• Balance for Upkeep (Solo/Small groups vs Large groups)
    13 replies, posted
I personally feel as though the current upkeep system is killing off solo players on vanilla. The reason being, a solo player cannot build a big enough base to protect themselves, and with the door/wall stacking removed, it has made it even worse. I understand the upkeep system is supposed to control the size of bases and help with fps, however, I don't feel that has been accomplished. Sure, solo players and group players have been controlled with how big they can build, but clans with 10+ people can still manage big bases due to farm power and kill power. I want to propose a solution to this issue. What if the upkeep per base was based on authorization of the TC/doors/player bags/beds? Hear me out. If a base has less than 3 players authorized, they must maintain a 25% upkeep. If a base has between 3 and 5 players authorized, they must maintain a 50% upkeep. If a base has between 6 and 10 players authorized, they must maintain a 75% upkeep. If a base has more than 10 players authorized, they must maintain 100% upkeep. This would mean, regardless of group size, players can still build big enough bases to defend themselves without giving large groups a huge advantage. Of course these calculations can be adjusted/balanced, mine probably isn't perfect, but the whole reason behind upkeep is to control base size, NOT making playing solo impossible. Large groups already have the ability to farm more and more fire power, why make it so only large groups can build big enough bases to defend themselves. #givesoloplayersachance
Creative suggestion. How would one go about addressing players who coordinate to deauthorize from a tool cabinet right after loading it up?
That's why I put many quite a few options in there such as tool cupboard authorization, door codelock authorization, sleep bags/beds... but I'm sure if Facepunch ever did something like this, they'd have other ways of doing it.
I thought about it like that. for example a house of one or two players. if it is weak. then its timer flows quickly. if the house is 10x10 then the timer goes slowly. but you also need to gather a lot of resources. say 100,000 stones. while. as a base of 1-2 people. need only 1,000 stones. but the point is. that if the player does not enter more than 4 days. its base, the house will turn out quickly. rassypitsya. but for those people who play more than 6 people. and more than 6 people. then the price of the content is higher. but the timer is slower. thus people can not go to the server for a week or more. 1-2 weeks they can forget about their base. Yes they probably have to put 50 to 100 thousand stones for this. if something you do not understand. write.
I am an advocate of a smaller "upkeep free" zone around a tool cupboard. If it allowed a 2x2 x1 with no upkeep then I believe it would work. But with this system to keep server clutter down, each player would only be allowed to own 1 TC. Its all about the clutter.
Kind of agree, but instead of those rates, something like this 125%/150%/175%/200%. This would definitely kill big clans so shit idea tbh
Being in a big clan should have it's ups and downs. The fact that they have an advantage on every other thing in Rust besides having to be more coordinated, OH WAIT, they are trying to make it where you can see your friends name tags.
That's bullshit. One player should not build large bases, he must build where it is difficult to find and destroy.
Hmm... if a solo player puts as much time into building a base as a larger group, why shouldn't he be allowed to build a base big enough to protect themselves? I didn't say anything about a massive base, but do you really think one person should only be capable of building a little tiny base when he puts a crap ton of effort into it? Comparing this game to Ark, since they are so close, there's no upkeep and it works out great. All they're doing with the way the upkeep system is right now is draining their player base, or at least the smaller groups/solo players. I still don't understand the concept. If they want it to be realistic, does it really make sense that after you obtain resources to build a structure, you gotta keep obtaining those resources to keep it there? No. Maybe a little bit for repairs, but it makes no sense. (if they are going for a realistic feel)
That will come, if you take a look to the bandit town they will do some kind of faction rating, so this wanna say dat, same TC authorized beings will be in the same familly, so more there more the upkeep will be, this can also give possibilties with BP's giving all the familly the bp that one learned and many other cool things will be implemented just wait. This devloppers are the best on the world they will put everything we need, but they take their time. Look they are working on electricity, this will change the game in multiple ways, lightning, blast doors, alarms (bye offline raids), generators, batteries, cars, and i pass tons.
i actually agree with you for once but im having a hard time finding a way around people deauthorizing maybe put it on a timer or make different tier levels of tool cupboards like workbenches
Yeah, I can't really say what's best because I don't develop games and don't know what all they can do, but if they could do something to balance this. I mean, when you have more people living in a house, I would expect it to break down quicker (more people walking around, using things, etc).
Make boxes, furnaces, campfires, grills...well oll of the deployables have tc access to use thus causing raiders to have to break them to loot. Also, put a 48 hours cooldown on auth/reauth
In the server's Arch all are full of buildings because they do not disappear.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.