Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
I like the idea of adding a stone building to the rust format of buildings. From the threads I have read, it seems, that everyone feels that Stone buildings should be in the middle between wood and metal. I do not agree. When talking about structure, longevity, and shear sustainability, Stone buildings should be the top of the food chain. If metal building had 8 inch thick steel walls with reinforcement, I would side with metal building but they are just simple metal sheets with a little bit of reinforcement. Think about it, which one can you shoot through or blow up more effectively? Stone building stand the test of time. The game is called RUST after all.
-
-
Like that idea!
-
Yeah but this is a game. If anything stone would be in the middle. and if it was stone, it would just be a change in the models and functionality. so realistically it would be a 2 inch stone wall, just like the 2 inch wood wall is just like the 2 inch metal wall.
I do agree there should be another building type though, and or ways to make raiding less insane. For instance when you build a giant castle. people can prop climb up to your base, blow a hole in your elaborate building deisgn and instantly reach the chests. especially the ones who use esp.
-
That is kind of my point. Castles are not built out of metal. Metal building last around 100 years. Stone building last 1000s of years..
-
Just to make things clear about realism and the ''food chain'' of house materials.
Stand up,
look outside of your window.
Notice of what ALL houses are made that you can see.
Come back.
Now tell me why stone should not be the top one.
-
Wood and drywall aren't exactly the materials they chose for defensive structures in the last, y'know, 400 years. Not that I disagree that stone shouldn't be the best material, I'm just sayin', your analogy doesn't work too well.
-
Buildings are made not only for durability but also to be cost effective. So you're reasoning behind all houses being made of stone ( brick is not stone by the way ) because they are stronger is incorrect.
-
Except, "realistically," it wouldn't be. Stone is one of those awkward building materials where it's actually easier to work with the larger the material, up to a point exceeding the optimal working sizes of wood or metal.
If you try to make a wall out of two inch pebbles it will take you just shy of forever and you are going to go insane, especially when a stiff breeze cracks it in half (ok, so it wouldn't be that bad, but thin stone has the tensile strength of a saltine).
A wall made of forearm-length, or slightly shorter, stones will require far less time to put together, less mortar to hold together, stack easier, and be far sturdier.
I don't see any reason why stone shouldn't occupy the top slot, unless you're working with plate steel walls as opposed to sheet metal like we have now.
-
Guess thats still bricks and stones :P
-
Not 100% sure, but there aren't a lot of people blasting through my neighbor's doors/walls with c4... maybe the next block over is a little different?
-
Yet some houses in my neighbourhood are more than a 100 years old and so have survived two world wars :D
and yet, whats with our good 'ol castles whom are made out of stones too? :D
-
Yeah but i'm saying this is a video game. and realistically nothing in the game would make any sense to compare to real life. stone should be added i agree. but it doesn't make sense to put it above metal because stone lasts for thousands of years, and also he would probably just make it the same model as everything else. thickness doesn't matter because it doesn't exist in the game. only the health of the object.
-
The sheet metal walls in rust now...you can drive a screwdriver by hand through them without a problem.Where a stone wall you would not be able to. Believe it or not, stone is the more durable, sustainable product. This issue does not make or break the game though.
-
you should know when i say realistic i'm literally talking about realistically making a game. not whether or not you want exact replicas of real life physicality inside of a video game.
-
People see the progression as wood->stone->metal not because metal is the better building material, but because right now stone only has one use in the game at the moment, which is making arrows. Beyond that stone is completely useless compared to metal, which is used for a lot of crafting other than bases. (guns, kevlar, etc.) so what I think people really want is a use for all this extra stone. As things are currently it makes sense to go with metal as the strongest material from a balance standpoint, though as the game evolves this could easily change.
-
Most if not all stone/concrete structures are reinforced with steel rebar. During construction wood is also used to build frames so it could be very expensive to make in game, it would take wood, metal and stone. So if the the buildings are going to remain built with thin sheet metal, with weak reinforcement and wood walls built with thin 2x4 then it would be easy to see why it could be a higher tier or even the strongest buildings in the game.Just my two cents I'm not an expert in construction or anything just trying to add to the idea of stone/concrete buildings in Rust.
-
My preference would be for two new building types, stone and brick.
The Stone buildings could be as per the concept on trello and need Stones and Low Quality Cement to make components.
The Brick buildings could be more like the large Chiselled (into rough rectangular bricks) stone blocks that make up castles and other ancient structures, and need Chiselled stone and High Quality Cement to make the components.
The hierarchy could be:
Wood > Stone > Metal > Brick
What do you guys think?
-
If they do make stone walls they should kinda look like this.
-
Stone should definitely top the hierarchy. Reasoning.... well frankly the metal in this game is shit. Understandably so since technically we made it in a damn furnace by hand.... though we can make an m4 using it
-
I understand there should be some kind of balance between realism and fantasy because in realism people shouldn't even survive the very beginning when they place camp fire inside a wooden shelter.
They would just die of carbon dioxide poisoning and lack of oxygen. Or the camp fire would just burn down.
And why can't we mix building parts? We can have stone foundation and be metal parts above it. It adds diversity too.
-
Mixing is interesting, but I dont think that wood foundations and wood pillars can support metal structures, in the other hand I dont see why metal foundations and metal pillars couldnt handle wood structures. I guess this is why we need a Hierarchy for.
-
Stone buildings sound great, it also gives stone another use in game as right now i really have no use of stone beside arrows and if i want to make extra workbenches etc.
-
As somebody renovating a stone house from 1846, I agree.
-
Ever since the stone building pics came up on the Trello I've argued they should be top tier in terms of decay and strength against explosives etc. total agreement here.
The idea of mixing building construction very much needs to be implemented also I would suggest something like separating framework and paneling/walling/ceiling - Frames from wood or metal only, stone only for use as walling. So wooden frame stone wall house wouldn't be quite as tough as a metal frame stone wall house for example.
Can't be bothered to think about it in too much detail right now but you get the gist.
-
Stone should definitely be an intermediary between wood and metal.
-
First of all,not all the houses you can see around is %100 stone.Let's be clear.They are using and mixing several materials for more durability against Earthquakes also looking for more cheaper solutions to profit more.
Stone buildings are really valuable.I do not know if you lived in or saw one of them but i have been grown at one of them.And walls are really really thick than you can imagine,because lack of materials back in the days (also for high durability and isolation) people built them in the past.
Right now,brick is one of the most used materials while building a house or just a place.There are several kinds of that of course.Like Ytong for example weighs really lighter than concrete or brick and more efficient than them about isolation(heat and sound).
-
OP has a point, I would take a concrete wall over a metal sheet any day.
-
-
At some point you are standing next to a campfire with gun powder, sulfur, and explosives in your backpack....boom
-
Stone buildings ideally should be the pinnacle of durability, with only the doorways being easily breached. That being said, a stack of 250 stone should only make 10 wall segments/doorways, 25 pillars, or 5 foundations. Ceilings should cost 30 stone, allowing you to construct 8 for 240 which isn't quite a full stack of stone. Even still this will basically eliminate the need for metal building materials, especially if you're allowed to create structures from pure stone. Perhaps they should consider going a route that uses concrete and rebar, forcing you to devote a lot of metal to reinforcing a stone structure.
If they went the route of multiple build stages, in theory you could force someone to build wooden forms, place rebar, and then pour/place the finalized concrete structure. It would then require all flavors of your building materials, so you would still have to devote wood and metal to pouring concrete floors even if they only required stone for the walls and columns. It wouldn't really be realistic to have concrete floors consume the forms used to pour them, but reusable forms might be a lot trickier to implement, and certainly would eliminate a wood-sink.
Agree x 12
Winner x 3
Dumb x 2
Disagree x 1
Funny x 1
