This is an archive of past discussions about Rust (video game). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@MjolnirPants and Czar: I'd like to revive the discussion about the air drop image. I'm not sure that screenshot is as vital as it once was given how much new content has been added to the game over the last (almost) two years. Having had the disappointment of those OTRS images being deleted and after I emailed them a month or so ago with no response, I think it's safe to say we're going to have to stick with non-free content for this article, meaning we have to abide by the criteria.
3a says this: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. To portray the gameplay, I believe the rock smashing a tree is sufficient because it adequately displays how the game works (first person survival with gathering elements). The comparison between the two versions also abides by the minimal number of items policy because it a) can't be displayed with just one pic and b) it's a great demonstration into how the game's graphics, etc changed throughout development (and I'll update it on/around Feb 8 when the game leaves Early Access). Anarchyte (work | talk)05:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, no real argument here. In the past year or so, I've been seeing a lot of "air drop" mechanics popping up in new games, specifically a lot of PUB clones, which notably take a lot of influence from these sorts of survival games. It's not nearly as distinguishing a feature as it used to be. If you want to remove it, I won't object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The former states of the game where experience was granted[1] and the old blueprint system[2] needs to be added to the article. The Rust Devblog[3] can be used to assist in creating these sections. Jklasko (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)jklasko
@Jklasko: This information is already in the article.
“
Blueprints, one of the prevalent concepts in Rust, were removed in July 2016 and replaced with an experience system where players could level up after completing tasks, such as gathering wood.[31][32] Lead developer Maurino Berry mentioned in a Reddit post that there was a chance the experience system would no longer exist in the future. Prior to saying this, Berry wrote in one of the devblogs "the XP system had huge praise until it was released, and then lots of people hated it".[33] In early November 2016, the experience system was replaced with components.[9] Players originally had an initial list of items they could craft,[31] but it was changed to having everything immediately and needing components to craft items.[9] Upon the game's official release, blueprints were reinstated.[10]
@MjolnirPants, MPants at work, and Czar: Hi, what do you think of the inclusion of two quote boxes in the development section? I think they're important (but not important enough for the prose) but I've got a feeling it might be verging on too much non-original text. Should one go, and if so, which one? Anarchyte (work | talk)10:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Quick thoughts: Two long ones are likely overkill. You want them to bring context to the prose in the same way a good image would, especially so they're not just decorative. (Also some are against the idea of magazine-style pull quotes altogether, so pull quotes have something-to-prove.) Subjective here, but the first quote isn't doing anything for me—anything worthwhile in it appears paraphrase-able. The second quote's main emphasis is on the game's social facets, I'd whittle down to that but is the thought even covered in this section? Perhaps better to either paraphrase in prose or put in context of a section that does discuss the social element? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
My first instinct is to move the one that starts with "Rust is not a game about identity." to the reception section, as it's more germane there. But if one needs to go, I would remove that one. The other one is short, and directly addresses the subject of the game's production. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, @MjolnirPants and Czar:. For now I've removed the one from gameplay and moved the other one back to reception, but I'll see if I can paraphrase both into the prose and get rid of them all together. I've also managed to get in touch with Garry Newman, so removing them will make space for a photograph of him, if he's able to supply one. Anarchyte (work | talk)23:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at a review since 2009, so bear with me but after over a month I felt someone should really get to it. Watch this page for comments, hopefully within the next few hours. Regards SoWhy09:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The following is a list of things I noticed during my first read of the article. I never played the game or even heard much about it before reading this article, so these are oftentimes questions any non-informed reader would also have.
General annotations
The word "Player" is used 77 times in the article, leading to a number of paragraphs that consist of "The player does this. The player does that. Players do this and that". Maybe some sentences can be rewritten to reduce monotony?
Reduced to 37 (not including "mutiplayer", "player vs player", etc).
The objective of Rust is to survive in the wilderness using gathered or stolen materials; the player starts with only a rock and a torch. The part after the semi-colon here is really weird. Do we really need this level of detail in the lede?
In addition non-player characters, including attack helicopters, occasionally fly around attacking armed players. So all NPCs fly around and attack players?
Haha, fixed.
Now the sentence reads In addition non-player characters, attack helicopters occasionally fly around attacking armed players, though they can be taken down with persistence. which does not make sense, considering that later in the article it is mentioned that there are other NPCs (scientists) that do not fly around attacking players. Also, if everyone starts with a rock, aren't all players "armed"? SoWhy08:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Players can form or join clans with other players to survive longer. To stay protected, players must build or join bases. The game features crafting, though the player begins with limited options. Raiding is very common and is usually done by large clans. These sentences seem jumbled and it would probably make sense to focus on one topic at a time, e.g. what clans are and what they do and what crafting is and why it is necessary.
What do you think of it now?
Since clans and bases seem connected, it's still weird to have the order bases => crafting => clans. SoWhy08:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The game features crafting, though initially, only limited options are offered. To stay protected, players must build bases or join clans with others to improve their survivability, with raiding being commonplace and usually done by large clans. How about that? Anarchyte (work | talk)10:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
and later saw many drastic changes to the gameplay Is a change in enemies (next sentence) really a drastic change of the gameplay?
The drastic changes are not only the enemies. How do you suggest this be worded if you think it's ambiguous? Move that one to later and put something else after "for instance"?
The example (different enemies) does not support the text (drastic changes). Either mention more changes or leave out the example completely and just write something like "and gameplay was significantly altered in later releases". SoWhy08:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Good argument but it leaves me still confused: Was the game player vs. zombie and then changed to player vs. player and environment? Then you should mention that part more prominently. SoWhy10:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe the zombies were simply early versions of the bears with different skins. The developers decided they didn't like the idea of making a zombie game so they changed it to be more wildlife-y. My statement regarding "survival of the fittest" is sort of personal opinion as changing the genre from zombie to wildlife might change the way people see the game. Could you imagine The Walking Dead but with bears instead of zombies? I haven't changed that sentence any further, but what do you think of it now that it's immediately followed by another example of a drastic change? Anarchyte (work | talk)11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So it was always player vs. player but the environment enemies were changed from zombies to bears and stuff? Might I suggest a more radical change to most of the paragraph? You could replace
Rust was first released in December 2013 to Steam's Early Access program. At the time, the game was in alpha stage and later saw many drastic changes to the gameplay. For instance, the game originally featured zombies as enemy characters before being replaced with wildlife, including bears. Additionally, the game's method of progressing in terms of crafting options went through many iterations. Originally, the player progressed by acquiring blueprints, and an experience-based system replaced this. Components and consumable items found across the map followed this before becoming a mix of blueprints and components.
with
Rust was first released in December 2013 to Steam's Early Access program in its alpha state. During further development, the gameplay was changed significantly, for instance dangerous wildlife replacing zombies as the primary environmental threat and several fundamental revisals to the crafting system.
I know it removes most of the information but then again, is a detailed list of changes really needed for the lede? SoWhy12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Throughout Rust's alpha release, critical reviews were mixed with many comparisons to other survival games. The most common comparison was it was a mixture of DayZ and Minecraft. During its pre-release phase, critics praised the game's concept and gameplay. If the reviews were mixed, shouldn't you mention also what they didn't like?
undergo dramatic graphical changes That seems a bit dramatic, considering the article never makes that claim.
I've added a short bit to development. and the game was ported on to Unity 5, which also enhanced the graphics.
Still does not support "dramatic" though. If I read "dramatic changes", I assume the article will focus multiple paragraphs on the graphics changes alone but currently the article neither does it in the development nor in the reception section. Since the lede should only summarize the article, it currently fails to do so adequatly with this wording. SoWhy08:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll await your edits to development and reception regarding graphics first though due to the "summarize article" stuff I said above SoWhy10:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this needs more explanation why this is mentioned. Maybe you can explain it that way, i.e. pointing out why it's significant that it's this way and not hitscan? After all, if someone like me who actually plays video games has to ask, a reader with no knowledge of such subtleties will certainly be confused. SoWhy09:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of different types of bullet for each gun. And that is important how?
Some explode, some set fire to things, and some travel faster. They allow for wider strategy. Added some info to the sentence. Anarchyte (work | talk)04:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you could add some examples? E.g. There are a number of different types of bullet for each gun, such as bullets that explode on impact or set fire to enemies, thus allowing for more diverse strategy.SoWhy09:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To survive, the player must craft tools, build bases, and team with other players. Ref needed
To survive in the world, the player must gather resources, such as these and use them to craft tools, weapons and other gear Such as which?
Not sure why that was there.
The player can gather cloth and food by killing animals; mining provides stone, metal ore, and sulfur ore; chopping down trees provides wood. Maybe rephrase it for easier reading, e.g. Cloth and food can be gained from killing animals while mining provides stone, metal and sulfur ore and trees can be chopped down to provide wood. ?
I added an "and" so that it doesn't end so abruptly, but I prefer the way it is at the moment.
There are also other entities that drop advanced loot, including an attack helicopter[4] and the CH-47 Chinook, which travels to a random zone on the map, tries to kill players, then drops a supply crate that opens after a length of time, inviting player vs player interactions. Do both do that or only the Chinook? So it shoots people and then gives them supplies?
Both. Accessing the attack helicopter's loot is hindered by fire for a brief amount of time and the Chinook drops a timed supply crate. Anarchyte (work | talk)04:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
From the sentence alone, it's not clear since "travels" is singular but "entities" is plural, so it sounds as if the sentence "which travels..." belongs to the Chinook and not the "entities". Maybe a better wording would be There are also other entities that drop advanced loot, such as an attack helicopter[4] and the CH-47 Chinook. These travel to a random zone on the map, try to kill players and then drop a supply crate that opens after a length of time, inviting player vs player interactions? SoWhy09:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There are player-operable vehicles in Rust. Currently, boats are used to traverse long distances across water and reach submerged loot. Is there one vehicle type or more? What do you mean "currently"? Are there plans to change that?
There are three levels of radiation: low, medium, and high. Players must wear the correct armour or clothing if they wish to enter these areas; they risk dying if they do not. The source says Basically each radiation zone specifies a radiation level from Minor, Low, Medium, High. So what is it?
Safe zones, called Compounds, provide players with a place to trade resources without the risk of betrayal. Turrets watch over them and will fire at a player if they use a weapon. If a player fails to abide by the rules of the safe zone, they are marked as hostile for a predetermined amount of time. That seems contradicting. If players can still draw weapons (and presumably kill others), how are they safe from betrayal?
Because the turret will shoot the moment a player brings out their weapon. I guess the person could shoot the other one, but then all loot would be lost and the killer would be banned temporarily, allowing the other one to go get everything. Anarchyte (work | talk)04:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
If dying leads to the player losing all their stuff (see above) and they can be killed while in a safe zone, is it really "safe"? And how can the other one get everything if they are killed first? I know I'm nitpicking but it just seems so contradicting. Maybe removing the "without the risk of betrayal" is sufficient but it would be great if you could reword the whole thing, e.g. Safe zones, called Compounds, provide players with a place to trade resources. Automated high-damage turrets fire on any player attempting to draw a weapon, discouraging betrayal. Additionally, such players will be marked hostile for a predetermined amount of time.SoWhy09:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Modified it slightly but changed it to your suggestion. @SoWhy: Hopefully that's gameplay done. I'll try to get the rest done tomorrow, sorry it's taking so long. Anarchyte (work | talk)10:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, what does happen if you die? I think people would like to know that.
@SoWhy: Added couple of short sentences: Upon death, a screen with an option to respawn appears. Respawning resets the player's inventory to the basic rock and torch. I've also left a few comments regarding the lead above. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk)10:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So when players die they can choose to respawn but it's like choosing not to respawn and start a new game? SoWhy10:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: This is all own research, but when you die, there's a screen that comes up that gives you the option to respawn at a random location or at a sleeping bag or bed that you've placed or been gifted. There's no option to "start a new game", as such, given it's only multiplayer on one server, but I guess if you're sick of one server you could always change or quit. I'll see if there's a source that discusses beds and sleeping bags, but if not, I think the sentence is fine as-is. Anarchyte (work | talk)11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's something people can check by playing the game, so it's primary sourced. I was just wondering what the difference between respawning and starting a new game was since most games allow players to respawn with at least some of their stuff. A secondary source would be nice but I'm fine with such information being sourced to the game itself if it's not used too often. Regards SoWhy12:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused by the zombie-stuff. The ref (primary source) citing the developer is dated 21 June 2013 and says But then we decided that we are sick of fighting zombies. But it was released as an alpha on 11 December 2013 with zombies in it. So what is correct now?
Then it would probably make sense to emphasize that the game was released with zombies as a kind of "filler" enemy, no? SoWhy07:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Instead, they found to their surprise that the implementation of voice chat had a noticeable effect on player behavior. With the ability to communicate, many players would no longer kill each other on sight out of fear. That does not really fit with the rest of the paragraph. Is it really needed?
I think it's fine. Note previously in the paragraph: One of the developers' aims was to create a world which does not encourage any particular kind of behaviour from players. Anarchyte (work | talk)11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
which banned over 4,621 cheaters. Context? From when to when?
I'm not sure what you mean by context; it's supported by the sentence it's in. I've added a statement of "initially" as they don't give exact dates. Anarchyte (work | talk)11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Saying "X people were banned" is not helpful without some context. Is 4,621 a high number or a low number compared to the overall player base? Did it happen on a single day or within a year? My point is, banning 4,621 people out of 10,000 would be a huge deal but banning 4,621 people out of a million would be less than 0.4%, so not really significant. SoWhy07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Shortly after EasyAntiCheat, a third-party anti-cheat system, replaced CheatPunch When?
In early 2015, Rust added a feature that decided each player's skin colour. The player had no input because the developer tied it to their Steam ID. would sound better in a singled sentence, e.g. In early 2015 Rust added a feature that decided each player's skin colour based on their Steam ID.
Female models, added to the game shortly afterward, were only available for server administrators to test. Like skin colour attributes when the game is launched, the player was automatically assigned a gender permanently linked to their Steam account. Is that still the case? How can the gender be permanently assigned if only server admins can test it? How can they test it then?
In the original game, the heads-up display featured statistics like as health, hunger and radiation level.[14] These were later replaced. What was replaced? The HUD or the statistics?
Monuments went through a phase where developers removed the radiation hazards because of the annoyance it was causing players I literally can't understand this without context.
Virtual goods is not a proper noun, is it? Neither is Item Store afaik
Lead developer Maurino Berry mentioned in a Reddit post that there was a chance the experience system would no longer exist in the future. Before saying this, Berry wrote in one of the devblogs "the XP system had huge praise until it was released, and then lots of people hated it". The first sentence lacks a date to identify context and sounds weird. The second sentence is unneeded.
In early 2017, Garry Newman said that had Steam Early Access not existed, Rust would have been fully released as a game by then. The development team would have continued to release updates. So if EA had not existed, they would just have done the same and release an unfinished game?
Yes. The way I read the source is that they would have spent more time developing it before making it public, but would have fully released it onto Steam as a "finished game" earlier than what they did with EA. Anarchyte (work | talk)03:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
In June 2017, developers altered the game's gun mechanics to be more like "traditional first-person shooters". As compared to what?
This update also saw the beginnings of a "much-need overhaul" of Hapis Island, the game's only non-procedurally-generated map. Hapis Island was never mentioned before. Why was an overhaul much-need(ed)?
Added a mention of Hapis Island in gameplay, and I'm not sure why it was described as a "much-needed overhaul". The source doesn't say and my searching brought back nothing. Should I remove it and say something like "they began redeveloping Hapis Island"? Anarchyte (work | talk)03:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
As well, on the game's official release, blueprints were reinstated. Not supported by the ref
From source: Over time, you’ll find blueprints that let you build better tools, which greatly improve your chances of survival. However, looking through the devblogs, it looks like they might have been reinstated earlier. I've changed the sentence to: By this time, blueprints had been reinstated. Anarchyte (work | talk)03:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The image comparing the different versions needs to be accompanied by a paragraph explaining why this is significant. The switch to Unity 5 is only mentioned in a half sentence with "graphical overhauls" mentioned later.
A whole paragraph on graphical overhauls might be too much. The image is supported by the existing information, but I might add some more later. Ping me if I forget Anarchyte (work | talk)11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
My problem here is WP:NFCC #8 if all the article is saying "graphics were improved". The lower image shows a number of differences, smother textures, shadows, weather, different HUD etc. that can and should be mentioned in the development section. It would also be a good idea if the image caption indicated which versions of the games are being compared. See how comparisons are handled in other FAs, e.g. Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Grand Theft Auto V, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. SoWhy07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: No, but each mentions what it compares exactly: Half-Life 2: standard vs HDR; GTA V: PS3 vs PS4; VTM Bloodlines: Beginning of development vs. final version. So in each case readers know what is being compared. Since you know the upper was created in 2014 by USGamer [1] and you created the lower image, it should be easy to add "(2014)" and "(2016)" or something like that, shouldn't it? Also, maybe you can recreate the bottom part with the final version? It might look even more impressive. SoWhy15:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Reception
Completed
Someone told me once that reviewer names should be omitted if they are not notable themselves. It's not part of any MOS afaict but I would suggest it since it adds emphasis on something that is not relevant.
Other games like The Forest, Just Survive, Ark: Survival Evolved[48] and 7 Days to Die were compared to Rust because of their open world survival aspects, as well as having crafting mechanics similar to Rust. That sentence makes no sense at the end of a paragraph about sales. Sales should probably have its own section after critical reception anyway.
saying it felt as though someone had said, "Wow, wouldn't it be awesome if I could play DayZ and Minecraft at the same time?" Is the quote really necessary? Same goes for the next quote
"We wanted the appearance of the players to be consistent over time. They should be recognisable consistently and long-term—so anyone likely to commit a crime would be more likely to wear a balaclava or a face mask." Seems unnecessary quote as well.
Sales reportedly increased by 74% when female models were added. Contradicts development section (see above). Also, when was this?
I assume the contradiction was regarding the fact that development never said female models were fully released. That's since been fixed. In relation to the date, it seems to have taken place over a few days, so I've written "shortly after the addition". Anarchyte (work | talk)03:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
When it was fully released, should probably be After it was fully released,
"connecting your hatchet with an idiot's head feels great" can easily be re-written in passive
Removing the quote sort of detracts from the joke-y nature of the line. How do you suggest it be reworded? FWIW, I've replaced "your" with "a". Anarchyte (work | talk)03:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Game Informer's Javy Gwaltney reiterated this, explaining it felt demotivating to have "felt like [it was a waste of] a huge chunk of time just because an aggressive, better-equipped player happened to wander by". see above
He said that while maintaining health bars may have once been enjoyable, he "[couldn't] help but balk at the prospect" in 2018 Again, passive
Porreca recommended the game to those willing and able to "put the time in" saying the game offers "a social sandbox and a deep, functioning crafting system" Quotes not needed.
What I meant was that the name of the site should appear in the ref which it doesn't in this case (now #72). All other RPS refs use the website= parameter, just not that one. SoWhy07:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe no review makes mention of graphics, sound, music, controls or performance.
Okay, that's it for round one. Please ping me if you have questions or have addressed these. Regards SoWhy12:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Thanks for the in-depth review! Unfortunately I'm a bit busy, so this might take a few days for me to finish. I've finished the lead comments and I'm going to slowly work through all the "player" uses, removing the unnecessary ones. Anarchyte (work | talk)08:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: No worries. I added some replies above with my sig to make it easier for people to see who wrote what. Just ping me when you are done and I'll come back Regards SoWhy08:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Focusing on refs in the following. Numbering is based on this revision.
#1 does not support Unlike many other sandbox games, Rust features only a multiplayer mode
#3 does not mention ballistic trajectory. Maybe it is implied for someone who knows the subject but I cannot get it.
In the game, the bullets have a form of projectile motion that makes them drop after certain amounts of time. This means you have to aim above someone's head in order to headshot them, like real life. This source was the closest I could get to finding one that describes this. The big quote {"First, you're going to notice less horizontal...") explains this briefly, but doesn't mention the trajectory. This devblog uses the word "trajectory". Should I put that in alongside the PC Gamer source? Anarchyte (work | talk)04:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
#6 does not actually support that shots to the head are more damaging than shots to other parts of the body, it just says someone died by a headshot
#8 is used to support the sentence about clans and what they do but does not mention them at all afaict
#11 does not strictly support blueprints were reinstated because it only verifies that blueprints were in the final version, not that this was a change from previous versions. WP:SYNTH problem since it's not a fixed conclusion that this happened only with the final release but might have happened before. Pretty sure there is a better source available that says so explicitly
#19 does not say "clone of DayZ" but "inspired. Use #20 instead
#24 verifies that "thirst" was added but not that Developers changed the radiation level to thirst
#36 has no mention of Originally players had an initial list of items they could craft
#40 does not mention graphical overhauls. Did you mean to use #41?
According to #52, In February 2014, the developers removed zombies from Rust replacing them with black bears and wolves should read In February 2014, the developers removed zombies from Rust, later replacing them with black bears and wolves
It's correct as-is (from source): Zombies have now been "replaced with red bears and wolves. You hate them. We know. They’re just plugging a gap for now." and the developer has now removed them as part of its February 6 update to finally kill off association of Rust as a zombie survival game. From that, I gather that zombies were removed and bears were added at the same time. Anarchyte (work | talk)23:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Thanks for the edits, almost finished now. I added some replies above where I think something needs to be done still and the reception section still lacks what you mention above you will do later. Those I didn't comment on are good now imho. Regards SoWhy07:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I've added a couple of sentences about the graphics. I couldn't find much on sound, so I added a short sentence to the end based off one reviewer. Anarchyte (work | talk)04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Samsara: Do we think the fire is notable enough for this article? Personally, I don't think it warrants more than a sentence somewhere (if that). I think the content should be in the article for OVH rather than those where data may have been lost, unless it was vital to the topic. In this case, as I understand it, the fire effectively resulted in little more than an early wipe day. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems we can partition the issue into two parts.
Modded servers have been mentioned in the news. Not all of them use the wipe day mechanism. Unclear (to me at least, at my current level of reading on the subject) how many users are on such servers, but these users might have lost many months of advancement.
For users on "canonical" servers, the latest I've seen from Facepunch was "data lost in question was only player progression on 25 servers" - unclear if some of these are non-canonical, but probably safe to assume the majority are canonical.
I would like to avoid a sense of denial of the vulnerability this has highlighted - while the risk may not be unique to Rust, if a plane crashes because of a technical fault that could occur in other planes, we still cover the crash for that airplane and the airline that happened to be unfortunate enough to get "caught" by nature's RNG. The following is synthesis for discussion only, as I'm not currently aware of relevant coverage in RS. By Facepunch's reaction, it is clear that it wasn't immediately obvious to them that the loss wasn't more substantial. If the lottery of which particular servers were affected had turned out differently, users might have had to re-register from scratch.
Lastly, if the wipe day mechanism allowed Rust and its community to cope better with the server loss, this would seem to be worth mentioning as a now-proven feature. Subject to policies (esp. RS), obviously. Samsara15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Samsara: Apologies for the delay. I read this but then never got around to responding. It does seem like it's important enough to warrant inclusion, but it looks like only server data was lost, not developmental stuff or other important aspects. It's been five days and the news cycle has already moved on, so I think moving it to the main development section alongside a bit on the new console version so that it doesn't look lonely is the best course of action. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Biological sex
predetermined skin colour and biological sex tied to players' Steam account details
Regards SoWhy 08:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 09:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
