Balancing Building Costs

Hi, the other thread I intended to discuss this in got derailed big time, so I thought I’d throw this up in a new thread. Basically, with the introduction of the ladder, bases are going to be more resource intensive than ever. A lot of previously well designed building styles are being made unviable as they require too many protective layers to deter raiders from laddering up to their weak spots. So, here’s a proposal for compromise.

How about we scale building costs based on how much a player has added on to their base? The price would start small, and as you upgraded your base and increased your area of coverage, the price would scale upwards accordingly. This would only affect building blocks that are physically attached to your “core,” any separate building the player places would be reverted to base cost and the scaling would reset. The scaling could even be customized based on the servers need. Need a linear scaling for basic gameplay? How about a curve to deter groups from massing lots of players to build that gigantic eyesore that covers half a biome?

This could solve several issues with the game as I see it:

  1. This provides an easier time for solo players so they can get a starter base going.
  2. It would provide incentive to bigger clans to maybe create a compound type base instead of the mega base that has become such a standard practice for bigger groups. (which would then help balance big groups vs small groups by making their bases slightly more raidable)
  3. It would still give those clans (and creative architect types) the choice to create a mega base (or otherwise large project) by not enforcing a hard limit on building pieces a player could place.

What do you guys think?

Wouldn’t that just result in this?

You already have this to an extent. Building a twig foundation costs 50 wood. Then upgrading it to wood costs another 200 wood. Then upgrading it to armor costs 200 wood, 400 stone, 500 metal fragments, and the time spent refining the metal.

If you’re suggesting an arbitrary increase in cost based on the size of the base – in other words, a “rich tax” – then that’s a bad idea. Rust doesn’t need a fleet of arbitrary “if x then y” rules sperging up the game. You’ve been dumped on an island to survive; there are no rules.

Well, except for the tool cupboard and its magical building-blocking properties, which we’re all in agreement needs to go.

Fair point, but it would still affect any walls they placed vertically as well, and any floors above the foundations that are connected to each other would obviously “connect” the base, that is assuming they can line it up perfectly enough to actually get those things close enough. Not to mention that design would be flawed in that, a raider could blow his way through an outer layer, and ladder up very easily with the series of shafts the design opens up.

I don’t consider it a rich tax, as there are base designs that can more or less nullfiy the scaling. It would just encourage people to create more buildings in a close area to each other, like a military base for example, rather than a gigantic castle. So for example, if you were to build a 3x3x3, the old system would require X amount of resources to create and reinforce. The new system would make it so that the initial 1x1 you make is very cheap to build, but as you fill out the rest of that 3x3x3, it would scale to a point where you’ve spent around the same amount of resources in total. Whether it scales to be the same amount as the old system, or more is irrelevant, as it’s intended purely to be a system for newly joining newmans who struggle to lay their foundations against established players.

Place three foundations:

Remove the middle:

Everything is now perfectly aligned. This is how people make archways and “airlocks” into their compounds.

By doing that you’re paying extra for every piece you plan on deleting later. The question would then be, is that worth it?