Another Decay problem thread...

This is my village, built on one large, continuous foundation…

Am I really expected to run around hammering all the foundations. Bye bye village.

well, if you had a village like that in real life, what would happen if you didn’t go around doing repairs?

the point of a village is to have as many houses as players anyway. if you have people living there, they should do their own repairs, if not, you don’t need that many places do you.

besides, like in legacy, i’m sure it’s going to be a server toggled option, so stress less. its just in testing phase.

Really? That freaking village was giving me 10 fps. Yeah hard on me because i can’t get a freaking TITAN to play this game because of people like you.

This decay is good for people making 25x25 bases that when you look at them you get 10 fps, but away from them is 60. You want construction unlimited? Go SIMS. Go Simcity. JGTFO.

And no i don’t have a toaster pc(fx8350 gtx760). Its just bad optimized and this thing adds alot of good things to the game. Bye bye village made by one man. Hello Teamwork.

I think it is a shame that decay will destroy creations like this. Step backwards. Find another way.

thing is, if it does 1hp damage every 15 minutes, that’s 4 hp an hour. twig parts take a few hours to break, and stone takes 500 hours to break. this isn’t unreasonable.

Facepunch just released a new product called: Carpenter Simulator. Login and Hammer your foundations.

Twig parts are 5HP normally, so surely 1 hour 15mins? Stone foundation with no damage gone in 125 hours or 5 days.

[editline]17th April 2015[/editline]

10 days for armour foundations to go but get this, after 5 days if not maintained, going to be a breeze to raid and level the building with less C4.

OH, he said ‘IF’. Can we get some hard facts up in here?

If this is the case – 1 HP per hour – then I’m perfectly fine with this. With the weather turning nicer I’m not necessarily playing Rust every day, so being able to step away from my armor base for 2-3 days is helpful.

i read it elsewhere in the forum, but given i can’t find it anymore, lets call the figures i have stipulated hearsay rather than fact;)

my point remains though. twig is used for laying out a plan of a building, other than using it to intentionally weaken stairwells, it doesn’t need to stay around longer than an hour or so. stone lasting about 5 days is more than the buildings in legacy ever lasted; 1-2 days depending on size, and raided long before it fell apart from decay. i think people are over-reacting, especially since it’s all going to be tweaked as it’s updated…

Decay is the wrong way to prevent larger buildings. They’re implementing bad concepts to deal with clutter and collider limits. The focus needs to be on building design/structure to balance raiding and raiding prevention. People are building massive bases to limit raiding chances - not because they want some massive base (yes yes, some do I’m sure). Fix that and things get much more practical.

I think your premise here is incorrect. Decay isn’t meant to limit building size. You can build as large or elaborate as you want. Nothing is limiting your creativity. Decay is meant to clear maps of abandoned and / or temporary structures that degrade server performance over time. There’s a big difference between the two.

In its current form, I think it’s being done right in the sense that it decays foundations. And I’m ok with the 1 point / 15 mins rate as well. And it seems fromthis tweet that the issue of inaccessible blocks decaying will be addressed.

I don’t think having to run around with a hammer every few days repairing your foundations is necessarily the best way of combatting decay though. I do hope that’s changed. But as for the basic decay mechanics, I’m good with how it’s implemented. I saw that a lot of twig shit shacks and raid towers that had been littering the landscape disappeared as well. That’s a huge plus IMO, as those structures would otherwise be sitting there unused until the next wipe eating up valuable collider and entity counts for no reason.

And the 1 point per 15 mins decay rate mrknifey brought up seems right, because I saw a raid tower that had been up since earlier in the day collapse about 1h 15m after the server came back up after the update.

That CPU is suitable for toasters. That GPU wasn’t even high end when it was new.

I can play that game too btw. You want PvP and no building? Go play CALL OF DUTY. JGTFO.

Sucks you get low FPS, but that’s no reason to limit people’s building options.
Lower your detail levels, or save your pocket money.

Aren’t those connected though? Big buildings impact performance. Small abandoned crap does too.

Is this a base building game or a survival game? We’re already staying at our bases hoarding stuff we don’t really need… under the guise of it being about surviving. Do we really need more things to keep us at our base?

This is not a survival game. That’s the biggest lie on the steam page. The addition of food and buildings does not make it survival.

I don’t consider Raiding and PvP focus to be “survival” anymore than Call of Duty’s hardcore mode is.

Raiding as a game focus is pretty meh, and has nothing to do with a survival game. It gives the kids something to squeal about down their mics as they “pwn dem n00bs” but it’s not like it’s a requirement to stay alive. What do you get from raids? When C4 is the most expensive and valuable resource in the game… what do you gain from raids that make it worth using it? Perhaps more C4? Nope. Nothing.

People who have the ability to raid have everything they need to survive anyway, and just have nothing else to do. So they are really doing it for the fun of it, which is usually the fun of making someone else rage or pissing off someone you don’t like or just because you can. RUST let’s you troll people in the name of gameplay and freedom, so it’s a tweens wet dream.

The fact that the game requires you to live in it in order to maintain any progress you have also makes it a tweens wet dream. Raids happen while you are offline. Decay happens while you are offline. Want to play the game for a couple of hours every other day? Ha. No. Put in at least 6 hours a day or you’re going to come back to an empty base and dick signs on your wall. Even the vastly overpriced armor upgrade is meaningless when you’re looking at chat and some groups got 15-20 C4 to “spare”.

You win in this game, or should I say, you win at “survival” just by logging into a server with no other people on it. I don’t even need shelter, because I can “survive” without it. I only need shelter when other players are around to stop them jacking my stuff. Which then comes down to being unnoticed and lucky. Should a survival game be based on luck? Hmm.

Edit: Sorry I am feeling cynical today.

They’re loosely connected. Large structures are somewhat of a performance issue over the long term. But decay isn’t meant to directly prevent mega-bases. It’s meant to clear the map of unused / unoccupied structures. Currently, I think making large structures less appealing is just a side effect of the decay prevention mechanics rather than an intended consequence.

If a more hands-off approach to countering decay can be implemented, then it really won’t change much from a base-owner’s perspective. If something like dumping a few stacks of materials into a primary tool cupboard could prevent decay, then it would basically return to the status quo for base owners while simultaneously keeping the landscape clear of abandoned structures.

Currently, you’re good for 5 days with stone and 10 days with armor before it decays completely. But that means that your stuff becomes more raid-prone if you’re not on top of your repairs at least every 2 days for stone or every 5 days for armoured. So I do agree with you that this is not a good situation overall. I don’t want to be chained to my base. I want to go out and do stuff.

Yeah, I get you on that. Mine was really just an honest question - I don’t really know anything about server performance. It just “feels” (bad word probably, haha) like decay is a weird way to handle some of these issues.

Do you really think it’s an unintended consequence? Maybe I’m giving the devs too much credit, but I’d be surprised and worried if that wasn’t really thought of first.

The idea of Rust from the very beginning has always been to be an open world sandbox without putting any artificial restrictions on what players can do. Their job is to lay down the framework and loose rules, and from then on, the players are the game. We get to choose to do as we wish. Putting a deliberate cap on how big bases can be built would totally counter that. Just look at how many mega-builds have been featured in the community updates. If they didn’t want people to build mega bases, they wouldn’t basically advertise peoples’ mega bases.

I think rather they’re trying to develop a decay system that serves the purpose of cleaning servers of abandoned structures with minimal impact on actively used bases. They can’t use the Legacy model, as that was way too heavy handed, completely decaying a base in a couple of days. So they need to test it out and find a happy medium. Because in the end, how decay is implemented will have an impact on mega builders. And I’m sure they’ll try to balance it as best they can so that it impacts them as little as possible while still attaining the goal of clearing out unused structures.

Do you even have any idea of what you just wrote? (I’m guessing you don’t and you never will) Please refrain from commenting on hardware options from now on.

That’s just a quick crazy idea.

Upgrading foundations to lets say higher than wood could “melt” together and create one big foundation.
Those big foundations could also be unbreakable by other players, breaking the foundation to get in a base seems weird anyway.

EDIT: There are alot problems with this idea xD

actually gives me an idea. what if every foundation in contact with the one you strike is repaired at once?