it kept getting pushed off further away until they told us they were working on a totally new version.