[QUOTE=ACtive_Simon;48476475]OK i give up
i will never build a 2X1.[/QUOTE]
cool, makes no difference to me.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;48476524]cool, makes no difference to me.[/QUOTE]
How does you mean that ?
[QUOTE=ACtive_Simon;48476619]How does you mean that ?[/QUOTE]
i suppose you could say that i don't care. we have tried to help you realize that you may need to change your tactics. you insist on banging your head on the wall instead of going around it, so do whatever you want:)
You guys can argue but it doesn't change the fact that a wall having a stronger and weaker side is a total bs. Yes, you can COMPENSATE that by planning your base, but the author is absolutely correct on this one. It makes absolutely no sense and it shouldn't be in the game. I believe its a placeholder mechanic that will be removed as the devs balance the game. At least i hope so.
[QUOTE=matains;48476801]You guys can argue but it doesn't change the fact that a wall having a stronger and weaker side is a total bs. Yes, you can COMPENSATE that by planning your base, but the author is absolutely correct on this one. It makes absolutely no sense and it shouldn't be in the game. I believe its a placeholder mechanic that will be removed as the devs balance the game. At least i hope so.[/QUOTE]
Men thank you you are the first guy which understand me. Its not hard to adapt to to the weak/strong side but it make no sense and you need much more space to build.
I like the weak/strong side idea. It still gives tool raiding some relevance on either badly built houses, or when you are inside gives you the chance to explore further without absolutely requiring explosives. You need to put thought into house planning and you can also use it to influence attackers to go certain ways or into decoys.
I don't think it's that people don't understand you, but more don't understand why you don't just change your building plan to solve the problem?
Also doesn't it stand that if anyone manages to break into one side, they will likely break into the other regardless of which side the wall is facing? If I broke into a storage room and saw that I was on the strong wall side, I would just be more intent to break into the other side too as they have likely hidden better loot in there.
If you want to check which way your walls face (Including if you want to plan out with twigs but can't tell which way they are facing), just hit them once with a stone hatchet, it takes them down to ~1hp on the soft side so you can tell if they need to be rotated once.
I have no problem with weak/strong side in buildings which are bigger then 2X2. In a 3X3 Sqare i can have 4 lootrooms which are safe against melee raiding, this means that the enemies cant raid from one lootroom to the other.
[QUOTE=Cushie;48477098]I like the weak/strong side idea. It still gives tool raiding some relevance on either badly built houses, or when you are inside gives you the chance to explore further without absolutely requiring explosives. You need to put thought into house planning and you can also use it to influence attackers to go certain ways or into decoys.
I don't think it's that people don't understand you, but more don't understand why you don't just change your building plan to solve the problem?
Also doesn't it stand that if anyone manages to break into one side, they will likely break into the other regardless of which side the wall is facing? If I broke into a storage room and saw that I was on the strong wall side, I would just be more intent to break into the other side too as they have likely hidden better loot in there.
If you want to check which way your walls face (Including if you want to plan out with twigs but can't tell which way they are facing), just hit them once with a stone hatchet, it takes them down to ~1hp on the soft side so you can tell if they need to be rotated once.[/QUOTE]
The main problem with this is that a person that simply buys the game and starts playing has no clue about such thing. Everyone basically has to read through all the devblogs if they want to be sure they build properly.
Its unintuitive because it makes no sense at all. It does solve one problem but adds 10 more. There is no way anyone would think of it unless they read devblogs. Its bad for the game and as i wrote already i believe it will go away as soon as devs balance the raiding better.
[QUOTE=ACtive_Simon;48477240]I have no problem with weak/strong side in buildings which are bigger then 2X2. In a 3X3 Sqare i can have 4 lootrooms which are safe against melee raiding, this means that the enemies cant raid from one lootroom to the other.[/QUOTE]
Can't you just built 3x3 squares then? If you are building small rooms then you will need to prioritize what you want to protect.
[QUOTE=matains;48477393]The main problem with this is that a person that simply buys the game and starts playing has no clue about such thing. Everyone basically has to read through all the devblogs if they want to be sure they build properly.
Its unintuitive because it makes no sense at all. It does solve one problem but adds 10 more. There is no way anyone would think of it unless they read devblogs. Its bad for the game and as i wrote already i believe it will go away as soon as devs balance the raiding better.[/QUOTE]
The game is still EA/Alpha/etc etc. When it's all finalized I'm sure it will be easier to find this info, but at the same time the game is about discovery; there's a lot of other important things that players need to discover for themselves.
I have had it for a long time but first started playing experimental about a month ago, granted I didn't know about strong/weak sides to walls and wondered why my house had random textures ruining the look. I asked in chat and someone told me about it straight away. It only took a few days to notice, I don't see it as much of a problem if players want to learn about the game as they play.
[QUOTE=ACtive_Simon;48477240]I have no problem with weak/strong side in buildings which are bigger then 2X2. In a 3X3 Sqare i can have 4 lootrooms which are safe against melee raiding, this means that the enemies cant raid from one lootroom to the other.[/QUOTE]
Why even stack lootrooms so close together? That's kinda stupid design even if you don't take wall sides into consideration.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48477646]Why even stack lootrooms so close together? That's kinda stupid design even if you don't take wall sides into consideration.[/QUOTE]
x-x
---
x-x This is the 3X3 house. The lootrooms are not side by side. I have no problem with weak spots.
the amount of dumb is to high here.
What did i read...
Simon, if you're only going to build a 2x1 house you may as well make it two separate 1x1 houses to fix the "problem" you're having
[QUOTE=mrknifey;48470655]i think it's intended as a system to allow the occupier to demolish walls etc more easily than raiders, without keeping the remove function.[/QUOTE]
How about build more carefully... this system causes way more hassle than it fixes...
[QUOTE=Mjterp;48485531]Simon, if you're only going to build a 2x1 house you may as well make it two separate 1x1 houses to fix the "problem" you're having[/QUOTE]
So much this. As an added bonus, you can split them up to make them even MORE safe.
I think demolish should be permanent for the placer of a cupboard only, then raiders couldn't wipe out a base with tc access, and we could go back to uniform strength for both sides.
[QUOTE=THSee;48487816]I think demolish should be permanent for the placer of a cupboard only, then raiders couldn't wipe out a base with tc access, and we could go back to uniform strength for both sides.[/QUOTE]This would allow unfair hidden rooms and stairs blocking doors. If you can remove at will there's no reason to make doors.
All sides should be strong and all sides should be weak to the cupboard creator only.
Remember that the cupboard is not an anti-raiding tool.
It's an anti-[B]griefing[/B] tool.
Does anyone know if there was a comment on the devblog at some point indicating this was by design? This has bitten me a few times and just wondered if it was originally intentional, and what the given reasoning was. A link would be appreciated.
[editline]18th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48487990]Remember that the cupboard is not an anti-raiding tool.
It's an anti-[B]griefing[/B] tool.[/QUOTE]
Slight nit, its stated purpose per Garry is that it was put in to stop griefing, but it is absolutely an anti-raiding tool due to its mechanics. It became less valuable as one with the introduction of ladders (until everybody figured out to make a pagodas), but it is still an anti-raiding tool.
I have a solution! Go play Minecraft where you don't have to care about this crap! Problem solved! One less noob to play Rust! Seriously, if you can't work around the way walls work in this game and your only solution is to complain about it, your playing the wrong game.
The tool cupboard is also probably a temporary thing, so relying on it as an integral part of mechanics changes and making suggestions revolving entirely around keeping the cupboard may not be of any use in the final mix, and it's something I discourage people from doing because of that.
Rust was designed to not have inherent automatic building ownership at all. The tool cupboard is a box that projects a magic forcefield that will let you have access to it if you rub your dick on the box. The entire gameplay mechanic of the cupboard is diametrically opposed to garry's stated goals for Rust. It's a temporary bandaid to cover the gaps left by the relative lack of defensive options in the unfinished game.
garry wants to get us to build compounds and entire bases, not single monolithic towers protected by overlapping forcefields.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48487913]This would allow unfair hidden rooms and stairs blocking doors. If you can remove at will there's no reason to make doors.[/QUOTE]
That's true, I didn't consider that aspect. Still miss demolish when I screw up, though :) Or when things change, like the shelf behavior now. Just gotta adapt, I guess.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48488139]The tool cupboard is also probably a temporary thing, so relying on it as an integral part of mechanics changes and making suggestions revolving entirely around keeping the cupboard may not be of any use in the final mix, and it's something I discourage people from doing because of that.
Rust was designed to not have inherent automatic building ownership at all. The tool cupboard is a box that projects a magic forcefield that will let you have access to it if you rub your dick on the box. The entire gameplay mechanic of the cupboard is diametrically opposed to garry's stated goals for Rust. It's a temporary bandaid to cover the gaps left by the relative lack of defensive options in the unfinished game.
garry wants to get us to build compounds and entire bases, not single monolithic towers protected by overlapping forcefields.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the cupboards have stuck around longer than anyone expected, though. I don't know what the ultimate solution would be, but I'm sure they'll think of something. I was griefed before cupboards, and had large bases completely wiped when full demolish was in, etc. etc. Rust always finds new and innovative ways to ruin your day :hammered:
I have an issue with all the tiers having distinctive looks for each side so you know which is the stronger/weaker side. However the twig doesn't... so if you build like I and many others and build a plan of twig and then upgrade it all once you've planned your layout it's too late to rotate walls.
Twig needs to have a weak and strong side texture IMO.
[QUOTE=THSee;48488263]
Yeah, the cupboards have stuck around longer than anyone expected, though. I don't know what the ultimate solution would be, but I'm sure they'll think of something. I was griefed before cupboards, and had large bases completely wiped when full demolish was in, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
It'll be interesting to see what if anything they come up with. Flags/cupboards/ownership block are fairly common mechanisms in games with player building. It's a trade off due to the fact that the ratio between how long it takes to build something and the time it takes to ruin it are often highly disproportionate.
Most home defense concepts I've seen so far are great when you are online, or might slow someone down the first time they come at you if offline, but aren't going to stop drive by griefing if the cupboard is removed.
[QUOTE=THSee;48488263]Rust always finds new and innovative ways to ruin your day :hammered:[/QUOTE]
True that!
[QUOTE=Elixwhitetail]garry wants to get us to build compounds and entire bases, not single monolithic towers protected by overlapping forcefields.[/QUOTE]
People are building compounds and entire bases and the monolithic towers with overlapping force fields, although I see a lot less of the latter these days, and that happens with the current cupboard mechanism.
It doesn't seem like cupboard is going away any time soon if ever. I can't imagine what sort of system would replace it that would not have a force field but also would prevent griefing.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48495776]I can't imagine what sort of system would replace it that would ... prevent griefing.[/QUOTE]
I do. It's called coding in all the edge cases into the building system to programmatically block griefing where it directly exploits the game. So, for example, actively preventing something from being placed within the swing radius of a door to block it from opening, or preventing doors from being walled in by preventing building pieces being placed immediately in front of it so the door opens to a stone wall build around the bottom floor.
Right now, Rust doesn't make these kinds of checks for the most part (there are a few, to be sure), because the building system is still in flux. It's the same argument as why the game is not heavily optimized this early. It's not worth the time and effort to go in and polish everything when the next patch might completely change it all - all that polishing work gets thrown out and the time spent on it is wasted.
The tool cupboard is the quick-and-dirty stopgap solution to cover these holes in the building system until it makes sense to actually go in there and start closing the holes one by one the [I]right way[/I].
That's why it was introduced and it's why I remind people that it's not supposed to be a part of the gameplay meta -- although obviously if garry changes his mind and makes the cupboard fit into the gameplay then I'll stop saying that. So far, I'm not aware that he's posted about the decision either way - the closest I've seen is that the devs will "probably" not keep it, but it'll "maybe" stay.
I will happily stop telling people it's temporary if the devs indicate it's being kept permanently.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48495866]I do. It's called coding in all the edge cases into the building system to programmatically block griefing where it directly exploits the game. So, for example, actively preventing something from being placed within the swing radius of a door to block it from opening, or preventing doors from being walled in by preventing building pieces being placed immediately in front of it so the door opens to a stone wall build around the bottom floor.
[/QUOTE]
How will this prevent sarcophaging? I do not wish to go to sleep and next morning find out I can't get out of my own house because there's a bigger house around my house. With no cupboard or sense of ownership, locking someone in their own house is a breeze. I don't know what sort of programming magic you'd do that leaves building freedom while also preventing building a small airlock around your exit. Implementing anti-door block like you suggest means building a house will be a nightmare. You will be constantly fighting the system to design your constructions. And it still doesn't stop someone from building a 2x2 box outside your door and placing their door. Or hell, they could just blast your door and put in theirs and go merry way.
The spelling of the first word in this thread title always gets that [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZwhNFOn4ik"]damn song[/URL] stuck in my head.
Warning: Do not click on above link.
[QUOTE=AshFirecrest;48496179]Warning: Do not click on above link.[/QUOTE]
interior crocodile alligator... you bastard XD
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
