Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
**Taken from Reddit**
[–]Xismm 7 points 19 hours ago*
I completely agree with you.
This was a game that brought me and allllll of my buddies from all games together in one place. It was that good. Even my girlfriend couldn't get enough of this game..... and she doesn't like first person shooters much at all.
I understand why the game needed to be remade due to coding restrictions and what not.... But the very core of this game... and a lot of the mechanics that just WORKED have not been implemented in experimental.
Things that made rust great in my opinion:
The fact that you could know the map, so there was an 'emergent' progression in knowing the map. This was actually kind of a big deal and lead to a lot of early success/failure. It taught you where to build your base, where to avoid.... and some strategies for getting ahead early on in a reset.
Progression happened by farming rad towns/hub areas which forced an awesome risk v reward situation as well as a place to go for combat and having fun. The greatest thing about rust was there was so much to do.... and you benefited from all of it. You could stock pile resources and go farm so that you could make your base better, or make a secondary base. You could farm more ammo/guns to protect it. It just depended what kind of experience you wanted that day.... Want some serious team PVP? Go camp a rad town.
Airdrops aka adrenaline boxes. Another risk v reward. On big servers if you wanted c4 you needed to take your whole team with you to secure it, and there was always the chance that you would lose a lot to get it. Not to mention the tension/thrill you got as you ran up to the box as it was falling and shit your pants trying to loot everything and run away. A lot of people didn't like airdrops but they were so unique and awesome in what they brought to the table.
Raiding. Simply put, no other game handles raiding player houses and the risk and reward of doing so quite like rust. There were many times where it was just a friend and me playing and a group of 5 came to our base and threatened us. There were very emergent situations that came just from the raiding mechanic. In the new game.... you need like 30 people to beat on one wall to make it break... I mean its so boring compared to the satisfaction you got from bombing the fuck out of someone that pissed you off.
Currency. Guns were the currency.... you built your base like it was a bank, because to function in this society you need guns and ammo. So you went to work making those guns and ammo, then you protected them. On paper it sounds pretty simple, and to some a bit asinine... but it worked soooo well. When I would go out with only a pistol, and take someones m4 or some kevlar and run back to oneo f my temp bases to store it.... that was just an awesome feeling. When me and my friends would hunt the rad towns or stake them out.... and then go and bank that shit.... that was such a feeling of winning. When our temp base then got raided and we realized we had stock piled like 5 sets of kevlar and 10 m4s..... that sucked worse than anything has ever sucked.... but it was still awesome and unlike anything i've ever seen in a game.
The road. Yes I understand the choice to make a map more 'random' for the survival aspect of the game.... But as a newbie the road was a very awesome tool that also allowed you to find potential allies early in the progression of a server. It also was a sort of beacon to the action and the places you needed to farm. WIthout this, the game is very hard to grasp early on. Me and my friends found it impossible to find each other in experimental. There was literally nothing to go by.... If the road wont be in the game any longer.... at least provide some way on the random maps to guide or to navigate.
All of these things were removed and remain unaccounted for..... and I don't see how rust can be enjoyed much without them. I tried really fucking hard to enjoy experimental... But its just not good. Nothing about the new mechanics is good. The combat system is stupid.. the key system is prohibitive of anything fun... (I remember befriending someone and he turned out to be a spy to get my door code... I was salty but it was still awesome for this to be able to happen in a game!) A lot of the emergent social aspects of the game are non existent anymore.
I hold out hope that all of those things I listed will be built back into the game in some form or fashion.... I was a fan of Gmod and that game went from kind of neat idea, to crap, to glorious over its production cycle.... and rust went from oh my god yes! to oh my god no! so maybe it will swing back to being the best game i've ever played again.
-
-
A couple of weeks ago I would have totally agreed with you. However, I think the game is heading in a good direction and has some very fun and emergent game play situations. The tool cupboard creates some interesting mechanics, and many of the issues you talk about will eventually be fixed (I hope).
I put in quite a few hours over the weekend and had many of those "legacy" moments where I didn't know if I could trust someone, had the thrill of scoring a big reward on a raid, and stalked people to break into their houses or shoot them from a distance after they collected lots of resources.
-
They started from scratch not that long ago, and it's opened new doors to things that weren't previously possible. To make the best end-product, these ideas should be explored. Experimental won't be up to par for a while, and really that's for the best. Most of what you're saying (quoting, whatever) just sounds to me like unreasonable impatience.
As for any new ideas you simply don't like, well, that sucks. You were warned when you purchased the game that everything might change. That said, FP won't leave stuff in the game if it doesn't work, and it needs to be able to test new ideas.
It sounds to me like you were satisfied with legacy -- if that's the case, go play it! It's still available.
-
Experimental is nothing like legacy. Theyre not even the same genre of games. Legacy has an opportunity to go down as a classic, while experimental will be a huge success if a third of the people who own rust end up liking it.
Id agree that experimental is headed in a better direction now. But that is only because they are making it more like legacy and honestly they will never make it feel like legacy. The dev team is split between making it like legacy which is what most of the people who have the game want and making the game they want to make. Fixing up legacy would please everyone and they would be free to do what they want with experimental.
-
Older iterations aren't going to be identical to newer ones. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it? Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges. Legacy was in a stable state, deserving almost to be called a beta. Experimental hasn't had time to even truly be called an alpha yet, but it already encompasses a much wider scope of ideas than legacy. When it's ready, it will be a better game.
As for fixing legacy -- isn't it pretty retarded to demand they perfect an older iteration before they work on the new one? It would be a monumental waste of time and money.
-
As far as how difficult it would be to implement new things into legacy, I am not a programmer, but before they announced they were working on a whole new version of the game, legacy changed several times.
I doubt anyone would mind if they added a few new skins, new animals, brought zombies back etc. They should make this things possible for the modding community if they don't want to spend resources on it.
I mean really who cares at this point since they have "abandoned" legacy altogether, right?
-
Yes they have, because it's an old iteration of Rust. It's not a matter of whether it would be difficult, but rather that it's a total waste of any time to put in any work on old iterations. Development isn't creating a string of completed products and choosing the best -- it's a work-flow process where you build towards the finished product. I don't know why people find that so difficult to understand.
-
These are true statements, however they appear to be made by someone who doesnt understand the concept of development and the fact that all this stuff will eventually be back. Given that all these things will return with even better balance, this post is mostly just whining.
-
Imagine this: If rust was advertised in its current state as an early access game on steam, would people touch it? excluding legacy just this current vision.
-
Have you ever watch Jimquisition where he reviews shitty alpha games that don't deserve to be on steam?
If you haven't, you should YouTube 'Earth: Year 2066'. If you have then you already know what you asked is kind of silly.
-
You didn't answer the question though. Rust's initial success was the result of the legacy version. No one can deny that. If we just had experimental to go off of, you could probably equate Rust's success to that of The Forest. Lacking content but with pretty good potential.
-
it's kind of pointless making hypotheticals like that. you could make the same argument with any potential change; maybe the sales would be less because they never put in the bolty, or increased because they put in robot ninjas.
i personally think they need to clarify the advertising though. the steam store page has the video of legacy, and photos of the old build system...that said, i guess it's hard to keep it up to date with everything changing so often.
-
Thats because if he was informed about these things I'm talking about the question would answer itself. Basically, the answer is yes. People have, and do buy in development games that look and play even worse than the current state of Rust, and yet Rust is different from these because it is most definitely going to see the end of its development cycle some day. You can't say that for most of the games that are being compared in this implication.
-
We're talking about user adoption though. He's referencing the fact that people bought the game and loved it and got their friends on board. If people bought the game in it's current state of development, without legacy it wouldn't have gotten the hype. Without that cash flow, the project wouldn't have been as successful. This in turn means that the project MIGHT have been scrapped without the interest or funds. The original question was a hypothetical so I'm giving a hypothetical answer.
-
You make a good point, and either one of us could be right or wrong I think, which is why I'm trying not to stay hypothetical. For the sake of discussion tho I see your point. Afterall, I got Rust when legacy first came out because I saw a Youtuber I watch playing it, and thought it looked amazing. I then convinced about 3-4 other friends to get it. While they don't play anymore for reasons similar to what we see listed here, I know that when Rust is ON PAR with legacy or better I will make them come back.
-
Garry didn't want Rust to get even this popular before development was finished. It's actually detrimental to become explosively popular so early. It's a hypothetical with little meaning because Rust would've continued in development past this point with or without player critical mass, most likely.
Rust's development has been completely paid for by the fat bank account made by Garry's Mod, and the devs were planning on making it even without the two million sales it's made in a year on Steam.
-
Isn't that a little unfair? FP had to start over from the ground up, and like I said above, that gave them options that didn't exist before. They need time to explore those options, right? I mean, Legacy was alpha-worthy, but it wasn't going to go much farther than it was when development on it stopped. Remember how slow things were going before the reboot? Things are progressing much faster now, and sure, experimental isn't up to par yet, but it will be before too long.
But no, the argument I think you're alluding to is totally deaf towards the circumstances.
-
The thing I really miss most, is pitch black nights. Actually gave me a reason to try and be discreet and use the lantern !
-
It can get pretty dark. I was playing on a server last night and got killed twice at night by wolves I never saw because it was so dark. I basically ran right into them. In fact, I died like 4 or 5 times from hunger, wolves, and bears. It's hard to run away from them without a proliferation of rocks to jump onto!
-
Actually, it is debatable at this point whether "these things will return with better balance". OP points out some great strengths of legacy, and we have no way to know if they will change things a lot and the old features will never come back.
For example, the building system, while simple, was quite good in legacy. Now, FP is debating to even put C4 back in to the game. It will be different, and no there is no guarantee it will be as good as legacy. It is possible they will try but it wont be as good. Small changes, with input from players, would have allowed the game to get steadily better. Now we have major changes that may or may not end up being as good. I am not convinced at all they will get the balance right.
Of course they will try. And I think it will be a great game, but what so many people are pointing out is, this new version is very different. It might not be as good, if they radically different systems (like building) are not at good.
-
I'm not aware of how much G-mod grossed. I guess I was looking at it from a business standpoint. You would probably want the alpha to be successful to help fund development in order to create better content and help get some perpetual funding for the game. I guess if he could have just used g-mod money to fund the project then he was fine anyways.
-
Well, when it comes to alpha games, I purchased this one fairly quickly. There was very active development going on, even though a lot of people flamed it for the recent changes. The fact that they WERE making changes is what convinced me that it'd be worthwhile. Other alphas I looked at though were not as promising. I was actually looking at Day Z yesterday. I considered it, but with a $35 price tag, I took a closer look. I'm not quite as convinced with that one as I was with this. Some people loved it, of course, but a lot more people were getting disgruntled that development hadn't really progressed much in over a year (same bugs, no new features other than trivial changes). So when it comes to alpha games, active development and changes are a good sign, whereas stale versions stuck in alpha with no real progress show signs of being a failure. That's my opinion on it anyway.
-
They're trying new things. If they don't work, of course FP will change it. Again, options opened up that were not available before, and we should explore those. Give FP a chance to experiment.
FP isn't going to make a shitty game, or keep features that are universally loathed.
-
Like locked backpacks that EVERYONE downvoted....ohhh wait.....
-
To be honest, apart from having more water on the maps and new clothes, there is nothing better in experimental.
Gun play is worse, base building is worse, raiding is worse, looting not yet existing and the map is to vast and open. I like legacy much more at the moment.
-
I seem to recall having paid $20 for this game. Steam says I have played it over 1700 hours.
Whose time and money are you speaking of?
-
Pretty sure he meant a waste of the developer's time and money. They froze legacy at its current development and moved to the experimental version. Why would they waste their effort or resources refining a 'deprecated' version of the game when they're actively developing the new one? That's what everyone is getting at. Legacy is legacy. What it is now is all it ever will be. Experimental on the other hand is the path the game is now taking. It has nothing to do with your time or money.
-
Oh.
Well, the deprecated one is the one I bought.
If you bought a ticket to U2 and a few days before the show, Ticketmaster switched you to a Beiber concert, do you think you might have a little difficulty getting used to the idea that you're a Beiber fan now? Even if the ticket says it might be switched at any time, you'd still feel disappointed, right?
-
Actually, you only bought early access to an alpha game. It pretty clearly states that NOTHING that's in the game now is guaranteed to be in the finished product. There isn't even a guaranteed finished product. I mean, I can understand your disappointment, but that's the risk you take with early access games. They could just up and say "Screw it. Development cancelled." and there really isn't anything you could do except write a bunch of flame posts about it and that'd be the end of story.
-
Thank you. That is all I wanted to express. I hope it gets better, but at the moment, I am disappoint.
-
Holy shit! That's an average of 4.5 hours a day over the course of a year.
-
That's Rusty as hell right there.
-
Sorry dude but you're just wrong. We do have ways. Those of us who bother being informed know our ways. You keep using the word 'good' like its an objective thing. You're trying to use your opinion to back up facts. Facts that aren't even technically true. You're literally just using your opinion to speculate and act like its true.
-
If Legacy looked like Active (I don't call it Experimental anymore), I guarantee you that number would be double!
-
Fact: we had a good building system in legacy. It could have been improved to allow more flexible building design, without losing the plusses.
Fact: the new building system has yet to get as good as legacy, in terms of gameplay (safety, raids, non-exploitable).
Fact: instead of starting with a good system and improving it, they scrapped it, tried out new ideas (cupboard), abandoned some of the strengths of the old system, had drop what they tried and start over, etc.
I am not convinced at all the final building concept will fit into the game as well as the one in legacy. For example, will the destructible/collapsible buildings make a better game overall? I am not sure. They are playing around, not adding small improvements to a good system.
If collapsible buildings make the game worse, will FB be willing to remove them after putting so much time and effort in to it?
I think some of you are living the fantasy game customer dream - that all changes to the game will make it better automatically. And that players will have consensus on what is bad, and FB will listen to that consensus.
-
-
You can't just state "Fact" and avoid needing to establish your assertions as facts with any evidence. Especially when you're choosing how to define words to mean what you want. And who's FB? Facebook?
As for your question regarding if the devs will be willing to remove collapsible buildings are putting so much time into them, realize that they jettisoned legacy completely. They're willing to start over if things are not up to snuff.
Please don't confuse your pessimism for objective fact.
-
Please explain to me how any of the things you just listed are fact. They 100% sound like opinions to me.
I'm all over the trello every day. Do you know how many things that people like you are bitching about are actually planned for development already? Let me list a few:
-maps
-roads
-radtowns
-better environments
-defense mechanisms for buildings OTHER than iron fisted things like the cupborad(like booby traps)
You say they have abandoned strengths of the old system. Instead of dropping blanket statements, care to name a few? Please name ones that aren't clearly already planned to be worked on, because I know you're going to try. You appear to be one of the very few that are convinced of something that isn't actually true or happening.
If you really think legacy is that good you are free to return to playing it at anytime.
One last thing. Saying something is 'good' is your opinion. If you want to make it fact you need to provide some solid points to prove it.
EDIT: I've always hated how threads full of useless arguing get way more posts than productive ones that support development, and I realize I'm a part of this wasted thread. I've made my points, so Fuck it.
-
Any other fans who want to chime in and argue that everything is going perfectly, and we will definitely get a much better game than legacy in the end? How many years will that take?
I love how I say that the new building system is not yet as good as the one on legacy in terms of gameplay (raiding, safety, etc.), and some of you are unwilling to even admit that. I know it is not done yet, and could be better than legacy, but you are not even willing to admit that current state, with all the bugs and exploits is not as good as legacy's base system.
Lastly, I am not being pessimistic. I am just saying there is no guarantee that a completely new game (Rust 2.0) will be as fun as legacy was. I fully expect the new Rust eventually to be good though.
Edited:
You are so missing the value of feedback, even if it is critical. You basically said it right there. Threads with criticism or concerns, or dislike of some features are "useless", while "ones that support production" are "productive". Maybe all feedback is useful. Even ones where players are saying what is wrong.
-
Its been 9 months since the abandonment of legacy Rust and the new version sucks ass now, will suck for atleast another 5 months and will likely never even be half as good as legacy. All they had to do for legacy was expand the progression of building and player gear and implement better anti cheat.
x 14
x 9
x 3
x 3
x 1
Optimistic x 1
Artistic x 1
Zing x 1
Friendly x 1
Informative x 1