Talk:Rust (video game): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Data centre fire and loss of data: new section |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{ping|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. <b style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">Anarchyte</span>]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">work</span>]])</small> 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
{{ping|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. <b style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">Anarchyte</span>]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Anarchyte|<span style="color:#666">work</span>]])</small> 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. <small>'''The following is synthesis for discussion only, as I'm not ''currently'' aware of relevant coverage in RS.'''</small> 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. [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] 15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:21, 12 March 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rust (video game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Rust" video game – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 183 days  |
 | Rust (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 4, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
 | Rust (video game) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Guild of Copy Editors | |||
| ||||
Data centre fire and loss of data
@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. Samsara 15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)