Brictoria

Will the VIP daily drops remain, or are they leaving with the portable recycler? It's good that upkeep is not returning, as it's one of the selling points for the server that you have the ability to build larger structures and not need to worry if something occurs that prevents you being able to sign in and farm, and so having your base decay. Out of curiosity, was there any change in server population/retention after the "tech tree" was brought in, as it seemed to kill the community nature of the servers because there was no real need for trading at that point, with everyone solely focussed on looking for scrap instead (with the constant issue of containers where only the scrap had been removed). Personally I'd love to see the tech tree removed (with or without the return of the "random" research at workbenches).

Using the same reasoning, why shouldn't players also be able to steal from others in order to get what they believe they need for "survival"? Stepping back, what makes up a "survival game": Is it the need to find resources to build a shelter and gather food? If so, in theory "upkeep" (repairs) might be needed for a base, but at the same time that would imply that the base should also be able to be damaged (raiding, for example) and people should be able (required?) to obtain what they need to "survive" in whatever manner they feel is the most efficient method. The "upkeep" (repair) mechanic serves little purpose without a reason that the base would\could be damaged and need repairing: On a PVP server, it serves to limit how much "protection" players can provide to the resources which they have gathered to help themselves "survive", providing the optional ability for other players to acquire what they need from these "protected" storage areas instead of scavenging junk piles, etc. for them, but what purpose does it serve on a PVE server where there is (theoretically) no "requirement"\ability for players to remove resources from another player's base like that, other than to turn the game from a "survival" game into a "resource harvesting" game?

When there are much larger patches of trees, with no bases built in them, so close, it's difficult to find a reason why someone would choose to harvest the trees around the base and not the more plentiful trees nearby. One of the trees was close enough to the base walls that I had been unable to place a door facing it, so it's not a case of the player not knowing there was a base, but rather that they didn't care. If there is plenty of buildable "grass" space around, along with a small tree'd area and several larger tree'd areas nearby, and you find a base built in the small treed area, common sense would suggest that the player built their base there because of the trees around it, and common decency would suggest that if you needed wood, you would harvest from one of the large areas of trees, rather than the small amount surrounding that players base.

Because I like to build out from my starter when I have time to sign in, gradually expanding it as\where necessary, rather than be forced by another player's actions to have to waste time and effort trying to find a suitable location, then running back and forth between where I had started and wherever I am forced to relocate to, in order to move items\resources. Rather than being forced to replicate my earlier work in order to find a location, start building there, and acquiring\relocating items\resources, I'd rather invest the time in some other game\pursuit where my time is better respected.

The reason I built there was that I wasn't going to have much time to play for the first few days of the wipe, so I needed somewhere I could get to quickly and set up a base, with the ability to do quick scrap runs from if I had a few minutes to log in. I didn't have the time to grind scrap (or materials) to research and then build walls, which I detest seeing on a "community" server as they give the appearance that the person building behind them wants nothing to do with the community\other players. I do have my suspicions about who did cut down all the trees around my base (There was a huge base on a hill nearby which appeared at around the same time), but I guess I'll just chalk this wipe up as another ruined wipe, and hope next month is better.

Is there any way to find out which inconsidrate player decided to ruin my build area? I built a 2x2 in the middle of a small area of trees, as I liked the atmosphere they gave to the location. Tonight, on logging on, I found someone had decided to remove every tree surrounding my base, leaving large areas of trees close to the area untouched. For context, the location I had built was in the middle of the small section of trees on the q21\r21 line. All the trees in that small block were cut down in the past day by someone, but the large area of trees in r21\s21, and the P21\Q21 trees were not touched. This makes it look like it was an intentional act, given they would have seen the base there and still decided to cut everything down, when there were large areas without any bases so close to that area which they ignored.

Well, this has certainly been my worst wipe on these servers... Despite having been given approval by an admin for a build at a point where it was still in twig (where a minimum amount of time and effort would be wasted by taking it down), and then putting considerable time into harvesting materials, upgrading the build, and remoning extraneous parts, I'm still faced with a message on signing in to the server that implies I had no right to build what I had built, that I need to tear it down, and provides no indication that the person who is forcing the message on me had made any effort to communicate with other admins (or if they had, to explain why permisssion had been revoked and appologise for that, rather than accuse me of having done something wrong as the message does). What makes this worse is that almost 3 weeks ago an admin posted here with the partial information they had and have since ignored the reply I posted to them that same day...

I'd say that the "techtree" is the biggest impediment to the "Pure" servers - Where once people were forced to find the items they wanted\needed for a build, which forced people to either explore the map searching for them, or to trade among themselves for the needed things (often congregating into small communities), now it's simply a "grab the scrap" game, encouraging the inconsideate act (quite common on AU) of people taking the scrap from loot containers and leaving everything else in them rather than taking other items\dropping them on ground to "despawn" the container. This "scrap hunt" also means that after a few days, people can have the tech tree researched, removing a large part of the game (exploring and searching for items) leaving only building bases or running monuments, causing player count to drop off as the wipe progresses. I'd also sugest that removing the "drone delivery" (and minicopters\large helicopters) would be a great move as well, as it would force people to make the decision to either build a "community" with\near others to work together, or to have to make a significant effort to get access to things others are offerring. It would also prevent instances of people being able to quickly jump directly from monument to monument and force a "time delay" between monuments (with associated risks from animals that are otherwise not present to those flying\using drones) as well as stopping people "escorting" the chinook between monuments, racing ahead to be "first" for crate if it drops... It can become very frustrating when you build a base near a monument, and every time you run to it, you see minicopters fly to\from the monument and the "puzzle" started\containers all looted when you arrive there shortly after, or see the same names popping up to say they are "hacking the crate" as soon as it drops and a minute or so later a minicopter flies off from there... or minicopters flying in to grab the random airdrops before players can run to them. Regarding upkeep, it would be nice if it could be calculated based upon the number of TC's a player is "auth'ed" on, so a player with a single TC doesn't have upkeep, but every additional TC adds 25% (for example), so a player with 2 TC's\bases pays 25% of the "vanilla" upkeep on each of their TC's, while a player with 4 (or more) has to pay full upkeep - Even perhaps allowing the ability to extend above the "100%" to deter multiple bases around the map. Anything not connected to an "auth'ed" TC should decay at the vanilla "twig" decay rate to prevent people placing and upgrading structures without a TC to avoid having to pay for upkeep.

Thank you for your responce. When I asked for the review, the bridge was "completed" in twig (pillars and 1 lane of "roadway" with the second (required in part for structural stability) having small gaps between pillars where a 1x1 wasn't required for the stability of the completed roadway portion), with the only "extension" needed being the ramp at the end to allow access to it by a horse\car (which was its intended purpose) - There was no "plan" to buiild an "additional section out into the ocean" as that structure was already in place at that time I sought approval. I initiated the bridge in the ocean at the foundation for what was intended to be my main base, and worked back to the mainland from there, to ensure that it was connected to that structure and at an appropriate height\alignment, rather than having to risk dealing with uncrossable gaps\height differences\"floor offsets" there and as well as that the supporting pillars were spaced as far apart as possible while ensuring structural stability. When I sought and was given approval, I was also informed that the portion over the water, where I started from, had already been checked earlier in the day while being constructed and was OK (unknown to me while I was putting the twig in place, there had been concern from someone regarding the clearnce for RHIB's and this had been checked at that time) but I had designed it to be high enough (The roadway was placed between 1.5 and 2 full walls above the water surface, which required planning\testing to ensure there was stability for the roadway even over the deepest portion of water it crossed) to permit RHIB's through the water beneath it where the supports were not required, and for cars/horses/players on foot in the small area where it was on land. I had also designed it to be as compact as possible within the confines of the stability system, keeping it's "land" usage as low as possible (From memory, there's around 5 "2x2" foundations, and the decorative 1x2 with 3 triangles on the sides where the ramp joins the upper level, with the rest being a number of evenly spaced 2x2 pillars across the sea which isn't commonly used as a building area. And so, we return to the issue that I was initially posting about - I had built a structure for a specific purpose, used the minimum amount of "land" possible, made it as unobstructive to others as possible, sought (and was given) approval for it at a stage where the minimum amount of time and effort had been sunk for planning and resource gathering. Then, having received approval and spent considerable time farming resources and planning how to "decorate" it (make the final form as aestetically pleasing as possible within the confines of the game limitations), applying upgrades, and removing superflous portions the approval was revoked by another staff member and a "warning" given. Lacking consistency such as happened here takes away any incentive\motivation to try and build structures that look pleasant (in layout\design as well as in material\texture) to others or encourages them to see what is possible to be done using the limited building components the game provides, and instead tends to encourage huge "boxes", multi-TC "PVP" bases\compounds copied directly from youtube videos or structures left in twig for the entire wipe, so that should it suddenly be deemed to require a warning by a different staff member, it will have wasted as little investment of time\effort by the player(s) involved as possible. It also has the potential to drive people (and their recomendations to others) away from the servers if they cannot rely on\trust that what one staff member tells them will be respected\upheld by other staff members.

I'd love it if there was some middle ground (Having built some sizable community structures and towns in the past [1])... Upkeep required for Twig: Cuts down on the foundations people dump and leave all over the map (to avoid animals, or planning a build that they decide they no longer want to complete but won't tidy up) and means staff aren't needed to remove them, as they'll naturally decay and disappear. Encourages people to upgrade their builds, rather than littering the servers with huge twig monstrosities. No Upkeep for other materials: Allows for creative builds, and encourages people to put more effort into their builds. This way those who want to make something large or fancy know they can do so, but that they still need to put the effort into finding a sizeable amount of resources as well, not just the tiny amoount required for twig. [1] This was from a publicly accessible castle I built (including furnished houses\shops and dungeon\labyrinth) a year or so back, which would never have been possible with upkeep enabled (It didn't have any noticable frame-rate or other impact for players, either):

I've just logged in to find a "warning" from a Rustez staff member about a build I have spent many hours planning and working on over the weekend. The problem with this is that the warning comes hours after I had been given the "all clear" on the build by a Rustez staff member who had inspected it and confirmed there was no issue with it. Following this approval, I subsequently spent hours harvesting resources to "tidy it up" (upgrading from the initial twig form), removing superflous parts that had been used to ensure stability but were no longer required, planning how to "decorate" it, and had planned to spend time today in harvesting materials to complete the upgrade of materials used. Is there any internal communication between staff members to ensure consistency, or can approval from one member of staff be overridden on a whim by another, making a previously approved build that people may have invested a large amount of time on suddenly require demolition and so wasting the time and effort of the player(s) involved? This isn't the first time I have done a build which was approved by one staff member and another has come along and decided they would issue a "warning" about either, and it certainly takes away from the motiviation to play on (or direct others toward) the server...

Thank you for that. To clear up a minor misunderstanding, Postanou, the "Too bad, so sad" reaction was what I received during last year's Halloween event (I had a small castle (with dungeon) that I was building\outfitting on an ice lake at the north of the map during that wipe) where I asked for some "solo friendly"\"solo competetive" instances rather than solely the admin run "teleport" events which they initiated and where there were no random instances of the event occurring, and wasn't from yesterday's interactions. From what I had seen in chat (at the time being somewhat distracted by another player who had taken to shooting at me while I was trying to gather items) I had been under the impression that the same thing was happening with the Easter ones this year (all admin spawned, with notification as to when (to allow "planning" for it), and an "event" which allowed players to teleport to a set location and no instances occurring at "random" where players have no warning to prepare) due to the discussions in chat such as those surrounding the start time for the next hunt, as well as the "scores" which people were receiving (200+) which resembled those from the Halloween event last year... Perhaps it was just a coincidence that a number of players had been standing around in a group\location waiting for it, rather than it having been a staged event like Halloween last year where you needed to join the group\"event" each hunt to be "competetive" and I had the misfortune to sign in when such a group had already naturally formed\gathered via chat, rather than being teleported[1], in which case I appologise for my misunderstanding of how the events were running at present. [1] With the random events and the "natural"\chat based grouping, those in the group have to sacrifice time from the build\gather\? activities they would otherwise be doing (or stick together while doing those activities), to wait in hope of the event starting. The "solo" player, in these cases, isn't "disadvantaged" (outside of losing inv spots to basket, etc. to be ready whenever the event starts), as they can continue roaming - Where they are when the event starts is of less importance. With the "forced"\"teleport" instance, the solo players knows from the beginning that they have no chance of competing (reaching top 3 for the "bonus"), and it becomes demotivating to repeatedly see huge scores, knowing you have no opportunity to get anything close to them - The Halloween event last year became an annoying interuption\distraction, rather than an enjoyable activity to participate in.

Is there any way to return the in-game "holiday" events (Easter, halloween) to their (developer) intended format (with the current "planned" instances\"events" as a bonus for those who like them, rather than the only option offered to players on the server), as they used to be? Last year, during the Halloween event I asked if the event could be run "naturally" instead of only the artifical "announce event, teleport people to airfield" style that was occuring. Following the responces from a number or people (including admins) I explained that due to a condition I have (autism), I am unable to handle\cope with massed player events such as this, and would like the opportunity to try and enjoy the event\compete on a "level" field to other participants, rather than against a mob in a planned location, designed to make large collections easy. The responce received was (loosely translated) "Too bad, so sad" and that I should "get over it", from both other "players" as well as the admin. Today in game I brought up the fact that the Easter event is designed to be "random", rather than "planned" and was told by an admin that this is a "community server" (despite the fact that the event doesn't need to be "arranged" to still be a community event - people across the map can participate and compete against each other from different locations, as well as people who have built a "community" with their bases can participate together), and shortly after explaining that I had problems with "group" activities such as the group egg-hunt (as opposed to the random, unexepected ones), random "gifts" were handed out by the server and immediately the admin condescendingly said in chat "Someone take Brictoria's gift from him, as he doesn't like community events"[1]. Throughout this, I have never said that the "planned" events should not occur, instead simply asking that "unplanned" ones should also occur, to allow both those (like myself) who have difficulties with "group" events, as well as those whose computers struggle (frame rate) with the "group" event (due to large number of entities which spawn as a result of the number of players in close proximity) to paricipate on an even playing field with everyone else on the server - Why can't the "random" events occur as designed by the developers, with the "group" events as a "bonus" for those who like them, rather than all people being forced to the "group" event (which may not be suitable, or be exclusionary for them), or else missing out on any chance to try and "win"? As a side note: The attitude of this specific admin today - that because it is a "community" server, people should only want\expect to participate in "group" events - seems strange, given (as in the world in general) there would likely be a number of people who for any number of reasons are unable\unwilling\incapable of participating in such "group" activities, yet are still capable of particpating in\being members of a community, and seems to suggest that only those who meet certain "requirements"\have certain "abilities" are welcome\accepted (with "differently abled" people being unwanted\should be prevented from having contact with the "community"). Personally, I enjoy the build system in the game, and being able to share my constructions\creations with others\ the server "community" (It was better before the "tech tree" was implemented, when trading\crafting\researchig items found was important to help others with the item they needed to assist them with their build\circuit\etc, rather than the current "all you need is scrap" to get the specific item), but based on the way I was treated today by the admin, it seems this isn't being part of a "community server", and I wonder how welcome people such as myself truely are on these servers... And whether it is worth signing back in again to a place where I appear to be unwanted. [1] I subsequently put the gift (unopened) in one of the containers in a structure I am building (One of the "pumps" in the garage, from memory), from where it can be removed by another admin if I am not permitted to have it (as at least one of the server admins apparently believes should be the case).

Finished dungeon (Dragon is happy there, guarding its treasure) and structural work, just furnishings to go... I'd hate to imagine how many mats I went through to build this, considering the upkeep:

I may have had a little too much time on my hands over the past week... Front door Main hall (external) Main hall (internal) Church Main street View from top of gatehouse It's still a work-in-progress (needs a few more buildings added (and a small section of wall completed), furnishing buildings, and dungeon built (There is a 1 wall high gap below most of the space inside the walls which is set aside for this), plus possibly adding many heaters so people don't freeze while visiting), but I figured it's a start. AU pure, on ice lake at o3. Special thanks to the admin who placed trees and headstones (I hadn't asked for them, but they do add to the look of the place, so I'm not complaining) - Outside of those and trading for the gate, it's been a relaxing solo build.

Having built a town for both previous wipes (and not being well on wipe day, meaning I couldn't get the spot I wanted), I decided not to build a town this wipe, and instead to build something I had wanted to try for the past few wipes (R19 on AU Pure - first time I have built on an ice lake...) Upkeep (Stone - 249k, Wood - 34k, Metal frags - 11k, HQ - 262): And here is what I ended up with: On approaching the gateway: Looking around from the gateway: Blacksmiths shop: Church: "Great hall": Dungeons: Slums (with herbalist house): Shooting ranges: A few more pictures (including roof of stables): I had hoped to finish this earlier, but the rarest resource needed for this was in very low supply - inspiration...So, unfortunately, I haven't been able to furnish all the houses, nor stock the shops. The towers aren't quite as I planned, but that is to allow for multiple people to try and take down patrol heli from multiple angles. Feel free to visit at any time prior to wipe and explore the build (be warned that it may be cold in the area...It is built on an ice lake, after all.)...And remember: this isn't a town. And I am going to miss this place when wipe hits.

There's not much to stop you building a town (I have for the past 2 wipes on AU Pure), except the collosal amount of time needed to farm the resources (plus the "inspiration" required to design and arrange the buildings and their layout). Pop up to J8 on AU Pure if you want to have a look at what is possible to do solo (before upcoming wipe)...I've posted a few pictures elsewhere in the forum, but they don't really do the town justice. I will also note that I did have a couple of donations of resources along the way, which covered for the "This is too much work" times when I needed to give the game a break Alternatively, arrange with others in chat to work together and build a town at a set spot on the map, each player taking a "role" or indicating what part\component of the town they wish to build. I'm not sure yet whether I will do a third town this coming wipe...It will depend on the map seed (and me getting up early Friday morning to be able to claim the space needed following wipe), but if I do, feel free to pop in to visit. Or worst case, if I can get the resources, I'm happy to pop in to another server to build some structures in the "town" area.

With the upcoming changes to building blocks (particularly the foundation stairs), there's a chance this may be the last time I can create a town like this... The town is currently standing in J8 on the AU Pure server should you wish to have a look around (If you find a weapon, the automated range is a lot of fun). Sadly I haven't had time to fully furnish the houses or get lights in as yet. It also appears that there is 1 wall section of terrace house connected to the shooting range that is also missing in the pictures). It seems like the wipe has almost enirely consisted of scavenging resources, but the result doesn't seem too bad. For those interested, it is in 3 sections with the following upkeep: North side: Sherrif's office and jail - 3 single cells and one larger holding cell. (furnished) Town hall (rafters not quite finished and only 1 "chandelier" remains inside following fights with rust stability gods. Large house (unfurnished) Terrace houses (unfurnished) Gun store (shooting ranges inside at rear). Foundry - currently contains 3 large furnaces, 1 refinery, and 6 large batteries to power entire town. 6,293 wood 72,046 stone 15,281 frags 19 HQ South East side: Farming and plumbing supplies Vet and Medical supplies Shop and house (unfurnished) The mian hotel (accomodation on upper floors). Housing supplies with 2 houses on upper floor. Helipad and hangar (can fit 2 large helicopters side-by-side) 10,510 wood 38,852 stone 6,031 frags South West side: Clothing store with house above (unfurnished), secondary hotel on left. Diner. 5,334 wood 17,346 stone 2,343 frags

I have had the same happen with both new eggs (purple and Ivory).

Sorry about the delay, but I've been out of town with limited ability to connect and slow network speed. Issue appears to be that the 7th "equipment"/toolbar slot in the locker exists and is not "blocked", allowing an item of clothing to be added to it, but which cannot be removed without destruction of locker (or removal via salvaged hammer where applicable). Whilst this slot is filled, the locker is also unable to be moved wih a hammer, as there is an item (hidden) inside it, much like trying to move a storage box that is not empty. I tested after making this video and found that the first clothes item becomes hidden, with second going to the first slot on next line if "right clicking" to transfer clothes. Whether a seperate bug report is needed for items not being able to right-click transfer I'll leave to you to decide. Rust 2019-12-22 20-49-32.mp4