[utilitron]

Murdo posted:

It's an issue of disproportionate risk vs. reward. You know, you can claim ANY balance issue or half-baked feature can be "solved" with evolving player solutions. On Legacy, I saw a server where a group of people had walled off the loot spots (in some cases covering them with foundations) and camped the zombie spawn sites with sniper towers. In response to complaints, the admins said "get 50 of your friends to log in and make bows". The all-powerful chaos magic of emergent gameplay is fine, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that design and balance can make a game better and improve the emergent gameplay opportunities.

I know plenty of tricks for stashing a key or entering/exiting a house with minimal danger... I could easily mitigate the danger presented by a keychain without extra code. I just think there's room for something more reasonable, rather than the usual Legacy method of oldbies plying tricks to get around gaps in design while newbies either get pissed and leave or learn to use those same exact tricks. And I'm assuming you agree with the presence of a "chain", because there's virtually nothing emergent about having to carry 20 unmarked keys in your inventory, or withdraw/deposit them in sequence as you spend 20 minutes walking through your base.

We already know traps and other house protections are on their way in. Its not like the issue of security is being completely abandon now that keys are in. the solution is to continue forward and evolve the game play, not to remove the keys because it hard.

Remember that's the line we are discussing in this thread. Not improvements to the game but the out and out removal of keys all together. It is ridiculous to think the solution to the issue would be to remove the feature because people don't want to figure out how to fix it on their own.

I can appreciate that you know how to mitigate the problem outside of removing the mechanic. I agree that in the current state keys make things difficult. but as I said before, there are more mechanics to come with will shift the balance. And we should be helping develop those ideas rather than putting up polls for the removal of a less than popular feature.

[Zipper Bear]

Utilitron more like Debatatron, amirite?

[slidey]

How can there be a mechanic which makes such a bad method good?

You need a key to get in and out of the base. If you carry the key on you, anyone can get into the base if you die. If you hide the key, some random person can find it and then get into the base.

[Murdo]

utilitron posted:

We already know traps and other house protections are on their way in.

Ah.... doesn't that constitute code changes to further improve the system?

We also suspect (since the item says Wooden Door Key) that there may be a different system in place for higher level locks or doors. Which makes the carried-key system the "Handcannon" of Experimental Rust home security.

Remember that's the line we are discussing in this thread. Not improvements to the game but the out and out removal of keys all together.

I didn't take the poll, but I could have sworn it said "Should the key/lock system be changed" ... not "should the key/lock system be scrapped completely in a fit of reactionary player rage".

You might have missed it, but there were several interesting ideas presented in this thread, as well as a lot of very valid, legitimate potential (or current) problems with a key system. I think that's about as much "helping develop these ideas" as anyone on a message board can do. Don't you?

[utilitron]

Murdo posted:

Ah.... doesn't that constitute code changes to further improve the system?

Not directly. This is to improve security overall, not just address a specific issue with a single game mechanic.

Murdo posted:

We also suspect (since the item says Wooden Door Key) that there may be a different system in place for higher level locks or doors. Which makes the carried-key system the "Handcannon" of Experimental Rust home security.

Garry has also said there will be subsequent tiers of lock technology. Key locks are tier 1. This is consistent with the way the rest of rust is evolving.

Murdo posted:

I didn't take the poll, but I could have sworn it said "Should the key/lock system be changed" ... not "should the key/lock system be scrapped completely in a fit of reactionary player rage".

Sorry, i was thinking of PewPewMan's post

PewPewMan posted:

imo the key system makes the game less enjoyable and should be removed

Which is 90% of the sentiment of threads like this.
The OP considers the fact you can lose a key a "flaw" in the design, when it is as intended.

Murdo posted:

You might have missed it, but there were several interesting ideas presented in this thread, as well as a lot of very valid, legitimate potential (or current) problems with a key system. I think that's about as much "helping develop these ideas" as anyone on a message board can do. Don't you?

The problem most people have with the key system is that carrying your key makes you vulnerable. What most people can't see past is there are solutions to this. The key its self isn't flawed. Again, this all works IRL, we just need to change the way we play the game.

[Pirransson]

utilitron posted:

The problem most people have with the key system is that carrying your key makes you vulnerable. What most people can't see past is there are solutions to this. The key its self isn't flawed. Again, this all works IRL, we just need to change the way we play the game.

What the actual fuck. This is a game not IRL. If you lose your keys in IRL you call the locksmith.
Keys is a bad system and there was no reason to replace a system that wasnt broken. Keycodes worked great and nobody were complaining. I have a hard time understanding why they would spend valuable time on a problem that doesnt exist instead of improving and creating features thats actually useful.

[mrknifey]

i'm repeating myself again, but why not.

the locks are a concept, a new way to do things that offers risks as well as benefits. in the old system, you have a 4 digit code. that's a lot of potential combinations, except people are speds and do things like 1212 which is easily remembered and also easily cracked. once you have put in the code, it is impossible to open without the code or destroying it. but it is safe.

personally i would make a similar system for the keys. when you apply a lock, you automatically get a key in your inventory. when the door is closed, it is locked, and can only be opened by someone with the matching key. scrap the lock/unlock functionality entirely, it is always locked and provided you have the key, it will open for your like an unlocked door.

locked doors can have new keys made only when they are open. an open door cannot be closed by someone without the matching key, but since you can make a key from the open door, it's not a problem. now people aren't fiddling with their doors, they work the same as legacy, but with the option to make a key instead of changing the code.

to change locks, apply a new lock to the open door. you get supplied with the new key. the old lock is destroyed in the process, and old keys have no matching lock and become useless.

to change a lock to a currently carried key, use the key on the lock in your inventory before applying it instead(not consumed). now when installed it matches your current key.

now you can open multiple doors with the same key in your inventory, or have a key for each door as you like.

i also think that keys should be marked in some way, even if its just some kind of tooth variance or colour. also probably should be made of metal frags rather than wood.

slightly off topic; i think tier one should be a latch. only usable from the inside, and built into the door as standard. so you can stop people coming in when you are inside, but only from inside.

tier 2 should be key locks.
tier 3 should be combination locks.

[bloo1]

mrknifey posted:

i'm repeating myself again, but why not.

the locks are a concept, a new way to do things that offers risks as well as benefits. in the old system, you have a 4 digit code. that's a lot of potential combinations, except people are speds and do things like 1212 which is easily remembered and also easily cracked. once you have put in the code, it is impossible to open without the code or destroying it. but it is safe.

personally i would make a similar system for the keys. when you apply a lock, you automatically get a key in your inventory. when the door is closed, it is locked, and can only be opened by someone with the matching key. scrap the lock/unlock functionality entirely, it is always locked and provided you have the key, it will open for your like an unlocked door.

locked doors can have new keys made only when they are open. an open door cannot be closed by someone without the matching key, but since you can make a key from the open door, it's not a problem. now people aren't fiddling with their doors, they work the same as legacy, but with the option to make a key instead of changing the code.

to change locks, apply a new lock to the open door. you get supplied with the new key. the old lock is destroyed in the process, and old keys have no matching lock and become useless.

to change a lock to a currently carried key, use the key on the lock in your inventory before applying it instead(not consumed). now when installed it matches your current key.

now you can open multiple doors with the same key in your inventory, or have a key for each door as you like.

i also think that keys should be marked in some way, even if its just some kind of tooth variance or colour. also probably should be made of metal frags rather than wood.

slightly off topic; i think tier one should be a latch. only usable from the inside, and built into the door as standard. so you can stop people coming in when you are inside, but only from inside.

tier 2 should be key locks.
tier 3 should be combination locks.

It doesnt even need to be that complicated. Thats still a mess for people who have multiple doors.

the locks are a concept, a new way to do things that offers risks as well as benefits. in the old system, you have a 4 digit code. that's a lot of potential combinations, except people are speds and do things like 1212 which is easily remembered and also easily cracked. once you have put in the code, it is impossible to open without the code or destroying it. but it is safe.

dont see anything wrong with this. and i've never heard of anyone guessing someone elses combination.

I just want a solution that means if you get killed as soon as you leave your house then someone isnt just able to take the whole place

[kpoIIIkaeHo7]

Make door locks like old rust. Owner can open door + code (increase to 5-6 numbers).
Later with oxide plugins can share doors to your friend. Easy.

[utilitron]

Pirransson posted:

What the actual fuck. This is a game not IRL. If you lose your keys in IRL you call the locksmith.
Keys is a bad system and there was no reason to replace a system that wasnt broken. Keycodes worked great and nobody were complaining. I have a hard time understanding why they would spend valuable time on a problem that doesnt exist instead of improving and creating features thats actually useful.

Because its the direction of the game to make things more realistic, and have a tiered system.
The system wasn't broken to you, but it was in the eyes of the people designing the game.

From reddit

garry posted:

I don't like combo/password as the default base level option. There's nothing stopping us adding combo locks/password/fingerprint scanners later on.

Garry has on multiple occasions posed the question what makes a house yours?
One of the biggest concepts in game seems to be lost in translation here. You consider the old system as working great, and the new system as flawed because it open a huge gaping whole in security and offers a real possibility of losing your base. THIS WAS INTENDED!

Devblog 21 (highlights are my own)

garry posted:

Keys
This is a bit of a divergence from the legacy version. Nothing is owned. Doors don’t belong to you just because you place them. They don’t know you are their owner.

So any door that isn’t locked can generate a key. Go up to it, press use, select create key. You will then lose some wood and 60 seconds later you’ll have a key in your inventory. You can now lock that door. Once the door is locked you can only unlock it with your key, or any other keys that have been made from it. You can give a key to a friend, or hide one for safe keeping. If someone kills you and loots your key, they will be able to open your door.


There’s three important points to this system. Firstly.. it’s emergent, it’s what we’ve been trying to do in Rust from the start. Give you the tools to make the game yourself. Why does your house belong to you? Because you built it? Because you have the key? What happens when you don’t have the key – is it still your house? Should people be able to steal your house, in the same way that they steal from your corpse? Of course they should.

Secondly.. we’re not getting rid of password locks, number locks, fingerprint scanners. Those will come later. It’s an evolutionary thing. Eventually you’ll be able to upgrade to these systems, at a cost.

Thirdly – it’s a process. It’s not set in stone. If it’s exploitable in some way that ruins the game we’ll look at it and we’ll evaluate whether we need to fix it, and if so, what the best way to do that is. A lot of potential problems with this system are gameplay problems that the player should solve themselves, but I can imagine some scenarios we might have to cater for. We might have to make it so you can ‘remove’ a lock from a door for example, so no keys can ever be made, and it can never be locked. This is all part of the process.

[mrknifey]

bloo1 posted:

It doesnt even need to be that complicated. Thats still a mess for people who have multiple doors.

not really. most of it would be handled by the game engine, not the player. functionally it means that if you have the key, the door will open, if not it won't. the rest is just stuff to allow players to change locks and have multiple locks with the same key.

bloo1 posted:

dont see anything wrong with this. and i've never heard of anyone guessing someone elses combination.

I just want a solution that means if you get killed as soon as you leave your house then someone isnt just able to take the whole place

with all due respect, you mustn't have been playing long. look up gameplay videos on youtube or play on busy servers; the number of people who simply crack doors by hanging around and listening out for noobs giving out the code by voice, or by trying the easy number sets like 1212, 0110, 6767 etc is pretty big.

thing is, nowhere is safe. if someone steals your house, steal it back. bag down, break down the door or wall and put a new one up. build another base nearby, make a big gun and go kill them. there are heaps of options that don't involve simply removing a gameplay concept.

[bloo1]

mrknifey posted:

not really. most of it would be handled by the game engine, not the player. functionally it means that if you have the key, the door will open, if not it won't. the rest is just stuff to allow players to change locks and have multiple locks with the same key.



with all due respect, you mustn't have been playing long. look up gameplay videos on youtube or play on busy servers; the number of people who simply crack doors by hanging around and listening out for noobs giving out the code by voice, or by trying the easy number sets like 1212, 0110, 6767 etc is pretty big.

thing is, nowhere is safe. if someone steals your house, steal it back. bag down, break down the door or wall and put a new one up. build another base nearby, make a big gun and go kill them. there are heaps of options that don't involve simply removing a gameplay concept.

because i havent watched some obscure youtube videos or played with complete retards that use ingame voice chat to tell people their passwords it means i havent been playing long?

again, i never said remove the key system completely. the poll says should it be changed. and at the moment its very flawed, simple

[Zaraki]

bloo1 posted:

So now the only thing someone needs to do to get into your base (apart from put a weight on their left mouse button and go do something else whilst they rock down your walls) is camp outside your house and just kill you whilst you have your keys on you.

You could go out, lock your door, then throw the key back through the door. But then you cant get back in your house.

You could go out and drop the key somewhere nearby and hope nobody finds it. Still useless if someone is camping you.

Also the fact you cant even see which key is for which door is poorly thought out. What about when your base gets big and you have 10+ doors?

Not to mention the fact you can get stuck in your own base without a key, if its level 6 you're fucked.

Absolutely no point spending time in the game right now when theres a very good chance you wont wake up in the same house you spent hours making


EDIT: Also whilst on the topic of broken mechanics, its possible to run up walls by holding W and spamming jump.


EDIT: Also animals can clip through anything and hit you from meters away. I think ill just keep editing with bugs, maybe they'll see this post

The key system should be "changed". Agreed. But it is not absolute rubbish. It's a change. People react conservative / reactive / agressive against changes.

I think there should be a carried token keysystem, only easier to use... enough people made sensible remarks about it. Garry will figure it out. I trust the designers.

[mrknifey]

bloo1 posted:

because i havent watched some obscure youtube videos or played with complete retards that use ingame voice chat to tell people their passwords it means i havent been playing long?

again, i never said remove the key system completely. the poll says should it be changed. and at the moment its very flawed, simple

not obscure videos as you say, but the point is moot anyway. you said that you had never heard of people having their doors cracked. i gave you suggestions about where to look, and how easy it is to get past them. yes, i feel like you haven't played long based on the knowledge you have shown so far in your posts. perhaps that's an unfair assumption, but i am full of them;)

don't get me wrong, you and i agree it is currrently flawed and needs to be fixed. it just seems to me like you are more interested in scrapping the current system entirely in favour of the combination locks, even if you haven't stated it explicitly. i think the key system can be simplified and fixed.

[utilitron]

bloo1 posted:

the poll says should it be changed. and at the moment its very flawed, simple

No, the poll says that (currently at the time of this post) 49/73 people that read the forums, read this thread and decided to vote say it should be changed.

How exactly is it flawed? Please give details to what hasn't already been addressed by garry as how it is intended on working?

Issue:

bloo1 posted:

So now the only thing someone needs to do to get into your base (apart from put a weight on their left mouse button and go do something else whilst they rock down your walls) is camp outside your house and just kill you whilst you have your keys on you.

Working as intended.
From reddit

What if you have 1 house, with 1 door, and 1 key. Go outside and get killed. Now you can never go back in your house. Correct?

garry posted:

Correct. Unless you get to your body and get the key. Or you put a spare key somewhere. Or you gave a key to a friend.

bloo1 posted:

Not to mention the fact you can get stuck in your own base without a key, if its level 6 you're fucked.

From Devblog 21

garry posted:

Why does your house belong to you? Because you built it? Because you have the key? What happens when you don’t have the key – is it still your house?

bloo1 posted:

Also the fact you cant even see which key is for which door is poorly thought out. What about when your base gets big and you have 10+ doors?

This is about the only legitimate problem I can see, but this is really a symptom of poor base design.

[SteakStyles]

mrknifey posted:

with all due respect, you mustn't have been playing long. look up gameplay videos on youtube or play on busy servers; the number of people who simply crack doors by hanging around and listening out for noobs giving out the code by voice

Lets not forget the incredibly common occurrence of people who say their door combination in chat. Either forgetting that there is just "global" chat, they think they've hidden themselves well or they just assume that everyone except who the message was intended for will just ignore the combination.

[Bui]

utilitron posted:

This is about the only legitimate problem I can see, but this is really a symptom of poor base design.

I also said that multiple doors was a flaw in the previous rust. Players needed multiple doors because it was a way to deal with C4. I think if players want to team up they should make separate structures nearby. The only problem I truly see, is it would be difficult to consolidate items. This is where the idea of a locked chest might come in handy. The doors might need lock & key but a chest box can use a pad or combination lock.

[Honest Russia]

I'm glad utilitron isn't a Rust deleveloper! Phew...

[Outback]

This is one of those times where I'm glad that game devs don't follow majority rules.

More things WILL come out to balance this system; higher-tier locks, base defenses while you're away/offline, etc.

C'mon guys, you really can't complain about something being broken in an incomplete version, let alone barely mid-late alpha game. It finally has gotten past the barrier of being nothing more than a test to see if the game even works somewhat, and has barebone mechanics. Of course some things are going to be stupid/broken: just look how much ore you get from a node. Just try to be understanding that things aren't finished yet :/

[Michaelrevou]

I would love like "bank safe" where even some stuff stay

[ThaHenry]

at least we should be able to combine multiple keys together into a bunch of keys, because if you compare 20000 Wood stacked with some keys.. yeah they should be space saving.

And please make it so you can rename your keys like "Front Door" or "Super Secret Cake Room"
That would order up the entire system and make it way better.

Right now i have a small base with 5 keys, but it's absolutely confusing as soon as you start to copy them to store etc.

[oXYnary]

Michaelrevou posted:

I would love like "bank safe" where even some stuff stay

No. Thats really gimped BoP.

[mrknifey]

ThaHenry posted:

And please make it so you can rename your keys like "Front Door" or "Super Secret Cake Room" That would order up the entire system and make it way better.

actually that's a really good idea. i mean the current problems are A)people don't like change, B) too many keys taking up too much space, C)the keys are all identical, making it hard to be sure if you have copied the right key/dropped your main door key etc. that solves the identity issue.

combining the keys has its issues. how do you separate a specific key from the keyring? i like it, i'm just struggling to figure out a way to do it that doesn't result in a "keyring" menu.

[Zipper Bear]

mrknifey posted:

actually that's a really good idea. i mean the current problems are A)people don't like change, B) too many keys taking up too much space, C)the keys are all identical, making it hard to be sure if you have copied the right key/dropped your main door key etc. that solves the identity issue.

combining the keys has its issues. how do you separate a specific key from the keyring? i like it, i'm just struggling to figure out a way to do it that doesn't result in a "keyring" menu.

That's simple, keep the keys as they are, but add a right click option to combine all keys. That way you can toggle between a key ring for inventory management, and individual keys for key ring customization. It's simple, easy, and the drop down menu already exists.

[Makotas]

Just lost my level 6 fortress due to being killed with keys. I don't like the current system. Until there is a change or another tier I'm done for awhile.

[Bacon_Beard]

Current key system is so flawed, please change :D

[Kooglio]

key system is dumb right now

if I make a door lock why can't I make it use an existing key, if I go outside why can't I bury a key in the ground

If you are going to do immersion then do it properly not half baked implementations.. at least the keycode system worked sure its not realistic given the materials and technology, but then neither are having tons of keys on you, and no way of burying keys underground so its near impossible for enemies to find.

[utilitron]

@Makotas I am sorry you lost the fortress you built, but that's Rust man. You got killed and weren't prepared to defend what you claim to own.

Again, your version of "Working" is not correct. You keep saying "My Base", "My Base", "My Base". Just because you built it doesn't make it's yours. Its only yours as long as you occupy it.

[Makotas]

There's a difference between losing everything on your person - resources, armor, guns - which you may have spent hours gathering and losing everything you have spent days to get.

Raiding is understandable. If they found a way in your base that's different.

If your flew your ship out into space in Eve Online and lost every single thing then Eve Online would have no subscribers. This is the same thing.

[Dewm]

utilitron posted:

@Makotas I am sorry you lost the fortress you built, but that's Rust man. You got killed and weren't prepared to defend what you claim to own.

Again, your version of "Working" is not correct. You keep saying "My Base", "My Base", "My Base". Just because you built it doesn't make it's yours. Its only yours as long as you occupy it.

Let me get this straight, he spends 2-3 days collecting resources, builds a base, spends 19000000hours hammering it, so its now level 6, puts a lock on the door.



...then goes outside, using super caution.. looking around.. finally bends down to pick up a little pile of wood. BLAM head shot from 700ft away behind a rock.


and your response is: "he's not prepared to defend what is his"

Sounds like your trying to justify horrible game design with fanboyism.

[zoolander88]

As long as FP implements a tiered system as promised, there won't be a problem, at least as far as I'm concerned. The key system is flawed, as a majority of players agree. But in the grand scheme of things, it will not matter. This argument is like a level 90 WoW player critiquing boss mechanics in Ragefire Chasm (level 15~ dungeon). There is a planned end game here. When the high level upgrades are implemented, this will be a non-issue.

[Dewm]

zoolander88 posted:

As long as FP implements a tiered system as promised, there won't be a problem, at least as far as I'm concerned. The key system is flawed, as a majority of players agree. But in the grand scheme of things, it will not matter. This argument is like a level 90 WoW player critiquing boss mechanics in Ragefire Chasm (level 15~ dungeon). There is a planned end game here. When the high level upgrades are implemented, this will be a non-issue.

To be fair,

This is like a level 15 WoW player critiquing a level 15 boss mechanic, and having blizzard say "There will be level 25 and 35 bosses..so this doesn't matter"

[zoolander88]

Dewm posted:

To be fair,

This is like a level 15 WoW player critiquing a level 15 boss mechanic, and having blizzard say "There will be level 25 and 35 bosses..so this doesn't matter"

Valid point. My analogy is invalid. But the point is still the same: critiquing a mechanic as if it is the final iteration, before there is a final iteration, makes no sense. People are complaining about the key system as an isolated mechanic (as if it will be the only way to access bases). We really can't make an argument that the system needs tweaking until there is a full system. Those arguing to go back to the code system fail to understand that codes will be part of the overall scheme, as specifically outlined by FP.

I realize this is all contingent upon FP making good on its promises, but until they say "the lock system is functionally complete," we are spinning our wheels.

[Dewm]

zoolander88 posted:

Valid point. My analogy is invalid. But the point is still the same: critiquing a mechanic as if it is the final iteration, before there is a final iteration, makes no sense. People are complaining about the key system as an isolated mechanic (as if it will be the only way to access bases). We really can't make an argument that the system needs tweaking until there is a full system. Those arguing to go back to the code system fail to understand that codes will be part of the overall scheme, as specifically outlined by FP.

I realize this is all contingent upon FP making good on its promises, but until they say "the lock system is functionally complete," we are spinning our wheels.

And honestly if they had a timeline for the lock system, you probably wouldn't see as many people complaining about it.


But here is the bottom line (for me)

Rust is about base building/survival. They released this version saying "it is now RUST" not experimental, but ready to go. There is a large facet of the game that is broken, and we are relying on them "someday" fixing it.

I honestly, 100% think that Garry will implement a locking system, and it'll be aight. BUT how long? a month? 4 months? a year?

I've already owned this game for 10 months, with little to no improvement...sooo yeah. patience is running thin around here.

[zoolander88]

Dewm posted:

And honestly if they had a timeline for the lock system, you probably wouldn't see as many people complaining about it.


But here is the bottom line (for me)

Rust is about base building/survival. They released this version saying "it is now RUST" not experimental, but ready to go. There is a large facet of the game that is broken, and we are relying on them "someday" fixing it.

I honestly, 100% think that Garry will implement a locking system, and it'll be aight. BUT how long? a month? 4 months? a year?

I've already owned this game for 10 months, with little to no improvement...sooo yeah. patience is running thin around here.

I agree. Changing from legacy to experimental is a hard pill to swallow because we were so used to how things were. Now we have to deal with changes being made to areas that actually seemed to be fine.

To an extent I don't mind playing to help test. But that's the only reason to play the "new" rust at the moment because it's no where near baseline.

[Zipper Bear]

Dewm posted:

And honestly if they had a timeline for the lock system, you probably wouldn't see as many people complaining about it.


But here is the bottom line (for me)

Rust is about base building/survival. They released this version saying "it is now RUST" not experimental, but ready to go. There is a large facet of the game that is broken, and we are relying on them "someday" fixing it.

I honestly, 100% think that Garry will implement a locking system, and it'll be aight. BUT how long? a month? 4 months? a year?

I've already owned this game for 10 months, with little to no improvement...sooo yeah. patience is running thin around here.

Actually I would argue that there are so many people complaining because nobody reads the damn dev blogs, or if they do they're barely paying attention. Garry has already stated that the key system is just the first tier, there will be upgrades in the future.

As far as all the other game breaking bugs, they're being fixed in no time at all so I really don't see any need for people to complain about those not being handled.

They made experimental the default branch because they didn't have enough people playing it, and they needed more data. They WANT you to bring up your concerns that's the entire reason you're playing it right now.

This is why people like you shouldn't be playing early access games. You completely ignore the real reasons why these games are being released so early and just assume it's the developers trying to cash in on an unfinished product. We are alpha testers. Alpha phases do not last one month, it is the phase of the game where the most development takes place. If you cannot handle that fact, then you need to wait for the beta release before you give a company any of your money. Paying them to access their game early and then going on the forums to wag your finger and whine about your patience running thin like you own them is childish behavior and you should be ashamed.

And don't get me wrong either; constructive criticism is more than welcome that's part of the reason we're here right now, but there's been entirely too many baseless accusations and plain old whining going on these forums.

[elixwhitetail]

zoolander88 posted:

I agree. Changing from legacy to experimental is a hard pill to swallow because we were so used to how things were. Now we have to deal with changes being made to areas that actually seemed to be fine.

To an extent I don't mind playing to help test. But that's the only reason to play the "new" rust at the moment because it's no where near baseline.

You can still play legacy. No one took that from you.

Does anyone not understand that experimental is still experimental, it's just the default selection now in order to get more players testing it?

[Wartai]

I see comments stating that the key system is more realistic ? LOL
Have you not seen doors in reality with combination locks ?
Even the staff door inside the banks have combination locks, I have also seen front doors to houses using combination locks. The keys system in my books just makes it easier to raid someone.
Just camp outside their house and wait till they come out, kill them then take the keys, its just making it quicker to get in than combination locks, which I prefer combination locks

[Onizucka]

Change the new system of keys for the rust legacy system key.

[Orphen1989]

It is absolutely necessary to change the system of keys with a more convenient and fast.