How Often Should the Rust Server Wipe?

[Karma 1594]

Just thought I would find out what everyone prefers. It seems like 2 week wipes can make the game feel a little stagnant for the 2nd week. 

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

It should be every first and third Thursday, to line up with the dev wipes. 

 

The last sG wipe was great, till the dev wipe shit all over everything and then after we rebuilt, we fucking wiped again, 3 days later. 

[Iherdcows 3419]

every day

on a serious note, I feel once every 2 weeks is fine

Edited April 29, 2016 by Iherdcows

[Darren 272]

Although it probably involves less hassle and gives players a deadline to do what they want to do, I don't think an arbitrary wipe schedule would always be best. Instead, I think wipes should be made at your discretion. Like, when you feel the current map generation has become stale, or people start wanting a new map, or activity goes down, etc. Some generations are going to last longer than others, and of course some will have more drama and more activity thus less need for an immediate wipe.

[Rootbeer 1293]

4 hours ago, Iherdcows said:

every day

on a serious note, I feel once every 2 weeks is fine

Shaddap, you refuse to play with me =[

 

Two weeks is hell, it's been 2 weeks since the last wipe and ever since last week it's been the same shit, different day. I'm actually at the point of procrastinating logging in the server -- there really isn't much more to do with this seed. A new seed freshens up the experience a hundredfold.

[skitt 1307]

 

3 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

Shaddap, you refuse to play with me =[

 

Two weeks is hell, it's been 2 weeks since the last wipe and ever since last week it's been the same shit, different day. I'm actually at the point of procrastinating logging in the server -- there really isn't much more to do with this seed. A new seed freshens up the experience a hundredfold.

sounds like the game has some serious flaws. 

 

I think biweekly is the way to go.

Edited April 29, 2016 by skitt

[Tyrone 514]

As long as i can craft my bones set, I don't mind the wipes.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tyrone

[Ironic 2277]

I think about every 2 weeks, or I also agree with Darren. 

If there isn't a whole lot of activity going on in the Rust server then you can probably manage to have it up longer than two weeks before a wipe.

[Zip 1034]

1 hour ago, Tyrone said:

As long as i can craft my bones set, I don't mind the wipes.

I don't think you have the right idea. She's asking how often should the server wipe, not IF the server should wipe. 

 

I think the server should wipe every week. So then, giant bases don't arise and walls don't go around whole islands.

[Dakka 854]

I have an idea -- let's wipe every Thursday and use the rest of Thursday to vote on a selection of map seeds to choose the one people are interested in the most.

 

Then Friday will be the official starting day for that seed.

[Wave 2200]

Everytime the server shit's itself, would probably be a good time to wipe.\

 

In all serious bidness 2 weeks is fine.

[centran 4457]

I'm not sure if the forced wipes will come less often when the XP systems gets implemented. If we think they will happen less from the devs then I say just go with the dev schedule and/or play it by ear till then.

 

However, I feel it is something that needs to be addressed because I have seen more then one random join and immediately ask when we do wipes and then leave when we say we dont have a schedule. So it obviously very important to players.

[Velo 2077]

Feels like the pop sags after the first week like my ballsack on a hot summer day.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Velo

[Prosak 683]

I would like a wipe right about now anyways. No one is really doing anything D:

[Rootbeer 1293]

Posted at 3 am so I couldn't give much depth or thought to the reasoning.

 

Official servers wipe bi-weekly, partly to prevent huge castles and partly to freshen up the environment and level the playing field for newcomers and veterans alike. Official servers are usually decently populated, if not highly. Higher population size = more competition for resources -- generally you don't run around and gather 30k of each resource in one trip like you do in our server. This means that bases are usually smaller than the ones on our server. Takeaway: getting to lategame rust is highly accelerated in our server and bases will be much larger (harder to raid).

 

Higher population size also means that your base will be raided more often. With a low pop server, less people will hinder your base's growth and Rust basically becomes Castle Building Sim 2016. Raiding is highly discouraged as nearly all 6 players on the map have the resources to wall off their base 10-fold, each layer costing a whole lot more time to tackle than to create. With the usual players on a stand-off, who else is there to raid but the random stray person or pair to happen upon our server? We encourage picking on the small with these huge bases.

 

With a weekly wipe, our casuals will at least have something to do after the first week besides bullying the players who started late. Raiding eachother will be substantially easier and also much more rewarding as every newly gained gun or resource is valued a whole lot more when you don't have a huge stash of both.

[Velo 2077]

11 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

Posted at 3 am so I couldn't give much depth or thought to the reasoning.

 

Official servers wipe bi-weekly, partly to prevent huge castles and partly to freshen up the environment and level the playing field for newcomers and veterans alike. Official servers are usually decently populated, if not highly. Higher population size = more competition for resources -- generally you don't run around and gather 30k of each resource in one trip like you do in our server. This means that bases are usually smaller than the ones on our server. Takeaway: getting to lategame rust is highly accelerated in our server and bases will be much larger (harder to raid).

 

Higher population size also means that your base will be raided more often. With a low pop server, less people will hinder your base's growth and Rust basically becomes Castle Building Sim 2016. Raiding is highly discouraged as nearly all 6 players on the map have the resources to wall off their base 10-fold, each layer costing a whole lot more time to tackle than to create. With the usual players on a stand-off, who else is there to raid but the random stray person or pair to happen upon our server? We encourage picking on the small with these huge bases.

 

With a weekly wipe, our casuals will at least have something to do after the first week besides bullying the players who started late. Raiding eachother will be substantially easier and also much more rewarding as every newly gained gun or resource is valued a whole lot more when you don't have a huge stash of both.

I see your point and agree with the bolded statement. I think we should also split up the fairly large groups of people based together for the sake of being competitive and to keep the population growing. Even though no one wants to be raided in the server, it's part of the game, people. That doesn't mean find me and raid my shitty base designs

[Dakka 854]

I see your point and agree with the bolded statement. I think we should also split up the fairly large groups of people based together for the sake of being competitive and to keep the population growing. Even though no one wants to be raided in the server, it's part of the game, people. That doesn't mean find me and raid my shitty base designs

Git gud

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Velo 2077]

8 minutes ago, Dakka said:

Git gud

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I experimented with building my first honeycomb base up north, then someone took it over and built a huge dig dug facility next to it.

[Karma 1594]

The votes are definitely split but leaning toward a two-week cycle. We can leave it at 2 weeks for now, and if something changes or population spikes, we can probably consider other options, but I will open a new poll at that time. I am closing this poll for now. Thank you for your input.