|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:59 am |  |
Fixed sleek batteries so that they recharge properly in solar panels, rather than just kind of turning into a useless, permanently charging battery.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:32 pm | |
In the interests of killing you all faster, I've introduced changes to progs that make it so that when an area's spawn counter gets too high, it can cause mobs to spawn or events to happen in Rust.
The only place where this will be coming into play for the moment is the Metro.
At the moment, there are two ways for players to decrease the spawn counter. Manually triggering loads and killing mobs within the area itself or, ALTERNATIVELY, using a new prog located at the entrance to the Metro.
In a nod to the Reds' peculiar obsession with building fucking gates everywhere, you can 'EXAMINE GATE' at the entrance to the Metro and it will explain.
I do plan on making more noncom skill-oriented devices that serve as a resource dump in exchange for lowering spawncounts (and keeping Rust safe) and introducing them, and assuming it doesn't lead to mass newbie graves, I'll likely add similar threats of wild incursion.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:44 pm | |
Given the still low and rather uncoordinated average player count, it this really a wise idea? At this point, I could easily see that every PC this kills, will be one less player in an already tiny game.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:12 pm | |
| kel wrote: |
| Given the still low and rather uncoordinated average player count, it this really a wise idea? At this point, I could easily see that every PC this kills, will be one less player in an already tiny game. |
Im sick of this philosphy, Stop holding the game hostage and threatening to quit the game if you are killed by a game change. Sure someone might quit if they lose their character but more people started playing arpi and other rpi because you COULD die. In the long run, good game features that improve the game is better than losing a player here and there who end up dying to the new challenges.
In fact people dying is a nessecary function to properly convey the seriousness and threat of the new situation. The bandits werent a pressing or a scary issue because they never killed anyone. I never felt that the bandits were going to hurt rust or hurt anyone in rust because the admins were hitting us with a foam bat every time. Never throwing more than we can safely handle our way. We never had to adapt and react to the new threats and the fact no one died harmed the game.
So stop saying people will quit if crayons features kill someone. Cause I promise that if people are dying and quitting players like me will be staying and enjoying the new game with a whole new respect for the mud.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:37 pm | |
Trust in Crayon.™
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Roadhawk
Registered
We lurk inside your brain, we hide inside your mind.
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:44 pm | |
| Flincher14 wrote: |
Im sick of this philosphy, Stop holding the game hostage and threatening to quit the game if you are killed by a game change. Sure someone might quit if they lose their character but more people started playing arpi and other rpi because you COULD die. In the long run, good game features that improve the game is better than losing a player here and there who end up dying to the new challenges.
In fact people dying is a nessecary function to properly convey the seriousness and threat of the new situation. The bandits werent a pressing or a scary issue because they never killed anyone. I never felt that the bandits were going to hurt rust or hurt anyone in rust because the admins were hitting us with a foam bat every time. Never throwing more than we can safely handle our way. We never had to adapt and react to the new threats and the fact no one died harmed the game.
So stop saying people will quit if crayons features kill someone. Cause I promise that if people are dying and quitting players like me will be staying and enjoying the new game with a whole new respect for the mud. |
Your opinions are a minority Flinch, they were when the game was at it's peak, they are now when it is at it's lowest. Serious roleplayers do not appreciate the loss of their character, you may throw hordes at the game in the hopes of exploring every last aspect and grinding everything out, others do not.
Others are able to suspend their disbelief and react accordingly to things that are shown to us, just because we have not been horrifically murdered in a coded manner, does not remove the threat for roleplayers, it appears to do so for you.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| Warrior on the edge of time. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:55 pm | |
If people react accordingly to things that are shown to them, it's unlikely that a multitude of poor newbies will randomly die.
Part of the reason the MUD's fallen to the state that it's in is that people have never felt like they had something to struggle against, not for day-to-day quality of life, but for their lives. Most people don't come to an RPI looking to play the Sims.
That said, I absolutely recognize the risk such threats pose to new players, but am confident that if people react to the changing game environment ICly you should be able to protect them (and yourselves)! And really, that's how it should be, shouldn't it? There are consequences for doing and not doing certain things.
I am entirely cognizant that the effects of this could get worse with a smaller playerbase. However, I'd really like to give people more to do than casually socialize and craft. And a reason to do it! And I'd like to include things to do for noncombatants as well as combatants. I'm being especially watchful with the difficulty of everything I implement, and don't foresee issues with the pbase size.
I'm sorry, RH, but I have to rather staunchly disagree with you. Serious roleplayers often view character death as an opportunity for great roleplay. Not some tangible loss to be avoided at all costs. Because the next character is just another story, and new RP.
At the same time, I will agree to SOME extent, that oftentimes death happens in an entirely coded and uninteractive way, and that serious roleplayers may have a very hard time with being silently killed by mobs or some spam-firing ingrate before they can type nary an emote. It doesn't, however, always have to be that way.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:54 am | |
Well, the trouble is, we're comparing a stiff wire brush, to a soft terrycloth.
Death, chaos, anarchy. Long established players. A bustling mud with a solid playerbase. This is a good formula.
And a brief interjection, let's not get in to defining what a 'serious roleplayer' is. In this case, in terms of how they react to death. That's very dangerous ground. Right up with that a serious roleplayer will always be hetrosexual. A serious roleplayer won't embrace coded combat over emoting. Etc etc. Bad. Bad.
The problem is, we are a quasi-established mud. We have a rather minuscule established playerbase. Some old players linger. Some old players leave and come back. And then leave again. Do they leave again because of a lack of struggle? In some cases, I'm sure that's just the fact.
In others, though? Well, you name the Sims. You claim that serious roleplayers don't want the Sims? Well, a brief touch back to the danger of trying to singularly quantify what a "serious roleplayer" is. And beyond that, well... How incredibly, hugely successful, is the Sims? The answer? Incredibly and hugely.
The statement "I'd really like to give people more to do than casually socialize and craft." is delightful. It's splendid. Variety is the spice of life! It's what any good mud needs to survive.
However... This is another trap. Because putting something in what was once a "relatively safe zone" that turns it into a "potentially lethal zone" isn't just adding a new option. It's forcing a new option down the throat of players, whether they like it or not. This, I still stand, is not healthy for a mud in our current state.
Flincher loves coded conflict. Something to struggle against. Sudden an unexpected death. Have at it, I say. Embrace it. He's a well established player who enjoys that sort of thing.
But the life's blood of any mud our size are new players. Mud ratings, personal recommendations, etc etc etc, are in place, and enough to draw new players in. Slowly, nowaday, but they still show up, now and then. What's critical, however, is finding the mechanism to hook these new players. To stir the desire for wanting to come back for more. And, from talking to people, my own experience, various other things, ending up dead in the first few days is going to be a turn off to the majority of new players. Even the people who like the more "extreme" environments are going to be put off by "Well, I spent blah blah time making this character and reading docs, and blah blah time waiting to be approved. And my new guard character died 20 minutes in, eaten by some croc when I was just trying to find my base?" Well, back to the mud connector to search for another rp mud. That's just the way it works, most of the time.
So, I'm all for adding dangerous elements. But I'm damn well sure that there needs to be a safe base. And that we shouldn't insist that brand new players be able to instantly "react to the changing environment" when they're still at the point they don't have a damn clue what the actual environment is.
And please, Crayon, don't take this as harsh criticism. I absolutely adore the work and effort you've put in to keep our little game alive. And in many things, I've seen the positive effect you've had. going from "Oh, you're the only person online" during peak times to "Oh, hey, there's seven more of you hanging around." That's a huge thing. I adore you for it. I just happen to disagree with this particular action, and feel that it has the potential to chase away new players. Which we need. Cause so many of the old ones are burnt out and won't be coming back. Just gotta face that fact. And that's okay, cause they all smell funny and have hairy armpits.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:44 pm | |
The thing is: PRPI is not the Sims. It never was. It was never intended to be. Somehow it wound up turning into that.
Sims-like elements are perfectly okay. They're a good thing. It adds variety to the gameplay. But making the game mildly more dangerous isn't even remotely close to shoving something down the throats of the playerbase.
The reality is, we have people who absolutely refuse to leave the market or go anywhere where there is a remote chance of death, simply BECAUSE they want to play the Sims. And that should continue to be effective to some extent. But eventually, we all need to accept that Rust was always intended to be a dangerous place. The market will not be safe forever either. But I will be very careful with making sure that such things are balanced appropriately to what the playerbase can handle.
Frankly, every time I log on to ten people all "socially" roleplaying in private, I feel a little sting. The fact is, we all know that 90% of "social" roleplay consists of one thing, and that it's not even remotely close to being inclusive group-oriented story-based roleplay. I don't blame the playerbase for this. The sad reality is, there hasn't been much else to do for a long, long time.
Slowly the game slipped until really, the only players left, were those who get by comfortably on social roleplay alone. Does that mean I should start building and programming as if PRPI was a talky? Absolutely not.
Danger, suspense, horror, action, and intrigue have always been parts of the game, they've just been underplayed historically. I'm going out of my way to make them a feature element again, if I can. But the fact is, if character death is really that scary, there are ways to avoid it. The thing is, avoiding character death should be an IC motivation, not an OOC one. I'm actually somewhat perturbed by how desperately I expect some players would work to avoid it.
The goal isn't to make things more how the players we have like it, though, I believe the majority have expressed approval of changes, but to attempt to fulfill a promise that PRPI let the playerbase down on months ago. There is a successful formula. And there's enough pie to eat for everybody.
Regarding reacting to a changing game environment: there are limits to the scope of wildlife incursions into Rust. There are tools in place to prevent it from happening. It's up to players to do the rest. If players don't do them, it'll be clear enough that certain areas are dangerous, not far into the game, and player culture will lead to the inhabited portion of Rust contracting to a smaller area. That's a good thing, because let's be honest, it's a little too big at the moment.
Besides. Worst case scenario I kill all of you.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:51 pm | |
Best case scenario*
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
