Ok, So I like decay but not so much decay that I need to only farm mats for my TC daily and log out!
How about the Decay only effects Doors and Roofs? I mean let the decay rot my roof and door off and let people steal my stuff if i am lazy... But this would lower the necessary mats for bigger bases and make the game fun again.
I hate having a big base now because it becomes a job to maintain it, I usually play solo or with 2 others off and on, I basically log in farm for tc log out, I just don't have time to do anything else.
If we made decay just effect entering the base, i think people would be fine with it? Thoughts?
I rather have one question that I don't know where to find the answer for...
do TCs automaticaly take materials from base chests, if there are no materials left in itself?
No! The TC will absorb what is in it, if your TC is empty your base will rot
the more people on the tc and the bigger you build the more it costs i think is what should happen
easily circumvented. authorized when needed deauthorized when not needed.
Here's my Suggestion.
TC has 4 slots designated to each material. You can stack Wood, stone, Metal, and HQ Metal, to 10k.
Bases are now able to be larger, by making non-vital areas out of wood, and more important areas out of stone and metal. Making a base entirely out of stone wouldn't be advised since you can only put 10k stone into the TC. but by upgrading some walls to Metal, you can add 10k metal to the TC and extend the bases life while also increasing the base's defense.
you play solo and in another thread you mentioned having a base that has like 40k stone upkeep/day?
Thats lunacy! Try cutting that...by 4? And play around with a 10k upkeep base (for a start), even though I think thats too much for even a duo - but Im giving you some room...
I usually play with like a 2-3k stone upkeep, maybe 2-3k metal upkeep bases as a duo... so thats still like 3x times less then the 10k I proposed for you to downgrade to.
40k upkeep base...thats just way too much. What are you trying to achieve?
I think all it needs is TC being able to absorb materials from base chests when out of material in TC itself
this probably would be the end result if the devs intend on removing the TC. but I get the impression that's never gonna happen...
How would you imagine that scenario? What would replace the TC?
that would defeat the purpose of Upkeep and of keeping mats in the TC.
Probably the building blocks themselves.
What I envision is something like this.
Placing a building block: The one who first placed it, is the one who owns it. When you place your first block, the building privilege indicator appears for you. If building zones overlap a tab for each zone is visible in the menu.
The Authorization Menu: The default key for accessing the Authorization menu is visible on the building privilege indicator. This at first is only accessible by the original builder. The menu lets you authorize players to build on your base. It's also your group management menu.
You can name your base.
The original owner can Relinquish ownership and give it to another Player.
New players that the owner adds, are given zero rights by default. ( but turrets will treat you as an ally)
The owner can give members the ability to add new members, kick members, grant members privileges, or all 3.
Players can be allowed to edit building blocks, edit deployables, edit paintings, or be allowed full control of building construction.
Only the Owner can Kick all the members.
The Owner can abandon the structure, which clears the menu, and removes building protection. When a base is abandoned anyone can claim ownership by pressing the AuthMenu key.
Decay/Upkeep: This can be done in a couple ways. Either the the upkeep system can extract required resources out of Small/Large crates, or special crates can be added that act as Upkeep supply crates("additional supply depots required"). That way you have control of what the base uses.
the Decay Notification shows how much of Each resource your base has allocated to Upkeep.
being able to have more than one crate to store your upkeep loot will ensure your base survives after a offline raid.
Abandonment: When a Base's upkeep supply runs completely dry, it Has 24 hours before its considered Abandoned. Anyone can then run up and Claim it for themselves.
I think that the decay system is fine as it is, however an adpatation to decay only doors would be interesting but it would have to be at an increased rate/price
The fact that the TC has limited space and needs to be refilled is part of the deterrent to building massive bases.
Right now zergs have to schedule players to be on at set times to farm and refill the TC.
If it just takes it from containers, then it no longer requires as much constant attention to keep the base going.
I think Blue Hill uses 50% and is a pretty nice server
I think that the new upkeep is stupid. it is imposibble to make a 150k stone base and upkeep it as a solo player / duo. i would like to see the old system back.
Thanks for that. Yeah 50% decay.
I failed to mention I live in NZ. LOL
LUL... as a solo?
Can you raid such base as a solo...
now let that sink in...
The only adaptation I would like to see for decay would be to increase the rate of decay relative to the amount of people authorised on the tool cabinet (unless there is another way of interpreting how many players live in a base). If we base this around the current decay, solo bases could have 50% decay - duo bases could have 75% decay. Obviously this throws a few issues of clans spreading out across multiple bases but in turn that loses the effectiveness of having such a large base. Instead of allowing server owns to decide a whole-sale decay. they would change a decay multiplier: 1 being the default decay.
Let's put a scenario into play where there was going to be no changes made to decay.
I'm in belief that managing decay is all about adaptation. I've probably played anywhere between 10-20 wipes with the new decay system, this isn't that much but I've learned a lot about adapting to it. Lets compare how base progression used to work before and after the decay update in terms of a graph:
Before:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/564/73a3dd6f-e79d-4b5a-a387-054dda1e4e1e/before.png
After:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/564/fac10269-45be-494b-b702-fabe71330dc3/after.png
Here's how I believe it works, base progression now works on a curve. If your base is progressing to quickly in the first half of the wipe - you end up spending each session hunting for nodes to keep the upkeep high - in the past, this wasn't a problem. Without a clan upgrading too early on can completely kill your chances of even getting to the point of having a Satchel blueprint or a Semi. Follow the curve and you'll succeed.
That's my views on how you can adapt to the current system. It's all a chance game up until you are at the point where you can upgrade your base.
didn't read past this point...
its been said over and over that this can be exploited into hell by de-authorizing people from the TC when needed
When you wrote all of this it stuck me as if you were writing it from a very shallow minded stand point. I take your point that the scenario I put into play could be very easily considered isolate - but you also have to consider the fact that not all people are going to be in a position to play for large chunks of there day. In high population servers with maps that are too small given the population (Wilsonator's server strikes me as the perfect example), only playing in small chunks between 2-4 hours each day and over-progressing your base will result in you spending the majority of your gametime farming nodes. That is an indisputable fact - yes the poor map size is solely down to the mistake of whoever owns the server but it's something I see happen frequently. I also think you're missing my point entirely - anything past the first paragraph was not about providing a force for change in decay it was about how I would adapt my playstyle to cater to the new decay system, I think that's clear though so I'm not entirely sure how you're managing to dispute it.
Consider this: Let's take Wilsonator's server for example. High long-lasting population with a map-size that doesn't cater to that number of players. Anyone that over progresses there base by day two or three at a push of the wipe are going to have a very hard time coping with the upkeep costs for the remainder of the wipe. It leaves you in a position where because of the drastic population and the relatively small map size - nodes are few and far apart, no exaggeration. Keep in mind that stone isn't solely used for upkeep, there are other costs that will lower the amount you have for upkeep. In this situation someone that is unable to commit over 4 hours of playtime to this server a day, will spend a lot of there time attempting to find nodes - it doesn't make it impossible to find blueprints, but it seriously strips you for time and lowers the chance of you getting blueprints.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was great because it doesn't scale effectively depending on group size - but I do think the new system is an improvement on the last one and I agree it should be learnt and understood - thats what my first post was an attempt at. Providing an understanding on how over-progressing your base an impact late-wipe gameplay. (Hopefully it came across that way atleast).
I see your point here - I also said this directly afterwards: (unless there is another way of interpreting how many players live in a base)
I'm fully aware that it could be exploited - which is why I followed up with that. I don't have any suggestions on how to determine how many players are in a base - but I'm sure there is a way. What was initially said was simply a notion - that if there was a way to determine the amount of players living in a base, then that data could be used to drastically improve the upkeep system. (Maybe that was poorly worded in my original post).
ah yeah the old system where there was a whole bunch of huge abandoned bases everywhere lagging the server and solo players living in ginormous castles because of no upkeep......yeah uh thats a no from me you could just try living within your means
I guess we should have started off by setting the context of our examples (and our experience, as the examples will be based off experience).
I have no idea what Wilsonator's server is (but if I were to take a wild guess based on what you have described - its a sever where you have to closely watch the size of your base (as that translates to upkeep) due to the constrains which you have described: smaller size, larger pop, etc). I suppose that set up is somewhat "out of the ordinary".
I am used to playing on vanilla (where size and upkeep matters as well, and must be watched, but potentially not to that degree). 200 pop and 4k maps.
Anyway - I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just adding more on top of what you've said. The only point I was trying to stress - is that if someone builds a base that is too big - they should hopefully learn their lesson and not do it anymore. Hence my oversimplified example of dying in the cold naked at -32 C. Once you do it - you learn not to do it anymore. Its a learning "feature" of the game. Same goes for upkeep. Once you learn what your comfort zone is - you should be good. And that "comfort zone" will vary by server and population and map size - and even your playtime per day - all the things you've pointed out.
Again - I like upkeep, as it ads another meta to the game. If anyone remembers WarCraft3 (RTS) - there was an "upkeep" feature there as well for your units/army - the bigger was your army (max 200), the more upkeep you paid to maintain in, which reflected in less gold being mined by your workers. Now RTS games (StarCraft, WarCraft, etc...) are all about "metas". So why can't Rust be?
Upkeep is just another meta that you need to learn and understand - and then you can use it defensively or offensively - as I already mentioned. Starve out your opponents...etc...
I agree, except why do you think it does not scale effectively? The bigger the base - the higher upkeep goes, and it actually compounds (its not linear), it goes from 10% to eventually 30%, and then on top, that 30% (lets assume maxed out upkeep) will apply to every block in your base, so the bigger it gets - the larger is the price you pay.
For example if you build a base that is say a 1x1 and upgrade it all to HQM - the price will be "x" HQM, and it will be at 10% rate. Then of course if you add enough blocks (keep them all stone, to see the difference) to max 30% upkeep, lets say you expand into a 5x5x5, but all stone around that one HQM 1x1 core - your HQM price will skyrocket, even though you did not add any new HQM blocks to the building. Im sure you already knew this, but just re-iterating because I think it scales fairly well. Your new upkeep for the 5x5x5 will be "y" QHM (where Y > X) and "Z" stone.
Bigger clans tend to build bigger bases...so natureally they will pay higher upkeep, even though the counter-argument is that its easier to pay that upkeep as a bigger group.
Sorry for not adding more context on this one - but Im afraid there is not, I assumed you already knew that. There have ben multiple threads on this topic (and a similar topic about heli fights - and balancing how many players are on the TC, or how many it attacks, etc...) - and the DEVs have been silent on the subject. So AFAIK there is no way to tell how many players are in a base (aside from TC auth), and no plans have been announced to develop another way
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
