Feel free to speak, guys.
P.S.: Rust is toxic. GLaDOS almost described its toxicity, lol. https://i1.theportalwiki.net/img/1/1e/GLaDOS_escape_02_miscbabble-10.wav
-blackjacksike
Feel free to speak, guys.
P.S.: Rust is toxic. GLaDOS almost described its toxicity, lol. https://i1.theportalwiki.net/img/1/1e/GLaDOS_escape_02_miscbabble-10.wav
-blackjacksike
I havenât played rust. Just recently they decided to drop Linux support, which isnât cool:
So Iâll likely never played. What kept me from playing it was that I knew it was basically a pvp free-for-all.
Iâve not played Rust either.
I think itâs possible thereâs an interesting game theory thing called a âNash Equilibriumâ happening. An NE is when a group falls into a state where no person can improve their position by changing their behavior. However an NE doesnât need to lead to optimal outcomes.
Take the Rust servers as an example. If everyone was cooperating and would shoot anyone who shot first this would be an NE. Continuing to cooperate would be the best approach and changing to shooting people would get you shot and wouldnât improve your position.
However if everyone shoots on sight that is also an NE. If you try to change to cooperating then you will get shot on sight by someone else so you cannot improve your situation by changing strategy. If you could convince everyone else to switch to cooperation you could end up in the other NE but you canât change things yourself.
Hereâs a fun interactive game about game theory which is pretty cool I think https://ncase.me/trust/
One further thing I noticed in EVE (which is also a very cutthroat world) is that people you learn to trust knowing they could really screw you over is much stronger than trust in other games. If an MMO prevents people from attacking each other then you never really know if they are your friends. However when you are in hauler with a lot of your goods and your friend is guarding you in a combat ship which could kill you any time you know they are really your friend.
Iâve always been aware of Rustâs toxicity which kept me from playing it, although it might just be that I donât like mmo pvp. I have Ark, but I only play single player, and occasionally join a server once and abandon it after an hour or two.
I think this unfriendliness can lead to interesting outcomes at large scales, as noted by tjwhale. If a server consists of thousands of players who are free to abuse each other, then any player able and willing to offer protection will likely attract followers, which leads to a sort of feudalism. Since most players donât want to be attacked and lose their things, being incorporated into a larger group is attractive. This is how many real states formed. Joining the Roman Republic was attractive because Roman citizenship allowed access to Roman markets and protection by the Roman state. I generally prefer a laissez-faire approach to policing players, as it leads to a dynamic formation of political unions. Of course, cheaters/hackers/etc. should be removed.
Very pertinent. It showed me a great lesson. I posted the gameâs link on some Rust discussion (the ones about âWhy is Rust community so toxicâ)
I can tell you want to replace the M with an F in âMaggotâ so badly with how much you used the same insult, but can I really blame you? Growtopia, an old mobile game by Ubisoft I think, has an even more toxic community compared to Rust. I know your pain when it comes to that sort of thing.
One way to make toxic people work together in a toxic game is to have the biggest gun. If you run up to someone who has no chance to fight you, you can spare them and other them a place in a group. You continue doing this until your group is so large and well equipped that absolutely no one can challenge you and even if you get betrayed they literally doomed themselves trying.
Aaand thatâs where we got the concept of kingdoms. If you have an essential monopoly on violence, itâs pretty easy to get people to submit to you. Especially if other âbig gunsâ exist, your rule can take on the role of defending from external threats. Control just for the sake of control isnât viable (see below), especially in a game where participation is voluntary.
George Orwellâs 1984 takes ârepression in exchange for protectionâ to its illogical extreme - the world has become divided into three superstates in permanent war, but unable to defeat each other. The lack of consumer goods there is because a supermajority of its production goes solely to the military sector in the hopes of gaining a slight upper hand.
Itâs very likely, however, that such a societyâs next generation will value tranquility and happiness (at least superficially) - such as in Aldous Huxleyâs Brave New World. This relation was noted in a letter between the two authors.
In the context of a factions game, totalitarianism is impossible. Your constituent players can firstly just log off and return to the free society we live in, and theyâve had enough English classes to see it coming. Real-world autocracies instead can curtail the voluntary entry and exit of citizens, and deportation of certain undesirable peoples is not fun either.
There is historical background to the âboutta head outâ strategy - secesio plebis and general strikes have been quite effective in shaking up the rulers so they can comply to the will of the people.
A second strategy is another classic - revolution. Rally behind a new leader and the supporters will have their greivances adressed and pockets filled. Modern chat platforms offer a great way to emulate the âsecret conventsâ of yore, with the same aspect of espionage that real revolutions have. But in a factions game, socioeconomic issues are primarily not at stake - it is purely hunger for power.
I think factions games, as they have many humans and a simple economy, are great social experiments/simulations. Though that could also be said of a miniature Civilization clone I played, begging for an alliance when my invader (best friend) came knocking on my door.
In a game like rust where everyone is trying to kill each other, the players are split into small groups. This leads to no one getting anything and a night time raid resetting groups, stopping them from getting too far. If you get a large enough group of people together you will eventually become unstoppable on a server in a game this violence defined. In ark there is a lot more of a pve aspect, even on pvp servers which allow large tribes to form (and even dominate an entire server).
Yeah youâre underestimating the vile behind a lot of the Rust accounts. Often times this would just result in one of the group shooting you in the back once they get the chance and running off with your âbiggest gunâ / taking over control. The only way to actually create a proper clan which wonât consume itself from the inside out is to have it consist of people that know each other outside of the game too, since then everyone wouldnât just be âsome randoâ.