Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
Dear Garry,
Man do i love the hell out of the way Experimental is going. Or well.. i guess we should call it 'Rust' now, since it's the default branche.
It's obvious it's going to be really different than Legacy, which i think is a good thing. I'm all for change and to see whatever comes forth out of it. You guys nailed it before with the Legacy branche and you're very receptive towards the community, so i'm sure that'll work out just fine. However i personally love Legacy so much. I've been playing it actively again for the last month or so.. and i feel that it could become so much better with even little fixes that would fix a bunch of bugs for instance, let alone adding new elements to the game.
Of course i understand that Facepunch isn't planning on working on or updating the Legacy branche. So that's out of the question.
However i've heard from many people that Facepunch isn't too keen on giving out the source code regarding Legacy. I understand though, because it would give a really powerful position to hackers. At least from what i've heard that's the main reason not to give it out. But wouldn't it be an option to give it out to just a core group of developers (based out of the community) who would work on improving the game? I'm guessing this has been opted by many of the people asking for the source code, so i guess i'm just trying to emphasize it one more time that it would be really neat if the Legacy version could get some updates in the future. Even if it just would remove the annoying 'not being able to swap weapon/item after having shot the bow'-bug. All in all i think there's a lot of people who aren't ready to switch to the new version yet, mostly because it'll probably take another six months (just a guess here) for it to become a fully functional game as the Legacy version has been.
Just think about it.
-
-
Got a pro license to Unity 4.5?
The engine wasn't coded from scratch, it's not like getting the Doom source.
-
^ This is something i've thought about, however i've heard from others that they were willing to go through the proces of figuring that out.
I heard there has been a fair share of threads about this whole thing at reddit, which i haven't followed. I'm just wondering what the motivation is for Facepunch not to give it out.
I personally feel that there's still a lot of people out there who would love to see some changes to the Legacy version. That's all. :)
-
This is the process you need to figure out.
There is literally nothing for the devs to figure out. They either release their project files (highly unlikely), or they don't.
You would also need to use any third-party libraries they were using, such as Andre's sky, and the UI library Legacy was built on (that garry dropped for CoherentUI in experimental, and is now instead looking to Unity 5's built-in UI system instead of CoUI), as well.
The motivation is that legacy is still a part of their paid product, and they would be fools to give away the source code for it before even finishing Rust. That'd be like Notch giving away Minecraft alpha's source code with the blessings to change whatever you want on it the day the game went live at Minecon -- you don't release a competitor of your own making to a community that can make it into something better than your own product, and if you do, you don't do it while you're still in alpha.
It's why I can't ever take requests for the source seriously.
-
And how awesome would it be if they'd give it all out? Right?
:)
-
Take the worst of the Minecraft community.
Now shove them into the Rust Servers subforum.
That's how "awesome" it'd be.
-
Well that's like.. your opinion man.
(User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - SteveUK))
-
Elix hit the nail on the head. This guy is a troll.
-
-
Garry has already stated clear that he is not going to release the legacy source code. He doesn't want legacy to continue any longer as that is not their focus and nor should it be. Experimental is a way better game all around.
-
Yes it would be awesome but garry full knows there are people much more competent than him that would fix legacy thus harming experimental. Also, they could not implement a pay to win system if the source was around.
-
I'm pretty sure that Experimental, or Rust as we should call it, is going to be an awesome game which will have a lot more to offer than Legacy. And i am really looking forward to it's completion. But that's not the point of this thread. I understand that Facepunch's full attention would and should go towards the completion of a new build of Rust. I didn't ask for them to keep updating the Legacy version. All i'm asking for is for them to explore some options, to see if it would be possible to have a group outside of Facepunch working on some things regarding Legacy, which would make it a lot more fun for everyone who's still involved in the game. A lot of us love the Legacy version for it's looks, it's feel etc. Something that i personally miss a lot about the new version of Rust (don't get me wrong i still love it, but it just looks so soft and sweet right now).
I'm just wondering what the current idea about giving out the source code is. It's probably been discussed more than enough.. and unlike a certain elixwhitetail i don't literally live at this forum so i probably have missed out on a lot of that. I do check the forum once every few days and haven't seen a thread about it recently.. So that's why i figured to spark up the debate by posting this thread.
Just don't be a bunch of assholes about it. Just for once. It's not that hard. :(
-
It can only hurt garry to release the source files for legacy. There is no benefit.
It would be a nice-guy thing to do, but for being a nice guy, garry creates a free, uncontrolled competitor for his own product.
This was already explained to you in this very thread.
-
But wouldn't it be possible for a certain group to sign a contract not to exploit the future build for their own good (financially)?
And if it would be that you'd have to buy the original Rust version to be able to play it anyway.. i don't think Garry's losing anything at all. Especially since i'm guessing that the new build will be way more appealing to most people. So if there's anyone out there, apart from the 'old community' who loves the older build and would like to keep messing with it, who wants to play it they have to buy Rust anyway. But that just might be me. :)
Bed time here.. looking forward to this thread tomorrow! Please be gentle all of you!
-
Legacy is dead, deal with it and move on. It will be much simpler that way.
-
he is right that they (consumers) would have to buy the game anyway if they wanted to play the legacy mod.
-
No, they wouldn't.
If you had the project files (what is being requested), you could build the client and release it for anyone to download, without using Steam.
People could promise garry they wouldn't, but as soon as they got their hands on the files, those promises mean nothing unless the modders want to play nice and stay on garry's good side. They could do whatever they wanted, from there.
-
How would it be awesome? How many game developers are there actually on this forum? Getting your hands on the source code is great - how many can actually use it and continue developing it? A software developer is not a game developer. Why would Facepunch want to release source code and assets they spent a year and a half building? How would you distribute patches for both the client and server? You won't be able to use the Steam platform. I could carry on listing these all day.
Rust is all about development and evolving. We evolved from the browser version and we've evolving from Legacy. Some players seem to forget that, at this stage, more time went into Legacy than it has the current live version ('experimental') - of course legacy was more complete at this stage and things are seemingly missing. The current live version will continue evolving and things people loved about Legacy - building being a prime example (re: the latest dev. blog) - will/may soon be added to the live version.
I can't find the exact date it was announced, but Facepunch have been hard at work on the current live branch since around April time - 7 months - and it's come hell of a long way since then.
Move on - everyone else has.
-
I highly doubt the source code will ever be released..
-
the source code will be released in about 50 years time when we're all pretty much either dead or to old to care.
-
GrymThor, are you a time-traveler, sent back from "Future Rust"? lol
-
Well, there are open source license models that would negate anyone "closing" the source after the fact; GPL comes to mind.
-
Releasing Source Code for Legacy is a very bad idea. That branch will die sooner or later, so perhaps you should just play Legacy until Experimental suits you. I am pretty sure they will completely remove Legacy from the files once they are more advanced on the development. Last and not least, Legacy is quite similar to Experimental on many aspects on the back-end, and releasing its source code gives Hackers great stuff to work with. So forget about it.
-
If you really like the gameplay of legacy and have programming experience, why not just make your own?
Rust started as a DayZ Clone. Why not start your own project as a Legacy Clone. Just don't do what the guy in the link did and use the word "Rust" because that can get you into some legal hot water.
-
Great idea! You could launch a Kickstarter for a new game called "Corrosion".
-
I worked with a guy on a project once who was about as bad at naming projects as this suggestion. He got fixated on the name being directly connected to the content of the project. I was like "Whats a 'snickers'? You know because you have had one before. It didn't have to be called 'Chocolate, caramel, nouget, and peanut bar'."
So why leave any link to Rust in the name for a clone? Make it unique.
-
It was a joke.
-
You guys CIL already makes this possible, decompilation!
If you wanted to spend a loooot of time stealing code from the binarys and somehow extracting assets it could work but it would be so half assed it wouldn't be worth it without manually recreating alot of it. But to be fair if you really wanted to look at the source just download a copy of .net reflector and have a go at it.
-
yes Neil, yes i am.
-
Or JustDecompile by Telerik, it's free :) That's what I used to help me reverse engineer the save files in experimental.
-
How about we maybe don't discuss reverse-engineering and decompiling Rust?
I'm not a mod, you don't have to listen to me. I just have a feeling that'll have undesirable consequences if it continues.
-
especially on a rust/facepunch forum. or for the purposes of working around their not supplying source code.
-
How do you think oxide was made? lmao reversing rust is the only way to make these things since we don't have any direct api access.
Edited:
https://mega.co.nz/#!IAxz3boA!EDqkv3...jmFfRZ3q0-qWHk
omg l33t source code leak
-
Garry made clear his stance on modding (aka reverse engineering). It isn't supported, meaning they don't give a flip if they need to make changes to the game that make life hard for modders. Don't cross the line into copyright infringement. Using Facepunch assets and claiming them as your own is not OK. I assume that includes selling any works I made from or made for modded Rust.
I'm grateful that Garry has such a liberal policy. No doubt it was influenced by his own experience modding games.
-
Yes, it's not like he is developing an SDK or anything...
https://github.com/Facepunch/rust-sdk
-
Nice! I completely missed that when originally posted.
-
You need unity 5 to even use that
-
For me, it's less about the fact it exists as it is the fact that Garry is indicating he's going to be more supportive of modding by putting it out there. I always thought his original stance on modding was odd considering how he got his start, but I suppose the lack of support for modding from before was probably more about priority than philosophy.
-
He already fully supports modding, considering he did nothing to stop you from making mods.
Unity games by default are subject to reverse engineering, you would think if he didn't want that he would put a system in place like he did for client sided modifications(CheatPunch, EAC, etc).
-
He allows modding. When I said 'be more supportive of modding', I meant that rather than take a 'do it if you want, but we won't help' stance, he is now taking a 'do it if you want, and we are actually going to help make it easier' stance.
Modding can be done without the developers help, but it's harder if the developer doesn't intentionally build in hooks or at least design the code to be extensible. As good as Minecraft's modding has turned out, it'd have developed faster and allowed for more robust mechanisms earlier if Notch had built in hooks from the get go (and didn't obfuscate the code, but that's another story). Understandably, it's not always a priority.
Optimistic x 6
Dumb x 5
Agree x 3
Friendly x 1
Disagree x 1
Zing x 1
Funny x 1
Informative x 1
Winner x 1
Late x 1
