New Rust is disappointing - Rust

[QUOTE=Tudy;46125974]You should know what version we're talking about lmao, its fuckin obvious in the whole thread.[/QUOTE] You should actually read what i said. My comment about "not knowing" was sarcasm. I've been playing experimental and i've experienced PVP, building, raiding etc which everyone claims doesn't exist on experimental. So again i say WTF game are you guys playing because im on experimental and i've been playing it just as the old rust. It isn't missing a lot from legacy as far as what was important. The biggest thing it is missing is a massive amount of players because the map is so large its hard to find people to pvp with. If everyone is sent to experimental by default i feel like the servers will fill up and pvp will occur quite a bit more.

I think for the people who have been following the experimental's rise to default, we need to take the criticisms from those who have not with a grain of salt. To many, the switch to default was their first time playing the new version, and to them the game hasn't been updated in almost 7 months. Panic hits with ever bug/glitch they find because they don't yet know how rapid the development is.

[QUOTE= I also really hate the new map, why couldn't you guys just remake the old rust island and add more shit to it. [/QUOTE] I Completely agree. I loved the old map, and instead of having random procedural ones they should have say 10 different maps, and keeping the old one for variety

lol, when rcon works on experimental????? shame -_- the most basic and it could not do so far

[QUOTE=Tudy;46127339]Well, i started this post after seeing that they made experimental the default Rust, which annoyed me, and I already explained why throughout the thread.[/QUOTE] You can be annoyed by anything you want, but there are ways to fix your problem without crying on the forums about it. Change your settings to launch legacy by default if you love that version so much. I don't get this idea that you seem to have that these developers shouldn't put out their game until it's finished. You do realize that by paying them for their alpha you are opting in to ALPHA TEST THEIR VIDEO GAME FOR THEM, right? They don't owe you a 100% complete game just because you gave them some money. They're working on it every single day and without us providing them data they can't make the changes they need to make very easily. Please keep in mind this isn't blizzard we're talking about. Facepunch doesn't have an entire department of game testers to collect data from.

[QUOTE=halfhand2012;46124309]Ok where is the ban.... He used the "i" word lol that got me a ban a few weeks back [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply/predicting moderation, also that's not why you were banned..." - postal))[/highlight][/QUOTE] looool get karma'd mate!

[QUOTE=Tudy;46123493]I basically feel like im playing Dayz because all I'm doing is running. Also, there is nothing interesting to see, all you see are trees, rocks, snow, and dirt. I also really hate the new map, why couldn't you guys just remake the old rust island and add more shit to it. You know, just give it a visual update or something. I really hope that the skilled players stay on the legacy and never go to experimental. Like, all you do in experimental is making a crap base that is raidable with a rock. Farm for no reason, and jerk off in ur base. Sounds like a fuckin non pvp game to me. So what do you guys think, new Rust is crap in every way and you see no good coming out of it? Because I don't see anything positive coming out of that game. (not yet) Changing the new Rust to default was a bad idea, now the idiots won't know how to get on the legacy Rust.(because majority of current Rust players are noobs that just started playing, because all the old players quit)[/QUOTE] Although you seem to be a bit emotional, I do agree. I've had fun in the Legacy version, stopped for a while and came back to what was "Experimental". As developer I understand having to rewrite things and such.. but it really looks like they started with a blank slate. Or in other words, the original coding was probably just a mess. All those dev log updates.. just seem to be.. "ooh, look at what I figured out!" and not about work, they already possessed the knowledge about. I do not believe in Garry, or experimental. I don't think Garry has the skills in order to launch his own game.. Like Notch, he needs someone else to do the first part. I think the same problem will happen.. several developers (no idea how many) just implement their own thing, which they probably learned just a day before.. Proceed with several iterations, just to find out the combination of all the sloppy coding wont work together. (ie. memory leaking and such). I think they are going to get lost in their own work and scrap the experimental branch or just leave with something incomplete. They have probably taken on too much and were better off making something like Garry's mod II. Such a shame another similar game has been bought by Facepunch.. forgot its name, but we can scrap that off the list as well.

[QUOTE=WDMeaun;46139658]I don't think Garry has the skills in order to launch his own game.. Like Notch, he needs someone else to do the first part.[/QUOTE] I thought that whenever I looked in the legacy Assembly-csharp.dll... but now, it's like a propriate program and not just a mess. ;)

[QUOTE=balu92;46139806]I thought that whenever I looked in the legacy Assembly-csharp.dll... but now, it's like a propriate program and not just a mess. ;)[/QUOTE] I also must admit that I never invested any time into researching my beliefs. From Notch it's generally well known that the guy can't do it on his own.. Garry wouldn't know.. his whole attitude irwks me [edit]grammar[/edit]

[QUOTE=WDMeaun;46140647]I also must admit that I never invested any time into researching my beliefs. From Notch it's generally well known that the guy can't do it on his own.. Garry wouldn't know.. his whole attitude irwks me [edit]grammar[/edit][/QUOTE] Yeah, what does garry know, he's only been a game dev running his own software studio for a decade.

[QUOTE=SharPP;46138102]I Completely agree. I loved the old map, and instead of having random procedural ones they should have say 10 different maps, and keeping the old one for variety[/QUOTE] Because the maps have to be hand drawn otherwise. it takes a long time, and a lot of resources to do. [QUOTE=kpoIIIkaeHo7;46138226]lol, when rcon works on experimental????? shame -_- the most basic and it could not do so far[/QUOTE] Rcon works, you just aren't allowed to do it from console.

Wait you'd rather run into the same map over and over again rather then have a new one every time? Wow... thats a first. I'm pretty sure one complaint i've heard in every single game that has some type of a "map" is that they aren't random enough and they are predictable and boring. Don't think i've every heard someone complain and say "this game is two fresh and different, im tried of looking at new things, i want the same thing every time!"

[QUOTE=Dreldan;46141117]Wait you'd rather run into the same map over and over again rather then have a new one every time? Wow... thats a first. I'm pretty sure one complaint i've heard in every single game that has some type of a "map" is that they aren't random enough and they are predictable and boring. Don't think i've every heard someone complain and say "this game is two fresh and different, im tried of looking at new things, i want the same thing every time!"[/QUOTE] Some people have memorized Rust_Island_2013 and are incapable of playing without knowing where anything is, now. That and procedural maps means rustmap.net and other community map tools are useless now. And some people are just resistant to change.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46141212]Some people have memorized Rust_Island_2013[/QUOTE] less than 1/4th of Rust_Island_2013, because the playable area doesn't span the entire map.

[QUOTE=Dreldan;46141117]Wait you'd rather run into the same map over and over again rather then have a new one every time? Wow... thats a first. I'm pretty sure one complaint i've heard in every single game that has some type of a "map" is that they aren't random enough and they are predictable and boring. Don't think i've every heard someone complain and say "this game is two fresh and different, im tried of looking at new things, i want the same thing every time!"[/QUOTE] No. People say they want the old map because it is 20x better than any of the new maps on Experimental at this point. Yes, the new ones look nicer, but without the rocks and mountains of the legacy map, the map is much worse. So given the choice between an ok map, and a map that is much, much better - people are asking to play on the one that is much, much better. I agree with them. I would much rather play on the legacy map than any of the generated maps at this point. FP needs to address this issue. Putting things on the landscape is not enough - we need more rock formations like on legacy. More places to hide a base, to hide as a player, etc. I can be patient and wait until they can improve the new maps. But I can also give the feedback that compared to the legacy maps (with it's rocky mountains) the current experimental maps are much worse for gameplay.

[QUOTE=cinderstar;46141424]But I can also give the feedback that compared to the legacy maps (with it's rocky mountains) the current experimental maps are much worse for gameplay.[/QUOTE] absolutely your right to comment, but entirely subjective and i find myself disagreeing with your opinion. i like the procedurally generated terrain as i feel it gives you more places to hide that aren't known by the rest of the rust world. every time it is "new" and huge. and provided the server keeps the map constant for any decent period of time, you will get to know it even better. that said, i wouldn't mind a reboot of rust island being included as an option other than seeded generation for the nostalgics around, myself included every now and then:)

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46141512]absolutely your right to comment, but entirely subjective and i find myself disagreeing with your opinion. i like the procedurally generated terrain as i feel it gives you more places to hide that aren't known by the rest of the rust world. every time it is "new" and huge. and provided the server keeps the map constant for any decent period of time, you will get to know it even better. that said, i wouldn't mind a reboot of rust island being included as an option other than seeded generation for the nostalgics around, myself included every now and then:)[/QUOTE] Agreed, a remake of the legacy map would be the one thing about legacy that isn't a dead project. You'd probably make nostalgics very enthusiastic, attract old players, etc. Not saying it should be a default map but it would certainly be a nice option. I wonder however if it's a priority for the devs right now, probably not :\. I do agree that experimental while having some very cool and exciting stuff, definitely lacks many things to make it completely enjoyable for me. As to why they changed experimental to be a default option when launching Rust.. I think this is a mistake. Why wouldn't they wait with this until this new version hits baseline, there's so many things that still need to happen to make it... "better" gameplay-wise than legacy.

[QUOTE=Falxhor;46143083]Agreed, a remake of the legacy map would be the one thing about legacy that isn't a dead project. You'd probably make nostalgics very enthusiastic, attract old players, etc. Not saying it should be a default map but it would certainly be a nice option. I wonder however if it's a priority for the devs right now, probably not :\. I do agree that experimental while having some very cool and exciting stuff, definitely lacks many things to make it completely enjoyable for me. As to why they changed experimental to be a default option when launching Rust.. I think this is a mistake. Why wouldn't they wait with this until this new version hits baseline, there's so many things that still need to happen to make it... "better" gameplay-wise than legacy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I want to explain why we decided to make the switch. We know there’s still bugs, we know it’s not feature complete, we know we still have work to do.. but it had to happen. It gives us a kick up the arse. Now the bugs and the missing features are a million times more obvious and a million times more urgent to us. This is how we wanted to make the game from the start.. with lots of people playing it and giving constant feedback. We’re not saying it’s finished – we’re just saying we think it’s good enough to be our foundation.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-28/"]Friday Devblog 28[/URL]

So pretty much everyone want the new generated maps to increase rocks? more rocks = more hiding places and location?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46143159][URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-28/"]Friday Devblog 28[/URL][/QUOTE] Ah right it's Friday already. Thanks, the explanation clarifies the "why". I'm not sure whether I agree on making it default. I'm of the opinion that it's more player-friendly to make it default when the gameplay is either comparable or outclassing the legacy gameplay and I think most people agree on that not having happened yet (it won't be long though I'm sure and it's already a lot closer to that point than it was a week ago). From the devs point of view and their need for more testers and a kick up the ass, it makes a lot more sense and I'm happy they're so open to even more feedback and kicks up the ass! [editline]3rd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=PrinceChawmin;46143216]So pretty much everyone want the new generated maps to increase rocks? more rocks = more hiding places and location?[/QUOTE] Yeah I would personally prefer more rocks, the map does seem a little bit empty overall.

More rocks is fine. More mountains, more crags, more nooks, more bushes, more details.... yes to all. But these are all details subject to the progression of the code. As this build gets more optimized, they'll be able to add more depth of texture and fine-tune the terrain algorithms. When the first motor cars came out they were ugly and practically useless, inferior in many ways to the already comfortable horse. I'm sure a lot of people said "that's a great novelty, but couldn't you have spent more time figuring out how to make better horse carriages?" Something worth considering the next time you start to angrily flail your buggy whip.

So why make the experimental the default if it is not ready, I love early access games, mostly all I buy now, but Tudy is right, I think he could have made his point with a little more tact, but the point is solid, this game is NOT ready (admittedly by the devs) so why make it default?[QUOTE=BazzBerry;46124081]It's not done.. lol they're still working on it. If you haven't noticed buildings are still weak as shit and the procedural maps are still being worked on and tweaked. At least wait until they roll it out to replace Legacy before you judge. It's a work in progress still and they're working on improving it. Your panties are all up in a bunch. This is not the final product nor is it how the game will be when it's rolled out. Also: Way to insult the populace that you're trying to convince to hate this game. Good thing you're not a politician.[/QUOTE] [editline]3rd October 2014[/editline] The money made thus far should keep enough swing in the boot that is kicking[QUOTE=Falxhor;46143296]Ah right it's Friday already. Thanks, the explanation clarifies the "why". I'm not sure whether I agree on making it default. I'm of the opinion that it's more player-friendly to make it default when the gameplay is either comparable or outclassing the legacy gameplay and I think most people agree on that not having happened yet (it won't be long though I'm sure and it's already a lot closer to that point than it was a week ago). From the devs point of view and their need for more testers and a kick up the ass, it makes a lot more sense and I'm happy they're so open to even more feedback and kicks up the ass! [editline]3rd October 2014[/editline] Yeah I would personally prefer more rocks, the map does seem a little bit empty overall.[/QUOTE]

New dev blog says experimental is not experimental anymore, it is Rust lol. Nice joke, basically ur game went from a 5 star to a 1 in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Tudy;46144133]New dev blog says experimental is not experimental anymore, it is Rust lol. Nice joke, basically ur game went from a 5 star to a 1 in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Did you even read it entirely.... ?

Personally, I really like the new Rust. The other day, I pulled an all nighter playing with a group of us who frequently play on that server. Teamwork is encouraged and sometimes you'll come across the wrong type of people to team up with. A great game to play!

Seriously many of useful info. Stop by my website :: garcinia cambogia 1300 3-pk - [url=http://fabianortabhm.tripod.co.uk/what-you-have-to-learn-regarding-garcinia-cambogia-select.html]please click the next website[/url], [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("bot" - postal))[/highlight]

Well, I and the rest of my clan have just quit playing, it's become boring as he** ,admin abuse is rampant, as are cheaters, when I try the new version, it is as buggy and there is No POINT to it. They were better off with zombies than the "dreaded "red animals", but if you want to continue to feed the pocketbooks of these guys, feel free.. and don't tell me if I don't like it to not play, it's already happened.. early access BS, there have been games made from the ground up while they take your money and introduce a new blade of grass...WAKE UP LOSERS !! [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Rude, too young to be here." - BANNED USER))[/highlight]

From the small amount of time I have spent in the new procedural maps, it does play like running simulator. Hopefully this will change with further iterations and implementations of more landmarks. But so far, it feels like a flat space with a few mountains kilometers apart. Bigger map does not equal more fun. The old map was a pretty good sized map for 50-100 players. I dont know what the aim for the new map and player population is, but having a smaller set of maps seems better to me. Unless servers will be able keep up without wipes for months. Personally I do not like playing for 2 weeks then have all my progress wiped. Then have to learn a whole new random map that might be bad.

Is the size of the new map too big? Should there be options for smaller area maps - to concentrate players?

[QUOTE=pandeh;46152281]From the small amount of time I have spent in the new procedural maps, it does play like running simulator. Hopefully this will change with further iterations and implementations of more landmarks. But so far, it feels like a flat space with a few mountains kilometers apart. Bigger map does not equal more fun. The old map was a pretty good sized map for 50-100 players. I dont know what the aim for the new map and player population is, but having a smaller set of maps seems better to me. Unless servers will be able keep up without wipes for months. Personally I do not like playing for 2 weeks then have all my progress wiped. Then have to learn a whole new random map that might be bad.[/QUOTE] The servers will never have to be wiped. there will be an option to choose the map size