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

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

433 replies, posted
In This Thread

I think that developers will present something in a week or two and/or at least implement some blueprints in game items, garry devbloged it like it was happening fast. The sooner we start judging it, the sooner people will start loving it or hating it, we have still to wait to judge. Judging before experimenting what is judged is kind of impatient. So, i dont mind the bump but i feel like the discussion is not going anywhere (my opinion). So anybody wanna talk about how do you think the blueprints should be spawn? just boxes at remnants? animals? are you happy with the legacy's way around this? How do you guys want it to work? (I meant not only regular blueprints but cosmetics too, cosmetics gotta be harder to get than regular imo).

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46306894]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] LOL. If you cant understand why using a fallacy is bad when trying to convincing someone of something....then shame on you. [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.[/QUOTE] WTF are you talking about? You said I was wrong about game design and you've yet to say why.....you only talk about fun, pleasurable expereince and enjoyment none of which addresses design. If you buy something that does not work as it was intented to and do not think its bad design, please ask for your money back for your education. You are now eqivocating my comment on fun as to mean I'm using them to support my design argument. I made it very clear that I was telling you my personal enjoyment I get from my game outside of the design discussion, since thats all you talked about, even though is was a strawman, I attempted to engage you anyways and further the dicussion. I'm pretty much ignoring you after this...it can only get stupider. [QUOTE] 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? [/QUOTE] At least my argument is logically coherent and stays on topic. You cant even dicuss desgin, all you want to do is discuss fun, which is entirely subjective, yet, say I'm wrong. Tell your teacher you need help. You might be good at grammar but are horrible with context and comprehension. [editline]22nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Grangoko;46306911]I think that developers will present something in a week or two and/or at least implement some blueprints in game items, garry devbloged it like it was happening fast. The sooner we start judging it, the sooner people will start loving it or hating it, we have still to wait to judge. Judging before experimenting what is judged is kind of impatient. So, i dont mind the bump but i feel like the discussion is not going anywhere (my opinion). So anybody wanna talk about how do you think the blueprints should be spawn? just boxes at remnants? animals? are you happy with the legacy's way around this? How do you guys want it to work? (I meant not only regular blueprints but cosmetics too, cosmetics gotta be harder to get than regular imo).[/QUOTE] I think maybe a random learned type deal when your crafting something similar for some things. I hope they stay away from leveling characters so thats why I say random. Finding it in remants sounds the most immersive and capable way. Ink or dye would be cool first discoverable.

Gents if I may, We are all interested in seeing Rust grow into a very cool game that we can all enjoy together or as individuals. The topic is about the proposed blueprints and whether we think they are a good idea or not? We have differing opinions but from what I read in this thread I come to these conclusions - People are split about the idea because they fear pay to win. - Most people feel the focus of the developers should be on completing the core game and don't see this steam blueprint idea as being critical to the development of the game to completion. - Everyone wants to know what the red bears/wolves will be replaced with. I feel initially the Steam trading idea has been done with good intentions even though it is also a new revenue stream. The concern is that once the system is implemented, if it's not very profitable what is the likely solution from a business point of view? The obvious answer is that the global blueprints will have their stats changed to the point that you feel you do need to buy them. That's what I would do. Steam (aka Valve) will be driving this, not Facepunch and they will go to Garry with very convincing arguments for why they need to make the global blueprints more enticing to the people who play the game. That is the fear I read in many of the posts here. So aside from comments made from people like me about profit and development team size I think we should all just post which way we vote and offer our reasons why. Then let it stand.

[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. [/QUOTE] i know i'm being pedantic, but that [I]isn't[/I] objectively bad design either. it is too open to interpretation; for example, maybe the idea of that design is to direct children into traffic. or teach them to fear vehicles. or to weed out the weaker children. a better example would be a knife with no cutting edge, but even that is not perfect; the thing that gives it function as a knife is that it has a bladed part with which to cut things, not providing this blade is objectively poor design because it is not doing the one thing it is meant to do. [QUOTE]Look at the auction house for Diablo III. It does not have to be facepunch. [/QUOTE] i think it is a bad idea to use other games as a measure of potential issues in a game. there are differences in mechanics, player base, developer personality mixes that make the comparison moot. everything is different even if similarities arise. just because a serial killer had brown hair doesn't mean we need to screen all the brunettes in the world. but yes, diablo fucked it up, then redacted it. [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.[/QUOTE] i promise you, my impression is not that you dislike the devs or the game. my impression is that you are concerned that this could potentially ruin the game (for yourself and others like you) and this leads you to voice those concerns. i just personally feel that a lot of people are purely afraid of how this could be abused, and thus the knee-jerk responses i am reading throughout this thread. yours is one of the most rational (if stubborn;)) viewpoints i am reading. it is based on solid logic, and genuine concerns based on historical events. i guess my response to your concerns comes down to "just because diablo fucked it up doesn't mean that rust will". i see the potential issues that you do, but i don't think the devs are stupid enough to risk their investment of time, money and their player base to make an imbalanced game mechanic that would cost them income and players. also, as a point to everyone doing it, can we not argue about argument structure? this isn't a university debate where you prove your point by disproving the opponents method and not the content. this is a game forum, and it's honestly giving me a headache reading the words "fallacy" "strawman" and "argument" every sentence...

billy79, do you even know what a [URL="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman"]strawman[/URL] argument is? No one is misrepresenting your arguments here. You have made several carefully speculative statements, and back it with hyperbole. Your "[URL="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope"]slippery slope[/URL]" argument is weak at best. "this feature [I]seems[/I] largely based on a need for revenue streams despite what some belive..." "the very real danger that this feature will present [I]if[/I] abused" "This 'they wont go "pay to win"' route naivete is kind of astounding" The problem with your entire"this was financially motivated" argument is the fact that Garry has [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/"]explicitly stated[/URL] it is not. [QUOTE]The idea of moving stuff to the steam market wasn't financially motivated at all on our part. We have enough money.[/QUOTE] You may not choose to believe him, and that is your choice, but don't act like your argument is flawless. It's speculation. Every counterpoint I have made so far, you blow off. You have basically said because you personally don't see the value of a trade system it is evidence of your speculation to be true. It's not. Your arguments about "jiggled" stats fall under the "slippery slope"category as well. You hold the belief that somehow this equates to "pay to win". "Changes nothing about gameplay unless of course the stats are jigged, then when you find the sister print, you can build a [B]better[/B] item than someone who did not purchase the global print." "you base your entire opinoin on trusting the devlopers to balance in interest of the game and not in the interest of buisness" "you trust the developers not to be buisness people...when they are talking about adding a revenue generator" Your other argument is that is it "objectively bad game design", and then offer your opinion as to why. "The market place is counter-intuitive to the design of the game." How exactly is it counter-intuitive? It is a meta concept. It seems the reason you think it is counter-intuitive is because you hold the belief that the items obtained through the global system will be somehow superior. Without this contingency, your argument holds no water. It doesn't take anything away from the game because the sister items are completely accessible from in the game. Lastly, your argument that creating a new marketplace without the buy/sell feature can be easily achieved in game without using the steamworks API is unfounded. I have tried my best to explain this, but you don't seem to be understanding it. Recreating steamworks -buy/sell = hard Implementing steamworks = easy I would like to make a clarification though. I did find a post by Garry that did counter one thing I said. the buy/sell feature of the steamworks marketplace [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/clcvn8e?context=3"]CAN be turned off[/URL]. [QUOTE]Yes you can trade with someone to get items you want, yes you can buy them from them. We could prevent that, but wouldn't that just lead to a black market where it's done anyway?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=billy79;46306974]LOL. If you cant understand why using a fallacy is bad when trying to convincing someone of something....then shame on you.[/QUOTE] I've ignored this fallacy nonsense until now, but I guess you still don't get it. Go read my first post again. Read it carefully please. My first sentence is not a fallacy. I'll give you a hint, the structure of the sentence is key to understanding it. [QUOTE] WTF are you talking about? You said I was wrong about game design and you've yet to say why.....you only talk about fun, pleasurable expereince and enjoyment none of which addresses design. If you buy something that does not work as it was intented to and do not think its bad design, please ask for your money back for your education. You are now eqivocating my comment on fun as to mean I'm using them to support my design argument. I made it very clear that I was telling you my personal enjoyment I get from my game outside of the design discussion, since thats all you talked about, even though is was a strawman, I attempted to engage you anyways and further the dicussion. I'm pretty much ignoring you after this...it can only get stupider.[/QUOTE] Developers design games to provide some sort of satisfaction to their customers. If you substitute satisfaction for "fun," or "pleasurable experience," it comes to the same thing. People can derive satisfaction in various ways. If developers add an external market to a game that allows customers to enjoy a product more (which has been done, and could easily be done for Rust), that is not "objectively bad design." [QUOTE]At least my argument is logically coherent and stays on topic. You cant even dicuss desgin, all you want to do is discuss fun, which is entirely subjective, yet, say I'm wrong. Tell your teacher you need help. You might be good at grammar but are horrible with context and comprehension.[/QUOTE] You may think that your argument is logically coherent, but it isn't. I've pointed out the flaws several times. Your inability to comprehend them is a shame. The fact that you can't form sophisticated sentences is troubling. You come across as not only rushed, but frankly bitter. I would be astounded if anyone with an ounce of brains reading this thread thinks that you've made the better arguments.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46307853] Developers design games to provide some sort of satisfaction to their customers. If you substitute satisfaction for "fun," or "pleasurable experience," it comes to the same thing. People can derive satisfaction in various ways. If developers add an external market to a game that allows customers to enjoy a product more (which has been done, and could easily be done for Rust), that is not "objectively bad design."[/QUOTE] But it is bad design.. It may in fact give pleasure to most of the audience, its still does not resolve it breaks the consistency of the game where everything is local to that world except these. That leads to breaking immersion. You can't assume fun or pleasurable experience for all games btw. Why do people watch dramas? They certainly aren't fun? [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI[/url]

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46307989]But it is bad design.. It may in fact give pleasure to most of the audience, its still does not resolve it breaks the consistency of the game where everything is local to that world except these. That leads to breaking immersion. You can't assume fun or pleasurable experience for all games btw. Why do people watch dramas? They certainly aren't fun? [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI[/url][/QUOTE] I explicitly made the point that fun is used in the broadest sense, more akin to satisfaction. People watch dramas for a variety of reasons, but they are satisfied by them in some way, otherwise they wouldn't watch them. Also, not everyone is interested in maintaining immersion, so that does not successfully dispute my argument. In other words, the market can break immersion, but if people ultimately value it as a part of the game more than they care about breaking immersion, then it is not bad design. Keep in mind, I acknowledge that it may turn out that everyone hates the market, and it therefore will be bad design, but it is not "objectively bad design."

[QUOTE]The problem with your entire"this was financially motivated" argument is the fact that Garry has explicitly stated it is not.[/QUOTE] Heroin: [QUOTE]It was developed chiefly as a morphine substitute for cough suppressants that did not have morphine's addictive side-effects[/QUOTE] All the best intentions in the world sometimes leads to bad results. Gary can say this all he wants too...his geuine intent for it is irrelevant to the issue and the issue persist whether irrelevant of his intent. I've stated before that I believe Gary is telling the truth but the reality is, he can implement this within the game with out any sort of cash transaction. As I've said before, trust, honestym, intent and all that really has nothing to do with my argument. The cash transaction, outside the game, is where the inhereant concern is. Why do you need a cash transaction? You can not sit here and tell me that you need a cash transaction from consumers to make this work. Yet, its central to the idea. Do the math... I'll add more later, check back. [editline]22nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE]Developers design games to provide some sort of satisfaction to their customers. If you substitute satisfaction for "fun," or "pleasurable experience," it comes to the same thing. People can derive satisfaction in various ways. If developers add an external market to a game that allows customers to enjoy a product more (which has been done, and could easily be done for Rust), that is not "objectively bad design."[/QUOTE] You said I was wrong about it being bad design. You argue that people can "derivie satisfaction" in various ways. WTF does that have to do with an objectively bad design or good design? It's almost as if you think I'm aruging that this feature will not bring satisfaction to some players. Guess what, I'm not. You use the justification that because its fun to some players, its not bad design. Thats logically inchoerent (having no definite or stable phase relationship). [editline]22nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46308130]I explicitly made the point that fun is used in the broadest sense, more akin to satisfaction. People watch dramas for a variety of reasons, but they are satisfied by them in some way, otherwise they wouldn't watch them. Also, not everyone is interested in maintaining immersion, so that does not successfully dispute my argument. In other words, the market can break immersion, but if people ultimately value it as a part of the game more than they care about breaking immersion, then it is not bad design. Keep in mind, I acknowledge that it may turn out that everyone hates the market, and it therefore will be bad design, but it is not "objectively bad design."[/QUOTE] No you equivocate "fun" with "design". They are two different things. They really are. Its comical really, your entire argument is predicated on using a subjective defintion then equivocate it to the one I'm using while I can demonstrate (anaologies) what specifically bad design is (i.e. a product that does not work as designed).

[QUOTE=billy79;46308198] You said I was wrong about it being bad design. You argue that people can "derivie satisfaction" in various ways. WTF does that have to do with an objectively bad design or good design? It's almost as if you think I'm aruging that this feature will not bring satisfaction to some players. Guess what, I'm not. You use the justification that because its fun to some players, its not bad design. Thats logically inchoerent (having no definite or stable phase relationship).[/QUOTE] A game is designed for the purpose of bringing satisfaction to customers (and receiving money in return). That was an unstated (but easily deducible) assumption of my argument. That is the only criteria with which to judge good or bad design. [QUOTE]No you equivocate "fun" with "design". They are two different things. They really are. Its comical really, your entire argument is predicated on using a subjective defintion then equivocate it to the one I'm using while I can demonstrate (anaologies) what specifically bad design is (i.e. a product that does not work as designed).[/QUOTE] Once again, if a product is designed to provide satisfaction to a customer via a certain medium, and then it does that, it is not bad design. If Rust is being developed in order to satisfy Rust players, and the market helps Facepunch achieve that goal, it is not bad design. How would adding the Steam Market to Rust make it "not work as designed" anyway? If one adds a new speaker system to a car, that is not bad design. Sure, it doesn't help you drive, which is what a car is for, but it does help you enjoy the product more than you would otherwise. I would call that good design.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46308130]I explicitly made the point that fun is used in the broadest sense, more akin to satisfaction. People watch dramas for a variety of reasons, but they are satisfied by them in some way, otherwise they wouldn't watch them. Also, not everyone is interested in maintaining immersion, so that does not successfully dispute my argument. In other words, the market can break immersion, but if people ultimately value it as a part of the game more than they care about breaking immersion, then it is not bad design.[/QUOTE] Again, just because the majority "derive pleasure" from the market does not intrinsically then mean its good design.. Your skirting the issue attempting to say if people aren't complaining = good (correct me if I'm wrong). From a design perspective, it breaks the consistency of the experience as again you have something outside the world that all other game rules apply to affecting the players experience. Do you deny this or accept this? If you accept this, then that is bad design. If you don't then *shrug* hope we never end up on the same project together.

i think we need to be careful with the word good here. good design could mean an effective design, a popular design, or even just a particularly well behaved design. if you say the marketplace is a ineffective/risky/poor design then we can talk about it and potentially the team can address issues. but "bad" design is too subjective to really do anything about it. you might love your drawing of a cat, and i might think its a "bad design". that statement does nothing but suggest the drawing's popularity. *edit*(added while others were posting about the above) besides, we're getting drawn into pedantry here. perhaps the better way to approach it would be to do a pros/cons table of sorts. so i'll start. + increased number of items with less fp hours being consumed, due to public submission. + more customisation options for gear. + trade potential for players. + potential income for community developers/modders. + blueprints remain after wipes/on different servers; ie cannot be lost. + increased replayability based on new, fresh content. + potential low level income for FP. - immersion breaking. - potential for traders to abuse the market and make certain items unaffordable. - potential platform for developers to change their minds and decide to sell items. (precedent) - risk of imbalanced items being made only available to p2p players - time saved on item production by the public may end up consumed by rebalancing/implementing community gear.

[QUOTE=billy79;46308198]All the best intentions in the world sometimes leads to bad results.[/QUOTE] Garry [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/"]said it best[/URL] himself - [QUOTE]I was assuming you trusted us not to fuck you.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You can not sit here and tell me that you need a cash transaction from consumers to make this work. Yet, its central to the idea. Do the math...[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying it is "needed" to have a buy/sell feature, it is just an available option. You are hung up on this for some reason. Its just a feature of a larger system. The real value is in the trading of the prints and maintaining the achievements as you move from server to server. This way you can customize your Rust experience no matter where you go. Your entire argument is "oh god, Garry might decide to fuck us!" but guess what? If he really wanted to, there are way better ways then to go about it. Everything that has been communicated to us by the development staff since the original posting nearly a week ago points to the fact this [B]isn't[/B] about money, that there is a feature set that can be utilized to enhance the diversity of the game, and one of the features of that set is the ability to buy/sell items from other players. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/clcvn8e?context=3[/url] [QUOTE]The items are free, they're randomly dropped. You can't buy them from us. Yes you can trade with someone to get items you want, yes you can buy them from them. We could prevent that, but wouldn't that just lead to a black market where it's done anyway?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/clctkye?context=3[/url] [QUOTE]We can restrict trading and selling/buying per item definition too. So we could easily make it so some (if not all) items are only able to be gained via drops, or via drops and trades etc.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/2jle2z/so_do_you_like_the_steam_inventory_idea_or_not/[/url] [QUOTE]The idea of moving stuff to the steam market wasn't financially motivated at all on our part. We have enough money.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46308647]i think we need to be careful with the word good here. good design could mean an effective design, a popular design, or even just a particularly well behaved design. if you say the marketplace is a ineffective/risky/poor design then we can talk about it and potentially the team can address issues. but "bad" design is too subjective to really do anything about it. you might love your drawing of a cat, and i might think its a "bad design". that statement does nothing but suggest the drawing's popularity.[/QUOTE] True enough. How about thinking of what I am trying to explain this way. Throw out if people will hate it or enjoy it. Just think of the game is a set of rules. You have all other rules that rely/interact with whats in the actual game. Then though, you have this new rule that allows interaction outside of the game. That's inconsistent or poorly thought out (or as the EC guys would say, lazy) design. So bad for me = inconsistent. I would like to see the argument of why its not inconsistent with the rest of the games rule set (mechanics).

i can see your point, though i'm not as fussed about the barrier between the game and the ui. from my perspective, it's a new game mechanic, and one that doesn't really affect the gameplay itself if done well. i suppose they could replace the whole idea with random stats for all gear, and random models to match. so you craft a pick, and it gets assigned model 1 and +1 to piercing -1 to speed. think borderlands. i'm curious though. what is the real dealbreaker for people here? it seems to me that the issue is "jigged" stats. that if everything was just cosmetic, that it would be fine. so would custom skins that are tradeable outside of the game, and a separate dynamic jigger in game for everything you create/find be an acceptable alternative?

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46308613]From a design perspective, it breaks the consistency of the experience as again you have something outside the world that all other game rules apply to affecting the players experience. Do you deny this or accept this?[/QUOTE] How is it outside the world? It's just setting up your character before playing the game. When I create tier 1 pants, instead of burlap pants, mine will be patched jeans. I enter the game, gather some resources. Can I get the materials and craft my jeans? No. I haven't found the tier 1 blueprint on this server yet. When I do find the tier 1 pants blueprint, what part of me being able to make jeans instead of pants is breaking the immersion? How has it broken the consistency? They are both pants, they protect from cold... There may be minor differences between the stats on them, but not enough to matter. This opens up the game to some pretty cool possibilities. My clan wears jeans, with a green hoody, and red snow boots. Your clan wears khakis, and a leather jacket, with blue sneakers. All the stats a relatively the same, but now I can tell who is friend and who is foe by what they are wearing. [QUOTE=oXYnary;46308679]How about thinking of what I am trying to explain this way. Throw out if people will hate it or enjoy it. Just think of the game is a set of rules. You have all other rules that rely/interact with whats in the actual game. Then though, you have this new rule that allows interaction outside of the game. That's inconsistent or poorly thought out (or as the EC guys would say, lazy) design. So bad for me = inconsistent. I would like to see the argument of why its not inconsistent with the rest of the games rule set (mechanics).[/QUOTE] What rule is being changed? You are just being given options. It doesn't effect the game play or overall experience. I don't understand what mechanic it is breaking. You still have to go out and find the tier 1 blueprint before you can craft your version of the tier 1 item. That mechanic is exactly the same, except the item you craft may cost a bit different, and the stats are slightly different. The core game play remains the same.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46308456]A game is designed for the purpose of bringing satisfaction to customers (and receiving money in return). That was an unstated (but easily deducible) assumption of my argument. That is the only criteria with which to judge good or bad design.[/QUOTE] That's bullshit. You can not say I'm wrong based on your arbitrary definition of design and while completely ignoring the definition I was using. Of fucking course I'm wrong if I'm using your definition. Your arguing against me as if I'm using that definition...I'm not. I've repeatedly stated this. This is the very definition of a straw-man. Further, it makes no sense that I would judge a game as poorly designed because I did not get satisfaction from it. Lastly, using your "definition" (which I disagree with), when you have to go outside the game to get satisfaction, you've just failed at bringing your customers satisfaction for the money they've paid because when they leave the game to go to steam workshop, they are no longer obtaining satisfaction from the game at that moment so they are obtaining it by buying something from the steam workshop. When you have to buy something to make something work better....it begs the question why it was not included in the first place? How can you bring me a satisfying experience with in the game if I have to buy something from outside source? As a designer, I would ask why are you going outside my design? LOL it's good game design that you have to leave the game to buy something to make it satisfying....,fucking comical. (hint: if you buy an item from the steam workshop this means you were not completely satisfied to begin with so you went to remedy that via another source...it means the game was incomplete) [editline]22nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=mrknifey;46308731]i can see your point, though i'm not as fussed about the barrier between the game and the ui. from my perspective, it's a new game mechanic, and one that doesn't really affect the gameplay itself if done well. i suppose they could replace the whole idea with random stats for all gear, and random models to match. so you craft a pick, and it gets assigned model 1 and +1 to piercing -1 to speed. think borderlands. i'm curious though. what is the real dealbreaker for people here? it seems to me that the issue is "jigged" stats. that if everything was just cosmetic, that it would be fine. so would custom skins that are tradeable outside of the game, and a separate dynamic jigger in game for everything you create/find be an acceptable alternative?[/QUOTE] If they dropped the cash transaction part, I'd have much less concern. You will find that the cash transaction aspect is the integral piece of most peoples concerns. You implement this with out the money aspect, no one would blink an eye....

i'm still suggesting the paid transactions, just without any stat jigging being "purchased", only the custom skinning.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46308799]i'm still suggesting the paid transactions, just without any stat jigging being "purchased", only the custom skinning.[/QUOTE] I do not understand the need for paid transactions, what value does that bring to Rust the game? Doesn't it violate the identity of the game? I think that's the where I lose people in my argument. It takes away from the game...it may provide value to some users, developers or publishers but its not in line with what the game is. You should not try to placate people. The developers should not placate people and instead make the game they want to make....it should not be "everyone wins" because that is impossible....

[QUOTE=utilitron;46308748]How is it outside the world? It's just setting up your character before playing the game.[/quote] The actual trade. Sure, you could in theory negotiate in game, but most will just trade on the steam (outside) market. [quote]What rule is being changed? You are just being given options. It doesn't effect the game play or overall experience.[/quote] I never said a rule is being changed. But I guess you could if you want to, say that blueprints are from legacy. But legacy was a prototype, so I'm not. It doesn't matter if most think it effect the experience positively or negatively. From a pure mechanics standpoint, its inconsistent. [quote]I don't understand what mechanic it is breaking. You still have to go out and find the tier 1 blueprint before you can craft your version of the tier 1 item. That mechanic is exactly the same, except the item you craft may cost a bit different, and the stats are slightly different. The core game play remains the same.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the trading outside the game for things that can happen in game. I'm not arguing what that actual thing does to a player or not in game. I also don't think I mentioned it breaking a mechanic. Just adding a new mechanic that doesn't fit with all mechanics to this point. To reiterate, I am not talking about the balance and such of these blueprints. That's a separate argument. I am simply pointing to the way people trade these is inconsistent with having a cohesive world that Rust has displayed until this point. H1Z1 is built on a market, its design philosophy is built around this ability. Thats why it will have more consistency (someone is eventually going to use it as an example, tackling it before that argument even begins :D ).

[QUOTE=billy79;46308771]That's bullshit. You can not say I'm wrong based on your arbitrary definition of design and while completely ignoring the definition I was using.[/QUOTE] So we only get to use YOUR arbitrary definition of design? So let us breakdown your definition of "bad design" and see if this really fits. You gave us 2 analogies... The first: "An analogy, if you will, design a lock, all the componets work but it does not lock. That is objectively bad dessign." I agree, this analogy IS [I]objectively[/I] bad. The design doesn't work. It does not do the thing it was designed to do. The second: "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." I do not agree this is [I]objectively[/I] bad, this is subjectively bad. It really depends on the situation here. is it a busy street? How old are your kids? I actually live across the street from a park. My kids have actually had to go home to get a toy when they were playing. They crossed the street. To us, it is a good design. It allows them to have a more open space to play. There is more options for them. The cumbersomeness of having to cross the street is not that a big deal. So we have your definitions of objective, and subjective. So not lets look at what you stated as why this system is bad. You stated the design is bad because it is "counter-intuitive". However, it does still work the way it was intended, so unfortunately your opinion of the design is subjective, and not objective according to your own definition.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46308731] i'm curious though. what is the real dealbreaker for people here? it seems to me that the issue is "jigged" stats. that if everything was just cosmetic, that it would be fine.[/QUOTE] I can only speak for me, but most of those issues Garry has addressed satisfactorily for me. He cannot though address that adding this does make trading inconsistent. With item trades in game, and blueprints trades out of the game. What gets me is he has said this was in part to address that people loose everything in a wipe. That this would allow them some sort of progression no matter what. Using the market for this isn't the most effective choice to give a mechanic for players. They could do everthing from DayZs character consistency between worlds (not saying I agree with it, in fact I would also say its inconsistent), global stats on players, to like I suggested allowing Sailing between island worlds.

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46308839]The actual trade. Sure, you could in theory negotiate in game, but most will just trade on the steam (outside) market. I never said a rule is being changed. But I guess you could if you want to, say that blueprints are from legacy. But legacy was a prototype, so I'm not. It doesn't matter if most think it effect the experience positively or negatively. From a pure mechanics standpoint, its inconsistent. Like I said, the trading outside the game for things that can happen in game. I'm not arguing what that actual thing does to a player or not in game. I also don't think I mentioned it breaking a mechanic. Just adding a new mechanic that doesn't fit with all mechanics to this point. To reiterate, I am not talking about the balance and such of these blueprints. That's a separate argument. I am simply pointing to the way people trade these is inconsistent with having a cohesive world that Rust has displayed until this point. H1Z1 is built on a market, its design philosophy is built around this ability. Thats why it will have more consistency (someone is eventually going to use it as an example, tackling it before that argument even begins :D ).[/QUOTE] I think its a hopeless endeavor trying to explain why this is a rather significant change for Rust. Up to this point, the game revolved around you interacting with a persistent world, a world that was constantly changing and everything you owned, except a rock, was in jeopardy at all times. You have to interact with the world to get something back from it....now, the developers are creating a mechanism that allows you get an object with out interacting with the world, however small or innocuous that object is, it no longer requires you to interact with the world to get it. Of course they argue you still have to go find the sister print but that does not change the fact you obtained something of use from outside the persistent world and is contrary to the game they've developed up to this point.

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46308867]I can only speak for me, but most of those issues Garry has addressed satisfactorily for me. He cannot though address that adding this does make trading inconsistent. With item trades in game, and blueprints trades out of the game. What gets me is he has said this was in part to address that people loose everything in a wipe. That this would allow them some sort of progression no matter what. Using the market for this isn't the most effective choice to give a mechanic for players. They could do everthing from DayZs character consistency between worlds (not saying I agree with it, in fact I would also say its inconsistent), global stats on players, to like I suggested allowing Sailing between island worlds.[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, you do understand the traded blueprints outside the game are not immediately craft able in game? That if you earned a jeans blueprint while playing, you would still have to find, in game, the tier 1 pants blueprint? You therefore [B]couldn't[/B] trade a bunch of people (or buy) blueprints outside of the game for the ability to craft it inside the game. [QUOTE=billy79;46308873]now, the developers are creating a mechanism that allows you get an object with out interacting with the world, however small or innocuous that object is, it no longer requires you to interact with the world to get it. Of course they argue you still have to go find the sister print but that does not change the fact you obtained something of use from outside the persistent world and is contrary to the game they've developed up to this point.[/QUOTE] the blueprints you gain outside the game are not "of use". the fact you must find the sister print makes it so it's not "of use". Unless you are again arguing that the item will somehow be superior to the base items? There is no evidence of this.

[QUOTE=billy79;46308826]You should not try to placate people. The developers should not placate people and instead make the game they want to make....it should not be "everyone wins" because that is impossible....[/QUOTE] i guess the question is, how could you keep advanced/custom blueprints outside of a server wipe? its all kind of moot though; as you said, they shouldn't pander to anyone. make the game the way they want... and right now that seems to be to trial the marketplace functionality.

[QUOTE=utilitron;46308888]Just to be clear, you do understand the traded blueprints outside the game are not immediately craft able in game? That if you earned a jeans blueprint while playing, you would still have to find, in game, the tier 1 pants blueprint? You therefore [B]couldn't[/B] trade a bunch of people (or buy) blueprints outside of the game for the ability to craft it inside the game.[/quote] I fully understand what Garry did. Please, lets not dissolve it to that naysayers simply don't understand it. It doesn't matter to my point that its not immediately accessible (unless said person has the master blueprint and supplies), your still introducing an outside trade system. (me) "the trading outside the game for things that [u]can happen[/u] in game". "Can happen", was referring to this. [QUOTE=mrknifey;46309203]i guess the question is, how could you keep advanced/custom blueprints outside of a server wipe?[/QUOTE] [url=http://support.facepunchstudios.com/feedback/view/1506-p2p-server-networks-come-sail-away]*Cough Cough*[/url] (Not saying its a perfect solution either, but it shows there are other options).

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46308613]Again, just because the majority "derive pleasure" from the market does not intrinsically then mean its good design.. Your skirting the issue attempting to say if people aren't complaining = good (correct me if I'm wrong). From a design perspective, it breaks the consistency of the experience as again you have something outside the world that all other game rules apply to affecting the players experience. Do you deny this or accept this?[/QUOTE] I think you did misunderstand me slightly. I have not said that the market is good design, although I insinuated that it very well might be. We will need to actually witness its implementation in order to determine that. I've only been arguing against the absurd notion that it is "objectively bad design." Furthermore, even if the market "breaks the consistency of the experience," whatever that means, that does not logically lead to bad design, unless the only criteria for something to be badly designed is if it "breaks the consistency of the experience." What if there are other factors that outweigh this criteria? According to your stated views on this topic, do you think it is ever justified to implement bad design in order to put out a better product (which other games have as a result of their uses of the market)? That seems counter-intuitive, which leads me to believe that your definition of bad design is incomplete at best. [QUOTE=billy79;46308771] Lastly, using your "definition" (which I disagree with), when you have to go outside the game to get satisfaction, you've just failed at bringing your customers satisfaction for the money they've paid because when they leave the game to go to steam workshop, they are no longer obtaining satisfaction from the game at that moment so they are obtaining it by buying something from the steam workshop. When you have to buy something to make something work better....it begs the question why it was not included in the first place? How can you bring me a satisfying experience with in the game if I have to buy something from outside source? As a designer, I would ask why are you going outside my design? LOL it's good game design that you have to leave the game to buy something to make it satisfying....,fucking comical. (hint: if you buy an item from the steam workshop this means you were not completely satisfied to begin with so you went to remedy that via another source...it means the game was incomplete)[/QUOTE] Getting rather vitriolic all of the sudden, aren't we? That strikes me as unnecessary. We have at least one fundamental disagreement here. You seem to think that leaving the game to do something in the market is seeking something concretely separate from the game. I think that using the market is an extension of the game that is meaningfully attached to it. After all, the items that you buy and sell on it appear in the game itself. People do not have to go outside the design if the market is a part of the design...You cannot simultaneously say that it is bad design and not a part of the design at all. Also, nobody has said anything about [I]having[/I] to buy something to make the game satisfying. Unlike your accusations, THAT is actually an example of a straw man, because you are misrepresenting my views. And, buying something from the market means I am dissatisfied with the game? What? If I eat a piece of cheesecake, and then I want a piece of chocolate cake, does that mean that I was dissatisfied with the cheesecake? No, perhaps I loved the cheesecake, but I just wanted some chocolate cake too. [QUOTE]It takes away from the game...it may provide value to some users, developers or publishers [I]but its not in line with what the game is[/I]. You should not try to placate people.[/QUOTE] I italicized the troublesome section. How do you know what the game is? Isn't that for Garry to decide? If he chooses to make it a market-centered trading game tomorrow he could do it. Even if that is totally inconsistent with your perception of the game's direction, that has nothing to do with bad game design. The goals of design can change. There is no evidence or logic to suggest that it will take away anything from the game. The market could just as easily inspire people to spend more time in-game.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46309324]I've only been arguing against the absurd notion that it is "objectively bad design."[/QUOTE] and thus far have only provided subjective reasoning to support your argument, i.e. "fun", "enjoyable" "pleasurable". None of what I've used to demonstrate my side has included an opinion, i.e. locking analogy. I made a statement that I'm fully prepared to standby. You have every right to call it wrong but please do force me to prove my assertion by using your arbitrary definition of design and thereby changing the meaning of my assertion. When you said I was wrong, none of your arguments made any sense because you were operating under assumption I was using your arbitrary and subjective definition of design. You simply disagree with my definition of design, yet confuse this as to mean my assertion is wrong. According to your stated views on this topic, do you think it is ever justified to implement bad design in order to put out a better product (which other games have as a result of their uses of the market)? This is an entirely subjective opinion. I do think poorly/badly designed products can have value to someone. [QUOTE] That seems counter-intuitive, which leads me to believe that your definition of bad design is incomplete at best.[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't, you continue to operate under the faulty premise that design has to do with user satisfaction. I make no judgement on the satisfaction level of badly designed or well designed objects. You seem unwilling to acknowledge or understand that my view of design is not subjective. I thought i made this clear with the lock analogy. When you are designing a lock and it does not lock, that's bad design. That does not mean the poorly designed lock that does not lock anything wont have some use to some people...this is where the disconnect occurs with you, you assume when I say bad design, its means useless and that is not accurate. That strikes me as unnecessary. We have at least one fundamental disagreement here. You seem to think that leaving the game to do something in the market is seeking something concretely separate from the game. It is concretely separate. This is indisputable. Steam is an entirely different computer program than Rust. [QUOTE] I think that using the market is an extension of the game that is meaningfully attached to it. [/QUOTE] Fair enough but I fundamentally disagree. [QUOTE]After all, the items that you buy and sell on it appear in the game itself. [/QUOTE] Yep and this the fatal flaw. [QUOTE]People do not have to go outside the design if the market is a part of the design...You cannot simultaneously say that it is bad design and not a part of the design at all. [/QUOTE] The use of those unique prints in the marketplace are designed to be used in the game. Yet, you do not have to play the game to get them. Its quite simply really, you create and design a game for people to enjoy and earn money (as you put it) yet you designed a game where you don't play to [I]acquire[/I] a unique print? I know, I know, you will say you have to play to [I]use[/I] it but this does not counter that fact you had to not play to [I]acquire[/I] something. The fact that you have to play has no relevance to the fact [I][U]you've bypassed playing the game to acquire something[/U][/I] of use in game. Going to the steam market place is not "playing the game". [QUOTE]Also, nobody has said anything about [I]having[/I] to buy something to make the game satisfying. Unlike your accusations, THAT is actually an example of a straw man, because you are misrepresenting my views. [/QUOTE] No I'm not, you clearly said satisfaction was a component of design. If you have to buy something to compliment an object, your not satisfied. An analogy: You go to eat dinner at a restaurant, the design of the restaurant is to feed your hunger but this restaurant brings you an excellent tasting meal but the portions are small and you are still hungry...your hunger has not been satisfied. The restaurant has not provided a satisfactory meal, despite it being tasty. [QUOTE] And, buying something from the market means I am dissatisfied with the game? What? If I eat a piece of cheesecake, and then I want a piece of chocolate cake, does that mean that I was dissatisfied with the cheesecake? No, perhaps I loved the cheesecake, but I just wanted some chocolate cake too.[/QUOTE] You obviously weren't satisfied with only the cheese cake and wanted more. [QUOTE]How do you know what the game is? [/QUOTE] By playing it and objectively understanding the concept and purpose of it. You do not every think about why something is the way it is? Some key question pop up when you play rust, such as, why do I lose everything when I die? Why can people build around my base? Why am I not protected when I'm not playing? These are some basic concepts that you encounter in this game and it goes a long way to answering this question. Its not hard to comprehend the intent behind the game when you play it. [QUOTE]Isn't that for Garry to decide? [/QUOTE] He has decided and he's shown us all. [QUOTE]If he chooses to make it a market-centered trading game tomorrow he could do it.[/QUOTE] yes he can. [QUOTE] Even if that is totally inconsistent with your perception of the game's direction, that has nothing to do with bad game design.[/QUOTE] Problem is, my perception of the games direction has nothing to do with my assertion of the market place being bad design. Do you even fucking read? [QUOTE] There is no evidence or logic to suggest that it will take away anything from the game. [/QUOTE] You mean other purchasing a unique print rather than play the game to acquire it? [QUOTE]The market could just as easily inspire people to spend more time in-game.[/QUOTE] If a game needed a market place to make it more appealing play, there is something wrong with the design of the game. It means you did not do enough in the game to keep them inspired. You really think a well designed game should need a marketplace to keep them playing? (hint: this goes into game theory and design) [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=utilitron;46308888] the blueprints you gain outside the game are not "of use". the fact you must find the sister print makes it so it's not "of use". Unless you are again arguing that the item will somehow be superior to the base items? There is no evidence of this.[/QUOTE] This is subjectively, objectively, and plain out fucking wrong. If its "not of use" or has no use, there is no point for it to exist. It is a fact, they are "of use". You can attach any qualification for that use (i.e. buy it and find the sister print) you want, it dose not change the fact they are outside prints [B]used[/B] in the game. This is an indisputable fact about this concept.

never thought i'd say this in a rust forum...guys, put your dicks away. lets get back to the main focuses here. 1) garry/FP are going to implement it. it's their game, they get to do what they want, regardless of opinions whether they are right or wrong in doing it. 2) we each have our opinions, and that's really all they are. i'm getting tired of reading dismissive crap about the method flaws of each others arguments. please let's talk about the content of the argument. if someone mispells or miswords something, don't jump on it, read between the damn lines at what they intended to say. this is (i thought) a discussion. let's be a little civil. 3) it's all hypothetical anyway. we will see what happens when it happens. until then, regardless of historical events in other games, or the quality of our arguments, its all just our personal delusions and fortune telling. i'm happy to try it, see what happens. i'm not scared of the break in immersion from buying blueprints outside of the game environment. no matter how good the immersion, it's still just a game. meaningless in the real world. worst case scenario, they redact the whole damn thing, delete all the globals and rollback to no marketplace support. after all, the only people making money are players, and doing so on found items that honestly they don't own.

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46309203]i guess the question is, how could you keep advanced/custom blueprints outside of a server wipe?[/QUOTE] My solution was to create a tecnology progresion in every player gameplay so even if you are fucked and abused by every single player with advanced tecnology you are still able to research and save blueprints so if you play a limited amount of hours, that decrease depending on player skill, you get to craft all items in game. But, with the abilty of saving blueprints for your player for every server (even cosmetics blueprints) the game looses a feature,gathering knowledge (even if there is lots of cosmetics). In the solution I thought for this, at the third page of this thread, that is not a problem cause you can go to a private loot server that ignores your steam blueprints and save only the blueprints you get before that server wipes, official servers should offer different gamemodes too, for players to choose.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.