Breaking Design Rules

Soooo…I loved the legacy version of Rust. The first week after I purchased it I had logged nearly 30 hours as opposed to my usual 8 to 10 hours a week on various other random Steam games. I won’t list off the various reasons I enjoyed it since most of you will already know what they are. However, there was one quality that I really appreciated. A quality that seems to be getting lost in the experimental version. Simplicity.

The more the experimental version evolves the more it seems to be drifting away from the idea of keeping something as simple as possible.

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupe

Legacy had this. The only thing complicated was learning all the recipes for crafting. Doors were simple - they locked and you could enter a code if you wanted to share it. Building was simple - place your foundation, add posts and walls and you’re good. By the way, within that simple system I was able to create some extremely complex and confusing structures for Raiders. You may argue that this breaks the rule, but it doesn’t. Think of it like a box of legos. You give someone a pile of 10 different legos and see what they come up with. The blocks themselves are simple but the various structures are almost infinite.

Rust Island was simple as well - it didn’t change. I could jump on any server and I knew where to go - something that helped to equalize the game a little if you’re a loner surviving in a land with large raiding groups. I was looking forward to the day when new locations would be added and players could wander off into the wasteland searching for adventure. Procedurally generated worlds are great and all, but they’re not the be all end all. In my opinion they still can’t beat a well designed un-randomized human made level.

Blueprints and trading worked just fine in legacy. Why? Because the players created the trading system. Some servers had “stores” where it was PVE only. You could meet someone there and trade your items. Or you simply built a trading area by putting a crate through a wall and having people put their stuff in it. It worked great. You made an announcement on global chat about your items, and if anyone responded you gave them directions. If you cheated people or ambushed then your trading days would slowly dwindle. Server vets would warn nakeds not to trust that guy asking to trade. The players made the system, not the game. Simple.

I’m not totally against where the game is headed now, but from a fundamental design aspect it’s moving into areas I don’t think are very fun. To be honest though I haven’t played in awhile. I’ve tried a few a times and the game just isn’t as interesting as it was. I’m bored within an hour or less and I quit the game and play something else.

Let’s create an analogy equating Rust’s development to an artist’s painting. Those of you that are artistic will get this. The artist starts his painting. He plans it out, gets setup, and starts painting. Around 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through he starts to doubt how this painting will turn out. In fact he’s pretty sure he should just start over. The inexperienced artist will give up, throw his painting away, and perhaps start over. The experienced artist is sure of his vision and pushes forward knowing that his idea will solidify at the end.

I hope that isn’t what’s happening to Rust. The original version was awesome, but flawed. The 2nd version is lacking the spirit that made its predecessor so fun.

Experimental seems messy. Like its a bunch of ideas just thrown into the game without any thought about how it effects the gameplay.

I agree. The original was tight and focused. One thing I love about indie games is that the small teams are forced to focus on gameplay - the core of a good game. I’m making assumptions here, but it seems that since the Facepunch team has grown the design process has become convoluted. Legacy was a masterpiece in the making, experimental feels like a game trying to copy what was fun about the original. Again, I hope that changes!

Yep experimental sucks balls and legacy does too because tons of game breaking bugs were left there “because legacy is over we should go all out on experimental”.

I was thinking today about the simplicity in legacy (I was playing it), and thinking how it made the game better. Simple recipes and crafting, but it still takes me a few days of playing to get most of the key blueprints. The progression is nice. Even the simplicity of building a 1x1 is really nice in legacy. It takes time to get the resources, but building is fast. It makes it more fun.

I hope the devs think about this idea - maybe Rust 2.0 will need to be changed to be more simple in some ways.

The problem is that gamers like myself, are not looking for perfection, nor simplicity.

Perfection, as we understand the term currently, is a Utopian ideal that cannot be achieved. Simplicity means that while there is a vision that has been accomplished, without taking itself too seriously, lacks any real innovation or uniqueness. If Rust stayed the way it did in Legacy, I would be already leaving it, for games that currently have more of an established/elaborate soul such as Life is Feudal, or even Starbound.

I am sorry that you feel Experimental has become convoluted as it continues to evolve. But Legacy was lacking, and I appreciate seeing the game growing, and not catering to nostalgia/rose-coloured glasses. Legacy had a stunted construction flow, a lack of PvE elements, and re-playability settled on, and only on waiting to die, or raiding for supplies you no longer need.

Did it allow me hundreds of hours? Yes. But has it lived up to its potential? No. So I am going to be patient. I am going to trust in Garry and his team to keep the game moving, to a point where all of the changes begin to fit together, and begin to make proper sense. If it does not? I will move on, as there are numerous other games that can easily take its place. Regardless, those that wish for Legacy to come back are not going to have their wishes fulfilled.

So it becomes a question of whether you have an aversion to change, in which you refuse to accept Garry’s vision, or whether you can accept that everything comes to an end eventually, in which you can stick around for the ride known as Experimental, to see how it turns. I can assure you that choice 2 will net better results, and might possibly help you squeeze some more fun out of the game.

Do players really just want the old game with a new skin on it?

EXP is one hot mess. There’s zero direction and now it’s more of a joke. Green snake socks and a coffee can helmet? It’s a joke.

I actually like the building system and procedurally generated terrain. The terrain will be much easier to navigate once landmarks are actually in. Everything else is a step backwards.

I cannot speak for all; but my friends and I were hoping for exactly that. Of course, there were hopes for some kind of new content (items etc) but it wasn’t a massive expectation. So we enjoyed the game a lot and clocked up several hundred playing hours… :\

Now, not one of us could care for either version of Rust.
The legacy version is owned by hackers and selfish admins, and we have played it to death anyway; But Rust 2.0’s new theme is just as unappealing. (But for entirely different reasons!)

I wont even try to list them all but do think its best summarized by having a bucket/bowl an an option for a helmet, and the push towards a more homoerotic theme (not just a nakedness theme). To that end, we probably put in about 6 hrs since experimental became the default launch option.

To finish, we’re not unhappy with our $20 expenditure but cannot see ourselves returning to play a game of Rust 1.0 or beyond.

Legacy started out pretty fun for me when everything was still a mystery. For a good while I didn’t know the map at all, didn’t even look at online maps - this added a constant sense of danger and the feeling of venturing into the unknown. After a while when people started to get to know the maps they would block off loot spawns, build by and control high resource areas, and large raiding groups would sweep the maps taking out small bases and bambi’s. This made the game really inaccessible to newbies and people such as myself who work long hours and don’t have many hours to put into resource collection and base building. Sure, you could join a low population server but doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having 100+ player servers if it means only experienced or dedicated players could participate and get those awesome interactions that the game generates?

Legacy was basically the test environment that was thrown together to see if this kind of game would be successful. Now that the game’s being built more modularly, it seems that it would actually be easier to make gameplay adjustments and changes without totally breaking the game like would happen often in legacy. Personally I think the new building upgrade system is awesome compared to blueprints, it makes the game more accessible in that you don’t have to build a new base later on or build a huge base with tons of metal doors in order to deter raids. You really should try it out, experimental has really come a long way in a short amount of time. I think when the procedural terrain gets closer to completion we’ll start to see servers that keep the same seed for longer periods of time or maybe even servers that use the classic map, its not completely out of the question.

It is very possible to make parts of a game too complex, or to realistic at the expense of being fun. FP needs to find the balance, and the idea of making some things simple needs to be considered as an option.

For example, with legacy you never had a reason to put a rock on your mouse and go away for 40 minutes. They need to get Rust 2.0 to a working level, and then they can try things and we can give feedback. Give us a base than can be secure and cannot be so easily griefed. I hope we don’t have to live with this for 2 more months: anyone can easily grief and wreck a base, making it no fun for players who want to build something that lasts and us usable for a while.

Legacy Rust was both beautiful and totally boring. Once you had a metal base and all the weapons it lost it’s mojo. What is happening with experimental will result in a much more satisfying game experience but right now it’s got issues that really should prevent the developers from putting it out there for us to play as overall it’s leaving a sour taste in many peoples mouths.

You should not be so attached to your work in Rust. The entire point of Rust right now, especially at this point in time, is to experiment, weed out weak features, and gather feedback over every aspect of the game they put any amount of time into.

This game is not currently meant to be played as an actual game. Of course many of us do, and that is perfectly fine. But you are in the wrong the very moment your pride becomes harmed when your work is messed with, in a game that is recognizable for its weekly/bi-monthly wipes, bugs that are being introduced and worked on consistently and daily, and is entirely reliant on player feedback and structural reinforcement.

If you want to have proper fun in Experimental right now, then you need to let go of your pride, and stop attempting to become a safe power-house player. Right now, what is more important is to break/exploit the game in any way, and to send in bug reports as the developers slowly build Rust up to its 1.0.

Isn’t this what they done? They stopped updating the game eveyone was playing, then brought out Rust which wasn’t even close to being playable for most people. You can pad it down all you like but this game isn’t a scratch on legacy. People can voice their opinions and annoyance because the community is splitting and the game developer needs to see this.

They are making good progress but not fast enough for the size of community Rust once had.

I’m not sure you understand the concept of a game in active development, or how long it takes to make a good game.

Would you walk into your new house as it’s being built, before the walls are even put up, and complain about the draft? Yes, you’d be correct, but also utterly missing the point.

As much as it does concern them when players are screaming shit at them and things are broken and making people unhappy, their first priority right now is not you, but developing the game. It’s in alpha, and it’s very incomplete. Legacy was only about 10% of the way towards the vision of Rust the devs have, and you could argue that experimental has not fully caught up to legacy, so it’s not even at the 10% mark yet.

There is so much more to do, and the fact that you’re not having a fun time right now is unfortunate (it’d be nice if you could have fun), but not a priority.

Let’s hear your insightful suggestions on how they’d increase efficiency, then. And the answer is not “hire a whole bunch more people,” so don’t even touch that one.

Also, saying they’re not working fast enough is a little rude. The devs are working hard; watch the RustUpdates twitter account register commits 7 days a week.

I am not padding anything. Legacy is dead, and that is a fact all of us are going to have to live with. You lording your opinion as fact over every differing opinion (blatantly saying that Legacy is better than Experimental), however, is a quick way to degrade any intelligent discussion on this particular matter.

You might also notice that I never once suggested that those that preferred Legacy need to stifle their voices. I am in full support of the freedom of expression, and you ought to learn the difference between criticism, and censorship.

Hint: My words are merely opinionated criticism towards two users on this thread that have expressed that Legacy needs to come back in some form or fashion, when it has been made perfectly clear that Legacy is dead, and that it is going to stay dead.

I understand elixwhitetail, I don’t have a solution to the game being publicly playable and enjoyable any time soon, I wish I did. Little rude? I’m the customer who has supported this game until recently so if I voice a concern it’s about the game not myself. I liked Legacy this is true, I thought the new rust would be a joy to play, but it’s not turned out that way. Looking at post all over the net I’m not the only person feeling that a great game is dead and the new game isn’t working.

So the customer isn’t the priority? when did this become a valid selling point? I’m sure Garry cares very much about me and every other person who has a problem with the game. You have the right to be defensive because you are a community admin and I see the rage posts you need to deal with.
I just hope the next game update stops everything being wiped because it’s not going down well with the gamers who spend hours building in pve or pvp servers. I’m not a troll I’m voicing my customers view :slight_smile:

For the record, I’m not a moderator or admin in any way. I’m a user/player like you. Moderators have green names, FP Studios developers/staff are light blue (compared to the darker blue for regular users), and garry is garry.

Right now, Rust simply isn’t going to be as fun to play as a finished game; you are playing an alpha, and one that is far from finished. garry certainly does care that Rust players aren’t having fun, but you’ve got your priorities a little out of order.

Wipes are a fucking fact of life in alpha, and anyone who cries and whines about losing everything just got their first lesson in what alpha-phase game development is like: Shit Breaks. Are frequent wipes desirable? No, of course not, and garry would prefer servers to be able to run long-term without any wipes. However, that doesn’t just magically come into being; it’s a process, and one that is going to change over time.

Since the transition to the Unity 5 beta from Unity 4.5, things have been a bit rough, and garry is fully aware of how pissed off everyone is about it. Performance and gameplay/building fixes are on garry’s slate for this coming week, and there’ve been plenty of bug reports and complaints to give the devs a lot of info.

I want to point out that I am not saying people cannot express their opinions about what needs improvement with Rust or what they liked out of legacy that isn’t the same in the current version. That’s fine. Please do, it helps the devs gauge the community’s feelings about what they want out of Rust, and that’s great.

But feedback and criticism should be constructive, and complaining about an alpha for being alpha-quality is just a waste of everyone’s time.

So what anyone that has anything to say about this game you feel the need to comment? lol, Thats funny m8, it’s about as laughable as the swearing in your posts ^^ You obviously need a bar of soap rammed down your throat. But besides that I’ll stick to what I said and I’m sure you can troll each single person that says anything bad about this game.

Happy Days ^^

this is the rust forum, not daycare. get over a few swear words. as for opinions, well everybody has them. some of us have been repeating ourselves for months to people who have just come into the forum, and immediately said the same thing as the last bunch of people the previous week, so you will have to excuse a little bit of frustration.