[Kurogo]

Outback posted:

I'm actually kind of excited if there are mutants, as long as they mesh with the game well it could be awesome. Enemies that are a challenge would at least do 2 things: 1.) Force players to work together to survive (more easily, should be possible to solo play still though), thus quieting players that want a little less KoS (should still be there, but there would be less). 2.) Make raids more interesting, especially if there are powerful nocturnal enemies, making night raids have less advantages (advantage of stealth, but disadvantage of having to deal with enemies on the attack/return trip, and possibly creating chaos during a raid, which would be fun as well), and maybe forcing players to keep some type of light on at night to prevent being ripped apart by mutants.

Edited:



Oh my gosh, is that avatar from Reel Fishing? I remember playing that as a kid, still have it actually :D

I see a lot of forcing players to do this or forcing them to do that in your ideas. Pretty sure that's exactly what Garry said he hates doing.

[AlexanderMRL]

Kurogo posted:

I see a lot of forcing players to do this or forcing them to do that in your ideas. Pretty sure that's exactly what Garry said he hates doing.

Indeed.
It is not for nothing called "suggestions".
Somebody needs to sail the ship in the right direction, lets have some faith in the captain.
Somebody will have to make the game, lets have some faith in the devs.

[Outback]

Kurogo posted:

I see a lot of forcing players to do this or forcing them to do that in your ideas. Pretty sure that's exactly what Garry said he hates doing.

Poor wording on my part. You still would wouldn't have to work together, but it would make surviving against hostile enemies/conditions easier, but you still increase the chance of betrayal. Turning on a light at night still will always lure other players to your location, so it would turn it more into a choice at night of: increase risk of hostile monsters, increase risk of hostile players. Also, 2 times is not "a lot" for future reference. Thank you for pointing out my word choice though.

EDIT: I would also like to mention that "forcing" a player to do something isn't always an awful in thing in a game based around player freedom. You don't have to stand around a fire at night or eat food, and you don't have to bandage yourself when bleeding, but you will starve and suffer from cold status if you don't have appropriate clothing or possibly bleed-out/take heavy damage. There does need to be consequences for certain actions, otherwise, there is a limited amount of viable options, ironically hindering player freedom.

For instance: There is no real reason to have a fire going in a shelter at night. You can easily obtain items to block the cold status, and find enough food to counteract the increased metabolism. Since this is an Alpha (and abandoned build now), I can't (and won't) really give it flak for that, but just as an example: because there is no real reason to do so, it creates one viable option (keeping your fire on only creates drawbacks, such as luring other players to where you are from great distances at night), limiting player freedom. Now, if there was a penalty for keeping your fire off, such as the cold status being a lot worst, or enemies breaking into your shelter, you would then have to think about what you would like to do for the night considering the circumstances, and go from there.

[Clinched Butt]

almosttactful posted:

#1 rule for a developer...make a game for your audience...not for yourself.

Well, lets take a look at a game that listened strictly to it's audience, Nether. That game is a pile of horse crap now.

Also: What is it with people in wanting a "realistic survival" experience out of Rust? This is being made by the guy who made Garry's Mod.. that being one of the goofiest games ever devised. I like that they're steering away from being a dead serious hardcore survival experience, there are plenty of other games that can give you that.

[Kris101]

Dinosaurs would have been a lot better than fantasy monsters.

[Edit]
Do you really think these silly monsters a better? Seriously.. the people on here follow like sheep.

[Leon Garoux]

almosttactful posted:

#1 rule for a developer...make a game for your audience...not for yourself.

I was not aware that some obscure quote helps dictate what is wrong/right in the gaming industry. I find it utterly contemptuous when people throw out random quotes as if they validate their argument 100%.

[Clinched Butt]

Kris101 posted:

Dinosaurs would have been a lot better than fantasy monsters.

[Edit]
Do you really think these silly monsters a better? Seriously.. the people on here follow like sheep.

It would match the game I think. I mean, there's nothing silly about naked bald men running around bashing each other's heads in right?

[Outback]

I would much rather have silly mutants than cookie-cutter dinosaur McGee's running around.

[KOT9KA]

I woke up this morning, and I came up with a wonderful idea about monsters. scary trees hands, Oooo :) Imagine you come to a tree to gathering resources and at this point begins to strangle you, guess who?, Yes, this tree strangles you with their hands - branches. You bleed, scream, but no one can help you. Only your ax will help you or not :)
I have no artistic talent, sorry :)

[Atzer_Bruno]

KOT9KA posted:

I woke up this morning, and I came up with a wonderful idea about monsters. scary trees hands, Oooo :) Imagine you come to a tree to gathering resources and at this point begins to strangle you, guess who?, Yes, this tree strangles you with their hands - branches. You bleed, scream, but no one can help you. Only your ax will help you or not :)
I have no artistic talent, sorry :)

Ха украинца вижу тут впервые :D ну хоть не чурка...
Yah what nonsense is better would have added all of the Stalker then it would seem that there was a nuclear explosion

[DrAli]

No, please don't ruin the game

[SKOL]

I honestly think that The Forrest has beated Rust to the best option for NPCs/monsters... that being cannibals. In my opinion, of course.

There's only one thing more scary than a naked man beating down your front door. And that's a naked man who wants to eat you.

But heh. We'll have to see what happens in the long term.

I think ultimately, the 'monsters' will be determined by the overall direction the game takes - i.e. realistic, fantasy, horror, serious, lighthearted, etc, etc. I'd personally prefer a realistic/horror setting, but that's my own personal taste. Given Garry's track record for adding humour to his games (e.g. Garry's Mod), then I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rust takes a less realistic route for some of its game dynamics.

In the end, its other players that will always pose the most significant and unpredictable threat.

[Kurogo]

Outback posted:

Poor wording on my part. You still would wouldn't have to work together, but it would make surviving against hostile enemies/conditions easier, but you still increase the chance of betrayal. Turning on a light at night still will always lure other players to your location, so it would turn it more into a choice at night of: increase risk of hostile monsters, increase risk of hostile players. Also, 2 times is not "a lot" for future reference. Thank you for pointing out my word choice though.

EDIT: I would also like to mention that "forcing" a player to do something isn't always an awful in thing in a game based around player freedom. You don't have to stand around a fire at night or eat food, and you don't have to bandage yourself when bleeding, but you will starve and suffer from cold status if you don't have appropriate clothing or possibly bleed-out/take heavy damage. There does need to be consequences for certain actions, otherwise, there is a limited amount of viable options, ironically hindering player freedom.

For instance: There is no real reason to have a fire going in a shelter at night. You can easily obtain items to block the cold status, and find enough food to counteract the increased metabolism. Since this is an Alpha (and abandoned build now), I can't (and won't) really give it flak for that, but just as an example: because there is no real reason to do so, it creates one viable option (keeping your fire on only creates drawbacks, such as luring other players to where you are from great distances at night), limiting player freedom. Now, if there was a penalty for keeping your fire off, such as the cold status being a lot worst, or enemies breaking into your shelter, you would then have to think about what you would like to do for the night considering the circumstances, and go from there.

A lot is a subjective term. You had one suggestion with two intended outcomes, both of which you had said at the time would force players to act in certain ways. Call me a hard ass, but 2 for 2 is good enough for me.

Now for the examples you gave, lighting a fire risks other players coming to your base, but only if those players choose to take that risk. Just like building where players might see your fire is a risk. Risk may influence player actions, but it in no way forces it or limits it.

Simply having a giant monster roaming around the map is fine, and making it dangerous enough that people might want to kill it is fine. If one guy can take a half hour to kill it, or 6 guys can take 5 minutes, this won't force player behavior. If that monster only attacks people that go near it, this doesn't force player behavior. They can still choose to avoid it or fight it.

[mike10019314]

Saw a awsom pic once cant recall where but it was of a undead monster made out of a mix of dead cow parts and people in the middle of eating some poor bastard in a blue jumpsuit with a dust mask and a mosin, Something like that would work great in rust i think,