Blueprints on the steam store? A bad idea or the Baddest idea? - Rust

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46294951]You keep implying that garry will sell out. Sure, if someone comes to garry with a billion dollars he might think about it for a while,[/QUOTE] Not even awhile, at least if its 2 billion. [url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/minecraft/garry-newman-mojang-sale-microsoft-id-have-done-same-thing[/url]

I like how poeple say my comment is dumb but cant answer this question: Can someone name an aspect of this idea/feature that is different from what you can, will or should be able to do in the game, other than provide the ability to pay real money for in-game content? *crickets The only practical purpose of this idea is to provide a mechinism to buy content with real money. This feature practical purpose is entirely for monetization. That's not say this is what the intent behind the idea was but when fleshed out, it is what it is.

[QUOTE=billy79;46296113]Of course not. This idea adds only one thing....the abilty to pay for in game content. You can trade, discover and keep prints in game all with out involving the marketplace and content purchases. There is no clear value to adding a feature so you can pay for content you've already purchased (i.e. discoverable in game global prints).[/QUOTE] Trading out of game is something it adds. Also being able to retain blueprints you like while moving from server to server. The feature of buying/selling items is really just a part of the system. It's not like they can pick and choose features on the marketplace. [QUOTE]As indicated above this feature only adds the ability to pay for something you've already paid for....there is no other reason for this feature to exist, it's redundant to what you can already do. This can only be exploited by the developers to increase the bottom line and reduce the amount of time spent playing the game for the consumer who pays for it. That is not to say they will but this feature is nothing more than laying the foundation for pay to win, when and if someone choose to go that route.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. If I buy a car I can still buy upgrades and aftermarket features. These prints can be thought of aftermarket features you earn while playing. It's not redundant, it adds the ability to pay for a reward before they earn it. I don't understand how you assume it sets up the "foundation of play to win". What foundation? The items will still need a local server base version to craft, so it's not like you could buy c4 and head to a fresh server and make c4. The stats, although "jiggled", will be balanced. [B]AND[/B] Facepunch doesn't have an avenue to introduce "for pay" items to the marketplace (IE [B]no Rust online item store[/B]). Your argument is grossly unfounded, and based on hyperbole. [B]EDIT:[/B] [QUOTE=billy79;46296564]I like how poeple say my comment is dumb but cant answer this question: Can someone name an aspect of this idea/feature that is different from what you can, will or should be able to do in the game, other than provide the ability to pay real money for in-game content? [/QUOTE] I did.

[QUOTE=utilitron;46296669]Trading out of game is something it adds..[/QUOTE] You may have a point but this adds nothing to the game, in fact, this takes you away from the game. Its bad design to incorporate features that require you to take steps outside of the game universe. [QUOTE] Also being able to retain blueprints you like while moving from server to server. [/QUOTE] You need to add a purchase mechinism to accomplish this? I was also under the impression there is a "global inventory" to which you can discover the global prints in game....is this wrong? [QUOTE]The feature of buying/selling items is really just a part of the system. It's not like he can pick and choose features on the marketplace.[/QUOTE] He can do everything he wants within the game. There is no need to include the option to buy/sell. I'm sure he can program a global inventory into the game. He can make it possible to trade with people in game (wait, that exist already) [QUOTE]Not exactly. If I buy a car I can still buy upgrades and aftermarket features. These prints can be thought of aftermarket features you earn while playing. It's not redundant, it adds the ability to pay for a reward before they earn it. [/QUOTE] i.e. "pay to win" I have no problem with the concept in general, I play a popular CCG based on that model. The difference is, I did not fork over $30 to play the game in the first place. [QUOTE]I don't understand how you assume it sets up the "foundation of play to win". What foundation? The items will still need a local server base version to craft, so it's not like you could by c4 and head to a fresh server and make c4. The stats, although "jiggled", will be balanced. [B]AND[/B] Facepunch doesn't have an avenue to introduce "for pay" items to the marketplace (IE [B]no Rust online item store[/B]). Your argument is grossly unfounded, and based on hyperbole.[/QUOTE] You say grossly unfounded but you base your entire opinoin on trusting the devlopers to balance in interest of the game and not in the interest of buisness, when I've explictedly shown this mechnism only added abilty is to buy something, i.e. implemented for buisness purposes. Everything positive that comes from this can be done with out adding in a pay option. The only reason to add a pay option is to generate revenue, i.e. buisness purposes. You completely ignore this. Every single value that this feature adds can be done with out a pay for content option and you trust the developers not to be buisness people...when they are talking about adding a revenue generator. [QUOTE=utilitron;46296669] I did.[/QUOTE] LOL, no, you did not.

[QUOTE=billy79;46296864]Its bad design to incorporate features that require you to take steps outside of the game universe. [/quote] This. It makes inconsistent game mechanics. Everything else is server to server, but this one thing is global. The reason in part Garry gave on Reddit was giving a tradeoff for people who build up a character on one server, to see it all lost in a wipe. There are better methods to solve this. Such as (self pimping for votes here - not gonna lie ;) ). [url]http://support.facepunchstudios.com/feedback/view/1506-p2p-server-networks-come-sail-away[/url]

People railing against this idea need to realize that this isn't going away. Garry has been hot on this idea for nearly a year (publicly) and the vast majority of the replies to his initial reveal of this were begging him not to consider it. If implemented correctly, the addition of trading cosmetic [B]only [/B]items does not take anything away from the core of the game. If it doesn't turn out to your liking, then consider it when purchasing future early access games or games released by Facepunch like Before and the battle tennis game.

I just hope the game stays healthy for as along as I'm interested and the developers stay true to their word...money is a tempting drug.

[QUOTE=billy79;46296864]You may have a point but this adds nothing to the game, in fact, this takes you away from the game. Its bad design to incorporate features that require you to take steps outside of the game universe.[/QUOTE] That is your opinion. [QUOTE]You need to add a purchase mechinism to accomplish this? I was also under the impression there is a "global inventory" to which you can discover the global prints in game....is this wrong?[/QUOTE] Unless you want to reinvent the wheel there is no reason to try and rebuild Steam's inventory system to remove the ability to sell items. It makes no sense to work on an entire system that is already available. [QUOTE]He can do everything he wants within the game. There is no need to include the option to buy/sell. I'm sure he can program a global inventory into the game. He can make it possible to trade with people in game (wait, that exist already)[/QUOTE] This is an API developed by Valve for steam games. They can't change the API. That isn't how it works. [QUOTE]i.e. "pay to win"[/QUOTE] How is this pay to win? There isn't an advantage to using global prints!! The small differences between stats are negligible because they will be BALANCED. [QUOTE]I have no problem with the concept in general, I play a popular CCG based on that model. The difference is, I did not fork over $30 to play the game in the first place.[/QUOTE] How the hell did you pay over 30$ for a 20$ game? Lots of people play CS:GO that is based on the same model and they paid 15$. It's not a new idea. [QUOTE]You say grossly unfounded but you base your entire opinoin on trusting the devlopers to balance in interest of the game and not in the interest of buisness, when I've explictedly shown this mechnism only added abilty is to buy something, i.e. implemented for buisness purposes.[/QUOTE] No you have not. You have expressed your opinion of how they system could be used to generate cashflow that is not consistent with the way the steam workshop works. You cannot buy global prints from Facepunch. Period. You buy them from other players. Those players obtained them through playing the game. The only way these prints will gain value is if the players give value to them. There isn't any significant difference between a global print vs the stock version. It is just a way to add variety to the game, and allow players to add their own content to Rust. [QUOTE]Everything positive that comes from this can be done with out adding in a pay option. The only reason to add a pay option is to generate revenue, i.e. buisness purposes. You completely ignore this.[/QUOTE] Incorrect. The only business reason to add in the steam version vs writing a proprietary system is the hundreds of hours it would take to implement and detract from their ability to continue to develop Rust's actual game play. [QUOTE]Every single value that this feature adds can be done with out a pay for content option and you trust the developers not to be buisness people...when they are talking about adding a revenue generator. [/QUOTE] Yes. But as I stated before we are talking about hundreds of hours of work to recreate a system that already exists with the only change being removing the ability for players to buy/sell to/from each other. To me, that is insanely stupid. [QUOTE]LOL, no, you did not.[/QUOTE] Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I didn't provide reasons to use this system outside of revenue.

[QUOTE=billy79;46297174]I just hope the game stays healthy for as along as I'm interested and the developers stay true to their word...money is a tempting drug.[/QUOTE] It would be unfortunate for some but I play MTGO so it doesn't bother me lol.

[editline]21st October 2014[/editline] Everyone read this: [url]http://www.wired.com/2013/09/diablo-auction-house/[/url] ---------------------------- [QUOTE]That is your opinion. [/QUOTE] No, its entirely counter intuitive. Its not a subjective opinion, its objectively bad game design. You want to people to play your game, not leave it and do other stuff. This is common sense. Hell, I'd argue its bad design from a buisness perspective as well. These purchase options are almost exlusively take up by impulse buyers. If they cant get it right then, they are not going to buy it. [QUOTE]Unless you want to reinvent the wheel there is no reason to try and rebuild Steam's inventory system to remove the ability to sell items. It makes no sense to work on an entire system that is already available.[/QUOTE] What? The game already has an inventory system. The game already allows a persistant rock. The already allows trading things. The system is already created. It would be easier to modifiy the current game code rather than create an entire new system that has to interact with steam and the world...LOL reinvent the wheel. This idea Gary talks about creates more work when he can simply modify or adding global loot slots. [QUOTE]This is an API developed by Valve for steam games. They can't change the API. That isn't how it works.[/QUOTE] He does not have to use the API. Your assuming he has to use the API. The only value it provides is you can charge money. Everything else can be easily implemented in the games code and will have to be implemented if he follows through with global prints. [QUOTE]How is this pay to win? There isn't an advantage to using global prints!! The small differences between stats are negligible because they will be BALANCED.[/QUOTE] Now I'm annoyed. First, you clearly state purchasing something to give a car an upgrade then claim its not pay to win. Finally, you assume "they will balance it" and assume they will not produce items/globals prints that will sell well due to the advantages they provide. I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely stating this is possibility when you introducing a system such as this. You assume alot and have the audcaticy to say I'm the one using opinons? Look at the Auction house for diablo III...it destroyed that game until they finally removed it. [QUOTE]How the hell did you pay over 30$ for a 20$ game? Lots of people play CS:GO that is based on the same model and they paid 15$. It's not a new idea.[/QUOTE] What the hell does it matter if its a new or old idea? This is an irrelevant distinction. [QUOTE]You cannot buy global prints from Facepunch. Period. You buy them from other players.[/QUOTE] I do not give a damn [I]who[/I] sells the content. You keep wacking a straw-man. [QUOTE] It is just a way to add variety to the game, and allow players to add [B]their own content [/B]to Rust.[/QUOTE] Who creates the global print with jigged stats? [QUOTE][B]Incorrect. The only business reason to add in the steam version vs writing a proprietary system is the hundreds of hours it would take to implement and detract from their ability to continue to develop Rust's actual game play.[/QUOTE] This is bullshit. It will take more effort and work to make rust operable with steams workshop as opposed to modifying the already created inventory system WHICH HAS TO BE DONE EITHER WAY if we are talking about persistant prints, regardless if they use workshop or not. My way you have one less step. [QUOTE]Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I didn't provide reasons to use this system outside of revenue. [/QUOTE] Your arguments are full of assumptions, strawmans, outright wrong statements....

[QUOTE=billy79;46298823]What? The game already has an inventory system. The game already allows a persistant rock. The system is already created. It would be easier to modifiy the current game code rather than create an entire new system that has to interact with steam and the world...LOL reinvent the wheel. This idea Gary talks about creates more work when he can simply modify or adding global loot slots.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? Having ingame inventory and creating a global trading system is not the same thing. [QUOTE]He does not have to use the API. Your assuming he has to use the API. The only value it provides is you can charge money. Everything else can be easily implemented in the games code and will have to be implemented if he follows through with global prints.[/QUOTE] That is complete bullshit. The value it adds is the global trading system. it is NOT easy to create a system like that. As a programmer, I can assure you it is not arbitrary. [QUOTE]Now I'm annoyed. First, you clearly state purchasing something to give a car an upgrade then claim its not pay to win. Finally, you assume "they will balance it" and assume they will not produce items/globals prints that will sell well due to the advantages they provide. I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely stating this is possibility when you introducing a system such as this. You assume alot and have the audcaticy to say I'm the one using opinons?[/QUOTE] It is a fair assumption to say the system will be balanced. When I bought Rust, I put my trust in the development staff. In the year that i have owned Rust, and followed the development, I have never been given a reason to doubt the actions of the team are for the best interest of the game and not act in malice. [QUOTE]This is bullshit. It will take more effort and work to make rust operable with steams workshop as opposed to modifying the already created inventory system WHICH HAS TO BE DONE EITHER WAY if we are talking about persistant prints, regardless if they use workshop or not. My way you have one less step.[/QUOTE] I don't think you have the skill set or knowledge base to speak to the degree of difficulty in a system like this. Your assumptions here are vastly incorrect.

[QUOTE]I don't think you have the skill set or knowledge base to speak to the degree of difficulty in a system like this. Your assumptions here are vastly incorrect. [/QUOTE] Here is the fucking reality... You will have to program a persistant profile/character/inventory that goes from server to server within the coding of Rust. So, saying its some huge task to bypass the worshop is bullshit. If your goal is to have a persistant, global inventory in order to trade, you have to build the persistant, global character/profile/inventory ability in the game or the prints you do acquire will not follow you.....that must be done if this idea is to come to frution. Trading is already possible, so there is no issue there. The only extra work ouside of that is making the rust profile/character sync to the steam profile/worshop I find it fucking amazing your argument to a persistant, global profile/inventory/character built in game is that its "too difficult" considering that's what going to have to happen in order for this idea work. Please do not have the audacity to tell me I do not have the knowledge to speak of this......becasue you are basically saying gary's idea is too difficult while saying its easy. Is abusrdly contradictory.

[QUOTE=utilitron;46299102] That is complete bullshit. The value it adds is the global trading system. it is NOT easy to create a system like that. As a programmer, I can assure you it is not arbitrary.[/QUOTE] Why even have a global trading system versus local? The only thing I have seen from the devs on this is that it is sort of a trade off so people who go through server wipes still have something.

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46299238]Why even have a global trading system versus local? The only thing I have seen from the devs on this is that it is sort of a trade off so people who go through server wipes still have something.[/QUOTE] This does nothing for server wipes. You still have to find the sister print. The global print would be a color and the server print would be the print for the item, something like pants. You've still lost the item during wipes, you just to keep the color or type if you will. Changes nothing about gameplay unless of course the stats are jigged, then when you find the sister print, you can build a better item than someone who did not purchase the global print. EDIT: If the idea is for people to trade stuff, trade stuff, you have the tools to do it, in game. Oh wait, you have to survive and not lose loot, which is the object of the game. I encourage people to read about the diablo auction house debacle. Its a fair anaology of why this may not be the best idea.

[QUOTE=billy79;46299226]Here is the fucking reality... You will have to program a persistant profile/character/inventory that goes from server to server within the coding of Rust. So, saying its some huge task to bypass the worshop is bullshit. If your goal is to have a persistant, global inventory in order to trade, you have to build the persistant, global character/profile/inventory ability in the game or the prints you do acquire will not follow you.....that must be done if this idea is to come to frution. Trading is already possible, so there is no issue there. The only extra work ouside of that is making the rust profile/character sync to the steam profile/worshop I find it fucking amazing your argument to a persistant, global profile/inventory/character built in game is that its "too difficult" considering that's what going to have to happen in order for this idea work. Please do not have the audacity to tell me I do not have the knowledge to speak of this......becasue you are basically saying gary's idea is too difficult while saying its easy. Is abusrdly contradictory.[/QUOTE] Except the fact that steam has already has a persistent global inventory. There is noting else but to utilize the API to communicate with the servers. That is arbitrary. Valve already did all the heavy lifting. What ISN'T arbitrary built everything they need from scratch. It IS a big task to do so on their own considering the fact that Rust has no global state. Steam as the intermediary between players already exists. They would have to then create a new server to handle market traffic. Rust has no mechanism for players to interact outside of being connected to the same server. There would need to be significant groundwork to create a persistent market place. Utilizing the steam API for global inventories significantly reduces the overhead for implementing a system like this. It's the very reason Rust switched to steam's voice chat instead of a proprietary one.

[QUOTE=billy79;46298823]Its not a subjective opinion, its objectively bad game design.[/QUOTE] i'm not sure you are using objective correctly. objective data can be proven, replicated, measured; such as a persons heart-rate. subjective data is open to interpretation, such as pain, anxiety, fear. a lot of what you are stating is opinion, even if it appears to be objective/common sense to you. [QUOTE]I do not give a damn [I]who[/I] sells the content. You keep wacking a straw-man. [/QUOTE] i was wondering why you keep overlooking that. it's actually (imo) a very valid point. your concern is that FP will be motivated by money to offer imbalanced items for ridiculous prices. the counterargument is that they are not going to sell anything, the players will sell found items for their own profit; that of course leaves FP no motivation to blow out the game. [QUOTE]Who creates the global print with jigged stats?[/QUOTE] well i suppose that's the killer. in my opinion, the best way to do it is TF2 style. user submitted gear, that is then filtered, balanced and implemented by FP, so they can maintain game balance, and protect their player base. billy, may i ask how long you have been following rust? there have been heaps of decisions over the last 6 months that people don't agree with, yet the number of players and users on this forum has done nothing but increase during that time. i think they are making unpopular, but in the end effective decisions to keep their investment safe

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46299700]i'm not sure you are using objective correctly. objective data can be proven, replicated, measured; such as a persons heart-rate. subjective data is open to interpretation, such as pain, anxiety, fear. a lot of what you are stating is opinion, even if it appears to be objective/common sense to you.[/QUOTE] I'm not, I'm really not. You do not fence in your home/yard and create an environment for your kids to play in, only to have them cross the street to get a toy to play with. It's objectively bad design. This can be demonstrated in a number of ways. [QUOTE] i was wondering why you keep overlooking that. it's actually (imo) a very valid point. your concern is that FP will be motivated by money to offer imbalanced items for ridiculous prices. the counterargument is that they are not going to sell anything, the players will sell found items for their own profit; that of course leaves FP no motivation to blow out the game.[/QUOTE] Look at the auction house for Diablo III. It does not have to be facepunch. [QUOTE]well i suppose that's the killer. in my opinion, the best way to do it is TF2 style. user submitted gear, that is then filtered, balanced and implemented by FP, so they can maintain game balance, and protect their player base.[/QUOTE] I bring up the DIII AH again. [QUOTE]billy, may i ask how long you have been following rust? there have been heaps of decisions over the last 6 months that people don't agree with, yet the number of players and users on this forum has done nothing but increase during that time. i think they are making unpopular, but in the end effective decisions to keep their investment safe[/QUOTE] It seems to me people want to strawman my argument as one against the developers. The greed aspect is only one facet of my objection to this idea and rather small one at that but thats the one people keep alluding too and its fucking annoying. I love the direction they are taking the game, I love the concept and I love the fact they show the process. My argument is against the concept, not the developers. I've also repeatedly said the developers should do what they think is best and all I'm doing is voicing my concern. I'm not the guy who will say they should not do this or should do this....or the guy who will stop playing because they implement features I do not like. I will only stop playing this game when it becomes unfun. At the same time, I do not have to like every decision they make or stop from critically thinking about some of their ideas. [editline]22nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=utilitron;46299616]Except the fact that steam has already has a persistent global inventory.[/QUOTE] I've tried to have a rationale discussion with you but this is ridiculous. You do understand steam and rust are entirely different programs right? You create an object for steam. That object has to be loaded onto a global profile/inventory of some sort within the rust client. [QUOTE]There is noting else but to utilize the API to communicate with the servers.[/QUOTE] And how will rust know where to put the stuff steam sends it? That's right, the thing you said that was difficult to create has to be created in order for this idea to work. The bottom line is, Rust will need a place to store your unique stuff that you get from steam. It's not as simple as Rust "communicating" with steam. You have to have a place holder for your steam stuff from within the rust client, i.e. global inventory.

[QUOTE=billy79;46303093]I've tried to have a rationale discussion with you but this is ridiculous. You do understand steam and rust are entirely different programs right? You create an object for steam. That object has to be loaded onto a global profile/inventory of some sort within the rust client.[/QUOTE] OMG your technical ignorance shines through. You have access to the steam fatures through [URL="https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steamworks"]Steamworks API[/URL]. Rust acheives this via a [URL="https://github.com/rlabrecque/Steamworks.NET"]C# wrapper[/URL]. Having Rust communicate to the steam is already happening, and becomes trivial to bind the inventory system that already exists to in game. [QUOTE=billy79;46303093]And how will rust know where to put the stuff steam sends it? That's right, the thing you said that was difficult to create has to be created in order for this idea to work.[/QUOTE] Completely incorrect. Because: [B]programming[/B]. This is all coming through the API, it is all defined. Its not like it comes through in a way that isn't parseable. [QUOTE=billy79;46303093]The bottom line is, Rust will need a place to store your unique stuff that you get from steam. It's not as simple as Rust "communicating" with steam. You have to have a place holder for your steam stuff from within the rust client.[/QUOTE] That part really is trivial. Its a manner of making a manager that binds you to the correct item in game when crafting. All of this will already exist in game so its not really that difficult to implement. The idea of creating a proprietary global inventory is the thing that would be difficult. But because steamworks exists, they don't have to.

[QUOTE=billy79;46303093]I'm not, I'm really not. You do not fence in your home/yard and create an environment for your kids to play in, only to have them cross the street to get a toy to play with. It's objectively bad design. This can be demonstrated in a number of ways. [/QUOTE] You've stood by this idea for quite some time, but as others have pointed out, you are wrong. The vast majority of games are designed to entertain the consumer. If one has a pleasurable experience with a game, then the developer has succeeded, at least according to that criteria. It is entirely possible that a marketplace outside of a game enhances the overall game experience. The fact that it is not internally a part of the game does not matter. If it is connected in such a way that people have more fun INSIDE the game due to the marketplace OUTSIDE the game, then it is not bad game design. I'll give two examples that I've experienced myself: TF2 and CS:GO. There can be no doubt that many people who play those games enjoy those games more because of their uses of the Steam Market. It allows people the chance to legally, safely, and conveniently browse and purchase hundreds of items that they otherwise may not be able to obtain, or at least not as easily. How can you seriously argue that implementing such a system for Rust is "objectively bad game design"?

@utilitron: Long story short is, you keep coming up with different ways to say the developers will have to create a persistant character profile within the rust client that gets the unique prints from steam...You continue to insist that all the develeopers have to do is create an ability to communicate with steam. Its not as simple as pulling your unique inventory information from Steams database/servers and they magically appear in Rust assigned to your character/profile/inventory. Call its a manager, profile or inventory....rust has to have a place to put content that is unique to your character/profile, that is persistant. It cant only exist on steam. I've said this same thing over and over again, you've gone on to say its too difficult to now saying its trivial. It's absurd.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46303683]You've stood by this idea for quite some time, but as others have pointed out, you are wrong. The vast majority of games are designed to entertain the consumer. If one has a pleasurable experience with a game, then the developer has succeeded, at least according to that criteria. It is entirely possible that a marketplace outside of a game enhances the overall game experience. The fact that it is not internally a part of the game does not matter. If it is connected in such a way that people have more fun INSIDE the game due to the marketplace OUTSIDE the game, then it is not bad game design. I'll give two examples that I've experienced myself: TF2 and CS:GO. There can be no doubt that many people who play those games enjok0y those games more because of their uses of the Steam Market. It allows people the chance to legally, safely, and conveniently browse and purchase hundreds of items that they otherwise may not be able to obtain, or at least not as easily. How can you seriously argue that implementing such a system for Rust is "objectively bad game design"?[/QUOTE] Thats more my stance than his, well I mean I have been saying it longer. And no, it is bad design. Your talking about 2 games that dont rely on a world that actually changes. They are static levels replayed in rounds. Rust is a completely different beast. Pleasure can be part of design, but it is not always the goal. Being said, what makes this game pleasurable in part is the immersion of the world. You lose that when you have a certain mechanic that breaks this. Diablo IIIs marketplace is a better example, though to be fair they were dealing with items that were far more than cosmetically tweaked variations. Further, I point again to a question I have asked earlier. What were the designers trying to solve when they decided on this? The only real response thats been pointed out is Garry in reddit vs here saying he wanted to let players who spent time in building their world/character to have something to make up for the fact that it all could be lost with a server wipe or shutdown. There are more immersive ideas that could be presented that wouldnt break consistency so much

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46303683]You've stood by this idea for quite some time, but as others have pointed out, you are wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm going to be honest, once someone appeals to the masses as their justification for as why someone is wrong (in their first sentence), they no longer have any credibility (i.e. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum"]argumentum ad populum[/URL]). I refute your premise based on it being a fallacy. Please try harder if you want me to respond.

@utilitron Seriously utilitron you have a completely condescending attitude towards others opinions and for every inaccuracy that you see in someone else's argument you demonstrate your own ignorance on said topics. Making references to Brooks Law that was made in the 70's when programmers designed gaming software from the ground up for instance is no longer applicable in modern game development. It is common now for developers to out source specific areas of game development to specialist companies like A.I implementation, Writing, 3D modeling etc. Your justification for Facepunch keeping a small team in the fact that they didn't expect to earn so much money so early in the project is frankly BS. Any company that gets a surprising amount of business expands to meet the demand, that's how it works. Are you involved with Facepunch?

[QUOTE=billy79;46304282]Long story short is, you keep coming up with different ways to say the developers will have to create a persistant character profile that gets the unique prints from steam... You continue to insist that all the develeopers have to do is create an ability to communicate with steam.[/QUOTE] No, I am saying that system already exists inside the steamworks API. [QUOTE]Its not as simple as pulling your unique inventory information from Steams database/servers and they magically appear in Rust assigned to your character/profile/inventory. Call its a manager, profile or inventory....rust has to have a place to put content that is unique to your character/profile, that is persistant. It cant only exist on steam. I've said this same thing over and over again, you've gone on to say its too difficult to now saying its trivial. It's absurd.[/QUOTE] The persistent state is inside steam. Once you have loaded your player into Rust, the bindings get sent from steam to the server and bind the appropriate action (ie build this instead of that). This mechanism isn't difficult. [QUOTE=Mattly;46304399]Seriously utilitron you have a completely condescending attitude towards others opinions and for every inaccuracy that you see in someone else's argument you demonstrate your own ignorance on said topics. Making references to Brooks Law that was made in the 70's when programmers designed gaming software from the ground up for instance is no longer applicable in modern game development. It is common now for developers to out source specific areas of game development to specialist companies like A.I implementation, Writing, 3D modeling etc. Your justification for Facepunch keeping a small team in the fact that they didn't expect to earn so much money so early in the project is frankly BS. Any company that gets a surprising amount of business expands to meet the demand, that's how it works.[/QUOTE] Not really. Book's Law still applies. Bringing in new programmers that have to be trained and brought up to speed, having to add additional infrastructure to handle the larger team, and learning the new dynamic. These sort of things take time. It's not my opinion. That is fact. I have experienced it first hand. Yes, things can be outsourced, but then you have the issue of bugs and glitches. If it is built outside the team, finding/fixing these issues becomes difficult. That means a support contract, and waiting on the availability of said outsourced shop. It is a whole different beast. You can see this issue with the currently implemented 3rd party systems such as CoherentUi. They were looking into a bug that existed only on Macs, it took them a few weeks to fix, then a few weeks to ship the tested fix out. Or with the former 3rd party netcode that had a [URL="http://playrust.com/ulink-ddos-attacks/"]security flaw[/URL] that had to be fixed over a holiday weekend. The fact that the game has brought in a sizable amount of money doesn't mean they need or should change how their core business works. The game was planned out the way it was planned out. Fully funded for the entire duration of production [B]without[/B] the cash injection. [QUOTE]Are you involved with Facepunch?[/QUOTE] No, I am a Web Applications Developer for the past 6 and a half years.

[QUOTE=utilitron;46304652]No, I am saying that system already exists inside the steamworks API..[/QUOTE] Yep, you keep repeating this. [QUOTE]The persistent state is inside steam. Once you have loaded your player into Rust, the bindings get sent from steam to the server and bind the appropriate action (ie build this instead of that). This mechanism isn't difficult.[/QUOTE] You do not have to keep repeating this. I understand the concept. The "bindings" you speak of can be done with items inside the game as well. You find the print in game and it "binds" to a user profile or what ever word you want to use to label a persons unique identity within rust, you can also create a lootable/destroyable copy of that print that resides in the inventory. You can activate it similar to how you place locks and such. I'd be much more comofrtable if the items were consumable.

[QUOTE=billy79;46304318]I'm going to be honest, once someone appeals to the masses as their justification for as why someone is wrong (in their first sentence), they no longer have any credibility (i.e. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum"]argumentum ad populum[/URL]). I refute your premise based on it being a fallacy. Please try harder if you want me to respond.[/QUOTE] My argument did not rely on my first sentence. It was merely background information intended to point out that other people have already stated that you are wrong and I am adding my voice to theirs. It is not a premise of my argument. Maybe you don't properly understand argument structure. Perhaps you should brush up on it, then read my post again.

I don't think it is a bad idea...as long as server owners can decide whether to allow steam blueprints or not. Server doesn't allow it? Oops, no +255 vorpal blade for you...

Assuming this gets added and goes thru as was stated most recently, I would be perfectly fine and would play on both a 'public loot' and a 'private loot' server, and I'd probably have to play completely different style for each one, and I'd probably love it. I'm not even gonna cry about things that will have very little effect, especially if I can control whether or not I even feel the effect. P.S. I make a few cents every day selling DoTA2 items I don't want, and have used that money to buy cosmetics and gems that clearly make me a better player.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46303683]You've stood by this idea for quite some time, but as others have pointed out, you are wrong."?[/QUOTE] I'm going to respond now but dont dare lecture me on argument structure when your first sentence in a debate is a fallacy and the rest of your post is a strawman. [QUOTE] The vast majority of games are designed to entertain the consumer. If one has a pleasurable experience with a game, then the developer has succeeded, at least according to that criteria. It is entirely possible that a marketplace outside of a game enhances the overall game experience. [/QUOTE] In the case of Rust, the "pleasurable experience" (I'd use a less subjective term but hey its your strawman) is created within the game via exploring, interacting with the environment and being rewarded for that. The market place completely bypasses the entire purpose and design of the game. Further, I've never stated it would or would not be a "pleasurable expereince". I said bad desgin. This is a strawman. We can objectively call it bad design. An analogy, if you will, design a lock, all the componets work but it does not lock. That is objectively bad dessign. The market place is counter-intuitive to the design of the game. The fun part is subjective. I know people who have fun playing poorly designed games but that does not make them well designed games. If you want my subjective opinion on the matter, I think the persistant world and design thus far has me excited for what this game can do and has so far brought me great fun. Personally, I want the cool stuff to come from the world, not by me purchasing it. I want the expereince of finding it....and the game by and large is designed around this process, except for content that I have to purchase. There will be items people have that I'd love to get but would have to pay to get it. So instead of playing the game to get this cool item, I have to buy it....why am I playing the game in the first place? Some people may enjoy purchasing items in lieu of playing, I do not. [QUOTE]The fact that it is not internally a part of the game does not matter. If it is connected in such a way that people have more fun INSIDE the game due to the marketplace OUTSIDE the game, then it is not bad game design. [/QUOTE] Strawman. You are equivocating "fun" and "design". ------------- So, not only have you used a fallacy, you've wasted your entire post on a strawman. I kind of figured it would go this way, based on your frist sentence and it is why I did not initially address it. Try harder.

[QUOTE=billy79;46306763]I'm going to respond now but dont dare lecture me on argument structure when your first sentence in a debate is a fallacy and the rest of your post is a strawman.[/QUOTE] Don't I dare? Why not? The first sentence, whether or not it was incorrect, does not actually affect the argument. You clearly thought it did, indicating a lack of understanding of argument structure. [QUOTE=billy79;46306763]In the case of Rust, the "pleasurable experience" (I'd use a less subjective term but hey its your strawman) is created within the game via exploring, interacting with the environment and being rewarded for that. The market place completely bypasses the entire purpose and design of the game. Further, I've never stated it would or would not be a "pleasurable expereince". I said bad desgin. This is a strawman. We can objectively call it bad design. An analogy, if you will, design a lock, all the componets work but it does not lock. That is objectively bad dessign. The market place is counter-intuitive to the design of the game.[/QUOTE] You are defining what you think makes Rust fun. You are defining what the purpose of the game is. Garry himself has made the point that he does not want to force people to enjoy Rust in only one way. If someone enjoys playing a game with a market by merely buying/selling items on that market, that is a legitimate way to enjoy that game experience. Also, if one makes a lock, but it does not lock, that is NOT objectively bad design. Perhaps the lock was meant as a decoy, or it was a replica, or a toy. Just because you have subjective notions about the desired functions of certain things does not mean that it is "objectively bad design" when those functions do not occur, or in the case of the Steam Market, when something is added that does not directly contribute to your particular vision of its function. You included a lot of typos that made it difficult for me to take your post seriously, but I got through it. Perhaps try proofreading next time?