Well it was a good run.

[BigCountry]

concurrent player count 2 months into a season being 1/3rd what it was on launch is quite good, actually. Like, fr a lot of companies would KILL for that ratio.

I just wish we had more than Pax Dei. That game was pure garbage turd (glorified building simulator) and it's still at 700+- daily

[Kaios]

I don't understand why you're trying to make it an us vs. them thing. I guarantee you every PVPer whose name you know wants PVP to be easier to get / and less tedious.

No they obviously do not or there would have been far more changes made to combat in the past than there have been or changes that were made would not have been reversed before there was ample time to test them out. September 2023, Prelude world 15, all those PVPers you are referring to once again shut down changes to the combat system before we had any chance to try them.

You know this game is supposed to have social aspects too right? No, I don't mean being forced to negotiate over discord with some autistic retard who would be so pathetic as to demand real money as compensation for not destroying some pixels. There are supposed to be more interactions in the game between players that do not always result in death. Yet this is not how the game works, it is better and safer for a player to DENY interaction with anyone. Reveal images or information of your location over discord or the forum, discussions of meeting up with anyone in public realm chats, recruitment via the forum, building and announcing a public market, and so on. Shouldn't really be doing any of those things given the current mechanics and play style of pvpers.

The mechanics need to change or those things will happen less until they stop altogether, and while it's not solely the fault of players like you, you certainly share some of the blame for attempting to dictate those mechanics changes in your favour on a regular basis.

[DDDsDD999]

I don't understand why you're trying to make it an us vs. them thing. I guarantee you every PVPer whose name you know wants PVP to be easier to get / and less tedious.

No they obviously do not or there would have been far more changes made to combat in the past than there have been or changes that were made would not have been reversed before there was ample time to test them out. September 2023, Prelude world 15, all those PVPers you are referring to once again shut down changes to the combat system before we had any chance to try them.

What the fuck are you talking about, most PVPers were generally positive towards those changes. The devs scrapped it because they couldn't get it to work: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=74635&p=923030#p923030

[bmjclark]

I don't understand why you're trying to make it an us vs. them thing. I guarantee you every PVPer whose name you know wants PVP to be easier to get / and less tedious.

No they obviously do not or there would have been far more changes made to combat in the past than there have been or changes that were made would not have been reversed before there was ample time to test them out. September 2023, Prelude world 15, all those PVPers you are referring to once again shut down changes to the combat system before we had any chance to try them.

What the fuck are you talking about, most PVPers were generally positive towards those changes. The devs scrapped it because they couldn't get it to work: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=74635&p=923030#p923030

I'm pretty sure loftars reasoning for scrapping this was something like "the equation was ugly" lmao

[Kaios]

Well okay if that's not the case then my bad, but when they say it went through "quality assurance" I assume that means a few players pointed out some issues without offering any solutions of their own, they then did the bare minimum testing and decided it would be easier to scrap it than spend time readjusting all of the armor and damage values. It seemed like others had that impression too I wasn't the only one. For example:

Most of the people were fine / don't care about the change. Only the hardcore no-life PVPers were against it, because they could no longer overwhelm others with stats so easily. Sadly, the vocal minority won again. It's funny that those people always whine about bad pvp and siege, but the moment there is aany change that threaten their stats-based domination, they cry and ask to revert the change

[Audiosmurf]

My assumption was always that they didn't account for how damage from literally anything but combat would be handled, leeches, cave ins, starvation, etc, and as soon as they thought about it for more than 5 seconds they realized that and scrapped it.

[SnuggleSnail]

[...]

In the system Jorbo described it'd be optimal to keep your strength/con in a certain low range relative to the quality of your B12/amount of AC, and scale agi forever. Kindof like world 11 where it was optimal to have 10 con, and strength==B12Q, and smoke opium to get 1 con. It also would've mean gearQ would be A LOTTTTTTTTTT more relevant, which is the aspect non-sweaties struggle with already, not so much stats. In the state he suggested it 4sure would've created a bigger power imbalance than there is already.

Also people having 100 HP would mean literally everybody I aggro who isn't pretty good at PVP would full die because, ya'know, it's kindof obvious how much chip you need to do when you know their exact HP.

I notice whenever you don't rly understand something you immediately assume malice and start pissing your pants over it, then later use nobody explaining it to you as if you're a 6 year old as confirmation you were right. It's rly ugly, IMO.

[JohnBender]

"You don't understand how X works." Another misdirection. Player count at this moment is identical (more or less) than it was last world after this amount of time, which was the same as the previous world, etc. No company wants stagnation after 10 plus years, that just means the niche group that they have bowed to will eventually age out and leave them with nothing but a broken mess. The niche group has won every fight, every debate, every change has served to tune this game to their meta game. Back and forths about pvp mechanics are a distraction. This game is what it is, and it has the player base that it has been designed to attract.

[yym331]

When I was playing as an ambassador for PlayStation Japan, I played Rust with a group of around eight players who I originally met in another game. During that time, no large clans joined the server until mid-game, so our team enjoyed a "massacre party." I wonder what the "victims" of that experience thought about it

As time went by, we all got a little older, started jobs, and experienced various life events. We no longer play in small groups like we used to. Instead, three of us tried SCUM, a world even harsher than Rust. Despite being just two or three players, we often faced attacks from groups of eight. Occasionally, we managed to counterattack and wipe them out without taking any damage, but that only made them angrier. Eventually, they found our base using a plane and destroyed everything we had

Recently, I also tried Once Human, a scenario-based open PvP game. In that game, players are divided into two factions to battle. Unfortunately, I ended up joining a faction that made up only one-seventh of the server population, which led to relentless attacks from the majority faction. In other words, I became the "victim" this time.

But this is something you have to accept in open-world, open-PvP games.
That said, games that combine PvE and optional PvP often become the target of criticism. Even Fallout 76 faced backlash for including PvP, which eventually led to its near removal from the game. (Personally, I enjoyed PvP in Fallout.)

Graphics may also play a role in this perception. For example, no one would expect a game with Animal Crossing-like graphics to have open PvP as a core feature

Developers should avoid worrying too much about reviews and focus on maintaining the game’s unique personality. Otherwise, it risks becoming just another "ordinary low-budget game."

[Kaios]

I notice whenever you don't rly understand something you immediately assume malice and start pissing your pants over it, then later use nobody explaining it to you as if you're a 6 year old as confirmation you were right. It's rly ugly, IMO.

Lol. Lmao, even.

You bring those assumptions upon yourselves. It is completely justifiable and a fair response to attribute malice and self-interest towards individuals that consistently display a propensity for immoral behaviour. If you guys put even half as much effort towards thinking of ways the game could be improved for all players as you do in trolling, harassing, and being a general nuisance you might actually have a point. Fortunately, I don't need to feel bad about being an asshole to an asshole.