Level 7 Dragon said:
Basically, it is. One of the reasons why Garry refuses to deal with things such as raiders is because he wants players to assemble in to tribes and defend/raid villages. From what I can gather, Newman doesn't want to create a survival game as he wants to study virtual societies.
Personally, as a sociology nut, I'm quite interested in getting the game. Providing that I will be able to get in to a decent clan and not get instantly killed by overleveled players.
I've put quite some hours into rust(even the old build) and the game does just that, it makes people form shaky alliances and social constructs that they would otherwise never consider and forces you to think creatively to survive rather than just straightforward.
Rust is a game in which experience actually means something, that's why they took out the old "set" map and went on to procedurally created maps, you need to get your bearings after every server wipe, you need to learn about your surroundings, about your neighbours about what you can and can't do.
Choices can range from
Do I kill the noob who's building next to our outpost? he might bring friends and we're only a small group, right now we can deal with him but later he may turn into a vicious enemy!
To
Do we work together with the X-Clan to deal with X player who's playing this game night and day and raiding our stuff? can they be trusted?
To
How do I effectively build the biggest best defensible base whilst keeping it grief-proof and quick to repair (due to the decay mechanic).
To
What do I place where inside my base and how do I design the interior to make sure I lose as little as possible in a raid whilst remaining as efficient as I possibly can?
To
How do we penetrate this guy's defences without him noticing we were in there.
I've played with all kinds of people who came up with all manner of exploits, ideas, layouts, socials constructs that kept the game engaging for hours on end.
To this day I myself can still remember the layout of all my important bases, what went in to creating them, what went where and why we chose to do battle or ally with certain figures on our servers.
kitsunefather said:
This is an interesting experiment, to be sure. I just don't think people should have a product they paid for changed in such an abrupt and potentially detrimental manner without either warning, or an offer of a refund.
This is a game being funded largely through Early Access, which means they are asking you to buy in to their finished product while it is still in works, and that is a leap of faith. People have bought their product based on the style of play, the overall aesthetic, and the promise of the features to come later.
To hand wave in the idea that this is "realistic" or references to "God" is silly. This isn't like that, because you paid for the experience. This is a product that they sold you, that they are making relatively sweeping changes to, seemingly at random, in the form of assignment of race/sex/penis size (I'm assuming breast sizes will not vary). This diminishes the value for some players.
The problem again, however, is that most of the people who are going to buy this game already have. It's been on early access for what, a year or more now?
Basically, I'm fine with this if they allow people who don't want to participate in their college-level psych experiment to get refunds, or if Steam makes "Sweeping changes to the core game" a condition for refund.
Your complaint is irrelevant, not that there is no validity in it, but we're talking about a game that had a full setup built and then the developers decided to scratch the entire thing and rebuild during Early access.
Same thing that happened to Godus except that the developers for Rust actually had good reason and intention to revamp their game and are still very much involved in the development.